Scaled-back Attack on Social Security

Mikaela says:
Republicans are starting to look around for a compromise that saves face for the President while still attacking Social Security as a social program:

This from Paul Krugman of the New York Times:
[P]rivate accounts, once established, would be used as a tool to whittle down traditional guaranteed benefits. For example, conservatives would use the existence of private accounts, together with rosy scenarios about rates of return, to argue that guaranteed benefits could be cut without hurting retirees.

In short, anyone who wants to see the nation return to fiscal responsibility, wants to preserve Social Security as an institution or both should be opposed to any deal creating private accounts. And there is also, of course, the political question: Why should any Democrat act as a spoiler when his party is doing well by doing good, gaining political ground by opposing a really bad idea? (Hello, Senator Lieberman.)

The important thing to remember is why the right wants privatization. The drive to create private accounts isn't about finding a way to strengthen Social Security; it's about finding a way to phase out a system that conservatives have always regarded as illegitimate. And as long as that is what's at stake, there is no room for any genuine compromise. When it comes to privatization, just say no.

Torture & Wal-Mart

Mikaela says:
Just when I thought I would have a light day (yes, an analysis of the social justice of the Oscars is light fare for M-Pyre!!), the New York Times had a banner day for editorials. Dammit, man!

First up, Bob Herbert wrote a scathing indictment of Bush's hypocrisy in touring Europe to lecture them about freedom and democracy while we're still shipping suspected terrorists back to countries that we know will accept them with open arms -- brutal, torture-loving, armed open arms. Very well-written with plenty to think about.

Second, and a subject closer to M-Pyre's planning little hearts, Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary, castigates us as consumers for allowing Wal-Mart to undermine workers and communities by shopping for the lowest prices. His impetus for the piece (illuminatingly titled "Don't Blame Wal-Mart") comes from New York City's recent rejection of a downtown Wal-Mart, to be the first worm in the Big Apple. While I agree with his main point that consumers do have power to vote with their wallets for fair employment and business practices, he seems to forget that there is another option to asking consumers to bear the cost of fair wages and health care: take it out of corporate profits and salaries at the top. I'm not advocating socialism here, people, I'm saying -- why squeeze the middle and lower classes who can barely afford to SHOP at Wal-Mart when 6 people at the top rank among the RICHEST PEOPLE IN THE WOLRD? Come on, they can afford to pay for worker health care and STILL be the richest people in the world. As consumers, we can choose to buy local and support unions in order to pressure corporations to "do the right thing," but wouldn't legislation help a bit? This is still government of the people for the people, right?

Oscar Thoughts

Mikaela says:
So Kudos to the Academy for being brave enough to have Chris Rock host this year's Award Show. I thought his commentary on how "white" the movies that make the Academy nomination really are was prescient and brave -- and important to point out. He interviewed people at California's Magic Johnson (I think) theatres -- mostly black people -- who had never seen any of the movies up for awards. Their favorite movies were blockbuster action flicks and black comedy pieces that Rock pointed out were all named for locations and not real movie titles at all.

That being said, after his opening monologue, Chris Rock was sidelined -- literally and figuratively. He didn't say another interesting thing all night, except for a brief verbal scuffle with Sean Penn, who stood up for Jude Law, whose omnipresence in movies lately Rock humorously maligned.

The Academy's herculean effort to broaden its inclusion to Black America was painfully evident as the camera's desperately panned the audience and zoomed in on each and every black face when Chris Rock told a "black joke" to see how they liked it and to cue the home audience in on how to take the humor.

To be fair, the Academy wasn't just trying for black/white diversity. Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek got to present several awards -- together as a stunning and well-endowed Hispanic set. And the Academy nominated and awarded its first foreign-language song as Best Original Song from the Motorcycle Diaries.

I applaud the effort toward inclusion, but it was so self-conscious that I found it incredibly uncomfortable. My feeling is that the effort must be made, and the discomfort must be trudged through until it stops feeling like an effort. After all, the acting talent seems to know no color lines, even if quality leading parts for people of color are still few and far between. Jamie Foxx won a well-deserved best actor for Ray, and Morgan Freeman won his first (!?!) Oscar for his supporting role in Million Dollar Baby. The all-white cast of Aviator did not manage to pull off a Best Picture sweep.

The last frontier that seemed painfully obvious to me last night was the technical aspects of movie making. Editing, sound, special effects, etc. lined up the nominees on stage and almost to a MAN, they were white and male. How often do women direct movies these days? How often do women who do direct movies get nominated for Best Director? Sophia Coppola was the last I remember, and even her considerable achievement for Lost in Translation, her first ever film, was downplayed with sour-grape whisperings of nepotism.

So, mixed reviews on social justice at the Oscars.

As for political commentary...there was none. Sean Combs made a vague reference to all the bad things going on in the world, and Chris Rock alluded to how on earth Bush got re-elected when Farenheit 911 showed just how bad a job he's done as President. He quickly (and without pretense of transition) went on to say how everyone there supports are troops and salutes the job they're doing and left it at that.

The whole ceremony can be summed up this way: it ended fifteen minutes early.

Here's to W

Maggie says:
Words of wisdom from our commander in chief:

"The United States and the U.S. stand together in support of the Iraqi people and the new Iraqi government, which will soon come into action."—Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

What FDA approves let no man take...

Ahhhh, government oversight. Isn't it nice to know that with full knowledge of public harm and ample evidence of responsibility for 50,000 (that's right -- THOUSAND) deaths, the federal agency tasked with protecting our health used a democratic process to keep you in harms' way?

(Meanwhile we can't get studies funded for natural and homeopathic substances because drug companies can't patent vitamins and minerals, so the FDA won't vet the efficacy of things like VITAMIN C, GARLIC, or BLUEBERRIES, which have been found in studies done by forward-looking countries like China, to have significant benefits with no side effects in all kinds of wide-ranging health conditions.)

The system's working, alright, and we all know who it's working for. (It ain't you.)

This from Democracy Now:

FDA Oks Sale Of Vioxx Despite Dangers
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted to allow doctors to keep prescribing the popular painkillers Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra even though the panel overwhelmingly agreed that the drugs significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular problems in patients. The panel proposed that the drugs be sold with an FDA "black box" warning. Vioxx is now expected to return to the market even though nearly half the FDA panel voted against it being sold. Its manufacturer Merck voluntarily withdrew the painkiller drug in the fall. The FDA panel decided whether a drug should be allowed to be sold on a straight majority vote. The vote for Vioxx was 17 to 15. For Bextra, 17 panelists vote for the drug and 13 voted to ban it. The panel nearly unanimously recommended Celebrex remaining available. Last year FDA whistleblower Dr. David Graham publicly estimated that 139,000 Americans who took Vioxx suffered serious side effects. Of these users he estimated that the drug killed between 26,000 and 55,000 people. Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen said the FDA's decision "defies common sense." Public Citizen has warned that if Merck starts selling Vioxx again that the watchdog group would immediately petition the government to have it taken off the market.

So much for being a world leader... At least we're finally honest about being nothing but world spoilers... If only it were still true that to the victors go the spoils. Now everyone shares in the spoilage. 

From Tom Toles of the Washington Post. 

Argue like a conservative

Maggie says:
I can't resist posting more This Modern World - it's so good! I'm off to Taos and Durango to relax and build momentum. Hopefully general life inspiration (and maybe some blogging inspiration, too) will strike.

Making big boxes pay (literally) for their low-paid workers

Maggie says:
Looks like Montana is joining California in the ranks of states doing innovative policy work in response to big boxes and the public costs associated with them.

Next week, Montana legislators will debate a bill that targets retailers earning at least $20 million in sales who pay their workers very low wages. If the bill passes, these retailers would be responsible for paying the welfare costs that the state spends to meet the gap between their measly paychecks and a living wage.

"When you don't pay workers, they get public assistance," says State Sen. Ken Toole from Helena. "Guess who pays for that?"

He's exacty right. But not surprisingly, big boxes in Montana are freaking out. The special tax levy would apply to stores with part-time employees making up at least a quarter of the workforce and whose full-time workers earn less than $22,000 a year.

Wal-Mart spokesman Nate Hurst says that "It's not the government's job to pick winners or losers in a competitive marketplace."

