|
Sunday - 8/17/03 > Thursday - 8/7/03
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
ASSAULTS THE NATIONAL BUSH
"However
we define homeland security, our wilderness and public lands
must be at the core of what we seek to defend.
"Not for
President Bush and his team, however. Fueled by zealous anti-environmentalism
and corporate special interests, they have launched what amounts
to a sustained and systematic attack on America's public lands.
Instead of honoring the public trust that requires protecting
these national assets for our children and grandchildren, they
have aggressively pushed exploitation by the mining, timber,
oil and gas, and snowmobile industries. Well aware of the public
outcry that such radical policy changes would provoke, they have
pursued this war with stealth and deception."
These are the remarks of T.A. Barron in Today's Boston Globe.
This is an
article worth your attention.
TOP
PRESIDENT
OIL DOESN'T HAVE THE JUICE TO KEEP THE SWITCHES ON
The question
for the day is how can a government who can't protect against
electrical grid failures be relied upon to protect the nation
against terrorists? Though the president said he thought "all
along" that our electrical system was antiquated, you'd
never be convinced by his actions. Actually, the president says
a lot of things, many of which can't be relied upon (here).
In her NY Times column
today
Maureen Dowd dwells upon such thoughts.
Dowd notes that "..all Dick Cheney's secret meetings with
unnamed energy officials were, sadly, not about saving
us from this day.
The White House has been too busy ensuring that Halliburton has
no competitors for rebuilding Iraq to worry about rebuilding
our own threadbare grid."
ANOTHER
TAKE ON THIS:
"Of all
the maddening ironies since the Northeast shut down on Thursday,
none is more infuriating than the fact that the problem and the
most sensible solutions to it have been identified for years.
Worse, giant steps forward via national legislation are not all
that controversial and have moved forward in Congress twice in
recent years." -- Commentator, Thomas
Oliphant,
in today's Boston Globe
Oliphant in his
article illuminates some of the systemic problems inherent in
the way we now distribute electricity, and he talks about deregulation.
It's an informative view.
TOP
Saturday
- 8/16/03
ARE YOUR LIGHTS OUT (LITERALLY
AND FIGURATIVELY)? HOW COME?
 If this country goes
down the tubes as a viable democratic republic it'll owe it's
demise as much to the stupidity of voters as to the corruption
of government.
I'm not a Californian so maybe I shouldn't be talking, but I
do pay attention to what's going on nationally, so maybe I may.
Is Grey Davis a complete incompetent? I don't know, but he's
not responsible for the energy crisis that threatened the state
several years ago and for which, in part, he's being recalled.
That was the work of conservatives in and out of government (including
--and especially-- the White House), crooks and thugs in business
operating energy companies like Enron, and the Californians who
seem to back and support them.
How did it all start? One-word answer: de-regulation.
Investigative reporter Greg
Palast reports that
"In 1992, just prior to his departure from the White House,
President Bush Senior gave the power industry one long deep-through-the-teeth
kiss good-bye (they read his lips): federal deregulation of electricity.
It was a legacy he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude
of power companies which ponied up $16 million for the Republican
campaign of 2000, seven times the sum they gave Democrats."
In the great American tradition money doesn't talk once more,
it swears.
But this was only step one in the big pay-off to energy corporations
so dear to Republicans. To finish-off the victims they needed
state de-regulation. Palast says that of the two states (Texas
and California) "big enough and Republican enough to put
the electricity market con into operation" the Golden state
fell first.
"The power companies," Palast tells us, "spent
$39 million to defeat a 1998 referendum pushed by Ralph Nadar
which would have blocked the de-reg scam. Another $37 million
was spent on lobbying and lubricating the campaign coffers of
legislators to write a lie into law: in the deregulation act's
preamble, the Legislature promised that deregulation would reduce
electricity bills by 20%. In fact, when San Diegans in the first
California city to go "lawless" looked at their bills,
the 20% savings became a 300% jump in surcharges.
In this article, investigative reporter Palast leads us through
the lines of corruption that are tied to this latest, huge breakdown
in the U.S. electrical grid. From Democrat Bill Clinton's own
deregulatory policies to his finally enlightened about-face executive
order at the end of his presidency that imposed caps on Enron
in California, to George Dubya's immediate cancellation of the
order upon assuming the presidency, on to NY Governor George
(is there something corrupting in that name) Pataki's gift of
commissioners friendly to Niagra Mohawk the northeast utility
company involved in the great August blackout.
What is so hard to understand here? If energy "free market"
companies do not have government oversight the human inclination
to be
on top will
take over.
How old are we?
TOP
AREN'T YOU JUST A LITTLE
BIT MIFFED?
