SUNDAY
01.23.05 / 7:32
AM /
LINK / COMMENT
Mortgage holders of the
"ownership society"
A tyranny
of silence has taken over tv newsrooms from coast to coast. How
come a story that means so much to what we are morally --one
that clearly reflects a national crisis of principle-- can't
be found on tv though you wear your remote thumb to a nub trying
to find it on tube news. The trials of the Abu Ghraib defendants
continue to get practically no coverage while the trial of Scott
Peterson reigned supreme. This is such a monumental failure of
television news. But it's also a perfect indicator of where tv
stands politically and functionally. Functionally its the sanctioned
political voice of corporate government. It's also a spotlight
on what tv's become in our national life.
What it's become, simply, is our colosseum. Our games. Our distraction.
Practically, it serves almost no other important function --or,
whatever other functions it may serve pale in comparison to its
function to distract us from the increasing excesses of this
government and its usurpation by business.
Frank Rich lays it out here.
"...here we [are] in America," Rich observes, "in
the midst of a war that is going on right now, choosing to look
the other way rather than confront the evil committed in our
name in a prison we 'liberated' from Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
What happened in the Fort Hood courtroom this month was surely
worthy of as much attention as [Britain's prince] Harry's re-enactment
of 'Springtime for Hitler': it was the latest installment in
our government's cover up of war crimes." But just try to
find in-depth coverage of it on Fox or CNN.
Sadly, as Rich points out, "...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."
But, of course. If the story were to be broadcast in depth, the
American people might get a glimpse of what's really happening
to this nation, namely that wealth and priviledge are now up
on the table and in our faces as the fundamental principle of
power across the board. The plutocrats are running the show.
The little man's being fried.
Specialist Graner's defense lawyer, Guy Womack, explained it
this way in his closing courtroom statement: "In Nuremberg,
it was the generals being prosecuted. We were going after the
order-givers. Here the government is going after the order-takers."
As T. R. Reid reported in The Washington Post, the trial's judge,
Col. James L. Pohl of the Army, "refused to allow witnesses
to discuss which officers were aware of events in cellblock One-Alpha,
or what orders they had given."
Rich sums up: "While Mr. Womack's client, the ringleader
of the abuses seen in the Abu Ghraib photographs, deserved everything
that was coming to him and then some, there have yet to be any
criminal charges leveled against any of the prison's officers,
let alone anyone higher up in the chain of command."
But you won't get this on tv. As I said, the plutocrats are running
things, and the plutocrats own tv.
Democracy means nothing if citizens don't participate. It's means
next to nothing if they lack the information to participate intelligently.
It means less than nothing when that information is manipulated
by the top mortgage holders of the "ownership society".
One further thought. This comes from Harry Walsh who read it
in an article by Robert Kennedy Jr. Kennedy wrote,
"While communism is the control of business by government,
fascism is the control of government by business. My American
Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as 'a system of government
that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically
through the merging of state and business leadership together
with belligerent nationalism.' Sound familiar?"
TOP
01.23.05
/ 6:19 AM /
LINK / COMMENT
The time for diplomacy
was then
Of all
George Bush's failures one of the worst has been his single-minded
disregard for diplomacy in conducting world affairs. It's as
if he believes globalism must be recognized and dealt with only
in terms of business and the so-called free market. But to recognize
it diplomatically is, all of a sudden, a threat to American sovereignty.
Corporations may pursue their ends by knitting global networks,
but the U.S. government must not.
Thomas Friedman acknowledges
this
in his column today. " ..at this key juncture," he
says, "the West stands disunited. Condi Rice told the Senate
that the 'time for diplomacy is now.' Give me a break. The time
for diplomacy was two years ago. We would be so much better off
now if the entire European Union was actively urging Iraqis to
vote, and using its own moral legitimacy in the Arab world to
delegitimize the insurgents. The divided West is a real liability."
Friedman laments
that, "Most of [the French -and other Europeans], I sense,
are hoping Mr. Bush will fail in Iraq so that the ends will never
justify his unilateral means. It's quite amazing, when you consider
that Europe, with its large Muslim minorities, needs the moderates
to win the war of ideas within Islam so much more than America."
But this is what happens when a vast twerp has a vast military
at his ideological disposal. This is exactly why we can say,
the perfectly wrong man is steering this barge. He has no credibilty.
