It looks like we have some good economic numbers, but it also appears that looks may be deceiving. According to this MSN Money article, we are replacing $35,000-40,000 a year manufacturing jobs with $18,000 a year retail jobs. As if any of us could take that kind of pay cut. In the denver Metro area you have to make $17/hr to afford a two-bedroom apartment on your own.
It isn't just manufacturing types that are getting hit with outsourcing and offshoring of jobs. Increasingly, white collar engineering, IT, and call-center jobs are being sent out of the country, with 5-10% of all IT moving offshore within five years, primarily in software enginnering and phone help desk functions. Even farmers are hurt by agriculture gluts and globalization.
The solution is compicated. Many of the lost jobs are just gone forever. The culprit? Globalization, Free Trade, and the fiscal policies of cheap-labor conservatives. That's right, the guys who make money by keeping wages down and prices high are behind this. it makes them scads and scads of money. They also happen to be the same people who want to kill welfare, Social Security, Medicare, job training programs, after school programs, and pretty much any left over New Deal items they can find.
Any recovery we get without either maintenance or improvement in real wages is an illusion. Of course, that won't impact the CEOs who run the outsourcing and offshoring all that much.
Evidently the good General liked JFK's Peace Corp and Bill Clinton's Americorp. This Service Plan of his would create a sort of civilian National Guard style organization.
Calling Americans to Service in a Time of Need
General Clark's Plan for a Civilian Reserve
General Clark has called for Americans to rally around a New American Patriotism grounded in the belief that citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights. General Clark challenges all Americans to be willing to sacrifice for their country by joining his proposed Civilian Reserves. The Civilian Reserves would use the latest technology to ensure that Americans with needed skills could be mobilized rapidly to address pressing needs. In addition, as a complement to the Civilian Reserves, General Clark's plan would reverse the cuts made by President Bush and instead expand opportunities for national service to address day-to-day challenges like crumbling schools and securing the homeland.
General Clark's Strategy for Mobilizing the Citizenry in a Time of Need
For all the talk of service and sacrifice by the President over the past two years, we are no more prepared today to mobilize the citizenry in the event of another attack than we were on September 10th, 2001. General Clark's job stimulus plan provides additional funds to train first responders like firefighters and police. But in times of crisis or urgent need, professional first responders are not enough. General Clark's Civilian Reserves proposal would make it possible to draw on the vast array of skills and the ingenuity of ordinary Americans in times of need without creating a new bureaucracy.
Creating a 21st Century Civilian Reserve for 21st Century Challenges. General Clark challenges all Americans, men and women, to sign up for the Civilian Reserves. By signing up for the Civilian Reserves Americans, volunteers would promise to make a sacrifice for their country, when and where needed. In exchange, members of the Civilian Reserve would know that their unique talents and abilities were being effectively mobilized.
Mobilizing the skills and talents of the American people. If an individual chooses to register with the Civilian Reserves, he or she would record his or her occupation, skills (including language skills on an optional basis), preferences about service, along with his or her name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. Enrollees of the Civilian Reserves would record their preference for local, national, or international service. The Civilian Reserves would adhere to the highest standards of privacy protection.
Renewable commitment every five years. Individuals who volunteered for the Civilian Reserves would make a five-year commitment. At the end of that period, they could choose whether or not to renew and in the process update the listings of their skills and preferences.
Challenging all Americans over age 18 to make themselves available for service. The Civilian Reserves would be open to all Americans, men and women, over age 18.
Using modern technology, not old-fashioned bureaucracy. The Civilian Reserves program would use the latest technology and would not require a large government program or numerous civil servants.
Calling Americans to Service in Times of Need. The changing threats and issues that face our country require a new and innovative approach to mobilizing the citizenry in times of need. The Civilian Reserves program would offer a more flexible approach that can appeal first to volunteers in order to match their skills with the needs of specific crises, such as local communities in times of natural disaster, cities which are the victims of a terrorist biological attack, or Nations impacted by famine.
Matching skills with needs. In a time of urgent need, individuals who signed up for the Civilian Reserves would be asked to volunteer, as necessary, to help address a crisis in their communities, nation, or abroad. The President would have the authority to issue a "voluntary call to action" to encourage particular segments of the Civilian Reserves to mobilize to meet the pressing needs of the nation. The President would only ask people to volunteer if they had the relevant skills to address the pressing need.
Calling up the Civilian Reserves if necessary. During a crisis, if sufficient volunteers were not available, the President would have the authority to call-up as many as 5,000 Civilian Reserves, through a lottery of the Reservists with the required skills. The circumstances that would precipitate a mandatory call-up would be exceedingly rare. These Reservists could be called up for up to six months. An appeals process would consider hardship exemptions for family and other circumstances. An Act of Congress would be required to call up additional Civilian Reservists beyond the first 5,000 members. Members of the Civilian Reserves would be limited to one six-month call up in their five-year term of service.
Getting Civilian Reserves where they are needed and when they are needed. The complex crises that can affect the nation demand a much faster system to mobilize Americans who have the critical skills required to respond to a crisis in a matter of hours if needed. Members of the Civilian Reserves would be contacted and mobilized via mail, phone, and e-mail during the voluntary call-up process. The Civilian Reserves program would strongly emphasize the use of the Internet to communicate and mobilize volunteers.
Working domestically and internationally to address pressing needs. The Civilian Reserves could be deployed domestically or internationally to help with pressing needs. Some examples:
Helping to fight forest fires. Members of the Civilian Reserves could help fight forest fires, including helping with back-line tasks to relieve more highly trained fire-fighters to work at the front line. In the process, they would reduce some of the demands currently placed on the military to mobilize to fight forest fires.
Contributing to Nation building. Today America is paying billions of dollars to certain American companies for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. But numerous Americans have the language skills in Pashto and Arabic, the technical skills, and the desire to help. The Civilian Reserves would provide a basis for marshalling and coordinating their efforts.
Working side-by-side with governments, non-profits, and non-governmental organizations. Members of the Civilian Reserves would work together with first responders and existing non-profit and non-governmental organizations, like the Red Cross, supplementing but not supplanting existing systems for responding to crises and other pressing needs.
Providing compensation, health benefits, and job protections. In the event that members of the Civilian Reserves are mobilized to actively serve their country, they would be paid a stipend, receive health benefits, and be guaranteed re-employment at their old jobs, just like members of the military Reserves. In addition, they would receive useful training and experience that would be valuable in returning to civilian life.
General Clark's Strategy for Expanding the Opportunities for Service and Strengthening Homeland Security
The Civilian Reserves would be activated in times of pressing need. But just like America has a regular army and reserves, so too does America need day-to-day service programs to address challenges ranging from crumbling schools to securing the homeland. President Bush has had strong rhetoric on national service, but when it comes time to deliver he has broken his promises and cut key programs.
President Bush's Record on Citizenship and Service: Missed Opportunities, Misdirection, and Broken Promises. When our country was attacked by a terrifying new barbarism on Sept. 11, 2001, the American people stood ready and willing to be mobilized to serve a cause greater than self. In the two years since that time, the Bush record on involving ordinary Americans in this common struggle has been one of missed opportunities, misdirection, and broken promises:
USA Freedom Corps: An exercise in re-branding. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, the President called on all Americans to serve 4,000 hours over their lifetime and pledged to create the USA Freedom Corps to help Americans reach this goal. However, it turned out that the USA Freedom Corps was essentially a new umbrella for old programs, including AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, and the Senior Corps.
Citizen Corps: Less is not more. The President asked for $200 million to fund his Citizen Corps initiative, but secured only $25 million (which amounts to about $500,000 per state).
AmeriCorps: Promising expansion, delivering a cut. The President promised to expand AmeriCorps by 50 percent, from 50,000 volunteers to 75,000 volunteers. But in 2003, he signed legislation that cut AmeriCorps' operating budget by 30 percent. This year, the national service program has half as many members as it did in 2001.
