News Stories about ... News!
Mood:  not sure
Now Playing: Is this real, or memorex?
Topic: Politics
From the Slate summary of 'leading' newspapers, Jan 11

The commenting started with the firing of various guilty parties....
... Though at one point CBS insisted the National Guard documents came from an "unimpeachable" source, yesterday's report stated that producers didn't try to track down the guy who they were told originally had the papers. Moreover, while Rather stated in the initial broadcast that experts consulted concluded "the material is authentic." none of the experts actually concluded that. In other words, Rather's assertion, as yesterday's report delicately puts it, was "misleading." Anyway, CBS said Dan will continue as a correspondent for Wednesday's 60 Minutes.

The NYT has a nice graphic footnoting some of faux-pas of the original broadcast.

Ok, now that everyone has gotten that out of their system, what about the folks allowing the government's propaganda, unsubstantiated, in as news on the run-up to war? What about the people who ran the Swift Boat for Truth adds, and then covered it as if it was news? What about the various 'news' reports released by the gov't. and run as if they were news by complacent news broadcasters, eh? I think we have a real need to clean it up, drop the celebrity 'news' (does anyone really care about Jessica, Jen, and Ben? I don't...) and start trying to find out what is happening in the world. Amazing concept, isn't it? My bet is that the journalists would be frightened, at first, but they will learn to love it. All their youthful zeal re-discovered! It may also help protect those who have been idealistic in their search for stories, and now are facing more danger because the bad guys think the journalists can be intimidated into quiet...

Various political rants
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: Politics
The Progress Report
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin [my comments bracketed and bold]
www.progressreport.org
12/14/2004

WILL LEAVITT WILT: Bush administration officials said the cuts to Medicaid "might be accomplished through a cap on federal spending (The Union Leader article)," forcing states to adjust by raising state taxes or lowering benefits. New HHS director Mike Leavitt opposed this idea when it was proposed by President Clinton in 1997. At the time, Leavitt told Congress, "states strongly oppose federal spending caps on Medicaid...because they would force states to pick up extra costs." In the 3/13/97 Deseret News, he was quoted as saying he believed it was "critically important the level of Medicaid savings not be set arbitrarily to fill a hole in a deficit-reduction package." Will Leavitt stick to his guns? Hopefully, the new HHS secretary will follow his own advice and stop the Bush administration from making Medicaid a casualty of a "deficit reduction package." [Yeah, right. As likely as his turning down his salary or contributing it entirely to benefit the poor.]

THE PROFIT MARGIN: There is one surefire way to cut Medicaid costs without punishing low-income families: stop handing out "inflated reimbursements (Boston Globe article)" to pharmacists and the drug industry. Congress has found "drug companies, particularly manufacturers of generic prescription drugs, are setting prices artificially high...[which] lets both the drug maker and the pharmacists dispensing the medications make big profits (Alert Net article)." At a time when the government complains it cannot afford basic health benefits for the nation's poorest citizens, a congressional investigation found that "drug stores paid an average of 22 cents for seven widely prescribed generic medicines, but received 56 cents in reimbursements from Medicaid." [Does this 22 cents include the wages of the pharmacist, pharmacy workers, their computers and internet charges, and the overhead involved with carrying more than just those 7 widely prescribed drugs? Pity they don't have the reference to the investigation results here...]

[Article on use of dangerous new drug for AIDS in Bush's African AIDS treatment funding] WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. has fought the use of generic AIDS drugs, which are considerably cheaper than brand names, saying they are "unsafe." The NIH instead tested pharmaceutical heavyweight Boehringer Ingelheim's nevirapine in Africa. When the results showed the drug was dangerous and led in some cases to "death," the NIH hid the results (Indiannapolis Star article). "An audit of the Uganda research," for example, "showed that 14 deaths were not reported in the study database as of early 2002 and that the top two researchers in Uganda acknowledged 'thousands' of bad reactions weren't disclosed." In 2002, the Office of Human Research Protections told Ugandan authorities that NIH research "may have represented a failure to minimize risk (Boston Globe article) to the subjects." The government's research was also sloppy, "so flawed that health officials had to use blood tests after the fact to confirm patients got the medicine." At the same time, Bush announced a plan to spend $500 million on the drug; since then, "hundreds of thousand of doses of the drug have been administered to African mothers and babies." [Can you say 'guinea pig'?]

PUNISHING THE MESSENGER: The NIH hired a top scientist to handle the scandal once it surfaced last year. The expert, Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, was threatened with being fired (Kansas City Star article) for bringing attention to the problem. At issue, the AP reports, "Fishbein refused to discipline an employee for reporting safety concerns to the Food and Drug Administration, and another time he was overruled when he objected to restarting problematic research." [Rather convoluted, but I thought there was a law protecting whistle blowers. Apparently not in Bush's neck of the woods.]

A PATTERN OF DECEPTION: Four years ago, the company which produces nevirapine was involved in a scandal with the American Heart Association (AHA). In 2000, an AHA panel recommended a clot-busting drug marketed by Boehringer Ingelheim, for patients with certain kinds of strokes. The advice "was controversial because bleeding, a complication of the treatment in some cases, can be life-threatening (a non-random blog)." One member of the panel argued against using the dangerous drug and was omitted from the final report. The dissenting opinion was also expunged. It was later discovered that six of the eight panelists had ties to Boehringer Ingelheim or its marketing partner, Genentech, which had given over $11 million to the AHA. [Ok. I guess the AHA isn't on my Christmas list, either. I may even return their fund-raising missive wrapped around a brick. Waste my money, will they!]
...

