During his trip to London, President Bush has agreed to give an exclusive interview to a tabloid newspaper - The Sun - which regularly features photos of topless women and National Enquirer-type journalism. The The Washington Post reports thusly:
“After coming to office with a vow to restore dignity to the White House, the president yesterday took a brief sabbatical from that effort: He granted an exclusive interview to a British tabloid that features daily photographs of nude women and articles akin to those found in our own National Enquirer...
“Bush, meanwhile, has given no solo interviews this year to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Time or Newsweek. And he hasn't given an exclusive interview in his entire presidency to the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe and dozens of other major publications....
“Word on Fleet Street is it's an obvious payoff to the Sun's owner, Rupert Murdoch, the conservative publisher behind many Bush-friendly news outlets such as Fox News. Officials at the White House acknowledge that it was a reward to the Sun for its unstinting support of the United States regarding the war in Iraq.”
The one thing you can say about Republicans is that they are consistent when it comes to money. They love money above all else. It doesn’t matter if someone deals in smut, alcohol, tobacco or gambling. As long as they are willing to give lots of money to the GOP they will be embraced just like Rupert Murdoch whose Fox TV network consistently pushes the boundaries on good taste and morality. Nor does it matter if someone is the leader of a cult and thinks of themself as the second-coming of Christ like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Just give lots of money to the GOP and all of that can be overlooked. Why, I’m sure that if Larry Flynt were to change his party affiliation tomorrow and start giving money to Republican candidates he would probably be an invited guest at next year’s Republican National Convention.
Now to be fair, I have to admit that the Democrats can grub money right along with the best of them, but at least they are not as self-righteouss about it.
But enough of that rant. I couldn’t help but laugh at the outraged tone in the article above from all of the major newspapers that haven’t had an “exclusive” sit-down interview with the President lately. I do think it is sad that the Bush administration is so paranoid that they feel the only news outlets that they can trust are the ones owned by Rupert Murdoch (Fox News) and the Rev. Moon (Washington Times). But at the same time the President isn’t going to run all over the country granting exclusive interviews just to soothe some of these overgrown journalistic egos.
It didn’t use to be so hard to get an exclusive interview with Bush - at least before he became president. I’ve done two of them myself - first at the Kerrville Daily Times when Bush was running for governor the first time (not available online); and then at The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal right before Bush announced his intention to run for president. It was clear at the time that Bush was going to run, but unfortunately he wouldn’t give me the scoop and instead made the formal announcement a couple of weeks later. Oh well.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Monday, November 17, 2003
Errors of omission and commission
Things aren't going very well in Iraq. If that isn't already obvious....
We've lost four Black Hawk helicopters since Nov. 2 sending 39 U.S. soldiers to their deaths. The total of military casualties in Iraq is now well past 400 and climbing.
We've launched a new offensive campaign against the insurgents, but the stepped up tension could also lead to more tragic mistakes such as this which is not likely to endear us to the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi governing coalition is a mess. But that isn't stopping the Bush administration from demanding that the transistion process be sped up.
Meanwhile, war critics such as myself have to contend with insults and slander from people like Jonathan Gurwitz who implies that I am somehow "delighted" by U.S. failures in Iraq and view it as an ideological victory.
"The search for Saddam himself and the remainder of his Baath loyalists also continues, to the satisfaction of those who consider each American casualty an ideological victory."
There may indeed be a few sorry people out there who would fit that description, but Gurwitz is painting with a broad brush here by implying that anyone who has been critical of the war in Iraq shares this view.
I am not happy, pleased or delighted everytime the U.S. is dealt a setback in Iraq. I am, however, angry and upset.
Interestingly enough, Gurwitz actually levels a serious charge at the Bush administration in this article:
"Of the Bush administration's errors of omission and commission in Iraq, the most glaring is the failure thus far to initiate a human rights tribunal for Iraqi war criminals."
Of course, he doesn't go into detail about what these "errors of omission and commission" might be. But I can give him a reason why the U.S. has "failed" to push for a human rights tribunal of Iraqi war crimes.
The reason is because so many of the crimes occurred more than 15 years ago when Saddam was buddy buddy with Gurwitz' hero President Ronald Reagan. Many of the mass graves that Gurwitz cites are filled with people who were killed with weapons supplied by the U.S. or purchased with U.S. funding during the time that Iraq was our little pawn during and after the Iran-Iraq war. And another of the big mass graves occurred shortly after the first Gulf War when it is alleged that Bush the elder's administration had encouraged the Kurds and the Shias to rise up against Saddam with the false assumption that we would be there to back them up.
The U.S. obviously is not eager to have a tribunal for these crimes because it would highlight our "errors of omission and commission" that led up to them.
We've lost four Black Hawk helicopters since Nov. 2 sending 39 U.S. soldiers to their deaths. The total of military casualties in Iraq is now well past 400 and climbing.
We've launched a new offensive campaign against the insurgents, but the stepped up tension could also lead to more tragic mistakes such as this which is not likely to endear us to the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi governing coalition is a mess. But that isn't stopping the Bush administration from demanding that the transistion process be sped up.
Meanwhile, war critics such as myself have to contend with insults and slander from people like Jonathan Gurwitz who implies that I am somehow "delighted" by U.S. failures in Iraq and view it as an ideological victory.
"The search for Saddam himself and the remainder of his Baath loyalists also continues, to the satisfaction of those who consider each American casualty an ideological victory."
There may indeed be a few sorry people out there who would fit that description, but Gurwitz is painting with a broad brush here by implying that anyone who has been critical of the war in Iraq shares this view.
I am not happy, pleased or delighted everytime the U.S. is dealt a setback in Iraq. I am, however, angry and upset.
Interestingly enough, Gurwitz actually levels a serious charge at the Bush administration in this article:
"Of the Bush administration's errors of omission and commission in Iraq, the most glaring is the failure thus far to initiate a human rights tribunal for Iraqi war criminals."
Of course, he doesn't go into detail about what these "errors of omission and commission" might be. But I can give him a reason why the U.S. has "failed" to push for a human rights tribunal of Iraqi war crimes.
The reason is because so many of the crimes occurred more than 15 years ago when Saddam was buddy buddy with Gurwitz' hero President Ronald Reagan. Many of the mass graves that Gurwitz cites are filled with people who were killed with weapons supplied by the U.S. or purchased with U.S. funding during the time that Iraq was our little pawn during and after the Iran-Iraq war. And another of the big mass graves occurred shortly after the first Gulf War when it is alleged that Bush the elder's administration had encouraged the Kurds and the Shias to rise up against Saddam with the false assumption that we would be there to back them up.
The U.S. obviously is not eager to have a tribunal for these crimes because it would highlight our "errors of omission and commission" that led up to them.
Friday, November 14, 2003
The latest outrage...
I thought about blogging about the latest Tom Delay outrage today, but I haven't had much time.
Fortunately, Charles did my work for me over at Off the Kuff: Tom DeLay exploits children for political contributions
Fortunately, Charles did my work for me over at Off the Kuff: Tom DeLay exploits children for political contributions
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
98 percent!
That is the percentage of Bush’s court nominees who have been approved by the Senate since he took office leading to the lowest vacancy rate on the courts in 13 years. Out of 172 nominees, only four have failed to be confirmed - Charles Pickering Jr., Pricilla Owens, Bill Pryor and Miguel Estrada (now withdrawn).
Compare that to Clinton’s record, especially during the last two year’s of his term. In 1999, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed just 25 of 70 Clinton nominees. And in 2000 the Senate confirmed just 39 or 81 nominees. There were 42 nominees left unconfirmed when Clinton left office in Jan. 2001.
So Bush has had a remarkable rate of success with his nominees. And yet 98 percent is still not good enough for the radical Republicans who are putting on an all-night talkathon on the Senate floor to highlight and protest the tactics of Senate Democrats who have had the audacity to block confirmation of 2 percent of Bush’s nominees.
