On Closer Examination

The Little Gay Men Behind The Curtain

2006-10-16T10:40:00.000-04:00

Americablog has posted some excerpts from Frank Rich's column about the outing of the Republican party in the aftermath of the Mark Foley debacle. I can't read the article itself because I would have to subscribe to some ridiculous New York Times service called TimesSelect, which I won't do on principle. Avrovosis quoting Rich:

"First, gay people did not “infiltrate” the party apparatus — they are the party apparatus. Rare is the conservative Republican Congressional leader who does not have a gay staffer wielding clout in a major position. Second, any inference that gay Republicans on the Hill conspired to cover up Mr. Foley’s behavior is preposterous."

This all reminds me of a story my father told me, when he got back from a trip to Poland in the 1990s. He said that there are only about 5,000 Jews left in Poland, but that there were still people in Poland who believed that the Jews were responsible for everything that went wrong there.

Today, Family Values Republican legislators say there is no place for homosexuality in public life while hiring homosexuals on the public dime. And the Family Values Republican base responds by saying that the problems in Congress are because of the homosexual infiltrators, the secret Gay Republican Network.

As for me, a Gay civil libertarian, I'm simply shocked to find out that there are so many Gay Repblicans. I truly believed that Gay Republicans were the intellectual equivalents of Jews For Jesus, and that they would forever be on the outside of the party looking in. It simply never dawned on me that there were Gay Republicans on the inside.

I guess the reason I'm shocked is that, for a very long time now, I've understood that staying in the closet is participating in your own subjugation.

But Gay Republicans don't agree. They believe that homosexuality is not a strong enough basis on which to form a community, and sometimes I agree. They feel a stronger kinship with financial and moral conservatives than they do with the over-whelmingly liberal gay community, and sometimes I agree. They believe that the gay community, if there is such a thing, has bcome so paralyzed by political correctness (gltb = gay lesbian transgender bisexual) that we have trouble finding an intellectual justification for excluding pedophiles from our midst (National Man Boy Love Association).

And so, they allign themselves with conservative Republicans instead of the liberal glbt community. And sometimes I agree.

But where we part ways is the closet. Because, apparently, in order to find a home in the conservative Republican community, gay people have to stay in the closet. OK, maybe not the closet, since their friends and colleagues know they are gay. But since the constituents for whom they work do not know they are gay, it's still a closet. A walk-in closet, maybe with a dressing table and a telephone, but a closet.

Why is this such a big deal? Because if these Gay Republicans would openly demand a seat at the table as Gay Republicans, if the country knew how many Gay Republicans are working in Congress, then the Karl Roves of the world would not be able to demonize gay people for the purpose of winning elections.

To my way if thinking, Gay Republicans are responsible for the Karl Rove strategy of getting out the base by making gay marriage a campaign issue, and gay adoption a campaign issue. Because they are best positioned to stop it, and they refuse to do so for the sake of their own personal gain.

And no, I don't mean that Gay Republicans have to be in favor of gay marriage or gay adoption simply because they are gay. I just mean that Gay Republicans should not help other Republicans take advantage of gay people for political means.

But I don't have to worry about this for much longer. The Republican base, in a collective imitation of Claude Rains, is shocked, shocked to learn that there are homosexuals in Congress. The closet is going bye-bye.

So now where are the Gay Republicans going to hide?

How Close Is Remarkably Close?

2006-10-12T11:41:00.000-04:00

This is an excerpt from a Washington Post story written by Jonathan Weisman:

"With House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert denying personal knowledge of former representative Mark Foley's activities, investigators for the House ethics committee are bearing down on three senior members of Hastert's staff to determine when they learned of Foley's actions and whether they passed on their knowledge to the speaker.

The three -- chief of staff Scott Palmer, deputy chief of staff Mike Stokke and counsel Ted Van Der Meid -- have formed a palace guard around Hastert (R-Ill.) for years, attaining great degrees of power and unusual autonomy to deal with matters of politics, policy and House operations. They are also remarkably close. Palmer and Stokke have been with Hastert for decades. They live together in a Capitol Hill townhouse and commute back to Illinois on weekends."

Palmer and Stokke live together. Is it possible that the Speaker of the House has a gay couple as two of his top three aides?

Now, normally, I'd say it's no one's business if Palmer and Stokke are gay. But in this story, it does matter whether or not someone's sexual orientation is known. Weisman writes:

"In brief, awkward conversations, the source said, Fordham would tell Foley: 'I just got a call from Jeff Trandahl. And Mark, you just need to be conscious of appearances. Everyone knows you're gay. You're being held to higher standards than everyone else. They see the stereotype -- a gay man going after kids.'"

So, if Palmer and Stokke are gay, and if that fact becomes public knowledge, then they too will be held to a higher standard. I guess.

It just creeps me out.

Today Is National Coming Out Day

2006-10-11T14:06:00.000-04:00

I'm gay.

See, Republican closet queens? It's easy.

E-

A Chill Runs Through The Republican Closet

2006-10-11T09:54:00.000-04:00

Stephanie Griffith, writing for Agence France Presse (AFP), reports that "Gay Repubilcans find chill climate in Washington after sex scandal".

Really. Does that mean the climate was balmy for gay Republicans before the scandal?

According to Griffith:

"Washington's community of gay Republicans includes at least one US lawmaker, Representative Jim Kolbe . . . of Arizona, who disclosed his sexual orientation in 1996, after a gay magazine threatened to out him."

"Washington's gay Republican scene is also reported to include dozens of high-ranking congressional aides, current and former White House staffers, advisers to the Pentagon, press strategists, well-known journalists and influential lobbyists -- most of whom choose not to make their sexual orientation known for professional and personal reasons."

I have to say, I don't get it. DC is filled with homos who felt compelled to stay in the closet before the Foley scandal broke. But the Foley scandal has "hurt their efforts for greater acceptance within their own party".

Color me lavendar, but I think what's "hurt their efforts for greater acceptance within their own party" is that they're still in the freaking closet.

Why?

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a man who in any civilized nation would be reduced to rambling on a soap box in the public square, has this to say about the Foley scandal, according to Griffith:

"The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children. . . This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. . . Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness? . . They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior -- probably because they did not want to appear 'homophobic'."

As an aside, I could write an entire treatise on Perkins' choice of the phrase "sexual restraints". Just play safe and choose a safety word.

But, the point is, members of an out and proud gay Republican DC community, who had invested the time in establishing themselves as loyal Republicans and as gay citizens, could credibly respond to Tony Perkins by saying:

"House Speaker Denny Hastert and Representative HJohn Reynolds have made anti-gay initiatives a cornerstone of this Congress and of this and recent campaign seasons. To suggest that they are motivated in the slightest by 'political correctness' or by not wanting to be accused of 'homophobia' flies in the face of reality. No, this was a case of politics trumping the needs of children --the need to brush Foley's behavior under the carpet to continue to appease the religious right to maintain a Republican majority and personal power."

But, alas, there is no one in Washington to say this to Tony Perkins. Because all the gay Republicans have swept themselves under the rug by staying in the closet. So as to maintain a Republican majority and their own personal power.

Three Writers I Have Embraced Since 9/11

2006-09-03T10:40:00.000-04:00

I was watching Chris Matthews this morning and Lawrence Wright was one of the speakers. He is a correspondent for the New Yorker, and he wrote the 1998 film "THE SIEGE", which I recently re-watched and recently urged everyone to watch.

So it got me to thinking about the three authors I have learned about since 9/11, and the three books I plan to read in the very immediate future as my personal rememberance of 9/11.

I've already written about Lawrence Wright, whose history of Al-Qaeda is out now. It is called "THE LOOMING TOWER: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11". After hearing Mr. Wright speak articulately and intelligently on the motivations of Al-Qaeda and how America has consistently played into Osama bin Laden's strategic plans, on its strengths and its weaknesses, I am determined to read his book, which he has researched for five years.

I've also recently written about Vali Nasr, professor at the Post-Graduate Naval Academy in Monterrey. I recently saw Mr. Nasr on Real Time With Bill Maher, and found his discussion of the differences between Sunni and Shia sources of power and political agendas illuminating. Mr. Nasr's "THE SHIA REVIVAL: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape The Future" is also on my reading list.

Finally, some time ago I spoke about George Lakoff's "DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate -- The Essential Guide for Progresives". Mr. Lakoff's discussion of the paternalistic model behind the political strategy of President George W. Bush and the impact it has on his conservative base went a long way to helping me understand how the President ever came to be the President, and was re-elected as the President. Before I read Mr. Lakoff's book, I truly thought half of the country was insane. This book fundamentally altered my view of the American political landscape.

Mr. Lakoff has a new book, :WHOSE FREEDOM: The Battle Over Americas' Most Important Idea". I'm adding it to the list.

I'll report back on these books as I read them.

