Framing the debate, part 1

from The Christian Science Monitor:

In the run-up to President Bush's State of the Union address next week, Democrats are laying the groundwork for their response in terms of values. The "ownership society" of the Republicans boils down to the notion that "we're all in this alone," (Sen. Richard) Durbin said on Monday - referring in part to proposals for private accounts in Social Security. "That's wrong. There are many problems facing America which we need to face together, and not alone."

This is exactly the right approach. As much as they insult our intelligence, catch phrases do work. Hopefully, this is the first salvo in the coming conflict of "values."

Link

Fighting the good fight

from NYT:

Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia led the Democrats' opposition, and has reserved an hour of floor time on Tuesday. So has Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who challenged Ms. Rice on the administration's rationale for the war during last week's hearings of the Foreign Relations Committee. Other Democrats, including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, are also to speak.

Mr. Gonzales, whose nomination could be put to a vote in the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, is another nominee encountering sharper-than-expected opposition. A number of committee Democrats - including Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York - say they are leaning against voting for him or rethinking their support. As a result, Mr. Gonzales could face 'no' votes from six or more of the committee's eight Democrats.

Well it's about time they started to get some backbone. I say stick it to 'em. It's obvious the party in power is not in the mood to compromise or find common ground. Their scorched earth policy calls for no less than an all-out, frontal assault. The tyranny of this majority needs to be confronted and resisted, at any cost.

Link

Play it again, Mort

from the "small-c" conservative Mort Zuckerman of US News and World Report:

In pursuit of his 'ownership society,' (Bush) wants to move Social Security toward 'greater individual opportunity, risk, and reward' by allowing individuals to carve themselves private investment accounts out of Social Security payroll taxes, much like a 401(k) plan. This raises a whole host of problems. It discriminates against poorer workers, for one thing. Why? Because the lower your income, the less you have to invest, and the smaller your return will be. The Bush plan offers nothing close to the financial security of the existing program. Then there's this: Are individual investors sophisticated enough to match the higher returns now being forecast?

Mr. Zuckerman, whose well-known fiscal conservatism is on display almost every week on the always enlightening McLaughlin Group, stunned me with this cogent and absolutely impartial analysis. For me, this was the capper:

Privatization thus gets things upside down. Social Security was not meant to re-create the free market; it was intended to insure against the vagaries and cruelties of the market and to permit Americans to count on the promise that the next generation will take care of them in their old age.

There now, why does it sound good coming from him but when Ted Kennedy says it, somehow it carries less weight. Hm...odd.

Link

Abu who?

from NYT:

...a not-so-funny thing happened to the Graner case on its way to trial. Since the early bombshells from Abu Ghraib last year, the torture story has all but vanished from television, even as there have been continued revelations in the major newspapers and magazines like The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books and Vanity Fair. If a story isn't on TV in America, it doesn't exist in our culture.

To all Americans who "tune out" and otherwise ignore or dismiss reports of abuses and atrocities committed by our forces overseas and our government here at home, I say this: These things are being done in your name... and mine. If we do not voice our outrage there will be no refuge from accountability.

I recall a visit to Germany as a child with my parents in which my mother (who is Jewish) felt threatened by her daily interactions with average Germans. In her mind, they were all killers - complicit and willing participants in her childhood nightmares. As much as the average German of today protests that these unspeakable acts were committed by a few evil men, I cannot help but see my mother's fearful glances at those men in their Bavarian hats with the little feathers whom I found so quaint and cheerful.

The time will come when an average American in a baseball cap, perhaps you or I, will be the receptacle of blame and outrage for what is happening today, in our name. For this, we will have our government to thank.

Link

So tired... must rest...

from SFGate:

So go ahead, skip the dour headlines. Forget to read the newspaper for a while. Refocus your intent and screw the sneering BushCo pomp and ignore the conservative flying monkeys who've stormed the castle and have announced there will be no good or progressive or healthy or spiritually radiant news for the next four years.

And so it is with me these days: Condie and The Judge, Social Security, Drilling in Alaska, the Governator, smug Right Wing zealots, misguided Neo-Cons, End-Timers, Torture, and Hypocrisy. As a wise person once said, "These are the times that try men's souls." Check back in a little while and we'll see where we are. For now, though, I'm going to read some good fiction and attend to my family and work. You'll hear from me again soon. Keep the faith.

