The Fulcrum
Friday, October 24, 2003
al Qaeda - Saudis - Grover Norquist - Karl Rove - Bush
I'm in shock over this one... If this is true, Karl boy just may be on the outs. That is if your friendly neighborhood SCLM picks this up.
Go read the whole thing, but look at these paragraphs:
Okay, I confess, I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. It just so fits in with everything else aWol and his boys have done. I'm still appalled.
Props to Atrios for this.
Go read the whole thing, but look at these paragraphs:
"But, who was it that fixed the cases? How could these guys operate for more than a decade immune from prosecution? And, the answer is coming out in a very strange place. What Alamoudi and al-Arian have in common is a guy named Grover Norquist. He’s the super lobbyist. Newt Gingrich’s guy, the one the NRA calls on, head of American taxpayers. He is the guy that was hired by Alamoudi to head up the Islamic institute and he’s the registered agent for Alamoudi, personally, and for the Islamic Institute.I can barely write, I'm so appalled... I'm past surprised anymore.
Grover Norquist’s best friend is Karl Rove, the White House chief of staff, and apparently Norquist was able to fix things. He got extreme right wing Muslim people to be the gatekeepers in the White House. That’s why moderate Americans couldn’t speak out after 9/11. Moderate Muslims couldn’t get into the White House because Norquist’s friends were blocking their access." Emphasis mine. - Ed.
Okay, I confess, I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. It just so fits in with everything else aWol and his boys have done. I'm still appalled.
Props to Atrios for this.
Wal*Mart - Again!
I've written a couple of time about Wal*Mart for assorted reasons, see here and here.
By now everyone's read about the raids on Wal*Mart stores last night and the subsequent arrest of over 300 undocumented workers employed by cleaning contractors. See a good, outsider article in today's Globe and Mail (Canada).
What the fallout from this will be is hard to say. If they have proof that management knew about the practice - and there is word that investigators have tapes of phone conversations that prove just that - then there is the potential for this to be a very big deal. One of Wal*Mart's points that they always try to get across is that they are an "all American" company providing low prices on items that low wage workers could not otherwise afford. However, it is well known that Wal*Mart, through large purchases from overseas - especially China - and volume purchases and lots of pressure on domestic suppliers - can keep prices low. Additionally, in the almighty pursuit of keeping costs low, Wal*Mart is notorious for busting unionizing efforts early and ruthlessly, paying it's workers as little as it can get away with and for having absolutely draconian benefits.
None of this is news, but perhaps, a little at a time, as its methods are publicized, perhaps Wal*Mart can be driven back into the little town in Arkansas from which it came.
By now everyone's read about the raids on Wal*Mart stores last night and the subsequent arrest of over 300 undocumented workers employed by cleaning contractors. See a good, outsider article in today's Globe and Mail (Canada).
What the fallout from this will be is hard to say. If they have proof that management knew about the practice - and there is word that investigators have tapes of phone conversations that prove just that - then there is the potential for this to be a very big deal. One of Wal*Mart's points that they always try to get across is that they are an "all American" company providing low prices on items that low wage workers could not otherwise afford. However, it is well known that Wal*Mart, through large purchases from overseas - especially China - and volume purchases and lots of pressure on domestic suppliers - can keep prices low. Additionally, in the almighty pursuit of keeping costs low, Wal*Mart is notorious for busting unionizing efforts early and ruthlessly, paying it's workers as little as it can get away with and for having absolutely draconian benefits.
None of this is news, but perhaps, a little at a time, as its methods are publicized, perhaps Wal*Mart can be driven back into the little town in Arkansas from which it came.
Rupublicans Find the Answer to Looming Deficits
And that answer would be:
The House proposal would include giving breaks to those wonderful corporate citizens who make money out of country and bring those profits back into the U.S.
Just how did this bill come about?
"House Republican leaders are nearing agreement on a bill to give nearly $60 billion in additional tax breaks to corporations, brushing aside Democratic complaints that the measure would deepen the federal budget deficit."Couldn't you just see that one coming?
The House proposal would include giving breaks to those wonderful corporate citizens who make money out of country and bring those profits back into the U.S.
Just how did this bill come about?
"According to a new report by the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that scrutinizes campaign finance, companies in one or another of the coalitions lobbying over this issue contributed $753,000 to members of the Senate Finance Committee and $700,000 to members of the House Ways and Means Committee in the first half of 2003."Surprised? I didn't think so.
