Education Sec. sinks PBS show
by IseFire - Wed 01/26/05 12:00 am EST
As one of her first acts as education secretary, Margaret Spellings, the nation's new education secretary, railed against PBS for a cartoon with lesbian characters in it, causing PBS to pull away from the not-yet-aired episode of "Postcards From Buster."
Social Security is financially sound...yet in danger of Republican "reform"
by IseFire - Mon 01/24/05 08:51 pm EST
There is no Soc'l Sec. crisis. From Hendrik Hertzberg's piece, "Unsocial Insecurity," in The New Yorker:
This year, the Social Security system—the payroll tax, which brings money in, and the pension program, which sends money out—will bring in about $180 billion more than it sends out. It will go on bringing in more than it sends out until 2028, at which point it will begin to draw on the $3.5 trillion surplus it will by then have accumulated. The surplus runs out in 2042, right around the time George W. Bush turns ninety-six. After that, even if nothing has changed, the system’s income will continue to cover seventy-three per cent of its outgo.
Write to your local newspaper editors or call into radio talk shows with Hertzberg's facts, and shout, "Leave Social Security Alone!"
There is no Social Security crisis. But, Republicans are drawn to messing about with it like compulsive vandals to the Mona Lisa. From out-going DNC chair, Terry McAuliffe:
It seems as if every day, another Republican comes forward with a new idea for
weakening Social Security. They've opposed Social Security from the start [since 1935,] and
they have made it clear that, in 2005, they will stop at nothing in their effort
to dismantle this remarkable social achievement that has kept generations of
America's seniors out of poverty....
Do you believe that the amount of a person's Social Security check should be
tied to the color of that person's skin?... Republican
Party's point man on Social Security in the House is strongly recommending
consideration of just such a step. On Meet the Press yesterday, Representative
Bill Thomas (R-CA) raised the possibility of linking Social Security benefits to
a person's race -- or even gender.
Say no to these GOP machinations. Sign the petition: http://www.democrats.org/action/ New site: Draft Clark for '08
by IseFire - Sun 01/23/05 11:11 am EST
A draft Wes Clark site has been launched. 2008 is several political lifetimes from now. There’s no way I’m willing in 2005 to be committing to candidates for '08; but, it’s interesting that this site’s emerged.
There's also another draft petition here.
I also note that the Clark group on Yahoo!, "United For Clark," has 700-800 members.
There is no Social Security crisis
by IseFire - Sun 01/23/05 10:05 am EST
There Is No Crisis is a BlogPac site dedicated to protecting the integrity of Social Security from Republican assaults. The site's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page is good.
There's a pretty decent explanatory post over at MuseWorld, "Social Security for Dummies" (I'd rather, "Social Security 101"--why insult your readers?).
From There is No Crisis: "Social Security is America's promise that those who work hard and play by the rules will retire with dignity. Even the most pessimistic of economists agree it will remain solvent for decades. There is no crisis."
NYC unemployment spikes up
by IseFire - Fri 01/21/05 08:05 am EST
New York City's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose to 6.2% in December, up from 5.4% in November, while the nation’s rate remained unchanged at 5.4%. Crain's.
The 2005 NYC race for Gracie Mansion
by IseFire - Fri 01/21/05 12:00 am EST
I'm a bit surprised at how little national attention the 2005 race for NYC's mayoralty has received on progressive online communities and blogs. I have a hypothesis. Progressives aware of the NYC mayoral race in 2005, including NYCers who diary and post regularly on MyDD and Daily Kos, are afraid to draw attention to the race, because they assume Republican incumbent candidate Michael R. Bloomberg will handily win re-election.
This year, Mayor Bloomberg, a life-long Democrat turned moderate Republican in 2000, will be pitted against a representative of the Democratic machine, mostly likely former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, or Congressman Anthony Weiner (as of this week already embroiled in some controversy over questionable fund-raising), though there are other candidates not to be discounted yet. There is no Howard Dean-like reformist Democrat emerging as a potential challenger.
