The recall of Governor Walker of Wisconsin, darling of the Koch Brothers, poster boy of Citizens United and Scourge of Working Stiffs everywhere, evidently failed. Early returns and a preemptive call by NBC have named Walker the winner in the recall election.
Robocalls to voters informing them they did not have to vote if they signed the recall petitions.
Robocalls to voters informing them the election was Wednesday, not Tuesday.
Eight to one funding and spending advantage, most of the funds from out of state.
And the state with the proudest progressive history in the country joins the chilling march toward corporatocracy.
If this is democracy, I am a rocket scientist. God help us all.
Here's what I think...
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
What does "Classified" Mean, Really?
There are two very cogent reasons for classifying documents. The first, and official one, is to protect our national security. The second, unstated one, is to conceal the crimes committed by our government officials and employees.
I just read the following Washington Post article about the government's prosecution of the whistle blower who blew the top of the Guantanamo water boarding scandal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-officer-charged-in-leaks/2012/01/23/gIQA3AhTLQ_story.html
The prosecution of John Kiriakou indicates our government makes no distinction between the official and the unofficial reasons for classification in its regard for the seriousness of the crime of publishing classified material.
Kiriakou's crime was releasing "classified" government information. Very bad. Much worse than the criminal behavior by government officials that was revealed.
The individuals who ordered or committed the torture are not prosecuted. Those who revealed it are.
The phrase "national security" is such a useful umbrella.
I just read the following Washington Post article about the government's prosecution of the whistle blower who blew the top of the Guantanamo water boarding scandal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-officer-charged-in-leaks/2012/01/23/gIQA3AhTLQ_story.html
The prosecution of John Kiriakou indicates our government makes no distinction between the official and the unofficial reasons for classification in its regard for the seriousness of the crime of publishing classified material.
Kiriakou's crime was releasing "classified" government information. Very bad. Much worse than the criminal behavior by government officials that was revealed.
The individuals who ordered or committed the torture are not prosecuted. Those who revealed it are.
The phrase "national security" is such a useful umbrella.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Constitutional Amendment Against Citizens' United?
While comedian/satirists Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart use a SuperPac to demonstrate the dangerous and absurd levels of political skulduggery permitted by the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision, growing voices are heard urging a Constitutional amendment to negate the Court's decision.
Proponents are urging passage of an amendment that decrees only people are people with rights under the Constitution. Ah, and this will fix our system? A system in which power speaks to power and money creates power?
Even if such an amendment could survive the arduous ratification process, its power to alter the influence of money on American government is questionable. We already have amendments that guarantee freedom of peaceful assembly (ask the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators how well that works), freedom of speech (unless you are exchanging information and files over the Internet), freedom from unlawful search and seizure (unless you choose to travel by air or Homeland Security suspects you're a terrorist).
Other protected rights that are now routinely ignored include the right to face your accuser in a court of law; the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right not to be detained without formal charges.
Doesn't appear to me Constitutionally protected civil liberties are taken very seriously by our government. Why would one more be any different?
Proponents are urging passage of an amendment that decrees only people are people with rights under the Constitution. Ah, and this will fix our system? A system in which power speaks to power and money creates power?
Even if such an amendment could survive the arduous ratification process, its power to alter the influence of money on American government is questionable. We already have amendments that guarantee freedom of peaceful assembly (ask the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators how well that works), freedom of speech (unless you are exchanging information and files over the Internet), freedom from unlawful search and seizure (unless you choose to travel by air or Homeland Security suspects you're a terrorist).
Other protected rights that are now routinely ignored include the right to face your accuser in a court of law; the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right not to be detained without formal charges.
Doesn't appear to me Constitutionally protected civil liberties are taken very seriously by our government. Why would one more be any different?
Friday, July 1, 2011
Budget Wars
Over the past 10 years, the United States has waged two long wars. These wars have been VERY expensive. Elected officials of the Republican Party have been strong advocates of these wars.
For most of those 10 years, appropriations to fight America's wars were kept "off budget," funded with "special" bills. Bills that passed with strong bi-partisan support. It was not until President Obama took office in 2009 that the cost of our wars was included in the budget.
During these wars, for the first time in our history, our government lowered taxes during wartime, putting the ENTIRE cost of our military adventures on credit cards held by major investors like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the global financial industry, the Social Security Trust Fund.
The interest on the U. S. Government's credit cards was faithfully paid to debt holders like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the global financial industry. (To the Social Security Trust Fund? Not so much.) NO payments were made on the principal. Government debt increased by trillions of dollars.
After years of speerheading profligate spending, Republicans now insist on steep cuts in government spending to reduce the deficits they played the major role in creating. But they adamantly refuse to support any measures that would increase revenues. They also adamantly refuse to curtail military spending.
Are you with me, here? Republicans are refusing to raise revenues or decrease military spending and they insist America must live within its means. How, you ask, can this be done?
First, unofficially "restructure" government debt by "forgiving" the debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Ignore it. Pretend it never happened. Categorize Social Security as an "unfunded" entitlement. Cut Social Security benefits to the bone, raise the retirement age and privatize its sister program, Medicare (effectively dismantling it).
Second, dismantle the regulatory agencies that were created to oversee the financial industry, protect our environment, the workplace, the food and drugs we consume. Entrust private industry with "self regulation" (an oxymoron).
Third, defund agencies that support and create infrastructure - public education, roads, bridges, railroads, power grids, water and sewage systems.
Fourth, "restructure" public pension systems and neutralize public unions to decrease public liability.
Fifth, privatize what were once government responsibilities - military logistical support, roads, water supplies, prisons.
This is not going to end well.
For most of those 10 years, appropriations to fight America's wars were kept "off budget," funded with "special" bills. Bills that passed with strong bi-partisan support. It was not until President Obama took office in 2009 that the cost of our wars was included in the budget.
During these wars, for the first time in our history, our government lowered taxes during wartime, putting the ENTIRE cost of our military adventures on credit cards held by major investors like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the global financial industry, the Social Security Trust Fund.
The interest on the U. S. Government's credit cards was faithfully paid to debt holders like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the global financial industry. (To the Social Security Trust Fund? Not so much.) NO payments were made on the principal. Government debt increased by trillions of dollars.
After years of speerheading profligate spending, Republicans now insist on steep cuts in government spending to reduce the deficits they played the major role in creating. But they adamantly refuse to support any measures that would increase revenues. They also adamantly refuse to curtail military spending.
Are you with me, here? Republicans are refusing to raise revenues or decrease military spending and they insist America must live within its means. How, you ask, can this be done?
First, unofficially "restructure" government debt by "forgiving" the debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Ignore it. Pretend it never happened. Categorize Social Security as an "unfunded" entitlement. Cut Social Security benefits to the bone, raise the retirement age and privatize its sister program, Medicare (effectively dismantling it).
