Global Warming, Gas, and Information
According to the Independent/UK a government study has found new evidence that global warming may be spiraling upwards at a rate far exceeding that which climate scientists had been expecting. The study, according to Geoffrey Lean, the environment editor, found:
"Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have jumped abruptly, raising fears that global warming may be accelerating out of control. Measurements by US government scientists show that concentrations of the gas, the main cause of the climate exchange, rose by a record amount over the past 12 months. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply, marking an unprecedented triennial surge.
Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear that it could show the first signs that global warming is feeding on itself, with rising temperatures causing increases in carbon dioxide, which then go on to drive the thermometer even higher. That would be a deeply alarming development, suggesting that this self-reinforcing heating could spiral upwards beyond the reach of any attempts to combat it."
The study was conducted by scientists working for the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the measurements have not been completely analyzed yet. There remains a possibility that they might represent a remarkable “blip”. Nevertheless, at this time, Professor Ralph Keeling - whose father Charles Keeling first set up the measurements, felt confident enough to say "We are moving into a warmer world".
In googling up this info, I discovered that no other newspaper (including zip in the U.S.) carried the story, which seemed rather odd. Here is another study from a reputable source, at a time when gasoline prices have reached record highs, BP is in trouble for reporting they over-estimated their reserves, and the Saudi’s have suggested their oil production is peaking, which points to the veracity of the mainstream scientific claims regarding the phenomenon of global warming and the potential seriousness its consequences, and its basically nowhere in the press. There is a powder keg of evidence that supports the need to focus on alternative renewable energy sources for reasons of planetary well-being and national security, yet the topic is largely off limits in the popular press.
When matters of great import to our country and planet are continuously left out of public information sources, it seems to me that this represents a slap to the founders of this country, to whom the press was considered such an important part of the preservation of freedom. True freedom is contingent on good information. Otherwise it is a mirage, and with increasing media concentration the growth of "info-tainment," the mirage seems to be getting more and more real. A neighbor of ours who is conservative in politics and convinced that the press has a liberal bias, points to our local rag, the L.A. Times (the N.Y. Times, Washington Post or others would serve as well) which often endorses more Dems than Repubs, as evidence of such bias. Personally, I end up responding, I have never known anyone to vote for a candidate just because a newspaper endorsed him/her. But, I have often run across people who have indicated that they might have voted or acted differently had they had other info and been presented with the full story.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The Wishy Washy 9/11 Commission
I spent much of the day listening with one ear to the 9/11 Commission hearings. Some things that really struck me:
1) The focus by commission member Roemer on the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing (the PDB, a daily intelligence briefing given the President) which warned of impending Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda activity in the U.S. Roemer read from some unclassified sections of the report, but interestingly, the Bush administration has kept this key document mostly under wraps as classified, unavailable even to the commission. (This brings back memories of the attempted Nixon coverup. )
2) The extent of the personal attacks on Richard Clarke by Bush appointees to the commission. They are charged with investigating 9/11, but seemed much more intent on cutting down Clarke. Former Navy undersecretary Lehman's diatribe went to the point of clearly charging Clarke with a credibility gap and attacking his integrity, because of the charges that Clarke made in his book, e.g., that the Bush administration blew it on terrorism. Lehman of course, is one of those who backed Ollie North in his admitted prevarications to the committee which investigated the Iran-Contra scandal. Clearly Lehman's gist was to focus attention away from 9/11, if necessary by smearing those who have not toed the line. But that is not exactly what an "independent" commission is supposed to be doing. Clarke did come through as someone with competence and integrity. Key testimony - the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq has undermined the War on Terror.
Bob Kerrey also pointed out the that the use of a confidential background briefing given by Clarke while he was an employee of the bush administration seemed rather sleazy. The briefing was used by former Gov. Thompson (a Bush appointee who has attended only three sessions) in an attempt to impeach Clarke's testimony. Kerrey pointed out that all of the members have given such briefings off the record, and Clarke noted that as an employee he had been asked to give the briefing to emphasize the positive aspects of what the administration was doing. The release of such info by the Fox folks (after approval by the White House) is considered unusual and unethical since such briefings are given to journalists on the agreement of anonymity. It is precisely this sort of "background briefing" info that the administration does not want released in the investigation of Novak's "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
3) Another major focus has been "CONDI RICE, WHERE ARE YOU." Roemer and Ben-Veniste in particular have pointed out the absence of this key player who has been all over the air waves, but has a problem testifying in public under oath (not unlike bush). I believe it was Roemer who pointed out the fallacy of the argument that she could not testify because of separation of powers issues, by bringing evidence of a number of times persons in her position have appeared before such commissions - in cases of signicantly less import. Buenevisti referred to Assistant Sec of State Armitage scathingly, as Rice's stand in.