Obviously, the radical Republicans won’t be happy until Bush is granted complete carte blanche to put any looney right-winger on the court that he chooses. Bush is even being urged to ratchet up the partisan warfare by making recess appointments to the courts when the Senate is out of session.
The gross unfairness and hypocricy of the radical Republican position on this matter is hard to summarize in just a few paragraphs, but for an excellent overview of the whole sorry spectacle here is an essay from the THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS entitled “CONFIRMATION GRIDLOCK: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS UNDER BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE W. BUSH”
It did not matter how conciliatory Clinton chose to be or how moderate his judicial nominees were, the radical Republicans were intent on preventing Clinton from shifting the judiciary from its far-right course that had been set in place following 12 years of Reagan-Bush appointees.
“Since the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton had consulted with members of the Republican majority in the Senate. He seemed less interested in appointing ideologically rigid judges than with using his appointments to create a demographically representative judiciary filled with more women and minorities. [57] Early studies of the voting behavior of Clinton’s first-term judges (including those appointed when Democrats controlled the Senate) showed a moderate voting record on the bench. [58] His nominees also had the highest American Bar Association ratings of the past four presidents. [59] Nonetheless, a fundraising letter for the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project signed by Robert Bork in September 1997 charged that “over the past 4½ years, [Clinton’s] more than 200 . . . judicial appointments have been drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of the liberal elite. These judges blazed an activist trail, creating an out-of-control judiciary.”
Things got so bad by 1997 that Chief Justice William Rhenquist was forced to admonish Republican lawmakers for their stalling tactics.
“In his 1997 year-end report to Congress on the federal judiciary, the Chief Justice pointed out that by the end of 1997, one in ten seats on the federal judiciary were vacant, twenty-six of them had been vacant for at least eighteen months, and a third of the seats on the Ninth Circuit were vacant. [74] He rebuked his fellow conservatives for “serious delays in the appointment process,” a tactic that he said was threatening the nation’s “quality of justice.”...
"...Senate Republicans backed away from their stall tactics and the backlog of vacancies eased up in 1998. But in 1999, as the 2000 election loomed, Republicans again slowed down the confirmation process. Despite Attorney General Meese’s claim that President Reagan’s judicial appointments would “institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can’t be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections,” [77] President Clinton—just ten years after Reagan left office—was close to appointing a new majority on the federal bench. Senate Republicans wanted to prevent that, and they hoped that a Republican president would be elected in 2000 to fill any remaining vacancies that they managed to keep open...
“...the Senate confirmed only thirty-nine of the eighty-one judicial nominees that Clinton sent to the Senate in 2000. In all, forty-two judicial nominees remained unconfirmed when Clinton left office in January 2001. Thirty-eight of them never received a hearing.”
And today the radical Republicans are going to waste two days of the Senate’s time whining about four nominees who weren’t confirmed. Boo hoo.
Compare that to Clinton’s record, especially during the last two year’s of his term. In 1999, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed just 25 of 70 Clinton nominees. And in 2000 the Senate confirmed just 39 or 81 nominees. There were 42 nominees left unconfirmed when Clinton left office in Jan. 2001.
So Bush has had a remarkable rate of success with his nominees. And yet 98 percent is still not good enough for the radical Republicans who are putting on an all-night talkathon on the Senate floor to highlight and protest the tactics of Senate Democrats who have had the audacity to block confirmation of 2 percent of Bush’s nominees.
Obviously, the radical Republicans won’t be happy until Bush is granted complete carte blanche to put any looney right-winger on the court that he chooses. Bush is even being urged to ratchet up the partisan warfare by making recess appointments to the courts when the Senate is out of session.
The gross unfairness and hypocricy of the radical Republican position on this matter is hard to summarize in just a few paragraphs, but for an excellent overview of the whole sorry spectacle here is an essay from the THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS entitled “CONFIRMATION GRIDLOCK: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS UNDER BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE W. BUSH”
It did not matter how conciliatory Clinton chose to be or how moderate his judicial nominees were, the radical Republicans were intent on preventing Clinton from shifting the judiciary from its far-right course that had been set in place following 12 years of Reagan-Bush appointees.
“Since the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton had consulted with members of the Republican majority in the Senate. He seemed less interested in appointing ideologically rigid judges than with using his appointments to create a demographically representative judiciary filled with more women and minorities. [57] Early studies of the voting behavior of Clinton’s first-term judges (including those appointed when Democrats controlled the Senate) showed a moderate voting record on the bench. [58] His nominees also had the highest American Bar Association ratings of the past four presidents. [59] Nonetheless, a fundraising letter for the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project signed by Robert Bork in September 1997 charged that “over the past 4½ years, [Clinton’s] more than 200 . . . judicial appointments have been drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of the liberal elite. These judges blazed an activist trail, creating an out-of-control judiciary.”
Things got so bad by 1997 that Chief Justice William Rhenquist was forced to admonish Republican lawmakers for their stalling tactics.
“In his 1997 year-end report to Congress on the federal judiciary, the Chief Justice pointed out that by the end of 1997, one in ten seats on the federal judiciary were vacant, twenty-six of them had been vacant for at least eighteen months, and a third of the seats on the Ninth Circuit were vacant. [74] He rebuked his fellow conservatives for “serious delays in the appointment process,” a tactic that he said was threatening the nation’s “quality of justice.”...
"...Senate Republicans backed away from their stall tactics and the backlog of vacancies eased up in 1998. But in 1999, as the 2000 election loomed, Republicans again slowed down the confirmation process. Despite Attorney General Meese’s claim that President Reagan’s judicial appointments would “institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can’t be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections,” [77] President Clinton—just ten years after Reagan left office—was close to appointing a new majority on the federal bench. Senate Republicans wanted to prevent that, and they hoped that a Republican president would be elected in 2000 to fill any remaining vacancies that they managed to keep open...
“...the Senate confirmed only thirty-nine of the eighty-one judicial nominees that Clinton sent to the Senate in 2000. In all, forty-two judicial nominees remained unconfirmed when Clinton left office in January 2001. Thirty-eight of them never received a hearing.”
And today the radical Republicans are going to waste two days of the Senate’s time whining about four nominees who weren’t confirmed. Boo hoo.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Why Democrats promote education
(Thanks to my friend Robert for sending this link)
Following are the findings of the Education State Rankings , a survey by Morgan Quitno Press of the public school systems in all 50 states. States were graded on a variety of factors based on how they compare to the national average. These included such positive attributes as per-pupil expenditures, public high school graduation rates, average class size, student reading and math proficiency, and pupil-teacher ratios. States received negative points for high drop-out rates and physical violence.
I have conveniently appended to each state the name of the presidential candidate they voted for in 2000.
1. Massachusetts - Gore
2. Vermont - Gore
3. Connecticut - Gore
4. Montana - Bush
5. New Jersey - Gore
6. Maine - Gore
7. Pennsylvania - Gore
8. (tie) Wisconsin and Iowa - Gore/Gore
10. New York - Gore
11. Nebraska - Bush
12. Minnesota - Gore
13. Indiana - Bush
14. Wyoming - Bush
15. Kansas - Bush
16. Rhode Island - Gore
17. Virginia - Bush
18. Maryland - Gore
19. Delaware - Gore
20. Michigan - Gore
21. North Carolina - Bush
22. Ohio - Bush
23. Alaska - Bush
24. North Dakota - Bush
25. Utah - Bush
26. New Hampshire - Bush
27. Illinois - Gore
28. Missouri - Bush
29. West Virginia - Bush
30. Idaho - Bush
31. South Dakota - Bush
32. Oregon - Gore
33. Washington - Gore
34. Texas - Bush
35. Colorado - Bush
36. Georgia - Bush
37. Kentucky - Bush
38. Arkansas - Bush
39. Oklahoma - Bush
40. Florida - Bush
41. South Carolina - Bush
42. Tennessee - Bush
43. Hawaii - Gore
44. California - Gore
45. Arizona - Bush
46. Alabama - Bush
47. Louisiana - Bush
48. Mississippi - Bush
49. Nevada - Bush
50. New Mexico - Gore
Top 10 - 9 Gore - 1 Bush
Top Half - 14 Gore and 11 Bush
Bottom 10 - 3 Gore and 7 Bush
Bottom Half - 6 Gore and 19 Bush
Following are the findings of the Education State Rankings , a survey by Morgan Quitno Press of the public school systems in all 50 states. States were graded on a variety of factors based on how they compare to the national average. These included such positive attributes as per-pupil expenditures, public high school graduation rates, average class size, student reading and math proficiency, and pupil-teacher ratios. States received negative points for high drop-out rates and physical violence.