Second, dismantle the regulatory agencies that were created to oversee the financial industry, protect our environment, the workplace, the food and drugs we consume. Entrust private industry with "self regulation" (an oxymoron).
Third, defund agencies that support and create infrastructure - public education, roads, bridges, railroads, power grids, water and sewage systems.
Fourth, "restructure" public pension systems and neutralize public unions to decrease public liability.
Fifth, privatize what were once government responsibilities - military logistical support, roads, water supplies, prisons.
This is not going to end well.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thunder and Lightning - War as Theater
Forget Japan's nuclear crisis, the huge public demonstrations of discontent in Madison, Wisconsin, the stubborn persistence of the Great Recession, the grinding frustration of the war in Afghanistan, the destabilization of Pakistan, we are bombing again! Look at the spectacular light show. Listen to the crackle and boom of air attacks on Libya.
We had to do this you say? Kadafi was mowing down his own people. He is a nasty, awful criminal. True. Never mind that Iraq and Afghanistan have overtaxed our military and our fiscal stability. This initial stage of conflict is amazing to watch - dramatic, exciting, distracting. So what if there is no end game. Since when do we worry about THAT?
Not even a nod at Congress for approval this time. In fact, announcement of the actions in Libya was made almost as an aside during President Obama's state visit to Brazil. This time is different, you say? The United Nations initiated the intervention. Right. Because we always go along with United Nations policy and never use it as a propagandized prop.
I guess this puts an end to including the military in any budget cutting discussions?
We had to do this you say? Kadafi was mowing down his own people. He is a nasty, awful criminal. True. Never mind that Iraq and Afghanistan have overtaxed our military and our fiscal stability. This initial stage of conflict is amazing to watch - dramatic, exciting, distracting. So what if there is no end game. Since when do we worry about THAT?
Not even a nod at Congress for approval this time. In fact, announcement of the actions in Libya was made almost as an aside during President Obama's state visit to Brazil. This time is different, you say? The United Nations initiated the intervention. Right. Because we always go along with United Nations policy and never use it as a propagandized prop.
I guess this puts an end to including the military in any budget cutting discussions?
Monday, January 24, 2011
Cuomo's Property Tax Ceiling Could Force Municipalities to Cut Services
The Register Star, my local newspaper, reported today that city officials fear revenue shortfalls if Governor Cuomo's push for statewide property tax limits is successful. Hudson Treasurer Eileen Halloran urged the city's Finance Committee to begin picking the areas in which cuts can be made and how to do them. Her suggestions included cutting back weekly trash collection to every other week, picking up recycling once a month, instead of weekly and reconfiguring the way snow removal is conducted.
[Click on this post's title for the Register Star article.]
Hudson already assesses a user's fee on residents for garbage collection in the form of city trash bags. Large bags cost $3.00 each; smaller ones are $1.50. No mention was made of increasing bag cost. Water and sewage fees also are levied on residents.
Proposing cuts in the snow removal program at a time when every week seems to bring another major snow storm and crews are struggling to keep up with clearing the streets and snow removal is almost guaranteed to incite widespread public anger.
Although the article does not discuss the school district, which assesses its own real estate taxes and the county, which shares a revenue base with the city, presumably they also will be affected. The fact that all three entities are burdened by "unfunded mandates" makes balancing budgets a much tougher job.
It would not be the first time the state pushed the pain of fiscal austerity down the road to localities. And who will be blamed for services cuts? The localities, of course.
[Click on this post's title for the Register Star article.]
Hudson already assesses a user's fee on residents for garbage collection in the form of city trash bags. Large bags cost $3.00 each; smaller ones are $1.50. No mention was made of increasing bag cost. Water and sewage fees also are levied on residents.
Proposing cuts in the snow removal program at a time when every week seems to bring another major snow storm and crews are struggling to keep up with clearing the streets and snow removal is almost guaranteed to incite widespread public anger.
Although the article does not discuss the school district, which assesses its own real estate taxes and the county, which shares a revenue base with the city, presumably they also will be affected. The fact that all three entities are burdened by "unfunded mandates" makes balancing budgets a much tougher job.
It would not be the first time the state pushed the pain of fiscal austerity down the road to localities. And who will be blamed for services cuts? The localities, of course.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Who Needs Social Security Anyway?
Employees will pay 2% less into Social Security this year. Their deduction will decrease from 6.2% to 4.2% of their gross wages. Employers will continue to pay 6.2%. These percentages will apply to the first $106,800 earned. Once over that amount, both contributions will stop. (For years this ceiling annually increased, but in 2010 and 2011 it remained at the 2009 amount.)
According to a year-end letter from my accountant, the Social Security contribution cut will cost $120 billion. According to the tax bill any shortfall will be covered by the general fund.
For years we have heard our politicians arguing that Social Security was threatened with insolvency. It puzzled me that the same people who have made this claim voted for the contribution cut. Further, they chose to do this in the year that the first baby boomers retire. That's right, the great deluge of retirements of the post World War II population surge begins this year. The population bubble that began in 1946 and continued well into the 1960s is aging. This year Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and myself are among the first wave of Americans, to reach what was once considered retirement age - 65. The Social Security Administration does offer some incentive if we postpone retirement until age 67. Medicare qualification remains at 65.
Social Security was designed to pay for itself, with benefits to retirees paid from contributions made into the system by the currently employed. During the baby boomer working years this worked well. With far more workers than retirees, the system produced surpluses. These surpluses were supposed to prepare the system for the time when the number of retirees exceeded the number of workers. Of course the money went into the general fund so it was probably spent.
Now our debt-swamped government is decreasing the contribution just as the real challenge to its solvency begins.
Many of our conservative leaders oppose the entire concept of Social Security. They believe folks should take responsibility for their own retirement. Well, guess what, that did not work out real well for most of us. Lower and middle income workers in this country have seen their purchase power decline over the past 30 years. Wages have stagnated. Their homes, the one investment most of them made, have declined in value, with many worth less than the mortgages they carry. Company pension plans have disappeared. IRA savings accounts have been earning nothing for several years. Investment accounts were slammed during the crash.
Without Social Security many of us face destitution in our retirement years. We earned those benefits. We and our employers made those contributions over our working lifetimes.
Who needs Social Security? We do.
Do NOT let Washington destroy it.
According to a year-end letter from my accountant, the Social Security contribution cut will cost $120 billion. According to the tax bill any shortfall will be covered by the general fund.