But what he doesn't get - and never will in order to live with himself - is that in a system where profits are made on the inability of workers to pay their rent or their children's medical bills, his company's contributions to a system where there are "losers in a competitive marketplace" is perpetuating a heartbreaking way of life that no one deserves. Paying people little to nothing for what they do, denying them benefits that no one should be without, and firing them if they begin organizing for better conditions is not worth the 50 cents consumers might save by buying socks there.

So thank you, Sen. Ken Toole of Montana. But for real change to happen, we need to see not only innovative actions from state and local governments (which are crucial, don't get me wrong). We also need to see a massive shift in consumer choices that starts with consumer education and ends with consumers shopping with their conscience.

Justice is so sweet

Maggie says:
Daughter of conservative Republican calls herself 'liberal queer'

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (AP) -- The daughter of conservative Republican Alan Keyes referred to herself Monday as a "liberal queer" and urged support for gay and lesbian young people who have been deserted by their families.

Maya Marcel-Keyes, 19, addressed a rally sponsored by the gay-rights group Equality Maryland, saying she was motivated to speak out because of her rocky relationship with her parents and the recent death of a friend who had fallen ill after being thrown out of the house by his family.

Marcel-Keyes told several hundred supporters that her sexuality had created a rift in her relationship with her parents.

"Things just came to a head. Liberal queer plus conservative Republican just doesn't mesh well," she said. "That was making my life a little bit turbulent."

Later, Marcel-Keyes told CNN her parents "were not too pleased" when they learned she was a lesbian, but she said she loves them "very much, and they love me. They can't support my activities."

Her father, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois last year, created a stir in August when he said during an interview that homosexuality was "selfish hedonism" and that Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter was a sinner.

In a statement issued Monday night, Keyes said: "My daughter is an adult, and she is responsible for her own actions. What she chooses to do has nothing to do with my work or political activities."

Marcel-Keyes said she received an outpouring of support when disclosing her sexual orientation, but her friend did not.

"Like me, he grew up queer in a conservative household," she said. But where she got hundreds of e-mails, offers of a place to stay and a college scholarship, "he'd been out there two years and had gotten nothing."

"And the worst part is, he isn't the only one," Marcel-Keyes said.

The Onion weighs in on the media controversy of journalists prostituting themselves for propaganda... 

Jose Canseco's tell-all

Maggie says:
What's the most surprising - that Jose Canseco of all people just wrote a bestseller, or that he's sounding really credible as he names players on steroids?

Hard to put my finger on a single reason, but I believe him. I mean, what does he have to lose? And while he stands to make a lot of money from this book, the fact that he actually believes steroids aren't that bad - and therefore those who take them shouldn't be punished - makes me think he has no reason to lie.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out as spring training begins. Imagine if a book by the biggest meathead to ever play professional sports was what inspired the league to finally crack down on steroids for real, and not just for press releases?

Heartbreaking 'Hotel Rwanda' haunts us with guilt

Maggie says:
Last night I finally got around to seeing 'Hotel Rwanda' and this next afternoon, can't seem to get it out of my head. Too often I tend to not exactly avoid - but not exactly rush into, either - movies that I know up front are going to be tough to watch and process. This was one of them, but I'm really glad I went. And you should, too.

As an overly-political high school newspaper reporter, I once wrote a column imploring students studying the Holocaust not to say that the world would never let genocide happen again. My point was that we were letting it happen, that it was happening at that moment in Rwanda, but no one was paying attention or worse, didn't care. (This morning I dug through boxes of old stuff looking for that column. I wanted to read what my naive seventeen-year-old self had to say about a place I couldn't imagine and events beyond my comprehension. But it's gone forever, I guess.)

What's most powerful about "Hotel Rwanda" is the gap between how the Rwandan people expected the world to come to their rescue and how little we cared about their plight at all. The most powerful line in the movie comes not from a Rwandan (Don Cheadle is fantastic, by the way) but from an American photographer played by Joaquin Phoenix who, when being evacuated with the rest of the white tourists/aidworkers/newspeople, won't let a Rwandan hotel employee hold an umbrella over his head on the way to the bus that will take him to safety. "Don't do that," he says, pushing the man away. "I feel so fucking ashamed."

Without question, this is a movie that should shame us. We deserve to be shamed. Every day, we ignore at our convenience global tragedies an ocean away and neighborhood tragedies just down the street. The weight of events that should crush us with their heaviness and our own sense of responsibility is too easy to shrug off. And then there's the guilt factor. Sometimes it seems incomprehensible to enjoy simple routines like a good cup of coffee with breakfast when there is literally madness going on everywhere around us that no one is doing anything about. And I note the irony that choosing to see "Hotel Rwanda" over something else isn't exactly a moral victory - it is, after all, only a movie. Ten years after the world stood by and did nothing for Rwanda, guilt-ridden progressives are seeing the cinematic portrayal of this genocide and thinking how terrible, how appropriate that they saw "Hotel Rwanda" instead of "Hitch." And that's pretty sad, too.

I suppose this is where progressives in America are today. We call ourselves aware but really, we don't know anything. We call ourselves activists but it's hard to look at what we actually do versus all that we don't. And in America, we have everything within our reach but can barely see outside the bias of our own privilege.

As a friend suggested recently - "maybe ignorance really is bliss." When I'm depressed about everything that's terrible, I picture those who really don't care about events outside of their small world. The smug expressions carried around by way too many Americans usually infuriate me, but think about it: their internal dialogue must be so much simpler and happier than ours. Through their blindness to everything but themselves, they don't even realize what there is to be upset about.

Since I'm reminiscing, here's a link courtesy of my brilliantly smart and funny old friend Saleem: check out The Ten Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories of 2004 for more guilt-ridden progressive internal conflict.

Canadian Wal-Mart employees, unite!

Maggie says:
The latest Wal-Mart development should surprise no one involved in the constant battle against the mega-chain. Wal-Mart executives just announced they will shut down a store in Quebec, Canada. The problem with this particular store? Slow sales, too many boycotts, not enough local workers to exploit? Nope. The Quebec Wal-Mart had a store full of exploited workers already. The problem was that those pesky Canadian laborers decided they’d had enough – six months ago, they became North America’s first unionized Wal-Mart.

There’s reams of evidence as to Wal-Mart’s despicable record with labor. Most of us (or at least, M³ and probably most m-pyre visitors) could recite these in our sleep. But while Wal-Mart succeeded in shutting down the Quebec store, they may not be so successful in the future. One other Canadian Wal-Mart has union certification, and at least two other Canadian Wal-Marts have submitted proposals for union certification under Canada’s labor laws. Wal-Mart executives have already said that they do not plan on closing down the remaining unionized store, continuing the test case for organized labor within the labor movement’s most-hated chain of stores.

Those of us rooting for this store may be disappointed – the newly unionized employees have a tough road ahead. They follow this experience: In 2000, a Jacksonville, TX store was the closest organized labor came to beating Wal-Mart. Eleven meatpackers voted to be represented by the UFCW (the same union representing the Canadian cases here). Wal-Mart’s response shows the lengths they’ll go to win at any cost. In opposition to their eleven unionized meatcutters at a single store in Texas, Wal-Mart decided to completely eliminate the job of meatcutters throughout their 5,170 worldwide stores, laying off thousands of deli workers. Their legacy lives on: today, fresh deli meat can’t be found in any Wal-Mart store. They'd rather sell only pre-packaged meat than offer decent pay and benefits to the men and women who could slice it fresh.

Good luck, Canada. Your workers will need it.

PS: Take a close look at our Raging Grannies. They’re protesting Wal-Mart, too!

You get what you pay for (and vote for, unfortunately)

Mikaela says:
It's what I've been saying all along! I guess it's clear this is my new pet theme, but I think it's of deadly importance to stay focused and diligent about the strategic perspective of each and every policy that issues forth from our White-hope House.

Most of the articles I've seen on Bush's budget have been sure to include how social programs will be decimated, and most quote the fact that one of every three proposed cuts deal with education. Fewer mention the disproportionate effect on lower-income and inner-city minority communities -- the strategic intiative Bush is calling with Orwellian lack of irony "Strengthening America's Communities Initiative." This might be true if it in fact dealt referred to the effects of this budget on corporate communities. But of course, it doesn't.