He's incompetent. And he's exhausted every ounce of diplomatic
capital that flowed to him following 9/11. That he's still in
office is a stain on the judgement of the American people and
our political system.
TOP
SATURDAY
01.21.05 / 6:34
AM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
The reach of the fantastical
I wonder.
Would Jesus have wasted his time venting about a talking sponge?
What with Roman occupation to deal with and religious councils
working in cahoots with the oppressors, would a sponge wearing
square pants have provoked some unforgettably pithy parable from
the guru from Nazareth? I'm sure the Lord would have been too
busy casting out demons to worry about a goofy sponge in pants.
It's hard to say, though. They were such peculiar times in their
own way. Crucifixions, floggings, routine prisoner abuse.
But James
Dobson,
Christian ubermench, talk radio host, and
founder of The Focus on Family Ministry must have a lot
of time on his hands. He's recently been dissing
Sponge Bob Squarepants for associating with known homosexuals. For those
hopelessly out of touch with the times, Sponge Bob is a cartoon
character. But so is James Dobson in a way. It could be said
they were made for each other. Yeah, I know, it's discouraging,
but it goes to show we should never underestimate the reach of
the fantastical.
Dobson's problem with Sponge Bob is that Bob is featured in a
video put out by the "We Are Family Foundation" that
promotes tolerance. It seems the last thing Dobson wants to promote
is tolerance. If he'd been among the mob threatening the prostitute
that inspired Jesus to intervene and utter his famous remark,
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,"
my guess is Dobson would've been scurrying around looking for
a small bolder to get things going. Dobson is just the kind of
character you'd want around if you're looking to launch a crusade.
The We Are Family Foundation says the video is slated
to be sent to 61,000 schools and is intended to promote tolerance
and diversity. But there's the rub for Dobson who's fashioned
his message from dogma. Diversity and Dogma have a hard time
with one another. Stick 'em in the same room together and they
tend to come out bruised and bloody.
It's as if Dobson believes that where diversity rears its ugly
head, sin can't be too far behind. And Dobson has his disciples.
As CNN
reports,
"At least two Christian activist groups say the innocent
cartoon characters are being exploited to promote the acceptance
of homosexuality."
"A short
step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences
being celebrated is homosexuality," wrote Ed Vitagliano
in an article for the American Family Association.
Although the video itself says nothing about gays or lesbians,
the website of the We Are Family Foundation contains a
pledge which asks people to respect the sexual identity of others
along with their abilities, beliefs, culture and race."
If that's not heretical, what is?
Sponge Bob himself, has had little to say about Dobson's hurtful
remarks. He's says he's just soaking it all up. His only comment
was... --well, why don't we let Bob speak for himself.
TOP
01.21.05 / 6:34 AM / LINK
/ COMMENT
Propaganda worthy of a
commissar
Commentator
Daniel Shorr is
perplexed.
Propaganda worthy of the old Politboro or that souless Nazi truth-bender
Joseph Goebbels is issuing in torrents from the well-spring of
the Whited Sepulcher through the pipelines of major news organizations
and into our ears. How did we ever get to this point, Shorr asks?
He doesn't know?
It's what happens when news organizations are owned by the very
people they're supposed to be monitoring. The loss of a free
and independent press is how we got here. The rejection of responsibility
by journalists to do their job is how we got here. That's my
answer to Shorr's question.
If the press had been doing it's duty, there would not have been
an Iraq war, or a Bush presidency for that matter.
TOP
FRIDAY
01.21.05
/ 6:34 AM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
Slander it, slaughter
it, and bleed it dry
In the
interest of destroying Social Security the Bush administration
is bringing to bear the same sort of half-truths, data manipulations,
and dead lies it used to launch the Iraq war, and with which
it typically conducts business. The idea is, you proceed full
tilt with the No. 1 Rovian fundamental: A lie told often and
loud enough becomes the truth. Tell me Rove doesn't reiterate
Orwell, except it's real life.
According to Paul
Krugman
and other's, such as author Roger Lowenstein (Origins of the
Crash) here's the way the "ownership society's"
Social Security privatization plan works:
- 1- Payroll taxes
diverted into private accounts
- 2- Government
has to borrow to replace the lost revenue of the diversion
- 3- Government
pays for the loan by reducing future benefits,
but
- 4- Workers end
up better off despite cuts in benefits because they invest so
wisely in their private accounts and buy stock in, say, Enron
--and stocks are way better than bonds, they say,
anyway
- 5- The word
"security" in Social Security becomes as empty and
hollow as the terms "compassionate conservatism" or
"free lunch"
|
Will this great run on stocks pan out, Krugman asks? Well, keep
in mind the standard disclaimer of mutual funds, he answers.
