It Looks Like This (sorry, no ice cream) 

Disenfranchisement - a rant

It's interesting that one of the distinguishing characteristics that is emerging between Democrats and Republicans is that as an institution Democrats are working to expand the voting franchise, to ensure that as many people as possible who are qualified to vote get a chance to do so, while Republicans are intent on limiting and challenging that expansion as much as possible. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to draw a parallel between that and the differences between the parties in most things. In economic matters, Republicans seem to view economic prosperity as a zero sum game, in which economic gains made by the lower or middle economic classes must come at the expense of those in the upper class, so they work hard, through passage of laws to protect their interests, and, as our President has noted, through the hiring of top flight attorneys who can help them avoid paying taxes. Although Laffer curves and "trickle down economics" pays lip service to the notion that a rising tide floats all ships, the Republicans only ever seem to want to test those theories from the top down. Reagan and Bush I economic policies were geared toward further enriching those at the top with the expressed hope that as those people spent their wealth those below them on the economic ladder would be able to share in the prosperity. It didn't really work that way, though, did it?

By contrast, during the Clinton economic expansion, we saw a dramatic rise in the size and wealth of the middle class and more people than ever before taking advantage of an upward economic class mobility. Unlike the enrichment of the upper class that we saw under Reagan/Bush, which never actually had an appreciable impact on enriching those middle and lower economic classes, the enrichment of the middle class was accompanied by consumer spending that broadened the tax base dramatically, leading to the unprecedented revenue surplus that Clinton bequeathed to Bush. This was an economic expansion that spread out both up and down the economic spectrum and truly benefitted all classes.

Under George W. Bush, our country's economic and tax policies have returned to a top down distribution pushed by people who no longer even pretend that the enrichment of the top 1% will benefit us all. Instead they try to sweep that tremendous transfer of the nation's wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class under the rug. They tell us about the tax cut we all got and won't even discuss the tax cuts that they gave themselves and their friends. They don't talk about the corporate giveaways that are costing present and future tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars. The Bush Administration took the Clinton Surplus that belonged to all of us and gave it to the rich, to those who needed it the least, to those, whom it can be argued, have benfitted the most from the services, subsidies, and protections of the federal government. The people at the top of the our economic system have more money in their personal fortunes than they and their families could squander in twenty generations. The largesse distributed to them by the Bush Administration wasn't necessary from an economic standpoint, but it was from a power distribution standpoint, and that's where Republican economic policies meet up with Republican policies regarding the popular franchise.

Through consolidation of economic power, the rich and powerful who run this country can maintain their grip on the government. When Bush was installed by the Supreme Court these powerful interests found that they had a useful and malleable ally in the White House and a useful and powerful ally in the Vice-President's office. A radically pro-business House Republican leadership and a compliant Republican majority (and for the most part dormant Democratic minority) in the Senate have rounded out a Federal government that has spent the last four years shifting as much of the government's wealth as they could into the vaults of major corporations. Life's been good for these people.

Now, though, they are threatened. Spectacular incompetence in the management of the war in Iraq and unprecedented indifference to the economic and social needs of the middle and lower class have created a restive mass of voters that, if stimulated enough, could remove the Bush administration and possibly the Republican majority in the Senate. Realizing that it's too late to actually do something of value to serve these tens of millions of disgruntled voters and not willing to count too heavily on their lies continuing to be believed, the Republicans have turned to widespread disenfranchisement of voters, non-Republican voters, to remain in power. From voter roll purges in Florida (again), to destruction of Democrat voter registrations in numerous states (sponsored by the Republican National Committee), to shifting polling places in Philadelphia, to Republican plans to "challenge" voters in Ohio (designed to tie up polling places and discourage voters from casting their ballots), the Republicans aim to make it as hard as possible for people who are inclined to vote for their opponents to cast their ballots.

The amazing thing about these moves, aside from the fact that one of our two major political parties would engage in such activities in the twenty first century, is that the mainstream press has by and large chosen to ignore it. It is being ignored in the individual instances described above and it is being ignored as a pattern that is emerging. The Republican party has clearly declared its intention to remain in power regardless of what it takes to do so. They will literally lie, cheat, and steal to do it, and it remains to be seen if they will kill as well. And the news media avert their eyes and tell us to move along, there's nothing to see here. And the republic crumbles.