I have conveniently appended to each state the name of the presidential candidate they voted for in 2000.
1. Massachusetts - Gore
2. Vermont - Gore
3. Connecticut - Gore
4. Montana - Bush
5. New Jersey - Gore
6. Maine - Gore
7. Pennsylvania - Gore
8. (tie) Wisconsin and Iowa - Gore/Gore
10. New York - Gore
11. Nebraska - Bush
12. Minnesota - Gore
13. Indiana - Bush
14. Wyoming - Bush
15. Kansas - Bush
16. Rhode Island - Gore
17. Virginia - Bush
18. Maryland - Gore
19. Delaware - Gore
20. Michigan - Gore
21. North Carolina - Bush
22. Ohio - Bush
23. Alaska - Bush
24. North Dakota - Bush
25. Utah - Bush
26. New Hampshire - Bush
27. Illinois - Gore
28. Missouri - Bush
29. West Virginia - Bush
30. Idaho - Bush
31. South Dakota - Bush
32. Oregon - Gore
33. Washington - Gore
34. Texas - Bush
35. Colorado - Bush
36. Georgia - Bush
37. Kentucky - Bush
38. Arkansas - Bush
39. Oklahoma - Bush
40. Florida - Bush
41. South Carolina - Bush
42. Tennessee - Bush
43. Hawaii - Gore
44. California - Gore
45. Arizona - Bush
46. Alabama - Bush
47. Louisiana - Bush
48. Mississippi - Bush
49. Nevada - Bush
50. New Mexico - Gore
Top 10 - 9 Gore - 1 Bush
Top Half - 14 Gore and 11 Bush
Bottom 10 - 3 Gore and 7 Bush
Bottom Half - 6 Gore and 19 Bush
Thursday, November 06, 2003
The Road Not Taken
This is an incredible story in the NY Times today. Apparently we had Saddam Hussein backed so far into a corner by March of this year that he was ready to make almost any kind of deal that we wanted.
“Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.”
So before Bush pulled the trigger on this bloody invasion that we are currently embroiled in, he had an opportunity to take U.S. troops into Baghdad to search for WMDs to his heart’s content. But the Bush administration was already too busy ignoring and covering up mounting evidence that these stockpiles of WMDs were illusory. If the whole purpose of the invasion was to disarm a dangerous dictator who had acquired the means to threaten not just his neighbors, but the entire world, then why didn’t he pursue this opportunity? Is it because such a course of action might have left Saddam’s regime in power? Does that mean the real reason we went to war was not to rid Iraq of WMDs, but to allow Bush to settle a personal score with Saddam?
But even in this case, the deal being offered contained this intriguing “pledge to hold elections” which we could have pursued as a means to force Saddam to step down peacefully the same way we arranged for the former dictator Charles Taylor to step down in Liberia. If Bush had any diplomatic skills whatsoever, he could have taken advantage of this opportunity and achieved much better results than we are faced with today.
But noooooooo. Bush just had to have his war. He wanted to be able to flex his military muscles and show off how macho we can be. None of this wussy diplomacy stuff like most of our allies were suggesting. Bush is a man of action - just as long as it is somebody else’s butt on the line.
“Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.”
So before Bush pulled the trigger on this bloody invasion that we are currently embroiled in, he had an opportunity to take U.S. troops into Baghdad to search for WMDs to his heart’s content. But the Bush administration was already too busy ignoring and covering up mounting evidence that these stockpiles of WMDs were illusory. If the whole purpose of the invasion was to disarm a dangerous dictator who had acquired the means to threaten not just his neighbors, but the entire world, then why didn’t he pursue this opportunity? Is it because such a course of action might have left Saddam’s regime in power? Does that mean the real reason we went to war was not to rid Iraq of WMDs, but to allow Bush to settle a personal score with Saddam?
But even in this case, the deal being offered contained this intriguing “pledge to hold elections” which we could have pursued as a means to force Saddam to step down peacefully the same way we arranged for the former dictator Charles Taylor to step down in Liberia. If Bush had any diplomatic skills whatsoever, he could have taken advantage of this opportunity and achieved much better results than we are faced with today.
But noooooooo. Bush just had to have his war. He wanted to be able to flex his military muscles and show off how macho we can be. None of this wussy diplomacy stuff like most of our allies were suggesting. Bush is a man of action - just as long as it is somebody else’s butt on the line.
Payback for polluters
The NY Times reports today that Bush’s EPA is dropping enforcement actions against 50 power plants for past violations of the Clean Air Act.
“...the decision meant the cases would be judged under new, less stringent rules set to take effect next month... the new rules include exemptions that would make it almost impossible to sustain the investigations into the plants...
the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force...”
This is just lovely. I wonder how much money these corporate polluters have poured into Bush’s campaign coffers? Now it is payback time. Of course, the person they should really be thanking is Ralph Nader and the Green Party. Thanks Ralph!!
“...the decision meant the cases would be judged under new, less stringent rules set to take effect next month... the new rules include exemptions that would make it almost impossible to sustain the investigations into the plants...
the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force...”
This is just lovely. I wonder how much money these corporate polluters have poured into Bush’s campaign coffers? Now it is payback time. Of course, the person they should really be thanking is Ralph Nader and the Green Party. Thanks Ralph!!
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Bond issues approved
All of the San Antonio bond issues were approved yesterday. I won't say that this is good or bad. My position on bond elections can be stated thusly:
Why are you coming to me for approval? What do I or any of these other ignorant voters know about this stuff? I thought we paid you guys to make these decisions. If you screw up and make a bad decision we will vote you out of office next time, that's just the way it goes. Stop hiding behind these bond elections for political cover.
Now, I understand that our screwed up state constitution requires our leaders to put these issues on the ballot. But that still doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Why are you coming to me for approval? What do I or any of these other ignorant voters know about this stuff? I thought we paid you guys to make these decisions. If you screw up and make a bad decision we will vote you out of office next time, that's just the way it goes. Stop hiding behind these bond elections for political cover.
Now, I understand that our screwed up state constitution requires our leaders to put these issues on the ballot. But that still doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Reagan - Tax Raising Machine!
The Daily Howler points to an interesting article by conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, in which he notes the number of times that President Reagan raised taxes during his administration:
“Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.”
I know. It was those darn liberal Democrats who ran the Congress back then who forced all these tax increases through. Yeah, sure. As if the Reagan administration was asleep at the wheel this whole time. Reagan could have used his veto pen at any time or The Great Communicator could have climbed up onto his bully pulpit to stop any of these tax packages. But he did not. He was a politician. Not a demi-God, not a superhero. His administration had its hands in every one of those tax packages - getting favors here, compromising there - and thus he is just as responsible for the outcome as the Congress.
Republicans today have adopted this fantasy image of Reagan as the ultimate anti-tax crusader. Well, he was. But obviously on a more realistic level than what Bush Jr. seems to think.
“Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.”