You know, "past performance is no
guarantee of future results."
Uh, huh.
Uh, huh.
What we have here is another shyster move by privateers in government
joined at the wallet and ideology with privateers outside.
Social Security has one great thing going for it, and that's
the "social" part. Social Security is a system which
spreads risk across society, and this is not a bad thing --though
conservatives will tell you it is. Neighborly care is not an
evil thing. Sharing the load is actually quite moral. Someone
onetime even advised us to love our neighbors as ourself.
Unless you believe that everyone --and I mean every single soul
on the planet--has the means, mindset, resources, opportunity,
or sheer luck to hop the capitalist gravy train, you must recognize
that privatization will result in destitution for the many elders
who will, inevitably, miss it --and not necessarily from lack
of character.
It's that pesky and perennial moral question, What do you do
about them?
Social Security is good healthy morality, despite the fact that
politicians have tried to slander it, slaughter it, and bleed
it dry.
.
TOP
SUNDAY
01.16.05 / 5:19
PM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
Have Jerry Falwell bring
out the water bowl and towel
Here's
a man who thinks he can re-render history and justice in public
with everybody watching. And who's to say he's not getting away
with it?
"President
Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification
of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold
any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments
in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment," said the self-serving
Bush, "and that's called the 2004 elections. The American
people listened to different assessments made about what was
taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates,
and chose me."
|
That's so cool. Ask Barrabas
if that's not a big relief ...to be chosen like that.
The president, as usual, has two things confused here. He has
"ratification" mixed up with "accountabilty".
If this is a democracy (meaning if we're getting enough accurate
information to intelligently vote --which is one big "IF"),
then what we had in 2004 was a "ratification moment"
not an "accountabilty moment". His accountability moment
will come when he dies and goes to hell --to put it terms he
seems to understand.
But, whether or not he succeeds once
more in his word games and rhetorical prestidigitation --though
his actions may have been ratified by his electorate last November
(and may be until the constitution goes up in a burst of preemptive
flame)-- George Bush and his administration will be accountable
unto eternity --even if he's convinced he's been saved because
Jesus got him off the hook a couple thousand years ago.
To put it simply, what the president said in his interview with
the Washington Post is just another jewel in his ceaseless flow
of Bushit. It's as valuable as most of what he's said before,
which is to say that, in the realm of truth, at least, it's worth
nada.
This is how shallow, in moral terms, the president thinking is:
he seems to believe that he can do anything he wants, conduct
any war, abuse any prisoner, twist any truth and, if he convinces
enough people to agree with him, he's not accountable. As if
a mob or a majority determined right and wrong.
By that standard,
Pilate was unaccountable.
Have Jerry Falwell bring out the water bowl and towel...
TOP
01.16.05
/ 9:48 AM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
As vacant as her Hubby
Wouldn't we be surprised
if Laura Bush condemned the huge innagural parties she
anticipates so joyfully, and historically, and ritually?
What's she going to say, partying down on the graves of American
and Iraqi dead, wounded, and maimed is not the Christian thing
to do?
So where's the news here? There is none. Laura's apparently as
vacant as her husband. It's more of the same. It's a match made
in h... well, somewhere.
As the NY Times reports,
regardless of what's happening in Iraq Mrs. Bush said she was
"all ready" --for her sumptuous parties, that is.
"Not all the new clothes are in the house," she said,
"but they've all had their last fitting."
That's just wonderful Laura. We're so happy for you.
TOP
01.16.05
/ 9:00 AM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
Don't count your heavens
until they're hatched
George Bush says
here that he doesn't see how anyone can be president and
not have a relationship with the Lord.
What's he talking about anyway?
He's president and he doesn't seem to have one.
...oh, he thinks he has one.
Pertinent
scriptures:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but... then will I profess
unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan
himself is transformed into an angel of light."
Roshi Bob advises: Don't
count your heavens until they're hatched.
TOP
FRIDAY
01.14.05
/ 7:28 AM /
LINK / COMMENT
Reform or Demolition?