Truthfully, the odds currently favor Bloomberg strongly. He's not a true conservative, and he's made no major screw-ups. Also, Bloomberg as a Republican mayor is even more moderate (liberal?) than Giuliani was in his own moderate days. (Yes, Giuliani was once an ostensible moderate; but, now he seems eager to erase this reality from Republicans' minds via heated pro-Bush and war-mongering rhetoric, since--of course--he wants to be President now.)
While Bloomberg has publicly chided many congressional GOPers--even disinviting them from lavish fundrasiers--over their failure to support baldly sensible increases in federal security funding for NYC, he is a Republican nonetheless, and pushed hard for the RNC to have their convention in the Big Apple. What is more, Bloomberg has given thousands upon thousands of dollars to GOP candidates all over the nation and every level of government. Shouldn't Dems nationally be targeting the man who first pitched the idea of a Bush-Cheney coronation in Madison Square Garden? Shouldn't Dems nationally be thinking about how to take down on of the single most generous and wealthy (multi-billionaire) private GOP donors in America?
Islamic inkwell
by IseFire - Thu 01/20/05 11:00 pm EST
The WELL, part of Salon.com, is featuring an online forum and series of posts about the basics of Islam. It's very informative. It's at: http://www.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/.
New blogs added
by IseFire - Wed 01/19/05 09:48 pm EST
I've added two new blogs to the Views list: It Affects You and The Politicker. In particular, check out the "Red State Project" on It Affects You. The Politicker is the New York City politics blog on The New York Observer's website. It features the observations of staff writer, Ben Smith. It's the only blog listed under my "Views" category that's not expressly left-leaning; but, for NYC-based politics junkies like myself and more than 70% of my e-pamphlet subscribers, it's so exciting to have The Politicker on the scene that I want to list it for awhile, perhaps indefinitely.
The scandal-ridden presidency: a study in abusing the peoples' trust
by IseFire - Tue 01/18/05 01:30 pm EST
The Bush administration has been tarnished by more scandals than any other presidential administration in more than 100 years. The scandals are examples of sickening immorality. Peter Dizikes on Salon.com highlights 34 of them. Here are the first 10 he discusses (and the 32nd, an example of literally traitorous conduct). Read about the others. (To access Salon.com's full content you need to subscribe. It's important to subscribe to news publications unafraid to write the truth. Until it literally "pays to be liberal," media companies will be adopt the profit model of Fox News, Clear Channel, and Sinclair Broadcasting: pander to base bigotry and drum up fear.)
1. Memogate: The Senate Computer Theft
The scandal: From 2001 to 2003, Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee illicitly accessed nearly 5,000 computer files containing confidential Democratic strategy memos about President Bush's judicial nominees. The GOP used the memos to shape their own plans and leaked some to the media.
The problem: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act states it is illegal to obtain confidential information from a government computer.
The outcome: Unresolved. The Justice Department has assigned a prosecutor to the case. The staff member at the heart of the matter, Manuel Miranda, has attempted to brazen it out, filing suit in September 2004 against the DOJ to end the investigation. "A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich," Miranda complained. Some jokes just write themselves.
2. Doctor Detroit: The DOJ's Bungled Terrorism Case
The scandal: The Department of Justice completely botched the nation's first post-9/11 terrorism trial, as seen when the convictions of three Detroit men allegedly linked to al-Qaida were overturned in September 2004. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft had claimed their June 2003 sentencing sent "a clear message" that the government would "detect, disrupt and dismantle the activities of terrorist cells."
The problem: The DOJ's lead prosecutor in the case, Richard Convertino, withheld key information from the defense and distorted supposed pieces of evidence -- like a Las Vegas vacation video purported to be a surveillance tape. But that's not the half of it. Convertino says he was unfairly scapegoated because he testified before the Senate, against DOJ wishes, about terrorist financing. Justice's reconsideration of the case began soon thereafter. Convertino has since sued the DOJ, which has also placed him under investigation.
The outcome: Let's see: Overturned convictions, lawsuits and feuding about a Kafkaesque case. Nobody looks good here.