General Clark's Strategy to Expand Opportunities For Service. General Clark believes in expanding existing opportunities for service to the country along the lines proposed by Congressmen Tom Osborne and Harold Ford and Senators John McCain, Evan Bayh, and Edward M. Kennedy. Specifically, he endorses the bipartisan Call to Service Act of 2003 introduced by U.S. Senators McCain, Bayh, and Kennedy. This proposal more than triples AmeriCorps from 50,000 volunteers today to 175,000 volunteers by 2008. Furthermore, it directs AmeriCorps to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to make America safer. General Clark also Senators McCain, Bayh and others to broaden the Senior Corps, expand the Peace Corps, enhance the service component of college work-study programs, and bring a new generation of citizen soldiers into the military through a short-term enlistment option.
The chep-labor conservatives (a new catch=phrase that I'll explain another time) have adopted a new tactic to stifle criticism of them, their policies, and their tactics.
Atrios, and anonymous blogger who can be found at http://atrios.blogspot.com/, has been threated with a lawsuit because he linked to conservative "commentator" Donald Luskin in a post with the headline "Diary of a Stalker". The comments linked to Luskin's site, in which he described attending a book signing for columnist Paul Krugman and "Stalking" him. In Luskin's own words.
The redoutable Don Luskin advised his readers to throw a pie in Krugman's face (assault), questioned Krugman's academic credenials, accused his archivist of a cyber-crime, etc... Maybe I'm confused about who the criminal is here.
Luskin is upset that his tactics are being ridiculed and that he is being ridiculed. So he did what cheap-labor conservative always do with critics: attack them in order to drown out actual debate.
One problem with this is that no one is suing Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulture, or even Don Luskin for purveying their own slanderous, libelous filth, which implies that the lies, half-truths, and baseless accusations they put forh are rarely challenged in public forums.
We need to support the Atrios' of the world, right and left, so we can have honest and open debate of actual issues. To do that we need to silence the idiots like Luskin, or at least make them irrelevant to any discussion.
Part of my continuing coverage of the Democratic candidates for President. rest assured that other candidates will get coverage too. I think next week will be Howard Dean's turn.
General Wesley Clark's "Saving for America's Future Plan"
Saving $2.35 trillion over ten years for deficit reduction and investment in priorities.
Wes Clark has a plan to save $2.35 trillion over ten years. The plan reduces the deficit and frees up money to invest in priorities like education and health care. Under Wes Clark's plan the deficit is reduced every year. But this plan is only a down payment on the challenging goals of a balanced budget and full readiness for the retirement of the baby boomers - and further tough steps will be needed. Deficit reduction and investment in priorities are key parts of Wes Clark's plan to jumpstart the economy and create jobs, save for the future, and invest in people.
Saving For America's Future
Putting America on a course for more fiscal responsibility in the future would be good for the economy today, helping to restore confidence, keeping long-term interest rates lower, while ensuring that America meets its obligations to the future. That's why Wes Clark is proposing a plan to save more than $2 trillion for America's future - providing resources to reduce the deficit and invest in priorities like healthcare and education. Wes Clark's "Saving for America's Future Plan" provides effective stimulus for the economy without increasing the deficit in 2004 and 2005 by redeploying $100 billion in tax cuts for the most fortunate families into bigger bang-for-buck investments in homeland security, state fiscal relief, and incentives for business to create jobs and grow.
Wes Clark's plan would:
Pay for proposals. Wes Clark would restore the basic principle of responsibility to the budget process: all tax and spending proposals must be paid for without increasing the deficit. This principle, called PAYGO in Washington budget rules, was a consensus during periods of deficit from President Clinton to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, but the Bush administration has entirely ignored it.
Streamline government and improve efficiency, including healthcare: $225 billion. Wes Clark's plan would streamline government and improve efficiency, including in healthcare. On defense, Wes Clark supports every dime needed to keep America strong, but he won't tolerate billions of dollars in waste or inefficiency just because it has a military label on it.
End corporate welfare and close corporate loopholes: $300 billion. Wes Clark won't tolerate corporate welfare or corporate loopholes in the tax code. These provisions waste resources while providing companies with incentives to pursue handouts instead productivity growth and job creation. Wes Clark supports creation of the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to identify corporate welfare and then force Congress to vote up or down on an entire package of cuts. He'll also close loopholes in the tax code, like the ones that allow companies to avoid taxes by shifting income to Bermuda or buying life insurance for non-executive employees who never see a dime.
Promote a more effective and multilateral Iraq policy: $125 billion. In two budget requests, President Bush has asked Congress for a total of $166 billion for Iraq and other conflicts, but he has been unable to get any meaningful assistance from other countries. Wes Clark would reverse the Bush Administration's failed Iraq policy and work more effectively with NATO and other partners.
Recapture revenue from the provisions of President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest families-those making over $200,000 annually: $1.1 trillion. Wes Clark would propose a tax reform package to make the tax code simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth. In the process, this reform would recapture the revenue from the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts that go to families making over $200,000 annually, either by repealing these provisions or making other changes to recapture the revenue. Wes Clark's plan would protect the estate tax repeal for small businesses and family farms and would ensure that middle-class families get the benefit of lower taxes on dividends.
In addition, Wes Clark's plan would save $600 billion in additional debt service savings as a result of reducing the deficit more quickly.
The benefits of Wes Clark's responsible policies for America's future are:
Responsibility not to pass tax increases onto our children;
Responsibility to improve our fiscal situation so that America's seniors have a secure Social Security and Medicare;
Responsibility to keep interest rates lower today and in the future, stimulate the economy, create jobs, and foster investment and homeownership;
Responsibility to have America live within its means without unprecedented and unsustainable borrowing from abroad;
Responsibility to address urgent problems of uninsured children and crumbling schools.
Details of Wes Clark's Plan to Save $2.35 Trillion Over 10 Years
Wes Clark's budget saves $2.35 trillion over ten years for deficit reduction and spending on priorities relative to a continuation of President Bush's current policies.
Note: All savings are relative to a baseline that assumes President Bush's policies are continued, including his proposal to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, and the likely consequence of his Iraq policy.
Streamlining Government and Improving Efficiency
As president, Wes Clark would save $225 billion by implementing a budget that streamlines government, ends redundant spending programs, and improves efficiency. Wes Clark's plan would make the following specific changes to streamline government. He'll also take a hard look at the rest of government to find additional savings toward his goal of saving $225 billion over ten years.
Eliminate the Commerce Department's NTIA. With the convergence of telecommunications and technology, there's no longer a need for both the Commerce Department's Technology Administration (TA) and its National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Therefore, Wes Clark would eliminate the NTIA. NTIA's core governmental functions-such as research and efforts to close the digital divide-would be shifted to other government agencies (such as TA).
Eliminate Office of Thrift Supervision. The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) was established in the late 1980s when there were roughly 3,000 Savings and Loan (S&L) institutions. Today, there are a less than 1,000. With four other federal regulators of banks, the time has come to eliminate OTS and shift the regulation of S&Ls to one of the other federal bank regulators (e.g., the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, etc.).
Consolidate trade promotion activities. According to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, ten federal agencies help U.S. firms export their products abroad. For example, one agency promotes international trade among American businesses (the Department of Commerce). For farmers, a different agency is responsible for promoting exports (the Department of Agriculture). Businesses seeking financing for exports can apply to the Export-Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. As President, Wes Clark would consolidate the trade promotion activities of the U.S. government into fewer agencies, which will save money and simplify government, helping citizens and businesses to get what they need from their government and enabling more effective promotion of U.S. exports.
Consolidate statistical agencies. Today, at least 70 different federal agencies engage in statistical activities. The division of labor between these statistical agencies often makes little sense. Experts have concluded that consolidation of the major economic statistical agencies would produce better data at a lower cost. Therefore, as President, Wes Clark would consolidate the principal statistical agencies into a single agency called Statistics USA, modeled after Statistics Canada.
Institute competitive bidding and payment constraints for medical equipment. Wes Clark believes we should end overpayments to medical equipment suppliers for the provision of medical equipment like wheel chairs, and canes. That's why he supports instituting a competitive bidding or payment constraints for Medicare contracts with these suppliers. The policy would provide for special exceptions for rural communities to ensure sufficient access to these supplies.
Save on drug payments by Medicare. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, Medicare has been significantly overpaying for the few prescription drugs it actually pays for within the Medicare program. Wes Clark believes that Medicare should set payment rates closer to acquisition costs, while maintaining policies that provide doctors with the flexibility to prescribe these drugs when needed.