The Siege

2006-08-31T14:28:00.000-04:00

This is the title of a 1998 film starring Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Bruce Willis and Tony Shalhoub. It's about a terrorist cell operating in Brooklyn. The film was written by Lawrence Wright, with Ed Zwick and Menno Meyjes. Mr. Wright's history of Al Qaeda "The Looming Tower" was published by Alfred A. Knopf.

I've seen this film many times, and each time I find something new in it. It is frightening to realize that so many events fictionalied in 1998 have since come to pass.

Do yourself a favor and watch this film.

34%

2006-08-25T14:31:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an article on Plan B by Anna Wilde Mathews and Barbara Martinez.

The article includes a quote pulled from the web site of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in the US, 34% of teenage girls get pregnant at least once before turning 20.

34% of teenage girls. Get pregnant at least once.

When Rosie turns 13, I'm getting me a big ol' dog and a big ol' gun.

WSJ Buys Republican Spin On Fallout Of UK Bomb Plot

2006-08-11T09:38:00.000-04:00

The title of today's page 3 article by John D. McKinnon is "Foiled Plot Swings Voters Attention to Terror War".

The sub-title: "Focus Shifts From Iraq Woes, Democrat's Central Issue, To a Republican Strength".

The first sentence: "The foiled British bombing plot is likely to benefit President Bush and the Republican Party, at least in the short term, by reminding voters of national-security concerns and the war on terror -- two areas where the president and his party have earned high marks from US citizens."

But the article itself does not live up to the hype. It takes Republican spin as fact, and ignores significant evidence cited within itself that suggests exactly the opposite.

The opening of the article is dictated by two sources -- the very conservative Brookings Institution and a senior White House official.

Says military analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution: "The foiled plot takes some wind out of the sails of the Democratic Party's liberal wing." Moderate Democrats who oppose a quick pullout from Iraq "probably feel a little more like the news is back on our side of the argument."

A "senior White House official" who "took the unusual step of speaking on background to reporters on Air Force One about the politics of the war on terror" said that voters were coming around to the administration's view that the global war on terror must be won despite the high costs . . . "So, if you have Lamont Democrats who who say, "Bring 'em home, turn away, and it will all be over," the American people say, "You're kidding yourself. We're in a war, and the only way you walk away from a war is as a victor, defeating the enemy."

So that's the spin. Lamont Democrats want to cut and run, leaving the enemy to strike again.

The rest of the article contradicts itself.

First, the article quotes Ned Lamont's actual views. "We need to change course, and that means standing up to this administration and fighting for security in a rational, serious way rather than being bogged down in a war [that] is harmful to our security."

Then, the article goes on to note that "many other Democrats kept the focus squarely on Iraq, hopeful that, over time, the problems there will outweigh any short-term benefit to Republicans from the foiled terror attack."

Harry Reid is quoted as saying: "This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush admnistration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

David Wade, a John Kerry spokesman said "Americans are sick and tired of Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, and the masters of misdirection who got us bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight, and who have failed to kill Osama bin Laden. If these Republicans were half as good at fighting the war on terror as they are at misleading the public, we'd be a lot safer than we are today."

The article goes on to say that "Political observers cautioned that the benefit for Mr. Bush and his allies could prove short lived, noting that last year's London subway bombing provided little noticeable long-term benefit to the President."

So, what is this article saying? Republicans are trying to spin the Connecticut election and the recent terror plot as saying that Americans now realize that they need to see the Iraq war through. Democrats are saying we need to change tactics in Iraq so we can be more successful there and elsewhere in the global war on terror. Which argument is the stronger?

Clearly the article chooses the Republican spin over the Democratic. However, the article site a WSJ/ NBC July poll showing 29% of respondents ranked the war in Iraq as the government's top priority, up from 22% a month earlier, and only 14% of respondents said terrorism is government's top priority.

Without any reference or basis, the article claims that the UK terror plot will move terrorism up on the list, at least for a while.

So, simply put, Mr. McKinnon chose the Republican spin over the Democratic spin without any empirical basis for doing so.

I guess Mr. McKinnon thinks Americans are too stupid to remember that the Bush administration has been equating the war in Iraq with the war on terror for over three years now, so that it's not unreasonable for people to think that if we are losing the war in Iraq we are losing the war on terror. Why else would this article now suggest that the war on terror is a winning proposition for Republicans but the war in Iraq is a losing proposition?

Oh, right. We're supposed to forget about Iraq and start worrying about Iran. Iran, our new Cold War partner/ adversary. You have to read between the lines to get that one, because Mr. McKinnon does not connect the dots for you.

In a related front page article in today's WSJ by Carrick Mollenkamp, Chip Cummins, David Cranford and Robert Block, it is noted that the UK terror plot bears a resemblance to a 1995 terror plot code-named "Bojinka". That plot included a plan to crash a plane into CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

The article does not connect the dots to note that, in 2001, then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated that no one could have forseen that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings. Despite the fact that a plan to do just that had been foiled six years earlier.

Simply put, the WSJ is drinking the Bush administration Kool-Aid without question. And it makes reading WSJ coverage of the war on terror laughable, as the inability of WSJ reporters to connect the dots rivals the FBI's.

Dots like these: Dot 1 -- The Bush Administration has been fighting the war on terror for five years. Dot 2 -- Terrorists came very close to pulling off a coordinated strike that would have dwarfed 9/11. Dot 3 -- And we're still not sure we have stopped "the big one" we are all expecting. Connection -- So, the Bush Adminstration is doing a crappy job of fighting the war on teror.

OK, I'll say it. "Hey, Wall Street Journal, Emperor Bush has no clothes."

Further Thought On The Big Picture

2006-08-10T14:18:00.000-04:00

I've heard plenty of pundits say that Hezbollah would not have attacked Israel and taken two Israeli soldiers hostage without the approval of Iran. I've also heard it said that Iran nudged Hezbollah to attack because Iran wanted to get it's nuclear program out of the world limelight. And because Iran wants to expand its influence by pulling Lebanon into its orbit.

What I don't hear anyone saying is that Israel would not have retaliated against Hezbollah by attacking and invading Lebanon without the approval of the US. The US is desperate to get its failed Iraq war out of the world limelight, and it wants to expand its presence in the Middle East.

So the US is all too happy to arm Israel to fight a proxy war against Iran, destablize Lebanon and create a perceived need both for a Western presence in Lebanon and an opportunity for US companies to pick up contracts for repairing Lebanon's infrastructure.

Iran and the US are getting pretty much exactly what they want without any Iranian or US casualties -- a Middle East Cold War, with Iran and the Shiite nations filling the Soviet role. Iran will become a nuclear superpower, Iran and the US will fight proxy wars pitting Iranian Shiite clients against Israel and US Sunni clients, the neo-cons will frighten everyone into keeping them in power all around the world. So they can get richer.

Maybe The True Goals Of Our Mid-East Policy Are In Sight

2006-08-09T16:23:00.000-04:00

Two articles on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, one August 4 and one August 8, paint a picture of what the Administration truly hopes to accomplish in the Middle East.

Peter Waldman wrote an article on Vali Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey. Mr Nasr lectures on what he sees as a Shiite revival in the making. Iran, the dominant Shiite country, is gaining influence both in central Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. A majority of Iraqis are Shiite, and about 45% of Lebanon is Shiite. Although a majority of Palestinians are Sunni, Iran has a client relationship with Hamas.

Most of America's allies in the Middle East are Sunni countries -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

An August 8 article by Neil King Jr. and Yasmine el-Rashidi discusses how this Shiite revival is forcing America to review its stated goal of spreading democracy. It seems that the three places America has tried to build democracy -- Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories -- have become highly unstable and violent, and have increased their ties to Iran. So America is strengthening its ties with the autocratic Sunni governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

And so, piecing these articles together, and looking at the probable outcomes of the unrest in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, I begin to get a sense of what the Bush Administration end game is.

I think Iraq will separate into three entities: A Kurdish nation in the north, a Sunni nation in the south and west, and a Shiite nation in the center and east. In exchange for withdrawing any claim to Iraqi oil, the Shiite center will be allowed to annex to neighbor Iran.

The Kurdish north will pay the US to defend it against Turkey, which would seek to annex the territory to quell Kurdish nationalism within its borders. The Sunni west and south will pay the US to defend them against neighbors Syria and Iraq. The US will require the Kurds and the Sunnis to buy US treasuries with money earned from oil sales, and then commit the interest on those treasuries to hiring US companies to manage the oil resources and other infrastructure projects, and to buy private security services.

I think the bottom 20 miles of Lebanon will be a de-militarized zone policed by an international force, probably led by the French. And the French and the US will provide security to Lebanon, and cut of the supply routes between Iran on one side and Hezbollah and Hamas on the other. At a cost. The US has to cut the French in to make up for shutting them out of the market for "re-building" Iraq.

