The Fulcrum
Friday, August 27, 2004
Who's Poor?
As a follow-up to my post below about more people living in poverty, I wanted to find out just what poverty means to the government. So I Googled "federal poverty level" and followed the first link to the web site of the Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines.
I had an idea of what I'd find for one data point. On some news show I'd seen that the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four is somewhere around $18,000 per year. That floored me. I'm trying to imagine my wife and I getting by on $18K per year and it boggles my mind. For comparison, here's the entire table:
Find your family size there, then imagine trying to get by on the amount shown. Think really hard about how different your life would be; how much more difficult. Some of you may actually fall into these guidelines.
Now ask yourself again: Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is the country better off now - forget (if you can) for the moment that we are wasting lives and money on a baseless war - if more families are living in poverty than were doing so four years ago?
I had an idea of what I'd find for one data point. On some news show I'd seen that the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four is somewhere around $18,000 per year. That floored me. I'm trying to imagine my wife and I getting by on $18K per year and it boggles my mind. For comparison, here's the entire table:
Find your family size there, then imagine trying to get by on the amount shown. Think really hard about how different your life would be; how much more difficult. Some of you may actually fall into these guidelines.
Now ask yourself again: Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is the country better off now - forget (if you can) for the moment that we are wasting lives and money on a baseless war - if more families are living in poverty than were doing so four years ago?
Bush Created "Shadowy Groups"
As aWol makes vague motions about filing lawsuits or banning campaign ads from "shadowy" 527 groups, can we all please remember that he signed into law the legislation that created them? Secondly, why are they "shadowy?" The law very clearly lays out what they can do and what they can't in the election cycle. What's "shadowy" about that?
So the real questions to be asked are:
So the real questions to be asked are:
Did W not read the bill he signed into law?Just askin'...
If he did read the bill and felt that 527 groups were "shadowy," why did he sign it?
If he did read the bill and agreed with the provisions for 527 groups at the time, what has caused him to flip-flop now?
If he didn't read the bill and signed it anyway, doesn't that make him a fool who is now being hoisted by his own petard?
Just what is a petard and why would anyone get hoisted by it?
How Are You Doing?
Are you better of now than you were four years ago?
The number of Americans living in poverty rose last year, as did the number of those without health insurance, according to government data that immediately stoked debate over President Bush's economic policies.Seems like the answer is pretty evident, no? Well, not if you're G.W.:
Mr. Bush, speaking at a campaign rally in Las Cruces, N.M., didn't mention the Census Bureau data. He focused on the economy's resilience in the face of a rash of bad news in the past three years. He also defended the role of his tax cuts, while conceding that "we have more to do to make this economy stronger."No, actually, you don't. We've had enough of what you've done to the economy. To borrow a phrase: "You're fired."
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Quagmire
Just a reminder of how well things are going in Iraq:
Any questions?
Bush is a Coward
Bush is afraid of a man in a wheelchair. He is afraid of a simple letter signed by nine Senators. More than anything in the world, he is afraid of the truth.
So afraid, in fact, that he had Senator Max Cleland, the Vietnam veteran who lost an arm and both legs in the war, met on the road well outside his Crawford, TX hiding place with a road block. He wouldn't show a disabled veteran the basic, Southern hospitality that demands at least a face-to-face meeting and a glass of iced tea. Instead, Max Cleland was met by the Secret Service at about the same distance from aWol's ranch as one of his infamous "Free Speech Zones." His letter was refused.
This is disgusting behavior, but I am not surprised. BushCo. has treated every soldier and veteran that gets in its way (Cleland, McCain, Kerry, Shinseki, etc.) in the same manner - and worse.
Bush is a coward.
So afraid, in fact, that he had Senator Max Cleland, the Vietnam veteran who lost an arm and both legs in the war, met on the road well outside his Crawford, TX hiding place with a road block. He wouldn't show a disabled veteran the basic, Southern hospitality that demands at least a face-to-face meeting and a glass of iced tea. Instead, Max Cleland was met by the Secret Service at about the same distance from aWol's ranch as one of his infamous "Free Speech Zones." His letter was refused.
This is disgusting behavior, but I am not surprised. BushCo. has treated every soldier and veteran that gets in its way (Cleland, McCain, Kerry, Shinseki, etc.) in the same manner - and worse.
Bush is a coward.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Greatest Olympic Sport?
Need I say more?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
That This Could be the Final Word
A moving, yet cogent essay by Karen Spears Zacharias in this morning's New York Times, should - if the world were fair - be the final word in the Swift Boat Veterans' treachery.
