WTO Decides in Favor of Brazil on US Cotton Subsidies
OK, this is on the arcane side - a WTO panel decided yesterday that U.S. cotton subsidies are trade distorting, and therefore subject to countervailing tariffs. Many progressives, as well as a fair cross-section of non-progressive others, rap the WTO for its detrimental effects for U.S. workers and producers. And in general I agree, Lord knows I’m no fan of the WTO. I almost want to be knocking the trade organization for its ruling against the U.S. just like Kucinich is doing (anyone heard from Kerry and Bush on this).
Nevertheless, this seems like one of the times when the WTO may actually have gotten it right, at least from the political (as opposed to the legal) perspective. Its hard to say anything about the legal aspects of the decision because, true to its tendency toward opaqueness, the decision and its reasoning were not actually released to the public by the organization - the only reason we know about the outcome is because Brazil broke with its confidentiality commitment. From my perspective, however, U.S. (and EU) agricultural subsidies typify the built-in inequities of the current "liberal" trade “system.”
Some good backgrounding on the new decision can be found at the trade observatory. Quite briefly, U.S. cotton subsidies go to a very few large multi-national corporations. These subidies contribute to the impoverishment of developing world cotton farmers by: decreasing cotton prices; increasing third world imports from the U.S.; and reducing exports to the U.S. At the same time they do little to help American family farmers. The subsidies in essence lead to a sort of “dumping” of agricultural products, not unlike the dumping to which we Americans are sensitive in industrial and manufacturing products . Ultimately, goods are sold for less than their cost of production. It was in fact, the U.S. and EU agriculture subsidies that were at the heart of the failure of the last WTO ministerial at Cancun last year.
Now I’m all for fair trade, but too often what we see in this trade system is a privileging of the interests of multi-national corporations. This is exemplified by the agricultural sector, where large scale agri-industry, benefiting from financial and unaccounted social and environmental subsidization, is displacing family farmers who are bonded to the market and told that if they don’t make it, well its because they’re inefficient.
The privileging of multi-national corporations in manufacturing or agriculture (or services for that matter), does not necessarily benefit working people in the U.S., nor does it benefit those in less developed countries.While classical economics predicts that liberalized trade leads to the generation of greater wealth (given certain assumptions that aren't always met), some studies have shown that this wealth does not necessarily trickle down. Robert Scott at the Economic Policy Institute, for example, shows that he number of jobs in the U.S. is very likely lower because of our trade deficit than it otherwise would be. And the U.N. estimates that poor countries lose about $2 billion per day because of unjust trade rules—14 times the amount they receive in aid. (UNCTAD, Conference on Least Developed Countries 2001). In 59 countries, average income is lower today than 20 years ago, while in only 33 is it higher. (United Nations Human Development Report, 1999).
If the cotton subsidy decision reduces the odds faced by smaller farmers, then I’ll say hurrah. Of course, the WTO being what it is, we won’t know their reasoning for several months. Ultimately however, where process and discourse are characterized by lack of transparency, inclusiveness, and equality, as often is the case in the international trade regime, the result is an “uneven” and ultimately unfair sort of globalization - one in which power is vested primarily in small groups of unrepresentative actors who can dominate over the less privileged. The two potential resolutions to this problem are either greater openness in trade fora to the participation and perspectives of less powerful parties and non-commercial sectors, or else, increasing the power and capacities of organizations which counterbalance corporate oriented institutions, particularly those created for the purpose of protecting labor and the environment. A broader more inclusive "globalization" would increase the likelihood that any benefits created through trade would be distributed more equitably, and in a manner less conducive to environmental degradation. It is a goal on which labor, environmentalists, and developing countries should be able to find some common ground.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Earth Day Happenings
This is becoming more of an occasional blog due to time constraints, but in honor of Earth Day I couldn't resist posting these tidbits.
The National Council of Churches is sending a scathing letter to President Bush to coincide with Earth Day, accusing his administration of chipping away at the Clean Air Act. It took out a full-page ad in The New York Times, scheduled to run in Thursday's editions, calling on Bush to leave the Clean Air Act's new source review rules in place. Their spokesperson noted:
"In December a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the new rules from taking effect, agreeing with more than a dozen states and cities that contended the changes could cause irreparable harm to their environments and public health.
"The people we talk to, both inside and outside the administration, say ... that these changes will in fact weaken, not strengthen the Clean Air Act," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, a United Methodist minister and the church council's general secretary."
