By Manifesto Joe
"A White House official who has had to bring large doses of bad news to the president about coming budget deficits recently observed: 'Reagan doesn't understand numbers. Every time the figures point to trouble, Reagan rebuts them with a personal anecdote'" -- Joseph Kraft, The Washington Post, Dec. 29, 1983
This month marked the fourth anniversary of The Great Prevaricator's death -- this morning in right-wing America, this is early in The Year 5 A.R. (After Reagan). In a presidential election year, his memory still surfaces now and then as some kind of standard by which all presidential aspirants are measured.
In a comments thread on a different blog, one commentator referred to Ronald Reagan as, though far from perfect, the last "presentable" president the U.S. has had. I agree to the extent that he was presentable as a sort of mannequin, which is common among Republican politicians. Reagan was the prototype GOP politician, America's First Mannequin. And he governed that way most of the time.
Assessing Reagan as a president, I would give him credit on a few points. Reagan was a turkey-necked chairman of the board who often slept through parts of Cabinet meetings, so he could never be as destructively proactive as George W. Bush. The latter governs like a reverse King Midas (everything he touches turns to feces) who is firmly convinced he can do no wrong. Reagan was afflicted with that same delusional self-assurance, but fortunately, he was so doddering and detached that he didn't do as much damage.
Reagan governed just a shade more from the "center" than Bush, and he didn't get us directly mixed up in foreign adventures for very long. There were Nicaraguas, Grenadas and Lebanons, but thankfully no Iraqs or Vietnams.
And -- he was actually willing to talk with our enemies, eventually to good effect. His friendly relations with Mikhail Gorbachev made his second term, arguably a disaster at home, look much better than it really was. People seemed to forget all about Iran-Contra, the S&L debacle, exploding deficits, burgeoning homelessness and the like.
But, enough of giving Reagan his due. Let's travel back in time, to that ugly era of mullets and old-time collars on hipster men, those "serious hair" sheepdog permanents and floppy ties on yuppie women, and remember Ronnie Reagan as he was: a meaner-spirited version of Elwood P. Dowd.
This man lived in a world of celluloid fantasies -- where facts didn't matter, and where a dude who took the "gut course" in economics at a fourth-rate Illinois college conjured up economic policy that is still ruinously with us now.
Distortions of Jimmy Carter's Record
This material is from Reagan's Reign of Error, by Mark Green and Gail MacColl (1983, rev. 1987), p.43:
"We then went back into negotiations on their [the Soviets'] terms, because Mr. Carter had cancelled the B-1 bomber, delayed the MX, delayed the Trident submarine, delayed the Cruise missile, shut down the ... Minute Man missile production line ..." (Presidential debate, 10/28/80)
The B-1 bomber had been delayed. As for the rest: the Cruise missile and MX were under full-scale development; the Minute Man missile's production line had been shut down because the production schedule had been met; and the first Trident submarine, the USS Ohio, had been launched on April 7, 1979.
(What was that quotation about how a lie can travel so much faster than the truth?)
Green and MacColl, p.65:
"Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn't been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history" (Nationally televised campaign speech, 10/24/80)
Federal deficits totaled $195 billion under Mr. Carter. The latest budget projections [this was 1987] suggest that during Mr. Reagan's six years the deficit will total nearly $1 trillion.
(After the fact, we now know that Reaganomics roughly tripled the total national debt, from about $1 trillion to around $3 trillion.)
Reagan on Nuclear War
Green and MacColl, p.46:
"Those [nuclear weapons] that are carried in ships of one kind or another, or submersibles, you are dealing there with a conventional type of weapon or instrument, and those instruments can be intercepted. They can be recalled." (5/13/82)
Submarine-launched missiles cannot be recalled. If the president thinks differently he may be surprised in a nuclear exchange.
Reagan Quotes Churchill
Green and MacColl, p.60:
"I would like to quote a few words by a very famous and celebrated orator, journalist, soldier, historian, and statesman. People have said he might have made a great actor if he tried that. Winston Churchill. He said, 'The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever befuddled the human mind.' Now I don't know how that quote happened to catch my eye." (3/9/82)
Neither does anyone else. Reagan's speechwriters "don't know where he got that one from." Nor does the British historian at the Library of Congress; there was no such passage in the Library's extensive collection of Churchill quotations. Ten other books of quotations also failed to provide a clue.
Reagan on Poverty
Green and MacColl, pp.88-89:
"In 20 years, the federal budget increased five-fold and the cost of welfare grew ten-fold. But that didn't help many local governments which lost effective control of their communities. It didn't help small businesses hit by the highest interest rates in a hundred years. It didn't help the working poor and pensioners flattened by double-digit inflation and taxation." (1/14/82)
It probably did. The standard of living has doubled since 1960. Accounting for inflation, per capita disposable income, the average income after taxes, rose, in 1972 dollars, from $2,709 in 1960 to $4,472 in 1980. In 1959, 22.4% of Americans lived below the poverty line. By 1981, that figure had been cut nearly in half.
Green and MacColl, p.92
"The decrease in poverty I referred to earlier started in the 1950s. By the time the full weight of the Great Society programs was felt, economic progress for America's poor had come to a tragic halt."
In 1967, the Field Foundation testified before Congress on hunger in America: "Wherever we went and wherever we looked, we saw children in significant numbers who were hungry and sick." A decade later, the Field team retraced its 1967 steps and found "far fewer grossly malnourished people in this country. ..." They concluded that food stamps and other federal nutrition programs, implemented or inspired by Great Society legislation, had made the difference.
That's all we have time for today. My gratitude to Green and MacColl -- I highly recommend "The Instant Nostalgia Edition" of that book, if it's available. See you next time for more summer Reagan-bashing.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Native Texan Bill Moyers Is Still A National Treasure
This speech on media consolidation by journalism icon Bill Moyers should be required listening/viewing. It was posted on YouTube by videofreepress:
As a bonus for watching, here's something posted by the same folks, with Keith Olbermann narrating Moyers' smackdown of a Bill O'Reilly/Fox News toady:
Sweet dreams. -- MJ
As a bonus for watching, here's something posted by the same folks, with Keith Olbermann narrating Moyers' smackdown of a Bill O'Reilly/Fox News toady:
Sweet dreams. -- MJ
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Cornyn Watch: Senator Cornhole Lies To His Constituents
By Manifesto Joe
I'm shocked, shocked to find a politician engaging in deception.
No, not really. But this seems a particularly tawdry case of it, something from the repertoire of the King and the Duke in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Sen. John "Cornhole" Cornyn, R-Texas, is making energy policy a centerpiece of his bid for a second term in the U.S. Senate, and he's playing a shell game with pending legislation.