In Monday's New York Times, Missouri State Rep. Cynthia Davis (R) said people feel "liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go" just like "when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 (New York Times article) and took people to a place where they didn't want to go." [Now here is a good, bipartisan attitude. I hadn't heard this idea put so violently negative before.]


Slate Political opinion piece
By Lyle Denniston

... a claim of nearly limitless constitutional authority for the president to choose both the grand strategy and the particular tactics of waging war on terrorists, without intrusion by the courts. And the administration insists the Supreme Court has endorsed this claim. [Yeah, right. Like my friend has endorsed her daughter's tatoos.]

In its broadest form, this legal argument has been used to justify the capture and years-long detention of so-called "enemy combatants" in military prisons or jails, with no legal rights whatsoever. And it was the argument in that breathtaking sweep that the Supreme Court refused to endorse in June, as to both U.S. citizens and noncitizens taken prisoner during the war. (Even the administration's favorite constitutional venue, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, acting before the Supreme Court did, declined to endorse that argument without reservation.)

For citizens, the Supreme Court ruled that they have a right, before a "neutral" decision-maker, to contest their designation as an enemy combatant. That ruling was confined to citizens captured on foreign battlefields, in combat against U.S. forces. The court decided that Congress had authorized initial detention of those individuals, but it nevertheless ruled that they had a right to challenge the basis for their prolonged detention.

And, for noncitizens, the court ruled that all of the hundreds of prisoners being held at the U.S. Navy's prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a right to go to a federal judge and demand that the government justify keeping them confined indefinitely. It implied strongly that they had a right to a lawyer to aid them in such a proceeding.

Justice Department lawyers, though, have spent the following months telling lower courts that the Supreme Court's action was not at all unfavorable to the government or to its claim to unchecked presidential authority. Any ambiguity, or any seeming opening, in what the court did in June has been routinely described as supportive of the commander in chief. A prime example: The court said that it would not rule on the claim that the president has constitutional authority, acting entirely on his own, to order detention of combatants. But that reticence, government attorneys have argued, "cannot reasonably be read to signal disagreement or doubt concerning the president's authority under Article II"--that is, his unchecked "inherent" war power.

These post-decision arguments amount to a constitutional development of historic proportions, but that development continues to unfold with only the most intermittent, and usually quite superficial, coverage in the mainstream media. Throughout the summer and fall, for example, the story was simply ignored by many major news organizations. [Therein lies a story. But I doubt if the mainstream press will cover it!]


The Progress Report
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin
December 16, 2004
...
Metabolife, the producers of "a dietary supplement banned in 2003 only after the FDA had received reports of more than 155 deaths of ephedra users (Public Citizen article)," spent " more than $4 million between 1998 and 2000 in Texas to lobby against state regulations (Public Citizen article)". Yesterday, former Metabolife lobbyist Jonathan Snare was appointed deputy assistant secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (random blog ). [Someone highly concerned with protecting the citizens, obviously. There is a poetry in Bush's appointments; lobbiests and business entrepreneurs are tapped to regulate the business segments they have been associated with, but peripherally. Metabolife sold ephedra to citizens, despite its danger and after they knew of the danger, but this was a personal choice of the users, not something forced on them by employers.]


Slate Political article:
chatterbox
How To Talk About the Deficit; A lesson in the art of avoidance from the Bush economic conference.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, Dec. 16, 2004, at 2:24 PM PT
... Bush doesn't like to cut spending; he likes to say he likes to cut spending. [This is the identity of Bush: say what pleases, do what you want. It really frustrates and horrifies me that most people don't notice. At least enough people that he got re-elected. Damn, that's depressing. I wish the average person had enough 'moral values' to care about the veracity of their leaders.] In truth, Bush spends just as freely as a Democratic president would, if not more. The only significant difference is that Bush is bleeding domestic programs in order to increase spending on the military and homeland defense [or at least contracts to buddies in homeland defense - in my view, the homeland defense has not been well funded, if your intention is actually to defend the 'homeland'. I still hate that word; it just brings up dictatorship use of mindless patriotism.]. Bush's hypocrisy about government spending is so naked that a whole new ideology, "big government conservatism," had to be invented in order to explain it away.
...
Even though the Bush administration likes to say it favors less government spending, it somehow fixed things so that no participant in the economic conference would propose a particular government benefit or program to cut, even as a "thought experiment." Some of the speakers stated outright that cutting spending was kid's stuff [right. The leaders who went before are just retards] . Others paid it lip service but wouldn't say what they would cut[doesn't matter - Bush would do what he wanted anyway and make a mess. They don't want their reputations wrapped up in his package]. Even Tim Penney, a Democratic former member of Congress who is famously a deficit hawk, managed to deliver a jeremiad about out-of-control entitlement spending [must be a hawk of another kind, too, or he would have noticed where a big chunk of change goes, which could be cut with minimal affect on our economy or defense - Star Wars missle protection has really got to go!] without once proposing a specific way to cut that spending. Was Karl Rove just outside camera range with a gun pressed to the temple of Mrs. Penney?