The Sierra Club released a new book - "Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress," - timed to coincide with Earth Day. It slammed President George W. Bush for pursuing "the worst environmental policy" in almost a century, and called it a "sad day" for the United States.
"Bush ... is the first president since Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 to close out his term with the country worse off ecologically than it was when he arrived in office". ... in three and a half years, (he) has stripped from protected status 135 million acres, the size of Texas and Oklahoma," according to SC leader Carl Pope, who also lists in the book top administration officials with strong links to the private sector, including the oil industry.
Kerry criticizes Bush on environment
"Kerry's campaign said the president's air quality proposals will send 21 tons more pollution into the atmosphere, contribute to up to 100,000 premature deaths from respiratory troubles and induce millions of asthma attacks. It also reports "... one in 12 women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her system to pose a potential threat to fetal health." and that
"Bush also has opposed efforts to ban the gasoline additive MTBE, a petroleum-based product that critics argued has fouled water supplies in 28 states. The campaign critique argues that Bush has supported protections that would prohibit the petroleum industry from being forced to clean up such pollution. As a result, the report says, taxpayers will foot the bill for the cleanup that could approach $30 billion.
Former Energy Secretary Browner noted that "one of the Bush administration's worst environmental decisions was to allow older, dirtier power plants to largely avoid converting to cleaner technology. She said up to 30,000 premature deaths a year are blamed on pollution from power plants."
Kerry argues that pitting economic interests against environmental protections is a "false choice," and that millions of jobs can be created through development of alternative energy sources.
A Bush spokesperson responded that "Kerry was continuing his own 'campaign of pessimism with this latest round of false attacks.'"
The Bush administration was meanwhile reported to be celebrating Earth Day by inviting oil-industry officials to the Environmental Protection Agency "to discuss a plan to relax pollution standards for gasoline. The plan would allow higher sulfur content gasoline to be sold during the summer months. According to Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Trust "because sulfur is a prime contributor to both urban smog and soot, it could also result in an increase in health problems." He suggested that there will be a large price to pay for a plan that would only temporarily "trim oil prices by as much as a nickel a gallon" – and not necessarily in all markets.
This is becoming more of an occasional blog due to time constraints, but in honor of Earth Day I couldn't resist posting these tidbits.
The National Council of Churches is sending a scathing letter to President Bush to coincide with Earth Day, accusing his administration of chipping away at the Clean Air Act. It took out a full-page ad in The New York Times, scheduled to run in Thursday's editions, calling on Bush to leave the Clean Air Act's new source review rules in place. Their spokesperson noted:
"In December a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the new rules from taking effect, agreeing with more than a dozen states and cities that contended the changes could cause irreparable harm to their environments and public health.
"The people we talk to, both inside and outside the administration, say ... that these changes will in fact weaken, not strengthen the Clean Air Act," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, a United Methodist minister and the church council's general secretary."
The Sierra Club released a new book - "Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress," - timed to coincide with Earth Day. It slammed President George W. Bush for pursuing "the worst environmental policy" in almost a century, and called it a "sad day" for the United States.
"Bush ... is the first president since Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 to close out his term with the country worse off ecologically than it was when he arrived in office". ... in three and a half years, (he) has stripped from protected status 135 million acres, the size of Texas and Oklahoma," according to SC leader Carl Pope, who also lists in the book top administration officials with strong links to the private sector, including the oil industry.
Kerry criticizes Bush on environment
"Kerry's campaign said the president's air quality proposals will send 21 tons more pollution into the atmosphere, contribute to up to 100,000 premature deaths from respiratory troubles and induce millions of asthma attacks. It also reports "... one in 12 women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her system to pose a potential threat to fetal health." and that
"Bush also has opposed efforts to ban the gasoline additive MTBE, a petroleum-based product that critics argued has fouled water supplies in 28 states. The campaign critique argues that Bush has supported protections that would prohibit the petroleum industry from being forced to clean up such pollution. As a result, the report says, taxpayers will foot the bill for the cleanup that could approach $30 billion.
Former Energy Secretary Browner noted that "one of the Bush administration's worst environmental decisions was to allow older, dirtier power plants to largely avoid converting to cleaner technology. She said up to 30,000 premature deaths a year are blamed on pollution from power plants."
Kerry argues that pitting economic interests against environmental protections is a "false choice," and that millions of jobs can be created through development of alternative energy sources.
A Bush spokesperson responded that "Kerry was continuing his own 'campaign of pessimism with this latest round of false attacks.'"