Amid the confusing debate over John Kerry's Vietnam record, one thing is clear: war - particularly the trauma of war - corrodes memory.Read the rest; it will make you yearn (even more) for the end of this idiotic argument over facts that should not be in dispute.
[snip]
So, then, what about John Kerry and the Swift boat crew? Enough already. There are some things we'll never know. But there are also some things that are beyond dispute - even in the chaos of war. Mr. Kerry went. He served. Lucky for him, he got to come home and raise his daughters.
Oh, Behave!
Let me add my voice, however small it may be, to those imploring anyone protesting the Republican National Convention next week to be on your best behavior. The RNC has already promised to link any violence or out of control events as being directly related to the Democratic Party, regardless of the truth.
The potential for things to really get out of hand is just too large. The security will be massive and the officers and agents are going to be on edge due to the usual terrorist warnings trumpeted in the run-up to any large event lately.
An interesting note about just how massive the security will be; just one part of the RNC security force is - of course - the NYPD. How big a part?
The potential for things to really get out of hand is just too large. The security will be massive and the officers and agents are going to be on edge due to the usual terrorist warnings trumpeted in the run-up to any large event lately.
An interesting note about just how massive the security will be; just one part of the RNC security force is - of course - the NYPD. How big a part?
The backbone of security is being provided by the 37,000-member New York Police Department, which has a budget larger than all but 19 of the world's standing armies.
Not So Swift
It's bothered me that groups like the Swift Boat Veterans that have been attacking John Kerry can get away with what they do. Not from a legal standpoint but rather from an intellectual standpoint. How can they float these ads, full of information that is, at best, disingenuous - with much of it being outright contradicted by official records - and the public nods their heads as though they were making a valid point to be considered and the media regurgitates the claims in the form of "analysis" that is void of anything resembling the word?
The message is largely aimed at the Republican "base" but is also meant to place a nagging doubt in the undecideds. Yet the majority of these people are not idiots; they are literate - by a strict definition of the word. But therein lies the problem, I believe. And this problem is not strictly confined to conservatives or the shrinking pool of undecided voters; liberals and progressives of all kinds are guilty as well.
Somehow, over the past decade, the respectability of rigorous thought has declined to the point where even admitting that nuance can exist is cause for derision. From the right there has arisen the disdain for the "intelligentsia" of the left. They even adopted a Russian word in order to conflate knowledge with the still-not-dead fear of Communism. From the left - although with much less toxicity - a dismissal of all thought that seems tainted by reactionary conservatism or religion. From the masses an all sides comes a general distaste for the efforts of thought required to process the richness of information available today. The result seems to be an equivalence of opinions, regardless of how informed they may be, and an equivalence of information regardless of veracity.
This has lead to the encroachment of "on the one handedness" in our professional media and to a lack of critical thought by the majority of the public on important issues. Those who are experts in a field of discussion are derided as "nerds" or "wonks." Anyone who talks about and bases their decisions on the nuance and the shades of grey of a particular point will earn the epithet of "flip-flopper." While those who are unchanging regardless of how the world shifts beneath their feet are hailed as "steady leadership in times of change." If you learn from history you are too "sensitive" to be an effective leader. Somehow, our current president's incuriousness is seen as charming and likeable.
So this lack of critical thought in so much of the citizenry and its leadership makes it possible for the Swift Boat Veterans to toss out unfounded accusations and outright lies into the public discourse without worry that they will be exposed before they have done their surrogate dirty work. It allows Bush to conflate the Swift Boat group with progressive groups like MoveOn.Org despite the differences in their membership, methodology and the veracity of their claims. This aversion to intelligence and rationality allows those of baser instincts to poison our political discourse to their own advantage without fear that their misdeeds will be discovered, or that if they are discovered they know that no rational dissection of them need be feared. The lack of trust in experts allows the EPA and FDA to suppress scientific findings and bases for policy and replace them with religious dogma.
If America is fortunate enough that John Kerry wins in November - if the world is lucky enough - we can only hope that a new administration will restore our faith and confidence in rational thought and in those who engage in it. We can hope that a Kerry/Edwards administration will reverese the trend of filling government posts with scientific oversight with party flacks. If not, I can see a new Dark Ages descending on us all.
The message is largely aimed at the Republican "base" but is also meant to place a nagging doubt in the undecideds. Yet the majority of these people are not idiots; they are literate - by a strict definition of the word. But therein lies the problem, I believe. And this problem is not strictly confined to conservatives or the shrinking pool of undecided voters; liberals and progressives of all kinds are guilty as well.