Social Security reform?
Who is sucking up another great lie like the one the administration
told about the cost of Medicare reform? What's up with the president's
plan?
What's going on, says Josh Marshall (TPM), is not about reform
but demolition. Republican conservatives are finally positioned
to eliminate what they've always hated, a social program that
works. The reviled word "social" gets their backs up
--it reminds them of the Kremlin or something. And that it's
worked so far is particularly galling. For Wall Street, Social
Security's the very antithesis of individual enterprise. What's
more infuriating is that all that money's so out of reach when
it could flowing into the accounts of stock fund managers.
But what free-market conservatives always gloss over is that
robbery can also be a very individual enterprise. "Good",
as in "the common good", is as customizable a human
concept as any, depending upon who's doing the bending and welding.
The way "Good" looks after plutocratics are finished
with it just makes Jesus weep.
Laying the ground work for the
murder of SS the president has been slathering his sound bites
with warnings of imminent crisis. The president's argument is,
if we don't derail this "crisis" now it'll be a train
wreck by the time our kids reach retirement age. This from the
most fiscally irresponsible engineer ever, whose grease-the-rich
tax policy has run the national debt into a pile-up of trillions.
It’s Bush's wreck these kids will have to peel apart some
day so he can service his first-class constituency, not a Social
Security shortfall. Do you really think George Bush is worried
about your kid’s retirement plan? Is your nameForrest Gump?
But this isn't to say SS doesn't
have problems. As a pay-as-you-go system it requires today's
workers to pay for those retiring now. It only works when current
workers equal or outnumber current retirees. Ostensible opposition
to SS is founded upon these facts: According
to Dollars and Sense Magazine, In 1960, the United States
had 5.1 workers per retiree, in 1998 we had 3.4, and by 2030
we’ll have only 2.1. Opponents claim this demographic trend
means revenues will eventually be insufficient to pay Social
Security benefits. This all leads to real trouble say conservative
think tanks like the Cato Institute. But why am I not surprised?
Today it’s the "demographic imperative", but conservatives
have hated SS since its inception and have issued dire indictments
of it before.
Despite the administration’s
blue-blood orange alert, however, there are other big brain economic
scholars who insist there's no immanent crisis. Paul Krugman
is one. In fact Krugman says, "…Social Security …
is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal
government." So why are Krugman and others claiming that
"immanence" is a red herring? There are two primary
reasons.
First, as Krugman points out,
the demographic problem is not exactly news. He reminds us that
congress, in an uncharacteristic act of forward-thinking responsibility,
addressed this issue in the eighties by increasing payroll taxes
to cover a certain future shortfall in SS funds. That money was
invested in government bonds and a large surplus was built up
in the Social Security trust fund. What a good idea! And workers
who had to pay more to bolster the SS trust fund didn’t
really whine about it --at least not like the belly-achers who
win big at "free"-market bizarres then gripe about
taxes for social programs that help those who haven't hopped
the gravy train –millions of whom spent lifetimes laboring
for the very corporations that produced such fantastic wealth
for fat tax-whiners.
Referring to Reason #1, Paul
Krugman says the so-called crisis comes down to this, "…the
bonds (purchased by) the SS trust fund are obligations of the
government’s general fund, the budget outside SS. They have
the same status as U.S. bonds owned by (say) … Japanese
pension funds… The general fund is legally obligated to
pay interest and principle on those bonds…"
Krugman goes on to say only two things could affect SS’s
ability to pay benefits before the trust fund runs out. One is
a total U.S. default on all debts. The other is, "…legislation
specifically repudiating the general fund’s debts to retirees."
What this is all about is that the Bush administration is hedging
on government’s responsibility to American workers. It wants
to renege on payment of those bonds to cover, not a crisis in
SS, but of the general fund. A crisis he brought about with his
tax pay-offs to the rich.
The second fake reason for the
"immanent crisis" is that conservative predictions
are founded on the manipulation of data. Remember how George
Bush conned congress into enacting Medicare reform by providing
bogus numbers of its cost? Would he do this for Social Security?
Does Dick Cheney use the "F" word in congress?