Sen. Cornhole sends an e-mail "update" to his constituents, usually at his whim, but lately a lot as he campaigns. In his last two he's been talking about energy policy in mendacious ways, and deliberately confusing two separate Senate bills. This is from his latest opus:
... the majority party in Congress has proposed $6.7 trillion climate tax package that could actually raise gas prices by 147 percent. It defies logic that after blocking the American energy production and oil independence, Congress is now pursuing bigger government, more taxes, and higher energy costs with no guarantee of actually improving the climate.
What one discovers upon further examination is that Sen. Cornhole refers to S. 3036, aka America's Climate Security Act. The sponsors are Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va. As liberal as Democrats are reputed to be, I don't think even they are magnanimous enough to include John and Renegade Joe as members of "the majority party."
Going back to Sen. Cornhole's previous e-mail, he lays this alleged Democrat (GOP-ese for the adjective form) tax-spend-and-regulate atrocity on the doorstep of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Here he goes again:
... earlier this month, the Senate actually considered a massive climate tax bill that headed in the exact opposite direction. This massive $6.7 trillion Rube Goldberg scheme proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would undermine our economy and likely lead to $10 per gallon gasoline. It could well eliminate some 330,000 Texas jobs, sending them to places with limited regulation like China and India.
It's never explained where the figures come from. But I suspect that, as a member of the Senate, Master Cornhole can distinguish one bill from another. What Boxer introduced was S. 2191, a separate bill that takes the measures of S. 3036 a bit deeper into enemy territory. But it doesn't appear to be all that radical. Here's part of an article posted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors:
WASHINGTON, May 22 - The nation's mayors are putting forth their full support behind Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer's revised version of the pending Climate Security Act (S.2191), which will enable cities and the country to make systematic reductions nationwide in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
"We commend Chairman Barbara Boxer for her leadership and commitment to this issue," said Conference President Trenton Mayor Douglas H. Palmer. "We urge the Senate to pass this crucial piece of legislation that will put us on a path to continue to confront America's climate challenge."
But, let's go back to the Lieberman-Warner bill, S. 3036. I just pulled up Renegade Joe's handy-dandy Web site, and here's what he had to say:
On its own, the America's Climate Security Act (ACSA) is projected to reduce total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 19% below the 2005 level (4% below the 1990 level) in 2020 and by as much as 63% below the 2005 level in 2050. Lieberman and Warner presented their new bill as the core of a new federal program that Congress should pass to avert catastrophic global climate change while enhancing America's energy security.
"With all the irrefutable evidence we now have corroborating that climate change is real, dangerous, and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted, this is the year for Congress to move this critical legislation," said Lieberman. "If we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."
"In my 28 years in the Senate, I have focused above all on issues of national security, and I see the problem of global climate change as fitting squarely within that focus," said Warner. "Today we introduced a balanced bill. Senator Lieberman and I found a good, sound, starting point that sends a significant signal that the U.S. is serious about taking a leadership role in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions."
Joining Lieberman and Warner in co-sponsoring ACSA are Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
A bunch of crazed socialists, no doubt. Anyway, during a lucid moment in which Sen. Cornhole was talking about the actual bill at hand, he's quoted thusly:
“As we move forward with debate over this mammoth new legislation, there are many unanswered questions that Congress should examine closely. The bill appears to implement a $6.7 trillion program that could undermine economic growth, raise energy costs for American consumers and send jobs overseas to countries such as India and China. We need a thoughtful and serious debate on how to be the best stewards of the environment possible. As we do this, I hope Congress pays heed to the law of unintended consequences, including what impact it might have on the budgets of families in Texas and across the country."
It appears that Sen. Cornhole ran across some Adam Smith during his halcyon days at Trinity University. That so-called law of unintended consequences can be framed as an obstructionist argument against damn near anything, when abused.
And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, let's return to the grade-school variety of it: getting the bills straight. Last week, the one that came before the Senate was the Lieberman-Warner incarnation, S. 3036, and here's what happened, according to Votes in Congress Newspaper Syndicate:
Global climate change
Passed, 74-14
Senators voted to begin debate on a bill ... that would establish a cap-and-trade system to sharply reduce the U.S. share of the greenhouse-gas emissions that help cause global warming and climate change. Democratic leaders later shelved the bill in response to Republican delaying tactics, such as compelling clerks to read the entire 490-page bill aloud.
Well, it was noted that Sen. Cornhole was among the 74 senators who voted to begin debate. As for the other 14, I doubt that there was anything unintended about the consequences.
Maybe one of these days Sen. Cornhole will show his constituents the respect to actually distinguish one bill from another. But I don't think the median of American intelligence will ever compel him to do so. Here's an example of the general public, taken from the lead comments on S. 3036 on WashingtonWatch:
Greatdanes
This is OUTRAGEOUS. The Congress must be Stopped and we have to Get Rid of each and every Senator and Congressman. This is SUCIDE for America! Global Warming is a SCAM and Will destroy the Country and make us all Slaves. Americans STAND UP and FIGT BACK. Say NO to this Bill.
Well, it should be no mystery how politicians like Sen. Cornhole manage to have long careers. Against odds, I most profoundly hope that the voters of Texas will see fit to cut this scumbag's career short.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Postscript: It has come to my attention that the Boxer bill, S. 2191, was also voted on last week in one of the goofy ways that the Senate often does. The vote was 48-36 in favor of ending a Republican filibuster against this version, but 60 votes were needed to invoke cloture, so it failed. Cornyn wasn't there for that vote.
I'm shocked, shocked to find a politician engaging in deception.
No, not really. But this seems a particularly tawdry case of it, something from the repertoire of the King and the Duke in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Sen. John "Cornhole" Cornyn, R-Texas, is making energy policy a centerpiece of his bid for a second term in the U.S. Senate, and he's playing a shell game with pending legislation.
Sen. Cornhole sends an e-mail "update" to his constituents, usually at his whim, but lately a lot as he campaigns. In his last two he's been talking about energy policy in mendacious ways, and deliberately confusing two separate Senate bills. This is from his latest opus:
... the majority party in Congress has proposed $6.7 trillion climate tax package that could actually raise gas prices by 147 percent. It defies logic that after blocking the American energy production and oil independence, Congress is now pursuing bigger government, more taxes, and higher energy costs with no guarantee of actually improving the climate.
What one discovers upon further examination is that Sen. Cornhole refers to S. 3036, aka America's Climate Security Act. The sponsors are Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va. As liberal as Democrats are reputed to be, I don't think even they are magnanimous enough to include John and Renegade Joe as members of "the majority party."
Going back to Sen. Cornhole's previous e-mail, he lays this alleged Democrat (GOP-ese for the adjective form) tax-spend-and-regulate atrocity on the doorstep of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Here he goes again:
... earlier this month, the Senate actually considered a massive climate tax bill that headed in the exact opposite direction. This massive $6.7 trillion Rube Goldberg scheme proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would undermine our economy and likely lead to $10 per gallon gasoline. It could well eliminate some 330,000 Texas jobs, sending them to places with limited regulation like China and India.