The Bush administration was meanwhile reported to be celebrating Earth Day by inviting oil-industry officials to the Environmental Protection Agency "to discuss a plan to relax pollution standards for gasoline. The plan would allow higher sulfur content gasoline to be sold during the summer months. According to Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Trust "because sulfur is a prime contributor to both urban smog and soot, it could also result in an increase in health problems." He suggested that there will be a large price to pay for a plan that would only temporarily "trim oil prices by as much as a nickel a gallon" – and not necessarily in all markets.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
The Price of Gas (Literally and Figuratively)
The price of gasoline in our neck of the woods has been over 2 bucks a gallon for weeks now, $2.16 for ordinary unleaded today. This probably does not bode any better for our nation’s economy than for our pocketbooks. The fact that OPEC is cutting down production makes it likely that these prices will not be going down soon, and the so-called “recovery” (anemic as it has been) of our fossil fuel based economy, has another hurdle to overcome. And if our national security and well-being were not reason enough to spur action towards conservation and renewable energy, the rapidly melting glaciers of the arctic raise again the specter of global warming as a planetary consideration.
Well, yesterday I caught the last twenty or so minutes of Bush’s press conference, the first one that I’ve watched, and I can’t say that he (or the press) were very impressive. The only real question I heard asked was why he had wanted to testify together with Cheney before the 9/11 commission, rather than on his own. He danced all around that without coming anywhere near answering it. And he had no real trouble dancing around the other softball questions in a way that seemed to turn any substance into some ethereal, meaningless gas that appropriated democratic and religious imagery in a manner to which they seemed ill-suited.
And then today, in a meeting with Israeli P.M. Sharon, Bush essentially gave in to Sharon’s wish to keep Israeli settlements in the West Bank, contrary to long standing American policy, and international law. My hunch that this direction will not be a good one for either the U.S. or Israel (not to mention the rest of the world). In terms of the War on Terrorism, I'd have to bet that this increases the number of recruits for Al Quaeda, Hamas, and their ilk. It effectively ends the farce that was called the “Roadmap to Peace.” And, at a time when we're up to our a**es in Iraq trying to keep the situation from exploding (and where their oil, like their celebratory reception of the coalition, did not materialize in the way our gifted planners figured), this is likely to be an additional burden to bear for those who are out in the front lines facing an increasingly hostile and disgruntled populace.
Entirely the wrong kind of gas.
Yeap, gas is sure getting expensive
The price of gasoline in our neck of the woods has been over 2 bucks a gallon for weeks now, $2.16 for ordinary unleaded today. This probably does not bode any better for our nation’s economy than for our pocketbooks. The fact that OPEC is cutting down production makes it likely that these prices will not be going down soon, and the so-called “recovery” (anemic as it has been) of our fossil fuel based economy, has another hurdle to overcome. And if our national security and well-being were not reason enough to spur action towards conservation and renewable energy, the rapidly melting glaciers of the arctic raise again the specter of global warming as a planetary consideration.
Well, yesterday I caught the last twenty or so minutes of Bush’s press conference, the first one that I’ve watched, and I can’t say that he (or the press) were very impressive. The only real question I heard asked was why he had wanted to testify together with Cheney before the 9/11 commission, rather than on his own. He danced all around that without coming anywhere near answering it. And he had no real trouble dancing around the other softball questions in a way that seemed to turn any substance into some ethereal, meaningless gas that appropriated democratic and religious imagery in a manner to which they seemed ill-suited.
And then today, in a meeting with Israeli P.M. Sharon, Bush essentially gave in to Sharon’s wish to keep Israeli settlements in the West Bank, contrary to long standing American policy, and international law. My hunch that this direction will not be a good one for either the U.S. or Israel (not to mention the rest of the world). In terms of the War on Terrorism, I'd have to bet that this increases the number of recruits for Al Quaeda, Hamas, and their ilk. It effectively ends the farce that was called the “Roadmap to Peace.” And, at a time when we're up to our a**es in Iraq trying to keep the situation from exploding (and where their oil, like their celebratory reception of the coalition, did not materialize in the way our gifted planners figured), this is likely to be an additional burden to bear for those who are out in the front lines facing an increasingly hostile and disgruntled populace.
Entirely the wrong kind of gas.
Yeap, gas is sure getting expensive
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Economic Notes
The idea that only by giving tax breaks to the richest can we grow the economy is not only wrong (check out graphs at daily brew), but also disingenious.