For years we have heard our politicians arguing that Social Security was threatened with insolvency. It puzzled me that the same people who have made this claim voted for the contribution cut. Further, they chose to do this in the year that the first baby boomers retire. That's right, the great deluge of retirements of the post World War II population surge begins this year. The population bubble that began in 1946 and continued well into the 1960s is aging. This year Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and myself are among the first wave of Americans, to reach what was once considered retirement age - 65. The Social Security Administration does offer some incentive if we postpone retirement until age 67. Medicare qualification remains at 65.
Social Security was designed to pay for itself, with benefits to retirees paid from contributions made into the system by the currently employed. During the baby boomer working years this worked well. With far more workers than retirees, the system produced surpluses. These surpluses were supposed to prepare the system for the time when the number of retirees exceeded the number of workers. Of course the money went into the general fund so it was probably spent.
Now our debt-swamped government is decreasing the contribution just as the real challenge to its solvency begins.
Many of our conservative leaders oppose the entire concept of Social Security. They believe folks should take responsibility for their own retirement. Well, guess what, that did not work out real well for most of us. Lower and middle income workers in this country have seen their purchase power decline over the past 30 years. Wages have stagnated. Their homes, the one investment most of them made, have declined in value, with many worth less than the mortgages they carry. Company pension plans have disappeared. IRA savings accounts have been earning nothing for several years. Investment accounts were slammed during the crash.
Without Social Security many of us face destitution in our retirement years. We earned those benefits. We and our employers made those contributions over our working lifetimes.
Who needs Social Security? We do.
Do NOT let Washington destroy it.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
They're Wagging Their Fingers at Me?
Election season is in full sway. The robo-calls and phony surveys are constant. As a registered Democrat, I get lots and lots of automated calls, usually just as I have sat down for dinner or become absorbed in a favorite TV show. The week before the Primary was very heavy.
The television ads range the usual mix of down home, love my family and community feel-good spots to the mysterious Over 60 group's attack on my congressman for "following Nancy Pelosi's agenda". This one even trumps the Paladino and Cuomo ads on the nasty meter.
The Democratic Party is holding onto my membership by a thread, largely because the Republicant Party has veered so far to the right and steadfastly clung to its failed policies of the past decade, I quite simply cannot go there.
So how does the party to which I have belonged all my adult life seek my vote?
Vice President Biden tells me to "stop whining." President Obama stands behind his podium wagging his finger at me and telling me the election is too important for me not to vote, no matter how unhappy I am with the limitations and shortfalls of the party's achievements since his election.
When all else fails, attack your base? Are these guys TRYING to lose their Congressional majority?
Perhaps, as Thomas Friedman suggests in his op-ed piece in today's New York Times, there is another way. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=1&hp
The television ads range the usual mix of down home, love my family and community feel-good spots to the mysterious Over 60 group's attack on my congressman for "following Nancy Pelosi's agenda". This one even trumps the Paladino and Cuomo ads on the nasty meter.
The Democratic Party is holding onto my membership by a thread, largely because the Republicant Party has veered so far to the right and steadfastly clung to its failed policies of the past decade, I quite simply cannot go there.
So how does the party to which I have belonged all my adult life seek my vote?
Vice President Biden tells me to "stop whining." President Obama stands behind his podium wagging his finger at me and telling me the election is too important for me not to vote, no matter how unhappy I am with the limitations and shortfalls of the party's achievements since his election.
When all else fails, attack your base? Are these guys TRYING to lose their Congressional majority?
Perhaps, as Thomas Friedman suggests in his op-ed piece in today's New York Times, there is another way. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=1&hp
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Senate Blocks Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell
[Click on the post title for source article.]
So the Senate voted to block debate on the annual authorization of military programs, largely to prevent ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. Arkansas Democratic senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor voted with the Republicants to deprive supporters of a filibuster proof majority.
Is ending Don't Ask Don't Tell a liberal agenda item? You betcha. The policy is poorly conceived, unevenly implemented and based upon the premise that a group of people should live a lie. Liberals refuse to believe THAT is the American way.
This is a civil rights issue - equal protection under the law. Don't Ask Don't Tell is particularly invidious because it forces gays to live a lie and even then does not guarantee them protection. The law codifies discrimination and legitimizes sexual harassment.
So the Senate voted to block debate on the annual authorization of military programs, largely to prevent ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. Arkansas Democratic senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor voted with the Republicants to deprive supporters of a filibuster proof majority.
Is ending Don't Ask Don't Tell a liberal agenda item? You betcha. The policy is poorly conceived, unevenly implemented and based upon the premise that a group of people should live a lie. Liberals refuse to believe THAT is the American way.
This is a civil rights issue - equal protection under the law. Don't Ask Don't Tell is particularly invidious because it forces gays to live a lie and even then does not guarantee them protection. The law codifies discrimination and legitimizes sexual harassment.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection
I heard a pundit insist Elizabeth Warren should not head up the new Consumer Protection Agency because she does not have a background in the financial industry. This is a problem why? As head of the Congressional Oversight Committee for the TARP, she certainly has not demonstrated any lack of understanding about the industry. Of course the industry has found her persistence in seeking accounting for its use of those funds somewhat off-putting.
I also heard the complaint she is too widely supported by consumer advocates. This is a bad thing? I have not noticed a shortage of policy makers from the financial industry in the Obama Administration.
Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-15/obama-said-to-consider-installing-elizabeth-warren-at-treasury.html reports that rather than appoint Warren head of the new agency, which would require a difficult approval process in the U. S. Senate, the Administration is considering naming her a counselor of Treasury Secretary (and financial industry insider) Timothy Geithner. She would be Geithner's subordinate. Geithner's opposition to Warren has been widely reported. As head of the new agency, she have far more independence. Theoretically Warren would still be responsible for getting the new agency off the ground. The banking industry is far more supportive of this approach. I do NOT find this reassuring. Sounds like a plan to neutralize one of the most dedicated (and outspoken) financial reformers in the country.
The director of the Consumer Protection Agency should be a consumer activist. Otherwise, what is its purpose? I am convinced Warren would look out for my interests, not the industry's and for this nomination the Administration should pull out all the stops.
I also heard the complaint she is too widely supported by consumer advocates. This is a bad thing? I have not noticed a shortage of policy makers from the financial industry in the Obama Administration.
Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-15/obama-said-to-consider-installing-elizabeth-warren-at-treasury.html reports that rather than appoint Warren head of the new agency, which would require a difficult approval process in the U. S. Senate, the Administration is considering naming her a counselor of Treasury Secretary (and financial industry insider) Timothy Geithner. She would be Geithner's subordinate. Geithner's opposition to Warren has been widely reported. As head of the new agency, she have far more independence. Theoretically Warren would still be responsible for getting the new agency off the ground. The banking industry is far more supportive of this approach. I do NOT find this reassuring. Sounds like a plan to neutralize one of the most dedicated (and outspoken) financial reformers in the country.