Instead, it lays out in cold, deadly detail the elimination of Community Block Grants, which have played such a key part in turning around many slip-sliding communities and empowered them to imagine and resurrect a vision of healthy, vital neighborhoods.

As if that's not enough to pull the rug out from struggling inner-city and low-income communities, he's cutting the Perkins loan program, too, which specifically targets aid to smart, motivated low-income and minority students to help them get the college education even Bush admits they need to enter the wealthy, robust corporate welfare community.

How does this tie into the hoopla about privatizing social security?

Paul Krugman nails it in his column today(link and full text below) :
The attempt to "jab a spear" through Social Security complements the strategy of "starve the beast," long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn't seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday.

And why? You know that's what he's after because you put your money where your values are, right? So where are his values? What's he after?

I won't go so far as to say Bush is an out-and-out racist (not that I rule that out), but I will say he and his right-wing idealogue buddies are out-and-should-be-more-outted classists. They're economic Calvanists. Those who make it are fated to make it (and what more evidence do you need of their status than the fact that they've made it??), and those who don't ... well ... aren't. (Just look at where they live!)

This may explain why corporate welfare fits in with his agenda, while universal health-care is anathema. Give money to those who deserve it -- the chosen. Don't waste the taxpayer's money on just anyone. If Bush believes that those with money and power are really morally and in all other ways superior, then it makes sense not to fund education and health-care. Let those chosen born among the rabble claw their own, individual way out of the mire. That will prove their worth to those above. Everyone else, well, go to church. Why else funnel all social welfare through "faith-based" initiatives? Bush is trying to make sure money only goes to those trying to better themselves spiritually. That way, no aid goes to those who don't deserve it. See? It's all so ... calculated.

People voted for Bush because of his moral values, right? Is it really within the moral values of this country that those without access to the system -- no matter how hard they work at multiple jobs -- should remain locked in destitute and crumbling neighborhoods without access to health care or education? Is it a shared value that their children should suffer the fate of their parents because they were born in the wrong place to the wrong families? Since when is Wall Street the heroic savior, bringing prosperity to all who believe?

I know Americans aren't much on history, but let's all try to remember that the social welfare safety net that's universally vilified these days was a result of a (cyclical?) failure in the capitalist system. It was a stock market crash, for god's sake. Now, the answer to everything is to transfer money from the government to that same stock market? That strikes me as not just an oversight but insane.

But you don't have to take my (shrill, panicked!) word for it. The following is a great (and, I think, dead-on) strategic analysis of Bush's latest budget and social security proposals from the New York Times' Paul Krugman.

Spearing the Beast
By PAUL KRUGMAN
February 8, 2005
President Bush isn't trying to reform Social Security. He isn't even trying to "partially privatize" it. His plan is, in essence, to dismantle the program, replacing it with a system that may be social but doesn't provide security. And the goal, as with his tax cuts, is to undermine the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt.

Why do I say that the Bush plan would dismantle Social Security? Because for Americans who entered the work force after the plan went into effect and who chose to open private accounts, guaranteed benefits - income you receive after retirement even if everything else goes wrong - would be nearly eliminated.

Here's how it would work. First, workers with private accounts would be subject to a "clawback": in effect, they would have to mortgage their future benefits in order to put money into their accounts.

Second, since private accounts would do nothing to improve Social Security's finances - something the administration has finally admitted - there would be large benefit cuts in addition to the clawback.

Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the guaranteed benefits left to an average worker born in 1990, after the clawback and the additional cuts, would be only 8 percent of that worker's prior earnings, compared with 35 percent today. This means that under Mr. Bush's plan, workers with private accounts that fared poorly would find themselves destitute.

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.

Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.

The attempt to "jab a spear" through Social Security complements the strategy of "starve the beast," long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn't seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday.

To put that budget into perspective, let's look at the causes of the federal budget deficit. In spite of the expense of the Iraq war, federal spending as a share of G.D.P. isn't high by historical standards - in fact, it's slightly below its average over the past 20 years. But federal revenue as a share of G.D.P. has plunged to levels not seen since the 1950's.

Almost all of this plunge came from a sharp decline in receipts from the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These are the taxes that fall primarily on people with high incomes - and in 2003 and 2004, their combined take as a share of G.D.P. was at its lowest level since 1942. On the other hand, the payroll tax, which is the main federal tax paid by middle-class and working-class Americans, remains at near-record levels.

You might think, given these facts, that a plan to reduce the deficit would include major efforts to increase revenue, starting with a rollback of recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, the budget contains new upper-income tax breaks.

Any deficit reduction will come from spending cuts. Many of those cuts won't make it through Congress, but Mr. Bush may well succeed in imposing cuts in child care assistance and food stamps for low-income workers. He may also succeed in severely squeezing Medicaid - the only one of the three great social insurance programs specifically intended for the poor and near-poor, and therefore the most politically vulnerable.

All of this explains why it's foolish to imagine some sort of widely acceptable compromise with Mr. Bush about Social Security. Moderates and liberals want to preserve the America F.D.R. built. Mr. Bush and the ideological movement he leads, although they may use F.D.R.'s image in ads, want to destroy it.

Happy Birthday, Nancy Drew

Maggie says:
Check out this great Salon tribute to mystery-solving heroine Nancy Drew, who turns 75 this month. I grew up obsessed with the old yellow hardcover Nancy Drew mysteries – and today every one is safely boxed away in the attic for any future Adams girls (thanks Mom!).

Nancy was the best role model any young girl could have had – she was smart, brave, level-headed, and a great friend to Bess and George, her female sidekicks. Her boyfriend Ned Nickerson figured less prominently in the original novels – he’d show up for dances but would end up getting kidnapped by the villain and need to be saved by his girlfriend, really featuring Nancy as the first feminist icon for young girls. Nancy and Ned had the perfect relationship – he was there and she enjoyed his company, but he wasn’t at all her top priority, she was her own self. And her friend Bess made a striking contrast, too – Bess was the pretty blonde one who was shy and boy-crazy, but ended up in trouble because she trusted the wrong person or had a broken heel and was caught by the bad guy. Nancy was the thinking girl’s heroine – I guess that’s why she was mine.

The new Nancy Drews are updated for modern readers: they’re written in the first-person and make her less perfect and more human – she has doubts and an interior dialogue now that shows her weaknesses. The publishers believe today’s girl readers would be put off by such a model of perfection, they’d be intimidated by her strength and force of will. Growing up on the old Nancy Drew, though, I saw her as what girls could grow up to be – anything and everything we wanted to.

So happy birthday, Nancy Drew. May you inspire as many girls of today and tomorrow as you did yesterday. This girl reader says thanks.

Covering up the cover-ups

Mikaela says:
An article in the Washington Post today lays out a cover-up by a Montana asbestos mining company of the deadly effect of asbestos on its employees and town residents. The company that bought out the company that perpetrated the cover-up is now being taken to court -- by federal prosecutors with the help of the EPA.

What is not mentioned in the article is that this story represents the exact kind of environmental justice that Bush & Co. want to deny the American people under the guise of "tort reform" and efforts to outlaw class-action suits. The truth of the matter is that without government assistance, the residents of this town would have to simply die in agony unaided by health assistance from the very company that caused it. How can Bush still claim to want accountability? Does he even know what that word means? Maybe someone should mention it's not just an accounting term and that its meaning goes beyond spreadsheets and bottom lines.


Md. Firm Accused Of Asbestos Coverup
Contamination Scars Montana Town
By Carrie Johnson and Dina ElBoghdady
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page A01

Federal prosecutors yesterday charged W.R. Grace & Co. with exposing mine workers and residents in a small mountain community in Montana to deadly asbestos and covering up the danger.

The Columbia-based chemical manufacturer stands accused of breaking environmental laws and obstructing justice by misleading government officials probing the widespread contamination. The company allegedly buried a paper trail dating back to 1976 that traced how asbestos dust from its mine had permeated the lungs of workers, their family members and even residents who jogged on the high school running track in Libby, Mont.

Bush as God's right-hand avenger

Mikaela says:

How does a movie about good & evil, figuring an androgynous archeangel Gabriel, turn into a contemporary political commentary on Bush's righteousness as justification of all policy? Here's Tilda Swenson's take from today's interview in the New York Times (heavily abridged by yours truly) about her role in the upcoming Constantine with Keanu Reeves:

Gabriel becomes insane because he starts to think that if you wrap yourself in God's clothes you can do anything you want, and it ain't true. There is something insane about a lack of doubt. Doubt, to me anyway, is what makes you human, and without doubt even the righteous lose their grip not only on reality but also on their humanity. ...