From Dollars and Sense :
"Since the recession began 33 months ago, 2.4 million U.S. jobs have disappeared. Following every other post-World War II recession, jobs had fully recovered to their pre-recession levels within 31 months of the start of the recession. Worse yet, as a recent study by economists at the New York Federal Reserve Bank shows, a far larger share of recent layoffs have been permanent, rather than the temporary cyclical layoffs dominant in most previous recessions."
"Public investment, which has fallen to about one-half its levels during the 1960s and 1970s relative to the size of the economy, must be restored to maintain the nation’s economic competitiveness. That means increased public investments in education, job training, and child care as well as in basic infrastructure, the environment, energy, and research and development. Many of these programs, especially spending on the environment and natural resources and on job training and employment services, have suffered deep cuts since 2000."
"In the end," as economist Anwar Shaikh points out, "government expenditures need to provide not only demand stimulus but also social stimulus." Otherwise, while GDP growth may be momentarily high(er), the well of sustained expansion and broad-based economic gains will stay dry."
The idea that only by giving tax breaks to the richest can we grow the economy is not only wrong (check out graphs at daily brew), but also disingenious.
From Dollars and Sense :
"Since the recession began 33 months ago, 2.4 million U.S. jobs have disappeared. Following every other post-World War II recession, jobs had fully recovered to their pre-recession levels within 31 months of the start of the recession. Worse yet, as a recent study by economists at the New York Federal Reserve Bank shows, a far larger share of recent layoffs have been permanent, rather than the temporary cyclical layoffs dominant in most previous recessions."
"Public investment, which has fallen to about one-half its levels during the 1960s and 1970s relative to the size of the economy, must be restored to maintain the nation’s economic competitiveness. That means increased public investments in education, job training, and child care as well as in basic infrastructure, the environment, energy, and research and development. Many of these programs, especially spending on the environment and natural resources and on job training and employment services, have suffered deep cuts since 2000."
"In the end," as economist Anwar Shaikh points out, "government expenditures need to provide not only demand stimulus but also social stimulus." Otherwise, while GDP growth may be momentarily high(er), the well of sustained expansion and broad-based economic gains will stay dry."
Rice at the 9/11 Commission
Condi Rice finally testified before the commission under oath. This came after months of administration opposition to such testimony under the guise of constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege. (The opposition ended after the political costs of this stance began increasing). Her testimony raised as many questions as it answered. For example, the title of the August 6th presidential daily briefing (PDB), an intelligence report which raised the issue of hijackings and the use of explosive devices in the U.S. by al Quaeda (and which remains partially classified by the Bush administration) was finally released yesterday.
The report was entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S."
One has to ask: Why was this classified information? Was this really done for national security purposes? If so, which? Or was it rather classified for political purposes? Was it simply one more example of what appears to be an ongoing attempt to classify and keep out of the public domain in any way possible, any information that might shed a less than shining light on the administration, strictly for the purposes of partisan benefit?
Rice also focused on the "structural" failures implicit in the 9/11 tragedy, and disclaimed (on behalf of the administration) any responsibility. When she was asked at various times why no action was taken after the Aug. 6 PDB, she repeatedly emphasized the "structural" failures - the lack of coordinatition between our foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement agencies, a separation which stems from a legal and cultural concerns about the potential for abuse of civil rights. However, nothing, absolutely nothing, prevented the National Security Chief from alerting and calling together a meeting of the "principals," something in the order of what counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke had suggested, to bring about the sort of intensive focus to this threat that took place under Clinton in 1999 , and to which many attribute the breakup of the millenium terrorist plans that year.
Instead, what happened at this time, after this warning, was that Bush went on a month long vacation in Texas. Rice according to her testimony seems like passivity personified - she did not push any action because she didn't get any specifics as to time, place and plans (what was her job again - was she totally lacking any curiousity as to what might be behind such warnings). Subsequently, she continued her speeches and efforts on behalf of what the administration considered as its primary security concerns, the missile defence system and Iraq.
It's undoubtedly true that there was no silver bullet on this. And Rice may be correct that more focus on previous warnings would not have guaranteed deterrence of the 9/11 tragedy. It might, however, have lowered the probability its success. No one can guarantee that measures which might have been taken to highten the alert of the FBI would not have been useful.
It is at this point where the question of accountability must be raised. While there is clearly some need for "structural changes," in times of immediate threat it is not necessarily wise to focus on other things while awaiting such changes, as the administration did. And it is even more clear that there were ample means for spreading an alert had the available information been taken with greater seriousness and focus, and had meetings of principals been conducted. Now, however, the administration is asking the American people to pay the costs in traditonal rights (as evidenced by its support of the so called Patriot Act), for the negligence which it has worked so hard to conceal. Seems like the wrong folks are getting held accountable.