The director of the Consumer Protection Agency should be a consumer activist. Otherwise, what is its purpose? I am convinced Warren would look out for my interests, not the industry's and for this nomination the Administration should pull out all the stops.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Complaints of a Liberal Elitist
Why Liberals Need to Draw a Line in the Sand
We got a massive bailout of the very rich, lackluster stimulus funds bogged down with bureaucratic red tape for the rest of us. Our tax system encourages the constant flow of wealth away from the middle and working classes to the super rich.
We got a national health care bill that curtails a woman's right to choose, transfers more of the nation's wealth to the insurance companies, places a heavy burden on small employers and forces citizens to buy over-priced product from private-sector companies.
Despite financial reform, credit card companies continue to charge usurious interest rates, banks continue to fleece depositors with outrageous fees and savers get barely visible returns on their deposits.
When corporations seek Chapter 11 protection to "reorganize," taking out small shareholders and debt holders and relieving themselves of pension liabilities, it is considered savvy financial management. When homeowners walk away from mortgages they can no longer afford (no Chapter 11-style reorganization available to them), they are considered dishonest free loaders who violated "sacred" contracts. The Secretary of the Treasury is a tax evader who, when he finally paid them, faced none of the consequences ordinary tax payers have to face.
Ending "don't ask don't tell," keeps getting put on the back burner. Guantanamo Bay remains open. Corporations have achieved the legal status of citizens. Acorn was destroyed but Goldman Sachs flourishes.
Our prisons are privatized and our infrastructure is being sold off. Much of our precious water supply is owned by Nestles, a Swiss corporation with a questionable human rights record.
Oil companies rule. While China develops renewable energy technologies, we contemplate our navels.
The media labels conservative Democrats "moderate" and liberals are termed "activists." The media is controlled by a handful of conglomerates whose very existence violates antitrust laws.
Our leaders preach the importance of small business and let the big guys undersell them into receivership, swallow up their assets and innovations, and raise prices.
The poor are blamed for the depredations of the rich. Hardworking Americans impoverish themselves acquiring college educations, then cannot get jobs.
Politicians praise American initiative and self sufficiency while individual citizens are prevented from participating in disaster abatement and big corporations are allowed to buy up and bury the technologies (or export them to other countries) that might reignite our economy.
While Republicans catered to their base, Democrats threw meager bones to theirs, assuming "liberals" had no place else to go. That "no place" threatens to include the polls in November.
Yeah, liberals need to draw a line in the sand.
We got a massive bailout of the very rich, lackluster stimulus funds bogged down with bureaucratic red tape for the rest of us. Our tax system encourages the constant flow of wealth away from the middle and working classes to the super rich.
We got a national health care bill that curtails a woman's right to choose, transfers more of the nation's wealth to the insurance companies, places a heavy burden on small employers and forces citizens to buy over-priced product from private-sector companies.
Despite financial reform, credit card companies continue to charge usurious interest rates, banks continue to fleece depositors with outrageous fees and savers get barely visible returns on their deposits.
When corporations seek Chapter 11 protection to "reorganize," taking out small shareholders and debt holders and relieving themselves of pension liabilities, it is considered savvy financial management. When homeowners walk away from mortgages they can no longer afford (no Chapter 11-style reorganization available to them), they are considered dishonest free loaders who violated "sacred" contracts. The Secretary of the Treasury is a tax evader who, when he finally paid them, faced none of the consequences ordinary tax payers have to face.
Ending "don't ask don't tell," keeps getting put on the back burner. Guantanamo Bay remains open. Corporations have achieved the legal status of citizens. Acorn was destroyed but Goldman Sachs flourishes.
Our prisons are privatized and our infrastructure is being sold off. Much of our precious water supply is owned by Nestles, a Swiss corporation with a questionable human rights record.
Oil companies rule. While China develops renewable energy technologies, we contemplate our navels.
The media labels conservative Democrats "moderate" and liberals are termed "activists." The media is controlled by a handful of conglomerates whose very existence violates antitrust laws.
Our leaders preach the importance of small business and let the big guys undersell them into receivership, swallow up their assets and innovations, and raise prices.
The poor are blamed for the depredations of the rich. Hardworking Americans impoverish themselves acquiring college educations, then cannot get jobs.
Politicians praise American initiative and self sufficiency while individual citizens are prevented from participating in disaster abatement and big corporations are allowed to buy up and bury the technologies (or export them to other countries) that might reignite our economy.
While Republicans catered to their base, Democrats threw meager bones to theirs, assuming "liberals" had no place else to go. That "no place" threatens to include the polls in November.
Yeah, liberals need to draw a line in the sand.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Why did we invade Iraq?
War is the continuation of diplomacy using other means, Carl von Clausewitz.
Why did our leaders decide to invade Iraq? Since the public is never trusted with the full picture, what follows is speculation.
Iraq probably seemed like a sure thing, a no-brainer.
Did any of these reasons justify the war? I certainly don't think so and didn't then. I believe going to war in Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy decisions this country ever made. This disastrous decision was made worse by the incredible incompetency of its execution.
Execution of the War
None of the civilians planning and starting the war had military or combat experience. Colin Powell, who did, was sidelined, then co-opted, then again sidelined. Generals who disagreed with the tactical and strategic methodologies of the invasion received short shrift -- many were reassigned or were forced into or opted for early retirement.
A pity none of the civilians had read Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz or had a background in military history. Even a good football coach knows that the best game plans rarely survive the first set of downs. Absolutely no flexibility to adapt to the unexpected was built into the campaign. Suggestions by commanders in the field for adjustments to conditions on the ground were adamantly resisted by Rumsfeld's War Department.
I reiterate my point in an earlier blog, successful civilian oversight of the military requires civilian commanders who are well educated in military matters. Otherwise they enter war room briefings unequipped to make good decisions. If they wait until they take office, it is too late. Events will overtake them.
Study of history and civics is absolutely essential to a viable society.
Why did our leaders decide to invade Iraq? Since the public is never trusted with the full picture, what follows is speculation.
Iraq probably seemed like a sure thing, a no-brainer.
- Despite the absence of evidence of WMD, Saddam's posturing made their existence appear highly likely.
- In a region dominated by religious states, Iraq was secular. The possibility of religious factionalism must have been judged remote.
- Iraq was governed by an extremely unpopular tyrant.
- Iraq had rich oil fields.
Did any of these reasons justify the war? I certainly don't think so and didn't then. I believe going to war in Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy decisions this country ever made. This disastrous decision was made worse by the incredible incompetency of its execution.
Execution of the War
None of the civilians planning and starting the war had military or combat experience. Colin Powell, who did, was sidelined, then co-opted, then again sidelined. Generals who disagreed with the tactical and strategic methodologies of the invasion received short shrift -- many were reassigned or were forced into or opted for early retirement.
