Friday, April 30, 2004
War Dead? What War Dead? Heroes? What Heroes?
Despite the fact that TeamBush is wrapped up in the flag tighter than a cocoon and despite the fact that it drops words like 'honor' and 'sacrifice' at a moments notice, it refuses to let people mourn their war dead in public. TeamBush allies like the company who was doing pentagon contracting in Kuwait promptly fired two employees after they sent home photos of coffins which made their way to a news source. The corporation spokesman said that they were "strongly encouraged" to do so by the Dept. of Defense.
Today we learn that an ABC affiliate with very strong ties to the GOP and TeamBush is refusing to air Ted Koppel's Nightline program tonight. Koppel plans to honor the war dead by solemnly reading their names, ages and hometowns as a photo of each appears on the screen. All seven-hundred plus of them.
Of course, isn't this the kind of John Wayne patriotism thing that the GOP should eat up with a red, white, and blue spoon?! So why the complaints?
Because, despite talk of honor, in NO WAY does anyone over at TeamBush want any possible reminder to the American public that people are dying daily, at an increasing rate, for a war that they are having an increasingly hard time justifying.
One last point--main architect of our Iraq War strategy, Paul Wolfowitz, was on Capitol Hill today and when asked if he knew current US casaulty numbers said, "Five hundred, give or take." He was off by 44%. We're at 738 and, sadly, still counting.
Despite the fact that TeamBush is wrapped up in the flag tighter than a cocoon and despite the fact that it drops words like 'honor' and 'sacrifice' at a moments notice, it refuses to let people mourn their war dead in public. TeamBush allies like the company who was doing pentagon contracting in Kuwait promptly fired two employees after they sent home photos of coffins which made their way to a news source. The corporation spokesman said that they were "strongly encouraged" to do so by the Dept. of Defense.
Today we learn that an ABC affiliate with very strong ties to the GOP and TeamBush is refusing to air Ted Koppel's Nightline program tonight. Koppel plans to honor the war dead by solemnly reading their names, ages and hometowns as a photo of each appears on the screen. All seven-hundred plus of them.
Of course, isn't this the kind of John Wayne patriotism thing that the GOP should eat up with a red, white, and blue spoon?! So why the complaints?
Because, despite talk of honor, in NO WAY does anyone over at TeamBush want any possible reminder to the American public that people are dying daily, at an increasing rate, for a war that they are having an increasingly hard time justifying.
One last point--main architect of our Iraq War strategy, Paul Wolfowitz, was on Capitol Hill today and when asked if he knew current US casaulty numbers said, "Five hundred, give or take." He was off by 44%. We're at 738 and, sadly, still counting.
Friday, April 23, 2004
One Year Later--Duped or self-deluded on Iraq?
The Inquirer Washington Bureau reports yet again that a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that Iraq was closely allied with Al Qaeda and was involved with the 9-11 terror attacks. Lesser but still significant numbers believe Iraq had both stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (38%) and on-going significant programs to develop such weapons (22%).
This despite the fact that, "(t)here is no known evidence to date that these statements are true."
I must admit to being literally speechless about this. The words 'stupid' and 'idiot' come to mind, but that is pointless and unfair. Still, I am left wondering what it will take to get through to these folks.
While I think the human rights angle now being pushed by TeamBush is utterly shameless and disingenuous on its part, I can at least see people buying into Colin Powell's now-infamous Pottery Barn analogy about Iraq that 'if you break it, you own it.' We caused the mess and we can't just run away (although there was a point when we could have more easily internationalized the conflict than now, but TeamBush blew that opportunity too).
Still, I have to think that most folks maintaining these opinions just really cannot admit that their country or government made a big oops, which is at least implied in the 'break it, bought it' notion.
Two things: 1. If someone knows a person who agrees with the statements in the above poll, please have them contact me. I really want to understand their mindset and promise to be respectful; and 2. Can you imagine how hawkish conservatives would respond to the following scenario:
Our troops were welcomed in Iraq as liberators. Their numbers were already being drawn down although many were in no hurry to leave since they were being so well treated by grateful Iraqis. Once in control of the country coalition forces discovered unrefutable evidence of financial and military ties between the terrorists and Hussein's dictatorship. They also uncovered a series of secret weapon stashes and launching bases so cleverly concealed that they were worthy of being the lair of a James Bond arch-enemy and that had avoided detection by UN and IAEA inspectors for years. These secret bases were loaded with high quality missiles and large caches of toxic nerve gases and nuclear weapons that were never more than 45 minutes from being able to launch against the West's major cities, exactly as British prime Minister Tony Blair's eerily accurate intelligence had predicted. Faced with such damning evidence, lefty opinion leaders ranging from Noam Chomsky to Tim Robbins had to admit that the war was probably a good idea.
And despite all of this, 57% of Americans were still against the war. A third to a quarter of them refused to even believe that Saddam had an active weapons program despite all of the obvious proof and confiscated missiles and warheads.
What will get through to these people?!
And by the way, the day that all does happen is the day when the Air Force actually does have to hold a Bake Sale to buy a bomber and schools do have all the money they need.
In other words, not any time soon.
The Inquirer Washington Bureau reports yet again that a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that Iraq was closely allied with Al Qaeda and was involved with the 9-11 terror attacks. Lesser but still significant numbers believe Iraq had both stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (38%) and on-going significant programs to develop such weapons (22%).
This despite the fact that, "(t)here is no known evidence to date that these statements are true."