BTW: Part of the deal the admin made for Condi to appear under oath was that bush himself would not have to testify alone - he'll go in without being under oath, and with veep Cheney at his side. Are they worried about something he might say? This deal has been subject to some humor by cartoonists (see Toles and Luckovich.)
Harold Meyerson suggested that:
The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone.
Meanwhile W is again back at the ranch.
Condi Rice finally testified before the commission under oath. This came after months of administration opposition to such testimony under the guise of constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege. (The opposition ended after the political costs of this stance began increasing). Her testimony raised as many questions as it answered. For example, the title of the August 6th presidential daily briefing (PDB), an intelligence report which raised the issue of hijackings and the use of explosive devices in the U.S. by al Quaeda (and which remains partially classified by the Bush administration) was finally released yesterday.
The report was entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S."
One has to ask: Why was this classified information? Was this really done for national security purposes? If so, which? Or was it rather classified for political purposes? Was it simply one more example of what appears to be an ongoing attempt to classify and keep out of the public domain in any way possible, any information that might shed a less than shining light on the administration, strictly for the purposes of partisan benefit?
Rice also focused on the "structural" failures implicit in the 9/11 tragedy, and disclaimed (on behalf of the administration) any responsibility. When she was asked at various times why no action was taken after the Aug. 6 PDB, she repeatedly emphasized the "structural" failures - the lack of coordinatition between our foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement agencies, a separation which stems from a legal and cultural concerns about the potential for abuse of civil rights. However, nothing, absolutely nothing, prevented the National Security Chief from alerting and calling together a meeting of the "principals," something in the order of what counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke had suggested, to bring about the sort of intensive focus to this threat that took place under Clinton in 1999 , and to which many attribute the breakup of the millenium terrorist plans that year.
Instead, what happened at this time, after this warning, was that Bush went on a month long vacation in Texas. Rice according to her testimony seems like passivity personified - she did not push any action because she didn't get any specifics as to time, place and plans (what was her job again - was she totally lacking any curiousity as to what might be behind such warnings). Subsequently, she continued her speeches and efforts on behalf of what the administration considered as its primary security concerns, the missile defence system and Iraq.
It's undoubtedly true that there was no silver bullet on this. And Rice may be correct that more focus on previous warnings would not have guaranteed deterrence of the 9/11 tragedy. It might, however, have lowered the probability its success. No one can guarantee that measures which might have been taken to highten the alert of the FBI would not have been useful.
It is at this point where the question of accountability must be raised. While there is clearly some need for "structural changes," in times of immediate threat it is not necessarily wise to focus on other things while awaiting such changes, as the administration did. And it is even more clear that there were ample means for spreading an alert had the available information been taken with greater seriousness and focus, and had meetings of principals been conducted. Now, however, the administration is asking the American people to pay the costs in traditonal rights (as evidenced by its support of the so called Patriot Act), for the negligence which it has worked so hard to conceal. Seems like the wrong folks are getting held accountable.
BTW: Part of the deal the admin made for Condi to appear under oath was that bush himself would not have to testify alone - he'll go in without being under oath, and with veep Cheney at his side. Are they worried about something he might say? This deal has been subject to some humor by cartoonists (see Toles and Luckovich.)
Harold Meyerson suggested that:
The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone.
Meanwhile W is again back at the ranch.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Inglewood Defeats Wal-Mart
Chalk up a major defeat for Wal-Mart in the largely minority L.A. suburb of Inglewood. The Wal-Marteers, after having some qualms about going through the city's standard planning procedures, decided to try a referendum on a 73 page long proposal that would have exempted them from, among other things, the environmental impact statement required of all major developments. They then spent over a million dollars in an all out effort to pass it. Folks in Inglewood, nevertheless, knocked the proposal down easily with over 60% of the voters in opposition.
Chalk up a major defeat for Wal-Mart in the largely minority L.A. suburb of Inglewood. The Wal-Marteers, after having some qualms about going through the city's standard planning procedures, decided to try a referendum on a 73 page long proposal that would have exempted them from, among other things, the environmental impact statement required of all major developments. They then spent over a million dollars in an all out effort to pass it. Folks in Inglewood, nevertheless, knocked the proposal down easily with over 60% of the voters in opposition.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Blix: Iraq Worse Off Now Than With Saddam
So Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector (who was much closer to the truth on WMD than the Bush administration), told the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands Posten. "What's positive is that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when figuring out the score, the negatives weigh more."