Better enforcement of the Medicare secondary payer provision. The law requires that Medicare be a secondary payer for elderly workers who have employer-provided health care. These seniors' private health care plans are supposed to be the primary payer, and Medicare is supposed to supplement coverage only where there are gaps in an employer's plan. Studies have shown, however, that many employers are illegally passing payments on to the government. A more aggressive auditing policy can achieve significant savings.
Reduce market entry barriers for generic drug competition. Wes Clark believes in reducing market entry barriers for generic drugs so consumers can benefit from lower drug prices. Today, brand-name companies systematically abuse a legal loophole that delays the availability of generic drugs into the health care system. As President, Wes Clark will ensure that drug companies have the incentive to invest in research and development while eliminating the 30-month stay that brand-name companies automatically receive when generic manufacturers attempt to enter the market.
End Corporate Welfare and Close Corporate Loopholes
Wes Clark would save $300 billion by ending wasteful corporate welfare and closing tax shelters.
End Corporate Welfare as we know it. Wes Clark won't tolerate corporate welfare or corporate loopholes in the tax code that waste resources while providing companies with the wrong incentives. That's why Wes Clark supports the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission, which would put in place a base-closing style commission to identify corporate welfare and force Congress to vote up or down on an entire package of proposals.
Close tax shelters that benefit the few and harm the middle class. Sophisticated accountants and lawyers have created wasteful - and often illegal - tax shelters to reduce the taxes that corporations and rich Americans pay. As President, Wes Clark would aggressively prosecute illegal tax shelters and close down those that are legal but outrageous.
Promote a More Effective and Multilateral Iraq Policy
Wes Clark would Save $125 billion from 2006-15 by promoting a more effective and multilateral Iraq policy.
President Bush has submitted requests for $166 billion for the war in Iraq and additional costs of the war on terrorism. These requests, however, are only a down payment on the full costs of the war. The Democratic Staff of the House Budget Committee estimates that under Scenario C "Things Go Worse" the conflict in Iraq would cost $418 billion from 2003-13, $180 billion more than Scenario A "Things Go Well." ["The Cost of War and Reconstruction in Iraq: An Update," 9/23/03]. Measured over Wes Clark's 2006-15 budget window, this is a savings of $125 billion. This is a conservative estimate of the savings from Wes Clark's policy, which would:
Resolve the ongoing conflict in Iraq more quickly and effectively.
Effectively incorporate allies, ensuring that they pay a meaningful share of the reconstruction.
Require competitive bidding to ensure that taxpayers were getting the best possible value for their reconstruction dollars.
President Bush's Record: Huge Deficits but Declining Jobs
Under President Bush, America has gone from record surpluses to record deficits. Though fiscal deterioration is normal in times of war or recession, the Bush deficits have not provided effective stimulus to curb job loss, and the deficits are projected to worsen even when strong economic growth resumes.
From a $5 trillion projected surplus to a $5 trillion projected deficit. America has gone from a record dollar surplus of $236 billion in FY 2000 to a record dollar deficit of about $374 billion in FY 2003. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a unified surplus of $5.6 trillion from 2002-11. Today, leading analysts like Goldman Sachs, the Concord Coalition, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Committee for Economic Development agree that making realistic adjustments to CBO's baseline projection reveals a 2004-13 deficit of about $5 trillion. [CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook January 2001 & August 2003; Goldman Sachs, "The Federal Deficit: A $5.5 Trillion Red Elephant," 9/9/03]
Pete Peterson, currently Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and former Secretary of Commerce under President Nixon: "In just two years there was a $10 trillion swing in the deficit outlook." ["Deficits and Dysfunction," New York Times Magazine, 6/8/03]
Three leading groups - the Concord Coalition, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), and the Committee on Economic Development (CED) - recently stated that if current policies are continued then "the coming decade is likely to rank as the most fiscally irresponsible in our nation's history." ["The Developing Crisis - Deficits Matter," 9/29/03]
3.2 million lost private-sector jobs - including 2.5 million lost in manufacturing. Between 1993 and 2001, the American economy created nearly 21 million private-sector jobs. Since President Bush took office, the American economy has lost 3.2 million private-sector jobs - that's the worst record on jobs since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. The economy has lost jobs in 26 of the 32 months since President Bush took office. [Based on data from www.bls.gov]
The Bush tax cuts cost three times more than the cost of saving Social Security for 75 years. Over the next 75 years, the Administration's tax cuts would reduce revenue by $12 trillion to $14 trillion in present value - more than three times the Social Security deficit over the same period. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Administration's Tax Cuts and the Long-term Budget Outlook," 3/19/03]
James Zogby has taken the time to point out that Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, was not exactly honest about how he used Zogby International's latest opinion poll conducted in Iraq. Despite the rosy picture painted by the VP, Zogby says Iraqis are not happy with the U.S. presence, don't trust us, and want us to leave soon.
Early in President Bush's recent public relations campaign to rebuild support for the U.S. war effort in Iraq, Vice President Cheney appeared on "Meet the Press." Attempting to make the case that the U.S. was winning in Iraq, Cheney made the following observation:
There was a poll done, just random in the last week, first one I've seen carefully done; admittedly, it's a difficult area to poll in. Zogby International did it with American Enterprise magazine. But that's got very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done.
One of the questions it asked is: "If you could have any model for the kind of government you'd like to have" – and they were given five choices – "which would it be?" The U.S. wins hands down. If you want to ask them, do they want an Islamic government established, by 2 to 1 margins they say no, including the Shia population. If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year.
So admittedly there are problems, especially in that area where Saddam Hussein was from, where people have benefited most from his regime and who've got the most to lose if we're successful in our enterprise, and continuing attacks from terror. But to suggest somehow that that's representative of the country at large or the Iraqi people are opposed to what we've done in Iraq or are actively and aggressively trying to undermine it, I just think that's not true.
In fact, Zogby International (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI's "spin" and the Vice-President's use of their "spin" created a faulty impression of the poll's results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.
For example, while Cheney noted that when asked what kind of government they would like, Iraqis chose "the U.S. . . . hands down," in fact, the results of the poll are actually quite different. Twenty-three percent of Iraqis say that they would like to model their new government after the U.S.; 17.5 percent would like their model to be Saudi Arabia; 12 percent say Syria, 7 percent say Egypt and 37 percent say "none of the above." That's hardly "winning hands down."
When given the choice as to whether they "would like to see the American and British forces leave Iraq in six months, one year, or two years," 31.5 percent of Iraqis say these forces should leave in six months; 34 percent say a year, and only 25 percent say two or more years. So while technically Cheney might say that "over 60 percent [actually 59 percent] . . . want the U.S. to stay at least another year," an equally correct observation would be that 65.5 percent want the U.S. and Britain to leave in one year or less.
Other numbers found in the poll go further to dampen the vice president's and the AEI's rosy interpretations. For example, when asked if "democracy can work well in Iraq," 51 percent said "no; it is a Western way of doing things and will not work here."
And attitudes toward the U.S. were not positive. When asked whether over the next five years, they felt that the "U.S. would help or hurt Iraq," 50 percent said that the U.S. would hurt Iraq, while only 35.5 percent felt the U.S. would help the country. On the other hand, 61 percent of Iraqis felt that Saudi Arabia would help Iraq in the next five years, as opposed to only 7.5 percent who felt Saudi Arabia would hurt their country. Half felt that the United Nations would help Iraq, while 18.5 percent felt it would hurt. Iran's rating was very close to the United State’s, with 53.5 percent of Iraqis saying Iran would hurt them in the next five years, while only 21.5 percent felt that Iran might help them.
It is disturbing that the AEI and the vice president could get it so wrong. Their misuse of the polling numbers to make the point that they wanted to make, resembles the way critics have noted that the Administration used "intelligence data" to make their case to justify the war.
The danger, of course, is that painting a rosy picture that doesn't exist is a recipe for a failed policy. Wishing something to be can't make it so. At some point, reality intervenes. It's a hard lesson to learn, but it is dangerous to ignore its importance. For the Administration to continue to tell itself and the American people that "all is well," only means that needed changes in policy will not be made.
Consider some of the other poll findings:
Over 55 percent give a negative rating to "how the U.S. military is dealing with Iraqi civilians. Only 20 percent gave the U.S. military a positive rating.