3. Dark Matter: The Energy Task Force
The scandal: A lawsuit has claimed it is illegal for Dick Cheney to keep the composition of his 2001 energy-policy task force secret. What's the big deal? The New Yorker's Jane Mayer has suggested an explosive aspect of the story, citing a National Security Council memo from February 2001, which "directed the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the 'melding' of ... 'operational policies towards rogue states,' such as Iraq, and 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.'" In short, the task force's activities could shed light on the administration's pre-9/11 Iraq aims.
The problem: The Federal Advisory Committee Act says the government must disclose the work of groups that include non-federal employees; the suit claims energy industry executives were effectively task force members. Oh, and the Bush administration has portrayed the Iraq war as a response to 9/11, not something it was already considering.
The outcome: Unresolved. In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to an appellate court.
4. The Indian Gaming Scandal
The scandal: Potential influence peddling to the tune of $82 million, for starters. Jack Abramoff, a GOP lobbyist and major Bush fundraiser, and Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), received that amount from several Indian tribes, while offering access to lawmakers. For instance, Texas' Tigua tribe, which wanted its closed El Paso casino reopened, gave millions to the pair and $33,000 to Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio) in hopes of favorable legislation (Ney came up empty). And get this: The Tiguas were unaware that Abramoff, Scanlon and conservative activist Ralph Reed had earned millions lobbying to have the same casino shut in 2002.
The problem: Federal officials want to know if Abramoff and Scanlon provided real services for the $82 million, and if they broke laws while backing candidates in numerous Indian tribe elections.
The outcome: Everybody into the cesspool! The Senate Indian Affairs Committee and five federal agencies, including the FBI, IRS, and Justice Department, are investigating.
5. Halliburton's No-Bid Bonanza
The scandal: In February 2003, Halliburton received a five-year, $7 billion no-bid contract for services in Iraq.
The problem: The Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting officer, Bunnatine Greenhouse, objected to the deal, saying the contract should be the standard one-year length, and that a Halliburton official should not have been present during the discussions.
The outcome: The FBI is investigating. The $7 billion contract was halved and Halliburton won one of the parts in a public bid. For her troubles, Greenhouse has been forced into whistle-blower protection.
6. Halliburton: Pumping Up Prices
The scandal: In 2003, Halliburton overcharged the army for fuel in Iraq. Specifically, Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root hired a Kuwaiti company, Altanmia, to supply fuel at about twice the going rate, then added a markup, for an overcharge of at least $61 million, according to a December 2003 Pentagon audit.
The problem: That's not the government's $61 million, it's our $61 million.
The outcome: The FBI is investigating.
7. Halliburton's Vanishing Iraq Money
The scandal: In mid-2004, Pentagon auditors determined that $1.8 billion of Halliburton's charges to the government, about 40 percent of the total, had not been adequately documented. The problem: That's not the government's $1.8 billion, it's our $1.8 billion. The outcome: The Defense Contract Audit Agency has "strongly" asked the Army to withhold about $60 million a month from its Halliburton payments until the documentation is provided.
8. The Halliburton Bribe-apalooza
The scandal: This may not surprise you, but an international consortium of companies, including Halliburton, is alleged to have paid more than $100 million in bribes to Nigerian officials, from 1995 to 2002, to facilitate a natural-gas-plant deal. (Cheney was Halliburton's CEO from 1995 to 2000.)
The problem: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials.
The outcome: A veritable coalition of the willing is investigating the deal, including the Justice Department, the SEC, the Nigerian government and a French magistrate. In June, Halliburton fired two implicated executives.
9. Halliburton: One Fine Company
The scandal: In 1998 and 1999, Halliburton counted money recovered from project overruns as revenue, before settling the charges with clients.
The problem: Doing so made the company's income appear larger, but Halliburton did not explain this to investors. The SEC ruled this accounting practice was "materially misleading."
The outcome: In August 2004, Halliburton agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine to settle SEC charges. One Halliburton executive has paid a fine and another is settling civil charges. Now imagine the right-wing rhetoric if, say, Al Gore had once headed a firm fined for fudging income statements.
10. Halliburton's Iran End Run
The scandal: Halliburton may have been doing business with Iran while Cheney was CEO.
The problem: Federal sanctions have banned U.S. companies from dealing directly with Iran. To operate in Iran legally, U.S. companies have been required to set up independent subsidiaries registered abroad. Halliburton thus set up a new entity, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., to do business in Iran, but while the subsidiary was registered in the Cayman Islands, it may not have had operations totally independent of the parent company.