With fighting breaking out across Iraq again, and 18 Americans and 66 Iraqis confirmed dead at this time, one fears he is right again.
So Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector (who was much closer to the truth on WMD than the Bush administration), told the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands Posten. "What's positive is that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when figuring out the score, the negatives weigh more."
With fighting breaking out across Iraq again, and 18 Americans and 66 Iraqis confirmed dead at this time, one fears he is right again.
Proud to be a Californian Today
According to the California Consumer Confidence Survey Bush's sinking job approval numbers among Californians are largely tied to a growing perception that his statements to the public are "not believable". Asked if "generally speaking, do you believe that what President Bush tells the American people is true,' 48 percent of respondents said no, while about 42 percent said yes.
"The credibility gap is really a significant finding,' said Phil Trounstine, director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University that conducted the poll. "The president has a real problem in California, with many people saying they don't believe what he tells them.'
Just 38 percent of adults in the state said they approve of Bush's job performance, while 50 percent said they disapprove.
According to the California Consumer Confidence Survey Bush's sinking job approval numbers among Californians are largely tied to a growing perception that his statements to the public are "not believable". Asked if "generally speaking, do you believe that what President Bush tells the American people is true,' 48 percent of respondents said no, while about 42 percent said yes.
"The credibility gap is really a significant finding,' said Phil Trounstine, director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University that conducted the poll. "The president has a real problem in California, with many people saying they don't believe what he tells them.'
Just 38 percent of adults in the state said they approve of Bush's job performance, while 50 percent said they disapprove.
Cheney's Oil Tax
Daily Kos reports:
In October 1986, when Dick Cheney was the lone congressman from energy-rich Wyoming, he introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil, and ultimately the price of gasoline paid by drivers, to soar by billions of dollars per year.
"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation.
This from the team that loves to take shots at even the slightest hint of a gas tax increase in the interests of conserving energy. As Dick Durbin, U.S. Senator from Illinois, points out:
"It is hard to explain, how they could attack John Kerry for even considering a 50-cent gas tax, which he didn't introduce or vote for, and ignore Cheney's own legislation in 1986 which would have dramatically raised the cost of gasoline. If every vote and every statement made by John Kerry is fair game, the same thing is true of President Bush and the vice president."
A spokesman for Mr. Cheney declined to comment.
Daily Kos reports:
In October 1986, when Dick Cheney was the lone congressman from energy-rich Wyoming, he introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil, and ultimately the price of gasoline paid by drivers, to soar by billions of dollars per year.
"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation.
This from the team that loves to take shots at even the slightest hint of a gas tax increase in the interests of conserving energy. As Dick Durbin, U.S. Senator from Illinois, points out:
"It is hard to explain, how they could attack John Kerry for even considering a 50-cent gas tax, which he didn't introduce or vote for, and ignore Cheney's own legislation in 1986 which would have dramatically raised the cost of gasoline. If every vote and every statement made by John Kerry is fair game, the same thing is true of President Bush and the vice president."
A spokesman for Mr. Cheney declined to comment.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Another "Mistake"
Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake
"There is still no sign of WMD in Iraq
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong."
Giving Powell, Bush etc. the benefit of the doubt (which is probably undeserved), one has to wonder how all those people who marched in opposition to the invasion knew this was a bogus case, while the leaders of the U.S. and its allies didn't. My favorite sign at our local march, before the war, was one that said "This Isn't A War - It's A Con Job".
I have yet to see a single piece of evidence which has failed to bear out the veracity of that claim. Powell's admission is only the latest unravelling which lends credence - coming quickly on the heels of: 1) the L.A. Times report that according to current and former intelligence officials, the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had a fleet of trucks and railroad cars to produce anthrax and other deadly germs were based chiefly on information from a discredited Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball", and had been labelled by intelligence officials as "fabricated"; 2) renewed charges by a former FBI translator now under gag order that administration statements that there was no specific information on the possibility of using airplanes as terrorist weapons are "outrageous" and "inaccurate"; and 3) former Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's now well publicized admonition that the Iraq invasion actually undermined the war on terrorism.