[T]he attitude of righteousness is a reason for pretty much anything now. What's shocking is how easily that's peddled today. ... Gabriel's rationale is essentially, "My job is to get as many souls as possible to heaven, and I have noticed that you are at your most spiritually open when the place is in flames, so I'm going to torch the joint."

There is all sorts of religious extremism all over the place, but the reason for this partly has to do with the fascist attitudes and language of absolutism coming from Washington. It's challenging for people outside of America that Bush was re-elected. It means we're all going to have to work a lot harder to understand what so many more Americans than we thought really want. It's an identity shift in our minds about America and maybe for many Americans as well.

We're not only preaching to the converted, but we also want to speak to those people who think they know what righteousness is.

Have we underestimated evangelicals?

Maggie says:
The connection between evangelical beliefs and corresponding right-wing policy is pretty concrete. So is the notion that since evangelicals believe the end of the world is eminent, they don't feel environmmental regulations are necessary, since those could only prolong the end of the world. But a closer look at the environmental beliefs of envangelicals adds more dimension - and a possible rethinking - to what we thought we knew.

From the Center for American Progress: "Times have changed since James G. Watt, the conservative interior secretary under President Reagan, argued that the imminent return of Jesus made environmentalism unnecessary. 'God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,' Watt told Congress in 1981. These days, the Washington Post reports, evidence in polling and in public statements of church leaders shows that a 'growing number of evangelicals view stewardship of the environment as a responsibility mandated by God in the Bible.' Though evangelicals sometimes rely on different terms – 'creation care' instead of 'environmentalism' – and emphasize particular environmental ills – for example, the health effects of mercury pollution on developing fetuses – the basic progressive principles are the same. 'The environment is a values issue,' says the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, whose members will meet in March to develop a position on global warming."

The Greening of Evangelicals (login required) is the original article spotlighting this shift. It draws from the "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" adopted in October, which states that "We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part. Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation." This sounds pretty basic to us, but considering the end-of-the-world faction of their group, it's actually pretty revolutionary.

So we all know that evangelicals are pretty solidly Republican. And so far, there's not much to suggest that their newfound concern for the environment would sway their vote to the other side. But according to the Post, major environmental groups are studying "how to talk to evangelicals" to convince them to vote with their (slightly) green hearts. Given that there's a HUGE divide between hemp-wearing earth-lovers and cardigan-wearing church-lovers, could the gap be bridged? Are we seeing a new movement of environmentalism (or as the evangelicals prefer to call it - conservationism) being born?

And so Bush's onslaught continues...

Mikaela says:

Bush's agenda for slashing social programs and diverting funds to his military arsonal and legions of mercenary soldiers will be codified in his federal budget, which he's sending to Congress today. What Bush puts asunder, let no man restore.

The following from Democracy Now details his proposed cuts and re-allocations :

Bush Submits $2.5 Trillion Budget to Congress
President Bush is expected to send a $2.5 trillion budget to Congress later today. Bush is seeking a $19 billion increase in defense spending while proposing cutbacks in a wide range of domestic programs. Faced with a record deficit, Bush is calling for the elimination of some 150 governmental programs. One out of every three of the targeted programs concerns education. Public housing residents, Medicaid recipients and farmers will all suffer from cutbacks. In addition Bush is proposing to cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $450 million; to cut $100 million from a Bureau of Indian Affairs program that helps build schools and to cut $200 million for home-heating aid for the poor. Meanwhile Bush is calling for the Pentagon's budget to increase by nearly 5 percent to $419 billion. However that total does not include the cost of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Out of touch and not listening anyway

Maggie says:
From today's Washington Post, covering a Bush event in Nebraska meant to sell his Social Security plan:

"In Omaha on Friday, a divorced single mother named Mary Mornin tells the president, 'I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.'

'Fantastic,' the president exclaims, and he tells her she has 'the hardest job in America, being a single mom.'

Later, the 57-year old Mornin tells Bush that she works three jobs, which the president deems 'uniquely American' and 'fantastic.' He asks her if she gets any sleep."

John Edwards moves on

Maggie says:
News from my homefront: John Edwards will head the new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill. Fittingly, this new job will allow him to further his populist "Two Americas" message that points out how Americans have become victims of their own government's flawed trade and tax policies.

Coincidentally, David Sirota has a piece out today that examines how John Edwards' views on trade set him apart from the Democratic pack when looking ahead to 2008. "Trade and economic inequality can be major issues if a high-profile politician is willing to persist and make them major issues," writes Sirota. "This is where Edwards' opportunity lies. Though he gave up his Senate platform, he has an economic one. And as long he has that important stage all to himself, there will be an audience outside the beltway eager to listen."

Looks like Edwards has found his stage.

Listen up, Connecticut

Maggie says:
I’ve been ranting about Lieberman for a week now, but it just keeps getting worse. Let’s count down his latest offenses:
1. Not only voting to confirm Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State…
2. … but pleading with Democrats to do the same, lecturing that Rice “will serve in the national interest.”
3. Hugging Bush after the State of the Union
4. Letting Bush kiss him after their hug (If you haven't seen the footage yet, no, I'm not making this up.)
5. Voting to confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, one of only six Democrats to do so, and…
6. …delivering yet another rousing speech against his party’s values while doing it, calling prison treatment at Guantanamo “progressive” and “remarkably just.”

I’m not sure what happened to Lieberman. He’s never been progressive - always moderate at best - but I think that FCC nonsense a year ago provoked the zealot in him. Since then, he’s been taking pains to promote himself as the Dems’ conservative voice of wisdom. Certainly the primary forced him to set himself apart - his stump speeches about "radical Democrats" losing touch with Middle America were as backward as they were boring.

Whatever the reason, this is unacceptable. Even more mind-boggling is that we’re talking about a senator from Connecticut here – not exactly Republican territory, so I'm confident that the good residents of that state can elect someone to better serve the Democratic party. So listen up, Constitution State: find yourself a real progressive to kick Lieberman’s ass in the primary. There’s no reason we have to put up with this kind of voting record – and worse, the moral lectures that come with it – from one of our own. Strike three happened a long time ago.

Our ever-expanding blog list

Maggie says:
We did a little updating to our links section recently. Notice that we've separated basic links (news and organizational sites, etc.) from blogs. M³ Blogs are growing all the time - we keep discovering new favorites. So check back to see what's new and what we're currently reading.

Confirming American dissent

Maggie says:
Consider the recent confirmations of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Obviously, they're terrible candidates bent on further destroying U.S. credibility in the world and wreaking havoc on civil liberties at home. It is beyond me why any self-respecting Democrat would vote yes on their confirmations. So what if the majority would give them the vote, anyway? Isn't it worth anything to stand up for your beliefs and record your dissent?

So while I have nothing good to say about the Dems who confirmed these individuals (and am flat-out bewildered by Joe Biden, who railed against Rice during the hearings and then voted for her anyway...), here's some heartening news, however small and footnote-ish it is:

Condoleeza Rice was confirmed with an 85-13 vote, marking her as the Secretary of State with the most No votes in our country's history. Alberto Gonzales has the same distinction: his confirmation vote of 60-36 makes him the least-confirmed Attorney General ever. He broke John Ashcroft's record to do it.

What should we do in Iraq?

At breakfast this morning, M3 were talking about an internal debate that progressives have about what the best course of action is for the U.S. in Iraq. We have plenty of criticisms and denouncements for the Bushites but what do we think should be done now, since we're there? Rather than answer this question, we thought we would pose the question and perhaps some of you would give us your opinion, along with your rationale. We've posed a few options here, but there may be others.

Possible options:

1. Continue on the current course of occupation and control.

2. Withdraw completely and let the Iraqi people decide their own fate. Be done with it.

3. Withdraw and channel all of our resources through the United Nations, letting the international community as a whole take control of how to aid Iraq.

Need Religion? Try Burning Bush's Ficus of Faith.

Mikaela says:

My nomination for quote of the day comes from a New York Times editorial by Maureen Dowd about the recent evolution revolution toward creationism:

"So much for the Tree of Knowledge. Mr. Bush gives us the Ficus of Faith."