I must admit to being literally speechless about this. The words 'stupid' and 'idiot' come to mind, but that is pointless and unfair. Still, I am left wondering what it will take to get through to these folks.
While I think the human rights angle now being pushed by TeamBush is utterly shameless and disingenuous on its part, I can at least see people buying into Colin Powell's now-infamous Pottery Barn analogy about Iraq that 'if you break it, you own it.' We caused the mess and we can't just run away (although there was a point when we could have more easily internationalized the conflict than now, but TeamBush blew that opportunity too).
Still, I have to think that most folks maintaining these opinions just really cannot admit that their country or government made a big oops, which is at least implied in the 'break it, bought it' notion.
Two things: 1. If someone knows a person who agrees with the statements in the above poll, please have them contact me. I really want to understand their mindset and promise to be respectful; and 2. Can you imagine how hawkish conservatives would respond to the following scenario:
Our troops were welcomed in Iraq as liberators. Their numbers were already being drawn down although many were in no hurry to leave since they were being so well treated by grateful Iraqis. Once in control of the country coalition forces discovered unrefutable evidence of financial and military ties between the terrorists and Hussein's dictatorship. They also uncovered a series of secret weapon stashes and launching bases so cleverly concealed that they were worthy of being the lair of a James Bond arch-enemy and that had avoided detection by UN and IAEA inspectors for years. These secret bases were loaded with high quality missiles and large caches of toxic nerve gases and nuclear weapons that were never more than 45 minutes from being able to launch against the West's major cities, exactly as British prime Minister Tony Blair's eerily accurate intelligence had predicted. Faced with such damning evidence, lefty opinion leaders ranging from Noam Chomsky to Tim Robbins had to admit that the war was probably a good idea.
And despite all of this, 57% of Americans were still against the war. A third to a quarter of them refused to even believe that Saddam had an active weapons program despite all of the obvious proof and confiscated missiles and warheads.
What will get through to these people?!
And by the way, the day that all does happen is the day when the Air Force actually does have to hold a Bake Sale to buy a bomber and schools do have all the money they need.
In other words, not any time soon.
Hometown Proud. . .The Power of Christ Compels Me!!
Who out there knows the chest-swelling pride that comes when you find that a sleepy community with which you've long been associated is the location for a "bizarre news" feature which is being beamed world-wide thanks to wire services and the internet?
I am happy to count myself amongst you now that I read of a twist on the passion of Christ put on in my mother's hometown of Glassport, PA. It was in this aging mill town in Pennsylvania's Mon Valley that the local Assembly of God church decided to graphically disassociate the Easter Bunny from Christendom's holiest season.
"People who attended Saturday's show at Glassport's memorial stadium quoted performers as saying, "There is no Easter bunny," and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified." The performers, "trying to teach about Jesus' crucifixion, performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs. . .meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman."
Parents of obviously disturbed toddlers such as "Melissa Salzmann, who brought her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. "He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped.""
Youth minister of the church said, "The program was for all ages, not just the kids."
Indeed. And to think, folks waste all that money flying to Oberammergau for its famous Passion play. Next year it's Glassport for me. I'll be the one in front hawking commemorative scourges and decapitated chocolate rabbits. Get 'em while they last!!!
Who out there knows the chest-swelling pride that comes when you find that a sleepy community with which you've long been associated is the location for a "bizarre news" feature which is being beamed world-wide thanks to wire services and the internet?
I am happy to count myself amongst you now that I read of a twist on the passion of Christ put on in my mother's hometown of Glassport, PA. It was in this aging mill town in Pennsylvania's Mon Valley that the local Assembly of God church decided to graphically disassociate the Easter Bunny from Christendom's holiest season.
"People who attended Saturday's show at Glassport's memorial stadium quoted performers as saying, "There is no Easter bunny," and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified." The performers, "trying to teach about Jesus' crucifixion, performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs. . .meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman."
Parents of obviously disturbed toddlers such as "Melissa Salzmann, who brought her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. "He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped.""
Youth minister of the church said, "The program was for all ages, not just the kids."
Indeed. And to think, folks waste all that money flying to Oberammergau for its famous Passion play. Next year it's Glassport for me. I'll be the one in front hawking commemorative scourges and decapitated chocolate rabbits. Get 'em while they last!!!
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Tax Freedom (Hah!) vs. Work Freedom: Who pays what?
Several rightwing organizations have again this April celebrated/mourned Tax Freedom Day. This year's Tax Freedom Day was calculated to be April 11. Giving kudos to the TeamBush flowing tax cuts, groups such as Citizens for a Sound Economy cheered that this was the earliest Tax Freedom Day (the day we have to work to pay-off our federal taxes) since 1967. Just the kind of thing to make the average Dittohead jump for joy!
But that's far from the whole picture. A look at the above article would lead a reasonable person to believe that America's wealthy are shouldering more of our nation's spending than ever before, or at least more than their fair share. And that's the point of such misleading numbers.
In fact, income taxes are a pretty poor measure of the tax burden that regular working people bear. According to a report from the people at AskQuestions.org (a really neat site that everyone should explore), "(t)he short answer is this: you and I pay the taxes that rich and powerful people ought to pay, but don’t."