...In a much-quoted passage from an October article in the New York Times Magazine, Ron Suskind quoted a "senior adviser to Bush" as follows:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." [Unfortunately, they seem to really believe that. Haven't they noticed what tends to happen to empires? Do the British still rule the waves? Are the Belgians highly respected for their colonies in Africa? Why do they want to be empire, when the mythological start of this country was in rejecting empire, and they claim to be the super patriots. Hypocrits abound. Why does he think the British reality was more relevant than the colonies? That is what he is saying... Unattributed, of course!]

More Social Security discontent, amoung others
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Politics
From AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND
The Progress Report

by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin [with bracketed, bolded comments by me]
12/13/2004

THE CRISIS MYTH: President Bush continued pushing the idea that there is a "crisis in Social Security (White House news release) " -- a misconception repeated uncritically by major news stations (Media Matters article) . But a 2004 report prepared by several Bush appointees said that while "the financial difficulties facing Social Security" should be addressed "in a timely manner," the program's assets are in little danger of running out before 2042 (Social Security Summary of Annual Reports) . To "build public support and circumvent critics in Congress and the media," the president is planning to dust off the strategy he used " to sell his Iraq and terrorism policies (Washington Post article) during the first term." That means narrowing the circle of influence, whipping up a frenzy about the "disastrous consequences of inaction," enlisting the help of "well-funded conservative groups" and leaving the details for later. [It was so successful the first time! But I really doubt if people will wait so long before becoming suspicious this time. I hope.]

HOMELAND SECURITY -- [More!] NANNY NONSENSE: President Bush's choice for Homeland Security chief, Bernard Kerik, withdrew his name from consideration on Friday after supposedly discovering he had once employed an undocumented immigrant as a nanny. White House officials echoed the claim, telling the New York Times that Kerik had undergone "a very thorough vetting process" that "looked at all the issues relating to his public, financial and personal background," but that " [i]t was [the nanny] issue alone (NewYork Times link) ...that terminated his nomination." As Josh Marshall notes (Talking Points Memo), however, this claim implies the White House was ready and willing to fill one of the nation's top security positions with a rabidly partisan (MS NBC article), backroom dealing (MS NBC article) shill for the pharmaceutical industry (Washington Post article) with a history of multiple (MS NBC article) abuses (Washington Post article) of power (New York local news article), alleged dirty dealings in Saudi Arabia (Washington Post article), and stunning conflicts of interest (MS NBC article), who was forced to testify just last Thursday in a controversial civil suit (NewsDay NY news), had a warrant issued for his arrest as recently as 1998 (New York Times) and abandoned his critical post in Iraq (Washington Post article). [But hey! Bush likes him... Or likes somebody who likes him, or is tight with somebody who... But I get the distinct impression that the Progress Report people don't! I think he just pushed too many moral issues buttons to be ignored! If you look at the list, though, it actually sounds like Bush's kind of guy, as close a match to his moral standards as is likely to come around.]

ENVIRONMENT -- BIG BUSINESS: 234,937, ENVIRONMENT 0:: The Bush administration announced Friday "it will allow developers to complete construction and other projects even after belated discoveries that the work could endanger protected species."The new rules" give blanket assurances to home builders, timber and mining companies (Wichita Eagle (Kansas) article) "that once their projects start they will be allowed to continue without additional requirements, no matter what the consequences for endangered species." The move was described as "a victory for business over environmentalists." [Gee, this doesn't encourage these guys to not look, and even prevent a survey, does it? I can see now that there are going to be a lot of hurried starts to various projects, even without local governmental clearances.]

The Army has banned (Denver Post article) the Denver Post from Fort Carson after the paper ran a story (Denver Post article) exposing the poor treatment of injured troops at the base. [Not quite as extreme as shooting the messenger, but close. I guess the new army isn't that different from the old army. Who wants to bet that they're inflating enemy kill numbers and deflating civilian kill numbers like they did in the last war they couldn't win. They can be sure that Fox wouldn't have run the story, anyway. If no one important hears it, it didn't really happen, right?]

The 'New' Republicans
Mood:  sad
Dec 9 Progress Report
[bracketed Bold comments are mine.]

SCHWARZENEGGER'S SPECIAL DEFINITION: In Schwarzenegger's lexicon, angry nurses and college students upset about tuition hikes (Ventura County Star article) are "special interests." Powerful corporations, however, are in the clear. During his campaign, Arnold Schwarzenegger promised he would accept no money from the "special interests who have a stranglehold on Sacramento." When he got busted for in fact accepting more than $1 million in contributions from developers and wealthy businesses with interests before the state, he explained that those weren't special interests (unknow source article) but merely "powerful interests who control things." [I'm sure it is simply his problems with English... tricky thing, English...]