P.S. I just received my order from CafePress for a new tote bag with a picture of Bush and Cheney behind bars, with the quote, "I have a dream..." above. You, too, can own this icon of dissent. Just visit https://www.cafepress.com/mjaewears. I can't wait to go shopping at Wild Oats!!! My little liberal heart bleed-ith over!

Local Politics

Mikaela says:

M-pyre was recently asked why we don't cover local politics. Here are my initial thoughts about why this tends to be the case:

1. We think big here at M-pyre, and national politics are big gorilla issues that scream out for comment because they will affect so many of us on profound levels.

2. We like good journalism, and we seek it out. This tends to mean we're getting our news from national newspapers and websites. Local news is hard to get! Local tv news is not an option; newspapers are ... so twentieth century. Alibi and Crosswinds are ... of limited use. I know much more about what's happening in Congress than the City Council. Anyone out there ready to take on progressive reporting for ABQ?

3. Local politics are more fine-grained and therefore harder to 1) understand and 2) attack in a blog-rant. It takes more time and attention to know where you stand on local issues, or where anyone stands on local issues, for that matter, than it does to read that Democratic senator so and so did such and such, which stimulates an immediate visceral reaction.

But I'm just a local ABQ girl. What do I know?

Advice for Michael Jackson

Maggie says:
It occurs to me that if you're on trial for child molestation and basically being a freak, it's probably not a great idea to show up to court wearing makeup and faux-military regalia. Just a thought...

Mister McBobo

Wish I saw things this clearly... :-)

Dean for the DNC

Maggie says:
A couple of weeks ago, an offhand comment I made about my support for Howard Dean as DNC chair provoked some good debate in that post's comments. After reading everyone’s thoughts (proving, I think, that Dean is nothing if not subject for a juicy debate) I did my homework and found out more about the other DNC candidates. Today, my support for Dean has only strengthened. Here’s why:

A close examination of Martin Frost – former rep from Texas and the other front-runner in the DNC race – reveals how much he embodies the “Republican lite” stance that in addition to turning my stomach, proved to be an un-winnable strategy for many Dems this year. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the basic strategies that I think Democrats have to draw upon are to be vocal, to offer an alternative, to get back to their progressive roots, and to fight back – especially against bogus attacks about values from the Karl Rove crowd. I don’t see Frost being able to do any of these things. In fact, he’s an impediment to any of them happening at all.

Frost is now famously vilified for an ad in which he proudly proclaimed himself an ally of Bush. This comment from blogger Markos Moulitsas sums up my thoughts exactly: "If you spend a year distancing yourself from the Democratic Party and sucking up to Bush, Hastert and Hutchinson, then you have no business trying to run the Democratic Party." Not only does Frost not believe in reconnecting Democratic, progressive values with swing voters who supported Bush, he was ashamed of those values in his own campaign. I don’t care if you’re campaigning in Texas or in Massachusetts, you can’t sell out the party’s values and then expect to lead the party.

More recently, Frost’s calls for Democrats to unite around Sen. Joseph Lieberman act as more proof that Frost isn’t the right man for the job. Last week Lieberman was urging Democrats to unite around Condoleeza Rice and deliver a “resounding vote” of confidence and unity. Give me a break! Lieberman is about the only person who I think would have made a worse choice for Minority Leader than Harry Reid, save for Zell Miller if he was still around. We need progressive backbone. Supporting folks without any is not the way to go.

So why Dean? As I said before, he gets it. Dean equates “moral values” with “telling the truth before sending young Americans to war, protecting the environment, building a better education system and not leaving a massive federal deficit for future generations. So let us be the party of moral values, let us be the party of economic opportunity, let us stand up for equality in this country again." I see no one else as taking on these issues more compellingly – or more effectively – than Dean.

Just as important, Dean knows how to do the nuts-and-bolts work of organizing, a crucial need for the Dems now. His organizing capabilities vaulted him to front-runner status in the primary when no one thought he had a chance. Now’s an opportunity to take those skills and use them for the good of the party. Rather than a sacrifice of his political ambitions, I think heading the DNC is a perfect match for his skills. He knows how to roll up his sleeves and get to work – look how hard he busted his ass for Kerry on the campaign trail, after a pretty humiliating defeat in Iowa and after.

One more thing: people like someone who knows what they stand for, who plainly speaks it, and who fights for those things. Too many folks thought that wasn't Kerry - but it is Dean, like it or not. Dean in charge would convey those things to the public about the Democratic party - they it knows what it stands for and is proud of it, that it offers a better alternative than what we have today, that it will fight for the American people (and not just the rich ones).

So for me, it’s still Howard Dean. Donnie Fowler and Simon Rosenberg seem like fine enough candidates, but I don’t think either combines the passion or skills of Dean. And if Frost gets the job, expect me to completely freak out.

U.S. Budget: More evidence of Bush's radical program

Mikaela says:
The Washington Post's William Raspberry gives us more to think about in his article today about how the Bush administration's systematic dismantling of the federal government social programs are targeted to (and well on their way toward) cutting out the poor. As I've been lamenting, this is a strategy -- not such a subtle one -- toward a revamping of the very role of government, away from its role of providing for and protecting social, economic, and environmental equity to become merely a protectorate for capitalists.

Peter Edelman, a Georgetown University law professor who is thoughtful, liberal, incredibly decent -- [is] alarmed over the national budget President Bush will shortly propose.

"For virtually all of my adulthood," he said, "America has had a bipartisan agreement that we ought to provide some basic framework of programs and policies that provide a safety net, not just for the poor but for a large portion of the American people who need help to manage.... With this budget, the basic framework is being dismantled."
...
The basic structure of Social Security is under attack (on the grounds that the program is in crisis, though most respected economists say it isn't). Pell Grants for college tuition are on the cutting block. So are Section 8 housing vouchers (which started under Richard Nixon) and food stamps. Programs that have offered some protection for people in the lower third of the economy are under threat of evisceration.

And the rationale for the attack is a budgetary crisis created by the gift of $1.8 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
...
As Edelman and Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change (CCC), put it in a recent joint statement:
"The federal budget is not just an accounting tool. It is a statement about our priorities and our values as a nation. But because of decisions this president made to benefit an elite few -- at the expense of the rest of us -- we're now facing a set of budget choices that are unsupportable, immoral and dangerous."
...
Resistance won't be easy, since so many middle Americans see their interests as nearer those of the rich than of the poor.
...
"We're talking about tens of billions of dollars in cuts, including many programs that, like nutrition, are in-kind income for people," Edelman said. "We're talking about a severe blow for millions of Americans who are working as hard as they possibly can but still need some help."

Where is the outrage?

Maggie says:
Kudos to Salon, who busted the third journalist proven to have been paid off by the Bush administration to promote their policies. So now we have three journalists - Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus - who were paid $271,000 in total to write bogus columns touting No Child Left Behind and Bush's marriage initative.

Apparently Bush just ordered his cabinet secretaries to stop this practice, so I guess we're all supposed to be appeased. But why aren't more people outraged about this? Whatever happened to journalists having respect for their profession, for the truth, and for themselves? Why is no one really apologizing for this, really understanding how wrong this is and why it's so wrong? And why aren't people pissed as hell that in a major recession and budget crisis, money is being spent on public information scams instead of social services or paying off our debts?

And p.s. to Gallagher: being paid off by Bush&Co to praise their marriage iniatives is not "taking part in a government-funded research project" - it's being a prostitute for the president and a traitor to your profession.

Too little, too late

Maggie says:
Today's news tells us that Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and most recently Bush's first head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is coming out with a tell-all book that criticizes Bush leadership on environmental issues and its negative influence on the EPA's ability to be effective.

So this is great, right? Wrong.

The fact that Whitman is choosing to publish her book now, months after the election, is as good a sign as any that she is utterly weak and without conviction. Worse, she wants to make profits from a tell-all book, but doesn't want it to really create any change.

I have particular anger at Whitman over this issue. She went into the EPA as a very popular public figure, respected by both parties and considered a rising star in politics (for those who view moderate Republicans as rising stars, that is). And when she left the EPA, it was widely understood that she resigned because her views (actual respect for the environment) were incompatible with the Bush view of corporate control. So at that time, her brief Bush administration tenure had all the makings of a great story. Certainly, she had the star power to speak up then and be heard. But she didn't.