By a margin of 57 percent to 38.5 percent, Iraqis indicate they would support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.
When asked how they would describe the attacks on the U.S. military, 49 percent described them as "resistance operations." Only 29 percent saw them as attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists."
When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in their country, only 6.5 percent said the United States, while 27 percent said the U.S. and the UN together, 14.5 percent preferred only the UN, and the largest group, 45 percent, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the job alone.
There are important lessons in all of this. Lessons policymakers ought to heed if they are to help Iraq move forward. What the Iraqi people appear to be telling us is that they have hope for the future, but they want the help of their neighbors more than that of the United States. That may not be what Washington wants to hear, but it ought to listen nevertheless. Because if policymakers continue to bend the data to meet their desired policy, then this hole they are digging will only get deeper.
Dr. James J. Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute and the brother of Zogby International's CEO.
That was black humor when I was an Army ROTC cadet at USF during Desert Storm. Now it's an option seriously proposed by U.S. Senators. Yeah, that'll stop terrorism. Sure. Trent Lott is an absolute moron.
Question: Why has CEO pay gone up 400 percent in the past forty years? It isn't like companies are 400 times better managed or that inflation has caused it. And why haven't worker salaries kept up?
Only one answer: Greed on the part of CEOs and stupidity, stupidity on the part of corporate boards, and lack of worker organization.
I guess that's three answers.
Well, they aren't new, but newly reported. Basically it's the same story as My Lai, where officers ordered their troops to kill everyone in an area. What's different is that the United States Army thoroughly investigated and felt that charges should be filed, but by the time the investigation was over, Saigon had fallen. After the fall of Saigon, it was determined to let the matter drop.
The "good" news is that the DOD is onvestigating bringing charges against those involved. However, the same U.S. Supreme Court decision that protected the My Lai goons, will likely protect the aggressors here. Basically the Court said that the DOD couldn't file UCMJ based charges after service members leave the armed forces.
The good citizens of Toledo seem to be irate that their papaer even investigated and ran the story, saying that we shouldn't be digging up the past. I guess they don't believe that dead Vietnamese deserve justice.
Diebold is furiously trying to keep internal info about problems with their electronic voting machiens out tof the public eye, including send DMCA cease and desist letters to universities whose students are linking to those memos with their web pages. Of course, at the same time, Diebold says the memos are not real, which begs the question: if they aren't legit, how are they a DMCA violation? for it to be a violation, the docs have to be copyrighted material, which fakes couldn't be...as others have pointed out, if the memos are fake, Dielbold should be pursuing libel cases, not DMCA copyright infringement.
The point is, we're getting ready for multiple elections, including a Presidential one in November 2004, and the company run by a Republican activist who has promised his state to G.W. Bush in 2004, and he doesn't want any of the security, accuracy, or auditing problems bared to public scrutiny.
Check out this site for more info.
BTW, this is a key illustration of what is wrong witht he DMCA. it allows a corporation to keep knowledge of its misfeasance from the public without even getting a court order. Under the DMCA all that is required is a cease and desist letter, and it is up to the target to prove that they are not in violation. So much for innocent until proven guilty.
I'm going to start posting some of the position papaers of various Democratic candidates for President. I will not be giving equal space to Presidential policies, because those things are everywhere.
I'm starting with General Clark's Health Care Plan, not because I like it, but because it's new and easily accessible. After I read it myself, I'll make comments as necessary. Enjoy.
General Clark's Plan for Health Care for American Families
General Clark's health plan would improve health care for those that have it by emphasizing preventive, medically-justifiable and cost-effective services and guaranteeing universal coverage for children, access for all Americans, and making health care more affordable for tens of millions of families currently struggling to pay their premiums. Based on the principles of value, responsibility and fairness, the plan would reorient expensive, often-inadequate health coverage towards preventive and diagnostic benefits, services proven to be medically sound, an emphasis on disease management, and proven competitive purchasing techniques that ensure Americans get the greatest value for their investment. Second, the plan ensures that health care is more affordable for all families and that no child goes without health insurance by guaranteeing affordable coverage and concurrently requiring families to purchase it for their children. It also guarantees that Americans without job-based coverage have access to the same guaranteed, stable health options provided to members of Congress. Finally, the plan provides additional financial assistance to lower-income Americans, workers in between jobs, and other vulnerable populations. General Clark's health plan shifts the focus of the health care debate by insisting that any investment on health insurance be accompanied by a commitment to improve as well as expand coverage.
HIGHLIGHTS OF WES CLARK'S PLAN FOR HEALTH CARE
Wes Clark's plan is the only plan that improves care while expanding coverage and making it more affordable for American families.
Provides health insurance for 31.8 million Americans who are currently uninsured, including all 13.1 million children and college-age Americans who currently lack health insurance.
Provides tax credits to reduce premiums for millions of Americans who currently have health insurance but are struggling to pay their premiums. In addition, Wes Clark's ground-breaking emphasis on improving quality and constraining cost growth would provide better medical outcomes at a lower cost for all Americans.
The plan would cost a net $695 billion over the ten years from 2004-13. This conservative estimate does not include the likely savings from Wes Clark's emphasis on improved preventive care.
$772 billion for expanding coverage and making it more affordable
$48 billion in investments for other health care improvements
$125 billion in savings from a series of prudent purchasing initiatives and from modernizing the health care delivery system.
PRINCIPLES OF WES CLARK'S PLAN
Wes Clark's health plan, built on the principles of value, responsibility and fairness, would:
Value: Improve the Value of Health Coverage for All Americans. The Clark plan would ensure that the health coverage purchased by American workers and businesses is worth it. It would prioritize prevention, evidence-based medicine, disease management, and sensible cost sharing. It would promote the use of information technology and comparative information, improving quality and reducing costs. These efforts complement the plan's federal health savings of $125 billion over 10 years.
Responsibility: Guarantee Universal Coverage for Children, Universal Access to Health Insurance for All Americans, and More Affordable Care for Families. Wes Clark would put in place a system that ensures that no child in America lacks health insurance, linking new, affordable options with the responsibility of parents to insure children age 22 and younger. This would cover 13.1 million uninsured children (22 and younger) and lower health coverage costs for millions more families. The Clark plan also would allow Americans without access to job-based insurance to purchase coverage through the same system that insures members of Congress. In addition, it would provide tax credits for working families, with or without children, to help pay for their health insurance. This would cover an estimated 6.0 million uninsured and reduce costs for millions more, many of whom are older and pay exorbitant premiums for individual plans.
Fairness: Provide Extra Assistance to Vulnerable Americans. To make coverage affordable, the plan would extend assistance to low-income adults, covering 11.3 million uninsured Americans. It would also assist workers between jobs, about 1.4 million of whom could gain coverage. In addition it would set aside resources to address health priorities for Veterans, military reservists, mental health parity issues, minority health disparities, and other issues.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN FOR HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES
I. Grounding Health Care in Prevention, Management, and Value
The United States spends more on health care than any other nation in the world, yet ranks 19th in life expectancy at birth and 28th in infant mortality. One reason for this discrepancy is the failure of our current health system to detect, prevent, and manage disease. The Clark plan reorients the health system towards health services with proven value, assuring American workers, businesses and taxpayers that their investment in health coverage is worth it. Specifically, the plan would:
Establish an Independent Commission to Determine the Value of Health Services/Benefits. A new commission would use the best scientific and clinical research to provide comparative information about therapeutic interventions to consumers, health providers, businesses, federal, state and local governments, and health plans. It would focus on three priorities:
Promoting Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Health and Disease. Early diagnosis and management of conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes can reduce health complications and costs. The Commission would work with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to identify specific, effective preventive services, evaluate their cost effectiveness, and develop recommendations for increasing their use.
Promoting Comparative Information and Evidence-Based Medicine. The plan would trust health clinicians rather than HMO executives or pharmaceutical company marketers to recommend what works best and what should be covered. The Commission would work with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the NIH and others to develop measures of relative value for alternative physical and mental health interventions.
Developing Model Benefit and Cost Sharing Coverage Designs. The Commission would evaluate benefit designs and determine appropriate levels of cost sharing to both reduce expensive over-utilization and prevent "under-insurance" due to excessive co-payments.