I think that Israel will complete its unilateral separation from the Palestinian territories, and that Hamas will be cut off from Iran because it will have no Shiite-controlled neighbor. Jordan won't help. Lebanon won't help. Egypt won't help. Iran and Syria will be out of reach.

And I think Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will be paying US companies in petrodollars to provide security and infrastructure.

So, that's the picture. Pit Shiite against Sunni and get the autocratic Sunni governments to pay the US in petrodollars to protect them from the Shiites. Not only will the US gain control of Middle Eastern oil, since the unity requried for an embargo will be impossible, but the US will actually be paid for taking control of the oil.

To tell you the truth, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that Iran and the US worked this deal out together. Both are getting exactly what they want in the Middle East. Iran is now a regional power, and it will probably develop nuclear capabilities and become a superpower. And the US will have a boogyman to get everything it wants out of the Sunnis and about a terrified American population.

I keep saying, the Bush Administration is not incompetent.

Personal Tragedies and Heroism

2006-06-26T20:19:00.000-04:00

For some inexplicable reason, yet another cable news television show is putting Ann Coulter on tonight to discuss why the 9/11 widows who have become politically active should just take their money and shut up.

Ann says people should not use their personal tragedies for political advantage. They should not be making campaign commercials.

It's a strange concept to me, because most of my personal heroes are people who have publicly overcome personal tragedies to change the world.

Tops on the list -- Christopher Reeves. An actor known for a vigorous physical presence who became a parapalegic. I'm sure he got a big insurance payment, but he didn't just take the money and go home. He became a tireless advocate for medical research.

Honorable mention in the Christopher Reeves category: Michael J. Fox.

Next on the list -- Rock Hudson. A romantic leading man, in the face of his impending death from AIDS he renounced a lifetime of denial. He announced his illness, and in the process came out of the closet. Mr. Hudson could have gone quietly into that good night, but instead he went public and put a personal, famous face on a nascent epidemic. He brought the reality of AIDS into the mainstream consciousness in this country.

My next heroes are tied -- Elizabeth Glaser and Ryan White. Both acquired HIV through tainted blood infusions; both died of AIDS. But both became public advocates for the needs of AIDS patients, even testified before Congress. Ms. Glaser lent her talents, energy and name to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, which helps afflicted children across the world. Young Mr. White lent his advocacy and name to a government program that helps HIV+ people access life saving medicines in this country.

I have many such heroes. Mr. and Mrs. James Brady. Elie Wiesel. Nelson Mandela.

I put the Jersey Girls, the four or five New Jersey widows who forced the Bush Administration into launching an investigation into exactly what went wrong on 9/11, in the same category. They are not asking for more money, they are not seeking personal aggrandizement, they are using their personal losses to raise public awareness about a persistent problem -- this country's lack of a coherent and accountable plan for the public defense and welfare.

As for Ms. Coulter, she says she has never seen people enjoy the deaths of their husbands more than the Jersey Girls. Perhaps if Ms. Coulter had ever married, or ever had a meaningful conection with someone other than herself, she would understand how truly stupid her comments are.

Perhaps Ms. Coulter will use her public drubbing for her inability to recognize true patriotism and her complete lack of compassion to become a champion for the treatment of those addicted to the sound of their own voices.

Liberal Or Progressive?

2006-06-26T14:31:00.000-04:00

According to George Lakoff, framing is the key to everything. Once you frame the terms of a debate, you win the debate. Like how Republicans framed the Estate Tax as a Death Tax. Or framed anti-abortion as Pro-Life. I think it's fair to say that Republicans and conservatives have done a much better job of framing issues in the past several electoral cycles than have liberals, progressives and Democrats.

So it fascinates me that the left cannot quite make up its mind whether it should be called liberal or progressive. Or, for that matter, what the difference between the two is.

Janeane Garafaolo is fond of saying that Air America Radio is liberal talk, not progressive talk. She seems to feel that progressives are liberals who have allowed conservatives to shame them out of their identities.

There is no clear destinction between liberals and progressives, as far as I can see.

Take, for example, David Sirota's article on Barack Obama in the June 26 "The Nation." First, Sirota observes that Obama has legitimate liberal bona fides. He has "supported increased funding for healthcare and education and wrote bills to publicly finance judicial campaigns and create a state earned income tax credit."

But then Sirota notes that many believe there is a difference between a liberal and a true progressive. Sirota uses as an example Obama's "healthcare for hybrids" proposal, which would alleviate auto manufacturers' retiree health care costs in exchange for a greater commitment to develop hybrid cars.

Says Sirota: "The goals are unassailable, but the policy reflects the liberal carrot of appeasing a powerful industry rather than the progressive stick of forcing that industry to shape up by simple mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards."

So, mandating increased spending for healthcare and education-- proof of liberalism. Except these are sticks, and sticks are for progressives. Campaign finance reform, paying candidates to forego private campaign funds; and the earned income tax credit, encouraging people to work -- carrots. Definitely liberal.

Paying corporate America to do the right thing in the health for hybrids plan-- carrot. Liberal. Not progressive, not mandated.

In the same issue of The Nation, William Greider's use of the words progressive and liberal would seem to make them relative synonyms. Or, perhaps more accurately, that progressive is the new liberal.

Greiner notes at the outset of his article that economic liberalism foundered in the 1970s. As postwar prosperity dwindled, so did liberal politics. "[T]he bottom fell out of liberal doctrine thirty years ago, " states Greiner.

First, Greiner observes that "a liberal-progressive program [will not] emergs miraculously if the Democratic Party shoyld somehow regain power in the next few years, since many Democrats in Congress have internalized the market ideology and collaborate with the right."

Greiner goes on to note that Republicans have backed themselves into an economic corner and conservatives have no option but to hope that the economy will somehow work work itself out of its weakness. "Progressives should get busy now developing alternative ideas for the major shift that must follow," writes Greiner.

Grainer moves on to note the following: "The heart of the problem is the deterioration of work and wages. There are many other elements damaging the pursiot of life and liberty; but as old school liberals always understood, if wages and working conditions are not moving in the right direction, you won't accomplish much toward healing other social injuries or disorders."

So, to re-cap, Sirota says there is a difference between progressives and liberals: liberals use the carrot and progressives use the stick. But both exist today. Greiner says liberalism is dead, has been for thirty years, but that liberal thought should form the foundation for a progressive response to foundering neo-conservativism.

Oh, and that liberal-scented progressive platform? Repair wages (make the government the employer of last resort, mopping up surplus labor and increasing wages); deregulate labor (i.e., free labor from regulation by eliminating the NLRB); tax corporate behavior (i.e., initiate universal health care; increase all corporate taxes to 45%, letting corporations earn reductions in the rate by adhereing to high social standards); and develop an industrial policy for esential needs (insure the availability of the things everyone needs using a franchise method, where firms accept government-imposed obligations in exchange for limited competition and an assurance of moderate profits).

Now, both of these guys are obviously better versed in liberalism and progressivism than I am. But Sirota says the carrot of corporate appeasement is liberal and the stick is progressive.

The plan to repair wages sounds an awful lot like a carrot -- encouragine people to work, encouraging companies to raise wages. But there is not corporate interest being appeased here, at least not directly. And there's a government mandate. Seems a carrot/stick hybrid.

Eliminating the NLRB sounds insane to me, but there's no corporate interest being appeased and no mandates being imposed on a powerful interest. Carrot or stick? You be the judge.

But increasing corporate taxes is a stick, it's just forcing companies to comply by passing a law. But it has a carrot attached, in the form of lower taxes for higher standards, so maybe it's another liberal progressive hybrid.

As for the industrial policy for essential needs, that sounds a lot like how Halliburton got no-bid contracts for services in war-torn and storm-damaged areas. Is that a carrot, a stick or a phallus of a different color?

So, the carrot/ stick thing isn't working for me. The liberals are progressives 30 years later approach does smell of defeatism, as Ms Garafaolo suggests.

See, I need something short and sweet. Like, I say I'm a feminist because I believe in a woman's right to choose and I believe in equal pay for equal work.

I want to be able to say "I'm a liberal because I believe x."Or "I'm a progressive because I believe a, b and c." A clear, concise, broad statement that most Americans will recognize as their own views.

Maybe "I am a liberal because I believe that society is best served by a level playing field for all people."

Maybe "I'm a progressive because I believe government is responsible for providing a safe, level playing field for all people."

You know, liberalism is the philosophy, and progressivism is the means to realize that philosophy.

Keep it simple.

And until we can do that, get it that simple, then we let the Karl Roves and the Bill O'Reilly's say what liberal and progressive mean.

Loser.

The Successful Bush Tax Plan

2006-05-30T21:15:00.000-04:00

The May 20-21 Wall Street Journal includes a front page story written by Deborah Solomon on the apparent vindication of the Bush tax plan. Solomon writes: "As America's rich get richer, the taxes they pay on their increasing income is yielding a windfall for the US Treasury. . . [E]ven opponents of the tax cuts ackowledge that the surge in unanticipated revenue is coming from the rich."