It's never explained where the figures come from. But I suspect that, as a member of the Senate, Master Cornhole can distinguish one bill from another. What Boxer introduced was S. 2191, a separate bill that takes the measures of S. 3036 a bit deeper into enemy territory. But it doesn't appear to be all that radical. Here's part of an article posted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors:
WASHINGTON, May 22 - The nation's mayors are putting forth their full support behind Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer's revised version of the pending Climate Security Act (S.2191), which will enable cities and the country to make systematic reductions nationwide in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
"We commend Chairman Barbara Boxer for her leadership and commitment to this issue," said Conference President Trenton Mayor Douglas H. Palmer. "We urge the Senate to pass this crucial piece of legislation that will put us on a path to continue to confront America's climate challenge."
But, let's go back to the Lieberman-Warner bill, S. 3036. I just pulled up Renegade Joe's handy-dandy Web site, and here's what he had to say:
On its own, the America's Climate Security Act (ACSA) is projected to reduce total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 19% below the 2005 level (4% below the 1990 level) in 2020 and by as much as 63% below the 2005 level in 2050. Lieberman and Warner presented their new bill as the core of a new federal program that Congress should pass to avert catastrophic global climate change while enhancing America's energy security.
"With all the irrefutable evidence we now have corroborating that climate change is real, dangerous, and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted, this is the year for Congress to move this critical legislation," said Lieberman. "If we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."
"In my 28 years in the Senate, I have focused above all on issues of national security, and I see the problem of global climate change as fitting squarely within that focus," said Warner. "Today we introduced a balanced bill. Senator Lieberman and I found a good, sound, starting point that sends a significant signal that the U.S. is serious about taking a leadership role in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions."
Joining Lieberman and Warner in co-sponsoring ACSA are Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
A bunch of crazed socialists, no doubt. Anyway, during a lucid moment in which Sen. Cornhole was talking about the actual bill at hand, he's quoted thusly:
“As we move forward with debate over this mammoth new legislation, there are many unanswered questions that Congress should examine closely. The bill appears to implement a $6.7 trillion program that could undermine economic growth, raise energy costs for American consumers and send jobs overseas to countries such as India and China. We need a thoughtful and serious debate on how to be the best stewards of the environment possible. As we do this, I hope Congress pays heed to the law of unintended consequences, including what impact it might have on the budgets of families in Texas and across the country."
It appears that Sen. Cornhole ran across some Adam Smith during his halcyon days at Trinity University. That so-called law of unintended consequences can be framed as an obstructionist argument against damn near anything, when abused.
And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, let's return to the grade-school variety of it: getting the bills straight. Last week, the one that came before the Senate was the Lieberman-Warner incarnation, S. 3036, and here's what happened, according to Votes in Congress Newspaper Syndicate:
Global climate change
Passed, 74-14
Senators voted to begin debate on a bill ... that would establish a cap-and-trade system to sharply reduce the U.S. share of the greenhouse-gas emissions that help cause global warming and climate change. Democratic leaders later shelved the bill in response to Republican delaying tactics, such as compelling clerks to read the entire 490-page bill aloud.
Well, it was noted that Sen. Cornhole was among the 74 senators who voted to begin debate. As for the other 14, I doubt that there was anything unintended about the consequences.
Maybe one of these days Sen. Cornhole will show his constituents the respect to actually distinguish one bill from another. But I don't think the median of American intelligence will ever compel him to do so. Here's an example of the general public, taken from the lead comments on S. 3036 on WashingtonWatch:
Greatdanes
This is OUTRAGEOUS. The Congress must be Stopped and we have to Get Rid of each and every Senator and Congressman. This is SUCIDE for America! Global Warming is a SCAM and Will destroy the Country and make us all Slaves. Americans STAND UP and FIGT BACK. Say NO to this Bill.
Well, it should be no mystery how politicians like Sen. Cornhole manage to have long careers. Against odds, I most profoundly hope that the voters of Texas will see fit to cut this scumbag's career short.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Postscript: It has come to my attention that the Boxer bill, S. 2191, was also voted on last week in one of the goofy ways that the Senate often does. The vote was 48-36 in favor of ending a Republican filibuster against this version, but 60 votes were needed to invoke cloture, so it failed. Cornyn wasn't there for that vote.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Cornyn Watch: The Bush Shill Is Now Considered Vulnerable
By Manifesto Joe
Politics in Texas has fallen so much under Republican dominance since 1990 -- that was the last year that Democrats like the late ex-Gov. Ann Richards won statewide elections -- that a lot of people in "blue" states wrote us off as hopeless rednecks long ago.
Not so fast. The demographics in this state are changing; and also, perhaps even some of the traditionally conservative Anglo voters are beginning to wonder about the pendejos they've been habitually electing to high office. Like Bush toady Sen. John Cornyn.
As of last month, Cornyn's little-known Democratic challenger was within 4 percentage points of him, according to Rasmussen Reports.
State Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, is a graduate of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, an Afghanistan war veteran as a lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard, and much more.
It's great news that Texas Democrats have a real chance this year to knock off one of our GOP mannequins in the Senate. Here's a bit of what Cornyn has been busy with lately, representing the vital interests of Texans as he does:
-- Since the ruling in California last month opening the door for gay marriage in the state, Cornyn has been going that extra mile to make sure the miscreants never come to the Lone Star State with such deviant ideas. He's renewed his call for a nationwide ban against same-sex marriages. Yep, that's really going to make a dent in the price of gasoline, and make bread and eggs so much more affordable for decent folk.
-- Speaking of the price of gasoline, here are Sen. Cornhole's thoughts about energy policy, courtesy of his own "Texas Times" e-mail newsletter:
In my view, the solution is straightforward. We need more energy. Government should get out of the way, let the free market work and allow more domestic energy production. This would reduce gas prices even in the near-term, expand job opportunities in Texas — a world energy leader — and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
But earlier this month, the Senate actually considered a massive climate tax bill that headed in the exact opposite direction. This massive $6.7 trillion Rube Goldberg scheme proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would undermine our economy and likely lead to $10 per gallon gasoline. It could well eliminate some 330,000 Texas jobs, sending them to places with limited regulation like China and India.
How can this be explained? After blocking American energy production and oil independence, Congress pursues bigger government, added taxes and higher energy costs—with no guarantee of actually improving the world’s climate.
It is vital that we be the best possible stewards of the environment. Fortunately, improved technology has enabled us to take advantage of America’s own abundant natural resources in an environmentally sensitive way. Yet the U.S. remains the only country in the world that refuses to develop many of its natural resources.
America is aggressively moving from fossil fuels to more diverse energy sources, including wind, nuclear, solar and clean coal. We need all of this supply. The government and private industry are both investing to promote and expedite this transition, and using steps such as increasing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.