I know. It was those darn liberal Democrats who ran the Congress back then who forced all these tax increases through. Yeah, sure. As if the Reagan administration was asleep at the wheel this whole time. Reagan could have used his veto pen at any time or The Great Communicator could have climbed up onto his bully pulpit to stop any of these tax packages. But he did not. He was a politician. Not a demi-God, not a superhero. His administration had its hands in every one of those tax packages - getting favors here, compromising there - and thus he is just as responsible for the outcome as the Congress.
Republicans today have adopted this fantasy image of Reagan as the ultimate anti-tax crusader. Well, he was. But obviously on a more realistic level than what Bush Jr. seems to think.
Wise words on Iraq
Atrios points us to this mystery quote today which turns out to have been by Dick Cheney back when he was Secretary of Defense for Bush the Elder:
“Well, just as it's important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it's also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi'a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba'ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all.”
And you know what? Cheney was right! Also remember that the vast majority of human rights atrocities credited to Saddam - and which now make up our only reason for being there at this point - happened prior to Cheney making the above statement. Cheney was apparently so unbothered by Saddam’s cruelty at that time that he set out during the next several years to cash in on the Iraq situation as the CEO of Halliburton, raking in millions helping to rebuild Saddam’s oil infrastructure that was damaged during the first Gulf War.
“Well, just as it's important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it's also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi'a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba'ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all.”
And you know what? Cheney was right! Also remember that the vast majority of human rights atrocities credited to Saddam - and which now make up our only reason for being there at this point - happened prior to Cheney making the above statement. Cheney was apparently so unbothered by Saddam’s cruelty at that time that he set out during the next several years to cash in on the Iraq situation as the CEO of Halliburton, raking in millions helping to rebuild Saddam’s oil infrastructure that was damaged during the first Gulf War.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Dictators beware!
Since we have found no WMDs in Iraq, no Al-Quada links or ties to 9-11 and no imminent threat to our national security, Republican rationale for starting the war has turned toward humanitarian goals. Now, we are told that the fact that Hussein tortured his political enemies is reason enough for our invasion. That freeing the Iraqi people from oppression and rebuilding schools is the worthy goal for which more than 200 of our U.S. soldiers have given their lives.
If that is truly the case, then we really do have a long hard slog in front of us as there are a lot of countries out there with people suffering under oppresive dictatorships.
In February of 2003, Parade Magazine consulted independent human-rights organizations such as Freedom House, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to come up with its list of the "Worst Dictators on the Planet."
1. Kim Jong-il (North Korea)
2. King Fahd and Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)
3. Saddam Hussein (Iraq)
4. Charles Taylor (Liberia)
5. Than Shwe (former Burma, now Myanmar)
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea)
7. Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan)
8. Muammar Gaddafi (Libya)
9. Fidel Castro (Cuba)
10. Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus)
"Dishonorable Mentions" were also given to Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the leaders of the People's Revolutionary Party of Laos.
If that is truly the case, then we really do have a long hard slog in front of us as there are a lot of countries out there with people suffering under oppresive dictatorships.
In February of 2003, Parade Magazine consulted independent human-rights organizations such as Freedom House, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to come up with its list of the "Worst Dictators on the Planet."
1. Kim Jong-il (North Korea)
2. King Fahd and Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)
3. Saddam Hussein (Iraq)
4. Charles Taylor (Liberia)
5. Than Shwe (former Burma, now Myanmar)
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea)
7. Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan)
8. Muammar Gaddafi (Libya)
9. Fidel Castro (Cuba)
10. Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus)
"Dishonorable Mentions" were also given to Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the leaders of the People's Revolutionary Party of Laos.
Friday, October 31, 2003
Nellie Connally and the three bullets
Nellie Connally, the wife of former Texas Gov. John Connally and the last surviving occupant of the limousine that was carrying President John F. Kennedy when he was assassinated, has finally published a book detailing her experience.
One key point she makes in her book which is discussed in this NY Times article is her insistence that three shots struck targets inside the limo on Nov. 22, 1963.
“After shots rang out — and Mrs. Connally is adamant that three bullets, not two as officially established, found their mark — the president was dead, her husband gravely wounded as she struggled to stanch his blood, and the course of history forever altered.”
The problem with this statement is that the Warren Commission official version of events states that only two shots struck the limo occupants and a third shot missed. I will discuss the significance of this in a moment. The NY Times article summarizes it thusly:
”The Warren Commission and subsequent investigations have concluded that the first shot, fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, went wild, that the president and the governor were both hit by a second bullet, and that President Kennedy alone was hit by a third shot.
Mrs. Connally is not dissuaded by this information, as well she should not be.
"Well they're wrong," Mrs. Connally said this week at the beginning of a publicity blitz for the book... "I was there, they weren't. When they argue with me, all I have to say is, `Were you in that car?' The answer has to be no because there wasn't anybody else...
“All I'm saying is there were three shots and I know what happened with each shot," she said.”
But Mrs. Connally says despite this she still believes the conclusion reached by the Warren Commission is correct.
“She said, however, that she was not a conspiracist and that she believed — and that her husband's own exhaustive study of records as Treasury secretary proved — that Mr. Oswald was the lone gunman.
"A $15 gun and a scrambled-egg mind caused all that horror," she said.”
Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that. There is a very good reason why the Warren Commission determined that only two bullets struck the limo that day. Any other outcome would discount the lone gunman theory on which the Warren Commission staked its entire investigation.
Thanks to the Zapruder film, there is a very clear frame-by-frame timeline of when the first and last shots struck their targets to within a fraction of a second. There is not enough time between the moment when Kennedy is clearly reacting to the shot that struck his throat and the moment when Gov. Connally is struck for a gunman using a bolt-action rifle to have fired two separate shots. Since the Warren Commission began its investigation with the predetermined conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots using a bolt-action rifle from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building, they had to come up with some way to shoehorn this inconvenient Zapruder evidence into their lone gunman theory. That is when Arlen Specter, the future Republican senator from Pennsylvania, came up with the infamous “Magic Bullet” theory in which Kennedy and Connally were supposed to have been struck by the same bullet (and Connally had a delayed reaction to his wounds).
The third bullet, they determined, had been fired before Kennedy was hit the first time and completely missed the motorcade. They had to account for at least three bullets because that is how many empty shell casings were neatly piled up for them to find on the sixth floor of the book depository. Plus, we know at least one bullet missed because there was a curbside mark where a bullet had struck next to the motorcade and a bystander who suffered a cut on his face from flying concrete fragments.
The “magic bullet” theory, and by consequence the lone gunman theory, is a bunch of bull. There is lots of evidence that disproves the theory without having to rely on Mrs. Connally’s recollection. The most obvious might be that the bullet fragments pulled out of Gov. Connally’s wrist and the fragments that were left in weighed far more than the amount of mass that was missing from the “pristine” magic bullet that was conveniently found on a cot at the hospital. You also have the testimony of the doctor’s who worked on Kennedy who descibed the wound in his throat as an entry wound (shortly before obscuring it by performing a tracheotomy). They also said the wound in his back was an entry wound that had no point of exit into the chest cavity. The “magic bullet” theory depends upon the back wound and neck wounds being connected and the neck wound being an exit wound.
I don’t presume to know what really happened on that day nearly 40 years ago. But I am pretty clear about what DID NOT happen and I am thoroughly disgusted that we as a nation continue to prop up this fiction about a lone gunman. Of course, I also understand that it is more comforting for people to assume that the perpetrator of this heinous crime was caught and punished rather than living with the knowledge that the conspirators - whoever they were - got clean away with the crime of the century.
One key point she makes in her book which is discussed in this NY Times article is her insistence that three shots struck targets inside the limo on Nov. 22, 1963.
“After shots rang out — and Mrs. Connally is adamant that three bullets, not two as officially established, found their mark — the president was dead, her husband gravely wounded as she struggled to stanch his blood, and the course of history forever altered.”