Arming the Enemy

Addressing reports that the Bush Administration had failed to plan for or secure an Iraqi munitions depot during the invasion, I got this email from the Kerry/Edwards campaign:

"This morning, The New York Times published a story that offers further proof of how the Bush administration's incompetence and arrogance has endangered the lives of our troops and the American people.

Even before invading Iraq, the Bush administration knew that a huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, contained nearly 380 tons of deadly explosives. Despite the fact that they knew exactly where this facility was and what was there, they took no action to secure or protect the site. Due to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and their incomprehensible failure to plan, these explosives have disappeared.

Let me put this in perspective -- the bomb that took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland used less than one pound of this same explosive. There were 760,000 pounds at Al Qaqaa.

You can read the article by visiting:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1025.html

Our troops are the best-trained and best-led forces in the world, and they have been doing their job honorably and bravely. The problem is the commander in chief has not being doing his. George Bush refuses to recognize his failures in Iraq, so he can't fix them and is doomed to repeat them."


That about says it all, doesn't it?

Rice on the Campaign Trail

In this item from TAPPED about the amount of time Condoleeza Rice is spending stumping for Bush, Kerry spokesman Mark Kitchens is quoted as saying of the National Security Advisor, "America would be better off if Dr. Rice spent more time worrying about Osama bin-Laden's job security and less time worrying about her own."

Although I understand the political points he is trying to score here, let's be honest, does anybody really believe, based on her performance over the last four years, that Rice offers any greater threat to bin-Laden when she is trying to do her job than when she is not?

Dying in Darfur

Nicholas Kristoff, in the New York Times (registration required), addresses the continuing humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

"The challenge we Americans face in Sudan is this: Are we willing to save Abdelrahim and Muhammad, and two million more like them?"

"I photographed Abdelrahim and Muhammad in their mostly abandoned Darfur village, where the murderous Janjaweed militia, backed by the Sudanese government, has already killed seven members of their family. The boys have been hiding for months here in a war zone, hungry and frightened and hunted like wild beasts."

"This land stinks of fear and death, but perhaps just as striking as the murder and rape are the moral choices that families here are forced to make each day."

"For Abdelrahim's family members, the choice is whether to let adults and older siblings try to hike to safety in Chad - it's a six-day walk. They could leave one adult behind to try to keep Abdelrahim and Muhammad alive. Or should the whole family stay, putting more people at risk but increasing the chance that the boys can be saved?"

"The family has elected for now to stay here together, surviving by gathering wild seeds to eat. Apart from starvation, the danger is that the Janjaweed or Sudanese troops will return to kill the men and rape and disfigure - and sometimes kill - the women and girls."

"One morning I came across a 10-year-old girl herding goats. She was frightened when she saw my truck, fearing that I might be in the Janjaweed, which had already burned down her home and killed 30 members of her extended family."

"Aid workers, who are doing heroic work in Darfur, face another painful moral calculus. So far, war zones like this part of Darfur have not gotten any help because it is too dangerous. Relief groups must protect their own employees, even if that means allowing Sudanese to die."

"I did see three Save the Children vehicles on an exploratory mission to see whether the area was safe. Then, a couple of hours after I saw them, a Save the Children car in the same area - I can't be sure if it was one of the same vehicles - hit a mine, and two aid workers were killed. Now aid groups will be even less willing to venture here."

"I understand the painful ethical choices of Abdelrahim's family, of Mr. Hassan and of the international aid agencies. But what I can't fathom is our own moral choice, our decision to acquiesce in genocide."

"We in America could save kids like Abdelrahim and Muhammad. This wouldn't require troops, just a bit of gumption to declare a no-fly zone, to press our Western allies and nearby Arab and African states, to impose an arms embargo and other targeted sanctions, to push a meaningful U.N. resolution even at the risk of a Chinese veto, and to insist upon the deployment of a larger African force."

"Instead, President Bush's policy is to chide Sudan and send aid. That's much better than nothing and has led Sudan to kill fewer children and to kill more humanely: Sudan now mostly allows kids in Darfur like Abdelrahim to die of starvation, instead of heaving them onto bonfires. But fundamentally, U.S. policy seems to be to "manage" the genocide rather than to act decisively to stop it."