Exactly why the surge is "unanticipated" is unclear, as this is what the President said would happen. Maybe it's just that nobody believed him.

The article contains numerous unambiguous citations from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO says the deficit this year should be much narrower than $350 billion, down from its previously estimated $371 billion. Corporate income tax receipts are up almost 30%, or about $40 billion.

Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow is quoted as saying that "[t]he results are in, and they are clear: Economic growth has led to a surge of tax revenues and shrinking deficits. Despite the cries from our critics, it cannot be denied that low taxes truly are consistent with rising federal revenues, which of course bring the deficit down."

Data from the CBO and projections by a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute known as the Tax Policy Center show that the top 10% of income earners (with income above $251,400) will pay 56.2% of all federal taxes this year, up from 52.2% in 2000. The same segment of the population is expected to receive 44.7% of all "household cash income" this year, up from 40.6% in 2000.

So, this seems to be a pretty compelling argument in favor of the Bush tax plan. The very rich pay 56.2% of all federal taxes, but receive 44.7% of "household cash income."

Except "household cash income" is not defined. All we learn from the article about "household cash income" is a statement that this income total does not include all income received by the very rich.

So, maybe these numbers are not telling the whole story.

Ms. Solomon strngly suggests this by including certain quotes. Other statements in the article do add some detail to the rosy picture painted solely by looking at the deficit figures.

Rudolph Penner, a former CBO director now at the Urban Institute, is quoted as saying that "we are getting a flood of tax revenue from the hyper rich . . . [which] may raise some worries socially, but . . . certainly is good for the economy."

Raises worries socially? What worries?

Says Issac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group, is quoted as saying that "it's a good thing for the federal Treasury, [yet] the rich are getting richer but the middle is not benefitting."

So what does this mean, the middle is not benefitting?

Reading between the lines, what exactly are we talking about? The tax revenue increase came from non-withheld taxes -- non-payroll taxes. And from corporate profits. The tax cuts being discussed are on capital gains, investment income -- not wages. This surge in tax revenues is from increased investment income and non-wage compensation (stock options), not increased wages. As Ms. Solomon notes, most Americans have the bulk of their taxes withheld from their wages, not incurred in connection with investment income or stock options.

So, when Shapiro and Penner are talking about the questionable social values of this tax policy, and talk about how the middle class is not benefitting, what they are saying is that this tax policy is helping people rich enough to make money off of investments and stock options make more money, but since the bulk of Americans pay their taxes on wages, not investments and stock options, the bulk of Americans are not able to take advantage of the tax policy to make more money.

So, before we can truly say that the Bush policy has been vindicated, we should say what that policy is. The Bush tax plan says that wages should be taxed higher than unearned income. And by creating a business environment where corporations can make record profits (hello, Exxon) with a number of measures, including lower capital gains taxes that make buying and selling stock and other investments attractive (as opposed to buying and holding investments like rental properties and art), they are making more income by taxing those encouraged investments.

What are those other measures, the other things the Bush Administration is doing to create a positive business environment for corporate profits and capital gains? Aside from creating perpetual war, awarding no-bid contracts to friends of the administration, outsourcing most government functions to private companies (many of them faith based organization) and pursuing a foreign policy that has tripled the price of oil, we can't really know. That's a matter of national security. Vice President Cheney's secret energy policy and all that. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

But it's an overall policy and this tax plan is just a piece of it.

Now, where would we be if we said working Americans should keep more of their income and unearned income should be taxed more heavily? If we inverted the tax plan, and created in incentive to earn wages rather than take profits? Where would the deficit be then?

An economic policy that valued wages over investment income would, I don't know, increase the minimum wage, punish companies that export jobs to low wage shops in the Marianas Islands or China, and punish companies that hire illegal aliens and pay them below minimum wages under the table (tax free). Require transparency and accountability in government contracting. Punish price gouging oil and pharmaceutical companies which overly burden working class Americans, the sick and the elderly.

And provide universal health care, universal child care and all the other things necessary to create a level playing field for the working poor and the middle class.

Where would we be if we took the $400 million retirement payment paid to the CEO of Exxon and used it to provide low-income loans to small inner city businesses to create jobs, stability and opportunities in at-risk communities? Or to fund head start programs?

Unfortunately, this is just a hypothetical discussion. A pipe dream. A fantasy.

Because there is no possible way that anyone with this value set could get elected dog catcher in this country.

But what is not a hypothetical questions is where will this country be when its middle class is eliminated -- the ultimate goal of the Bush tax policy.

Sure, we probably won't have a deficit, but then we won't have a democracy, either.

But, in the meantime, credit where credit is due, congratulate the Bush adminstration for a job well done. In 8 years, it will have undone the social contract it took this country 224 to develop.

Now that's an accomplishment

The Hole At The Center Of The World

2006-05-16T13:26:00.000-04:00

In his May 16 Wall Street Journal column Thinking Global, Frederick Kempe observes that "Central Asia Emerges As Strategic Battleground."

Kempe writes that Central Asia has oil, and so has become the obect of desire for the three world powers. Yes, we are now in a tri-polar world with China, Russia and the US as the players.

Kempe describes the "realpolitik" going in in Central Asia. He reports that Dick Cheney visited Kazakhstan to shore up support for a trans-Caspian pipeline as a countermeasure to Russia's growing tendency to use access to its oil and gas resources as a negotiating chip. And also as a counterweight to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (but excludes the US). Apparently, China's game is to cooperate with Russia but win the "hearts and minds" of the other governments with red carpet treatment.

The "New Great Game" for the US, writes Kempe, is less about winning and more about not being marginalized by Russia and China. "Bush administration officials have decided the stakes are too high for Puritan values," writes Kempe. Which explains why the US is willing to depart from its "democratic missionary work" to deal with Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev. Notes Kempe, Nazarbayev suppresses opponents and appropriates resource wealth, but grows the economy by 9-10% annually.

So, according to Kempe, Washington believes we are in a tripolar world and Central Asia is a jewel to be plucked by the poles.

What is astonishing is the complete lack of a sense of the history of Central Asia. When the only means of trade between Europe and Asia was by land, Central Asia was the center of the world, where the trade routes met. Tashkent, Samarkand and Bukhara were cities which flowered under the constant influx of merchants and cultures. The region never fully recovered from invasion by the Mongols, but still retains a strong cultural identity.

Despite years of occupation by the Soviet empire, there are still over 160 languages spoken in Central Asia, most of them of Turkic origin. The southern borders of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have always been porous with Iran and Afghanistan. Soviet Russia was never able to stop nomadic peoples from crossing back and forth.

Why? Primarily because these central Asian countries are artificial. Just as Czechoslovakia was an artificially formed state combining ethnic groups which hated each other, the Central Asian republics were created by the Soviets and imposed on indigenous populations. Now, these "countries" can only be maintained by force, not by democracy. Because the people see more in common with Istanbul and Tehran than they do with Moscow, Beijing or Washington.

So, the three poles think they will divide Central Asia? What about the fourth pole? What about radical Islam? Kempe doesn't mention it, doesn't describe it as part of the new world order, but I'm betting the peoples of Central Asia are aware of it.

I'm sure Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan is aware of the proximity of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. I'm sure China sees that Iraq is becoming more aligned with Iran than Washington, and that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

So are we truly to believe that Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, which have a common histories with the peoples of Central Asia, will sit quietly by as China, Russia and the US claim ownership of Central Asian oil? Or should we suspect that radical Islam will target US, Russian and Chinese oil interests in a bid to gain control over the "realpolitik" oil prizes?

To me, the most realistic outcome of this "realpolitik" three pole game is that Russia, China and the US will pay to develop oil economies in countries which will then fall victim to uprisings fueled by radical Islamists.

How can it be that the Bush administration can continue to underestimate the power of radical Islam to thwart its attempts to grab oil around the globe? Like our "realpolitk" relationships with the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Muamar Qaddafi or the Saud family have not all gone horribly awry.

How can a critique of administration policy in Central Asia fail to even mention the history of the region and its cultural ties to countries which are fast becoming anti-Western Islamic regimes?

Even "realpolitik" imperialists have to take into account the ethnicity of their subjects.

Crime Pays When The State Does It

2006-04-24T11:33:00.001-04:00

OK, this time the crime is theft through nationalizing privately held assets, and the state is Russia. But for those of you who think it couldn't happen here, just harken back to the Supreme Court's recent expansion of the right of eminent domain.

So, in the April 18 WSJ, Gregory L. White, reports on a pending initial public offering (IPO) of OAO Rosneft, the state-owned company that owns one of Russia's biggest oil reserves. White reports that this will not just be a financial triumph, it would also "be a resounding endorsement of the Kremlin's drive to retake control of the strategic energy sector in a country that is the world's top producer of natural gas and No. 2 in oil."