The problem with this statement is that the Warren Commission official version of events states that only two shots struck the limo occupants and a third shot missed. I will discuss the significance of this in a moment. The NY Times article summarizes it thusly:
”The Warren Commission and subsequent investigations have concluded that the first shot, fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, went wild, that the president and the governor were both hit by a second bullet, and that President Kennedy alone was hit by a third shot.
Mrs. Connally is not dissuaded by this information, as well she should not be.
"Well they're wrong," Mrs. Connally said this week at the beginning of a publicity blitz for the book... "I was there, they weren't. When they argue with me, all I have to say is, `Were you in that car?' The answer has to be no because there wasn't anybody else...
“All I'm saying is there were three shots and I know what happened with each shot," she said.”
But Mrs. Connally says despite this she still believes the conclusion reached by the Warren Commission is correct.
“She said, however, that she was not a conspiracist and that she believed — and that her husband's own exhaustive study of records as Treasury secretary proved — that Mr. Oswald was the lone gunman.
"A $15 gun and a scrambled-egg mind caused all that horror," she said.”
Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that. There is a very good reason why the Warren Commission determined that only two bullets struck the limo that day. Any other outcome would discount the lone gunman theory on which the Warren Commission staked its entire investigation.
Thanks to the Zapruder film, there is a very clear frame-by-frame timeline of when the first and last shots struck their targets to within a fraction of a second. There is not enough time between the moment when Kennedy is clearly reacting to the shot that struck his throat and the moment when Gov. Connally is struck for a gunman using a bolt-action rifle to have fired two separate shots. Since the Warren Commission began its investigation with the predetermined conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots using a bolt-action rifle from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building, they had to come up with some way to shoehorn this inconvenient Zapruder evidence into their lone gunman theory. That is when Arlen Specter, the future Republican senator from Pennsylvania, came up with the infamous “Magic Bullet” theory in which Kennedy and Connally were supposed to have been struck by the same bullet (and Connally had a delayed reaction to his wounds).
The third bullet, they determined, had been fired before Kennedy was hit the first time and completely missed the motorcade. They had to account for at least three bullets because that is how many empty shell casings were neatly piled up for them to find on the sixth floor of the book depository. Plus, we know at least one bullet missed because there was a curbside mark where a bullet had struck next to the motorcade and a bystander who suffered a cut on his face from flying concrete fragments.
The “magic bullet” theory, and by consequence the lone gunman theory, is a bunch of bull. There is lots of evidence that disproves the theory without having to rely on Mrs. Connally’s recollection. The most obvious might be that the bullet fragments pulled out of Gov. Connally’s wrist and the fragments that were left in weighed far more than the amount of mass that was missing from the “pristine” magic bullet that was conveniently found on a cot at the hospital. You also have the testimony of the doctor’s who worked on Kennedy who descibed the wound in his throat as an entry wound (shortly before obscuring it by performing a tracheotomy). They also said the wound in his back was an entry wound that had no point of exit into the chest cavity. The “magic bullet” theory depends upon the back wound and neck wounds being connected and the neck wound being an exit wound.
I don’t presume to know what really happened on that day nearly 40 years ago. But I am pretty clear about what DID NOT happen and I am thoroughly disgusted that we as a nation continue to prop up this fiction about a lone gunman. Of course, I also understand that it is more comforting for people to assume that the perpetrator of this heinous crime was caught and punished rather than living with the knowledge that the conspirators - whoever they were - got clean away with the crime of the century.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Straight from Bubba
South Knox Bubba is trying to sort out the Bush Admin’s take on the Iraq situation:
"We've invaded and occupied a third-world (rat) hole to protect America from a clear and present danger which turned out to be some blender parts buried in some guy's back yard and some moldy okra in some guy's refrigerator?
We have hundreds of thousands of troops, civil authorities, and workers there to secure and rebuild it, and we have them under 7X24 martial law enforced by a huge international coalition of the most powerful military forces in the world, and we can't secure anything?
We are told that it's because terrorists are pouring across the borders and killing our soldiers and relief workers and civilians daily, which is, of course, OK because it's all part of the brilliant "bring it on" "fly paper" afterthought strategy which is clearly working because they are so frustrated by our success?
We're going to pretend there are no dead soldiers coming home in boxes and make the wounded and maimed pay for their own hospital expenses and then reduce or eliminate their veteran's benefits?
When we leave in six months, we're going to turn it over to a bunch of babbling religious fanatics and nomadic desert war lords who weren't able to overthrow a brutal, oppressive regime run by a madman and a handful of his goons, in a country that has been around and run this way since more than two thousand years before the first shot was fired at Concord, at which point democracy will commence to flourish, and they will rid the Middle East of terrorism and protect the United States from al Qaida?
Then we're going to send the multi-billion dollar bill to the American taxpayers and tell them and their children and their grandchildren and their grandchildren to make the checks payable to Halliburton?
That's our plan?
OK, then."
The only plan the Bush team is concerned with right now is getting their guy (re-)elected next year. Last year, the Bush team was intent on taking the country’s focus off the poor state of the economy and taking out Saddam seemed like a great way to do it. Now that we’ve gotten some good economic news finally, I expect they will try to shift the nation’s focus away from the mess in Iraq and back to the domestic front.
"We've invaded and occupied a third-world (rat) hole to protect America from a clear and present danger which turned out to be some blender parts buried in some guy's back yard and some moldy okra in some guy's refrigerator?
We have hundreds of thousands of troops, civil authorities, and workers there to secure and rebuild it, and we have them under 7X24 martial law enforced by a huge international coalition of the most powerful military forces in the world, and we can't secure anything?
We are told that it's because terrorists are pouring across the borders and killing our soldiers and relief workers and civilians daily, which is, of course, OK because it's all part of the brilliant "bring it on" "fly paper" afterthought strategy which is clearly working because they are so frustrated by our success?
We're going to pretend there are no dead soldiers coming home in boxes and make the wounded and maimed pay for their own hospital expenses and then reduce or eliminate their veteran's benefits?
When we leave in six months, we're going to turn it over to a bunch of babbling religious fanatics and nomadic desert war lords who weren't able to overthrow a brutal, oppressive regime run by a madman and a handful of his goons, in a country that has been around and run this way since more than two thousand years before the first shot was fired at Concord, at which point democracy will commence to flourish, and they will rid the Middle East of terrorism and protect the United States from al Qaida?
Then we're going to send the multi-billion dollar bill to the American taxpayers and tell them and their children and their grandchildren and their grandchildren to make the checks payable to Halliburton?
That's our plan?
OK, then."
The only plan the Bush team is concerned with right now is getting their guy (re-)elected next year. Last year, the Bush team was intent on taking the country’s focus off the poor state of the economy and taking out Saddam seemed like a great way to do it. Now that we’ve gotten some good economic news finally, I expect they will try to shift the nation’s focus away from the mess in Iraq and back to the domestic front.
The Blogroll
My personal blogroll on the left side of the page has slowly been expanding these past few months. As a rule, I have tried to limit its growth to just those sites that I tend to read on a more or less regular basis.
One of the best things about blogging is the opportunity it gives to network with people who have similar interests and to create a community for having discussions and debates about current events.
I think it is especially important to start locally and branch out from there. There are only a couple of other political bloggers in San Antonio that I am aware of and I am slowly getting to know other Texas bloggers in Houston, Austin and Dallas.
The blogs that I have listed to the left are all relatively high-quality sites that tend to be updated regularly (with a few exceptions).
The vast majority are of the liberal persuasion reflecting my own ideological preferences, however, I also link to a number of conservative sites where I have found the quality of debate to be challenging and where contrary opinions are respected. I like blogs that allow readers to post comments, although that is not a requirement. I don’t like blogs that are hard to read (black text on purple backgrounds) or that take a long time to upload. I tend to be prudish about foul language and will avoid sites that can’t seem to find other ways to express themselves.