For questions that the families of 9/11 victims would like to have answered (which often seem a lot more pertinent than those being asked by the commission) see 911 independentcommission. KPFK reported that some of the relatives plan to ask for a new investigation if a new administration gets elected, because this commisson has left such big gaps, and because the current administration has exerted so much influence on it, and kept so much so much relevant information, evidence and testimony off the table.
I spent much of the day listening with one ear to the 9/11 Commission hearings. Some things that really struck me:
1) The focus by commission member Roemer on the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing (the PDB, a daily intelligence briefing given the President) which warned of impending Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda activity in the U.S. Roemer read from some unclassified sections of the report, but interestingly, the Bush administration has kept this key document mostly under wraps as classified, unavailable even to the commission. (This brings back memories of the attempted Nixon coverup. )
2) The extent of the personal attacks on Richard Clarke by Bush appointees to the commission. They are charged with investigating 9/11, but seemed much more intent on cutting down Clarke. Former Navy undersecretary Lehman's diatribe went to the point of clearly charging Clarke with a credibility gap and attacking his integrity, because of the charges that Clarke made in his book, e.g., that the Bush administration blew it on terrorism. Lehman of course, is one of those who backed Ollie North in his admitted prevarications to the committee which investigated the Iran-Contra scandal. Clearly Lehman's gist was to focus attention away from 9/11, if necessary by smearing those who have not toed the line. But that is not exactly what an "independent" commission is supposed to be doing. Clarke did come through as someone with competence and integrity. Key testimony - the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq has undermined the War on Terror.
Bob Kerrey also pointed out the that the use of a confidential background briefing given by Clarke while he was an employee of the bush administration seemed rather sleazy. The briefing was used by former Gov. Thompson (a Bush appointee who has attended only three sessions) in an attempt to impeach Clarke's testimony. Kerrey pointed out that all of the members have given such briefings off the record, and Clarke noted that as an employee he had been asked to give the briefing to emphasize the positive aspects of what the administration was doing. The release of such info by the Fox folks (after approval by the White House) is considered unusual and unethical since such briefings are given to journalists on the agreement of anonymity. It is precisely this sort of "background briefing" info that the administration does not want released in the investigation of Novak's "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
3) Another major focus has been "CONDI RICE, WHERE ARE YOU." Roemer and Ben-Veniste in particular have pointed out the absence of this key player who has been all over the air waves, but has a problem testifying in public under oath (not unlike bush). I believe it was Roemer who pointed out the fallacy of the argument that she could not testify because of separation of powers issues, by bringing evidence of a number of times persons in her position have appeared before such commissions - in cases of signicantly less import. Buenevisti referred to Assistant Sec of State Armitage scathingly, as Rice's stand in.
For questions that the families of 9/11 victims would like to have answered (which often seem a lot more pertinent than those being asked by the commission) see 911 independentcommission. KPFK reported that some of the relatives plan to ask for a new investigation if a new administration gets elected, because this commisson has left such big gaps, and because the current administration has exerted so much influence on it, and kept so much so much relevant information, evidence and testimony off the table.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Of ”Steady Leadership,” Political Ads, and Credibility
The Bush campaign has two new ads, "Forward" and "100 Days," which are playing in certain sections of the country in an effort to roll up early gains in key states. Their purpose - to build up the bush image and tear down Kerry's. But their usefulness may be getting undermined by continued disclosures of the administration’s ineptness and deception, characteristics which these ads seem to illustrate. (click here to see ads on bush campaign web site, or here for text)
“Forward” is the ad which Salon/NPR critics William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg consider to be the “positive half of the message." Though they note that it "lies" about Kerry's Iraq stance, this ad primarily hearkens to the myth of Bush’s “steady leadership,” the theme pushed a couple weeks ago in the controversial “9/11" ad that was considered to be inappropriate by most Americans. "Forward" focuses on “confidence, resolve, and hope.” According to Saletan and Weissberg, these are precisely "what a president has to ask you for when he has nothing tangible to show you.”
Nevertheless, the “steady leadership” myth just received a couple of new and significant blows, first on Sunday from Richard A. Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism director, who said on Meet the Press that the Bush White House failed to take the al Qaeda threat seriously before Sept. 11, 2001, and by Sept. 12 was trying to pin the attack on Iraq. And then with word (see Dana Milbank in Washington Post) that in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House "cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI," according to internal administration budget documents.
Clarke, whose book 'Against All Enemies' is soon to be released, served more than two years in the Bush White House after having held senior posts under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He also noted that 9/11 marked the transition from neglect to folly for Bush administration's stewardship of war with Islamic extremists.“ "The president failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks.'
Some of this is not particularly new news - everyone agrees that during the Bush transition Sandy Berger, the National Security Chair, had tried to emphasize the danger of Al Queda, but there was little in the way of follow-up by the new administration. The Hart-Rudman Anti-terrorism commission also made recommendations which were not followed up on until after 9/11. Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, has recounted the Bushit(e) obsession with Iraq even before 9/11. But when the guy who headed the nation’s counter terrorist effort, says “"frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for reelection on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism." this is heavy, and there’s no doubt that every effort will be made to subjected to a lot of GOP attacks now.