Exactly what form did that drive take? Rosneft was formed in 1993 as Russia converted the Soviet Ministry of Oil into private companies. During the privatization drive of the 1990s, most of Rosneft's prize assets were auctioned off to business tycoons. One of those tycoons, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, owned a company named Yukos which purchased Rosneft's asset Yuganskneftegaz (Yugansk for short). Yugansk is an immense crude oil deposit.

In 2003, Vladimir Putin started his "drive to retake control" of Russia's oil and gas industry, most especially Yugansk. How did he do it? First, the Kremlin imposed $6 billion in back taxes on Yukos, in a move "widely viewed as a politically motivated attempt to scotch Khodorkovsky's political ambitions." Then, President Putin jailed Mr. Khodorkovsky on charges of fraud and tax evasion. Yukos was hit with additional back taxes, totalling nearly $30 billion, in what many viewed as "a politicized example of selective prosecution."

Authorities broke up Yukos and put its assets up for sale to satisfy the back taxes claim. Foreign investors lost about $6 billion.

After President Putin's attempt to have state gas monopoly Gazprom acquire Yugansk was scuttled by a US bankruptcy filing on the part of Yukos, Rosneft moved to reacquire the asset it had lost a decade before. The acquisition left Rosneft deeply in debt and squabbling with its creditors.

And so, the idea of an IPO of Rosneft was born. What else do you do when you have a valuable asset, considerable debts and a need for operating capital? Everybody wins.

Everybody, of course, except Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He sits in prison in Siberia, where he has been in and out of solitary confinement. As of ApriL 19, he was back in solitary confinement after being slashed in the face by a fellow inmate.

So here is the strategy which is being "endorsed" by public reception of the Rosneft IPO. Have the government steal a strategic asset by taxing it and imprisoning its owner. Then sell the asset.

And it's not like anybody is kidding themselves about what's going on. Quoting from White's WSJ article, "Effectively, they have just repackaged Yuganskneftegaz," says Agne Zitkute, a fund manager at Pictet Asset Management in London. "I do have a moral problem with that, but does that mean we're not going to look at the investment? No."

In recognition that this deal needs a "Western" stamp of approval, President Putin offered a position on Rosneft's board to Donald Evans, -- yes, US commerce secretary and chairman of President Bush's 2000 Campaign Donald Evans.

Come on, you knew there would be a Bush connection somewhere in this gas and oil story. And, of course, it comes in the form of legitimizing illegal activity on the part of the state to make money off of oil and gas and imprisoning political figures in far away places on trumped up charges.

Funny thing is, Khodorkovsky may end up with the last laugh. Yukos has been valued at 3 times the $9.4 billion Rosneft paid for it. This presents 2 problems. First, it gives the impression that the sale of Yukos was not an arms length transaction. Second, "because of an apparent oversight before the 2004 auction," Yukos still owns 23% of Yugansk. Which, after the IPO, would make Yukos one of Rosneft's largest shareholders.

According to White, "That, according to people close to the deal, was unacceptable to the Kremlin."

Everyone expects the deal to move forward, and for certain problems to be "glossed over."

One can only hope that those investors lining up for this IPO will once again lose their investment when those "glossed over" problems come to light.

As GM Sows, Main Street Reeps

2006-04-12T10:40:00.000-04:00

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an article by Yoshio Takahashi about GM's decision to sell it's stake in Isuzu to two Japanese companies with pre-existing ties to Isuzu. This follows GM's recent sale of its interest in Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., maker of Subaru cars. Subaru has now begun working with Toyota.

I love my Subaru, by the way.

The article reports that "[s]addled with debt and losing market share in the US to Toyota Motor Corp. and other Asian rivals, GM has been trying to restructure its unprofitable North American operations."

The article also notes that, in a separate matter, GM is shifting work from its top US supplier Delphi to other suppliers, i.e. Japan's Denso Corp. and NGK Spark Plug Co., as well as Honeywell International Inc., Germany's Beru AG and Siemens AG unit Siemens VDO Automotive Corp. Delphi is exiting several business lines and is operating under the auspices of the bankruptcy courts, which necessitated GM's switch of suppliers.

So, GM is having trouble in the US market because of Asian competition. On the one hand, it is selling Asian assets to raise money. One can assume that GM is hardly in a position to demand top dollar under such circumstances -- kind of the way when you go to a pawn shop you take what they offer or walk.

On the other hand, GM is starting to buy more parts from outside the US, including in Japan. Because its primary US supplier, Delphi, can't stay in business anymore.

What I can't figure out is why anyone would call these two acts on the part of GM unrelated. GM is trying to restructure its unprofitable US business by sending both assets and business abroad. In fact, apparently, the only thing GM is not sending abroad is cars.

And liabilities. GM is leaving its liabilities right here. Specifically, it's pension and health benefits liabilities -- the press has been awash in stories about the automotive industry and its inability to meet its health and pension obligations. Delphi, which used to be owned by GM, will probably go into bankruptcy and try to get out of its employee pension and health obligations. Which used to be GM iabilities, by the way. And GM is already saying that it cannot afford its own pension and health care liabilities.

So those liabilities are not leaving the country; no, those liabilities will become the problem of the US taxpayer.

Connecting the dots Mt. Takahashi calls unrelated or just doesn't see, GM is seeking to restructure its operations by selling assets overseas to reduce its debt, sending business overseas to reduce its costs, and spinning off its pension and health obligations at its former Delphi unit, if not at GM itself, to the US taxpayer.

For you and me, that would be like selling your family heirlooms on e-bay, hiring an illegal immigrant at below market rates to watch your kids so you could get a second job, which has to be off-the-books so that your taxes don't go up.

Extending the logic here, does this mean that GM and the rest of us are all learning to compete with low-cost foreign competition? Is the same issue sweeping through corporate America and Main Street America?

Well, not exactly. GM and corporate America need cheap labor because of foreign competition. So GM and corporate America need Main Street to be sucker-punched by foreign competition, so corporate labor costs go down.

I think this can best be understood by looking at the typical Delphi employee. His job is going overseas, his pension and health benefits are going bye-bye and he now has to go out and get a new job in a market where wages are being kept artificially low by foreign competition within and without the United States.

Those are the dots WSJ cannot or will not connect.

Is this why hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the streets? Because this country is making it easier for GM to address foreign competition by undermining Main Street's ability to deal with foreign competition? By refusing to raise the minimum wage, by allowing undocumented workers to be denied health and pension benefits, effectively undermining wages even more?

Is this why the President's immigration plan allows for this cheap foreign labor to continue? To continue to erode the status of the American labor force?

And if so, has anyone made this connection? Does anyone have a plan?

Democrats? Republicans? Just raise your hands.

OK, anyone other than China.

Anyone have a plan?

Katie Couric

2006-04-06T23:26:00.000-04:00

I recently had the chance to see the very fine film "Good Night And Good Luck". It made me sad, because the only experience I have had in my lifetime with an impassioned journalist occurred through a work of fiction.

And now Katie Couric is anchoring a network news broadcast.

I have a lot of respect for Katie Couric. When her husband died of colon cancer at a very young age, I felt for her. When she had a colonoscopy on-air, I felt she was a person of depth and substance.

But she's not a journalist. She is not a news gatherer. She is a television personality, and a wonderful one. And that is no insult, she is a legitimate talent.

I've read a number of news reports on Ms. Couric's career change from a number of sources, and the entire discussion about her move to the CBS anchor chair centers on ratings, and not on the quality of the journalism at CBS. Which pretty much says it all.

"Network news" is now an oxymoron, like "military intelligence", "journalistic integrity" and "Presidential authority."

Good Night And Good Luck, indeed.

If It Quacks Like A Death Squad . . .

2006-03-30T13:49:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief front page entry which reads as follows:

"Iraqi gunmen attacked a Bagdhad business, some dressed in police uniforms, lining up and shooting 14 employees, killing eight. It was the third such attack in as many days made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad. Elsewhere, attacks killed 26 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers."

No more information on this story is provided.

What does "made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad" mean? Does it mean it looked like a government death squad because it was a government death squad, or does it mean it looked like a government death squad but it wasn't a government death squad? Or is it just unclear whether or not it was a government death squad?

If it was a government death squad, then just write "An Iraqi government death squad attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."

If it wasn't a government death squad, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, posing as an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."

If it's not clear, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, possibly an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."

Perhaps I should have started this article by saying "Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief front page entry, made to read like deliberate government disinformation, . . ."

Because it would seem that someone wants us to believe what looks like an Iraqi government death squad may very well be someone trying to frame the Iraqi government. Now, who would go to all that trouble other than the US government? Really, who has a more extensive track record of telling the US public to ignore the obvious?