The blogs that have been kind enough to add my site to their own blogrolls are marked with an asterisk after their name. It is flattering to have someone add your site to their blogroll and I am more than happy to reciprocate with a link on those rare occasions when someone has added my site before I have added theirs.
I am constantly finding new candidates for addition and probably need to find a better way to organize the ones that I have. Suggestions are welcome.
One of the best things about blogging is the opportunity it gives to network with people who have similar interests and to create a community for having discussions and debates about current events.
I think it is especially important to start locally and branch out from there. There are only a couple of other political bloggers in San Antonio that I am aware of and I am slowly getting to know other Texas bloggers in Houston, Austin and Dallas.
The blogs that I have listed to the left are all relatively high-quality sites that tend to be updated regularly (with a few exceptions).
The vast majority are of the liberal persuasion reflecting my own ideological preferences, however, I also link to a number of conservative sites where I have found the quality of debate to be challenging and where contrary opinions are respected. I like blogs that allow readers to post comments, although that is not a requirement. I don’t like blogs that are hard to read (black text on purple backgrounds) or that take a long time to upload. I tend to be prudish about foul language and will avoid sites that can’t seem to find other ways to express themselves.
The blogs that have been kind enough to add my site to their own blogrolls are marked with an asterisk after their name. It is flattering to have someone add your site to their blogroll and I am more than happy to reciprocate with a link on those rare occasions when someone has added my site before I have added theirs.
I am constantly finding new candidates for addition and probably need to find a better way to organize the ones that I have. Suggestions are welcome.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
The Greatest American President since Lincoln
Yes, I'm talking about Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The Wall Street Journal today has an op-ed piece by Conrad Black, the Canadian publishing magnate, who has recently written a book about Roosevelt called Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom.
The article, entitled 'Capitalism's Savior,' gives a good summary of Roosevelt's remarkable accomplishments which makes every other U.S. president in recent times seem pale in comparison - and that includes both Clinton and Reagan.
It's too bad that the WSJ requires a separate subscription to access its online content (even editorial pieces) so the best I can do for those without access to a paper copy is provide a few excerpts:
"When he entered office in 1933, unemployment was at 33 percent, there was almost no public-sector relief for the jobless, 45 percent of family homes had been - or were in imminent danger of being - foreclosed, and the Chicago Grain Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and the banking system had collapsed. Almost no one was engaged in agriculture on an economically sustainable basis and the nation's food supply was apt to be severly interrupted at any time."
"Most authentic historians credit Roosevelt with swiftly reviving the American banking system, guaranteeing bank deposits, minimizing the number of bank failures and substantially alleviating the Depression. Yet, as with most other historical achievements, the revisionists have been hard at work. Jim Powell of the Cato Institute argues in a new book that FDR actually prolonged the Depression!"
"Most would accept that FDR's system of raising farm income by having farmers vote by category to reduce production in exchange for subsidies and sustainable prices was a success. I know of no serious criticism of the Roosevelt administration's refinancing of home mortgages; low-yield loans to farmers with crops and animals as collateral; the Tennessee Valley Authority and the vast extension of rural electrification; the GI Bill of Rights, which produced a benign, posthumous socioeconomic revolution; the concept of Social Security, including unemployment insurance; and most of the public works and workfare schemes of the New Deal..."
"Roosevelt spared the country the extremes of left and right that plagued every other great power in the '30s. He left the U.S. twice as wealthy as it was when he assumed the presidency. As economics, the New Deal deserves a passing grade, but as crisis management it was a huge success. And in the 1930s, Roosevelt was almost the only leader of an important country who was not either a barbarous dictator, an appeaser of barbarous dictators or an ineffectual ditherer. For these reasons, as well as his genius as a war leader, he is rightly judged the greatest American president since Lincoln."
The Wall Street Journal today has an op-ed piece by Conrad Black, the Canadian publishing magnate, who has recently written a book about Roosevelt called Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom.
The article, entitled 'Capitalism's Savior,' gives a good summary of Roosevelt's remarkable accomplishments which makes every other U.S. president in recent times seem pale in comparison - and that includes both Clinton and Reagan.
It's too bad that the WSJ requires a separate subscription to access its online content (even editorial pieces) so the best I can do for those without access to a paper copy is provide a few excerpts:
"When he entered office in 1933, unemployment was at 33 percent, there was almost no public-sector relief for the jobless, 45 percent of family homes had been - or were in imminent danger of being - foreclosed, and the Chicago Grain Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and the banking system had collapsed. Almost no one was engaged in agriculture on an economically sustainable basis and the nation's food supply was apt to be severly interrupted at any time."
"Most authentic historians credit Roosevelt with swiftly reviving the American banking system, guaranteeing bank deposits, minimizing the number of bank failures and substantially alleviating the Depression. Yet, as with most other historical achievements, the revisionists have been hard at work. Jim Powell of the Cato Institute argues in a new book that FDR actually prolonged the Depression!"
"Most would accept that FDR's system of raising farm income by having farmers vote by category to reduce production in exchange for subsidies and sustainable prices was a success. I know of no serious criticism of the Roosevelt administration's refinancing of home mortgages; low-yield loans to farmers with crops and animals as collateral; the Tennessee Valley Authority and the vast extension of rural electrification; the GI Bill of Rights, which produced a benign, posthumous socioeconomic revolution; the concept of Social Security, including unemployment insurance; and most of the public works and workfare schemes of the New Deal..."
"Roosevelt spared the country the extremes of left and right that plagued every other great power in the '30s. He left the U.S. twice as wealthy as it was when he assumed the presidency. As economics, the New Deal deserves a passing grade, but as crisis management it was a huge success. And in the 1930s, Roosevelt was almost the only leader of an important country who was not either a barbarous dictator, an appeaser of barbarous dictators or an ineffectual ditherer. For these reasons, as well as his genius as a war leader, he is rightly judged the greatest American president since Lincoln."
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Maggie's Farm Updated
From The Right Christians I found this new version of Bob Dylan's classic "Maggie's Farm"
Georgie Dubya
To the tune of "Maggie’s Farm" by Bob Dylan
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
No, I ain’t gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
Well, I wake up in the morning,
Fold my hands and pray for peace,
But there’s three more dead in Baghdad
And still no WMDs.
It's a shame the way he lied us into war.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s brother no more
No, I aint gonna vote for Georgie’s brother no more
Well, he crowds kids into classrooms
And cuts their teachers’ pay,
Then claims he’s all for schooling,
Says marriage ain’t for gays.
And he steals your vote, especially if you’re poor.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s brother no more.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s pa no more
No, I ain’t gonna vote for Georgie’s pa no more
Well, he said, “Appoint Colin.”
He said, “Select Dick.”
But he didn’t tell Dubya
Whose policy to pick.
Nobody knows who’s supposed to run the store.
Ah, I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s pa no more.
I ain't gonna buy books by Georgie’s ma no more
No, I ain't gonna buy books by Georgie’s ma no more
Well, she preaches to all us servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
Her “beautiful mind” can’t be bothered by the horrors of war.
I ain't gonna buy books by Georgie’s ma no more.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more
I aint gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But Ashcroft wants to force you
To be just like him
They say sing while you slave but I just get bored
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
Georgie Dubya
To the tune of "Maggie’s Farm" by Bob Dylan
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
No, I ain’t gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
Well, I wake up in the morning,
Fold my hands and pray for peace,
But there’s three more dead in Baghdad
And still no WMDs.
It's a shame the way he lied us into war.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s brother no more
No, I aint gonna vote for Georgie’s brother no more
Well, he crowds kids into classrooms
And cuts their teachers’ pay,
Then claims he’s all for schooling,
Says marriage ain’t for gays.
And he steals your vote, especially if you’re poor.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s brother no more.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s pa no more
No, I ain’t gonna vote for Georgie’s pa no more
Well, he said, “Appoint Colin.”
He said, “Select Dick.”
But he didn’t tell Dubya
Whose policy to pick.
Nobody knows who’s supposed to run the store.