Link

Brava Arianna... ancora!

from LibertyPost.org:

With nearly religious fervor, the Bush administration is mortgaging America's future into oblivion.

Near the beginning of "Saturday Night Fever," John Travolta's Tony Manero, frustrated that his boss thinks he should save his salary instead of spending it on a new disco shirt, cries out, "f**k the future!" To which his boss replies: "No, Tony, you can't f**k the future. The future f**ks you! It catches up with you and it f**ks you if you ain't prepared for it!"

Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but America has morphed into a nation of Tony Maneros -- collectively dismissing the future. And nowhere is this mindset more prevalent than at the Bush White House, which is unwavering in its determination to ignore the future.

I'm so sick of this sh*t. Please, somebody wake me when this nightmare is over. I can't take it.

Link

CA voters will leave a paper trail

from SFGate:

An electronic voting system with a paper trail that was used in Nevada elections last year became the first approved for use in California on Friday.

Fortunately for us California voters, our Secretary of State actually cares about fairness and accountability. Are you listening, Mr. Blackwell?

Link

no immunity, no veracity

from Newsday.com:

In some cases, Frederick testified, he complained to superiors about the harsh treatment of prisoners. But he said they told him to follow the orders of military intelligence.

Frederick was not the only witness who expressed complaints yesterday about the response from higher-ups. Sgt. Joseph M. Darby, who has been variously hailed and assailed as the whistleblower in the case, testified that he handed over the photos depicting detainee abuses to Army investigators because he did not think his superiors would take disciplinary action.

"I didn't think the chain of command would do anything about it," Darby said.

The trial is expected to last through the week. If convicted on the charges of conspiracy, maltreatment, assault, indecent acts and dereliction of duty, Graner could be sentenced to 17 1/2 years in military prison.

A spokesman for the prosecutors, Capt. Steven 'Chuck' Neill, said after court last night that the defense team might not have any choice but to put Graner on the stand.

"If the defense is in fact going to be obedience of orders, he is likely going to have to take the stand to say he was given an order," Neill said.

Womack, the defense lawyer, acknowledged that no one else is likely to testify directly that such an order existed.

"You can imagine that no one would come in and say that unless they were given a grant of immunity," he said.

And that's where this whole process falls down. If no immunity is granted, anyone testifying to orders from higher ups risks prosecution or military reprisals. Funny, how these trials have all been about directing culpability away from command-level officers and placing blame wholly on the grunts. The military is in such a state of denial that it is impossible for any truth or reform to emerge from this ugly episode.

Link

to form a more perfect Union, the Bushministration encourages illegal union-busting

from The New Republic Online:

Union membership has plummeted from 23 percent in 1979 to 12.5 percent today. Some of that drop is due to a shift from unionized manufacturing industries to nonunionized whitecollar services, but most of the decline stems from the NLRB's acquiescence to aggressive--and often illegal--employer tactics. American workers are, of course, the principal victims of labor's decline. (Union workers enjoy a 15.5 percent advantage in wages over nonunion workers with comparable skills and are 18.3 percent more likely to have health insurance.) But our democratic system as a whole is also a victim. Unions are an interest group, but one whose scope and concern allows it to speak for the public interest. And, because of its numbers and electoral influence, labor has been able to check the often narrow interests of Washington's powerful business lobbies. Without labor's clout, it's unlikely that Medicare would have been enacted in 1965 or that the minimum wage would have been raised repeatedly over the last 50 years.

With labor's power ebbing, business has increasingly been able to dominate public policy issues, from taxes to environmental protection to Social Security. That might not bother Bush, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove. But it's not a good thing for the rest of us.

Where would workers in this country be without labor unions? There has been some major revisionism and mendacious "debate framing" on the issue of unions. America, you need to do your homework on this issue (see previous post re: "economic interests"). Don't be fooled by those who claim that unions are anti-business. Ridiculous. Without business, there would be no work. Duh. The right to organize in this country has been so eroded that there needs to be a serious effort undertaken to educate workers again and counteract the effects of decades of well-organized right-wing propaganda.

Link

let's all get together and vote against our economic interests, shall we?

from USATODAY.com

Over the long run, some Republicans argue the issue could boost the party. “It's possible there is a new generational politics at play,” GOP pollster Bill McInturff says. If older voters could be reassured about the plan, “we could hold seniors at bay and attract millions of younger voters” with the prospect of a better return for retirement.