[SCHWARZENEGGER] RAKING IN THE SPECIAL INTEREST DOUGH: As governor, Schwarzenegger has pulled in big bucks from special interest groups who have a serious stake in current legislation. This fall, he "cashed a $5,000 donation from a pharmaceutical company (Mercury News article) days after signing a bill it co-sponsored that expands its access to state nursing homes." Energy corporations are also in on the act. He "received a $100,000 check from ChevronTexaco in late August," when he was "considering a series of measures that would benefit the oil industry." Also, " Pacific Gas & Electric (Consumer Watchdog article) has given Schwarzenegger $200,000; Edison gave $50,000; Calpine gave $35,000." (Remember, as governor, Schwarzenegger has the power to make appointments to the state's utilities regulatory commission.) So far, he's taken in more than $22 million from businesses and special interests in California. Here's a breakdown of the millions (Arnold Watch article) he's raked in.

[SCHWARZENEGGER] SUCH A THING AS A FREE LUNCH: The LA Times writes that gifts, perks and presents from special interest groups are flooding into the governor's office, straight into the hands of eager government aides (LA Times article). The rules say officials aren't allowed to accept more than $340 in gifts a year, in order to insure decisions aren't swayed by all the swag. The LA Times, however, found several instances where high-ranking officials skirted the gift limits. (Many aides, for example, take advantage of a loophole in the law that says presents given to children or spouses of government officials count toward the 340 limit "only if they are handed first to the state official, but do not count if they are delivered directly to the relatives." [OOOkay. I guess that protects people from being prosecuted for giving a big gift to their relative, but the loophole is big enough for a truck! Or humvee, if you prefer.]) Among the corporate gifts lavished on the officials who "shape the governor's legislative agenda" were thousands of dollars worth of Sacramento Kings tickets, passes to Disneyland, expensive meals in restaraunts, even an iPod. In total, Schwarzenegger aides have taken in over $44,000 worth of gifts and free lunches from special interests in the past year. (Best part of the LA Times article: the searchable database (LA Times database), where you can track who's giving and who's getting all this loot.)

[SCHWARZENEGGER] WHAT ARNOLD DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE: Look for Gov. Schwarzenegger to get less forthcoming, not more. According to this morning's LA Times, he is breaking tradition with an announcement he will not be making his tax returns open (LA Times article) to the public. There is no law requiring that a state official's tax return be made public, but it is a step traditionally taken "to assure the public that government decisions are not influenced by an official's personal holdings." Schwarzenegger's predecessors, Govs. Gray Davis, Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian, all made their tax returns open to the public, and governors in two other large states, New York and Florida, also currently make their returns available. [And a fairly good tradition it is. Schwarzenegger is sounding like a member of the good-old-boy network with a vengeance. I don't think careers in body building and Hollywood prepared him for democracy. Of course, who needs democracy if you have name recognition and are running against 140+ opponents...]

CENSORSHIP -- U.S. MOVES TO SUPPRESS DISSIDENT LITERATURE: Due to a Treasury Department interpretation of regulations rooted in the 1917 "Trading With the Enemy Act," American publishers can now be fined up to $1 million, and face jail time, for "publishing works by dissident writers in countries under sanction unless they first obtain U.S. government approval (Seattle Times article)." The restriction, "condemned by critics as a violation of the First Amendment," means that books and other works banned by some totalitarian regimes -- in the past, such books have included Boris Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago" and Azar Nafisi's " Reading Lolita in Tehran (Amazon book description) " -- " cannot be published freely in the United States (Seattle Times article), a country that prides itself as the international beacon of free expression." Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights activist who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, has joined several American publishing groups (PEN American Center article) in filing suit against the Treasury Department (PEN Am.Center article) because the regulations "preclude American publishers from helping craft her memoirs of surviving Iran's Islamic revolution and her efforts to defend human rights in Iranian courts." [Does this sound backward to you? We sanction the country, which means we disapprove of something about them. We then take the disapproved-of country's word about who they are upset with, and re-enforce the baddies' judgement of them. This does not sound like the traditional 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' idea. I always thought that idea was whacked, but this idea is also whacked. Sounds like they just need to drop this, and pretend it never happened.]

INTELLIGENCE -- WITH BUSH'S CAPITAL SPENT, IT'S PAYBACK TIME: Despite his claims to "political capital" from November's election, and despite extensive bipartisan Congressional support for core elements of the bill, President Bush barely managed to "hold together his party's motley coalition (LA Times article) of defense hawks, religious activists and economic conservatives" long enough to pass intelligence reform legislation yesterday. Indeed, in what the Baltimore Sun described as "a classic behind-the-scenes bargain that allowed everyone to declare victory," Republicans leaders" had to promise a powerful committee chairman (Baltimore Sun article), Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, that they would schedule a vote and push for enactment early next year of strict immigration provisions" that have been harshly criticized (Human Rights First article) by human rights groups. Sensenbrenner's proposed provisions include expediting deportation for some immigrants without court hearings [this is in case they might actually get away with something, you know, like justice. This prevents those activist judges from getting in the ruling coalition's way..], adding hurdles for asylum seekers and making it easier for immigration officials to deport people back to countries which may torture them.

[My question is, does Bush know that he has spent his capital? I hope so, but I really doubt it. I imagine that his cronies will boost his optomism, and we will continue getting the children of the greedy '80's, who are coming into their own. I'm glad I had my kid late; I would have to disown him if he identified with the influences of his youth, if his youth had been spent with Reagan. Clinton has helped make him cynical, but that I can handle; greed I can't tolerate.]