The Commission would publish guidance on comparative effectiveness of alternative therapies and preventive services to help both public and private purchasers design their coverage policies. All Federal health programs (including Medicare, Federal Employees Benefit Plan, and safety net providers) would be required to ensure that their benefits are consistent with the Commission's recommendations. If private coverage falls short, adopting these benefits could become a prerequisite for receiving any type of tax subsidy.
Immediately Implementing Medicare Preventive Service Expansions and Demonstrations on Incentives for Increased Prevention Use. The plan would implement consensus recommendations on prevention for immediate Medicare coverage, including cholesterol screening, medical nutrition therapy, screening for visual acuity, tobacco cessation counseling and other counseling services. It would also encourage Medicare demonstrations that would give incentives to both physicians and beneficiaries to increase use (e.g., lower Medicare premium for use of preventive and disease management services).
Promoting Information Technology to Reduce Medical Errors and Administrative Costs. Unlike most other industries, health care has been slow to adopt information technology. This not only yields high administrative costs but results in medical errors. The Clark plan would promote, through financial incentives and requirements, the use of electronic medical records, computer-aided decision tools for providers, reminder systems for patients and other systems that could streamline health care.
Reducing Excess Health Spending. The Clark plan eliminates excessive health care costs in the system through policies like: competitive bidding for Medicare services, initiatives to remove legal loopholes that block high quality, more affordable generic drugs from coming to the market, aggressive use of chronic and disease management services, and responsible malpractice reform. These, and the above mentioned policies, would reduce Federal health spending by $125 billion over 10 years.
II. Universal Coverage for Children, Access for All Americans,
and More Affordable Care for Families
The number of uninsured Americans has climbed by almost four million since 2000, to 44 million. The lack of health insurance in the United States not only reduces our nation's health but drains our economy. Uninsured Americans have less access to needed care, are less likely to attend school or work, and generally reduce our nation's productivity. The Clark plan would take a significant stride towards universal coverage by guaranteeing health insurance for all children and increasing access to affordable coverage for those lacking it now. Specifically, the plan would:
Guarantee that Every Child Has Health Insurance. The plan would provide health insurance to every American child through age 22. A new, progressive tax credit would begin where public program eligibility ends and extend to 500 percent of the poverty limit (about $40,000 for an individual, $90,000 for a family of four). Families could use this assistance for Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), employer coverage, or the new Congressional Health Plan option, described below. In return for this assistance and the new set of options, it would become the responsibility of young adults to enroll and parents to enroll their children in a health insurance plan.
Guarantee that Every American Has Access to Coverage. The plan would allow Americans without access to job-based health insurance to purchase coverage through the same system that insures members of Congress. The government would ensure that the premiums paid by individuals are fairly priced and available to all eligible people. This policy would especially help older adults who have diminished access to job-based coverage, increased need for services, and great difficult in finding affordable, accessible insurance in the private, individual market.
III. Provide Extra Assistance to Vulnerable Populations.
In addition to ensuring coverage for children and access for all, the plan would target financial assistance to several groups of people facing specific challenges in affording health care:
Reduced Premiums for Low-Income Adults. The federal government would fully fund state-based programs to extend full coverage to adults with income below 150 percent of the poverty threshold. It would also provide a tax credit for those with income below 275 percent of poverty. This credit could apply towards job-based coverage or the new Congressional Health Plan. This assistance could help cover 11 million uninsured people.
Tax Credit for Workers between Jobs. In addition to the general assistance for low-income families, a 70 percent tax credit would be available to fund COBRA or Congressional coverage for workers in between jobs. This would help about 1.4 million uninsured gain coverage.
Expanding Health Options for Reservists and their Families. To allow them to afford their current coverage, families of military reservists would receive a tax credit for COBRA costs.
Improved Access to Services for Veterans. The plan would increase funding to the Veterans Administration system to reduce waiting times and prevent the system from having to turn veterans away.
Providing Seed Money for Small Business Purchasing Groups. A grant program would be created to allow states to work with small businesses, private insurers and consumer groups to develop pooling arrangements for insurance.
Targeted Public Health Initiatives. Several years of financial neglect have made it difficult for critical public health programs to achieve their goals. This plan would specifically increase funding for public health programs to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities and improve prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS.
PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD: RISING HEALTH COSTS AND FALLING COVERAGE
Reversal on Progress
During the 1990s, health care costs grew at record-low rates and, for the first time in 12 years, the number of uninsured declined. However, trends are now moving in the wrong direction, and the gains of the 1990s have been virtually wiped out.
Over 40 percent Increase in Workers' Health Insurance Premiums. Compared to 2000, health insurance premiums in 2003 are 40 percent higher - $2,700 more, on average, for family coverage. This growth is about four times higher than wage growth during this time.
About two-thirds of large firms reduced their own costs in 2003 by increasing the amount that employees pay for job-based health insurance.
Workers have faced increasing deductibles and copayments. Between 2000 and 2003, preferred provider deductibles have increased by more than 50 percent.
Nearly Four Million More Uninsured Since 2000. In 2002, 43.6 million Americans were uninsured, up significantly from the 39.8 million uninsured in 2000. The rate of uninsured Americans increased from 14.2 to 15.2 percent in this period.
The increase would have been worse without Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Still, 8.5 million children remain uninsured.
Weak Leadership and Flawed Plans
Despite the growing crisis in health care, the President has barely acknowledged, let alone acted, on these important issues. Moreover, his health care proposals could make matters worse. His plan:
Falls Short of Making Coverage Affordable. The tax credit that the President proposed is now -- as it was in 2000 -- $1,000 for an individual. This covers less than 30 percent of an average single policy in the employer sector. Since only those with income below $15,000 get this full $1,000, it is unlikely to make health insurance affordable for many uninsured.
Undermines Employer-Based Coverage. The tax credit proposal could draw healthier workers out of employer-based coverage and into the individual market that offers discounts to young and healthy people. This makes job-based coverage more expensive for those left behind. A similar effect could occur with the tax-shelter Medical Savings Account and similar policies supported by the President that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
Threatens Medicaid/CHIP Coverage. The President initially opposed the temporary increase in Medicaid funding enacted in 2003, which was designed to prevent coverage losses due to state budget crises. Instead, he supported providing assistance only if states accept a fiscal straightjacket, in the form of a Medicaid block grant. Although rejected by Congress, the block grant could have caused millions of low-income people to become uninsured.
Has Weakened Public Health System. With a few exceptions, funding for critical health programs, like the Ryan White Act, has not kept up with needs and in some cases has declined.
This morning on NPR I heard the President of the United States make some of the most asinine statements I've heard this week. "They are attacking us because they hate us, and they hate our freedom." Sure. it doesn't have anything at all to do with out blind suport for Israel, or troops in Saudi Arabia, occupation of Iraq, support for despotic rulers, shelling of Lebanon during the Israeli invasion in 1983, or any other possible grievances against our policies.
Don't get me wrong. Terrorism is cowardly and evil. But we have to at least try to understand the real motivations of terrorists to fight them. This is not an ideological struggle like we saw with European terrorism in the 1960's-1980's with gruops like Baider Meinhoff Gang, the ULA, and the various Red Army factions. Nor is it like the Maoist Shining Path people in Latin America. all of those were dedicated to either nationalist or communist ideological issues that guaranteed conflict with the United States and our European (or Latin American) allies.
Islamist terror is different. It is focused on specific issues: removal of Western forces from Saudi Arabia and the holy sites there, and a free and independent Palestine. Understanding this is key. So is treating non-terrorist Arabs, Muslim and Christian alike, as people with rights. So is going after terrorists using diplomacy and treating them as common, ordinary criminals. Bombing every suspected terrorist hideout is a waste of military resources and counter-productive -- unless you really think that our involvment in Afghanistan and Iraq is actually making us more secure.
This entry in "The Daily Outrage" makes you just say "Hmmm..."
The question is this: why is Haliburton charging more? There costs shouldn't be any higher given the same source and delivery method for fuel. Why is Haliburton allowed to charge more? Why wasn't there a competitive bid? Who's lame-brain idea was it to do all of this stuff on a cost-plus basis?
The answers lead directly to a single source: Vice President Dick Cheney. Given his former and current ties to Haliburton there can be no question on the how and why of this.