Info from the Social Security
Administration predicts 2042 is the year the SS Trust Fund will
run out of money. The trouble is, its doomsday prophesy is based
on overly pessimistic assumptions about our economic future:
The SSA
predictions have the U.S. economy expanding at an average
annual rate of just 1.8% from 2015 to 2080 (rather than the)
3.0% average growth rate the economy posted over the last 75
years." Even the Federal Reserve Bank of NY, in it's Current
Issues newletter (December 2004) predicts a 2.6% per year rate
of productivity growth for the next decade.
The dreadful "demographic
imperative" of conservatives simply downplays productivity
growth. This is their strategy. But economist Douglas Orr explains
what the actual historical growth means for Social Security's
future. He says,"The average worker productivity has grown
by about 2% per year ... for the past 50 years ... (and) has
doubled every 36 years. This growth is projected to continue,
so by 2040, each worker will produce twice as much as today.
If three of today’s workers, says Orr, each produce $1000,
and together pay one retiree $500 they’ll have $2500 left
to split ($833 each). In 2040, two workers will produce $2,000
per week each (after adjusting for inflation) and pay a retiree
$1,000, so the workers will split $3000 ($1500 each). The income
of both workers and retirees goes up, thus paying for the baby
boomers’ retirement need not decrease their children’s
standard of living."
But what "free"-market
conservatives are thinking is what they’re always thinking:
Privatize! Whip up that delicious Social Security revenue into
private corporation desserts. Let Wall Street scoop up your retirement
funds. Ah, but al la what flavor, Enron or World Com? --in which
case we can definitely wipe "security" off the menu.
We do need to address the very
real problems of Social Security, but not in the present political
climate. We need a genuine debate not another Republican steamroller
rally. The only things immanent about the Social Security "crisis"
is that "free"market jingoists have only two certain
years to accomplish what they’ve desired since SS was conceived.
Two years of solid Republican rule. After that, who knows?
If there is a god maybe a president Obama will be dragging the
"war president" into retirement at the end of a leash
...and with no Geneva Convention for him to complain to.
TOP
SUNDAY
01.09.05 / 12:54
AM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
Dear Women,
This
is to inform you if you live in Virginia, or happen to be passing
through and have a miscarriage, you'll be required to report
it to the police. When you do you'll have to give them some info
including (at least) your social security number, race, educational
background, marital status, the extent of your prenatal care,
and your full reproductive history.
They may demand more intimate details. It depends how suspicious
you look. But we expect that all patriotic females will not have
a problem with this.
Sincerely,
Your prying Republican Rep.,
Peeping John Cosgrove
I just
read this at Apostropher. This is the legislative brainchild of the aforementioned
Representative, Peeping John Cosgrove, as presented to the Virginia
Legislature in his new GOP voyeur bill.
More Republican big government. Democrats just want to regulate
corporations. Republicans are very interested in keeping tabs
on what's happening with your vagina in Virginia.
TOP
SATURDAY
01.08.05 / 4:21
PM /
LINK / COMMENT
Bottom feeders and bad
smells
Every
once in a while a bottom-feeder breaks the surface and everybody
gets a whiff of what's down there.
In some ages system-suckers stay fathoms down where it's safe;
too much integrity in the atmosphere; too many watch-dogfish
on patrol. In other ages, though, they're breaching as if they
owned the place because the air's so thick with stench nobody
notices new odors anymore. We're living in such an age.
In
fact, this particular government's been fouling the air for four
years now and, unfortunately, everybody's getting acclimated
to the smell. Lies, misrepresentation, the government stooging
for business, wars, torture, you name it. It's a free-market
free-for-all. Still, even now, some things are just so blatant
you can't sound-bite them away. You'd have to be wearing a respirator
to miss them. Case
in point:
Tribune Media Services' conservative commentator, Armstrong Williams
working for the Bush administration's Department of Education.
Outright purchase. Shilling for conservative politicians. Even
FOX news is (gingerly) dicussing it.
Seems the Department
paid Williams $240,000 to hype the No Child Left Behind Act.
Bad faith big time. And what's even worse, the DOE defends its
actions!
As CNN says, "The department defended the deal, claiming
its public-relations contractor 'sought avenues to reach minority
parents.' " Yeah, sure.
Did the department tell anyone Armstrong was getting paid --before
they got caught, that is? Did Armstrong follow up his "honest
opinion ads" with a disclosure statement? Nah, they probably
thought is was ok. We sell everything else in this culture after
all. Business is the paradigm.
It's gotten so bad even the corruptors don't know they're corrupting.