Part of what we can expect in the future
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Politics
from The Progress Report
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin
December 2, 2004
with bold text my asides.

OMNIBUS -- IT'S A MATTER OF PRIORITIES: In its massive $388 billion spending bill passed last week, Congress set aside money (Boston News article) for crucial projects like making salmon baby food, blueberry research and helping North Dakota shoo blackbirds off sunflowers.

Lawmakers, however, completely eliminated funds for Project Safe Neighborhoods (NewYork Times link), the Justice Department program designed to prosecute black-market gun crimes. "It's a matter of priorities," explained House Appropriations Committee
spokesman John Scofield. "There are going to be things you can fund and things you can't." (Maybe that explains why $2 million was set aside to purchase a presidential yacht [notice that is re-purchase a yacht sold off as 'imperial' by Jimmy Carter, who has a lot more sense than he is given credit for], but money for a program to track and intercept illegal purchases of guns by kids was erased.) Joe Vince, a former official at the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said slashing these programs suggested a lack of commitment to cracking down on crimes involving guns. "Across the country, cities are starting to see an increase in gun-related violent crimes, and Project Safe Neighborhoods was a way for local law enforcement to combine their efforts and stem the tide...If you're taking the funding away at a critical time like this, that just doesn't make any sense to me."

and

ECONOMY -- TRICKY MATH: Remember the White House pledge to cut the federal deficit in half within five years? It's easy, as long as you leave the major expenses off the books. The Boston Globe (Boston Globe online article) reports, "With new bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Bush pushing tax cuts and an expensive remaking of Social Security, the administration seems to have little chance of significantly shrinking the budget deficit." Analysts "said Bush's commitment to lowering taxes while expanding large parts of the budget makes it impossible to meet his deficit-reduction goals." The White House forecasts for halving the deficit leave out all of the expenses associated with military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, "which could cost the government $70 billion next year." [but may not! broken cookies have no calories! remember that!] Also ignored: making Bush's tax cuts permanent, which carries a price tag of $172 billion over the next five years and Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security, which could cost the federal government "as much as $2 trillion in the coming decade."
[I really have the heby-jebies when I think of Bush playing with Social Security. This guy never made a legitimate profit in his business experience, and he is trying to tell US that his way is best for when we are old and dependent! I do NOT want the lobbyists or the good-ol'-boys to dictate the new look of the retirement fund...]

Unions, Wal-Mart, and the Chinese
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Politics
Ah, this explains it:
from The Progress Report
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin
www.progressreport.org
12/1/2004
CHINA'S STATE-RUN UNION IS NOT A REAL UNION: The New York Times notes that "unions in China operate differently from independent unions in the United States or elsewhere (NY Times article)." For
instance, rarely "do unions in China oppose management or press for higher wages or better working conditions." One Chinese labor expert said, "Setting up a union won't make much difference on workers' wages because in most cases the union in China acts as a subsidiary to the employer and rarely represents the workers and fights for higher wages."
And it is apparently a Chinese law that the factories have to accept the government-run unions, so Wal-Mart had no choice, anyway. That relieves my cynical side; I thought for a while that Wal-Mart might really give in to unionization, which would have destroyed my world-view!

Religion, Social Security, War, what more do we need?
Mood:  down
Topic: Politics
Primarily from The Progress Report [Bold and Bracketed comments are me!]
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin
November 23

FOREIGN LEADERS SKEPTICAL OF BUSH: To minimize the risk of an abrupt crash in the dollar (Wall Street Journal link), President Bush needs to convince the world he is serious about reducing the debt. But the world is skeptical. Last week, as Congress finalized plans to raise America's debt ceiling (CNN Money news article) for the third time in three years, Bush told a summit of CEO's in Chile that he was committed to reducing the deficit (White House news release). The remarks were not well-received. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder " openly criticized the U.S (Wall Street Journal link)." for its inability to trim its "twin deficit...the current account deficit and the budget deficit." London currency specialist Monica Fan said Bush's pledge didn't "amount to anything more than political posturing (Bloomberg article)." [Duh. Wonder why a currency specialist can see that and the media doesn't?] Another European economist said the dollar's accelerated decline since the Nov. 2 election reflected concern that Bush's "emphasis on tax cuts" would prevent him from reining in deficits (Christian Science Monitor article).

MADE IN CHINA: The Bush administration's inability to pay down the deficit is subjecting America's economy to the whims of foreign leaders. " Right now, our whole country's on life-support from Beijing and Tokyo (SanDiego online news) ," said Euro Pacific Capital CEO Peter Schiff. As the dollar continues to weaken, Schiff said, "China might decide it's best to cut us off this welfare scheme and start spending the money on their own citizens." [Highly unlikely, as the Chinese rulers are not renown humanitarians, but at some point they are going to have to clean up the environmental mess they have made of their own country.] Morgan Stanley economist Stephen Roach adds, " The day will come when foreign investors simply say 'no' to this arrangement (Morgan Stanley article) . That's when the dollar collapses, US interest rates soar, and the stock market plunges. Under such a crisis scenario, a US recession would be all but inevitable." The Guardian reports the Chinese -- the number one financer of American debt -- are already " losing their appetite for US holdings (The Guardian article) ." [Hang on, children, we're in for a bumpy ride! No telling how the moneyed class will respond when their world crashes - I don't assume they will be nice about it. I also don't assume they will "let the market decide".]