This article is a fine synopsis of our current misdirected tax system and one everyone should read. There are several issues at hand, the largest of which is the percentage of our available income that average people pay each year. As the conservative statistics imply, the wealthy indeed pay more income tax than the average person. But average folks pay 40% of their total take in all taxes (including state and local and Social Security), where the wealthy pay only 27%. That is because local and state taxes take a bigger bite from lower income people than the wealthy and beacuse our FICA taxes only take from the first $88,000 or so a person earns.
That means if your check is less than 88K you pay FICA on your whole income, and because it's used to pay for Social Security that's OK, because it's fair. However, if you make $88,001 you pay the same in FICA as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.
Another reason that regular folks pay more tax than we used to is because corporations pay far less to our national coffers than they once did. In 1965 they paid 34% of taxes but by 2000 that rate was down to 18%-- a gap made up by the rest of us.
I could quote this article at much greater length, but please read it because its just a fine, concise analysis with lots of good graphs.
One of the great accomplishments of our economy in the last few decades has been our productivity. Quite simply, American workers do more with less than almost any other nation--but in the quest for ever increasing stock profits and bloated CEO salaries, that just isn't enough. And it is because of this very efficiency that we are in a jobless recovery, one which pays handsome dividends to shareholders while shedding jobs to increase profits. As those of us still employed know, we are increasingly being asked to do even more, to take on more responsibilities and the tasks of others who were 'downsized.' And vacation days, sick time and insurance and retirement coverage get whittled down each year.
So now let's move then to the other side of the yearly calendar when we contemplate just how well off the average American is under TeamBush. As a play on Tax Freedom Day several groups have calculated Work Freedom Day. This measures how much more the average American works compared with workers in other Western industrialized democracies. Turns out another way to look at our vaunted efficiency is that Americans are brutally overworked.
By the measure of Work Freedom Day, compared to the average American the average Dutch worker would quit on August 22, the German on September 10. Our Anglo brethren work much harder, quitting on October 25.
Quality of Life is more than economic efficiency unless your primary income comes off of the backs of others. This study notes that "University of Warwick Professor Andrew Oswald, who has done a prodigious amount of research into the work/life balance, highlights an international study which shows that 46% of Americans wanted to have more time at home with the family, 36% of Britons but only 18% of the Dutch. I wonder why?"
I do too.
Several rightwing organizations have again this April celebrated/mourned Tax Freedom Day. This year's Tax Freedom Day was calculated to be April 11. Giving kudos to the TeamBush flowing tax cuts, groups such as Citizens for a Sound Economy cheered that this was the earliest Tax Freedom Day (the day we have to work to pay-off our federal taxes) since 1967. Just the kind of thing to make the average Dittohead jump for joy!
But that's far from the whole picture. A look at the above article would lead a reasonable person to believe that America's wealthy are shouldering more of our nation's spending than ever before, or at least more than their fair share. And that's the point of such misleading numbers.
In fact, income taxes are a pretty poor measure of the tax burden that regular working people bear. According to a report from the people at AskQuestions.org (a really neat site that everyone should explore), "(t)he short answer is this: you and I pay the taxes that rich and powerful people ought to pay, but don’t."
This article is a fine synopsis of our current misdirected tax system and one everyone should read. There are several issues at hand, the largest of which is the percentage of our available income that average people pay each year. As the conservative statistics imply, the wealthy indeed pay more income tax than the average person. But average folks pay 40% of their total take in all taxes (including state and local and Social Security), where the wealthy pay only 27%. That is because local and state taxes take a bigger bite from lower income people than the wealthy and beacuse our FICA taxes only take from the first $88,000 or so a person earns.
That means if your check is less than 88K you pay FICA on your whole income, and because it's used to pay for Social Security that's OK, because it's fair. However, if you make $88,001 you pay the same in FICA as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.
Another reason that regular folks pay more tax than we used to is because corporations pay far less to our national coffers than they once did. In 1965 they paid 34% of taxes but by 2000 that rate was down to 18%-- a gap made up by the rest of us.
I could quote this article at much greater length, but please read it because its just a fine, concise analysis with lots of good graphs.
One of the great accomplishments of our economy in the last few decades has been our productivity. Quite simply, American workers do more with less than almost any other nation--but in the quest for ever increasing stock profits and bloated CEO salaries, that just isn't enough. And it is because of this very efficiency that we are in a jobless recovery, one which pays handsome dividends to shareholders while shedding jobs to increase profits. As those of us still employed know, we are increasingly being asked to do even more, to take on more responsibilities and the tasks of others who were 'downsized.' And vacation days, sick time and insurance and retirement coverage get whittled down each year.
So now let's move then to the other side of the yearly calendar when we contemplate just how well off the average American is under TeamBush. As a play on Tax Freedom Day several groups have calculated Work Freedom Day. This measures how much more the average American works compared with workers in other Western industrialized democracies. Turns out another way to look at our vaunted efficiency is that Americans are brutally overworked.
By the measure of Work Freedom Day, compared to the average American the average Dutch worker would quit on August 22, the German on September 10. Our Anglo brethren work much harder, quitting on October 25.
Quality of Life is more than economic efficiency unless your primary income comes off of the backs of others. This study notes that "University of Warwick Professor Andrew Oswald, who has done a prodigious amount of research into the work/life balance, highlights an international study which shows that 46% of Americans wanted to have more time at home with the family, 36% of Britons but only 18% of the Dutch. I wonder why?"
I do too.
The God Thing and the Middle East
One thing that has been made even more clear by the publication of Bob Woodward's new book Plan of Attack is George W. Bush's almost messianic sense of destiny.