So I guess my only real question is, did the Wall Street Journal simply not realize that they were writing a confusing entry, or did it simply parrot a press release from the US military in Iraq without question? Is this incompetence or complicity?

The Return Of The Elders Of Zion

2006-03-28T20:38:00.000-05:00

I've always considered myself a liberal. Not a progressive, a liberal. OK, a radical left wing nut job.

But I'm going to have to reconsider. I'm getting the sense that to be a liberal today means supporting the Palestinian cause. And I just can't do it under this government. Just as I couldn't do it under the previous government.

The first step in my awakening was an editorial in The Nation about Richard Rogers, Lord Rogers of Riverside. Seems Lord Rogers agreed to host the inaugural meeting of a group called Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, which group called for a boycott of the Israeli construction industry to protest Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

In the space of five paragraphs, Lord Rogers went from being famous for his "progressive politics" (in the view of The Nation) to being a weak and craven capitalist "caving" to McCarthyism on the basis of a single transaction. Anytime someone rises and falls so quickly, I think someone is playing fast and loose with their arguments. So I did some independent fact checking.

Here's what I can gather. Lord Rogers was threatened with losing a big contract for the expansion of the Jacob Javits center in New York because he had helped to form an organization that wanted to boycott Israel. The Nation is careful to point out that while a boycott of firms or architects who worked on the planned wall separating Israel from Palestine, or on West Bank settlements, had been discussed, no decisions were made at the London meeting.

But there were subsequent meetings. And a simple Google search will yield numerous news reports on the group's call for a boycott. I'm not sure why The Nation would want to gild this particular lilly, but it seems a tad manipulative.

Anyhoo, Rogers faced losing the deal because of his connection to a group either discussing or actively promoting boycotts. Why? The Nation strongly implies some tacit Jewish influence. We are told that Rogers' father is Jewish; the British organizer of the architects' group in question is Jewish. Why is their religion relevant? The irony, of course.

And in case you didn't catch that irony, the piece is entitled "An American Inquisition?", referencing the Church's program of torturing suspected Jews. And, of course, ended up torturing a fair number of their "innocent" (i.e., un-Jewish) friends and neighbors in the process. Get it -- Jews are now attacking anyone with a hint of support for Palestinians, even fellow Jews -- it's a new Inquisition. Just like "innocent" non-Jews got caught up in the Inquisition, "innocent" pro-Palestinian Jews are getting caught up in this new Inquisition. Which is funny because Jews should be spared under a Jewish Inquisition the same way Christians should have been spared under a Christian Inquisition. Get it? Isn't it a scream?

You see, according to the Nation, Rogers was the victim of McCarthyites claiming to speak for all American jews.

Yes, that was the problem. A powerful cabal of Jews.

The news reports said that Rogers was at risk of losing the job because state and Federal laws prohibit doing business with anyone who supports economic boycotts against Israel. And because Jacob Javits was a strong supporter of Israel.

But that wasn't the issue. No. It was not a question of US law, or even US policy supporting a country surrounded by Arab countried which had been economically sanctioned by every Arab country.

It was McCarthyites. A secret cabal of Jews claiming to speak for all Jews.

It was the Elders of Zion.

The funniest part of the entire article for me is where The Nation writes that "Palestinians have become such pariahs that even to appear sympathetic to their cause is dangerous to one's career." See, that's bad. But being subjected to a global boycott because you accept an Israeli government contract, apparently that's not so bad.

Isn't there some justice in saying that you give up your right to say you should not be sanctioned for your political views when you seek to sanction others because of their political views?

But that didn't happen here. No, it was the Elders of Zion.

Now, I would have blown this off the same way I blow off virtually every Wall Street Journal editorial I read, but in the same issue of The Nation there was a story (the cover story, actually) , written by Philip Weiss, discussing a play about Rachel Corrie.

Rachel Corrie seems to have been an exemplary human being. She was a person of strong conviction who lost her life at the age of 23 when she was run over in Gaza by a bulldozer being operated by the Israeli army. The Israeli's were bulldozing Palestinian homes to make way for a security wall, Ms. Corrie stood in front of the bulldozer, wearing an orange vest, and . . . The Israeli army investigation found no wrongdoing. The article strongly suggests that this finding is in error.

Long story short, Ms. Corrie's writings have been turned into a play which has been very well received in the UK. Plans were made to bring the play to the New York Theatre Workshop. But the NYTW backed out, in large part because of its perceptions of the reaction within New York's Jewish community. A significant consideration was the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and Hamas' subsequent refusal to recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist.

And now, I will quote the article:

"Jen Marlowe . . . A Jewish activist . . . says," I don't want to say the Jewish community is monolithic. It isn't. But among many American Jews who are very progressive and fight deeply for many social justice issues, there's a knee-jerk reflexive reaction that happens around issues related to Israel."

"Questions about pressure from Jewish leaders morph quickly into questions about funding. Ellen Stewart, the legendary director of La MaMa E.T.C., which is across East 4th Street from the Workshop, speculates that the trouble began with its "very affluent" board. . . (About a third appear to be Jewish, as am I). This is of course a charged issue. The writer Alisa Solomon, who was appalled by the postponement, nonetheless warns, 'There's something a little too familiar about the image of Jews pulling the puppet strings behind the scenes.'"

You see, it can't be anti-Semitic, because Jen Marlowe is Jewish, the writer is Jewish, and we're told that the writer is being cautious not to raise the specter of the Elders of Zion. So there's nothing wrong in saying that questions about Jews quickly become questions about money. Oh, come one, that's not what the author meant -- don't go there. McCarthyite.

So, you see, they are the Good Jews. The Progressive Jews. They are against censorship. They're not the Bad Jews pulling the puppet strings with their money, the Elders. The McCarthyites claiming to speak for all Jews who pulled their little, invisible purse strings and forced the NYTW to postpont its production. The Zionists.

So, it seems pretty clear where The Nation stands on Zionists like me. I'm for civil rights, but I don't believe in negotiating with terrorists.

Oh, wait, that brings my the the final piece of my day. I'm listening to Air America Radio, the Majority Report with Sam Seder and Jeaneane Garafolo. And Jeaneane is talking about how the Palestinians are victims of poltical and economic oppression at the hands of Israel. And how you can call Hamas terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view.

But, Jeaneane notes a few minutes later, anyone who believes Reagan ended communism has no sense of history, context, nuance or reality. Now, I don't believe that Reagan ended communism, but I accept that there's a legitimate world view that could support that interpretation of history. In fact, I can accept that interpretation of history a lot more easily than I can accept an interpretation that calls Hamas or Fatah "freedom fighters."

Because it wasn't freedom fighters who killed those Israeli athletes in Munich. It wasn't freedom fighters who threw wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer over the side of the hijacked ship Achille Lauro and then joked that he was trying to swim for it. Those were terrorist acts against non-combatants. To provide a little history, context, nuance and reality for Ms. Garafaolo's world view.

And so, it dawned on me. I'm not buying it. I'm not buying any of it. There was no McCarthyite plot against Lord Rogers, there was no Zionist plot against the Rachel Corrie play at New York Theatre Workshop.

And, sorry Jeaneane, it's OK to say Hamas is a terrorist organization and not a freedom fighter organization. Anyone who has stood at Sharm El Sheik when it was Israeli land and then seen it given back to Eqypt for peace; anyone who sees a country continually ceding territory for peace; anyone who sees a country which has been at war for sixty years against a people who want to push them into the sea; anyone who remembers how the Palestinians danced in the streets when Saddam Hussein bombed Israel -- "Mr Saddam Hussein, we are loving ou too much;" anyone who has seen all that has just a little too much of a sense of history, context, nuance and reality to embrace Hamas as freedom fighters.

I don't believe that Rogers' political views should have threatened his ability to work in New York, I don't believe that Rachel Correy deserved to die and I recognize Hamas as the elected government of Palestine.

I'm just not buying these conspiracy theories citing nameless and faceless McCarthyites and "very affluent" Jews and Jewish progressives who have lost their way.

I'm not buying the Elders of Zion thing.

I don't think that the problem is within the Jewish community at all. I think that neither Lord Rogers nor New York Theatre Workshop has the courage of their convictions. Maybe the irony here is that Lord Rogers could have learned a thing or two about convictions from Jacob Javits and NYTW could have learned a thing or two about convictions from Rachel Corrie.

But, since it seems to be a key ingredient of the progressive Kool-Aid to support the Palestinian cause and buy into some Elders of Zion Jewish conspiracy theory, and since I can't do that under this government, as I could not under the previous Palestinian government, I guess I'm part of the problem. A McCarthyite. An Elder.

So, I'm hanging up my liberal moniker and identifying myself as a civil libertarian.

Which means, in my book, I don't have to agree with what you say, but I do support your right to say it.

Even you, Jeaneane.

You ignorant slut.