CORPORATE -- WAL-MART TREATS CHINESE WORKERS BETTER: Wal-Mart has fiercely resisted unionization efforts at its stores in the United States. The Financial Times reports, however, "Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, said on Tuesday it would agree to establish unions in its 40-odd Chinese stores (Financial Times article (UK))." In a statement, Wal-Mart said, "Should associates request the formation of a union, Wal-Mart China would respect their wishes." Wal-Mart has consistently intimidated U.S. workers (US NewsWire article) who have attempted to form a union. [Then again, they are currently saying something they have not, yet, had to act on. Bush says a lot of things that he does not follow through on or which he immediately contradicts in his actions. (see Am.ProgressAction compilation) Maybe Wal-Mart is simply learning from the master.]

Oops - I missed this. My, my. What happened to the highly vaunted American sense of honor? A mess made must be cleaned up by the one making the mess (and his/her friends)? My mother would not approve:
IRAQ - THE NEOCON RETREAT: Faced with an ongoing and increasingly violent war, many neoconservatives are now pushing for deep cuts (Boston News article) in the U.S. presence in Iraq. Before the war, these hawks were the loudest supporters of war, fiercely arguing to send American troops to invade Iraq. As neocon war supporter Max Boot now admits, "This is turning out to be a lot harder than anyone expected ... and harder than it needed to be." ["harder than it needed to be" ? Needed to be? Sounds like he is talking about a video game or some similar, optionally engaged-in activity. Did I misunderstand what this was about? The invasion of Iraq was a moral imperative, right? We had to do it? And we can't think of any mistakes made, right? ] Ken Adelman, a member of the Defense Policy Board who predicted the Iraq war would be a "cakewalk," now says he would "be okay" with bringing troops home after a more stable government is put in place in January. [Why does he think the government would be more stable in January? I assume it will be less stable, much less unpredictable and/or compliant to the U.S. since it won't be hand picked by one man. Democracy is messy, and will be worse until the practitioners get used to it, if ever.] (Thanks to the neocons, that dream of a stable election in Iraq may be just a little more elusive; their former protege and Pentagon darling Ahmad Chalabi is currently in talks with militant anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr about creating an alternate ticket complete with a "vocal anti-American platform (Wall Street Journal link).") [This progressive group really know how to kick a group when they are down/wrong, don't they!]

Right-wingers! Don'cha love 'em! They are so unguarded in their statements (possibly because they are so rarely punished by the U.S. media...):
Popular right-wing radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy explains his early fascination with Hitler
(Independent News (UK)): "He sent an electric current through my body." Even now, Liddy says, "at assemblies where the national anthem is played, I must suppress the urge to snap out my right arm." [I assume he is talking about the U.S. national anthem, but I guess that's irrelevant, what is relevant is the goose-stepping mentality.]

And the later November 29, 2004 report:

SOCIAL SECURITY
Under the current system, the payroll tax collected from today's workers goes to benefits for people who are already retired. Bush seeks to divert some of that money into privatized accounts for workers who won't retire for years, which won't leave enough money to pay today's retirees. Even Joshua Bolton, one of Bush's top economic advisors, acknowledges that the shortfall, which could exceed $2 trillion over 10 years, would likely "require additional borrowing." This would significantly increase the national debt, which already stands at $7.5 trillion. [That is Bush's generation's future, you know! But perhaps that's not the way he views things. At what point, do you think, that this will be added to the deficit so people see the cost?]

IGNORING THE PRICE TAG: The administration and its congressional allies have come up with a clever way to avoid dealing with the financial consequences of Social Security privatization: Ignore them (LA Times article). Despite its potential $2 trillion price tag over 10 years -- and the president's insistence that it is a top priority -- top conservatives in Congress are considering keeping the costs of privatization "out of the five- and 10-year deficit projection that Congress looks at when it writes the annual budget."

NO PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE NEXT 48 YEARS: There is a dirty little secret in Washington that the Bush administration doesn't want you to know about: Social Security is in pretty good shape. [That is, it is if they LEAVE IT ALONE.] In fact, "Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history (Center for Economic and Policy Research article)." According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, without any changes at all, the Social Security program can pay all benefits through at least 2052.

PRIVATIZATION MEANS MORE MONEY WASTED ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: Another little-known fact: Social Security is run very efficiently (Center for Economic and Policy Research article). In the current system, because the funds are managed together, less that 0.6 cents of every dollar paid out in Social Security benefits goes to pay administration costs. In England, which has adopted privatized accounts for its retirement system, 15 cents of every dollar paid out in benefits goes to administrative fees. Even by the Bush administration's own estimates, in a system of privatized accounts, 5 cents of every dollar would go to administrative costs, more than 8 times the amount spent on administrative costs today. [See what the competitive market gives you? Efficiency (maybe, but not guaranteed), and more people trying to get a slice of the pie (always), and the people have no say as to how big the slices are allowed to become (that's up to the lobbyists).]

RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Yesterday on Meet the Press (NewYork Times link), Reverend Jerry Falwell reaffirmed the Christian Right's narrow focus on two issues: gay marriage and abortion. Asked by progressive religious leader Jim Wallis (Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace) to engage in a "broader and deeper" conversation about values, Falwell and fellow conservative preacher Dr. Richard Land resorted to bigotry and misdirection, lashing out against gays, women and religious progressives [Any idea why he thinks this is the best way to go?]. Falwell's priorities fly in the face of the "moral values" most often cited (though not most often reported (Media Matters article)) on Nov. 2, where polls showed (Washington Post article) voters were more concerned with "greed and materialism" (33 percent) and "poverty and economic justice" (31 percent) than they were with issues like gay marriage (Americans United for Separation of Church and State article) (12 percent). Nevertheless, Christian conservatives around the country are following Falwell's lead, dismissing concerns (ABC News article) about separation of church and state and setting out to refashion the federal courts (Palm Beach Post News Story) around a narrow agenda which conflicts with the values of most Americans. [That part really scares me. They are not for choice in any way: religious, governmental, societal, reproductive... And they want to impose this rigid frame by gaining control of the part of the balanced powers which changes more slowly than the others.]

FALWELL DEMEANS RELIGIOUS PROGRESSIVES: Falwell went out of his way on Sunday to divide America, saying those who voted for John Kerry did not " take the bible seriously (MS NBC article) ." Wallis shot back, saying, "Jerry, there are millions and millions of Christians who want the nation to know that you don't speak for them...that Jesus, our Jesus isn't pro-rich, pro-war and only pro-American. We don't find that Jesus anywhere in the Bible (MS NBC article) ."

FALWELL REAFFIRMS BLAME FOR 9/11 ON GAYS, FEMINISTS: Falwell refused to back down from his comment that 9/11 had been caused by "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians [and] all of them who have tried to secularize America." He reiterated that, "when we defy the Lord, I think we pay a price for it (MS NBC article)." [I hope so, but he probably won't recognize it: Global Warming will be blamed on the feminists, in his mind. It looks to me like a straightforward condemnation of the greed cited by most people as their main moral concern... Hm. Looks like I'm suggesting God is agreeing with the majority this time. Good thing I don't talk with God - I'd be obliged to pass on her wisdom. As it is, we have to work it out ourselves.]

FALWELL FLIP-FLOPS ON GOD, WAR: Falwell contradicted himself on the war in Iraq, cited by 42 percent of respondents (Washington Post article) as the moral issue which most influenced their vote on Nov. 2. When Rev. Wallis asked him why he had said God was "pro-war," Falwell said, "I don't believe God loves war...everybody hates war." [that is irrelevant; God isn't part of 'everybody'! Weird that he has any concern for 'everybody' when the question is the 'emotion' that God feels for this human activity...] The name of Falwell's 1/31/04 commentary? "God is Pro-War (World Net Daily article)."

RELIGIOUS RIGHT SETS AFTER COURTS: The Palm Beach Post's George McEvoy reports Congressmen pandering to the Christian right wing are planning ways to strip federal courts of " their right to hear cases involving the separation of church and state (Palm Beach Post News Story)." Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), addressing a special legislative briefing of the Christian Coalition last month in Washington, said he planned to introduce a bill that would "deny federal courts the right to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage." Unimpressed by America's system of checks and balances, Hostettler inveighed, "When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy...At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions." [which is exactly why the checks and balances were invented, to control the Might = Right guys... Are they always guys? Gosh, I wonder if it has anything to do with testosterone. Maybe all people running should take a blood test before running for election... Makes sense to me: no amphetamines, marijuana, opiates, no excess alcohol, testosterone, hmmm. Maybe periodic tests during a session, like they do in some high schools on their sports teams...] Rep. Robert Aderholdt (R-AL), recently advocated "court stripping as a means to protect state-sponsored Ten Commandment displays."

JAMES KENNEDY WARNS BUSH: Another conservative religious leader, Dr. James Kennedy, whose sermons are broadcast in 3 million homes, has warned that God will "be angry" if President Bush does not act soon on abortion and gay marriage. [I've always been fascinated by people who speak directly with God. Is there a reason they are not on medication, like the guys who speak with Satan or Napoleon?] "He said he knows of no timetable for God's wrath, but wants results fast." Asked about the millions of Americans who are not Christian, or have a different interpretation of Christianity, Kennedy recommended they "repent" and said he "couldn't care less (ABC News Story)" about their views. [Ah, the mighty Christian, in the Crusaders' image, not the caring Christian, in (dare I say?) Christ's image...]

And finally:
HALLIBURTON (Star Tribune story) : Auditors unable to find more than a third of the government property Halliburton was paid to manage in Iraq. [Gee, that would make the job easier. Should they give the U.S. 2/3 of the money back?]

They didn't learn from Vietnam
Mood:  on fire
Topic: Iraq
Found on the DailyKos Nov20 [bolded comments are mainly mine]:

In August last year, the United States admitted dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the "horrible" weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion of Iraq.

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.
Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.

More word games at the Pentagon. They've recently denied reports that they used napalm against troops in Iraq. Reporters have claimed they did and so too have Air Force pilots "We napalmed both those bridge approaches." said one.