In the short term, however, oil, gas and coal will remain our dominant sources of energy. The free market could provide significant additional supplies—but Congress continues to prevent that.
Say, wasn't the "free market" one of the ways we got here in the first place? Big Oil didn't want alternative energy sources, and resisted them for years. Now they're raking in record profits, and attributing it to the supply-and-demand mechanism of the so-called "free market." (Hey, let's send copies of The Wealth of Nations out to the players in the OPEC cartel.)
And the solution from U.S. Big Oil is to drill on environmentally sensitive lands, and next to national monuments, in national parks, and so forth? Isn't this "free market" approach what we've been doing for decades, and to ill effect? And Sen. Cornhole proposes that we trust such people, yet again?
And, what has been the role of the Iraq war, and how would the "free market" address that?
It's not hard to figure out to whom Cornyn is answering -- lots of Petroleum Clubs and the associated donors -- and that will have to end someday. Eventually it could end in enduring disaster, so the sooner it ends, the better. Getting jerks like Cornhole out of the Senate would be a great start -- with a new Texas senator named Noriega.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Politics in Texas has fallen so much under Republican dominance since 1990 -- that was the last year that Democrats like the late ex-Gov. Ann Richards won statewide elections -- that a lot of people in "blue" states wrote us off as hopeless rednecks long ago.
Not so fast. The demographics in this state are changing; and also, perhaps even some of the traditionally conservative Anglo voters are beginning to wonder about the pendejos they've been habitually electing to high office. Like Bush toady Sen. John Cornyn.
As of last month, Cornyn's little-known Democratic challenger was within 4 percentage points of him, according to Rasmussen Reports.
State Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, is a graduate of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, an Afghanistan war veteran as a lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard, and much more.
It's great news that Texas Democrats have a real chance this year to knock off one of our GOP mannequins in the Senate. Here's a bit of what Cornyn has been busy with lately, representing the vital interests of Texans as he does:
-- Since the ruling in California last month opening the door for gay marriage in the state, Cornyn has been going that extra mile to make sure the miscreants never come to the Lone Star State with such deviant ideas. He's renewed his call for a nationwide ban against same-sex marriages. Yep, that's really going to make a dent in the price of gasoline, and make bread and eggs so much more affordable for decent folk.
-- Speaking of the price of gasoline, here are Sen. Cornhole's thoughts about energy policy, courtesy of his own "Texas Times" e-mail newsletter:
In my view, the solution is straightforward. We need more energy. Government should get out of the way, let the free market work and allow more domestic energy production. This would reduce gas prices even in the near-term, expand job opportunities in Texas — a world energy leader — and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
But earlier this month, the Senate actually considered a massive climate tax bill that headed in the exact opposite direction. This massive $6.7 trillion Rube Goldberg scheme proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would undermine our economy and likely lead to $10 per gallon gasoline. It could well eliminate some 330,000 Texas jobs, sending them to places with limited regulation like China and India.
How can this be explained? After blocking American energy production and oil independence, Congress pursues bigger government, added taxes and higher energy costs—with no guarantee of actually improving the world’s climate.
It is vital that we be the best possible stewards of the environment. Fortunately, improved technology has enabled us to take advantage of America’s own abundant natural resources in an environmentally sensitive way. Yet the U.S. remains the only country in the world that refuses to develop many of its natural resources.
America is aggressively moving from fossil fuels to more diverse energy sources, including wind, nuclear, solar and clean coal. We need all of this supply. The government and private industry are both investing to promote and expedite this transition, and using steps such as increasing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.
In the short term, however, oil, gas and coal will remain our dominant sources of energy. The free market could provide significant additional supplies—but Congress continues to prevent that.
Say, wasn't the "free market" one of the ways we got here in the first place? Big Oil didn't want alternative energy sources, and resisted them for years. Now they're raking in record profits, and attributing it to the supply-and-demand mechanism of the so-called "free market." (Hey, let's send copies of The Wealth of Nations out to the players in the OPEC cartel.)
And the solution from U.S. Big Oil is to drill on environmentally sensitive lands, and next to national monuments, in national parks, and so forth? Isn't this "free market" approach what we've been doing for decades, and to ill effect? And Sen. Cornhole proposes that we trust such people, yet again?
And, what has been the role of the Iraq war, and how would the "free market" address that?
It's not hard to figure out to whom Cornyn is answering -- lots of Petroleum Clubs and the associated donors -- and that will have to end someday. Eventually it could end in enduring disaster, so the sooner it ends, the better. Getting jerks like Cornhole out of the Senate would be a great start -- with a new Texas senator named Noriega.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Predictably, Senate Panel Turns Wussy On Iraq War Report
By Manifesto Joe
Say it ain't so, Sen. Jay Rockefeller. These pathetic lily livers we call Democrats are going to let the Bush thug-o-crats, in essence, weasel out of this one, too. Nobody goes directly to jail; everybody passes Go. (Some probably collect $100,000.) The Senate Intelligence Committee -- perhaps a contradiction in terms -- gives the Bush hooligans a mild slap on the wrist, and declines to follow up.
Basically, the panel is making a brief media show of this. But in the long run, they're clearly going to let the war criminals skate. Here's the Los Angeles Times "report" on the Senate's "report": Click here.
Il Doofus has always seemed like a person leading some kind of perversely charmed life. After this it seems doubtless that he will skate, even after all the death and suffering he is directly responsible for.
It will now be up to history to hold him somewhat responsible for the human disaster of the Iraq war. I wish him long life, because I hope he is still around to find himself a bigger pariah than Nixon ever could have been.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Say it ain't so, Sen. Jay Rockefeller. These pathetic lily livers we call Democrats are going to let the Bush thug-o-crats, in essence, weasel out of this one, too. Nobody goes directly to jail; everybody passes Go. (Some probably collect $100,000.) The Senate Intelligence Committee -- perhaps a contradiction in terms -- gives the Bush hooligans a mild slap on the wrist, and declines to follow up.
Basically, the panel is making a brief media show of this. But in the long run, they're clearly going to let the war criminals skate. Here's the Los Angeles Times "report" on the Senate's "report": Click here.
Il Doofus has always seemed like a person leading some kind of perversely charmed life. After this it seems doubtless that he will skate, even after all the death and suffering he is directly responsible for.
It will now be up to history to hold him somewhat responsible for the human disaster of the Iraq war. I wish him long life, because I hope he is still around to find himself a bigger pariah than Nixon ever could have been.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Breaking News: Bushies Already Sabotaging Obama Plans For Troop Withdrawals
By Manifesto Joe
If Barack Obama wins the presidency in November, he may be stepping into a foreign policy minefield come January, courtesy of the Bush administration. The Independent (U.K.) newspaper reports that it received leaked information of a secret plan being negotiated in Baghdad that would establish 50 U.S. military bases, give the U.S. control of Iraqi airspace and give all American soldiers and contractors legal immunity.