TOP
01.08.05
/ 6: AM /
LINK /
COMMENT
Who Cares?
Here's
something interesting; a book by C.A.Tripp called "The Intimate
World of Abraham Lincoln". In it he theorizes that Lincoln
was gay. The headline in the Times
book review
asks the question: Was Lincoln Gay?
My question: Does it matter?
Here's why I think it doesn't matter:
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth
on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated
to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that
nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to
dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who
died here that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety
do. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate,
we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead
who struggled here have hallowed it far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember
what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the
great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead
we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here
gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve
that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation
shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the
people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the
earth." "
|
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
stands as testimony that courageous leadership based upon thoughts
like that makes sexual preference irrelevant.
And, anyway, what if we found out Eisenhower was gay, would it
matter?
What if we found out Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson were
gay, would it matter?
What if we found out Franklin Roosevelt was gay, would it matter?
Finally, the probability that George Bush is not gay, doesn't
help the country, or the world, one little bit.
The petty
knots we tangle ourselves in can strangle a nation.
TOP
01.08.05
/ 6: AM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
Divide and conquer
The idea
of dividing factions to win battles is as old as the idea of
preemptive war. At the beginning of the movement to build worker's
unions, business did whatever it could to pit one group of workers
against another. But over time labor coelesced and held firm
against abuses by industry and the labor union developed real
clout. This clout produced what, until today, we've taken for
granted: 40 hour work weeks, vacation time, breaks, workplace
safety standards, etc. Now labor unions are a shambles.
Why unions are a wreck can be found in the dispute between United
airlines and it's pilots. Disregarding the financial difficulties
facing United (impending bankruptcy) the telling point of what
often happens in disputes between management and workers is found
in the contract agreed upon between the parties. The pilots agreed
to enter a contract that ceded their rights, under a former agreement,
to pension benefits. The gist of this clause is reported
here in this NY Times article.
"Last June," the report says, "a federal loan
board rejected United's application for a loan guarantee, forcing
the airline to cut its costs even more. At the same time, United
said it planned to terminate defined-benefit pension plans covering
four groups of employees, including the pilots. By law, United
cannot terminate its union plans without the consent of its unions.
"In the
deal with United, the pilots agreed not to fight such a move,
as long as the plans of other employee groups were also terminated."
Fortunately for the other unions, a federal judge ruled against
the contract on this very point. "Judge Wedoff said that
the pilots' union did not have the right to impose terms on United's
other unions and that the issue should be the subject of their
talks with the airline."
Good, but it's
not my point. With the pilot's attempt to get what they could
for themselves we see one reason why unions have declined. With
that attitude there's nowhere for labor to go but down.
TOP
THURSDAY
01.06.05 / 5:18
AM /
LINK
/ COMMENT
Becoming what we loathe
What
does it mean when the president names Alberto Gonzales to be
Attorney General? It means The president has no respect for international
law. It means he's not embarrassed to stand before the world
and say, "This man, who has determined that in certain situations,
it is legal and appropriate to torture human beings, is well
suited to be the top law enforcer in government."
It also means that the rule of law is emminently maleable in
his eyes, and that there could conceivably be a time when torture
would also be appropriate for domestic application. One follows
from the other as sure as torture in Guantanamo led to the abuse
at Abu Ghraib.
As Mark Danner writes
in today's NY Times:
"...Mr. Gonzales recommended strongly, against the arguments
of the secretary of state and military lawyers, that prisoners
in Afghanistan be denied the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
We are also likely to hear how, under Mr. Gonzales's urging,
lawyers in the Department of Justice contrived - when confronted
with the obstacle that the United States had undertaken, by treaty
and statute, to make torture illegal - simply to redefine the
word to mean procedures that would produce pain 'of an intensity
akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as
death or organ failure.' By this act of verbal legerdemain, interrogation
techniques like water-boarding that plainly constituted torture
suddenly became something less than that."
|
What this also means is that George Bush is unfit to be President
of the United States. With his beliefs and actions, besides showing
contempt for law --both statutory and moral-- he's placed Americans
on the international scene in similar jeopardy as suspected terrorists
and lowered the global standards of acceptable human behavior.
In short he's begun to transform to U.S. into what we loathe.
As Lynn Cheney once said of another politician, "These are
not good men."
TOP