Metaphorically
speaking one can talk out of both sides of one's mouth, or speak
with forked tongue, or one can doubletalk. It's possible to waffle
about something, dance around the issue, or just be an unmitigated
sleazeball. Or, maybe it's possible to have two souls. Whatever.
It doesn't matter how you package it, it all points to the same
thing: hypocrisy. And here's a huge dose:
"The Pentagon
wants to cut
the pay
of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending
with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus
heat.
"Unless
Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns
after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000
in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of
$75 a month in 'imminent danger pay' and $150 a month in 'family
separation allowances.' "
|
Why, you ask? Because the Pentagon says the budget can't sustain
the higher payments amid a host of other priorities.
What priorities? It must be all that cash that had to be handed
over to top members of the primary Republican constituency in
those big Bush tax pay-offs to the richest of all U.S. citizens.
The one's with boats and fleets of Hummers.
Sargeant Smith or Gonzales don't have fleets of Hummers, they're
to busy trying not to be targets for irritated Iraqis to accumulate
large tax rebates.
Aren't you even
a little bit miffed at this America?
TOP
THE LITTLE DAILY PREVARICATOR
Well,
look, you can't have a perfectly functioning power grid and
give money to your rich constituency. Somethin's gotta
give.
So something did.
Back in June of 200, according to Eric Alterman's Altercation, George Bush opposed
and the congressional GOP voted down legislation to provide $350
million worth of loans to modernize the nation’s power grid
because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters
of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department
showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades as proof
that their legislation sponsored by U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
should pass.
In fact, "Bush Administration lobbied against it and the
Republicans voted it down three separate times..."
But you wouldn't know it to hear George talk. Why just the other
day the
little daily prevaricator said, “We’ll have time to look at it
and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized.
I happen to think it does, and (here comes the Pinnochio moment)
have said so all along.”
It must be if the guy's not lying about some national issue his
day just feels off.
Here's Alterman's link to Representative Sam
Farr's statement issues
at the time Republicans killed the electrical appropriations
bill.
I'm telling you, if we survive this administration it'll be a
miracle.
TOP
TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE
I've
always thought of George Bush as a small man in a big job and
nothing he's done since he's been elected has seriously undermined
that opinion. He just keeps doing petty things in a huge way.
But sometimes he's just plain small.
Matt Bivens (The Nation) thinks he's been pouting a little lately
at being upstaged by The Arnold (Schwartzenegger) in the California
recall. Maybe (if we're lucky) he'll recap his aircraft carrier
stunt and pull some really expensive national photo op
to out-terminate the Terminator. Perhaps something like riding
a cruise missile (a la Slim Pickins) into Saddam's hideout
decked out for Fox News in Rambo gear with his privates hiked-up
and sequestered like a couple of avocados by his parachute straps.
We could then thank him for his heroic appearance, service, and
(especially) his self-sacrifice and get back to creating a truly
great America instead of the imperialist monstrosity now in the
making. Two birds with one stone is quintessentially American,
after all.
The Bivens comments here.
TOP
Monday - 8/11/03
PASSION IS NOT A FOUR
LETTER WORD
There's
an article in the NY Times today
that makes a good argument that the Democrats should not be timid
in the next election. Rather than listen to party moderates who
think toned-down rhetoric is the way to go, writer Sam Tanenhaus
recommends sticking with passion. God knows toned-down rhetoric
is not something the Republicans are guilty of. And toned-down
rhetoric was the hall-mark of congressional Democrats who rolled-over
for the president on the Iraq war and the assaults on civil liberties
by John Ashcroft that are still happening!
Faint heart never won fair maid... and it's not winning the hearts
and minds of the U.S. electorate these days either.
Here's the article.
TOP
Saturday -
8/9/03
RUMSFELD REGURGITATING
IRAN-CONTRA OR WAS HE AFTER SOME
HANDY TIPS?
Maybe
it was a misguided attempt to resurrect Reagan
glory days,
maybe he was trying to get his hands on some arms to prosecute
a covert war against the State Department, or maybe he just likes
being sneaky ...in any case the Washington
Post reports
that Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had some secret meetings
with Iran-contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar last year. What do you
think that was about?
...uh, wait a minute --you know, Ghorbonifar was once characterized
by the CIA as being a "near-total pathological liar".
Ah, that's it! G.W. must have sent Rumsfeld out for some handy
tips on being presidential.
BE SAD TOO
Star-Telegram
columnist Molly Ivins was hosing off her desk and found a history
of buried info that made her sad. If you're not already sad (as
you should be if you're even half awake) you should go
here to find
out what she found and be sad too.