The outcome: Unresolved. The Treasury Department has referred the case to the U.S. attorney in Houston, who convened a grand jury in July 2004.
32. In Plame Sight
The scandal: In July 2003, administration officials disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative working on counterterrorism efforts, to multiple journalists, and columnist Robert Novak made Plame's identity public. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had just written a New York Times opinion piece stating he had investigated the Niger uranium-production allegations, at the CIA's behest, and reported them to be untrue, before Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
The problem: Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act it is illegal to disclose, knowingly, the name of an undercover agent.
The outcome: Unresolved. The Justice Department appointed special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to the case in December 2003. While this might seem a simple matter, Fitzgerald could be unable to prove the leakers knew Plame was a covert agent.
Fox news continues to beat CNN in ratings
by IseFire - Sun 01/16/05 10:09 am EST
The Observer, "Fox Bites CNN in Ad War":
There’s not much debate about who’s winning. At the end of 2004, a television year pumped up by Iraq war coverage and a divisive Presidential election cycle, Fox continued its three-year hold on No. 1 ratings: It now trumps all of its cable news rivals combined. According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox pulled in an average of 913,000 viewers, compared to CNN’s 479,000. During the coverage of the Presidential election night on Nov. 2, an average of 8.05 million tuned into Fox News, outpacing CNN by some two million viewers.
The progressive machine
by IseFire - Fri 01/14/05 12:30 am EST
One of the reasons I'm supporting Howard Dean for DNC Chair is that he understands that Democrats individually and the Party as a whole lack a grand narrative for America and its future. Of course, what makes matters worse is that there has yet to be created a real Progressive Machine, informed by the work of think-tanks and institutes as the machine's foundation, and made effective on a daily basis--not just during presidential races--through a multi-leveled community of:
1. media vehicles--including radio, TV, online, print, and promotional (e.g., publicity stunts, billboards, etc.) ;
2. people--columnists, publicists/PR experts, journalists, spokespersons (generally affiliated with the aforementioned think tanks); and
3. think tanks--the organizations that produce the research and concepts relevant to progressivism.
By multi-leveled, I mean that this community needs to have a presence at local, state, national, and international levels.
At the local level, a progressive machine would include everything from local progressive publications to city- and county-level Party offices being aware of each other and actively cooperating. The division between Party apparatus and Progressive apparatus is created in part by campaign finance law, but can be easily bridged, in part through the Internet--by each group simply committing to read each other's websites and making sure announcements about events are cross-posted, and that real face-to-face networking events occur. At the level of block-by-block GOTV efforts and the efforts to give progressivism a voice in the local media, face-to-face networking is vital.
Building the progressive machine at the state level involves state affiliates of national institutions, as well as state-only organizations. At this level, new organizations are needed badly. New York State, for instance, is crying out for an organization that puts a priority on Albany reform, that works with the information provided by organizations like the Brennen Center, publicizes that information, and then backs candidates for state (or local) office committed to those reforms. And an organization for New York State committed to judicial reform is needed desperately. Currently, there are only small professional groups and lone individuals trying in vain to bring progressive ideals--such as transparency and direct accountability to the people--to the state government and courts.
At the national level of "machine-building," the most progress has been made already: MoveOn is an example of a new progressive org with national reach; Air America Radio as the first true foray into media apparatus; and New Democratic Network is an example of the emerging commitment on the part of politicos to creating think tanks.
The international level of a progressive machine is in need of leadership. Progressives abroad are to be lauded for having already started to network via web communities, in order to disseminate information, including on vital matters such as absentee voting. But the international level of a progressive machine much include far more communication between American progressives (both abroad and at home) and our foreign counterparts. Rest assured that Republican think tanks are influenced by the writings of non-American conservatives. Similarly, how the Labour Party of the UK, or the Greens in Germany, for instance, maneuver around a particular political problem shouldn't be an assumed irrelevancy to progressives here. We can learn from each other from across national boundaries, and to an extent directly aid each other--certainly at least at the level of "messaging," of coordinating and disseminating talking points to foreigner progressives who speak to their national press. And they can return the favor. (I.e., Shock or shocks: foreigners can be a source of good ideas!)