The average price for a gallon of gasoline in America right now is $1.57. So imagine how indignant you would be if, say, your local government was caught buying tons of the exact same gasoline for prices per gallon ranging from $2.59 (a 65% markup) to $2.95 (an 88% markup) -- from the company the mayor used to run.
Imagine this company still has the mayor on its payroll, and the mayor still owns stock in it; imagine the company won its outrageous overcharging-for-gasoline "business" in a secretive backroom deal. Why, you'd run such a mayor out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered. Or better yet, you'd bring in the police and prosecutors to take care of the lot of them.
So consider Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton.
According to research by Congressmen Henry Waxman and John Dingell, Halliburton in Iraq is overcharging, by from 65 percent to 88 percent, for gasoline.
"Numerous experts told us Halliburton's prices were 'outrageously high,' that they were potentially 'a huge ripoff' to taxpayers, and that Halliburton could be guilty of 'price gouging'," the two Congressmen wrote in the latest in a series of letters to top military and White House officials.
As of mid-September, the Congressmen recount, Halliburton had collected $304.5 million in US taxpayer cash to import 191.2 million gallons. That works out to about $1.59 per gallon -- but "this amount does not include Halliburton's 'profits', which are calculated separately. Because the Administration agreed to a 'cost-plus' contract, the government reimburses Halliburton for its costs and then provides an additional award of between 2% and 7%. When this additional award is taken into account, the cost to the taxpayer increases to between $1.62 and $1.70 per gallon."
Compare that $162.-$1.70 per gallon to what the other big player in Iraq -- the state-owned oil company SOMO -- pays to import gasoline: Consistently under $1.
"We have also confirmed from the Coalition Provisional Authority," the Congressmen write, "that SOMO buys its gasoline from the same countries as Halliburton, transports its gasoline into Iraq by truck just like Halliburton, and delivers its gasoline to the same central depots as Halliburton."
A Halliburton spokeswoman suggested to the BBC that the markup might have something to do with security. "Based upon the big picture," she said, talk of price-gouging "insults the [Halliburton] employees who are performing this dangerous mission to help bring fuel to the people of Iraq." But a letter from the American-led coalition authority also confirmed for the Congressmen that "fuel truck convoys are required to be escorted by coalition military forces regardless of ownership." Keep that in mind when the Halliburton-conjured letters-to-the-editor start appearing, as per the marching orders e-mailed from CEO David Lesar.
This is an on-going and growing scandal. The Bush Administration's controversial request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq included $2.1 billion for oil reconstruction funds. Waxman and Dingell say that includes $900 million to import petroleum. "If Halliburton's overcharging for gasoline is not halted, between $286 million and $339 million of this $900 million could be needlessly wasted," they warn.
* * *
And in the insult-to-injury department, the Congressmen write: "Although it initially appeared that Halliburton was gouging only American taxpayers, it now seems that the company is overcharging the humanitarian Oil for Food Program and the Iraqi people as well. This significantly compounds the implications of Halliburton's actions."
Damn straight it does. It undercuts our stated national mission: Good luck getting other nations to pony up for rebuilding Iraq, when the US lets millions go missing and international charity be hijacked. A perception of corruption on this massive a scale makes it even less likely they'll ever be a rebuilding of Iraq, a "mission accomplished".
Paul Krugman has a nice piece about how the President of the United States is woefully out of touch with how the world view of the United States has changed and how even moderate Muslims don't trust us any more.
Krugman wonders whether it is just a lack of intellectual curiosity. laziness, or blind trust in his ideologically-blindered advisors that is the issue.
A Willful Ignorance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 28, 2003
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
According to The New York Times, President Bush was genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders that they had become deeply distrustful of American intentions. The report on the "perception gap" suggests that the leader of the war on terror has no idea how badly that war — which must, ultimately, be a war for hearts and minds — is going.
Mr. Bush's ignorance may reflect his lack of curiosity: "The best way to get the news," he says, "is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff." Two words: emperor, clothes.
But there's something broader going on: a sort of willful ignorance, supposedly driven by moral concerns but actually reflecting domestic politics. Surely it's important to understand how others see us, but a new, post 9/11 version of political correctness has made it difficult even to discuss their points of view. Any American who tries to go beyond "America good, terrorists evil," who tries to understand — not condone — the growing world backlash against the United States, faces furious attacks delivered in a tone of high moral indignation. The attackers claim to be standing up for moral clarity, and some of them may even believe it. But they are really being used in a domestic political struggle.
Last week I found myself caught up in that struggle. I wrote about why Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's prime minister — a clever if loathsome man who adjusts the volume of his anti-Semitism depending on circumstances — chose to include an anti-Jewish diatribe in his speech to an Islamic conference. Sure enough, I was accused in various places not just of "tolerance for anti-Semitism" (yes, I'm Jewish) but of being in Mr. Mahathir's pay. Smear tactics aside, the thrust of the attacks was that because anti-Semitism is evil, anyone who tries to understand why politicians foment anti-Semitism — and looks for ways other than military force to combat the disease — is an apologist for anti-Semitism and is complicit in evil.
Yet that moral punctiliousness is curiously selective. Last year the Bush administration, in return for a military base in Uzbekistan, gave $500 million to a government that, according to the State Department, uses torture "as a routine investigation technique," and whose president has killed opponents with boiling water. The moral clarity police were notably quiet.
Why is aiding a brutal dictator O.K., while trying to understand why others don't trust us — and doing something to create that trust — isn't? Why won't the administration mollify Muslims by firing Lt. Gen. William Boykin, whose anti-Islamic remarks have created vast ill will, from his counterterrorism position? Why won't it give moderate Muslims a better argument against the radicals by opposing Ariel Sharon's settlement policy, when a majority of Israelis think that some settlements should be abandoned, and even Israeli military officers have become bitterly critical of Mr. Sharon?
The answer is that in these cases politics takes priority over the war on terror. Moderate Muslims would have more faith in America's good intentions if there were at least the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and the Sharon government — but the administration seeks votes from those who think that supporting Israel means supporting whatever Mr. Sharon does. It's sheer folly to keep General Boykin in his present position, but as Howard Fineman writes in a Newsweek Web-exclusive column, the administration doesn't want "to make a martyr of a man who depicts himself as a Christian Soldier, marching off to war."
Muslims are completely wrong to think that the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam. But that misperception flourishes in part because the domestic political strategy of the Bush administration — no longer able to claim the Iraq war was a triumph, and with little but red ink to show for its economic plans — looks more and more like a crusade. "Election Boils Down to a Culture War" was the title of Mr. Fineman's column. But the analysis was all about abortion and euthanasia, and now we hear that opposition to gay marriage will be a major campaign theme. This isn't a culture war — it's a religious war.
Which brings me back to my starting point: we'll lose the fight against terror if we don't make an effort to understand how others think. Yet because of a domestic political struggle that seems ever more centered on religion, such attempts at understanding are shouted down.
I've hesitated to post this web address because I can't verify that it is indeed from a person in Iraq. However, sources that I generally trust accept it as authentic, so I'll pass it on. It certainly feels legitimate.
this is a blog by a woman living in Baghdad. If she is really there, then this site provides opinion and color from what I hope is a typical middle-class Iraqi. If that's the case, our policies and practices there are causing a lot of problems for us and the Iraqis, and we can expect things to only get worse. I've added a sample of one of her posts below that shows what I mean by that below.
Civilization...
I heard some more details about the demonstration today… The whole situation was outrageous and people are still talking about it.
Ever since the occupation, employees of the Ministry of Oil are being searched by troops- and lately, dogs. The employees have been fed up… the ministry itself is a virtual fortress now with concrete, barbed wire and troops. The employees stand around for hours at a time, waiting to be checked and let inside. Iraqis have gotten accustomed to the 'security checks'. The checks are worse on the females than they are on the males because we have to watch our handbags rummaged through and sometimes personal items pulled out and examined while dozens of people stand by, watching.
Today, one of the women who work at the ministry, Amal, objected when the troops brought forward a dog to sniff her bag. She was carrying a Quran inside of it and to even handle a Quran, a Muslim has to be 'clean' or under 'widhu'. 'Widhu' is the process of cleansing oneself for prayer or to read from the Quran. We simply wash the face, neck, arms up to the elbows and feet with clean water and say a few brief 'prayers'. Muslims carry around small Qurans for protection and we've been doing it more often since the war- it gives many people a sense of security. It doesn't not mean the person is a 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist'.