TOP
POST WAR OPERATION BY
MACK & MIRE
George
Bush, ever contemptuous of bureaucrats, is not averse to having
them meddle in his propaganda machine and screw up the works.
This NY
Times article
points out that the American-run TV network that is supposed
to make us look good is judged by Iraqis "...to be repetitive
and larded with official propaganda, (and) not exactly what you
would think Iraqis were hungry for after years of state TV under
Saddam Hussein." And we're supposed to be good at TV.
It seems the only thing that's performed well in this adventure
is the military, and the present military is the one the Clinton
administration bequeathed to George Bush. The rest of the operation
seems to be orchestrated by Mack & Mire. The Administration's
strong suit meanwhile is stealing from the poor to pay off the
rich --despite
Joseph Campbell's advice, I guess not everybody should be encouraged to
follow their bliss.
DIFFERING OPINIONS
You know
those trailers they found in Iraq that were touted as being for
the manufacture of bioweapons? Well it appears the DIA differs
with the CIA and GWB about those trailers and their WMDs
according to the NYT.
TOP
A BLACK HOLE IN THE DARK
SIDE
The way
the free market works is: produce something as cheaply as possible
and they will buy. This makes all buyers culpable in whatever
outcome flows from this concept, including the hunt for cheap
labor. Well, not quite. If corporations oversaw their financial
matters with at least a nod to fairness and justice, there would
be less a tendency to be cutthroat in the drive to cut prices.
Buyers looking for the cheapest price are only part of the dark
side of the "free market". The real black hole in the
dark side is unregulated greed.
A man chasing money is a like a man chasing tail.
He's usually hot and bothered with a tenuous grip on principle.
 In this Bill Clinton
and George Bush are each other's doppelganger. But this is why we
invented government, to curtail the fundamental instinct to be
on top no matter what. And (lest we be accused of being sexist),
in the case of the money side of this analogy, women are often
at least as guilty as men. Greed is gender neutral.
Is there anybody
reading this who considers themselves cheap labor? Probably not.
Most people owing their well-being to capitalism do not look
in the mirror and say to themselves, "You are potential
cheap labor, sucker." No, we like to think of ourselves
as integral parts of the American dream. But we are, in fact,
cheap labor in a world ruled by corporate neocons who honor no
nationality. Bottom line: if corporate leadership happens to
be juggling the factors of CEO compensation, golden parachutes,
stock prices, and your security at the moment the economy
hiccups, (bet on it) your security will be the first thing to
hit the floor. Guaranteed.
The reason the Bush Administration is hell bent on undermining
social safety-net programs such as Social Security, public education,
day care programs, etc. is because they're bad for business in
as much as they're a counter-force to the business tool of cornering
desperate cheap labor.
As one poster on the blog OneGoodMove puts it, "Cheap-labor
conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety
net". Why? Because when you're unemployed and desperate,
corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which
is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over
a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".
The writer suggests we start using the term"Cheap-labor
Conservatives" to describe the friends of the president.
This is not a bad idea.
At another
site addressing CHEAP-LABOR
CONSERVATIVES
we find this:
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety
net." Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate,
corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which
is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over
a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve."
Cheap-labor conservatives
don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and
working conditions. Why? These reforms undo all of their efforts
to keep you "over a barrel."
Cheap-labor conservatives
like "free trade," NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why? Because there
is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world,
who are "over a barrel," and will work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives
oppose a woman's right to choose. Why? Unwanted children are
an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel,"
forcing them to work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives
don't like unions. Why? Because when labor "sticks together,"
wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't
like being "over a barrel."
Cheap-labor conservatives
constantly bray about "morality," "virtue,"
"respect for authority," "hard work" and
other "values." Why? So they can blame your being "over
a barrel" on your own "immorality," lack of "values"
and "poor choices." (This would be as compared to the
morality of their good choices, such as shafting whomever possible
a la Enron or Global Crossing to finance their lifestyles).
Cheap-labor conservatives
encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry.
Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them
from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
The Cheap-Labor
Conservatives' "Dirty Secret": They Don't Really Like
Prosperity.
And how do we know this? Do yourself a favor and read more here. And click the logo
below for even more detail.
TOP
Thursday -
8/7/03
PLAYING UP APPEARANCES
Nothing
defines the idiocy of George Bush and The Administration
more than it's environmental policies. From the Kyoto Accord
to the Alaskan oil reserves Republicans would rather err on the
side of global damage than deny it's constituency the opportunity
to thrive on a future catastrophe. And that's the best that can
be said, the worse is that it's not error at all, but the kind
of incredible deceit and denial that lead inevitably to self-destruction.