Somehow, over the past decade, the respectability of rigorous thought has declined to the point where even admitting that nuance can exist is cause for derision. From the right there has arisen the disdain for the "intelligentsia" of the left. They even adopted a Russian word in order to conflate knowledge with the still-not-dead fear of Communism. From the left - although with much less toxicity - a dismissal of all thought that seems tainted by reactionary conservatism or religion. From the masses an all sides comes a general distaste for the efforts of thought required to process the richness of information available today. The result seems to be an equivalence of opinions, regardless of how informed they may be, and an equivalence of information regardless of veracity.
This has lead to the encroachment of "on the one handedness" in our professional media and to a lack of critical thought by the majority of the public on important issues. Those who are experts in a field of discussion are derided as "nerds" or "wonks." Anyone who talks about and bases their decisions on the nuance and the shades of grey of a particular point will earn the epithet of "flip-flopper." While those who are unchanging regardless of how the world shifts beneath their feet are hailed as "steady leadership in times of change." If you learn from history you are too "sensitive" to be an effective leader. Somehow, our current president's incuriousness is seen as charming and likeable.
So this lack of critical thought in so much of the citizenry and its leadership makes it possible for the Swift Boat Veterans to toss out unfounded accusations and outright lies into the public discourse without worry that they will be exposed before they have done their surrogate dirty work. It allows Bush to conflate the Swift Boat group with progressive groups like MoveOn.Org despite the differences in their membership, methodology and the veracity of their claims. This aversion to intelligence and rationality allows those of baser instincts to poison our political discourse to their own advantage without fear that their misdeeds will be discovered, or that if they are discovered they know that no rational dissection of them need be feared. The lack of trust in experts allows the EPA and FDA to suppress scientific findings and bases for policy and replace them with religious dogma.
If America is fortunate enough that John Kerry wins in November - if the world is lucky enough - we can only hope that a new administration will restore our faith and confidence in rational thought and in those who engage in it. We can hope that a Kerry/Edwards administration will reverese the trend of filling government posts with scientific oversight with party flacks. If not, I can see a new Dark Ages descending on us all.
WSJ Off the Reservation?
It's only a small step, to be sure, but the editors at the Wall Street Journal actually criticized aWol this morning in an unsigned editorial (subscription).
Is this the beginning of the end?
President Bush didn't tell the full story on Monday when he denounced TV ads by such "527s" as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But not because he didn't agree to the Kerry campaign's demand that he repudiate the specific Swift Boat ads. Our gripe is that Mr. Bush assailed the very campaign-finance system that he helped create.These guys have been the staunchest of BushCo. apologists, what's going on here? While there have certainly been worse moments in this disasterous term, that the Journal would point this out in such stark terms is surprising.
[snip]
In our view, this was among the worst moments of Mr. Bush's term. Having helped to midwife the current campaign-finance system, it ill behooves him to blame others for the way this world works.
Is this the beginning of the end?
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Rotten at the Top
The responsibility for the abuse at abu Ghraib lies at all levels of command, right to the very top.
I'm hoping, but I'm not holding my breath.
Senior Pentagon military and civilian officials share part of the blame for creating conditions that led to the prisoner abuse scandal at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, an independent commission of U.S. defence experts has concluded.Anyone who knows anything about the military knew this in their hearts, despite statements to the contrary from all involved and other commissions' results. Now the question is when will these senior officials be held accountable?
The panel, appointed by U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and headed by former defence secretary James Schlesinger, was released on Tuesday.
I'm hoping, but I'm not holding my breath.
GOP Will Lie
That headline is not an exaggeration. It's been covered in several places, most especially by Josh Marshall, but it bears repeating. From the New York Times' Adam Nagourney:
They will lie to you. They've admitted it.
Let that sink in for a minute.
Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.Since it does bear repeating, let me pull out the lie - you have the context above, there is nothing tricky going on here...
...Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.Republicans have admitted it - by accident, I'm sure - they will lie to the American public about what happens at the RNC in New York. Regardless of who does what, the Republican smear machine will tell Americans that they are supported by and in league with the Democrats.
They will lie to you. They've admitted it.
Let that sink in for a minute.
I Want My TVM
Just how ridiculous has our government's policies on Cuba become? Well... what's more ridiculous than ridiculous? Maybe this:
These crazy policies have continued years beyond any possibility that Cuba is a threat to the US, and yet we get statements like these:
The Bush administration has successfully overcome Cuban jamming of U.S. government radio and television broadcasts through transmission from a military aircraft, the State Department said Monday.Assuming that the Florida ANG used a specially modified C-130, the hourly cost of the operation was on the order of $50,000 (not unreasonable). And let's say that several hours means 6, just to make it a nice, round number. That would make 6 hours of radio and TV $300,000, not including the costs of producing the programming. If you throw in the support costs of aerial refueling the C-130, which means launching a KC-135 and couple of hours of flight time for that aircraft and crew, the cost could easily triple.