For years after she left (including during the election), Whitman was a frequent guest on the talk show circuit, always spouting nothing but praise for Bush and his policies. I saw her once on the Jon Stewart show going on and on about how Bush's hands-off approach would inspire corporations to innovate and become less polluting on their own, without the resentment that would be caused by regulations.

This book of hers is a nail in her coffin, in my view. In every instance, she has chosen the weakest path, the one without consequence, and also the one without impact. If Christine Todd Whitman really does believe in environmental protection and really was outraged at how she was manipulated by Bush&Co, we should've heard about it while the country was reconsidering his place as president.

Hearing this now, when all is said and done, amounts to little more than pointless gossip. And she amounts to little more than a political has-been who was too weak to make a difference when it counted.

Self-Promotion Department

This afternoon the ladies of m-pyre were interviewed by the Albuquerque Journal for an upcoming story on local bloggers. We had a great time and hopefully represented ourselves and the blog well. Look for it in a month or so - we'll put out on update when we hear an exact date.

Let ‘freedom’ ring?

Maggie says:
In yesterday’s inauguration speech, Bush uttered the words “free,” “freedom,” and “liberty” 49 times. The catchword of the Bush administration, “freedom” was mentioned 25 times alone. This in a 17 minute speech.

This freedom thing really gets me. Some examples: during the USC-Oklahoma game a couple of weeks ago, country singer Toby Keith was interviewed and thanked U.S. troops for “keeping it free.” In today’s Daily Lobo, an ROTC student passing by the UNM Counter Inauguration Rally remarked that protesting Bush is self-defeating since “the troops are fighting so American people can retain their freedom and right to protest.”

Am I missing something? Can someone please explain what definition of freedom I’m not aware of? How are we “keeping it free” by bombing a country whose oil we want? And how do we protect freedom by forming close relationships with countries whose records are not “free” in the least, like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Pakistan? How are American lives improved and made more “free” by the massive debt and casualties resulting from our invasion, not to mention the devastation done to Iraq and Iraqi families?

Perhaps American dictionaries need to take note. I think the new definition of freedom – as used for political purposes, anyway – is something like this: The pursuit of U.S. expansion into new markets (countries) for economic and political gains, regardless of human casualties, financial costs, or opinion of the American people and global population.

More on U.S. Consistency (Spreading Freedom & Torture)

Mikaela says:

I agree with Marjorie here, and surprise surprise, so do a couple staff writers for the Washington Post (who, by the way, finally admitted it gave $250,000 for Bush's inauguration). See excerpt of their article below:


Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies
U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations
By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A25

President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.

Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well.

President Bush declared: "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." A critic said Bush mentioned "liberty" repeatedly but did not refer to "human rights" as an overriding goal.

Bush's speech "brought to a high level the gap between the rhetoric and reality in U.S. foreign policy," said Thomas Carothers, co-author of a new book, "Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East."

"The rhetoric is seamless, but the policy is very muddled. In fact, the war on terrorism has pushed the U.S. to be friendlier with nondemocratic regimes," said Carothers, director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

...

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, was struck by the fact that Bush mentioned "liberty" repeatedly but did not use the phrase "human rights" as an overriding goal. "The decision to speak in terms of liberty instead of human rights was deliberate," Roth said.

"Liberty is an abstract concept, but human rights bind everyone, including the Bush administration. It's easy to say I'm for liberty but difficult to say I'm for human rights when he's overseeing what we know is a conscious policy of coercive interrogation, including inhuman treatment and sometimes torture."

Inauguration Day

Pretty amazing...

Inauguration Day

Celebrating free speech...

Inauguration Day

Think he was looking out the window?

Best headline ever

Maggie says:
At 11:30 p.m., the front page of cnn.com says:

Bush: Better Human Intelligence Needed

Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am?

Have the Inauguration Day blues?

Maggie says:
I just heard about two local events for progressives this Inauguration Day. If your plans for the Inauguration ceremonies include throwing up or crawling into a hole, you might want to consider bonding with other Blues at local events in Albuquerque and Santa Fe, thanks to sponsor organization I'm Blue. In Albuquerque, check out the I'm Blue Mobilization Event from 6-9 in the La Posada ballrooms. The Santa Fe event is the Funeral for Democracy, which begins at noon at the Roundhouse.

Here's an excerpt from the I'm Blue Manifesto: "We have declared Inauguration Day as a National Day of Mourning and Solidarity. We mourn the loss of civil discourse in elections, the loss of a fair, balanced and questioning mass media, the defeat of common sense by ideology, the loss of constitutional rights, the defeat of truth by lies, the absence of a verifiable and reliable election system, and most importantly, the loss of our brave soldiers in Iraq in a war whose justifications keep changing every day. We celebrate an election that brought together 57 million people who still stand for civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, tolerance, free speech, freedom from religion in the political realm, freedom to practice religion in the private realm, spiritual values, secular values, family values that include all families, and helping those living the American nightmare to achieve the American Dream. We honor those who believe that avenging 9/11 did not involve attacking a country that had nothing to do with that horrific event. We respect those who do not think killing innocent Iraqi civilians is the way to save them. We pray for our young soldiers thrust into a hell not of their making. We celebrate protecting the environment for future generations, putting the interest of people over the interest of corporations, making sure seniors can retire in peace without worrying about Social Security and health insurance, and creating a peaceful world for our children."

Their slogan? "We will be vigilant."

Martin Luther King Jr. on.... Iraq

Maggie says:
Any questions as to how Martin Luther King Jr. would respond to Iraq today?

"Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours." - MLK

It's Strategic: Social Security, HUD, & Bush's Plan to Dismantle Government

Mikaela says:

Marjorie and I had an interesting conversation Friday night about the extent to which Bush's agenda is a strategy to dismantle government on all levels. She mentioned something I didn't know -- that Bush is looking at "reorganizing" HUD to become part of two other agencies, Commerce and Labor (read: hack it apart and bury the pieces) and slashing Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds by as much as half.

I'm not anywhere near an expert on these funds, but I do have a strong sense of how pivotal they have been in reinvesting money in our country's poorest inner-city neighborhoods and rural communities. These funds have allowed local governments to direct federal funds to the projects they deem most necessary, including public works projects, affordable housing developments, social programs (clinics, recreation centers, day-care facilities, literacy programs) and economic development (including community credit unions and business incubators). Sounds like just the thing to cut if you want to disenfranchise poor, minority, and largely-democratic voters, doesn't it?

Why else would the administration gut a successful department? Friday's article in the Washington Post makes this pretty clear: "HUD has evolved into an agency designed to support urban interests and low-income citizens, while Commerce and Labor are more receptive to business needs. " Could it be any less subtle?

Indeed, community development programs at HUD are far larger than those at Commerce and Labor, said Saul Ramirez Jr., executive director of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials and a former deputy secretary of housing. The Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration has a $320 million budget, a fraction of CDBG's allocation.

"If there are any programs in Commerce that encourage direct economic development to some of the most disadvantaged and blighted areas, those programs are dwarfed by these programs," he said. "If [consolidation] is what they want, the reverse should be proposed."

One White House official agreed that HUD programs have more of a community focus, while the Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration is more interested in economic growth. But, he said, "they're funding a lot of the same things."

HUD's city focus may be why the White House is dismantling the HUD programs, Frank charged. "HUD is the place where mayors and urban interests can put up the strongest fight," he said.

I guess outdated voting machines and scrubbed voter rolls don't do enough to disenfranchise our city folk according to our fair President.

Social Security is yet another battlefront for this war on social programs.

Democracy Now had a great interview on Friday with Roger Hickey, Co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, part of a coalition to protect Social Security, who laid out how the privatization of Social Security is but one critical piece in Bush's strategy to dismantle government:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you talk a little bit about why this is happening, why Bush and the Republican party are so hell-bent on pressing this campaign forward? I know in the Wall Street Journal in the days after the election in November said that one of the -- one of the industries most expecting to benefit from the new administration was going to be the Wall Street firms that would be in essence managing all of these private -- private retirement accounts that the President hopes to be able to get for the American people. Are there any estimates of how much of a boon this would be to Wall Street?