Turns out the weapons used were "remarkably similar" to napalm, the firebombing agent used extensively during the Vietnam War. Those burning Vietnamese kids running from giant orange balls of fire in the classic pictures were being "napalmed." Highly controversial, it was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 that the United States refused to sign. The U.S. did claim to have destroyed its napalm arsenal two years ago, but here it is napalming Iraqi troops.

When is napalm not napalm? When you switch gasoline for for jet fuel apparently. The new not-napalm has the happy name of "Mark 77," which sounds more like the latest boy band than the latest firebombing agent. Marine spokesperson Col. Michael Daily explained the difference between the gasoline of napalm and jet fuel of Mark 77 in a recent email:

This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment.

Nice to know the Pentagon is environmentally-senstive when it's roasting people alive.

Soooo - don't believe body counts, don't believe their statements about what they have done. Anything else we need to remember about the military brass that we learned from Vietnam? Oh, and National Guardsmen are less than well prepared... Why would Bush assume that people like himself (state militia military-substitutes) would know how to conduct an "honorable" war? He didn't. Still doesn't.

Wonder why this wasn't on the standard news?

A minor case of the inmates running the asylum
Mood:  not sure
Topic: Other People's Phobias
From The Progress Report by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin www.progressreport.org 11/19/2004 [except the bolded stuff, which is mainly me...]
CULTURE -- TEXAS FEARS ROLE REVERSALS: A tiny Texas school district is scrapping a homecoming tradition in which boys dress like girls and vice versa after a parent "complained about what she regarded as the event's homosexual overtones." As a substitute, the school has decided on "Camo Day," with "black boots and Army camouflage to be worn by everyone who wants to participate." Mother Delana Davies explained the danger behind the seemingly innocuous tradition: " It's like experimenting with drugs (Seattle PI news) ," she said. "You just keep playing with it and it becomes customary...If it's OK to dress like a girl today, then why is it not OK in the future?"
Has this person ever had kids in their house? They are creating forbidden fruit, that makes it more enticing! Not that I think cross dressing is directly linked to homosexuality - I don't, but this thinking process is not based on any experience I've had with kids. On a hike, some kids are going to look under a rock (because it's there) and some kids won't (it doesn't cross their minds). Telling them that it is forbidden is likely to increase the number of kids who look under the rock... Either way, looking under rocks is not going to create compulsive rock-rollers. The uncomfortable part, which may get scary, is that forbidding it will probably increase attacks from the self-righteous rule-followers (don't you just love that in a kid!)... Doesn't sound like the end results will be what the parents say they are looking for. Rats. Now I have to be suspicious about the real objective here.

Is all government politics?
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: More flip-flopping, but only when it is convenient
Topic: Politics
CONGRESS -- GOP PUSHES FOR RULES CHANGE: Conservatives have taken a hard line when it comes to felons voting (CNN News link) , but apparently a different standard applies to party leaders. House Republicans are likely to vote today to end the House's decade-old rule " requiring leaders to step down if indicted (news on the Hill) ." Republicans adopted the rule in the 1990s, "when they were in the minority and were trying to put the focus on investigations of prominent Democrats (NewYork Times link) ." But now, with Majority Leader Tom DeLay (the not-very-radical-left watchdog) facing possible criminal charges for his role in a process that lead to redistricting in Texas, the GOP is pushing to change the rules. One Democratic aide pointed out, "It would be the height of hypocrisy for a party that came to power promising to clean house to deliberately clear the way for a corrupt and unethical member under indictment to lead the people's House." duh...
Apparently, several of DeLay's commrades-in-arms have been indicted in Texas now.

JUSTICE -- POLICE STRIKE BACK AT ASHCROFT: The Bush administration claims it has made America safer, but those who would know best have a different point of view. A day after departing Attorney General John Ashcroft "told the nation's largest association of law enforcement executives that the Bush administration had made the nation more secure from terrorist attacks and violent criminals, the group lashed back at the White House." On Tuesday, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) "said that cuts by the administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever to public safety threats (USA Today) . The 20,000-member group also said in a statement that new anti-terrorism duties for local cops...have pushed police agencies to 'the breaking point.'" USA Today reports the group also is "annoyed that President Bush is phasing out a $10 billion program begun by the Clinton administration in 1996 to help local departments hire tens of thousands more cops."

And: What does the Civil Service have to do with political affiliation?
INTELLIGENCE -- GOSS DEMANDS COMPLIANCE: Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief already accused of undertaking a partisan purge of the C.I.A (NewsDay national news) , has told employees their job is to " support the administration and its policies (NewYork Times link) " in an internal memorandum obtained by the New York Times. "'As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies,' [of course, with the administration's paranoia, any disagreement is identifying with opposition. So much for honesty in analysis] Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking 'to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road.'" Later in the memo, Goss maintained the Agency's mission was to "provide the intelligence as we see it," but the overbearing message of the memo seemed to suggest Goss wanted to "suppress dissent within the organization." A former intelligence official told the NYT he was "concerned that the memorandum and the changes represented an effort by Mr. Goss to stifle independence."
I have no idea where Goss is coming from. He used to work there - he should know better. Maybe that's why he quit before: he just didn't understand what his role was. The job of the C.I.A. is to provide information, complete with analysis based on experience. My dad used to work for them - the particular administration was totally irrelevant, as was its policies.