Rummy Euchred?
That's probably a bit too hopeful, I know. But the NYT has a great article on how everyone's favorite SecDef is pissing off everyone Left and Right. The article also mentions our favorite AssSecDef, "Wolfie" Wolfowitz.
Basically the piece lays out how these two have apparently ticked off people on both sides of the aisle by their arrogance and "high handedness" and how members of congress are increasingly making their displeasure known to the White House.
Nothing would make me happier than to see these two neocon bastards ejected from the administration (except the ejection of the entire administration, but I'll be happy with what I can get...)
Basically the piece lays out how these two have apparently ticked off people on both sides of the aisle by their arrogance and "high handedness" and how members of congress are increasingly making their displeasure known to the White House.
Nothing would make me happier than to see these two neocon bastards ejected from the administration (except the ejection of the entire administration, but I'll be happy with what I can get...)
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Why I Use a Mac
And why Apple doesn't need much advertising.
Stuff like this almost makes me want to gloat...
Stuff like this almost makes me want to gloat...
It's Official: GITMO is Illegal!
In Australia today, pResident aWol said (via NYT) that the prisoners at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were "...people who were picked up off a battlefield of war."
Does this mean that he's reversing long-standing policy that these folks were not prisoners of war?
-or-
Does this mean that they will now be treated in full accordance with the Geneva Convention on the rights of prisoners of war?
-or-
Does this mean that they will be allowed legal representation?
Don't be silly. Remember, aWol was making comments off the cuff - i.e. unscripted. He didn't really know what he was saying or the legal ramifications of his words. Look for "clarification" later today by his puppetmasters.
Does this mean that he's reversing long-standing policy that these folks were not prisoners of war?
-or-
Does this mean that they will now be treated in full accordance with the Geneva Convention on the rights of prisoners of war?
-or-
Does this mean that they will be allowed legal representation?
Don't be silly. Remember, aWol was making comments off the cuff - i.e. unscripted. He didn't really know what he was saying or the legal ramifications of his words. Look for "clarification" later today by his puppetmasters.
Bush's Beirut?
It seems impossible to me that the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut was 20 years ago, today. 1983 was the year I graduated from West Point and headed out into the Army. The bombing got all of us in the military thinking about where we were going, about our politicians' commitment to the wise use of the military and, of course, about force protection.
Although that event led directly to our withdrawal from Beirut, it seems that perhaps certain lessons weren't learned by the politicians. I wonder, like everyone on the left side of the blogosphere, whether aWol will attend ceremonies honoring the marines killed twenty years ago. But even more importantly, I wonder if - still - the lessons of Beirut have been forgotten.
There are more soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan than there were in Beirut and all of Lebanon in 1983, and there have been no single, large bombings targeted at U.S. soldiers, but the death toll so far there has been much higher. The fact that it's happening one or two deaths at a time doesn't change the basic question: is our government allowing the military to do all it can to protect our soldiers?
The situation is not strictly analogous, I know. But the concern is the same. Have we learned our history lessons? BushCo. seems incapable of learning any deep lessons from history; can they learn even the most basic?
As we see the memorials to our Marines today, contrast that to the caskets arriving one or two at a time at Dover Air Force Base (not that we are allowed to see even those anymore...). Once again our men and women in uniform are deployed in a place where the population has a deep distrust and hatred for American policies without - perhaps - the proper levels of force protection.
Will we learn our lessons this time?
Although that event led directly to our withdrawal from Beirut, it seems that perhaps certain lessons weren't learned by the politicians. I wonder, like everyone on the left side of the blogosphere, whether aWol will attend ceremonies honoring the marines killed twenty years ago. But even more importantly, I wonder if - still - the lessons of Beirut have been forgotten.
There are more soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan than there were in Beirut and all of Lebanon in 1983, and there have been no single, large bombings targeted at U.S. soldiers, but the death toll so far there has been much higher. The fact that it's happening one or two deaths at a time doesn't change the basic question: is our government allowing the military to do all it can to protect our soldiers?
The situation is not strictly analogous, I know. But the concern is the same. Have we learned our history lessons? BushCo. seems incapable of learning any deep lessons from history; can they learn even the most basic?