A pity none of the civilians had read Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz or had a background in military history. Even a good football coach knows that the best game plans rarely survive the first set of downs. Absolutely no flexibility to adapt to the unexpected was built into the campaign. Suggestions by commanders in the field for adjustments to conditions on the ground were adamantly resisted by Rumsfeld's War Department.
I reiterate my point in an earlier blog, successful civilian oversight of the military requires civilian commanders who are well educated in military matters. Otherwise they enter war room briefings unequipped to make good decisions. If they wait until they take office, it is too late. Events will overtake them.
Study of history and civics is absolutely essential to a viable society.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Bill of Rights: VII, VIII, IX, X
These seem more open to different interpretations that I through VI.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Two Friends Discuss Military Contractors
I wrote to my friend Bob:
I am thinking about a post on the U. S. mercenary army. Below are my thoughts to this point. I would really like to know your thoughts about this (since your military and political experience are far greater than mine).
Now that U. S. combat troops have left Iraq, I cannot help wondering if the U. S. Government's private army also has left. The New York Times stated in an article today that the State Department will increase its private security force in Iraq to 7,000, a number that does not seem TOO outrageous, if that is the total mercenary count. But is it? And I still want to know WHY oh WHY does the U. S. Government need a PRIVATE ARMY in addition to the highly trained and dedicated U. S. Military?
Troublesome answers suggest themselves to me:
1. A private army is not easy to oversee by our elected officials.
2. Paying for a private army can be couched in deceptive terminology like "military contractors" that hide its true purpose.
3. A private army is a useful tool for conducting unpopular, even unsanctioned missions.
Bob replied:
I would not argue with any part of your rationale. Most of the contractors have specific and limited assignments such as dignitary protection. The vast majority of these folks are prior military that make dramatically more money in their new roles. I would guess that the 7,000 referenced are only a small percentage of the number of contractors left in country, ostensibly for protection not aggression.
This concept is new, together with such things as contracting for food service. Being a member of "Cynics of America" I always suspected that was a methodology to understate the number of military folks in country. By example, if civilians are doing KP, then a private in the army need not be in theater. If one added all of the civilian contractors doing what has historically been done by the military, one could get an actual count of the number of Americans in the conflict. To not do so is to understate the numbers.
I wrote:
To recap: using private contractors enables understatement of the numbers actually deployed in country?
How do you think they impact the mission itself? The chain of command? Military morale?
Also, during Iraq and Afghanistan the State National Guards have been widely deployed and exploited. Does this weaken the Guards, which are in essence our militia (vis a vis the Second Amendment)? Could this be intentional downgrading of the "peoples' army?"
This really troubles me: Who commands the loyalty of the private contractors: the U. S. Government, the President, the State Department or the company that hires them?
At this point, would it even be possible to disband them and return to traditional support?
Maybe I should just forget it and trust that our government knows best?
Bob answered:
Well, trusting the government is challenging.
In my day, the services did mess duty, laundry and other tasks only tangential to the fighting. I personally, believe contracting is positive in that soldiers can concentrate on soldiering and not KP and can focus on their jobs.
My point is that if these tasks were to be performed by military personnel in theater, it follows that additional military personnel would be required. Having civilians perform the tasks allows for the stated number of forces in theater to be less than if "traditional" methods were employed. It is much more politically palatable to declare the lowest number of people in harm's way possible.
One shudders to think what number of military personnel might be required if contract service jobs were performed by the military. I believe it would require a draft.
As for our contract fighters, there is no question in my mind that they owe allegiance to the firm that hires them and then places them.
I don't worry about the ultimate client for protection, it's the giant firms that hire the contract warriors that give one pause.
The issue of chain of command is interesting. Instead of company and field grade officers being responsible for, let's say mess, the contractor is responsible to the general service, their relationship delineated by contract documents. A company commander is responsible for feeding his troops but he (she) is most likely restrained by a contract forged on a golf course rather than a battlefield.
The Guard has always been required to be prepared to take a combat role. Historically it has never happened on such a scale for such a time. Ironically, the result is the best trained reserve force anywhere in the world. This level of service is not, I can assure you, what Guard members signed up for.
I wrote back:
Do you ever think it odd how a conservative Republican like you and a liberal elitist Democrat like me so often end up on the same page?
My friend replied:
80% of us are somewhere in the middle with only 10% at the extreme left or right. The challenge is that 10% of 300 million people is a sizable number of "true believers" trying to move an agenda.
I am thinking about a post on the U. S. mercenary army. Below are my thoughts to this point. I would really like to know your thoughts about this (since your military and political experience are far greater than mine).
Now that U. S. combat troops have left Iraq, I cannot help wondering if the U. S. Government's private army also has left. The New York Times stated in an article today that the State Department will increase its private security force in Iraq to 7,000, a number that does not seem TOO outrageous, if that is the total mercenary count. But is it? And I still want to know WHY oh WHY does the U. S. Government need a PRIVATE ARMY in addition to the highly trained and dedicated U. S. Military?
Troublesome answers suggest themselves to me:
1. A private army is not easy to oversee by our elected officials.
2. Paying for a private army can be couched in deceptive terminology like "military contractors" that hide its true purpose.
3. A private army is a useful tool for conducting unpopular, even unsanctioned missions.
Bob replied:
I would not argue with any part of your rationale. Most of the contractors have specific and limited assignments such as dignitary protection. The vast majority of these folks are prior military that make dramatically more money in their new roles. I would guess that the 7,000 referenced are only a small percentage of the number of contractors left in country, ostensibly for protection not aggression.
This concept is new, together with such things as contracting for food service. Being a member of "Cynics of America" I always suspected that was a methodology to understate the number of military folks in country. By example, if civilians are doing KP, then a private in the army need not be in theater. If one added all of the civilian contractors doing what has historically been done by the military, one could get an actual count of the number of Americans in the conflict. To not do so is to understate the numbers.
I wrote:
To recap: using private contractors enables understatement of the numbers actually deployed in country?
How do you think they impact the mission itself? The chain of command? Military morale?
Also, during Iraq and Afghanistan the State National Guards have been widely deployed and exploited. Does this weaken the Guards, which are in essence our militia (vis a vis the Second Amendment)? Could this be intentional downgrading of the "peoples' army?"
This really troubles me: Who commands the loyalty of the private contractors: the U. S. Government, the President, the State Department or the company that hires them?
At this point, would it even be possible to disband them and return to traditional support?
Maybe I should just forget it and trust that our government knows best?
Bob answered:
Well, trusting the government is challenging.
In my day, the services did mess duty, laundry and other tasks only tangential to the fighting. I personally, believe contracting is positive in that soldiers can concentrate on soldiering and not KP and can focus on their jobs.