It's finally here -- the Iraq 100 Years War Plan. It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up a more or less permanent insurgency, a permanent state of low-grade warfare. Maybe the neocons will tell us to look on the bright side -- all those unemployed and underemployed young poor and working-class men and women will have three-year contract jobs awaiting them, for decades to come.
The al-Maliki government is reportedly torn, basically opposing the idea but scared shitless that it can't be viable without being propped up by U.S. military force. It shapes up into a no-win situation for most concerned parties: The Independent reports that the terms of the deal that the Bush administration wants "are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq."
This deal would pretty much show the hand of what the Bush junta wanted all along -- a permanent military base in the Middle East, under cover of a puppet government, theoretically forming a bulwark against Iran and eventually giving the U.S. an inside track on all that light sweet crude.
If Obama is elected, he might be forced into the position of deal-breaker. There's a lot of money riding on this one, too.
Fasten your seat belts -- it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
If Barack Obama wins the presidency in November, he may be stepping into a foreign policy minefield come January, courtesy of the Bush administration. The Independent (U.K.) newspaper reports that it received leaked information of a secret plan being negotiated in Baghdad that would establish 50 U.S. military bases, give the U.S. control of Iraqi airspace and give all American soldiers and contractors legal immunity.
It's finally here -- the Iraq 100 Years War Plan. It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up a more or less permanent insurgency, a permanent state of low-grade warfare. Maybe the neocons will tell us to look on the bright side -- all those unemployed and underemployed young poor and working-class men and women will have three-year contract jobs awaiting them, for decades to come.
The al-Maliki government is reportedly torn, basically opposing the idea but scared shitless that it can't be viable without being propped up by U.S. military force. It shapes up into a no-win situation for most concerned parties: The Independent reports that the terms of the deal that the Bush administration wants "are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq."
This deal would pretty much show the hand of what the Bush junta wanted all along -- a permanent military base in the Middle East, under cover of a puppet government, theoretically forming a bulwark against Iran and eventually giving the U.S. an inside track on all that light sweet crude.
If Obama is elected, he might be forced into the position of deal-breaker. There's a lot of money riding on this one, too.
Fasten your seat belts -- it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thoughts On The Shallow Seventies
By Manifesto Joe
This was a comment I left on Watching Those We Chose, a blog with which I am affiliated, but it was substantial enough that I felt it would be a decent post for my home site. The post there went, just peripherally, into some ways that the Seventies sucked, what with "gas lines, ugly clothes, platform shoes, high gas prices, inflation, recession and disco." Yeah, I hated all that stuff, too. But ... here's the comment:
"Like others, I hated the litany of things y'all mention about the '70s. Having been a child and young adolescent of the '60s who came of age during the '70s, the latter decade was undeniably a letdown. I was one of those disco-loathing tokers who went musically to either fusion jazz or the red meat of the rock era (circa 1964-73). At 22, I found myself oddly out of place in a youth culture suddenly turned shallow with a vengeance. I couldn't relate to punks, either -- that seemed like a rebellion of futile and deliberate ugliness.
"I experienced unemployment and underemployment during the time, was seriously injured in an industrial accident, got mistreated by newly liberated women (they discovered that they, too, could be cads!), and found myself dressing in ways that embarrass me in hindsight.
"But the 2000s have done an amazing thing -- I'm a bit nostalgic for the Shallow Seventies. There are a few things I'd like to have back. To wit:
"Liberal Republicans. Remember Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Edward Brooke, Mark Hatfield, Pete McCloskey, Richard Schweiker, John Lindsay, Charles Percy, etc? Moderate-to-liberal politicians had a surprisingly strong presence as a minority in the GOP back then.
"A strong decrim movement. I drifted out of the pot-smoking culture many years ago, but had enough experience with it to know that it's more or less no worse over the long haul than Jim Beam. At one point we got some form of decrim in 13 states. In 1979, if you had told the 23-year-old MJ that we would still be stuck on stupid about this ...
"Good Hollywood movies. The decade came in with M*A*S*H and ended with Apocalypse Now. In between, we had The Last Picture Show, The Godfather parts I and II, The Last Detail, Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Taxi Driver, Network, Annie Hall, The Deer Hunter, and so many others. It was arguably the best era Hollywood ever had. Fewer car chases and special effects -- more actual quality. They had scripts!
"An environmental movement, Part I. This was about the time when a significant minority of Americans began to realize that oil is a finite resource, that ozone depletion is a real problem, that pollution actually kills people by inches and that animal species are dying off one by one. We actually had a president, Carter, who installed solar panels in the White House. (Reagan promptly had them taken out.)
"I could go into other things, but suffice it to say that the 2000s have made the '70s look pretty good to me in hindsight. And let me repeat, at the time I utterly detested the '70s."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
This was a comment I left on Watching Those We Chose, a blog with which I am affiliated, but it was substantial enough that I felt it would be a decent post for my home site. The post there went, just peripherally, into some ways that the Seventies sucked, what with "gas lines, ugly clothes, platform shoes, high gas prices, inflation, recession and disco." Yeah, I hated all that stuff, too. But ... here's the comment:
"Like others, I hated the litany of things y'all mention about the '70s. Having been a child and young adolescent of the '60s who came of age during the '70s, the latter decade was undeniably a letdown. I was one of those disco-loathing tokers who went musically to either fusion jazz or the red meat of the rock era (circa 1964-73). At 22, I found myself oddly out of place in a youth culture suddenly turned shallow with a vengeance. I couldn't relate to punks, either -- that seemed like a rebellion of futile and deliberate ugliness.
"I experienced unemployment and underemployment during the time, was seriously injured in an industrial accident, got mistreated by newly liberated women (they discovered that they, too, could be cads!), and found myself dressing in ways that embarrass me in hindsight.
"But the 2000s have done an amazing thing -- I'm a bit nostalgic for the Shallow Seventies. There are a few things I'd like to have back. To wit:
"Liberal Republicans. Remember Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Edward Brooke, Mark Hatfield, Pete McCloskey, Richard Schweiker, John Lindsay, Charles Percy, etc? Moderate-to-liberal politicians had a surprisingly strong presence as a minority in the GOP back then.
"A strong decrim movement. I drifted out of the pot-smoking culture many years ago, but had enough experience with it to know that it's more or less no worse over the long haul than Jim Beam. At one point we got some form of decrim in 13 states. In 1979, if you had told the 23-year-old MJ that we would still be stuck on stupid about this ...
"Good Hollywood movies. The decade came in with M*A*S*H and ended with Apocalypse Now. In between, we had The Last Picture Show, The Godfather parts I and II, The Last Detail, Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Taxi Driver, Network, Annie Hall, The Deer Hunter, and so many others. It was arguably the best era Hollywood ever had. Fewer car chases and special effects -- more actual quality. They had scripts!