In an attempt to break through the fog, here are some things to remember about which there is little dispute:
❏ In December 2000 and January 2001, the Bush administration was warned, by the outgoing National Security Assistant, the nation’s Counterterrorism Chief, and the Hart-Rudman, bi-partisan Anti-terrorism commission, of the serious risk of terrorism from Al Queda. Bush did not follow though on important recommendations which these officials made - until after 9/11.
❏ On 8/6/2001, the Presidential Daily (intelligence) Briefing warned of increasing activity among terrorists which could include the hijacking of airplanes and explosions. Little was done to warn Americans or take counteractive measures.
❏ On 9/11, after being informed of the first strike at the World Trade Center, Bush continued to stay in a photo op school visit, rather than give orders for the use of counter measures.
❏ On 9/12, at a time when virtually all Americans were prohibited from travelling anywhere by air, a number of Saudi Arabians, including members of the Bin Laden Family, were permitted to fly out of the country without even being questioned.
❏ In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI.
This is hardly a record of competence or leadership in the War on Terror.
BTW: The other ad, “100 Days,” is the "negative" one which seeks to “define” Democratic candidate Kerry before he becomes better known to the public, essentially by claiming that he's going to take billions from taxpayers. The analysts note "it's not merely misleading, but an outright lie for the president to assert that Kerry wants to 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion,'" for the simple reason that Kerry hasn't made that proposal."
The irony of the utilization of blatant lies in a campaign by a candidate who essentially claims that character and values are his strong suite, is undoubtedly lost on the bushit(e)s. It does, however, raise two possible election and post-election scenarios. One is that the prez shows himself so clearly inept, amoral and meritless, that the public gets it, and joins the defection of increasing numbers of his former associates. The other, darker scenario, is the possibility of a new bout with a new McCarthyism in a new age characterized by much greater concentration and embeddness of the press, greater class stratification, and far more powerful data gathering and analysis techniques than might have have been envisioned in the 1950s.
This sort of campaign was, of course, not unexpected. However, as I mentioned in my March 12 post, the democratic response at this point is a bit worrying. One would hope that Kerry starts getting some surrogates to throw a few jabs in there, or at least run some blocking. It is again rather ironical that the only one who's really gone to the plate yet is GOP Senator McCain, who knocked down the Bushit(e) mantra that Kerry is soft on defense.
The Bush campaign has two new ads, "Forward" and "100 Days," which are playing in certain sections of the country in an effort to roll up early gains in key states. Their purpose - to build up the bush image and tear down Kerry's. But their usefulness may be getting undermined by continued disclosures of the administration’s ineptness and deception, characteristics which these ads seem to illustrate. (click here to see ads on bush campaign web site, or here for text)
“Forward” is the ad which Salon/NPR critics William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg consider to be the “positive half of the message." Though they note that it "lies" about Kerry's Iraq stance, this ad primarily hearkens to the myth of Bush’s “steady leadership,” the theme pushed a couple weeks ago in the controversial “9/11" ad that was considered to be inappropriate by most Americans. "Forward" focuses on “confidence, resolve, and hope.” According to Saletan and Weissberg, these are precisely "what a president has to ask you for when he has nothing tangible to show you.”
Nevertheless, the “steady leadership” myth just received a couple of new and significant blows, first on Sunday from Richard A. Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism director, who said on Meet the Press that the Bush White House failed to take the al Qaeda threat seriously before Sept. 11, 2001, and by Sept. 12 was trying to pin the attack on Iraq. And then with word (see Dana Milbank in Washington Post) that in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House "cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI," according to internal administration budget documents.
Clarke, whose book 'Against All Enemies' is soon to be released, served more than two years in the Bush White House after having held senior posts under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He also noted that 9/11 marked the transition from neglect to folly for Bush administration's stewardship of war with Islamic extremists.“ "The president failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks.'
Some of this is not particularly new news - everyone agrees that during the Bush transition Sandy Berger, the National Security Chair, had tried to emphasize the danger of Al Queda, but there was little in the way of follow-up by the new administration. The Hart-Rudman Anti-terrorism commission also made recommendations which were not followed up on until after 9/11. Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, has recounted the Bushit(e) obsession with Iraq even before 9/11. But when the guy who headed the nation’s counter terrorist effort, says “"frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for reelection on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism." this is heavy, and there’s no doubt that every effort will be made to subjected to a lot of GOP attacks now.
In an attempt to break through the fog, here are some things to remember about which there is little dispute:
❏ In December 2000 and January 2001, the Bush administration was warned, by the outgoing National Security Assistant, the nation’s Counterterrorism Chief, and the Hart-Rudman, bi-partisan Anti-terrorism commission, of the serious risk of terrorism from Al Queda. Bush did not follow though on important recommendations which these officials made - until after 9/11.