As we see the memorials to our Marines today, contrast that to the caskets arriving one or two at a time at Dover Air Force Base (not that we are allowed to see even those anymore...). Once again our men and women in uniform are deployed in a place where the population has a deep distrust and hatred for American policies without - perhaps - the proper levels of force protection.
Will we learn our lessons this time?
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Social Responsibility - Part 2
Jeanne, over at Body and Soul has a great post up today about the divided nature of the Republican Party. In it she makes a statement in which appears the phrase "the term "working poor" ought to be inconceivable." The post is great and so are the comments, but it was that phrase that caught my attention.
I can understand why there are poor people (I don't think a society as rich as ours should have "poor people" in the sense that phrase usually means, but that's another story). These are the people who have lost their jobs, or are too ill (physically or mentally) to work or are disabled. There should be social safety nets to ensure that being poor doesn't mean living on the street or doing without food or medical care, but that there will be a class of people termed poor is understandable. That we do so little to help this is not so understandable - again a different post.
What I can't understand is why it should be perfectly understandable when someone says "working poor."
That the phrase "working poor" can often mean someone or some family with multiple sources of income is a travesty. I know, I know... I can hear the conservatives saying something about "the power of the almighty market to value work." But what is the cost to all of us that there can exist, in our country - the richest, most powerful state to ever exist in history - people who, in the somewhat mangled words of Lewis Carroll, "must run as fast as they can just to get further behind."
I don't know how to change our society so that "working poor" becomes an oxymoron. If I knew, I sure wouldn't be sitting at my desk dashing out this entry during what should be my lunch break at work. I'm sure I could be ensconced in some "Think Tank" in D.C. advising the Democrats on policy (I'm quite sure the Repugs wouldn't be interested). I'm pretty sure it would have something to do with some form of "Living Wage" and single-payer medical care and a restructured (and loop-hole free) tax system. But what all those things should look like and how they would work... well, I just don't know.
But the fact that it's literally impossible to have an intelligent, informed conversation about this topic in our society (unless you're "preaching to the choir") is a shame and it will certainly continue to come around and bite all of us in the ass.
I can understand why there are poor people (I don't think a society as rich as ours should have "poor people" in the sense that phrase usually means, but that's another story). These are the people who have lost their jobs, or are too ill (physically or mentally) to work or are disabled. There should be social safety nets to ensure that being poor doesn't mean living on the street or doing without food or medical care, but that there will be a class of people termed poor is understandable. That we do so little to help this is not so understandable - again a different post.
What I can't understand is why it should be perfectly understandable when someone says "working poor."
That the phrase "working poor" can often mean someone or some family with multiple sources of income is a travesty. I know, I know... I can hear the conservatives saying something about "the power of the almighty market to value work." But what is the cost to all of us that there can exist, in our country - the richest, most powerful state to ever exist in history - people who, in the somewhat mangled words of Lewis Carroll, "must run as fast as they can just to get further behind."
I don't know how to change our society so that "working poor" becomes an oxymoron. If I knew, I sure wouldn't be sitting at my desk dashing out this entry during what should be my lunch break at work. I'm sure I could be ensconced in some "Think Tank" in D.C. advising the Democrats on policy (I'm quite sure the Repugs wouldn't be interested). I'm pretty sure it would have something to do with some form of "Living Wage" and single-payer medical care and a restructured (and loop-hole free) tax system. But what all those things should look like and how they would work... well, I just don't know.
But the fact that it's literally impossible to have an intelligent, informed conversation about this topic in our society (unless you're "preaching to the choir") is a shame and it will certainly continue to come around and bite all of us in the ass.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Social Responsibility - Part 1
A recent post and link I followed from Boots & Sabers, a right-wing blog I follow raises some interesting points. Points that show just how callous conservatives are and just how far from their supposed "family values" they've fallen. The link leads to a post at The Spoons Experience and the post is about a federal program to supply free breakfast at school.
Most of the comments about the post are in the vein of asking why "we" should be responsible to feed "your" kid. It never fails to amaze me how in one breath conservatives are talking about family values and "faith-based" anything and then in the next breath slam social programs that take care of the needy among us.
Here's one of my comments:
Most of the comments about the post are in the vein of asking why "we" should be responsible to feed "your" kid. It never fails to amaze me how in one breath conservatives are talking about family values and "faith-based" anything and then in the next breath slam social programs that take care of the needy among us.