In his NY Times column
today
Paul Krugman, continuing to be blown away by the stupidity of
Bush administration environmental policy, points to this deceit.
He says, "Before last year's elections Frank Luntz, the
Republican pollster, wrote a remarkable memo about how to neutralize
public perceptions that the party was anti-environmental. Here's
what it said about global warming: 'The scientific debate is
closing [against us] but is not yet closed. There is still an
opportunity to challenge the science.' And it advised Republicans
to play up the appearance of scientific uncertainty."
Play up the appearance of scientific uncertainty.
This is the watchword of neocon government: to play up appearances.
They played up the appearance of Iraq's nuclear weapons program,
they played up the appearance of Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda,
they played up the appearance of Saddam's connection to 9/11...
But, most destructively, they play up the appearance that they
are acting in the best interest of the American people.
But playing up appearances will not alter coming events no matter
how clever the liar is in the short term. Facts govern events
not fabrications. As Krugman observes, "Very few independent
experts now dispute that manmade global warming is happening,
and represents a serious threat. Almost all the skeptics are
directly or indirectly on the payroll of the oil, coal and auto
industries. And before you accuse me of a conspiracy theory,
listen to what the other side says. Here's Senator James Inhofe
of Oklahoma: 'Could it be that manmade global warming is the
greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure
sounds like it.' "
George Bush and his oil-soaked army, anticipating a huge Texas-style
poultry barbecue, will obviously lie until the chickens come
home to roost --so the real question is: Could it be that monumental
neoconservative deception could be a greater threat to your security
than a desert full of Saddams and Bin Ladens? It sure looks like
it.
Another is: How old are we?
TOP
PREVIOUS
DAYS > |
THE
ORIGIN OF ALL WARS IS
THE PURSUIT OF WEALTH
--SOCRATES, PHAEDO
THE COST
OF WAR:
A
RUNNING TALLY
|
Don't believe
the 911 Hype coming
up on Showtime. Bush is not John Wayne. He sat on his butt for
nearly half an hour that morning and did nothing in front of
a class full of kids, and it's all on film.
CHECK OUT:
|
|
questionW
 |
FEATURE COMMENTARIES
Red
Herrings and Front-men
"Does even the most left-wing
Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would
be better off with Saddam in power?" This is Newt Gingrich's
justification for the war. This is the sleight-of-hand now in
play by front-men. This defensive shift in the justification
for war is taking place all over the news from president Bush
on down. But it should not be surprising to find such good Christian
men adhering to the observation of Don Marquis, an American humorist
of the early 20th century, who said that, "Honesty is
a good thing, but it is not profitable to its possessor unless
it is kept under control." Boosting profit and keeping
honesty under control permeates the atmosphere of the Bush administration.
In fact, if we're going haul ourselves out of this mess, we'll
need a Pentagon-sized Department of Debunkers headed by the Amazing
Randy with under-secretaries Penn & Teller whistle-stopping
the country deflating illusions .
Less
Beautiful and Noble
By the time the average U.S. citizen wakes from his-and-her reality
tv, comfort, and fear-induced stupor there won't be a single
social or regulatory program of the federal government left.
For Republican neoconservatives this is exactly the point. To
follow their rhetoric, government-funded programs such as public
education, social security, medicare, and universal health care
coverage, run counter to the dictates of a market economy and
thwart the will of God. With George Bush's tax-cut orgies, by
the time Dubya supporters John and Jane Doe (at the moment among
post-9/11 hyper-patriotic 70-percenters) realize they've participated
in their own enronization every single one of those programs
will have been sucked into the investment portfolios of the richest
among us.
The Grandure of the Deceit
Today we have an
administration that misled us into a war and manipulates information
without shame, creating lies that have resulted in death and
destruction and altered the character of the nation, and the
right claims it’s unpatriotic to be critical. It’s
not. If we're talking about mendacity, the difference between
the Clinton and Bush administrations is simply the the grandure
of the deceit.
Is
Iraq His Elizabeth Smart ?
By all the evidence
I've come to believe that faithfulness to God is like anything
else in this world, it's only as good as its practitioner. Sometimes
faith leads to self immolation, sometimes to the immolation of
others; sometimes the practitioner goes to jail, sometimes he
starts a religion, sometimes he even gets declared president
by the Supreme Court. In the beginning (to quote a phrase), there's
no way of telling where it'll end up. This puts religious faith
in the same class as everything else we do and should not be
relied upon as a guarantee of right-action. |
|
CULLENY RADIO COMMENTARY
listen |
|
MARY'S EULOGIES
Mary's
Eulogies
 |
|
MUSIC
SOME GOOD
BLUES
by Peter Narvaez |
|
|