Lest the criticism start too soon, I will again confirm for the record that I believe in God and personally practice religion, as do, according to poll after poll, most Americans . Which I believe is what makes criticism of Bush's beliefs hard for many. Most Americans are clearly comfortable with some role for religion in the public and political arena, First Amendment be damned.
Many see the rise of court-enforced secularism in the modern era (as opposed to the government-endorsed Christianity of earlier generations) as causing the erosion of our values and culture. Thus, the idea that Bush actually believes he's taking his marching orders from God, as Woodward clearly revealed, has a broad surface appeal to many Americans.
But there are grave problems about his approach that trouble many of us as well. It is clearly one thing to be driven by your own personal values and belief system. It is wholly another to believe that you are a unique instrument of God's will. Numerous accounts from this White House have indicated that W. is possessed of the latter notion.
The problem is one of unshakable clarity of purpose and righteousness of action. Again, on the surface these traits are admirable, but taken to an extreme almost invariably lead to downfall and destruction. That is the fear of a growing number of religious and secular moderates, even those from the GOP who have until now supported TeamBush.
Seen through this prism, potentially confusing and contradictory policy decisions become clear. As he was widely reported to have told former Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Abbas, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
Clearly, election season has come, and Ariel Sharon was just tossed the biggest bone of his lengthy, and sordid, military/political career when Bush endorsed his unilateral plans for Gaza and the West Bank, plans opposed by the EU, UN, and virtually all Arabs and Palestinians.
Despite spin to the contrary coming out of the White House, this endorsement is a radical departure from all previous administrations and even earlier positions of TeamBush. For the few overtly pro-US rulers of the region, such as King Abdullah of Jordan, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Abdullah abruptly cancelled his planned trip to visit Bush in DC. President (for Life) of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak told French paper Le Monde, "(T)oday there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region. . . At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it."
So why would a president lead his nation down that path. Foreign affairs commentator Trudy Rubin wondered, "why, with the Iraq policy in trouble, (would) the President unravel the remains of his Mideast peace policy, and set the Arab world further on edge?" She puckishly offered, and then quickly withdrew this theory: "One obvious answer is presidential politics. Bush's endorsement of Sharon will play well among his core supporters on the Christian right (many of whom hope Israel will soon be the scene of the final battle of Armageddon). The Bush endorsement may also corral some key Jewish votes in Florida."
It is her parenthetical explanation that worries many. This is explored in detail by the Guardian's George Monbiot, who is among many people worldwide who are now starting to believe that US Christian Fundamentalists are Driving Bush's Middle East Policy.
Indeed, pride goeth before a fall, and so does self-righteousness. But if Monbiot's commentary about such decsions being made with 'end times' armageddon in mind is accurate, then that destruction is not only unavoidable, but in fact the glorious and long-awaited, albeit fire-consumed, outcome of mankind on the planet.
As potential voters consider pulling the GOP lever in November, they'll have to decide if they want a policy apparatus more in line with Tim LaHaye than Henry Kissinger.
As for me, I'm just waiting for an answer to the prophetic bumpersticker: "In case of Rapture, Can I have your Car?"
One thing that has been made even more clear by the publication of Bob Woodward's new book Plan of Attack is George W. Bush's almost messianic sense of destiny.
Lest the criticism start too soon, I will again confirm for the record that I believe in God and personally practice religion, as do, according to poll after poll, most Americans . Which I believe is what makes criticism of Bush's beliefs hard for many. Most Americans are clearly comfortable with some role for religion in the public and political arena, First Amendment be damned.
Many see the rise of court-enforced secularism in the modern era (as opposed to the government-endorsed Christianity of earlier generations) as causing the erosion of our values and culture. Thus, the idea that Bush actually believes he's taking his marching orders from God, as Woodward clearly revealed, has a broad surface appeal to many Americans.
But there are grave problems about his approach that trouble many of us as well. It is clearly one thing to be driven by your own personal values and belief system. It is wholly another to believe that you are a unique instrument of God's will. Numerous accounts from this White House have indicated that W. is possessed of the latter notion.
The problem is one of unshakable clarity of purpose and righteousness of action. Again, on the surface these traits are admirable, but taken to an extreme almost invariably lead to downfall and destruction. That is the fear of a growing number of religious and secular moderates, even those from the GOP who have until now supported TeamBush.
Seen through this prism, potentially confusing and contradictory policy decisions become clear. As he was widely reported to have told former Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Abbas, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
Clearly, election season has come, and Ariel Sharon was just tossed the biggest bone of his lengthy, and sordid, military/political career when Bush endorsed his unilateral plans for Gaza and the West Bank, plans opposed by the EU, UN, and virtually all Arabs and Palestinians.
Despite spin to the contrary coming out of the White House, this endorsement is a radical departure from all previous administrations and even earlier positions of TeamBush. For the few overtly pro-US rulers of the region, such as King Abdullah of Jordan, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Abdullah abruptly cancelled his planned trip to visit Bush in DC. President (for Life) of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak told French paper Le Monde, "(T)oday there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region. . . At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it."
So why would a president lead his nation down that path. Foreign affairs commentator Trudy Rubin wondered, "why, with the Iraq policy in trouble, (would) the President unravel the remains of his Mideast peace policy, and set the Arab world further on edge?" She puckishly offered, and then quickly withdrew this theory: "One obvious answer is presidential politics. Bush's endorsement of Sharon will play well among his core supporters on the Christian right (many of whom hope Israel will soon be the scene of the final battle of Armageddon). The Bush endorsement may also corral some key Jewish votes in Florida."