Here's one of my comments:
"You guys are all around the answer in your posts, but nobody's quite hit it because you're somewhat blinded to it. Let's try this:I want to do more about this soon... so watch this space.
- Should most people be allowed to procreate without further education, instruction and licensing? No.
- Are some "parents" negligent, some criminally, for not feeding or otherwise taking care of their children? Yes.
- Should DCFS (or equivalent) be called in some cases where kids chronically come to school so hungry they cannot do their work? Yes.
BUT...
- Are there parents out there who are
1) Not there in the morning when their kids leave for school because they are: selling crack, turning tricks, in jail, at work at Wal*Mart?
2) Out of work and truly unable to make ends meet with foodstamps and welfare?
3) Out of it because of drug or alcohol dependence?
4) Living in a car?
Answer: YES!
So then what? Are we as a nation - or even as individuals - so penurious, though so rich, that we would let these children go to school (where they must take umpteen standardized tests per year) so hungry that they cannot learn? Maybe not every school needs to feed every child, but how do you know which ones need the breakfast? Do you "means test" every child?
And what is the cost of feeding breakfast to children at school verses the later cost of those who will fail and/or drop out? Those costs are too hard to put into an easy spreadsheet so they are typically discounted.
Are we really so cheap?"
Monday, October 20, 2003
Alabama - The New Low-Tax Model
I wrote about Alabama's Republican Governor trying to raise taxes to cover some already rather minimal spending requirements in his state and how the voters rejected the increase. Today, the results of that rejection are coming clearer.
A NYT editorial on the current and growing mess in Alabama - cuts in services and social safety-net programs - lays out in graphic detail the results of the current conservative vogue. The NYT calls the drive to shrink government revenues, i.e. taxes, (so that deficits increase so that Repugs can slash social and government programs) "starving the beast." And the specifics are frightening:
All of the things that people want in a stable, just and peaceful society cost money. The only way to pay for those things is with tax revenues. Reduced revenues equals reduced services. Eventually, that includes things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. Taking this to its logical end, it would also include things like prisons, schools, police departments and fire departments. Somehow people must be made to realize that taxes are not just a way for a government to take money out of their paychecks. Whoever can articulate this and can articulate a way to simplify tax law and close loopholes can make this a winning issue.
When you starve a "beast," you don't get to chose which parts of its body die. It all dies.
And what does that leave? It leaves the very rich in gated, fortified enclaves with everyone else outside in scenes that would likely be familiar to medieval peasants.
A NYT editorial on the current and growing mess in Alabama - cuts in services and social safety-net programs - lays out in graphic detail the results of the current conservative vogue. The NYT calls the drive to shrink government revenues, i.e. taxes, (so that deficits increase so that Repugs can slash social and government programs) "starving the beast." And the specifics are frightening:
"A hundred and fifty fewer low-income AIDS patients will receive life-saving medicines from the state. Fifteen thousand low-income Alabamians may lose their hypertension drugs.And that is only the beginning:
High Hopes, a program that offers after-school tutoring to students who fail the high school graduation exam, is being slashed. And up to 1,500 poor children and adults with Down syndrome, autism and other disabilities will not be able to attend a state-supported special-needs camp.
[snip]
The court system is laying off 500 of 1,600 workers, from clerk's office employees to probation officers. The health department is losing investigators who track tuberculosis, and sharply reducing restaurant inspections."
"Next year agencies are bracing for a 56 percent hit. If the state cannot find more revenue — and Governor Riley is searching — it may be nearly impossible for basic services, including courts, prisons and police, to operate."This is the future that the Republican party has in mind for all of us. Those who already have their money and their government contacts will be fine; in fact they'll do much better. The rest of us will have to fend for ourselves - with the poor completely abandoned.
All of the things that people want in a stable, just and peaceful society cost money. The only way to pay for those things is with tax revenues. Reduced revenues equals reduced services. Eventually, that includes things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. Taking this to its logical end, it would also include things like prisons, schools, police departments and fire departments. Somehow people must be made to realize that taxes are not just a way for a government to take money out of their paychecks. Whoever can articulate this and can articulate a way to simplify tax law and close loopholes can make this a winning issue.
When you starve a "beast," you don't get to chose which parts of its body die. It all dies.
And what does that leave? It leaves the very rich in gated, fortified enclaves with everyone else outside in scenes that would likely be familiar to medieval peasants.