"An environmental movement, Part I. This was about the time when a significant minority of Americans began to realize that oil is a finite resource, that ozone depletion is a real problem, that pollution actually kills people by inches and that animal species are dying off one by one. We actually had a president, Carter, who installed solar panels in the White House. (Reagan promptly had them taken out.)
"I could go into other things, but suffice it to say that the 2000s have made the '70s look pretty good to me in hindsight. And let me repeat, at the time I utterly detested the '70s."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Where Are The Liberal Media When You Need Them? Thoughts On Scott McClellan's Spiel
By Manifesto Joe
In the time I have worked in American news media -- 30 years -- we've had to deal with right-wingers' allegations of "liberal bias." It goes on to this day, despite many years of Fox News obviously functioning as the right-wing Republican answer to Soviet state TV. Even if you go back 20 years or more, to a time when some faint whiff of liberal influence on American media might have been evident, it pales in comparison to the partisan bashing one sees on Fox, every hour on the hour.
In his new, much-discussed book, Scott McClellan touches -- just slightly -- on the problem. That being that the right wing had a strategy, and that despite any rational opposition, they made it work.
Scotty only brings it up in the context of the Iraq war, and American news media's absolute failure to hold the Bush administration's propaganda up to proper scrutiny.
I suggest that this reverse bias strategy has been going on a pretty long time, and still is. The strategy was to cry "liberal bias" so often that the great lie would become accepted as truth, a la Joseph Goebbels. As a result, the right seems to have at least their U.S. hard-core 30% in tow, no matter what happens on the world stage.
It's common sense that a profession like journalism will attract more liberals than conservatives. There are some righties who go into the field (with backing from trust funds and inheritances, usually) because they think their influence is needed among these hordes of liberal reprobates in the profession. I have known some like that. But mostly, liberal types are drawn to these jobs. The jobs don't usually pay well as "college required" professions go, so that means you have to have a bigger moral and emotional stake in it than if you were going into, say, banking. One goes into journalism actually hoping to do meaningful work and make the world a slightly better place.
The right's strategy has been to cry "bias" so many times, and to assemble dubious inductive arguments with isolated instances of sloppy journalism, that eventually many people would buy the line. Over decades, they succeeded to a frustrating degree.
But, with Scotty coming forward like this about media cheerleading on the Iraq war, the ruse is beginning to fall apart. I remember the period of 5-6 years ago, and wondering where the hell our Murrows were while Colin Powell was lying to the U.N. Even Bob Woodward seemed to be shilling for the administration during that time. There was a total collapse of the scrutiny, the skepticism, the suspicion that comes with media at its watchdog best. You know, the traits that "liberals" usually bring to it.
The Free Press Action Fund has kept abreast of the reactions to Scotty's book, and there's more there than has been headlined in general:
... he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served.
There's more:
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. Here's the video:
This is all very familiar turf for me. I've heard it, from bootlicking editors, in many ways. "These people in your story, they're not OUR people." "We need to stick to the facts of the story." (I thought that's what I had been doing.) "We have advertisers, and we need to think about them." (Hey, that was when they were trying to be half-assed honest.)
Perhaps this has driven one more nail into the coffin of the myth of liberal media bias. If not -- give me a bag of nails, a coffin and a good shovel, and I will gladly finish the job. I can vouch from experience that it is among the most toxic of all political myths.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
In the time I have worked in American news media -- 30 years -- we've had to deal with right-wingers' allegations of "liberal bias." It goes on to this day, despite many years of Fox News obviously functioning as the right-wing Republican answer to Soviet state TV. Even if you go back 20 years or more, to a time when some faint whiff of liberal influence on American media might have been evident, it pales in comparison to the partisan bashing one sees on Fox, every hour on the hour.
In his new, much-discussed book, Scott McClellan touches -- just slightly -- on the problem. That being that the right wing had a strategy, and that despite any rational opposition, they made it work.
Scotty only brings it up in the context of the Iraq war, and American news media's absolute failure to hold the Bush administration's propaganda up to proper scrutiny.
I suggest that this reverse bias strategy has been going on a pretty long time, and still is. The strategy was to cry "liberal bias" so often that the great lie would become accepted as truth, a la Joseph Goebbels. As a result, the right seems to have at least their U.S. hard-core 30% in tow, no matter what happens on the world stage.
It's common sense that a profession like journalism will attract more liberals than conservatives. There are some righties who go into the field (with backing from trust funds and inheritances, usually) because they think their influence is needed among these hordes of liberal reprobates in the profession. I have known some like that. But mostly, liberal types are drawn to these jobs. The jobs don't usually pay well as "college required" professions go, so that means you have to have a bigger moral and emotional stake in it than if you were going into, say, banking. One goes into journalism actually hoping to do meaningful work and make the world a slightly better place.
The right's strategy has been to cry "bias" so many times, and to assemble dubious inductive arguments with isolated instances of sloppy journalism, that eventually many people would buy the line. Over decades, they succeeded to a frustrating degree.
But, with Scotty coming forward like this about media cheerleading on the Iraq war, the ruse is beginning to fall apart. I remember the period of 5-6 years ago, and wondering where the hell our Murrows were while Colin Powell was lying to the U.N. Even Bob Woodward seemed to be shilling for the administration during that time. There was a total collapse of the scrutiny, the skepticism, the suspicion that comes with media at its watchdog best. You know, the traits that "liberals" usually bring to it.
The Free Press Action Fund has kept abreast of the reactions to Scotty's book, and there's more there than has been headlined in general:
... he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served.
There's more:
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. Here's the video:
This is all very familiar turf for me. I've heard it, from bootlicking editors, in many ways. "These people in your story, they're not OUR people." "We need to stick to the facts of the story." (I thought that's what I had been doing.) "We have advertisers, and we need to think about them." (Hey, that was when they were trying to be half-assed honest.)
Perhaps this has driven one more nail into the coffin of the myth of liberal media bias. If not -- give me a bag of nails, a coffin and a good shovel, and I will gladly finish the job. I can vouch from experience that it is among the most toxic of all political myths.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, May 26, 2008
From Joe's Vault On Memorial Day: Remembering A Real American Hero
By Manifesto Joe
Originally posted on BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, Aug. 5, 2005
In an age of faux heroism, illustrated by the swagger and tough talk of our "president," we should perhaps take time to remember a real American hero.
July 30 was the birthday of Smedley D. Butler, born in 1881. Few Americans have heard of this two-time Medal of Honor winner, who rose to the rank of major general in the Marine Corps. But history teachers ought to note that Butler probably thwarted the first serious conspiracy toward a coup in the United States.
In 1933, soon after he retired from active duty, Butler alleged that he was approached by a representative of a group of super-rich business interests, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan industrial empires, with a proposition. The representative, a top Wall Street bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire, was said to have tried to recruit Butler to lead a move to strip recently inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt of his political power.