One would think this should be a wake up call for America. Unless "We the people," as our founders liked to say, seriously examine what has happened and hold our leaders accountable, we essentially provide license for their cynical use of the vast power that we have built up. And we will very likely see both a concomitant decrease in our ability to affect the course of its use, and a deterioration of our nation's security to boot. Seldom in our history (or at least since Viet Nam) has it been more apparent that our country was manipulated into war on the basis of such an unbroken stream of mistakes, deception and prevarication. (The term "war", of course, is applicable here solely in the descriptive sense, since legally only Congress has the right to declare war, and it didn't)
There is now clearly no other country in the world that stands in the way of American power. Terrorists, of course, have the capacity to cause harm and fear, but whether the reaction to them leads to the sort of militarism and authoritarianism which characterized the "anti-terrorist" campaigns in places like Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, etc., during the 1980s, and whether it becomes the rationalization for a logic of aggression (as was the case for example the Austro-Hungarian response to Serbian terrorists which led to World War I) remain open questions. It is becoming more and more apparent, however, that the responses to these questions will define America to the world for years to come in a manner similar to that in which the Post World War II Marshall plan defined us - and that "checks" and "balances" which constrain the power of the American government must come from within, and must be re-energized, for our good and for that of the world.
Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake
"There is still no sign of WMD in Iraq
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong."
Giving Powell, Bush etc. the benefit of the doubt (which is probably undeserved), one has to wonder how all those people who marched in opposition to the invasion knew this was a bogus case, while the leaders of the U.S. and its allies didn't. My favorite sign at our local march, before the war, was one that said "This Isn't A War - It's A Con Job".
I have yet to see a single piece of evidence which has failed to bear out the veracity of that claim. Powell's admission is only the latest unravelling which lends credence - coming quickly on the heels of: 1) the L.A. Times report that according to current and former intelligence officials, the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had a fleet of trucks and railroad cars to produce anthrax and other deadly germs were based chiefly on information from a discredited Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball", and had been labelled by intelligence officials as "fabricated"; 2) renewed charges by a former FBI translator now under gag order that administration statements that there was no specific information on the possibility of using airplanes as terrorist weapons are "outrageous" and "inaccurate"; and 3) former Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's now well publicized admonition that the Iraq invasion actually undermined the war on terrorism.
One would think this should be a wake up call for America. Unless "We the people," as our founders liked to say, seriously examine what has happened and hold our leaders accountable, we essentially provide license for their cynical use of the vast power that we have built up. And we will very likely see both a concomitant decrease in our ability to affect the course of its use, and a deterioration of our nation's security to boot. Seldom in our history (or at least since Viet Nam) has it been more apparent that our country was manipulated into war on the basis of such an unbroken stream of mistakes, deception and prevarication. (The term "war", of course, is applicable here solely in the descriptive sense, since legally only Congress has the right to declare war, and it didn't)
There is now clearly no other country in the world that stands in the way of American power. Terrorists, of course, have the capacity to cause harm and fear, but whether the reaction to them leads to the sort of militarism and authoritarianism which characterized the "anti-terrorist" campaigns in places like Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, etc., during the 1980s, and whether it becomes the rationalization for a logic of aggression (as was the case for example the Austro-Hungarian response to Serbian terrorists which led to World War I) remain open questions. It is becoming more and more apparent, however, that the responses to these questions will define America to the world for years to come in a manner similar to that in which the Post World War II Marshall plan defined us - and that "checks" and "balances" which constrain the power of the American government must come from within, and must be re-energized, for our good and for that of the world.
Tit-for-Tat
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose political career has been based on a hard line stance in favor of Israeli settlements on the occupied territories, announced plans to remove Israeli settlements and settlers from Gaza. Sharon, now under indictment for corruption (and previously forced from office in 1983 after an Israeli tribunal found him "indirectly responsible" for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israeli-allied right-wing Lebanese militiamen) told the Maariv daily "We need to get out of Gaza, not to be responsible anymore for what happens there ... I hope that by next Passover we will be in the midst of disengagement, because disengagement is good for Israel."
It is ironic that the Peace movements in Israel and Palestine, and their supporters worldwide, have long recognized that the removal of Israeli settlements is one of the necessary prerequisites for any possibility of a lasting peace. One has to wonder how many lives might have been saved had efforts toward achieve a negotiated settlement along lines most recently put forward in the Geneva Accord, e.g., mutual recognition and a two state solution based on the pre-1967 green line with appropriate security mechanisms and action against terrorism, had been followed through with conviction by all sides.