Ah, I ain't gonna vote for Georgie’s pa no more.
I ain't gonna buy books by Georgie’s ma no more
No, I ain't gonna buy books by Georgie’s ma no more
Well, she preaches to all us servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
Her “beautiful mind” can’t be bothered by the horrors of war.
I ain't gonna buy books by Georgie’s ma no more.
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more
I aint gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But Ashcroft wants to force you
To be just like him
They say sing while you slave but I just get bored
I ain't gonna vote for Georgie Dubya no more.
Friday, October 24, 2003
Lionizing Reagan; Vilifying Clinton
Political parties need heroes to thrive and prosper. For years Democrats have boosted themselves on the memories of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Republicans had a rougher time of it during this period. They wanted to forget about Herbert Hoover. Dwight Eisenhower was a great war hero, but he was kind of bland as a president. Then they had to try and forget about Richard Nixon.
So it is no surprise that Republicans are working overtime now to promote the idea that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of all time. Their efforts in this respect have included trying to get Reagan’s image carved onto Mount Rushmore, replacing Alexander Hamilton on the 10-dollar bill with Reagan’s smiling visage, and naming buildings and monuments all over the country after him.
It is also no surprise that this lionizing of Reagan is a two-pronged strategy that also requires tearing down and vilifying President Bill Clinton at the same time. As with most issues, Republicans see this as a black and white issue. Reagan can do no wrong, and Clinton can do nothing right. Reagan is a larger-than-life figure of grandiose accomplishments who merits reverential treatment. Clinton is a despicable character who nearly wrecked the country and deserved to be put in jail.
To counter this kind of political gamesmanship, Democrats don’t have to place Clinton on a pedestal and worship him the way Republicans do to Reagan. But they do need to stand up and defend his policies that helped produce the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history.
Here are just a few:
* In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 2000, the projected budget surplus was $167 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record.
* 21.2 million new jobs created, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms.
* The longest and fastest period of real wage growth in three decades.
* The lowest unemployment rate in three decades.
* Highest home ownership rate in history.
* Lowest poverty rate in two decades.
* Lowest crime rates in 25 years.
* Smallest government workforce since the 1960s.
* Lowest government spending as a share of GDP since 1974.
This isn’t a record that anyone should shy away from defending and compared to the accomplishments (or lack thereof) of our current president during the past three years they look really good.
So it is no surprise that Republicans are working overtime now to promote the idea that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of all time. Their efforts in this respect have included trying to get Reagan’s image carved onto Mount Rushmore, replacing Alexander Hamilton on the 10-dollar bill with Reagan’s smiling visage, and naming buildings and monuments all over the country after him.
It is also no surprise that this lionizing of Reagan is a two-pronged strategy that also requires tearing down and vilifying President Bill Clinton at the same time. As with most issues, Republicans see this as a black and white issue. Reagan can do no wrong, and Clinton can do nothing right. Reagan is a larger-than-life figure of grandiose accomplishments who merits reverential treatment. Clinton is a despicable character who nearly wrecked the country and deserved to be put in jail.
To counter this kind of political gamesmanship, Democrats don’t have to place Clinton on a pedestal and worship him the way Republicans do to Reagan. But they do need to stand up and defend his policies that helped produce the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history.
Here are just a few:
* In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 2000, the projected budget surplus was $167 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record.
* 21.2 million new jobs created, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms.
* The longest and fastest period of real wage growth in three decades.
* The lowest unemployment rate in three decades.
* Highest home ownership rate in history.
* Lowest poverty rate in two decades.
* Lowest crime rates in 25 years.
* Smallest government workforce since the 1960s.
* Lowest government spending as a share of GDP since 1974.
This isn’t a record that anyone should shy away from defending and compared to the accomplishments (or lack thereof) of our current president during the past three years they look really good.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
I really hate bond elections
San Antonio has several bond elections coming up for a vote on Nov. 4 and I can pretty much guarantee that 99.999 percent of the people who will cast votes in the election won’t have a clue as to what they are voting on.
I admit that I am no fan of direct democracy. I agree with the Founding Fathers who set up a republican form of government with representational democracy at its core. We elect people to represent our interests, study the issues and make decisions that are for the greater good. The average person doesn’t have the time to spend studying all the details of every issue. We depend on our representatives to do that for us.
(In fact, in many cases our elected representatives don’t even have the time to study all the details of every issue and that task ultimately falls to the paid professionals we hire to manage and run our government agencies - while the reps are essentially there to keep an eye on things.)
Everytime I hear about a bond election, a constitutional amendment election or some other ballot initiative - all I can think about is how our form of government is continuing to be subverted. It means that our elected representatives are not taking responsibility and are leaving it up to the ignorant electorate - and I count myself among them.
After 12 years of covering city councils, county commissioners, school boards and planning and zoning commissions in rock-solid conservative locales such as Kerrville and Lubbock - I have observed time and time again where people on the outside come to the meetings to criticize the budget process, then get elected to serve on the same body and the next time around come to the realization that there is nowhere to cut and end up defending the budget against the next group of naysayers.
In every city there is always a group that I call the CAVE people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) who can be counted on to come out and oppose any bond election. It’s no different in San Antonio where you have the Homowner Taxpayer Association. In some places these people have held sway for so long that school children are forced to attend classes in overcrowded temporary buildings next to deteriorating schools built in the 1950s.
I don’t understand why these people don’t trust their local representatives to make these kinds of decisions, and yet seem unfazed everytime President Bush breaks a new record in deficit spending without having to seek similar voter approval.
I admit that I am no fan of direct democracy. I agree with the Founding Fathers who set up a republican form of government with representational democracy at its core. We elect people to represent our interests, study the issues and make decisions that are for the greater good. The average person doesn’t have the time to spend studying all the details of every issue. We depend on our representatives to do that for us.
(In fact, in many cases our elected representatives don’t even have the time to study all the details of every issue and that task ultimately falls to the paid professionals we hire to manage and run our government agencies - while the reps are essentially there to keep an eye on things.)
Everytime I hear about a bond election, a constitutional amendment election or some other ballot initiative - all I can think about is how our form of government is continuing to be subverted. It means that our elected representatives are not taking responsibility and are leaving it up to the ignorant electorate - and I count myself among them.
After 12 years of covering city councils, county commissioners, school boards and planning and zoning commissions in rock-solid conservative locales such as Kerrville and Lubbock - I have observed time and time again where people on the outside come to the meetings to criticize the budget process, then get elected to serve on the same body and the next time around come to the realization that there is nowhere to cut and end up defending the budget against the next group of naysayers.
In every city there is always a group that I call the CAVE people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) who can be counted on to come out and oppose any bond election. It’s no different in San Antonio where you have the Homowner Taxpayer Association. In some places these people have held sway for so long that school children are forced to attend classes in overcrowded temporary buildings next to deteriorating schools built in the 1950s.
I don’t understand why these people don’t trust their local representatives to make these kinds of decisions, and yet seem unfazed everytime President Bush breaks a new record in deficit spending without having to seek similar voter approval.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Science and sexual orientation
Here is another study out purporting to show that sexual orientation is based on genetics. I have long accepted this as a matter of fact.
But I’m sure this study will do little to dissuade the legions of flat-earthers out there who are unwilling to accept or consider scientific evidence that does not conform to their predetermined religious views.
My theory on sexual orientation can best be summed up by drawing two concentric circles side by side that overlap by about 10 percent. One circle represents the realm of masculine orientation and the other represents the realm of feminine orientation. The overlapping section represents the gay and lesbian population. I think that sexual orientation is a matter of degree. Depending upon where people fall in each circle is determined by their particular genetic makeup. Some people may be very masculine or very feminine. Others may be less masculine or less feminine, but still definitely heterosexual. Likewise there will be those who are very gay and those who are less gay but still homosexual. Then there are those who fall very close to the dividing line and in these cases I think you find people who can actually “choose” which way they want to go or they can be bi-sexual.