My point is that if these tasks were to be performed by military personnel in theater, it follows that additional military personnel would be required. Having civilians perform the tasks allows for the stated number of forces in theater to be less than if "traditional" methods were employed. It is much more politically palatable to declare the lowest number of people in harm's way possible.
One shudders to think what number of military personnel might be required if contract service jobs were performed by the military. I believe it would require a draft.
As for our contract fighters, there is no question in my mind that they owe allegiance to the firm that hires them and then places them.
I don't worry about the ultimate client for protection, it's the giant firms that hire the contract warriors that give one pause.
The issue of chain of command is interesting. Instead of company and field grade officers being responsible for, let's say mess, the contractor is responsible to the general service, their relationship delineated by contract documents. A company commander is responsible for feeding his troops but he (she) is most likely restrained by a contract forged on a golf course rather than a battlefield.
The Guard has always been required to be prepared to take a combat role. Historically it has never happened on such a scale for such a time. Ironically, the result is the best trained reserve force anywhere in the world. This level of service is not, I can assure you, what Guard members signed up for.
I wrote back:
Do you ever think it odd how a conservative Republican like you and a liberal elitist Democrat like me so often end up on the same page?
My friend replied:
80% of us are somewhere in the middle with only 10% at the extreme left or right. The challenge is that 10% of 300 million people is a sizable number of "true believers" trying to move an agenda.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Unions
Demonization of unions puzzles me. Except for public employees unions, most American labor organizations have lost their teeth.
Institutions that secured workers on-the-job safety standards, the 40-hour work week, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, minimum wage standards are barely relevant in the age of Wal-Mart.
What good is a 40-hour work week when workers need two or three jobs to meet minimum living standards? What purpose does a minimum wage that fails to provide for the most basic needs of existence serve? What role does a National Labor Relations Board play when employers are allowed to terminate employees who attempt to organize?
How effective is unemployment insurance when workers cannot find replacement jobs for months or years? What bargaining chips do unions have when 15 million Americans are unemployed and millions more have been forced to accept underemployment?
Even public sector unions are feeling the bite. Privatization of traditionally public sector jobs is gaining momentum. Years of bloated, unsustainable budgets have made deep state and local government cuts inevitable.
Did the unions play a role in their decline? Yes. Frivolous strikes. Demands that were unsustainable for their industries. Leaders who forgot who they represented. Corruption. But no other institutions so ably represented the American working stiff (the "small" people).
Who else cared about nurses being forced to work long, arduous double shifts? On-the-job haz-mat protection? Whistle-blower protection? Child labor? Teachers confronting violence in the classroom and huge class sizes? Air traffic controllers working under agonizingly stressful, understaffed conditions (does anyone even remember THEIR superhuman efforts on 9/11)?
From the day the Great Communicator fired the striking air traffic controllers, the handwriting was written on the wall: "the 'small' people have no place in the shining city on the hill."
Institutions that secured workers on-the-job safety standards, the 40-hour work week, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, minimum wage standards are barely relevant in the age of Wal-Mart.
What good is a 40-hour work week when workers need two or three jobs to meet minimum living standards? What purpose does a minimum wage that fails to provide for the most basic needs of existence serve? What role does a National Labor Relations Board play when employers are allowed to terminate employees who attempt to organize?
How effective is unemployment insurance when workers cannot find replacement jobs for months or years? What bargaining chips do unions have when 15 million Americans are unemployed and millions more have been forced to accept underemployment?
Even public sector unions are feeling the bite. Privatization of traditionally public sector jobs is gaining momentum. Years of bloated, unsustainable budgets have made deep state and local government cuts inevitable.
Did the unions play a role in their decline? Yes. Frivolous strikes. Demands that were unsustainable for their industries. Leaders who forgot who they represented. Corruption. But no other institutions so ably represented the American working stiff (the "small" people).
Who else cared about nurses being forced to work long, arduous double shifts? On-the-job haz-mat protection? Whistle-blower protection? Child labor? Teachers confronting violence in the classroom and huge class sizes? Air traffic controllers working under agonizingly stressful, understaffed conditions (does anyone even remember THEIR superhuman efforts on 9/11)?
From the day the Great Communicator fired the striking air traffic controllers, the handwriting was written on the wall: "the 'small' people have no place in the shining city on the hill."
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
FedEx Media Blitz against UPS
The FedEx Brown Bailout campaign is a fight against unionization. The use of the media savvy term "Brown Bailout" is disingenuous. It is a massive lobbying campaign to preserve a competitive edge against UPS and avoid unionization of FedEx workers. The fight against this legislation has been ongoing for several years.
The Web, including Facebook, is saturated with FedEx-sponsored links that bring you to a simple petition to fill out and submit in support of FedEx's anti-labor campaign, without ever offering an explanation of exactly what you are petitioning against.
The focus is a reauthorization bill from the Federal Aviation Administration which would enable FedEx drivers to unionize on a terminal-by-terminal level under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), rather than under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
Because FedEx began as an airline, FedEx Express workers came under the Railway Labor Act, which was passed in 1926 to prevent disruptions of national air and train traffic. The RLA requires unionization to have a national vote by every worker at the company.
"The NLRA covers most private-sector workers... including delivery drivers, truck mechanics and workers at sorting facilities both at UPS and FedEx Ground." (Click on the post title for the link to the source material. Although this story is a year old, the controversy has heated up again in recent months.)
The deceptive nature of this campaign is a clear warning to do some wider research before jumping on any web-touted bandwagon. THEN, once you make up your own mind, email or write to your congressman and senators stating your position. It will carry more weight and result in better decision making.
The way this campaign is being conducted could easily mislead union advocates who oppose the recent corporate bailouts to petition against the very cause they support.
The Web, including Facebook, is saturated with FedEx-sponsored links that bring you to a simple petition to fill out and submit in support of FedEx's anti-labor campaign, without ever offering an explanation of exactly what you are petitioning against.
The focus is a reauthorization bill from the Federal Aviation Administration which would enable FedEx drivers to unionize on a terminal-by-terminal level under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), rather than under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
Because FedEx began as an airline, FedEx Express workers came under the Railway Labor Act, which was passed in 1926 to prevent disruptions of national air and train traffic. The RLA requires unionization to have a national vote by every worker at the company.
"The NLRA covers most private-sector workers... including delivery drivers, truck mechanics and workers at sorting facilities both at UPS and FedEx Ground." (Click on the post title for the link to the source material. Although this story is a year old, the controversy has heated up again in recent months.)
The deceptive nature of this campaign is a clear warning to do some wider research before jumping on any web-touted bandwagon. THEN, once you make up your own mind, email or write to your congressman and senators stating your position. It will carry more weight and result in better decision making.