❏ On 8/6/2001, the Presidential Daily (intelligence) Briefing warned of increasing activity among terrorists which could include the hijacking of airplanes and explosions. Little was done to warn Americans or take counteractive measures.
❏ On 9/11, after being informed of the first strike at the World Trade Center, Bush continued to stay in a photo op school visit, rather than give orders for the use of counter measures.
❏ On 9/12, at a time when virtually all Americans were prohibited from travelling anywhere by air, a number of Saudi Arabians, including members of the Bin Laden Family, were permitted to fly out of the country without even being questioned.
❏ In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI.
This is hardly a record of competence or leadership in the War on Terror.
BTW: The other ad, “100 Days,” is the "negative" one which seeks to “define” Democratic candidate Kerry before he becomes better known to the public, essentially by claiming that he's going to take billions from taxpayers. The analysts note "it's not merely misleading, but an outright lie for the president to assert that Kerry wants to 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion,'" for the simple reason that Kerry hasn't made that proposal."
The irony of the utilization of blatant lies in a campaign by a candidate who essentially claims that character and values are his strong suite, is undoubtedly lost on the bushit(e)s. It does, however, raise two possible election and post-election scenarios. One is that the prez shows himself so clearly inept, amoral and meritless, that the public gets it, and joins the defection of increasing numbers of his former associates. The other, darker scenario, is the possibility of a new bout with a new McCarthyism in a new age characterized by much greater concentration and embeddness of the press, greater class stratification, and far more powerful data gathering and analysis techniques than might have have been envisioned in the 1950s.
This sort of campaign was, of course, not unexpected. However, as I mentioned in my March 12 post, the democratic response at this point is a bit worrying. One would hope that Kerry starts getting some surrogates to throw a few jabs in there, or at least run some blocking. It is again rather ironical that the only one who's really gone to the plate yet is GOP Senator McCain, who knocked down the Bushit(e) mantra that Kerry is soft on defense.
Friday, March 19, 2004
A First: AFL-CIO Brings Unfair Trade Petition
Harold Meyerson, the unflappable labor journalist points out in a recent Washington Post column that trade litigation has always been the province of corporations - and while shareholders' interests receive much consideration when disadvantaged by other states' trade practices, workers' interests never quite get to the table.
However, the labor movement appears to be getting wise to this game:
For the first time ever, the AFL-CIO filed the kind of unfair-trade petition that corporations commonly file, alleging that China's repression of workers' rights has displaced at minimum 727,000 U.S. jobs, and calling on the president to threaten China with tariffs until it stops artificially lowering its workers' wages.
....
The 103-page AFL-CIO petition runs through an array of statistical analyses to come up with its figure of 727,000 displaced American manufacturing jobs. But its foremost achievement may be to encapsulate the vast literature that describes the part-feudal, part-communist labor system in which Chinese peasants must labor when they go to work in China's export-sector factories. Under China's hukou system of household registration, citizens must live and work in the place where they are permanently registered, normally their place of birth. Every household is designated as rural or urban, a distinction on which a caste system has been erected.
Urban workers are free to apply for and leave jobs; they are entitled to state housing and pensions. Rural workers, however, need state permission to seek work in towns and factories. Once employed, they enter a bonded-labor arrangement in which they cannot quit unless they can pay their employer an amount plainly beyond their means. The hukou system forbids them to compete with urban workers for higher-paying jobs, and migrant workers without jobs are subject to arrest by the state's public security bureau.
Meyerson goes on to note:
Critics will doubtless call the AFL-CIO "protectionist" for filing this petition. And if it's protectionist to demand that millions of Chinese women have the right to leave their jobs and apply for better ones, or to unionize their workplace or be allowed at least one day off a year, if it's protectionist to demand that U.S. workers not lose their jobs because they cannot work as cheaply as these repressed Chinese workers, then the AFL-CIO should absolutely plead guilty. What I'd like to hear from the critics -- and from George W. Bush -- is why they're protecting the deal between U.S. corporations and China's neo-Stalinist state to extract profits for them both at the expense of tens of millions of desperate young women.
Imagine! The temerity of this guy for asking such questions! - I gotta figure the Bush's response will be that he's trying to foment class war.
China's Workers -- and Ours
(registration required)
Harold Meyerson, the unflappable labor journalist points out in a recent Washington Post column that trade litigation has always been the province of corporations - and while shareholders' interests receive much consideration when disadvantaged by other states' trade practices, workers' interests never quite get to the table.
However, the labor movement appears to be getting wise to this game:
For the first time ever, the AFL-CIO filed the kind of unfair-trade petition that corporations commonly file, alleging that China's repression of workers' rights has displaced at minimum 727,000 U.S. jobs, and calling on the president to threaten China with tariffs until it stops artificially lowering its workers' wages.
....