Cheney Shoots Himself In The Foot

2006-02-16T09:47:00.000-05:00

OK, so the news media is awash in coverage about Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of 78 year old Harry Whittington.

Truth be told, my first inclination was to give the Vice President a break. He did a bad thing to one of his own, and I'm sure he feels guilty about it. It's not like doing a bad thing to Iraqis or Afghans or residents of New Orlean's Ninth Ward or American veterans, this was a bad thing to someone who matters to the Vice President. And I'm sure he's very upset.

So, this was an accident, no big deal. But then there was the cover-up.

Now, Mr. Cheney says he thought it was a good idea to keep the story secret for 22 hours, and then let his hostess report the incident to a local Texas newspaper on Sunday afternoon. You know, after the Sunday morning talk shows were done for the day.

There are a lot of people questioning the logic of this decision, I don't need to dwell on this, other than to say that I see no logic here.

I pretty much had nothing to say until I read John D. McKinnon's and Greg Hitt's report in the February 15 Wall Street Journal. The article quotes Carlos Valdez, the district attorney who would bring charges if charges were to be brought, as saying that he sees no indication of criminal wrongdoing on Mr. Cheney's part. Criminal wrongdoing under these circumstances would be recklessness or criminal negligence, says Mr. Valdez.

But then the story concludes with this timeline from the Secret Service. The shooting occurred at 5:50 pm. Mr. Whittington was loaded into an ambulance already on standby at the ranch at 6:20, and then sent to a local hospital. The Secret Service notified the local sherrif of the shooting between 6:50 and 7:00.

My first question is, why did it take half an hour to get poor Harry into an ambulance that was already on the ranch? A half an hour is a very long time when someone is lying on the ground with birdshot holes in his face, head and neck. What was going on during that time?

My second question is, why did it take an hour to call the local sherrif? By the time the sherrif was even called, the victim had been treated and removed from the scene. Major pieces of evidence gone. Other people may have been able to come and go. And people could have gotten their stories straight. Isn't there some kind of obligation to preserve the crime scene, preserve the evidence?

I'm thinking, if I had shot poor Harry, my first call would have been to 911. If I waited an hour to call 911, my next call would be to my lawyer because I would be guilty of obstruction of justice. I would have made it impossible for an independent examination of the evidence, because the evidence would have been destroyed.

My third question is, why isn't District Attorney Valdez asking Mr. Cheney my first two questions? Because all the witnesses say it was an accident? All the witnesses, who had plenty of time to be coached, are saying the same thing? And that's enough? Even though the witnesses also say that poor Harry was partially at fault for not announcing his presence to the other hunters, when apparently proper hunting ettiquette would impose no such obligation on Harry? Doesn't that kind of suggest that a story has been coordinated -- when a bunch of people all say the same dumb thing?

So there you have it. If I were the District Attorney, I would be exploring obstruction of justice charges against everyone who failed to preserve the crime scene and notify the proper local authorities, including Mr. Cheney.

The shooting was accidental. The cover-up was deliberate. And that's the crime.

Democracy and Religion

2006-02-13T17:03:00.000-05:00

Today's Wall Street Journal includes two stories about Western-style democracies facing challenges brought forward by religious interest groups.

Andrew Higgins writes of a divide in Denmark between Imam Ahmed Abu-Laban, a Palestinian religious leader who decries the assimilation of Muslims into Western society; and Naser Khader, an elected lawmaker of Syrian-Palestinian descent. This rift has gained global attention through the Imam's distribution of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, some of which were published in a Danish newspaper.

In the same issue, Karby Leggett writes about an internal Israeli struggle. Regligious parties object to ceding land to Palestinians which they believe belong to the Jewish people based on religious teachings. Secular parties want to make what they see as a pragmatic decision to cede some of these lands in order to ensure that Israel has secure borders, if not actual peace.

And in this country, religious parties have gained control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government; they may, in fact, control the Judical branch as well.

In this country, we say that religion has no place in government or politics. The rest of the world's western-style democracies seem to know something Americans do not: separation of church and state does not mean banishing religion from the halls of government. It means something else entirely.

So, what does it mean, this separation of church and state? Perhaps there is no one answer. But, as a civil libertarian, as a card carrying member of the ACLU, I am coming to the realization that I have assumed that separation of church and state meant no religion in government, and that in so doing I have been out of step with the vast majority of experience in western democracies.

And I begin to believe that unless and until civil libertarians and liberals find their own balance between their faith and their politics, they will forever be at a disadvantage against religious groups which enter the political fray.

Food for thought, at any rate.

My New Conspiracy Theory: The Future Of The Gulf Coast

2006-01-31T10:22:00.000-05:00

To tell you the truth, I had really thought about retiring this blog. The mainstream media seemed to be getting more of a backbone, the Adminstration wasn't even bothering to lie about breaking the law and violating the Constitution. And I've been focused on writing a play about adopting my daughter.

But I was reading an article by Michael Klare in The Nation, and my blood ran cold. The article, entitled "The Geopolitics of Natural Gas", provides, in relevant part:

The United States is becoming increasingly dependent on natural gas. This country now relies on natural gas for approximately one-fourth of its total energy supply, more than any source other than oil. As a result, the economy has become more and more vulnerable to fluctuations in gas supply and pricing . . .

At present, however, it is impractical to build gas pipelines beneath a large ocean like the Atlantic or Pacific, so gas traveling from the Middle East or Africa to the United States or Japan must go by ship . . .

Qatar has [used] its gas reserves to establish close ties to Washington and to insulate itself beneath a US defense umbrella. Under a $10 billion, twenty-five year agreement, ExxonMobil will build the world's largest [liquid natural gas] facility in Qatar. Much of the resulting liquid will go to the United States to be converted back into gas. The will entail construction of new LNG terminals at ports on the US Gulf Coast, a major undertaking.

If the United States is to boost its imports of natural gas significantly, it will need many more LNG terminals in US harbors (there are only four now operating), and this prospect has already aroused considerable opposition from local authorities and environmentalists, who worry about the risk of explosions and other calamities. In a move little noticed by the American press or the public, Congress voted in July (as part of a new energy bill) to give the government the power to override local governments in the placement of future LNG terminals, a step that could lead to the contruction of many more facilities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and a sharp growth in US reliance on imported gas."

OK, so here goes my conspiracy theory. Back in 2001, Dick Cheney held secret meetings with energy industry interests, including ExxonMobil, about the Administration's energy policy. And that energy policy included the following things:

1. Invade Iraq and install a Western leaning government, to insure US access to Iraqi oil.

2. Leave the Gulf Coast vulnerable to the elements, so that in the event of natural disaster there will be ample real estate available for the construction of LNG terminals, necessary if the US is going to secure access to natural gas.

So, the President started building a case for war with Iraq. He deliberately ignored evidence of a coming terrorist attack on US soil, because he needed another Pearl Harbor to function as cover for going into Iraq.

And, the President started dismantling FEMA, so that the federal government would not be able to prevent damage from Gulf Coast hurricanes. Hurricanes we knew were inevitable, based on all the environmental evidence pertaining to global warming. Damage we knew was inevitable, based on all the studies of New Orleans and its environs.

How else to explain the mounting evidence that the Administration knew about the devastation about to be visited on New Orleans and deliberately failed to act? This Administration is not incompetent -- when it leaves devastation in its wake, it is part of a deliberate stategy.

So it is part of a deliberate strategy that the US chased the Taliban into the hinterlands of Afghanistan and then let the country become a narco-state, a heroin exporter. Because it plans to cut deals with Afghani druglords to keep them at each others throats and to keep the country ungovernable (i.e., free for use by the US as a launching pad for covert ops and for military surveillance); and it plans to send heroin into Iran to undermine the country's stability.

So it is part of a deliberate strategy that the US will leave Iraq without sufficient infrastructure to survive. Because Iraq will then turn to US contractors like Halliburton to provide that infrastructure. Why not hire the guys who are there already? Leaving Halliburton and its ilk in charge of Iraqi infrastructure and oil.

And it was part of a deliberate strategy to leave the Gulf Coast in general and New Orleans in particular in shambles. New Orleans, perhaps the country's biggest shipping port. Unless I miss my guess, the Federal government will be overruling local attempts to rebuild New Orleans and bring back its largely impoverished minority population. No the Federal government will claim that land for LNG terminals.

Now, tonight, the President will give his State of the Union Address, and he will spend some time talking about alternative fuels. When he does, I will know that he is talking about natural gas. And I will know that the President deliberately allowed people to die, communities to die, countries to die, as part of his Administration's secret energy policy.

My friends, we are in the presence of true evil. We are governed by true evil. Not incomeptence, evil. And evil speaks tonight.

An Undue Burden

2005-11-30T14:41:00.000-05:00

Today's WSJ has a front page article on Americans United For Life, a "little-known Chicago-based organization . . . which for some 30 years has been guiding the effort to chip away at Roe v. Wade."