The way this campaign is being conducted could easily mislead union advocates who oppose the recent corporate bailouts to petition against the very cause they support.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Imports Surge. Job Growth? Not So Much.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at a sluggish 2.4 percent annual pace last quarter, down from 3.7 percent in the first quarter. Imports, most probably purchased by businesses, surged 35 percent. The flood of imports reduced GDP growth by 4 percentage points, offset by a U.S. increase in exports of 1.2 percent, for a net negative impact on GDP of 2.8 percent.
(Click on the title of this post for my source, a recent report in the Christian Science Monitor.)
What do these numbers mean? Imported goods are not produced by American workers in American factories, many of which have closed their doors during this recession. Labor continues to look for jobs that are not there. American capital continues to be drained overseas by a steep balance of payments deficit. Tax revenues continue to under perform on federal, state and local levels.
Unemployment insurance, intended to bridge the gaps of economic and cyclical downturns, is turning into a long-term product with no end in sight.
It's a complex global economy out there. Complete economic self sufficiency is not possible and very likely not desirable; however, the crippling balance of payments deficits the U. S. has run for more than a generation are flushing this country down the toilet. They are the reason so many foreign governments own U. S. debt. The debt constricts our ability to deal with our internal problems.
We hear a great deal about ending the Bush-era tax cuts. This is probably a necessary if bitter pill to swallow. Nowhere have I heard suggestions of increasing tariffs on imports. There is a great deal of space between using imports as a source of revenue and "protectionism." A touch of carefully crafted protectionism might go a long way toward revitalizing American small industry. The multi-national corporations would not benefit, but the smaller, more innovative companies just might gain enough breathing space to get off the ground.
To see where the U. S. Government gets its revenue go to:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
It is interesting to note that both corporate taxes and excise taxes are below historical trends.
Why wouldn't an across-the-board increase of tariffs on imports be a good idea?
(Click on the title of this post for my source, a recent report in the Christian Science Monitor.)
What do these numbers mean? Imported goods are not produced by American workers in American factories, many of which have closed their doors during this recession. Labor continues to look for jobs that are not there. American capital continues to be drained overseas by a steep balance of payments deficit. Tax revenues continue to under perform on federal, state and local levels.
Unemployment insurance, intended to bridge the gaps of economic and cyclical downturns, is turning into a long-term product with no end in sight.
It's a complex global economy out there. Complete economic self sufficiency is not possible and very likely not desirable; however, the crippling balance of payments deficits the U. S. has run for more than a generation are flushing this country down the toilet. They are the reason so many foreign governments own U. S. debt. The debt constricts our ability to deal with our internal problems.
We hear a great deal about ending the Bush-era tax cuts. This is probably a necessary if bitter pill to swallow. Nowhere have I heard suggestions of increasing tariffs on imports. There is a great deal of space between using imports as a source of revenue and "protectionism." A touch of carefully crafted protectionism might go a long way toward revitalizing American small industry. The multi-national corporations would not benefit, but the smaller, more innovative companies just might gain enough breathing space to get off the ground.
To see where the U. S. Government gets its revenue go to:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
It is interesting to note that both corporate taxes and excise taxes are below historical trends.
Why wouldn't an across-the-board increase of tariffs on imports be a good idea?
Monday, August 2, 2010
Pet Peeve: Productivity Gains
When I hear that American productivity has improved, I visualize...
1. Wringing the last drop of sweat from American workers.
2. Stagnating wages.
3. Elimination of benefits like vacation days, sick pay, health insurance and pension plans.
4. Off-shoring every job that can possibly be placed in a country that does not have minimum wage standards.
Labor-intensive sectors suffer competitive disadvantages in an era of productivity gains. The spiraling costs of education, health care and government are often blamed on inefficiency. But cost control frequently results in:
1. Larger classrooms per teacher, elimination of extracurricular programs, dropping "non essential" academic subjects like music, art, foreign languages.
2. Hiring more aides and fewer RNs, using physicians' assistants and nurse practitioners in place of physicians, decreasing the number of minutes per visit a health care professional spends with patients, heavy reliance on pharmaceutical therapies.
3. Privatizing military functions and prisons, infrastructure deterioration, underfunding watch dog agency budgets (FDA, EPA, SEC, etc.).
I suspect automation of repetitive tasks and increased efficiency through the placement of advanced technologies in factories and offices are no longer the major components of "productivity gains."
1. Wringing the last drop of sweat from American workers.
2. Stagnating wages.
3. Elimination of benefits like vacation days, sick pay, health insurance and pension plans.
4. Off-shoring every job that can possibly be placed in a country that does not have minimum wage standards.
Labor-intensive sectors suffer competitive disadvantages in an era of productivity gains. The spiraling costs of education, health care and government are often blamed on inefficiency. But cost control frequently results in:
1. Larger classrooms per teacher, elimination of extracurricular programs, dropping "non essential" academic subjects like music, art, foreign languages.
2. Hiring more aides and fewer RNs, using physicians' assistants and nurse practitioners in place of physicians, decreasing the number of minutes per visit a health care professional spends with patients, heavy reliance on pharmaceutical therapies.
3. Privatizing military functions and prisons, infrastructure deterioration, underfunding watch dog agency budgets (FDA, EPA, SEC, etc.).
I suspect automation of repetitive tasks and increased efficiency through the placement of advanced technologies in factories and offices are no longer the major components of "productivity gains."
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sexism in Politics
The day Hillary Clinton withdrew from the presidential campaign, I cried. I went next door and my neighbor Wanda and I commiserated with each other. For one brief shining season we thought the unthinkable was possible - we might have a woman president in our lifetimes. A woman whom we both admired and supported.
I do not forgive the obsessive media concentration on Clinton's hair, her clothes, her "shrillness," her "emotionalism." She was constantly and mercilessly belittled. While everyone was waxing ecstatic about the strong campaign an African American was running, Hillary was widely criticized for not bowing to the inevitable and giving in to the tide of history - as if her election would not have been equally historic.
Kristen Schaal's Daily Show segment on sexism during the campaign nailed it: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-5-2008/sexism
Had Hillary been elected, her presidency would have been plagued by unabashed misogyny. Since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, commentary about her expensive clothes, Botox treatments and tightly controlled demeanor has been as vitriolic as the opposition to her policies. If Pelosi were not so rigidly controlled, she never would have risen so far. If she were not as tough-minded as Tom Delay (former Republican House Majority Leader), her legislative record would not be so successful. In Delay it was considered tough-mindedness, in Pelosi it is more likely to be labeled "bitchiness." (One indication of her power? She is as vilified by Republicans as Delay was by Democrats!)