Finally...money. Money is needed to make all of the above happen. Slowly, the money is finding its way into good investments for progressivism's future. ACT, George Soros' organization, is an example of moneyed progressives finally committing to do more than throw money at the DNC or campaigns, and invest in progressivism itself; and the "Phoenix Group," which is at best a loose affiliation of moneyed progressives ("Phoenix Group" itself is merely an informal moniker, an evocative nickname), is an example of a solicitation organization, an apparatus for pooling and distributing the funds of very wealthy Americans with progressive political values.
The long term future for progressivism will be bright only if the rightwing media and money machine--which ultimately is the progenitor of the emerging Republican hegemony--can begin to be measurably countered in the short term. It's a race, really. Can the rightwing movement, which is essentially a coup d'etat executed over decades, but which is now accelerating mightily, be slowed enough to allow the leftwing to build up its size and effectiveness? In other words, I believe that relative to the consolidation of rightwing cultural influence and political power there is a critical point (if ever reached, it will probably be recognized only in retrospect) at which the right can cause irreparable harm to America’s core, its soul, it very notion of itself and the values unpinning the daily workings of its government.
Great harm in these regards has already been done! However, I do not think the harm is, strictly speaking, irreversible, except in one important cultural, which is the popular conceptualization of “liberal” values. The term “liberal” has become effectively irredeemable in the United States, and liberals have basically conceded that contest. We usually feel the need to call ourselves “progressives” now.
The arena the rightwing is next most likely to permanently and negatively affect is the concept of government itself. Sadly, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, aided the rightwing in this, essentially foregoing any battles against the conservative myth of “big government,” and instead embracing the myth himself, offered to America’s collective consciousness the notion that Democrats were better at thwarting big government than Republicans were. This was part of his famed “triangulation.” It was a mistake. The idea that ought to have been put forward is not that government is inherently bad and Dems bust it up better than Republicans, but that government is like the stock market, and presidential administrations and the Congress either invest in it wisely or not, and Dems invest in it in ways that make more American richer; Republicans invest in it in ways that make the rich, richer, and do this by investing tax dollars in things like corporate welfare.
So, long ago the battle between rightwing and left for the soul of America was joined. Pat Buchanan’s mistakes in mentioning this battle in his 1992 address before the Republican National Convention were that he did it on national television, he overvalued himself as a messenger, and he wasn’t careful, and the speech came across as a declaration of war, not a description of one. His assessment that there was a “cultural war” in America wasn’t wrong. His opinion was widely shared. In fact, I share it now and did then when I was a college student. But he was giving away the game! The Republican leadership let progressives (then-liberals) tear him apart and brand him divisive because Republican leaders saw that he was dangerously impulsive and ego-centric—he was revealing the fact that the GOP was waging systematic, well-funded, and merciless war against liberalism and Democrats, and he was hogging the spotlight while doing so. Pat Buchanan was (and is) no team player. He’s the “I’m in charge here” sort, only without Haig’s scowl or distinguished head of white hair. He would have to go.
To be sure, liberals’ attacks on Buchanan were woefully naïve. Liberals idiotically claimed that Buchanan was wrong and divisive, when he was in fact correct and divisive. A cultural had been declared, long before his speech, by post-Goldwater conservatives against the Democratic Party and liberalism. While liberals patted—as it were—themselves on the back for tearing Buchanan down, they proceeded to dismiss the revelation of war itself! This was a costly error, rooted in arrogance and the myopia of the Democratic Party’s leadership ensconced inside the Beltway.
Which takes us back to the race for the contest to be the chair of the DNC. While Republican values and vision are have become backward and narrow, Democratic operations are backward and narrow. The status quo is the status quo of lost Congressional control and two failed presidential elections. It is the status quo of inside the Beltway leadership. It is committed to strategy and tactics, while inflexible about Democratic Party values, instead of being flexible about strategy and tactics, and committed to the core values of peace, prosperity, justice, and equality. It’s got it wrong, and it has to change.
|