"The lackadaisical international response has already permitted the deaths of about 100,000 people in Darfur, and up to 10,000 more are dying each month. We should look Abdelrahim and Muhammad in the eye and feel deeply ashamed."

Kristoff is one of our most valuable journalists, because of his willingness to travel to regions where tihs kind of inhumanity is taking place and his ability to express the horror of what he sees through his words.

Though what is happening in Darfur seems distant from us, we need not do nothing. You can contact your Senators to express your support of HR 5061, which requires disclosure of the names of those companies doing business in Sudan. You can go to DivestSudan.org to learn how to put pressure on such companies to divest themselves of their holdings in Sudan. We must make it clear that is not acceptable to profit on the blood of others.

Bush Foresaw no Casualties in Iraq

According to this CNN.com article, George Bush told Pat Robertson that he needn't prepare Americans for casualties going into the Iraq war because "we're not going to have any casualties."

I don't know if Bush really said that or not, but I can't imagine why Robertson, a fervent Bush supporter, would make something like that up. The thing is, from what we now know of how Bush "analyzes" situations, it sounds perfectly consistent with that approach. This is a man who has always believed that the best of many possible outcomes would always prevail and has accordingly failed to plan for any of the other outcomes. And so it is in Iraq. He truly believed that it would be a short bloodless conquest, one of many such, as we transformed the mideast into a greenhouse of democracy. Sadly, as beautiful as that vision is, it couldn't be farther removed from reality. And Bush still doesn't change his thinking. So, what do you say, folks, can we change Presidents now?

The Mocking of the President - 2004

Bush Mocking Video and Music Round-up

"It's Hard Work," A Bush Debate Video.

"Hard Work", Harry Shearer's Song. Words by George W. Bush.

And finally, for this round-up, George Bush Down on the Farm.

It takes a nation of millions to mock him.

Sudan Divesture

Since Sinclair Broadcasting anounced plans to air an anti-Kerry "documentary," pro-Kerry and other Democratic groups have mobilized to bring financial pressure on Sinclair through its advertisers and its stockholders. Though it remains to be seen whether this will have the desired effect of halting the broadcast, it has cast wider attention on Sinclair's scheme and has seemingly already had a negative effect on the company's stock value and finances.

Last week I wrote of moves to bring financial pressure to bear on Sudan, to make that nation pay a financial price for its genocidal practices. Today I want to direct you to a website that tells you how you can make a difference.

What is being done to change the practices of Sinclair broadcasting is good and I in no way want to diminish the negative impact of that company's practices or the goal or the potential accomplishments of the boycott movement against them. People are dying in Sudan, however. Please help out there, too. Lives may depend on your actions.

Putin Backs Bush

George Bush has received the endorsement of Vladimir Putin for reelection. That's interesting, no? Putin has not supported us in Iraq (or Iran, for that matter) and recently introduced "reforms" in Russia that strengthened the central government, at the expense of democracy, a move Bush remained largely silent about. I'm not sure the endorsement of a former KGB head who is reversing 15 years of democratic reform in Russia is really what Bush needs.

Another Word or Two About the Draft

Although I believe that President Bush believes that he has no intentions of reinstituting a draft, I remain unconvinced that he can continue down the current path without doing so. We now have word that the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is used for training of other combat units is being deployed to Iraq for combat, a move likened to "eating our seed corn."

Along with that comes this report of plans to extend reservist mobilizations from the current two years to five years.

Both of these moves, along with other recent military moves, such as stop-loss orders and recall of retired military personnel are strong indications that our all voluntary army is stretched to the breaking point. I don't know how many more such tricks the Pentagon has in its bag, but with each one of these it seems to me that it gets draftier in here.

Jon Stewart Takes on Crossfire

In this clip (link through Media Matters For America), Jon Stewart takes the fluffheads at CNN to task for failing America in it's shepherding of America's political discourse. Jon is bright, funny, earnest, and sincere and Tucker Carlson comes across as a shallow twit in a bowtie. Jon says the things so many of us, given the chance, would love to say to these people.