The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle in the early 1990s still burns in my brain. All those self righteous members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, secure in their superiority - Hatch, Biden, Specter, Leahy come most readily to mind - treating Hill, a subpoenaed witness, with marked condescension. I would gleefully have thrown any one of them under the electoral bus if they had been running in my state. The bitter taste of those hearings endures to this day. One of the few things I feel Obama has gotten right is his nomination of two women to the Supreme Court.
I confess a reluctant admiration for Sarah Palin, who has managed to neutralize the sexism of the right and refudiate the misogyny of the left. I detest her political positions, but am awed (and terrified) by her success. Incidentally, I think refudiate is a GREAT word.
On April 10, 2001 Lieutenant Governor Jane Swift became the first woman governor of Massachusetts when Governor Paul Cellucci resigned to become the U. S. Ambassador to Canada. Swift made two huge mistakes - she came from the Berkshires, the western section of the state residents of the more populous eastern half tend to ignore except for leaf peeping excursions in the fall, and she had a young family (her twin daughters were born while she was governor). Staffers occasionally watched her children. This was considered a serious ethics violation. I guess no male office holder ever asked for help when they unexpectedly had charge of their kids? She once took a state helicopter home when a child was sick. Ugly behavior. Obviously far worse offenses than the wide scale corruption that plagued Boston's "Big Dig" project for years. The attacks from the media and good old boy politicians began immediately and did not let up until the day she left office. She might well have had an undistinguished term anyway. But she was never given a chance.
I think Margaret Carlson was a little harsh in this article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,219749,00.html
Not all women in public life are admirable, competent, likable or interesting. All deserve to be judged on their merits, not sexual stereotypes.
Below is a link to a video of Senatorial candidate Ken Buck's response last week to the question why voters should choose him over his opponent (cursor down the page to see the clip): http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0723/Could-high-heels-joke-spike-Ken-Buck-Senate-campaign
I rest my case (temporarily).
Coming soon: Sexism - You've come a long way, baby?
I do not forgive the obsessive media concentration on Clinton's hair, her clothes, her "shrillness," her "emotionalism." She was constantly and mercilessly belittled. While everyone was waxing ecstatic about the strong campaign an African American was running, Hillary was widely criticized for not bowing to the inevitable and giving in to the tide of history - as if her election would not have been equally historic.
Kristen Schaal's Daily Show segment on sexism during the campaign nailed it: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-5-2008/sexism
Had Hillary been elected, her presidency would have been plagued by unabashed misogyny. Since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, commentary about her expensive clothes, Botox treatments and tightly controlled demeanor has been as vitriolic as the opposition to her policies. If Pelosi were not so rigidly controlled, she never would have risen so far. If she were not as tough-minded as Tom Delay (former Republican House Majority Leader), her legislative record would not be so successful. In Delay it was considered tough-mindedness, in Pelosi it is more likely to be labeled "bitchiness." (One indication of her power? She is as vilified by Republicans as Delay was by Democrats!)
The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle in the early 1990s still burns in my brain. All those self righteous members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, secure in their superiority - Hatch, Biden, Specter, Leahy come most readily to mind - treating Hill, a subpoenaed witness, with marked condescension. I would gleefully have thrown any one of them under the electoral bus if they had been running in my state. The bitter taste of those hearings endures to this day. One of the few things I feel Obama has gotten right is his nomination of two women to the Supreme Court.
I confess a reluctant admiration for Sarah Palin, who has managed to neutralize the sexism of the right and refudiate the misogyny of the left. I detest her political positions, but am awed (and terrified) by her success. Incidentally, I think refudiate is a GREAT word.
On April 10, 2001 Lieutenant Governor Jane Swift became the first woman governor of Massachusetts when Governor Paul Cellucci resigned to become the U. S. Ambassador to Canada. Swift made two huge mistakes - she came from the Berkshires, the western section of the state residents of the more populous eastern half tend to ignore except for leaf peeping excursions in the fall, and she had a young family (her twin daughters were born while she was governor). Staffers occasionally watched her children. This was considered a serious ethics violation. I guess no male office holder ever asked for help when they unexpectedly had charge of their kids? She once took a state helicopter home when a child was sick. Ugly behavior. Obviously far worse offenses than the wide scale corruption that plagued Boston's "Big Dig" project for years. The attacks from the media and good old boy politicians began immediately and did not let up until the day she left office. She might well have had an undistinguished term anyway. But she was never given a chance.
I think Margaret Carlson was a little harsh in this article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,219749,00.html
Not all women in public life are admirable, competent, likable or interesting. All deserve to be judged on their merits, not sexual stereotypes.
Below is a link to a video of Senatorial candidate Ken Buck's response last week to the question why voters should choose him over his opponent (cursor down the page to see the clip): http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0723/Could-high-heels-joke-spike-Ken-Buck-Senate-campaign
I rest my case (temporarily).
Coming soon: Sexism - You've come a long way, baby?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
73,000 Blogs Ripped from the Internet
Last week Blogetry.com "voluntarily" shut down 73,000 blogs in response to an FBI investigation. (Click on the title for one version of the story.) The linked article reports it was done because according to the FBI tens of thousands of users shared extremist, al-Qaeda sponsored hit-lists and instructions on bomb making.
Before the FBI story emerged, the most common speculation about the reason for the shutdown credited a Federal crackdown on music and video piracy.
Several weeks ago (6/24/2010) I wrote a blog about the Internet being Dangerous for Small People and federal officials' interest in bestowing control of access to it to a tiny handful of communications giants like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
Several weeks before that Senator Joseph Lieberman suggested that the President needed the authority and means to "turn the Internet off" if the government believed this was necessary in the face of a terrorist threat. The alternative of fortifying this valuable resource against a cyber attack was not mentioned.
The Chinese have restricted Internet access from the get-go. Are they our model?
A cyber-terrorism attack that sabotages our banking, manufacturing, utility and defense grids is a real threat to our national security. To date, our federal government has done little to guard against it. There have been absolutely no indications that the massive blog shut-down had anything to do with that type of threat.
The widespread dissemination of personal information is another Internet threat, resulting in great part from security breaches of government and corporate databases. This serious hazard to individual welfare also goes largely unchallenged by the government. Instead we get constant, meaningless "Privacy Policy" statements from those who possess our most sensitive information.
But the government appears to be very concerned about the threat the Internet poses as a vehicle of free speech. The wild and woolly exchange of information in cyberspace is mind boggling. Its availability as a platform for expression of opinion, ideas, knowledge, experience and creativity is the last best challenge to the institutions that control our media, environment, lives, livelihoods and property. I am more than willing to share the space with those with whom I vehemently disagree in return for the right to express my own viewpoint. Besides, there is always the possibility I might learn something.
Controls can be put in place to prevent terrorist exploitation of this resource. But are there any controls to protect us from those who would muffle free speech?
In the meantime, it is probably a good idea to back up your blogs. I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