As soon as Amal protested about letting the dog sniff her bag because of the Quran inside, the soldier grabbed the Quran, threw it out of the bag and proceeded to check it. The lady was horrified and the dozens of employees who were waiting to be checked moved forward in a rage at having the Quran thrown to the ground. Amal was put in hand-cuffs and taken away and the raging mob was greeted with the butts of rifles.
The Iraqi Police arrived to try to intervene, and found the mob had increased in number because it had turned from a security check into a demonstration. One of the stations showed police officers tearing off their "IP" badge- a black arm badge to identify them as Iraqi Police and shouting at the camera, "We don't want the badge- we signed up to help the people, not see our Quran thrown to the ground…"
Some journalists say that journalists' cameras were confiscated by the troops…
This is horrible. It made my blood boil just hearing about it- I can't imagine what the people who were witnessing it felt. You do not touch the Quran. Why is it so hard to understand that some things are sacred to people?!
How would the troops feel if Iraqis began flinging around Holy Bibles or Torahs and burning crosses?! They would be horrified and angry because you do not touch a person's faith…
But that's where the difference is: the majority of Iraqis have a deep respect for other cultures and religions… and that's what civilization is. It's not mobile phones, computers, skyscrapers and McDonalds; It's having enough security in your own faith and culture to allow people the sanctity of theirs…
MSNBC has an article that discusses how Lt. Yee came into conflict with superiors over treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. Partly, it looks like the interigators are upset because after he ministered to prisoners they were less tractable. So, in effect, he was singled out because his job as a clergyman made things more difficult to wring information from the people we may be holding in violation of U.S. and international law. Nice.
It's well recognized that the prices U.S. consumers pay a premium for prescription drugs, which the drug companies (including the one I work for) say pays for research, development and infrastructure costs, and then the rest of the world pays much, much less. Canada and Mexico are in the news a lot right now because retirees cross the border to get less expensive drugs.
This trend seems to extend to other products as well, especially college textbooks. This one is particularly assinine. If regular books (like the sci-fi and fantasy that I read for fun) cost the same thing, adjusted for exchange rates, so why would a college text be different? To enhance profits.
The cost of higher education is spiraling out of control for states, parents, and students, and there has been absolutely zero regulation of expenses other than tuition. which is going up as states cut budgets.
Americans do enjoy a high standard of living and have higher incomes than most people in other nations. The price seems to be paying higher costs for the exact same products and services to enhance corporate profit margns. This has to stop, especially since many of the products we pay such a premium for are now manufactured outside the country by U.S. companies. High compensation costs for workers are really not an issue in these cases, so the "expense" for many items has to be buried somewhere else.
In a speech shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush made a speech announcing the "War on Terror" and comparing it to a Holy Crusade, a highly inflammatory comment that guaranteed resentment in Arab nations (and rightly so).
He is now joined in his lack of respect for, and knowledge of, Arabs and Islam by Lt. Gen William Boykin, the deuputy undersecretary of defense, whose job is to coordinate intelligence gathering with covert operations in order to prevent future attacks. As the article below indicates, it appears that Gen. Boykin is uniquely qualified for the position.
However, as the article also shows, Boykin is a religious extremist who doesn't even understand basic principles of Islam. Boykin's regular comments that Muslims are idolaters (they aren't) and that the Christian God is bigger or more powerful, show that he hasn't a clue regarding his topic.
A refresher:
1. God, Allah, and Jehovah are all the same supreme being, worhipped in different manners by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. All three are considered Abrahamic religions because the source of the faith is the biblical Abraham.
2. Muslims consider Jesus to be a great prophet.
3. Muslims do not use images or symbols in their worship, due to the biblical prohibition on graven idols. They can not be, in any form, idolaters.
4. Muslims, even Ossama bin Laden, do not want to attack us because of our status as a "Christian Nation" or because of our freedoms (real or imagined). al-Qaeda and others don't like our blind support for Israel and the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia.
Of course, Boykin thinks the war is against Satan, not Ossama or Saddam, and that we finally got Somali warlord Mohammed Atta because "our God is bigger than yours." What century is this guy living in? The concept that the people with the stronger deity lost credence back when the Romans adopted Christianity.
He also believes that God chose President Bush by creating the opportunity for the Supreme Court to appoint him despite the votes of the majority of Americans. This confirms the depth of his religious fervor, and also illustrates why he is the wrong man for the job.
This country needs clear-minded, knowledgeable leaders to formulate its policy. Many of the problems facing us are the direct result of blindly ideological choices in the face of reality. The budget deficit, tax cut, and invasion of Iraq are all examples of how the Bush Administration lets its heartfelt beliefs take the place of actual thought. the one thing we don't need is for the man in charge of formulating responces to terrorist threats to make decisions because he believes God is on his side.
We also need someone who understands the actual motivations of our adversaries in more than the simplistic religious terms Boykin prefers. We need leaders who understand that the heart of our conflict with Islamists is only partly religious in nature. It is primarily political and economic. The sooner we act like it, the sooner the United States will be secure and the Middle-East will have a chance at real peace.
Top terrorist hunter’s divisive views
General casts military, anti-terror efforts in religious terms
By Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Unit
NBC NEWS
Oct. 15 — A highly decorated general who is one of the leaders of a secretive new Pentagon unit formed to coordinate intelligence on terrorists and help hunt down Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets has a history of outspoken and divisive views on religion — Islam in particular, NBC News has learned.
HE’S A HIGHLY decorated officer, twice wounded in combat — a warrior’s warrior.
The former commander of Army Special Forces, Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin has led or been part of almost every recent U.S. military operation, from the ill-fated attempt to rescue hostages in Iran to Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Somalia.
This summer, Boykin was promoted to deputy undersecretary of defense, with a new mission for which many say he is uniquely qualified: to aggressively combine intelligence with special operations and hunt down so-called high-value terrorist targets including bin Laden and Saddam.
But that new assignment may be complicated by controversial views Boykin — an evangelical Christian — has expressed in dozens of speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts around the country. In a half-dozen video and audiotapes obtained by NBC News, Boykin says America’s true enemy is not bin Laden.
In June 2003, Boykin spoke to a church group over a slide show:
“Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.”
Why are terrorists out to destroy the United States? Boykin said: “They’re after us because we’re a Christian nation.”
NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin, who’s been investigating Boykin for the Los Angeles Times, says the general casts the war on terror as a religious war: “I think that it is not only at odds with what the president believes, but it is a dangerous, extreme and pernicious view that really has no place.”
During a January church speech in Daytona, Fla., Boykin recalled a Muslim fighter in Somalia who bragged on television the Americans would never get him because his God, Allah, would protect him: “Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.”
The Somali was captured, and Boykin said he told the man: “Mr. Atto, you underestimated our God.”
In a phone conversation, Boykin tells NBC he respects Muslims and believes the radicals who attack America are “not true followers of Islam.”
Boykin also routinely tells audiences that God, not the voters, chose President Bush: “Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.”
Boykin tells NBC News that, given his new assignment, he is curtailing such speeches in the future. He says, “I don’t want … to be misconstrued. I don’t want to come across as a right-wing radical.”
Lisa Myers is NBC News’ senior investigative correspondent.
Greg Thielmann, a former Powell aide responsible for evaluating the threat of WMDs, is now claiming that at the time Powell spoke at the UN to build support for the war Iraq was not a threat to the United States or anyone else -- unless you believe that Saddam was paying the families of people that cinducted suicide attacks on Israelis.
In the interview Thielmann states that he believes that the Administrations approach to Intelligence matters was "faith-based” and that "They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior administration officials.”
In the same news story a UN weapons inspector said that "...Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. One time, he was sent to find decontamination vehicles that turned out to be fire trucks. Another time, a satellite spotted what they thought were trucks used for biological weapons."
All of this means that the Secretary of State is now a willing accomplice in the fraud that led to our current war in Iraq, and is another indication that the American people have been lied to at every turn.
That's a pretty direct statement, isn't it. It's also true.