The 103-page AFL-CIO petition runs through an array of statistical analyses to come up with its figure of 727,000 displaced American manufacturing jobs. But its foremost achievement may be to encapsulate the vast literature that describes the part-feudal, part-communist labor system in which Chinese peasants must labor when they go to work in China's export-sector factories. Under China's hukou system of household registration, citizens must live and work in the place where they are permanently registered, normally their place of birth. Every household is designated as rural or urban, a distinction on which a caste system has been erected.
Urban workers are free to apply for and leave jobs; they are entitled to state housing and pensions. Rural workers, however, need state permission to seek work in towns and factories. Once employed, they enter a bonded-labor arrangement in which they cannot quit unless they can pay their employer an amount plainly beyond their means. The hukou system forbids them to compete with urban workers for higher-paying jobs, and migrant workers without jobs are subject to arrest by the state's public security bureau.
Meyerson goes on to note:
Critics will doubtless call the AFL-CIO "protectionist" for filing this petition. And if it's protectionist to demand that millions of Chinese women have the right to leave their jobs and apply for better ones, or to unionize their workplace or be allowed at least one day off a year, if it's protectionist to demand that U.S. workers not lose their jobs because they cannot work as cheaply as these repressed Chinese workers, then the AFL-CIO should absolutely plead guilty. What I'd like to hear from the critics -- and from George W. Bush -- is why they're protecting the deal between U.S. corporations and China's neo-Stalinist state to extract profits for them both at the expense of tens of millions of desperate young women.
Imagine! The temerity of this guy for asking such questions! - I gotta figure the Bush's response will be that he's trying to foment class war.
China's Workers -- and Ours
(registration required)
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Hurray, Comments R' Us
Last night I got the comments/trackback features working (thank you Halo Scan). Don't reckon there will be a whole lot of traffic in the immediate future. Nevertheless, I genuinely like the idea of two way communication, and have great respect for the net and bloggerdom as potential counterpart to increasing political/media concentration and trivialization.
A tad bit about my intro to the blog: Its of fairly recent vintage. About a month ago when the furor was rising about Bush's valiant (or lack of) service in the National Guard, it seemed that much of the impetus was being generated by bloggers, and that the press went beyond stenography only when sufficient energy and info was available from folks who really did investigate things sometimes. I was interested in this because I think it really epitomizes the con job to which Americans are being subjected. And some of the best sources of info were sites like Kevin Drum's "Calpundit" and Billmon's "Whiskey Bar."
Beyond that, however, I've always believed in an empowered citizenry as the best check against the emergence of tyranny, and "blogs" seem to provide one such opportunity. While much political blogging takes place within a limited echo chamber, sometimes that chamber gets to rattling so, that the powers that be and their little courtiers have to take notice. So I'll just throw my two cents in occasionally and hope it contributes to the making of some waves.
Most of the stuff here will be oriented to politics, economy and the environment but I'm also a music fan (classical, bluegrass, Folk, Blues, ...), organic gardener and believer in sustainability. I definitely have progressive proclivities, and strongly support efforts toward social justice; physical, mental and spiritual health; and planetary well-being. And I think that these goals are often complementary, but that they are also being dangerously undermined in the current corporatist and even militarist political milieu. Nevertheless, I call things as I see them regardless of political correctness. Well that's enough bio for now.
Best,
Last night I got the comments/trackback features working (thank you Halo Scan). Don't reckon there will be a whole lot of traffic in the immediate future. Nevertheless, I genuinely like the idea of two way communication, and have great respect for the net and bloggerdom as potential counterpart to increasing political/media concentration and trivialization.
A tad bit about my intro to the blog: Its of fairly recent vintage. About a month ago when the furor was rising about Bush's valiant (or lack of) service in the National Guard, it seemed that much of the impetus was being generated by bloggers, and that the press went beyond stenography only when sufficient energy and info was available from folks who really did investigate things sometimes. I was interested in this because I think it really epitomizes the con job to which Americans are being subjected. And some of the best sources of info were sites like Kevin Drum's "Calpundit" and Billmon's "Whiskey Bar."
Beyond that, however, I've always believed in an empowered citizenry as the best check against the emergence of tyranny, and "blogs" seem to provide one such opportunity. While much political blogging takes place within a limited echo chamber, sometimes that chamber gets to rattling so, that the powers that be and their little courtiers have to take notice. So I'll just throw my two cents in occasionally and hope it contributes to the making of some waves.
Most of the stuff here will be oriented to politics, economy and the environment but I'm also a music fan (classical, bluegrass, Folk, Blues, ...), organic gardener and believer in sustainability. I definitely have progressive proclivities, and strongly support efforts toward social justice; physical, mental and spiritual health; and planetary well-being. And I think that these goals are often complementary, but that they are also being dangerously undermined in the current corporatist and even militarist political milieu. Nevertheless, I call things as I see them regardless of political correctness. Well that's enough bio for now.
Best,
Monday, March 15, 2004
The Spanish Vote
The tragedy in Spain, like that of 9/11, is one which imparts the feeling that words must inevitably fall short in expressing grief and sorrow for the victims, and outrage at the use of violence and terror as political tools.