The irony in this case, however, is likely to be bitter. In order to “show” that Israel is leaving on its own terms, Sharon ordered the assassination of Shiekh Ahmed Yassin, the political head of Hamas, which took place on March 22. Yassin, a blind, parapalegic cleric who headed Hamas was considered a spiritual leader by many Palestinians. (For a report of a staunch Israeli peace advocate's view of Hamas see Uri Avneri’s Gush Shalom). While Yassin was a firm opponent of Israel, he had indicated more willingness than many in the organization to consider possibilities of long term truce and ceasefire agreements. Few believe that Yassin’s assassination will have any positive effects on curbing terrorism, and his successor Abdel Aziz Rantissi is considered to be far more of a hardliner than Yassin. One does not need to be a rocket scientist or a soothsayer to predict that the response to this act will be more suicide bombings. And then more assassinations. And more suicide bombings. And more assassinations. ....
There are studies in the area of international relations (most notably those of Robert Axelrod), which suggest that the most effective strategy for encouraging cooperation settings characterized by fear and distrust, is the so called “tit-for-tat” game, where if one player does not cooperate the other will not, but each side does cooperate in response to cooperation by the other. The Israeli-Palestinian interaction has, of course, long been stuck in the vicious negative cycle of this game - the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” pattern - to the point that the well of their common humanity is likely to get increasingly poisoned for both sides, and for future generations.
However, there are some brave souls and groups on both sides that remain committed to working to change this game to something more positive. Over 60 prominent Palestinian officials and intellectuals urged Palestinians
to refrain from retaliation for Israel's assassination. Six left-wing Israeli activists were arrested trying to prevent the demolition of two homes in the village of Palestinian village of Harbata. It is increasingly clear that the U.S. government is tied to policies that encourage the tragedy that is the status quo. Some of the organizations which are engaged in attempting to surmount the cycle of mutual hatred and terror include Support Sanity, Gush-Shalom, Lawrence of Cyberia, and Bitter Lemons.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose political career has been based on a hard line stance in favor of Israeli settlements on the occupied territories, announced plans to remove Israeli settlements and settlers from Gaza. Sharon, now under indictment for corruption (and previously forced from office in 1983 after an Israeli tribunal found him "indirectly responsible" for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israeli-allied right-wing Lebanese militiamen) told the Maariv daily "We need to get out of Gaza, not to be responsible anymore for what happens there ... I hope that by next Passover we will be in the midst of disengagement, because disengagement is good for Israel."
It is ironic that the Peace movements in Israel and Palestine, and their supporters worldwide, have long recognized that the removal of Israeli settlements is one of the necessary prerequisites for any possibility of a lasting peace. One has to wonder how many lives might have been saved had efforts toward achieve a negotiated settlement along lines most recently put forward in the Geneva Accord, e.g., mutual recognition and a two state solution based on the pre-1967 green line with appropriate security mechanisms and action against terrorism, had been followed through with conviction by all sides.
The irony in this case, however, is likely to be bitter. In order to “show” that Israel is leaving on its own terms, Sharon ordered the assassination of Shiekh Ahmed Yassin, the political head of Hamas, which took place on March 22. Yassin, a blind, parapalegic cleric who headed Hamas was considered a spiritual leader by many Palestinians. (For a report of a staunch Israeli peace advocate's view of Hamas see Uri Avneri’s Gush Shalom). While Yassin was a firm opponent of Israel, he had indicated more willingness than many in the organization to consider possibilities of long term truce and ceasefire agreements. Few believe that Yassin’s assassination will have any positive effects on curbing terrorism, and his successor Abdel Aziz Rantissi is considered to be far more of a hardliner than Yassin. One does not need to be a rocket scientist or a soothsayer to predict that the response to this act will be more suicide bombings. And then more assassinations. And more suicide bombings. And more assassinations. ....
There are studies in the area of international relations (most notably those of Robert Axelrod), which suggest that the most effective strategy for encouraging cooperation settings characterized by fear and distrust, is the so called “tit-for-tat” game, where if one player does not cooperate the other will not, but each side does cooperate in response to cooperation by the other. The Israeli-Palestinian interaction has, of course, long been stuck in the vicious negative cycle of this game - the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” pattern - to the point that the well of their common humanity is likely to get increasingly poisoned for both sides, and for future generations.
However, there are some brave souls and groups on both sides that remain committed to working to change this game to something more positive. Over 60 prominent Palestinian officials and intellectuals urged Palestinians
to refrain from retaliation for Israel's assassination. Six left-wing Israeli activists were arrested trying to prevent the demolition of two homes in the village of Palestinian village of Harbata. It is increasingly clear that the U.S. government is tied to policies that encourage the tragedy that is the status quo. Some of the organizations which are engaged in attempting to surmount the cycle of mutual hatred and terror include Support Sanity, Gush-Shalom, Lawrence of Cyberia, and Bitter Lemons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)