Butler testified before a congressional committee that he was promised a militia of 500,000 men for a coup, after which Butler would assume near-absolute power as "secretary of general affairs," with Roosevelt retained as a figurehead. The men behind MacGuire feared a major redistribution of wealth by an FDR administration, and they were prepared to bankroll the force needed to prevent it.
The outcome of Butler's testimony was predictable. The press, at the time mostly owned by business-friendly conservatives, generally played the story way down. The tiny "reports" that did run ridiculed Butler and said he lacked evidence. Those whom he accused of the conspiracy, including former Democratic presidential nominees Al Smith and John W. Davis, professed innocence and did not come under public scrutiny. MacGuire -- known through his correspondence to have been an admirer of Mussolini's fascist rule in Italy -- was the panel's only open-session witness besides Butler. Of course, he told the lawmakers he never made such a proposition. The allegations are now a footnote in history.
But in 1967, journalist John Spivak vindicated Butler (who died in 1940) when he uncovered the House committee's internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed the story. The panel's public report was a whitewash and even omitted the names of the powerful men whom Butler accused.
This was not the only time Butler tangled with the early U.S. military-industrial complex. He had seen its operations firsthand many times, and blew the whistle on it. In a speech delivered in 1933, the same year he went public about the conspiracy, Butler told his audience:
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the masses. ...
"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a 'Big Boss' Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
"I helped make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Today we have other names -- Iraq, Halliburton, Diebold, Rove. We've had two Bush administrations; the first was at best legally questionable, the second possibly elected through voting irregularities in the deciding state and high-tech rigging in others. The stench of war for profit, and of crypto-fascism, is in the air.
Those who discuss this odor are being either ridiculed or ignored by the mainstream media. Perhaps they will be vindicated one day, as Butler was.
Meanwhile, let's honor a real hero, a man who blew the whistle on nascent American fascism.
HISTORICAL SOURCES: Wikipedia; excerpts from an online transcript of a 1933 speech by Smedley D. Butler
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Originally posted on BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, Aug. 5, 2005
In an age of faux heroism, illustrated by the swagger and tough talk of our "president," we should perhaps take time to remember a real American hero.
July 30 was the birthday of Smedley D. Butler, born in 1881. Few Americans have heard of this two-time Medal of Honor winner, who rose to the rank of major general in the Marine Corps. But history teachers ought to note that Butler probably thwarted the first serious conspiracy toward a coup in the United States.
In 1933, soon after he retired from active duty, Butler alleged that he was approached by a representative of a group of super-rich business interests, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan industrial empires, with a proposition. The representative, a top Wall Street bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire, was said to have tried to recruit Butler to lead a move to strip recently inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt of his political power.
Butler testified before a congressional committee that he was promised a militia of 500,000 men for a coup, after which Butler would assume near-absolute power as "secretary of general affairs," with Roosevelt retained as a figurehead. The men behind MacGuire feared a major redistribution of wealth by an FDR administration, and they were prepared to bankroll the force needed to prevent it.
The outcome of Butler's testimony was predictable. The press, at the time mostly owned by business-friendly conservatives, generally played the story way down. The tiny "reports" that did run ridiculed Butler and said he lacked evidence. Those whom he accused of the conspiracy, including former Democratic presidential nominees Al Smith and John W. Davis, professed innocence and did not come under public scrutiny. MacGuire -- known through his correspondence to have been an admirer of Mussolini's fascist rule in Italy -- was the panel's only open-session witness besides Butler. Of course, he told the lawmakers he never made such a proposition. The allegations are now a footnote in history.
But in 1967, journalist John Spivak vindicated Butler (who died in 1940) when he uncovered the House committee's internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed the story. The panel's public report was a whitewash and even omitted the names of the powerful men whom Butler accused.
This was not the only time Butler tangled with the early U.S. military-industrial complex. He had seen its operations firsthand many times, and blew the whistle on it. In a speech delivered in 1933, the same year he went public about the conspiracy, Butler told his audience:
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the masses. ...
"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a 'Big Boss' Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
"I helped make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Today we have other names -- Iraq, Halliburton, Diebold, Rove. We've had two Bush administrations; the first was at best legally questionable, the second possibly elected through voting irregularities in the deciding state and high-tech rigging in others. The stench of war for profit, and of crypto-fascism, is in the air.
Those who discuss this odor are being either ridiculed or ignored by the mainstream media. Perhaps they will be vindicated one day, as Butler was.
Meanwhile, let's honor a real hero, a man who blew the whistle on nascent American fascism.
HISTORICAL SOURCES: Wikipedia; excerpts from an online transcript of a 1933 speech by Smedley D. Butler
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Rev. Rubber Room Repudiated: McCain's Hand Finally Forced On Hitler Apologist Hagee
By Manifesto Joe
It took awhile, but presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain was finally compelled to reject the endorsement of fundamentalist pond scum John Hagee. It seems that Hagee is on record as having said that Adolf Hitler was, in some way, an instrument of God in forcing Jews to go to Israel.
Granted, Hagee wasn't McCain's personal minister, which raises a distinction between this situation and that involving Sen. Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But I've had a hard time figuring out exactly why Obama was as compelled to run from Wright as he was. Wright has said a couple of kooky things, but much of it is no different from what one can read in a Noam Chomsky polemic. And Wright certainly comes across as far more intelligent, schooled -- and sane -- than Hagee.
Here's a report from Bloomberg News:
Republican John McCain today rejected the presidential endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee after revelation of an audio recording in which the Texas televangelist said that God's will was at work in the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazism.
``Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,'' the Arizona senator said in a statement released by his campaign. ``I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.''
McCain had declined previously to repudiate Hagee after reports of the pastor's earlier anti-Catholic remarks and his contention that the U.S. must join Israel in military strike against Iran. Hagee argued that the conflict would lead to a second coming of Christ.
Hagee is pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, and McCain had sought his endorsement.
Hagee isn't much different from certain other popular American televangelists in that he seems to think he has a direct line to the thinking of providence, and a special knack for interpreting Scripture.
Let's go back to what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had to say on the subject of the Sept. 11 attacks -- transcript furnished by www.truthorfiction.com:
Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."
Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."
It's all self-righteously demented, and a lot like the things Hagee was already on record as saying. But Hagee, in a moment of "youthful" indiscretion, finally went a step further in suggesting that Der Fuhrer was in some way doing the work of the Lord by carrying out the Holocaust.
On MSNBC, Republican mouthpiece Susan Molinari said, in response to today's development, that McCain, by disavowing Hagee and purging his campaign of active lobbyists, is "acting like a presidential candidate."
Yes, he is. He's acting a lot like the Republican nominee of the past two cycles. And like a couple of others of the past 30 years.