Jeanne Cummings reports that Americans United carries a lot of clout, and counts some heavyweights on its board. Such as C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan.

There's so much in this article that fascinates me, but I want to pull a few highlights.

First, as of 2004, more than 30 states have passed so-called parental notification laws which require minors to tell their parents when they get an abortion. Many of those laws are based on the boilerplate statute drafted by Americans United.

Second, as of 2004, 20 states have seperate so-called "informed consent" laws advocated by Americans United which require doctors to tell patients the health risks of abortion.

I was staggered by these numbers -- I had no idea that more than half of the states in the Union required parental notification.

These laws, advocated and written by Americans United, are part of a conscious effort to co-opt the strategies of the civil rights movement. Much as civil rights lawyers chipped away at the edges of "separate but equal" until the doctrine fell under its own weight, Americans United hope to topple Roe v. Wade by chopping away at the edges of abortion rights until there is nothing left.

In moving towards its goal, Americans United works with sympathetic lawmakers to get laws passed for the sole purpose of having the laws challenged in court. The idea is to get a continuous stream of legal decisions limiting abortion rights.

To me, this is astonishing. I have to say, this strategy simply never occured to me. I mean, I would sometimes hear about a law being passed and say to myself, "What were they thinking? There's no way that law will stand up in court." But in striking down the laws, the courts set the parameters about what is acceptable and what is not.

So in 1977, Mayer v. Roe upheld a state ban on public funding for abortion; in 1980, Harris v. McRae upholds a ban on federal funding for abortion; in 1981 H.L. v. Matheson upheld parental notification; in 1983, Planned Parenthood of Kansas, MO v. Ashcroft upheld a law requiring either parental notification or judicial consent; in 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey upheld a law mandating a 24 hour waiting period for abortions; and in 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart overturned a ban on late-term abortions because there is no exception for the health of the mother.

So, yes, women have a Constitutional right to abortion, but the state doesn't have to pay for it, the federal government doesn't have to pay for it, and there are an increasing number of procedural hoops women must jump through to get them, especially minors.

The strategy is working. Without overturning Roe v. Wade, abortions are becoming less and less available.

It's fascinating. I just never saw the big picture before.

Now, the next battleground appears to be over the exact meaning of "undue burden". The Supreme Court's 1992 Casey decision said that states can regulate abortion as long as the restrictions don't impose an "undue burden" on women.

Americans United has been encouraging states to pass more aggressive informed consent laws. The goal is both to get an expansive list of restrictions which are deemed not to be an undue burden, and also to establish a burden of proof as to what is sufficient evidence of an undue burden. It could take years to gather enough evidence of an undue burden, and during those years the law in question would remain on the books.

Now, here's where my spine starts to shiver. Samuel Alito has been nominated to the Supreme Court. He has a very controversial abortion decision in his background, one in which he wrote that plaintiffs had not proven that a Connecticut law requiring women to notify their husbands when they have an abortion was an undue burden on women.

Alito wrote that most women who get abortions are not married; most married women who get abortions do so with their husbands knowledge; meaning that only a small proportion of women would be negatively impacted by the law. And without actual proof of harm, the plaintiffs had not proven that the law presented an undue burden on women.

So it would seem that Judge Alito has a judicial philosophy tailor-made to the latest attack on abortion rights being waged by Americans United.

What a coincidence.

And no wonder the religious right was furious about Harriet Miers' nomination. They have been planning for, anticipating, praying for someone with Alito's philosophy for a very long time.

Oh, how we pro-choicers have slept on our rights. It's only now, in the end-game, that we begin to understand to scope of the effort to turn back Roe v. Wade. And while we may be able to salvage the basic tenet that women have a right to abortion, it will be a long time before we can unwind the damage to abortion rights which has been carefully inflicted in a calculated, coordinated campaign.

And brilliantly so. I have to admit, I am in awe.

Wish I had thought of it.

Cautiously Optimistic

2005-11-20T22:11:00.000-05:00

OK, I watched the Sunday morning talk shows today, and the overwhelming sentiment is that Rep. Murtha's heartfelt and emotional statements this week mark a turning point. Withdrawal from iraq is not only inevitable, it is responsible. The sensation of reason sweeping through the minds of the country is almost palpable,as if we are all awaking from a long sleep filled with nightmares, demons, evil without a face.

The only frightening part of my morning is that I'm sure a saw a sign of the apocaplypse - Maureen Dowd actually tried to be cute on national television. Right there on the Chris Matthews show.

Positively chilling.

A sign that evil does live on.

US WMD

2005-11-16T13:42:00.000-05:00

Agence France Presse, or AFP reported today that the US has confirmed and defended its use of white phosphorus munitions against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah last year.

White phosphorus is a yellow substance which erupts spontaneously when exposed to air, releasing a dense white smoke. Burning particals of white phosphorus devices cause deep, painful chemical burns when they come into contact with skin.

AFP quotes Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, as saying "[White phosphorus] is part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like any other conventional weapon." Whitman continued on to say that "[w]e don't target any civilians with any of our weapons, and to suggest US forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would be wrong. . . .We don't target civilian populations. We go to great lenghts to do everything possible to prevent civilian casualties, and collateral damage to property."

So, exactly how was white phosphorus used in Fallujah? The army journal Field Artillery is quoted as stating "[w]e used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high exlposives) . . .We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

So, white phosphorus was used only against insurgents. "Insurgents" is the US word for the Iraqis and foreign nationals fighting US troops in Iraq. The bizarre thing about this statement is that it assumes that it is obvious who the insurgents are and who the civilians are. That it's possble to target only the insurgents.

But the entire reason we can't defeat the insurgents is because we can't tell them from the general population. So to say we only targeted insurgents is to claim an ability we don't have.

We can't tell the insurgents from the civilians.

So, white phosphorus was used in "screening missions". What exactly is a "screening mission"? Whitman's statements suggest that a screening mission is used to create smoke screens in battle and to mark targets with white smoke.

But Whitman also confirmed that white phosphorus was used against insurgents directly. Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirms white phosphorus was used as an incendiary agent. And Field Artillery states that white phosphorus was used against people in hiding places.

But the vast majority of the civilian population of Fallujah was in hiding places during this campaign. If you can't see who's in the hiding places, but only know that among the people in the hiding place are insurgents, how do you know you haven't targeted civilians caught in the crossfire? Civilians firing back in self defense? Civilians being used as human shields?

But here's my favorite part. The article cites "another Defense Department spokeman" as saying that white phosphorus has been used by armies around the world for the past century.

The US HHS web site has this to say about white phosphorus:

"In the military, white phosphorus is used in ammunitions such as mortar and artillery shells, and grenades. When ammunitions containing white phosphorus are fired in the field, they burn and produce smoke. The smoke contains some unburnt phosphorus, but it mainly has various burned phosphorus products. In military operations, such smoke is used to conceal troop movements and to identify targets or the locations of friendly forces. White phosphorus munitions are intended to burn or firebomb the opponents, in other words, to effectively produce widespread damage but not kill the enemy."

It's interesting to note that the HHS web site discusses the health effects of ingesting white phosphorus, but very little about the risks of direct exposure to unburnt phosphorus.

So, it's true, white phosphorus has been used by our military and other militaries. One of the uses is to "produce widespread damage but not kill the enemy."

"Produce widespread damage."

Now, how do you produce widespread damage while carefully targeting insurgents intermixed with a civilian population?

And another thing -- how do you use white phosphorus as a potent psychological weapon? Perhaps shielding US troop movements was a psychological weapon. Perhaps identifying insurgent strongholds was a psychological weapon. But wait -- no -- those are screening missions. And screening missions are listed separately from the use of white phosphorous as a psychological weapon.

And, accoring to HHS, use as a psychological weapon is not one of white phosphorus' customary military uses. Nope, those customary uses are in munitions, in screening missions, and creating widespread damage without killing the enemy.

Which leaves me with the question -- were these psychological uses of white phosphorus intended to cause wide spread damage without killing the enemy?

And if so, is it possible that in attempting to create widespread damage by firing white phosphorus into hiding places, the US inadvertently targeted, or at the very least impacted, civilians hiding from the fighting? Civilians who may or may not have been readily distinguishable from "insurgents", or US defined legitimate targets?

But the big question in my mind is that how does the use of white phosphorus as a psychological weapon and as a means of causing widespread damage differ from the actions of Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali? Is it because Saddam Hussein used weapons which caused minimal damage to property but widespread damage to people? Because I thought one of his tactics was to destroy a region's food supply and then leave the people to starve.

All in all, recent US statements leave me with more questions than answers, but also with the knowledge that the US has used explosive munitions in a manner that forseeably could cause deep, painful chemical burns, if not death, to the Iraqi nationals we allegedly liberated from a man who stands accused of using WMD against those same people.

Tell me, ain't there no one wearing a white hat in this occupation?