The elections there, however, I believe, point the way to a better and more hopeful way of dealing with the problem of terrorism. Many spin it as a cut and run sort of thing. Folks were scared of Al Queda, and voted against the Popular Party which supported Bush's Iraq venture, because of fear. They thus made it likely that AQ will learn a lesson and try it again. I don't think that's really the case here, though. AQ will certainly exploit any opportunities they can find - but that would be their direction regardless of the outcome.
Personally I'd have been a lot more concerned if the Spaniards had chosen the PP after those guys so blatantly attempted to turn the bombings to their own purposes. By now its clear that the War on Iraq didn't have anything to do with the war on terror, and the Spaniards knew that from the begining - millions of them demonstrated against their country's partipation. This war seems more and more to have been something of a cross between a bush family obsession and a formative exercise in creating the New World Order as envisioned by the guys at Program for a New American Century (PNAC), e.g. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz. Their goal, at its best, seems something likea 21st century global version of the Holy Alliance (after the Napoleonic wars), when the major emperors decided to have their countries work together for the purpose of upholding the creed and prerogatives of autocracy. Only this time, we have "holy" George playing the Czar in defense of the corporatist creed. Democracy, as Haiti shows, is clearly a trivial concern to the new "alliance".
Now, however, the guts of the "coalition" is down largely to the three Bs, Bush, Blair and Berlusconi, all pretty nasty characters (even if not at the level of Sadaam). If the Spanish election makes these guys a little more leery about splendid little wars that are clearly unrelated to fighting terrorism, then it might actually be a good thing. No one's saying, don't fight terrorism. There are terrorists out there that will try to exploit any weak link they can find, and they must and will be opposed. But I can think of few things worse for a War on Terrorism (or for our country) than if the WOT just becomes a political campaign event which is used to further other ambitions. Folks in many parts of the world, including Argentina, Chile and Guatemala, have lots of experience with that, none of it very pretty. Ultimately, it will be a ignomious day when citizens let their minds become hostage to terrorists. Because terrorists, just like Bush, envision perpetual war.
For a rude, but funny, and on-target view of Spanish election see Rudepundit
" ...maybe, just maybe, we can spin it this way: Madrid showed what a farce the war on terror is at this point. The well-worn question is what would have happened if we used those billions of dollars to actually go after, well, terrorists. And the Spanish people know this. They opposed us. They opposed the war. And when it came home, they decided, after a stunning show of national unity in the 2 million Spaniard march, to show that democracy means that leaders have to answer for their actions. And if you behave like a crazed megalomaniac with no concern for the will of the people, then the people have a right to dump said megalomaniac on the street.
The tragedy in Spain, like that of 9/11, is one which imparts the feeling that words must inevitably fall short in expressing grief and sorrow for the victims, and outrage at the use of violence and terror as political tools.
The elections there, however, I believe, point the way to a better and more hopeful way of dealing with the problem of terrorism. Many spin it as a cut and run sort of thing. Folks were scared of Al Queda, and voted against the Popular Party which supported Bush's Iraq venture, because of fear. They thus made it likely that AQ will learn a lesson and try it again. I don't think that's really the case here, though. AQ will certainly exploit any opportunities they can find - but that would be their direction regardless of the outcome.
Personally I'd have been a lot more concerned if the Spaniards had chosen the PP after those guys so blatantly attempted to turn the bombings to their own purposes. By now its clear that the War on Iraq didn't have anything to do with the war on terror, and the Spaniards knew that from the begining - millions of them demonstrated against their country's partipation. This war seems more and more to have been something of a cross between a bush family obsession and a formative exercise in creating the New World Order as envisioned by the guys at Program for a New American Century (PNAC), e.g. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz. Their goal, at its best, seems something likea 21st century global version of the Holy Alliance (after the Napoleonic wars), when the major emperors decided to have their countries work together for the purpose of upholding the creed and prerogatives of autocracy. Only this time, we have "holy" George playing the Czar in defense of the corporatist creed. Democracy, as Haiti shows, is clearly a trivial concern to the new "alliance".
Now, however, the guts of the "coalition" is down largely to the three Bs, Bush, Blair and Berlusconi, all pretty nasty characters (even if not at the level of Sadaam). If the Spanish election makes these guys a little more leery about splendid little wars that are clearly unrelated to fighting terrorism, then it might actually be a good thing. No one's saying, don't fight terrorism. There are terrorists out there that will try to exploit any weak link they can find, and they must and will be opposed. But I can think of few things worse for a War on Terrorism (or for our country) than if the WOT just becomes a political campaign event which is used to further other ambitions. Folks in many parts of the world, including Argentina, Chile and Guatemala, have lots of experience with that, none of it very pretty. Ultimately, it will be a ignomious day when citizens let their minds become hostage to terrorists. Because terrorists, just like Bush, envision perpetual war.