ROGER HICKEY: Well, it would mean trillions of dollars in terms of management fees that would erode small accounts that would be set up under this plan. So, yes, Wall Street has a motivation, but I think that really, it's broader than that.

The Bush administration and the people around them really are out on an ideological mission to dismantle affirmative government. And therefore, they know that if they can get away with dismantling the Social Security system, the very, very popular retirement social insurance system that Americans have supported for decades, if they can dismantle that and privatize it as part of their “ownership society,” the slogan of which ought to be: “You're on your own, buddy,” that means that they can get away with practically anything. They can dismantle regulation. They can really go about the -- their whole agenda of dismantling government. It's an ideological fixation with them, and it's going to be an epic test with the very wealthy corporate America and Bush supporters on one side, and on the other side, the organizations that represent the American people. Labor, women's organizations, retiree groups around the country, AARP has just gotten into this battle. We have got a sizable coalition on the other side which is going to be very, very active at the grassroots level talking to members of Congress, and there are a lot of Republican members of Congress who are caught in the middle. They are very, very worried about the fiscal irresponsibility of this plan, about the idea of cutting benefits for their constituents, and I think that this is a battle that Americans, not the Bush administration, are going to win.

AMY GOODMAN: The other day we called the Social Security hotline to get some information. When you're put on hold, this is what you hear:

SOCIAL SECURITY HOTLINE: Thanks for holding. A representative will be with you shortly. Did you know that the 76 million strong baby boom generation will begin to retire in about 10 years? When that happens, changes will be need to be made to Social Security, changes to make sure there's enough money to continue paying full benefits, and most experts agree, the sooner those changes are made, the less they are going to cost.

They went on to point out that this is yet another example of the kind of manipulation of the bureacracy to propogandize for the current policy push that Bush's Administration showed in buying-off the minority support for No Child Left Behind with personal payments to the conservative commentator.

So my question is, now that we get their agenda -- it's out there big and bold for anyone to see -- what will we be willing to do to stop it?

How far do you think privacy protection should go?

Mikaela says:

I never thought I'd find myself in the position of waiving my right to privacy to make things convenient for the government to do its job (ahem -- I'm talking about all those Patriot Act supporters out there), but this morning's NPR story about Oregon's latest plan to assess road taxes got me thinking.

So Oregon is thinking ahead (gotta love planning, right??) to the possible budget shortfall when hybrids and more gas-efficient vehicles generate less revenue from gas taxes (which currently pay for most infrastructure costs). University professors have come up with a GPS system that would track how many miles you drive in certain zones at certain times (a different charge would be assessed for rush-hour miles versus late-night miles, etc.), calculate your tax, and charge you for it the next time you gas up (you can even put it on your credit card!!!).

A great idea in theory, right? Taxpayers would be paying to maintain the roads they actually use, with a direct correlation to when and how they use them. The GPS technology would be able to differentiate between miles driven in Oregon versus outside Oregon, and you would not be charged once you crossed outside the state line.

But it does raise privacy issues. While the government says it won't keep track of individuals' movement, in theory, it could. Drivers would be allowing a tracking device inside their cars, and how would they know how the government was using it?

But it's a good idea, and I'd hate to do the whole baby with the bathwater thing.

So what do you think? What safeguards would have to be in place before a system like this (a system with really smart, progressive intentions) would be acceptable to you?

It is interesting that before I checked myself, I was annoyed at the privacy flag. Civil rights are civil rights, but I found the chink in my privacy armor when my little liberal heart saw a good environmental idea.

Congratulations Commissioner Cordova!

Maggie says:
Congratulations to Teresa Cordova as she begins her term as the Bernalillo County District 2 Commissioner. As a student and employee of Teresa's, I can't be more optimistic about the progressive viewpoint and remarkable experience she brings to Bernalillo County. If the first Commission meeting is any indication, Teresa's term will be marked by her passion for her community and her dedication to its future. Her victory was a bright spot in a dismal election season for many of us, and her timing is perfect for communities like the South Valley, where she'll be integral on several important upcoming planning and development decisions. And how fun it'll be to watch her in action!

We salute you, Teresa!

A month of musings

Maggie says:
I’m back after a month in North Carolina (kudos to Mikaela, by the way, for keeping m-pyre going strong over the holidays), where politics and the future of humanity were very much on my mind. Back in town and back to blogging, I offer some recollections and observations on the eve of Bush2:

- How ironic that Bush & Co. just formally ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But wait… they didn’t find any? Wow, the mainstream press must have reported that with lots of outrage and sarcasm. Wishful thinking! This story seemed to be hidden pretty deeply and wasn’t presented as ironic in the least. And a big caption saying, “Isn’t that why we went to war, you idiot?” did not follow the report.

- When I saw pickup trucks with Kerry/Edwards stickers on them in NC, it made me really, really happy. I did an informal study of political bumper stickers while I was home, and these are the unscientific results: Small Cars – predominantly Kerry stickers; Minivans – Kerry 60%, Bush 40%; Pickups – Kerry 45%, Bush 55% (closer than you’d think, right?); SUVs – predominantly Bush stickers. Fascinating!

- We all agree that the Iraqi prison abuse scandal was terrible, but it seems we agree less about the abusers themselves. This was a topic of debate between my dad and I during our 1,800-mile drive back to Albuquerque. I say that Charles Graner is a monster and made a personal choice to do what he did, despite the obvious structural problems that exist in the military setup there (which should also be cause for a tribunal of their own). My dad says that personal choice is less important than the chain of command, that Graner is a fall guy for the top brass who designed these humiliation schemes in the first place, that he’s paying the price for the administration’s dirty secrets. I agree with the heart of my dad’s argument, but I also have to believe that not everyone would do what Graner did. But having no experience in the military (unlike my dad), and definitely not wanting any, my guess is as good as anyone’s.

- On the drive out to NC, we drove past all kinds of billboards on I-40. Somewhere in Tennessee, it hit me: the Democratic National Committee (with Dean in charge, I hope) should start putting up billboards all across America. Each one would be short and memorable. I’m imagining a solid color background with block letters carrying messages that would change with the times. An example: “Want better benefits? Want a living wage? Vote Democratic.” Or: “Tired of seeing national debt skyrocket while your job gets outsourced? Vote Democratic.” You get the idea. Everyone reads billboards. Small town voters who should be voting Democratic read billboards. How’s that for getting a message across?

- This was so good I had to quote it in full. It’s from the Nation. “Last Saturday a US warplane dropped a 500-pound bomb on a home in northern Iraq that 'was not the intended target,' killing as many as 14 people, including the owner's seven children. The Pentagon then added insult to injury, issuing a statement that 'deeply regretted the loss of possibly innocent lives.' Possibly innocent?!”

- I'm eagerly anticipating Barack Obama's term in the Senate, and I wish him so much luck as he begins. May he carry the torch that expired with Paul Wellstone.

Part 1: Textiles and "Free" Trade

Marjorie says...

Speaking of there being no jobs in the U.S., on January 1 the industrialized nations eliminated the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which may cause the global textile industry to shift dramatically to India or China in the next two years. These ‘quotas’ limited the amount of textiles that could be imported from any one country, thereby making it possible for small third world countries to develop textile industries. The quotas also supported the U.S. textile industry, which has lost almost half of its production in the past ten years. Even with the quotas, it has been hard to compete with the cheap labor costs of China and India.

The WTO estimates that China’s share of the U.S. apparel market will rise from 22% to 50% in the next two years. This could cause millions upon millions of textile workers to lose their jobs, not only in developing nations throughout the world that depend on the textile industry, but right here in the U.S.

I ran across a comment by the CEO of Perry Ellis, George Feldenkreis, that Central American nations that sign on to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) will have a better chance of competing. This comment really impressed upon me the vicious circle of the WTO, IMF, and "Free" Trade agreements. The WTO regulates global trade in the name of “Free Trade” (although it has to have rules so the moniker is a little misleading). These regulations in turn are like a guillotine over the heads of nations who resist entering into these "free" trade agreements with behemoths like the U.S. And the IMF, of course, imposes strict conditions for how debtor nations are to structure their governance, insisting on privatization, little to no social spending, and elimination of import tariffs and subsidies to domestic industry.

It begs a big question – how on earth are poor countries supposed to develop? How are they to survive in this cut-throat global trade regime that imposes upon them ideological, neoliberal rules?