Sure, there is always the PROSPECT of higher returns, but the transitional costs and benefit cut are not prospective, they are actual. And see if you can guess who votes in greater numbers, especially in off-year elections... like 2006. Nope, I don't think the re-election minded Congressional incumbents are going to like these poll numbers one bit. See especially the results of question #19.

Link

Are you listening, "faint-hearts"?

from WashPost:

Most alarming to White House officials, some congressional Republicans are panning the president's plan -- even before it is unveiled. "Why stir up a political hornet's nest . . . when there is no urgency?" said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."

The Clinton health care initiative of 1993 attempted to address a universally acknowledged crisis which has gotten far worse by government inaction and corporate greed; fewer workers are covered by employer-funded (or any) health plans than a decade ago and our health care costs are rising precipitously.

The politically and profit-motivated fiction of Social Security's imminent demise does not appear to pass the smell test, even for members of the president's own party and some conservatives like William Kristol. It just doesn't add up, gentlemen. And good luck trying to get "fiscal conservatives" to sign on to an unimaginable $4 TRILLION to go with all the other mandate-related profligacy. The opposition better get their asses in gear and get the word out on this before the Rovian propaganda machine (see earlier post re: Armstrong Williams) gets up to speed. Where are OUR P.R. gurus on this one? Isn't it us red-diapers that control Hollywood and the media???

Link

propaganda, pure and simple

from Pacific News Service:

There can be no defense of syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams' disgraceful grab of public money from the Education Department to tout President Bush's No Child Left Behind law while posing as an objective journalist. But focusing on one man's ethics disaster misses the larger and more important story of the Bush administration's pattern of placing propaganda in U.S. news media.

Williams' contract was part of a $1 million Education Dept. deal with public relations giant Ketchum that produced 'video news releases' designed to look like news reports. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services hired Ketchum to produce videos touting the administration's controversial Medicare plans, also disguised as news segments. Many stations aired the spots with no explanation to viewers that they were watching government propaganda. The Government Accounting Office called the use of taxpayer money for the project illegal, but did not require that the money be repaid.

If a journalist is caught with his or her hands in the government till, newspapers should do what the Tribune Media Services that distributes William's column did and dump him or her. Media outlets should do what CNN said they would do, and determine whether the journalists and commentators they use on their news shows are giving their honest views on issues or are bought and paid pitch men and women for government agencies. If they are they should dump them too.

We can only hope that this spurs the cable news nets to demand full disclosure of conflicts of interest from reporters, commentators and guests, like they do from financial analysts.

Link

wierd, sick sh*t from the shining beacon of freedom and democracy

in today's Chicago Tribune:

According to federal records, Bayard Foreign Marketing is the newest owner of a U.S.-registered Gulfstream V executive jet reportedly used since Sept. 11, 2001, to transport suspected Al Qaeda operatives to countries such as Egypt and Syria, where some of them claim to have later been tortured.

Alright, so you can't trust a terrorist to tell the truth, but the practice is illegal even if no torture can be proven.

Link

Boxer lives up to her name - Begin Round One

from CNN.com

House Democrats involved in this year's protest worked for weeks to enlist the support of a senator, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, agreed in a letter Wednesday to join the effort.

"I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election," Boxer wrote to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio. "I will therefore join you in your objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes."

Good. At least now the mainstream media has no choice but to report the background of this issue. We'll see if they frame it as political sour grapes (the way the White House spokesman did), as a waste of taxpayer dollars (as the clearly partisan Ohio election officials did), or as a necessary step to ensure that the world's pre-eminent democracy is administering its elections fairly, properly, and in a non-partisan fashion.

The Conyers report indicates some very disturbing tactics were used both to supress voter turnout and to invalidate (disenfranchise) votes cast in the Presidential election. There also exists a lingering question over the wisdom of relying on tabulation systems that have no capability of providing a legitimate recount, if one is needed. Then there's the issue of the vulnerability of these voting terminals to hackers and re-programming.

Ultimately, there can never be complete confidence in the results of elections unless there is standardization of voting, based on a "least-common denominator" technology. Just an aside here - something for later debate perhaps - How can politically appointed election officals ever be truly non-partisan? Are you listening, Mr. Blackwell? Ms. LoParo?

Link