It is her parenthetical explanation that worries many. This is explored in detail by the Guardian's George Monbiot, who is among many people worldwide who are now starting to believe that US Christian Fundamentalists are Driving Bush's Middle East Policy.
Indeed, pride goeth before a fall, and so does self-righteousness. But if Monbiot's commentary about such decsions being made with 'end times' armageddon in mind is accurate, then that destruction is not only unavoidable, but in fact the glorious and long-awaited, albeit fire-consumed, outcome of mankind on the planet.
As potential voters consider pulling the GOP lever in November, they'll have to decide if they want a policy apparatus more in line with Tim LaHaye than Henry Kissinger.
As for me, I'm just waiting for an answer to the prophetic bumpersticker: "In case of Rapture, Can I have your Car?"
Why destroy the houses in Gaza?
Most people following the news know that Israel's government intends to pull its settlements out of the Gaza Strip region in the near future. Less known is the caveat that Israel will leave a substantial military presence there and will continue to control all land and sea access and the airspace over Gaza for an indefinite period. Now that's what I call independence, and I'm sure lots of Hamas supporters agree with me.
All irony aside, one thing that caught my eye about this unilateral transfer was that the Israelis intend to destroy all of the settlements there before they leave. Completely obliterate them, rip up the fertile fields and orchards around them as well. One is left to ask if they also plan to follow the tradition of the Roman legions by sowing the earth with salt and poisoning the wells to ensure that the land is totally uninhabitable for years to come.
There is an obvious option here: Give these nice spaces to Palestinians instead of putting them to the torch. Considering that some land exchange is likely in any final agreement between the two countries, and given that many Gaza residents are living in refugee camps, it would seem an obviously painless goodwill gesture that in no way could be misconstrued as a sign of weakness.
Even if one assumes that Sharon's rhetoric is true about wanting a two-state solution to the crisis (and I don't), it would seem that of late he has completely held back the carrot in favor of a really big dose of stick.
No group is ever going to be beaten down into submission and stay that way very long. While I can understand Sharon's and average Israeli's lack of patience in the face of destabilizing terror bombings, at some point you have to start getting some of the Palestinians on your side. As hard as one may be toward militants and their supporters and overlords, there needs to be some reaching out to those vast majority of Palestinians who don't actively support violence. In a very Machiavellian sense, these spaces, some of which are likely far nicer than any others in Gaza, could be given to the opinon and political leaders of Gaza. Fatten these people up a bit and they just might start to lose their violent edge.
Furthermore, such a transfer could be a model for resolving the 'right of return question' that remains among the sorest of points of contention in any final agreement. Palestinians would not be allowed to return to land inside Israel proper that their families fled in 1947/48, but let those with valid claims be among the first to get a crack at the nice dwellings in abandoned settlements in both Gaza and the West Bank. Will this approach solve everything? Likely not. But it will give a glimmer of hope of normalcy to some Palestinians who have not totally unreasonable property claims. And in the end, such a hope of normalcy is what the majority of regular folks on both sides of this conflict (really of any conflict) really want for themselves, their familes, and future generations.
Most people following the news know that Israel's government intends to pull its settlements out of the Gaza Strip region in the near future. Less known is the caveat that Israel will leave a substantial military presence there and will continue to control all land and sea access and the airspace over Gaza for an indefinite period. Now that's what I call independence, and I'm sure lots of Hamas supporters agree with me.
All irony aside, one thing that caught my eye about this unilateral transfer was that the Israelis intend to destroy all of the settlements there before they leave. Completely obliterate them, rip up the fertile fields and orchards around them as well. One is left to ask if they also plan to follow the tradition of the Roman legions by sowing the earth with salt and poisoning the wells to ensure that the land is totally uninhabitable for years to come.
There is an obvious option here: Give these nice spaces to Palestinians instead of putting them to the torch. Considering that some land exchange is likely in any final agreement between the two countries, and given that many Gaza residents are living in refugee camps, it would seem an obviously painless goodwill gesture that in no way could be misconstrued as a sign of weakness.
Even if one assumes that Sharon's rhetoric is true about wanting a two-state solution to the crisis (and I don't), it would seem that of late he has completely held back the carrot in favor of a really big dose of stick.
No group is ever going to be beaten down into submission and stay that way very long. While I can understand Sharon's and average Israeli's lack of patience in the face of destabilizing terror bombings, at some point you have to start getting some of the Palestinians on your side. As hard as one may be toward militants and their supporters and overlords, there needs to be some reaching out to those vast majority of Palestinians who don't actively support violence. In a very Machiavellian sense, these spaces, some of which are likely far nicer than any others in Gaza, could be given to the opinon and political leaders of Gaza. Fatten these people up a bit and they just might start to lose their violent edge.
Furthermore, such a transfer could be a model for resolving the 'right of return question' that remains among the sorest of points of contention in any final agreement. Palestinians would not be allowed to return to land inside Israel proper that their families fled in 1947/48, but let those with valid claims be among the first to get a crack at the nice dwellings in abandoned settlements in both Gaza and the West Bank. Will this approach solve everything? Likely not. But it will give a glimmer of hope of normalcy to some Palestinians who have not totally unreasonable property claims. And in the end, such a hope of normalcy is what the majority of regular folks on both sides of this conflict (really of any conflict) really want for themselves, their familes, and future generations.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
The Dutch hits the fan. . .and it's just the beginning
The saga at the top of Royal Dutch Shell continues today with the expected departure of CFO Judith Boynton. The tale of her departure came along with revelations of an e-mail that stated several senior bosses "knew for almost two years that the company had publicly overstated the size of its reserves."