Maybe this is a lot of nonsense. I am only speculating on a theory that makes sense to me. Regardless, I believe it is wrong to discriminate against people of any sexual orientation.
Interestingly enough, if this theory is correct it means that just as conservative fundamentalists fear there is a choice element at work here (although with just a very small percentage of the population) and that means if our society becomes more accepting of homosexuality it could result in more people coming out of their closets and/or choosing one orientation over another. But since I don’t view sexual orientation as a “sin” and because I am not threatened by the prospect of a few more open homosexuals in our society I really don’t see it as any big deal.
But one can’t really address the issue of homosexuality without also addressing the Biblical condemnations of the practice that have turned so many people over the years into homophobic crusaders. Here is where one must determine whether they are going to believe as the fundamentalists do that the Bible is the “inerrant Word of God” or whether it is a divinely inspired work that was still written by men who in many instances allowed their own human faults, prejudices and superstitions to be sprinkled throughout the text. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. There are too many instances where Biblical text has been used to condone everything from wars and crusades to witch burnings and slavery. Even Jesus did not treat the Bible as inerrant. Quite to the contrary he countered some of its teachings and overwrote it with his own message of forgiveness, compassion and love.
Ultimately, everyone will have to decide for themselves how to deal with the Biblical passages that condemn homosexuals. But for those who opt to follow the condemnation route and believe that God makes everyone with a clearly defined sense of sexual orientation - answer just one question. What about these people who are born with both male and female sexual organs? What is God’s intention there? A cruel joke? I believe God is compassionate, not cruel. We can accept God's creation or we can reject it. That is our choice here.
But I’m sure this study will do little to dissuade the legions of flat-earthers out there who are unwilling to accept or consider scientific evidence that does not conform to their predetermined religious views.
My theory on sexual orientation can best be summed up by drawing two concentric circles side by side that overlap by about 10 percent. One circle represents the realm of masculine orientation and the other represents the realm of feminine orientation. The overlapping section represents the gay and lesbian population. I think that sexual orientation is a matter of degree. Depending upon where people fall in each circle is determined by their particular genetic makeup. Some people may be very masculine or very feminine. Others may be less masculine or less feminine, but still definitely heterosexual. Likewise there will be those who are very gay and those who are less gay but still homosexual. Then there are those who fall very close to the dividing line and in these cases I think you find people who can actually “choose” which way they want to go or they can be bi-sexual.
Maybe this is a lot of nonsense. I am only speculating on a theory that makes sense to me. Regardless, I believe it is wrong to discriminate against people of any sexual orientation.
Interestingly enough, if this theory is correct it means that just as conservative fundamentalists fear there is a choice element at work here (although with just a very small percentage of the population) and that means if our society becomes more accepting of homosexuality it could result in more people coming out of their closets and/or choosing one orientation over another. But since I don’t view sexual orientation as a “sin” and because I am not threatened by the prospect of a few more open homosexuals in our society I really don’t see it as any big deal.
But one can’t really address the issue of homosexuality without also addressing the Biblical condemnations of the practice that have turned so many people over the years into homophobic crusaders. Here is where one must determine whether they are going to believe as the fundamentalists do that the Bible is the “inerrant Word of God” or whether it is a divinely inspired work that was still written by men who in many instances allowed their own human faults, prejudices and superstitions to be sprinkled throughout the text. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. There are too many instances where Biblical text has been used to condone everything from wars and crusades to witch burnings and slavery. Even Jesus did not treat the Bible as inerrant. Quite to the contrary he countered some of its teachings and overwrote it with his own message of forgiveness, compassion and love.
Ultimately, everyone will have to decide for themselves how to deal with the Biblical passages that condemn homosexuals. But for those who opt to follow the condemnation route and believe that God makes everyone with a clearly defined sense of sexual orientation - answer just one question. What about these people who are born with both male and female sexual organs? What is God’s intention there? A cruel joke? I believe God is compassionate, not cruel. We can accept God's creation or we can reject it. That is our choice here.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Shameless Gurwitz
Express-News Columnist Jonathan Gurwitz has no shame. In his latest column, the right-wing pundit-wannabe demonstrates his lack of shame by accusing critics of the pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq of claiming that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction - even though he knows this is not true. Gurwitz is being intentionally deceptive and deceitful in this instance.
“Saddam Hussein not only possessed weapons of mass destruction, but also used them against Iran and his own Kurdish population. There are the pictures of mottled bodies; there is the testimony of scarred survivors. Yet the Iraq inquisitors insist that Saddam never possessed such weapons.”
The argument prior to the war - as Gurwitz well knows - was not whether or not Hussein had WMDs - but whether or not this in and of itself posed such a serious threat to world security that it required such extreme measures as a military invasion which has so far cost the lives of more than 200 U.S. soldiers and seriously injured many more. Opponents of the war said that U.N. sanctions and inspections were adequate to counter and contain any potential threat posed by Hussein.
Critics of the war - at least those with half a brain - were very much aware that Hussein had once possessed WMDs - that was back during the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s when the Reagan administration embraced Hussein and his Baathist regime as the antidote to the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran. We know very well that he used WMDs at that time because the Reagan and Bush I administrations helped to pay for them and encouraged him to do so. And when he turned around and used those same weapons against the Kurds, we turned our eyes the other way and ignored it.
What the Kay Report demonstrates very clearly - and what Gurwitz refuses to see because of his own blinding dogmatism - is that the U.N. sanctions and inspections were working. Hussein did not have tons of biological and chemical weapons stockpiled or an active nuclear weapons program as the Bush administration repeatedly claimed. It appears now - as Hans Blix has already noted - that Iraq got rid of most if not all of those stockpiles shortly after the first Gulf War and that Hussein’s efforts to restart a WMD program was being stymied by the U.N. sanctions and inspections. There was no imminent or immediate threat.
By ignoring evidence that showed Hussein was not an imminent threat and forcing the U.S. to go to war in defiance of the U.N. and most of our major allies, President Bush has demonstrated a recklessness that should cause even his most loyal followers to question his judgment.
“Saddam Hussein not only possessed weapons of mass destruction, but also used them against Iran and his own Kurdish population. There are the pictures of mottled bodies; there is the testimony of scarred survivors. Yet the Iraq inquisitors insist that Saddam never possessed such weapons.”
The argument prior to the war - as Gurwitz well knows - was not whether or not Hussein had WMDs - but whether or not this in and of itself posed such a serious threat to world security that it required such extreme measures as a military invasion which has so far cost the lives of more than 200 U.S. soldiers and seriously injured many more. Opponents of the war said that U.N. sanctions and inspections were adequate to counter and contain any potential threat posed by Hussein.
Critics of the war - at least those with half a brain - were very much aware that Hussein had once possessed WMDs - that was back during the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s when the Reagan administration embraced Hussein and his Baathist regime as the antidote to the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran. We know very well that he used WMDs at that time because the Reagan and Bush I administrations helped to pay for them and encouraged him to do so. And when he turned around and used those same weapons against the Kurds, we turned our eyes the other way and ignored it.
What the Kay Report demonstrates very clearly - and what Gurwitz refuses to see because of his own blinding dogmatism - is that the U.N. sanctions and inspections were working. Hussein did not have tons of biological and chemical weapons stockpiled or an active nuclear weapons program as the Bush administration repeatedly claimed. It appears now - as Hans Blix has already noted - that Iraq got rid of most if not all of those stockpiles shortly after the first Gulf War and that Hussein’s efforts to restart a WMD program was being stymied by the U.N. sanctions and inspections. There was no imminent or immediate threat.
By ignoring evidence that showed Hussein was not an imminent threat and forcing the U.S. to go to war in defiance of the U.N. and most of our major allies, President Bush has demonstrated a recklessness that should cause even his most loyal followers to question his judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)