For a rude, but funny, and on-target view of Spanish election see Rudepundit
" ...maybe, just maybe, we can spin it this way: Madrid showed what a farce the war on terror is at this point. The well-worn question is what would have happened if we used those billions of dollars to actually go after, well, terrorists. And the Spanish people know this. They opposed us. They opposed the war. And when it came home, they decided, after a stunning show of national unity in the 2 million Spaniard march, to show that democracy means that leaders have to answer for their actions. And if you behave like a crazed megalomaniac with no concern for the will of the people, then the people have a right to dump said megalomaniac on the street.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Watchout, the Mud's Aflyin' Already
(And its not even Spring!)
Actually, I think a bit more of Kerry after his "most crooked ...lying group I've ever seen" blurb, referring to the GOP (though it might be a bit of an understatement). Even more after his refusal to apologize. Looks like he'll come out fighting. And what the heck is wrong with a little bit of truth in campaigning - Bushwatch has a fine compendium of Bush lies here if there's any need for confirmation.
What the GOP seems to be doing is test marketing different kinds of ads to see what will work best in the further down the road, e.g., throw everything out there and see what sticks. But with jobs, economy and education probably somewhat off limits as positive GOP themes (for not unobvious reasons), and even 9/11 rather iffy (see 9/11 Images Said Inappropriate by Voters and Bush Might Be Questioned Longer by 9/11 Commission ), their options may be limited to the "security" blanket. This may or may not backfire on them. But it would sure seem that Kerry could increase their vulnerability by using ads with anti-bush security people, such as Generals Clark, Zinni, or former Sen. Sam Nunn, and asking Americans if they really believe that the man on whose watch the greatest breach of American security ever took place is really the best person to count on to protect American security..
(And its not even Spring!)
Actually, I think a bit more of Kerry after his "most crooked ...lying group I've ever seen" blurb, referring to the GOP (though it might be a bit of an understatement). Even more after his refusal to apologize. Looks like he'll come out fighting. And what the heck is wrong with a little bit of truth in campaigning - Bushwatch has a fine compendium of Bush lies here if there's any need for confirmation.
What the GOP seems to be doing is test marketing different kinds of ads to see what will work best in the further down the road, e.g., throw everything out there and see what sticks. But with jobs, economy and education probably somewhat off limits as positive GOP themes (for not unobvious reasons), and even 9/11 rather iffy (see 9/11 Images Said Inappropriate by Voters and Bush Might Be Questioned Longer by 9/11 Commission ), their options may be limited to the "security" blanket. This may or may not backfire on them. But it would sure seem that Kerry could increase their vulnerability by using ads with anti-bush security people, such as Generals Clark, Zinni, or former Sen. Sam Nunn, and asking Americans if they really believe that the man on whose watch the greatest breach of American security ever took place is really the best person to count on to protect American security..
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Another Example of bush's Steady 9/11 Leadership
NYC Residents Sue EPA For Lying After 9/11
New York City workers and residents are suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to protect people from the poor air quality in the days and weeks following the World Trade Center attacks, accusing then-EPA head Christine Todd Whitman of "a shockingly deliberate indifference to human health."
The claim is that White House pressures were exerted to spread misinformation. Unfortunately, I can't say I am surprised. Nevertheless, what this reminds me of is how close these Bushit(e)s really are to the Soviet style approach to crisis management. Remember Chernobyl before it couldn't be hid? I very much regret that news like this so often doesn't make it to NPR.
NYC Residents Sue EPA For Lying After 9/11
New York City workers and residents are suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to protect people from the poor air quality in the days and weeks following the World Trade Center attacks, accusing then-EPA head Christine Todd Whitman of "a shockingly deliberate indifference to human health."
The claim is that White House pressures were exerted to spread misinformation. Unfortunately, I can't say I am surprised. Nevertheless, what this reminds me of is how close these Bushit(e)s really are to the Soviet style approach to crisis management. Remember Chernobyl before it couldn't be hid? I very much regret that news like this so often doesn't make it to NPR.
Now It's Official - Even GAO Finds Bush Misleading America
GAO Finds Bush Medicare Ads Misleading
"Campaign for America's Future Co-director Roger Hickey today demanded that television networks pull President Bush's Medicare ads off the air because the General Accounting Office found them misleading. The General Accounting Office Wednesday said that the Bush Administration's $22 million taxpayer-funded campaign to sell its new prescription drug law to the public misrepresents benefits millions of people will receive.
GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa said President Bush's Medicare advertisements are flawed by “omissions and other weaknesses,” use a “political tone,” and can be considered “an attempt to persuade the public to the administration's point of view."
GAO Finds Bush Medicare Ads Misleading
"Campaign for America's Future Co-director Roger Hickey today demanded that television networks pull President Bush's Medicare ads off the air because the General Accounting Office found them misleading. The General Accounting Office Wednesday said that the Bush Administration's $22 million taxpayer-funded campaign to sell its new prescription drug law to the public misrepresents benefits millions of people will receive.
GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa said President Bush's Medicare advertisements are flawed by “omissions and other weaknesses,” use a “political tone,” and can be considered “an attempt to persuade the public to the administration's point of view."
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Study: Obesity Epidemic Killing Americans
(reported here).
Seems to me that the paradox of an increasingly obesogenic society, (hitting kids the hardest), in tandem with rising poverty and unemployment (and productivity), points out with dead-eyed irony the ultimate fallacy of supply side economics. However, don't count on classical economists to get it until the next major business/political cycle.
"A separate report by the Rand think tank, meanwhile, found that increases in obesity threaten to erase improvements in health among middle-age and older Americans. At current rates, health care spending on obesity among people 50 to 69 years old is expected to increase by 50 percent by 2020, the study said.
Americans' fast-food lifestyle, increased use of computers and a decline in school physical education programs all were cited by Thompson and other officials as factors contributing to the nation's fat problem. Two out of three adults and 9 million children are overweight or obese, they said."
And yet,
"Bush administration is seeking to cut funding for the VERB campaign, a CDC project to promote physical activity among 9-to-13-year-olds, from $36 million this year to $5 million in 2005. ...the program has resulted in a 30 percent increase in exercise among those children. "
Lets all celebrate with some more GMOs.
(reported here).
Seems to me that the paradox of an increasingly obesogenic society, (hitting kids the hardest), in tandem with rising poverty and unemployment (and productivity), points out with dead-eyed irony the ultimate fallacy of supply side economics. However, don't count on classical economists to get it until the next major business/political cycle.
"A separate report by the Rand think tank, meanwhile, found that increases in obesity threaten to erase improvements in health among middle-age and older Americans. At current rates, health care spending on obesity among people 50 to 69 years old is expected to increase by 50 percent by 2020, the study said.
Americans' fast-food lifestyle, increased use of computers and a decline in school physical education programs all were cited by Thompson and other officials as factors contributing to the nation's fat problem. Two out of three adults and 9 million children are overweight or obese, they said."
And yet,
"Bush administration is seeking to cut funding for the VERB campaign, a CDC project to promote physical activity among 9-to-13-year-olds, from $36 million this year to $5 million in 2005. ...the program has resulted in a 30 percent increase in exercise among those children. "
Lets all celebrate with some more GMOs.
Of Polls and Press
The newest polls look good for Kerry. Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that bushco will run a Nixon-type attack campaign, and it remains to be seen how well those numbers hold up. I doubt the press will get too undomesticated unless the polls show anti-bush landslide
and it is way too early to count on this (or the polls at this stage). I hope Dems follow a strategy of instant response - any time any charge smelling of GOP is made, there should be virtually automatic response - one that shows why the charge is (wrong, politics, a lie, hypocritical, whatever), and then counterattack. Slam, Bam, thank you Sir. Not pretty, but it has to be out there because there's undoubtedly gonna be alot coming in fast, and whatever sticks, true or not, gets in the picture.
Kerry folks seem to realize this and are making good efforts, but currently they are not yet quick nor comprehensive enough. Hopefully, they'll catch their stride.
There's interesting article by Fairness and Accuracy In Media (FAIR)
GOP Rhetoric on Kerry's Voting Record Goes Unchallenged
I'd not be surprised if this sets the pattern.
The newest polls look good for Kerry. Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that bushco will run a Nixon-type attack campaign, and it remains to be seen how well those numbers hold up. I doubt the press will get too undomesticated unless the polls show anti-bush landslide
and it is way too early to count on this (or the polls at this stage). I hope Dems follow a strategy of instant response - any time any charge smelling of GOP is made, there should be virtually automatic response - one that shows why the charge is (wrong, politics, a lie, hypocritical, whatever), and then counterattack. Slam, Bam, thank you Sir. Not pretty, but it has to be out there because there's undoubtedly gonna be alot coming in fast, and whatever sticks, true or not, gets in the picture.
Kerry folks seem to realize this and are making good efforts, but currently they are not yet quick nor comprehensive enough. Hopefully, they'll catch their stride.
There's interesting article by Fairness and Accuracy In Media (FAIR)
GOP Rhetoric on Kerry's Voting Record Goes Unchallenged
I'd not be surprised if this sets the pattern.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Come home Baby Doc
Bushco has helped to rid Haiti of that nasty dictator Aristide (Haiti's first democratically elected President). Seems like true believers in democracy are relieved. ''I'm shocked ! Shocked! by the situation my country is in,'' quoth the son of the reknowned Papa Doc Duvalier, as he expressed his hope to return to the land he and his father led with such democratic benevolence. (emphasis added)
Bushco has helped to rid Haiti of that nasty dictator Aristide (Haiti's first democratically elected President). Seems like true believers in democracy are relieved. ''I'm shocked ! Shocked! by the situation my country is in,'' quoth the son of the reknowned Papa Doc Duvalier, as he expressed his hope to return to the land he and his father led with such democratic benevolence. (emphasis added)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)