Of course, this is a business section column dealt with as an upper-echelon-shenanigans-in-the- boardroom story. The reality is likely much worse and needs a little background.
Shell got into trouble for getting caught overstating the petroleum reserves it had, which for an oil company, is quite literally their money in the bank. This was first noticed in the oil fields of Oman, where Shell has the majority of the holdings. It became apparent that Oman just wasn't putting out the volume of oil that fields with those "proven" reserves should have been pumping. This led to Oman restating downward its reserves--an action that went scurrying up the ladder all the way to those nice folks in Holland.
The real problem starts back in 1986 however. It was then that OPEC decided to revise its policy so that the amount any nation could pump was relative to its proven (supposedly measured, although it's a very imprecise science at best) oil reserves. Eager to make the short term cash, and clearly with the tacit blessing of oil companies world wide, OPEC nations *gasp!* suddenly discovered their reserves were much higher than they thought in 1985, or any previous year. Sometimes double or even more.
The very real problem is this--when petroleum scientists and nerdy left-wingers alike try to predict how much oil is left in the ground, they use these post '86 estimates, because they are the only official numbers available.
But, as should be clear from the above, those numbers are likely gross exaggerations to begin with. Which means Oman and Shell are not just aberrations of financial greed and corrupt corporate malfeasance, rather they are also the canaries in the coal mine. The borrowed time we all knew we were living on vis-a-vis the petroleum economy just got a little shorter. So what do we do? Well, Investors Business Daily just led with an article saying that now was a great time to invest in oil futures. So that's right. . . no need to worry about how to avoid civilization-wide catastrophe in the next decade or so, no need to plan to conserve what bit of that resource remains, let's get in there and ride that oil crunch to personal prosperity!!!
Call Nero. . . we need a fiddler, and fast.
The saga at the top of Royal Dutch Shell continues today with the expected departure of CFO Judith Boynton. The tale of her departure came along with revelations of an e-mail that stated several senior bosses "knew for almost two years that the company had publicly overstated the size of its reserves."
Of course, this is a business section column dealt with as an upper-echelon-shenanigans-in-the- boardroom story. The reality is likely much worse and needs a little background.
Shell got into trouble for getting caught overstating the petroleum reserves it had, which for an oil company, is quite literally their money in the bank. This was first noticed in the oil fields of Oman, where Shell has the majority of the holdings. It became apparent that Oman just wasn't putting out the volume of oil that fields with those "proven" reserves should have been pumping. This led to Oman restating downward its reserves--an action that went scurrying up the ladder all the way to those nice folks in Holland.
The real problem starts back in 1986 however. It was then that OPEC decided to revise its policy so that the amount any nation could pump was relative to its proven (supposedly measured, although it's a very imprecise science at best) oil reserves. Eager to make the short term cash, and clearly with the tacit blessing of oil companies world wide, OPEC nations *gasp!* suddenly discovered their reserves were much higher than they thought in 1985, or any previous year. Sometimes double or even more.
The very real problem is this--when petroleum scientists and nerdy left-wingers alike try to predict how much oil is left in the ground, they use these post '86 estimates, because they are the only official numbers available.
But, as should be clear from the above, those numbers are likely gross exaggerations to begin with. Which means Oman and Shell are not just aberrations of financial greed and corrupt corporate malfeasance, rather they are also the canaries in the coal mine. The borrowed time we all knew we were living on vis-a-vis the petroleum economy just got a little shorter. So what do we do? Well, Investors Business Daily just led with an article saying that now was a great time to invest in oil futures. So that's right. . . no need to worry about how to avoid civilization-wide catastrophe in the next decade or so, no need to plan to conserve what bit of that resource remains, let's get in there and ride that oil crunch to personal prosperity!!!
Call Nero. . . we need a fiddler, and fast.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
More stuff, More hassle
This quick article by David Colman in our nation's paper of record, Sunday edition, struck me as both obvious and funny--and worth a read. Its subject, Barry Schwartz, maintains that "(t)he explosion of choice in the marketplace has led not to greater satisfaction but to greater anxiety. With so many choices, consumers lose confidence in their ability to choose. This, in turn, begets doubt over a good choice and misery over a bad one."
Schwartz goes into much greater detail in his book, The Paradox of Choice--Why Less is More. But it makes good sense to anyone who has ever flipped through 200 channels of TV unable to find anything worth watching. Oh well, keep on buying and acquiring, folks. The President needs your money flowing to keep this shaky economy afloat.
This quick article by David Colman in our nation's paper of record, Sunday edition, struck me as both obvious and funny--and worth a read. Its subject, Barry Schwartz, maintains that "(t)he explosion of choice in the marketplace has led not to greater satisfaction but to greater anxiety. With so many choices, consumers lose confidence in their ability to choose. This, in turn, begets doubt over a good choice and misery over a bad one."
Schwartz goes into much greater detail in his book, The Paradox of Choice--Why Less is More. But it makes good sense to anyone who has ever flipped through 200 channels of TV unable to find anything worth watching. Oh well, keep on buying and acquiring, folks. The President needs your money flowing to keep this shaky economy afloat.