A "senior administration official", possibly two of them, leaked the identity of a CIA agent working to locate Weapons of Mass Destruction to Robert Novak and at least six other journalists. Coming in what the Republicans try to call "time of war" this represents an attack on U.S. security by members of our own government.
here's the deal: Valerie Plame Wilson, who has worked for the CIA for twenty years performing covert missions, and is married to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson. worked secretly to track and control biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons. During this time she was undercover, working both for the CIA and other companies. Her husband, at her suggestion, was sent to Africa to investigate alleged Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger.
It is important to note that the alleged purchases were a large part of the Bush Administration's PR campaign to pusht he war in Iraq.
Joseph Wilson found that the documents related to the purchases of uranium were bad forgeries and went public. The normal accusations ensued, the Bush Administration got a balck eye, and we invaded Iraq anyway.
A few months later, Robert Novak, disclosed that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent working on WMDs, endangering her, her work, and anyone she has been in contact with in many dangerous places around the world. It also exposed at least one CIA front company. This can hardly be accidental.
Plame's work is basically thrown away, her contacts endangered, and taxpayer money flushed down the toilet, all for political revenge against her nusband for not supporting the Bush Administration's claims.
So who is the culprit? Probably Karl Rove, the President's main puppeteer and the the person responsible for his Presidency. Why Rove? Because he has a history of leaking damaging information to the press, particularly Robert Novak. Rove was dismissed for G.H.W. Bush's campaign for leaking internal campaign problems to Novak, so the behavior is nothing new.
Unfortunately, although the Bushes frequently pursue others for their pecadilloes, the President has already aid that he doesn't think the leaker will be found or disciplined. Convenient, right? That means Mr. Rove is safe to leak again, even if it does endanger national security.
Luckily, the media and the Congress are uwilling to just let it go. There are calls for Novak and other journalists to give up the source of the leak, for Rove to resign, and for criminal charges to be brought. With luck, they will be able to force the issue.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/10/08_moore.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58650-2003Oct7.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/977708.asp?0cl=c1
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/03/10/ale03002.html
one of the most common things I hear when discussing the things that are legal for the government to do under radical new pieces of legislation like the DMCA (from 1998) and the USA Patriot Act is that that, "You don't have anything to fear if you aren't doing anything wrong." My response is generally to sigh and argue the philosophy of government and civil rights, interspersed with a few anecdotes from various news sources, amny of which end up here. Unfortunately, this frequently still ends up with a "well he/she was asking for trouble..."
Well, here's athe case of a journalist who was just doing his job and is consequently having problems with the FBI. Enjoy.
My (brief) career as an ISP
October 10, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
The FBI is convinced that I'm an Internet service provider.
It's no joke. A letter the FBI sent on Sept. 19 ordered me to "preserve all records and other evidence" relating to my interviews of Adrian Lamo, the so-called homeless hacker, who's facing two criminal charges related to an alleged intrusion into The New York Times' computers.
There are a number of problems with this remarkable demand, most of which I'll get to in a moment, but the biggest is the silliest. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Howard Leadbetter II used the two-page letter to inform me that under Section 2703(f) of the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act, I must "preserve these items for a period of 90 days" in anticipation of a subpoena. So far I haven't received such a subpoena, which would invoke a lesser-known section of the USA Patriot Act.
Leadbetter needs to be thwacked with a legal clue stick. The law he's talking about applies only to Internet service providers, not reporters. Section 2703(f) says in its entirety: "A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process."
Last I checked, electronically filing this column to my editors does not make me a provider of "electronic communication services." Nor does tapping text messages into my cell phone transform me into a "remote computing service," as much as I may feel like one sometimes.
Perhaps I'd be immune from the FBI's demands if I used an Underwood No. 5 typewriter instead.
I'm not the only one who's concluded that the FBI is out of control. The Justice Department's own cybercrime manual says the law applies to "network providers" and offers AOL as an example. In a recent column, former Justice Department prosecutor Mark Rasch says the law "was never intended to apply to journalist's records."
Last I checked, electronically filing this column to my editors does not make me a provider of "electronic communication services.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, says the FBI demand to journalists who wrote about Lamo is more than wrongheaded. "It's stupid. Journalists are not Internet service providers. I think someone at the Justice Department just plain screwed up. Maybe they thought they were getting very creative by going after online journalists and saying they were ISPs."
Last Friday, Dalglish's group sent a letter of protest to the FBI's general counsel. The letter also was signed by the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the National Press Club.
FBI's reasoning
So what are Leadbetter and his colleagues in the FBI's New York City field office trying to pull off here?
Lamo--who surrendered to the FBI last month and was released into his parents' custody until a hearing scheduled for later this month--has spent the past few years bragging to journalists about how he broke into the networks of companies such as The Times, Yahoo, Microsoft, Excite@Home and WorldCom.
Lamo does appear to be a singularly polite electronic intruder. Not one of Lamo's known targets has accused him of deleting or altering information, and at least one company thanked him for pointing out vulnerabilities that a malicious hacker could have used to do great damage. But if Lamo was telling the truth, he did violate federal law.
That said, the FBI is nuts to think there's anything helpful in journalists' notes and other records that agents can't get somewhere else--like from Lamo himself, who has not denied his earlier claims. Not only would turning reporters into de facto agents of the prosecution be unlikely to result in additional convictions, it would also violate constitutional protections for the press.
That's the second problem with the FBI's letter and promised subpoena: It runs afoul of the First Amendment's protections of freedom of the press. Judges have ruled that a wide-ranging inquiry into a reporter's unpublished work is unreasonable, a protection that one federal appeals court described as reflecting "the preferred position of the First Amendment and the importance of a vigorous press." Who would confide in a reporter who was nothing but a lackey for Attorney General John Ashcroft?
Recognizing this, CNET News.com referred me to its First Amendment attorneys, Roger Myers and Lisa Sitkin. Their response to the FBI on my behalf reminds the government that, "as many courts have recognized, reporters have a privilege under the First Amendment against demands that they produce records or testify in connection with unpublished information, regardless of whether or not their sources are confidential."
The letter is addressed to Leadbetter's boss, Pasquale Damuro, and says: "We write to request your assistance, as assistant director in charge, in correcting your agent's misuse of the (Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act) and in prohibiting further efforts to obtain the threatened subpoena, which, if issued, will raise serious First Amendment concerns and result in a constitutional confrontation between the FBI and the media." It demands that the FBI withdraw its letter and not serve a subpoena.
As another example of the FBI's constitutional carelessness, government regulations say: "Negotiations with the media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena to a member of the news media is contemplated." That never happened here.
The third problem with the FBI's letter is that it requests that I not "disclose this request or its contents to anyone." Those are chilling words for any journalist to read--after all, our job is to report the news, not cover it up by muzzling ourselves. That request almost certainly violates the First Amendment, but more importantly, it violates a journalist's duty to be straightforward with his or her readers.
I haven't heard anything since the original letter last month, but the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said Wednesday that the FBI admits its New York field office did not follow correct internal procedures. Unfortunately, Leadbetter and his colleagues are still eyeing subpoenas, insisting that reporters should "take appropriate action to preserve relevant records and materials."
An apology is too much to ask for. An unequivocal statement from the FBI and Ashcroft that this will not happen again and no subpoenas will be forthcoming--even if proper procedures are followed--is not.
biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.
Over at his website, Jerry Pournelle asks why Gray Davis wasn't investigated for sexual improprieties, which seems to be a fair question at first. Until you look at history.
Former President Bill Clinton was impeached over the question of his "relationship" with a White House intern (Monica) in the Oval Office. The republicans Party insisted that we spend over $30 million of taxpayer money investigating it, even though some of the most outspoken among them (New Gingrich) were themselves have extramarital affairs.
Why isn't Arnold getting the same treatment from these supposedly devout, upstanding, Puritannical conservative Christians? Answer: because he's their philanderer. Despite the Republican insistence at pushing their religious beliefs into the public arena, they're giving arnold a pass.
Such is the hypocrisy of politicians. They only adhere to their deeply held religious beliefs when they are of benefit to them. Otherwise they are tossed before the wind. Somehow, that's not the message I picked up in Sunday School.
Check out this report on the Attorney General's "support" for our rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In PDF format.