Spokesman Adam Ereli said the transmissions of Miami-based Radio and TV Marti took place for several hours on Saturday from an aircraft flown by the Air National Guard.
These crazy policies have continued years beyond any possibility that Cuba is a threat to the US, and yet we get statements like these:
"These broadcasts will give the Cuban people uncensored information about their country and the world, and will help bring about a rapid and peaceful transition to democracy," Mr. Ereli said.Note the utter lack of irony in that statement...
A Stable and Democratic Iraq
I'm pretty sure that this is not what C-Plus Augustus had in mind when he said - on so many occasions - that Iraq was moving toward stability and democracy.
Assailants on Tuesday targeted the convoys of the interim government's ministers of environment and education in two separate bombings in Baghdad, officials said.Neither is this, or this. Probably not this either.
Neither of the ministers was hurt, but at least five people were reported dead.
Meanwhile in Najaf, plumes of black smoke rose above the embattled city after American warplanes bombed insurgent positions overnight and supporters of a radical cleric charged that shrapnel from a U.S. attack had hit parts of the Imam Ali Shrine. The military denied the claim.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Florida GOP
If you had any doubts that recent incidents in Florida were purposeful attempts at suppressing the black vote, you can now put them to rest. In today's New York Times, Bob Herbert brings an interesting perspective to these activities which recently included the unprecedented act of having the Florida Highway Patrol "question" elderly, black get-out-the-vote volunteers about their activities.
So what's it really all about?
The next time that anyone from Florida's Republican party or from Jebbie's administration claims that these "interviews" are an innocent investigation or that the deeply and disturbingly flawed felon list was just a mistake, remember that quote, above. Then let them have it with both barrels.
So what's it really all about?
A Democrat can't win a statewide election in Florida without a high voter turnout - both at the polls and with absentee ballots - of African-Americans," said a man who is close to the Republican establishment in Florida but asked not to be identified. "It's no secret that the name of the game for Republicans is to restrain that turnout as much as possible. Black votes are Democratic votes, and there are a lot of them in Florida."Read that again.
The next time that anyone from Florida's Republican party or from Jebbie's administration claims that these "interviews" are an innocent investigation or that the deeply and disturbingly flawed felon list was just a mistake, remember that quote, above. Then let them have it with both barrels.
BushCo. Jobs Program
Today's Wall Street Journal reveals, for the first time, how the Bush administration plans to create more jobs in a second term. It seems that BushCo. plans to scrap old-fashioned jobs creation programs in manufacturing and the service sector. In fact, their job program is tightly integrated with their environmental programs.
Follow along with me to see what I mean. Here's how Bush plays it in his stump speeches:
But we really shouldn't be too surprised at this; Republicans have been thriving on bad news and disaster for a long time.
Four more years? Hell no!
Follow along with me to see what I mean. Here's how Bush plays it in his stump speeches:
On the campaign trail, Mr. Bush tends to play up the state jobs data when they are favorable. In Florida on Aug. 10, for example, he said that because of his tax cuts, "Florida has added nearly 300,000 jobs since the end of 2001."Pretty standard campaign fare, no doubt. But when economic analysts look at the numbers a somewhat different perspective emerges, and you can begin to see why Bush doesn't want to regulate greenhouse gas emitting industries too heavily:
But last Monday, in Michigan, which has lost 142,000 jobs since the end of 2001 (108,000 before Friday's data were available) and whose 6.8% unemployment rate is well above the national average, Mr. Bush only cited nationwide job data and acknowledged, "I fully understand we face challenges in some of our manufacturing communities. In some parts of Michigan, the recovery has lagged."
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, a West Chester, Pa., firm specializing in state and local economic analysis, said Florida's job market likely will continue to do well while Ohio's and Michigan's will remain weak between now and Election Day. Florida, he said, is about to receive a $20 billion influx of insurance money and state and federal disaster aid as a result of Hurricane Charley. Meanwhile, "Ohio and Michigan are very dependent on the domestic auto industry, which is struggling to hold onto sales and jobs."See? All we need to add more jobs and boost the economy are a few more hurricanes. And what better way to stir up a little bad weather than to add lots of heat energy into the atmosphere? Add a little more carbon monoxide, a little more low-level ozone, pump up the particulate count. You can already imagine the glee in the White House if the National Weather Service had to extend the hurricane season by a month or two.
But we really shouldn't be too surprised at this; Republicans have been thriving on bad news and disaster for a long time.
Four more years? Hell no!