Of course, one of the biggest ironies is that the U.S. itself, a country that has a huge external debt but doesn’t suffer from the imposition of IMF rules (since we essentially are the IMF), will feel the effects of the elimination of these textile quotas. Or perhaps it isn’t ironic. Maybe it’s all part of a plan towards a global world, with the ‘third world’ and the ‘first world’ to found in every country, existing alongside one another.

Bush's take on church & state

Mikaela says:

True to form, Bush has an incredibly nuanced and thoughtful statement about the proper relationship of church and state in an interview yesterday with the Washington times (transcript).

"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit.

That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have — or one of the greatest freedoms — is the right to worship the way you see fit. And on the other hand, I don't see how you can be president — at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a — without a relationship with the Lord.

I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person. I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is. On the other hand, I think more and more people ... understand the importance of faith in their life. "

In response, Dan Froomkin received the following response (which I thought was hysterical):
Reader Kim Jonas writes: "Relationship with the Lord? I'd like to see our President have a relationship with the *facts*. And I'm a born-again Christian."

Rock on, Christian Soldier!

Good god people, wake up!

Latest Dollar and Non-sense

Mikaela says:

The trade deficient is the worst EVER. But should you be worried? Not as worried about the deficit, perhaps, as our government's reaction to it.

U.S. Treasury Secretary claimed that the growing trade deficit shows our economy's strength, not weakness (Orwell eat your heart out!). "The economy is growing, expanding, creating jobs and disposable income and that shows up in the demand for imports," he said.

Then he went on to blame our TRADING PARTNERS for the deficit. If they'd just charge more for their goods, we wouldn't be in this mess! Or better yet, if they'd just buy more of our products... oh, wait ... we don't make products here anymore. Oh well, at least our CEOs will still be rich!

Forget the cake; let them eat fortune cookies!

New York Times Editorial - Gonzales Nomination

Mikaela says:

I couldn't have said this better myself, so I quote the following Op-Ed piece in full.

"Promoting Torture's Promoter"
By BOB HERBERT
January 7, 2005

If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn't recognize itself.

The administration that thumbed its nose at the Geneva Conventions seems equally dismissive of such grand American values as honor, justice, integrity, due process and the truth. So there was Alberto Gonzales, counselor to the president and enabler in chief of the pro-torture lobby, interviewing on Capitol Hill yesterday for the post of attorney general, which just happens to be the highest law enforcement office in the land.

Mr. Gonzales shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that office. His judgments regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners rounded up in Iraq and the so-called war on terror have been both unsound and shameful. Some of the practices that evolved from his judgments were appalling, gruesome, medieval.

But this is the Bush administration, where incompetence and outright failure are rewarded with the nation's highest honors. (Remember the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded last month to George Tenet et al.?) So not only is Mr. Gonzales's name being stenciled onto the attorney general's door, but a plush judicial seat is being readied for his anticipated elevation to the Supreme Court.

It's a measure of the irrelevance of the Democratic Party that a man who played such a significant role in the policies that led to the still-unfolding prisoner abuse and torture scandals is expected to win easy Senate confirmation and become attorney general. The Democrats have become the 98-pound weaklings of the 21st century.

The Bush administration and Mr. Gonzales are trying to sell the fiction that they've seen the light. In answer to a setup question at his Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Gonzales said he is against torture. And the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last week that said "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms."

What took so long? Why were we ever - under any circumstances - torturing, maiming, sexually abusing and even killing prisoners? And where is the evidence that we've stopped?

The Bush administration hasn't changed. This is an administration that believes it can do and say whatever it wants, and that attitude is changing the very nature of the United States. It is eroding the checks and balances so crucial to American-style democracy. It led the U.S., against the advice of most of the world, to launch the dreadful war in Iraq. It led Mr. Gonzales to ignore the expressed concerns of the State Department and top military brass as he blithely opened the gates for the prisoner abuse vehicles to roll through.

There are few things more dangerous than a mixture of power, arrogance and incompetence. In the Bush administration, that mixture has been explosive. Forget the meant-to-be-comforting rhetoric surrounding Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Nothing's changed. As detailed in The Washington Post earlier this month, the administration is making secret plans for the possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists who will never even be charged.

Due process? That's a laugh. Included among the detainees, the paper noted, are hundreds of people in military or C.I.A. custody "whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." And there will be plenty more detainees to come.

Who knows who these folks are or what they may be guilty of? We'll have to trust in the likes of Alberto Gonzales or Donald Rumsfeld or President Bush's new appointee to head the C.I.A., Porter Goss, to see that the right thing is done in each and every case.

Americans have tended to view the U.S. as the guardian of the highest ideals of justice and fairness. But that is a belief that's getting more and more difficult to sustain. If the Justice Department can be the fiefdom of John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, those in search of the highest standards of justice have no choice but to look elsewhere.

It's more fruitful now to look overseas. Last month Britain's highest court ruled that the government could not continue to indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorism without charging or trying them. One of the justices wrote that such detentions "call into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."

That's a sentiment completely lost on an Alberto Gonzales or George W. Bush.

Letter to Sen. Kerry

Mikaela says:

Did anyone else get an e-mail from Senator Kerry about "Counting on you to make sure every vote gets counted"? Well, I got one, and it made me hopping mad.

He asks us to call Speaker Hastert and Leader Frist and tell them that we want "action on election reform now." But not for this election! Nope, just for next time, since it's unlikely that a recount will change the outcome of the 2004 election.

To quote Mags: "Are you kidding me?" Either he really doesn't get it or he's a much bigger asshole than I ever thought possible. Either way, it's ... it's ... inconceivable (I keep using that word. Maybe it doens't mean what I think it means...).

Here's my little response to his cry for help:

Dear Senator Kerry (or whoever reads his mass e-mail address),

Thanks for your efforts and for this communication. I voted for you (even though you'll have to take my word on that, seeing as there is no paper trail to confirm it) and supported you in the face of a media smear campaign that pegged you as a flip-flopper. I argued (and still do) that you are simply a nuanced thinker who sees gray, which is not always easy to justify. Black and white perspectives are much easier to argue.

This being said, I am incensed at the position you are (not) taking in this fight to ensure democracy. I think you owe some explanation as to WHY you "will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors." (I have to note the irony that one of the few black and white pronouncements you make is one that I think sorely deserves elaboration.)

How is this not hypocritical? You say you "want every vote counted because Americans have to know that the votes they stood in line for, fought for, and strived so hard to cast in an election, are counted" but just not THIS year? Why is that, exactly?

You may think you're taking the high road on this one and avoiding a conflict of interest or a few detractors saying you're a sore loser, but I have to say I feel you're letting me down and everyone else who truly believes every vote counts and therefore should be counted. It is SO beside the point whether or not the outcome of the election would be overturned. We need evidence of what went wrong, how fraud against the American people was perpetrated against the electoral system, and how many people were disenfranchised of their fundamental rights due to partisan racism and classism. THAT, sir, is the reason for a recount. I agree that your presidential bid is not worth recounting.

I also agree that additional measures should be taken for the future, but what about accountability for the present? This fight has not yet begun and you've already turned the other cheek!

Sincerely,

Mikaela Renz
Community Planning Student
Albuquerque, NM, USA

MoveOn Petition against torture (and Alberto Gonzales)

Mikaela says:

Incidentally, here's a link to sign a petition to Congress against torture. Decently articulate and fairly complete.

My message:

As an American, I am terrified at the direction my country is headed. Please stop the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as a first step toward justice and away from tyranny. As a protector and indeed champion of torture, he must be sent packing as a message to the world and to ourselves that we believe in humanity -- ours and everyone else's.

P.S. Washington Post has a great editorial about Guantanomo and U.S. torture. I haven't heard anyone speak out so explicitly against what is clearly U.S. policy. Nice Orwell/Kafka references, too, for literary types such as myself.

Happy New (please, please, please) Year

Mikaela says:

Well, it's official. We're off and running on an exciting and intriguing new year. I can honestly say I have NO IDEA what this year will bring for me, my friends, my country, or the world. Isn't that exciting? Scary as hell, yes, but full of potential, you have to admit.

Let's keep our ears, hearts, and minds open, stock up on non-perishables, and get ready to hit the streets on a moment's notice. Everyone save those old sheets and medical masks. They may come in handy.