Wrigley's Inflation Indicator
I've been wanting to write for some time about economic indicators in general and, in particular, apparent collusion to hide a nascent inflation that's creeping into our economic world for the first time in two decades.
The 'I' word has been uttered quietly by a few isolated economists and writers, but so far little has been made of this very important issue.
But real life always intercedes in theory, and so it was when I went to buy a pack of Wrigley's Big Red gum and was miffed to be charged thirty cents. "Ripoff artist", I scowled under my breath toward the kiosk owner. Any American knows that a pack of Wrigley's gum costs a quarter.
So imagine my shock and chagrin when I looked at the package and realized that it if fact Wrigley's had upped their prices by a whopping 25 percent to a record high 30 cents a pack!
So go ahead and act like there's no inflation. The Gum World begs to differ.
I've been wanting to write for some time about economic indicators in general and, in particular, apparent collusion to hide a nascent inflation that's creeping into our economic world for the first time in two decades.
The 'I' word has been uttered quietly by a few isolated economists and writers, but so far little has been made of this very important issue.
But real life always intercedes in theory, and so it was when I went to buy a pack of Wrigley's Big Red gum and was miffed to be charged thirty cents. "Ripoff artist", I scowled under my breath toward the kiosk owner. Any American knows that a pack of Wrigley's gum costs a quarter.
So imagine my shock and chagrin when I looked at the package and realized that it if fact Wrigley's had upped their prices by a whopping 25 percent to a record high 30 cents a pack!
So go ahead and act like there's no inflation. The Gum World begs to differ.
Blog Caveat: The "nyah-nyah" Post
I've not been posting of late because I've just been overwhelmed with the bad things going on in Iraq. I am going to try to avoid the subject for a few days if only to keep my own sanity.
That being said, I just wanted to say "I TOLD YOU SO!" to GW Bush and Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Of course, to come out and actually say that is both liberating (because the left has never been this right during my watch) and pitifully sad (because lots of people are dying and more folks are being sent in there, and the whole situation is just a big mess).
Can you even imagine what kind of response we would have heard if Clinton, or Gore, or Kerry had made such a blunder? The Gingrich House managers impeached Clinton for not being forthcoming about a romp with an intern, and did so only after spending zillions of dollars on Travelgate, VinceFostergate, Whitewater and anything else they could possibly think of to pin on this guy.
TeamBush, meanwhile, sent our troops to invade a country which had no real relation to terrorists and posed no real threat to its neighbors let alone our country. And if the sole justification was that Saddam hated us and would hurt us if he could, then does anyone out there supporting the war believe that we've increased or decreased the number of folks who now hate America and who would do something to lash out at the US and its government and its people if they could?!!
I've not been posting of late because I've just been overwhelmed with the bad things going on in Iraq. I am going to try to avoid the subject for a few days if only to keep my own sanity.
That being said, I just wanted to say "I TOLD YOU SO!" to GW Bush and Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Of course, to come out and actually say that is both liberating (because the left has never been this right during my watch) and pitifully sad (because lots of people are dying and more folks are being sent in there, and the whole situation is just a big mess).
Can you even imagine what kind of response we would have heard if Clinton, or Gore, or Kerry had made such a blunder? The Gingrich House managers impeached Clinton for not being forthcoming about a romp with an intern, and did so only after spending zillions of dollars on Travelgate, VinceFostergate, Whitewater and anything else they could possibly think of to pin on this guy.
TeamBush, meanwhile, sent our troops to invade a country which had no real relation to terrorists and posed no real threat to its neighbors let alone our country. And if the sole justification was that Saddam hated us and would hurt us if he could, then does anyone out there supporting the war believe that we've increased or decreased the number of folks who now hate America and who would do something to lash out at the US and its government and its people if they could?!!
Friday, April 02, 2004
The Wrong War, The Wrong Strategy
In what is a first for this blog I am linking to an article by The Cato Institute. Titled, "Iraq:The Wrong War", the interesting thing about it is how much it echoes the opinions of Richard Clarke and many so-called liberals who argue that our invasion of Iraq has diverted resources, personnel, and focus from the people who are really a threat to our nation, al Qaeda. Cato has always been the thinking-man's conservative think tank--in contrast to the American Enterprise Institute, which has shamelessly shilled and promoted any pro-GOP, pro-corporate idea that floated out of the TeamBush camp.
As has been noted here before the primary foreign policy plank of TeamBush's re-election is that the War against Terrorism 1.) includes Iraq and; 2.) must be waged as a overt military engagement rather than an international law enforcement and diplomacy effort.
In fact, TeamBush has been quite successful at framing the debate in this way. Successful framing, however, does not mean that it's a good policy or even one that is ultimately likely to succeed.
Contrary to the now-canonized platitude that 'September 11 changed everything', the administration has continued to play from the same game plan that it was using on September 10. We now know that the aborted speech by Condoleeza Rice on that fateful day, a major foreign policy statement, spoke of a need for a vigorous missile defense program against large state actors that were perceived as threats. The now famous axis-of-evil got much of the attention in this policy address while terror groups were mentioned only as patrons of states that sponsor them to do the state's bidding.
Of course, this is just outmoded Cold War thinking, and at least among many experts, it was prior to the 9-11 tragedy as well. Yet if you listen closely to Perle, Rice et al this is still their worldview.
Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek wrote a fine synopsis comparing these two views of terrorism. He concluded that the TeamBush approach was indeed not the best option. Zakaria noted that:
"The Bush administration came to office with different concerns. During the 1990s conservative intellectuals and policy wonks sounded the alarm about China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, but not about terror. Real men dealt with states.
Even after 9/11, many in the administration wanted to focus on states. Bush spoke out against countries that "harbor" terrorists. Two days after the attacks, Paul Wolfowitz proposed "ending states that sponsor terrorism." Beyond Iraq, conservative intellectuals like Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen insist that the real source of terror remains the "terror masters," meaning states like Iran and Syria.
I asked an American official closely involved with counterterrorism about state sponsorship. He replied, "Well, all that's left is Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, and it's mostly directed against Israel. States have been getting out of the terror business since the late 1980s. We have kept many governments on the list of state sponsors for political reasons. The reality is that the terror we face is mostly unconnected to states." Today's terrorists are harbored in countries like Spain and Germany—entirely unintentionally. They draw on support not from states but private individuals—Saudi millionaires, Egyptian radicals, Yemenite preachers.
Afghanistan housed Al Qaeda, and thus it was crucial to attack the country. But that was less a case of a state's sponsoring a terror group and more one of a terror group's sponsoring a state. Consider the situation today. Al Qaeda has lost its base in Afghanistan, two thirds of its leaders have been captured or killed, its funds are being frozen. And yet terror attacks mount from Indonesia to Casablanca to Spain. "These attacks are not being directed by Al Qaeda. They are being inspired by it," the official told me. "I'm not even sure it makes sense to speak of Al Qaeda because it conveys the image of a single, if decentralized, group. In fact, these are all different, local groups that have in common only ideology and enemies.""
His column concluded by promising a sound strategy for dealing with this new threat in his next piece. I hope the KerryTeam is paying attention, because TeamBush continues to cram its head in the sand and maintain that 'all is well'--to our nation's detriment.
In what is a first for this blog I am linking to an article by The Cato Institute. Titled, "Iraq:The Wrong War", the interesting thing about it is how much it echoes the opinions of Richard Clarke and many so-called liberals who argue that our invasion of Iraq has diverted resources, personnel, and focus from the people who are really a threat to our nation, al Qaeda. Cato has always been the thinking-man's conservative think tank--in contrast to the American Enterprise Institute, which has shamelessly shilled and promoted any pro-GOP, pro-corporate idea that floated out of the TeamBush camp.
As has been noted here before the primary foreign policy plank of TeamBush's re-election is that the War against Terrorism 1.) includes Iraq and; 2.) must be waged as a overt military engagement rather than an international law enforcement and diplomacy effort.
In fact, TeamBush has been quite successful at framing the debate in this way. Successful framing, however, does not mean that it's a good policy or even one that is ultimately likely to succeed.
Contrary to the now-canonized platitude that 'September 11 changed everything', the administration has continued to play from the same game plan that it was using on September 10. We now know that the aborted speech by Condoleeza Rice on that fateful day, a major foreign policy statement, spoke of a need for a vigorous missile defense program against large state actors that were perceived as threats. The now famous axis-of-evil got much of the attention in this policy address while terror groups were mentioned only as patrons of states that sponsor them to do the state's bidding.
Of course, this is just outmoded Cold War thinking, and at least among many experts, it was prior to the 9-11 tragedy as well. Yet if you listen closely to Perle, Rice et al this is still their worldview.
Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek wrote a fine synopsis comparing these two views of terrorism. He concluded that the TeamBush approach was indeed not the best option. Zakaria noted that:
"The Bush administration came to office with different concerns. During the 1990s conservative intellectuals and policy wonks sounded the alarm about China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, but not about terror. Real men dealt with states.
Even after 9/11, many in the administration wanted to focus on states. Bush spoke out against countries that "harbor" terrorists. Two days after the attacks, Paul Wolfowitz proposed "ending states that sponsor terrorism." Beyond Iraq, conservative intellectuals like Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen insist that the real source of terror remains the "terror masters," meaning states like Iran and Syria.
I asked an American official closely involved with counterterrorism about state sponsorship. He replied, "Well, all that's left is Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, and it's mostly directed against Israel. States have been getting out of the terror business since the late 1980s. We have kept many governments on the list of state sponsors for political reasons. The reality is that the terror we face is mostly unconnected to states." Today's terrorists are harbored in countries like Spain and Germany—entirely unintentionally. They draw on support not from states but private individuals—Saudi millionaires, Egyptian radicals, Yemenite preachers.
Afghanistan housed Al Qaeda, and thus it was crucial to attack the country. But that was less a case of a state's sponsoring a terror group and more one of a terror group's sponsoring a state. Consider the situation today. Al Qaeda has lost its base in Afghanistan, two thirds of its leaders have been captured or killed, its funds are being frozen. And yet terror attacks mount from Indonesia to Casablanca to Spain. "These attacks are not being directed by Al Qaeda. They are being inspired by it," the official told me. "I'm not even sure it makes sense to speak of Al Qaeda because it conveys the image of a single, if decentralized, group. In fact, these are all different, local groups that have in common only ideology and enemies.""
His column concluded by promising a sound strategy for dealing with this new threat in his next piece. I hope the KerryTeam is paying attention, because TeamBush continues to cram its head in the sand and maintain that 'all is well'--to our nation's detriment.