The Matter Of Rod Parsley
And Hagee isn't the only Chrust-chun kookster that McCain has courted. Mother Jones reports that:
Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.
On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."
The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.
In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:
I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.
In case there's any doubt about this, here's the video, posted on YouTube by bravenewfilms:
Perhaps McCain, in seeking so ludicrously to ally himself with the forces of the "divine," has actually made a couple of starkly different kinds of deals that he has come to regret. I, for one, intend to do all I can to make him regret them most profoundly come a Wednesday morning in November.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
It took awhile, but presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain was finally compelled to reject the endorsement of fundamentalist pond scum John Hagee. It seems that Hagee is on record as having said that Adolf Hitler was, in some way, an instrument of God in forcing Jews to go to Israel.
Granted, Hagee wasn't McCain's personal minister, which raises a distinction between this situation and that involving Sen. Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But I've had a hard time figuring out exactly why Obama was as compelled to run from Wright as he was. Wright has said a couple of kooky things, but much of it is no different from what one can read in a Noam Chomsky polemic. And Wright certainly comes across as far more intelligent, schooled -- and sane -- than Hagee.
Here's a report from Bloomberg News:
Republican John McCain today rejected the presidential endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee after revelation of an audio recording in which the Texas televangelist said that God's will was at work in the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazism.
``Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,'' the Arizona senator said in a statement released by his campaign. ``I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.''
McCain had declined previously to repudiate Hagee after reports of the pastor's earlier anti-Catholic remarks and his contention that the U.S. must join Israel in military strike against Iran. Hagee argued that the conflict would lead to a second coming of Christ.
Hagee is pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, and McCain had sought his endorsement.
Hagee isn't much different from certain other popular American televangelists in that he seems to think he has a direct line to the thinking of providence, and a special knack for interpreting Scripture.
Let's go back to what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had to say on the subject of the Sept. 11 attacks -- transcript furnished by www.truthorfiction.com:
Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."
Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."
It's all self-righteously demented, and a lot like the things Hagee was already on record as saying. But Hagee, in a moment of "youthful" indiscretion, finally went a step further in suggesting that Der Fuhrer was in some way doing the work of the Lord by carrying out the Holocaust.
On MSNBC, Republican mouthpiece Susan Molinari said, in response to today's development, that McCain, by disavowing Hagee and purging his campaign of active lobbyists, is "acting like a presidential candidate."
Yes, he is. He's acting a lot like the Republican nominee of the past two cycles. And like a couple of others of the past 30 years.
The Matter Of Rod Parsley
And Hagee isn't the only Chrust-chun kookster that McCain has courted. Mother Jones reports that:
Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.
On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."
The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.
In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:
I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.
In case there's any doubt about this, here's the video, posted on YouTube by bravenewfilms:
Perhaps McCain, in seeking so ludicrously to ally himself with the forces of the "divine," has actually made a couple of starkly different kinds of deals that he has come to regret. I, for one, intend to do all I can to make him regret them most profoundly come a Wednesday morning in November.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Update: McCain Forced To Confront Lobbyist Issue
By Manifesto Joe
Last week, in response to criticism about his habit of employing current and former lobbyists for his Republican presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain and his staff set down a new rule: No one currently working as a lobbyist can also work as a paid campaign staffer.
There was a casualty reported yesterday, and on Page One of today's Washington Post. Tom Loeffler, a former Texas GOP congressman who had been on McCain's staff as a fundraiser, resigned over his status as a lobbyist.
Here's some of what The Washington Post had:
Tom Loeffler, the national finance co-chairman for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, resigned yesterday because of his lobbying ties, a campaign adviser said.
He is the fifth person to sever ties with the campaign amid a growing concern over whether lobbyists have too great an influence over the Republican nominee. Last week, campaign manager Rick Davis issued a new policy that requires all campaign personnel to either resign or sever ties with lobbying firms or outside political groups.
The story also clarifies the question over Charlie Black, a longtime lobbyist who (see my previous post on this subject) was with a firm that has done PR for a who's who of nasty foreign dictators going all the way back to Filipino "strongman" Ferdinand Marcos:
McCain has built his reputation in Congress on fighting special interests and the lobbying culture, but he has been criticized for months about the number of lobbyists serving in key positions in his campaign. Until recently, his top political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., was the head of a Washington lobbying firm. Black retired in March from BKSH & Associates, the firm he helped found, to stay with the campaign. Davis ran a lobbying firm for several years but has said he is on leave from it.
Black, in particular, remains in the cross hairs of McCain's critics. Campaign Money Watch, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, yesterday praised Loeffler's departure but renewed its call for Black's departure. The group has launched a Web site, http://www.firethelobbyists.com, to urge McCain to rid his campaign of their influence. Loeffler's lobbying for Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments was revealed over the weekend.
McCain has steadfastly defended Black and Davis. "Charlie Black and Rick Davis are not in the lobbying business; they've been out of that business," he told reporters. "Charlie Black has been involved in every presidential campaign going back to President Reagan's first campaign. He has severed his connections with the lobbying group that he was with. Rick Davis has not been involved in any lobbying for years."
So, since Charlie Black finally retired from lobbying for international pond scum like Mobutu Sese Seko, it's more than proper for him to stay on as a McCain campaign staffer? And what about his involvement in all these presidential campaigns going back to Reagan's first? (1968, 1976, or 1980? Reagan won the GOP nomination on his third try.) And what does this suggest about the ethics and values of the modern Republican Party?
Back to Loeffler, there's the Saudi connection. (That government isn't exactly one to win over a little-d democrat's heart, is it?) More from WaPo:
Loeffler, a former congressman from Texas, is a close friend of McCain's and took over the campaign's fundraising last summer. He did not respond to e-mails or a message left on his office voice mail yesterday.
Newsweek reported that his firm, the Loeffler Group, had collected $15 million from Saudi Arabia and millions more from other foreign governments. He is listed as chairman and senior partner at the firm.
There is also the matter of past conflicts of interest involving Loeffler and the Arizona senator. ThinkProgress cited the Newsweek article:
[Loeffler’s] lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts. Loeffler last month told a reporter “at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain.” But lobbying disclosure records reviewed by NEWSWEEK show that on May 17, 2006, Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to “discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations.”
What all this indicates is that McCain, for all his grandstanding, is fundamentally no different from others in the modern Machiavellian Republican Party dating back to even Richard Nixon, in terms of ethics and values. If he wins the White House, expect more of what we've been seeing for decades.
Amusing postscript: The late, great Molly Ivins had an anecdote about Tom Loeffler. Molly wrote that Loeffler "wore shower caps on his feet while showering during a visit to San Francisco back in the '80s lest he get AIDS through his feet."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Last week, in response to criticism about his habit of employing current and former lobbyists for his Republican presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain and his staff set down a new rule: No one currently working as a lobbyist can also work as a paid campaign staffer.
There was a casualty reported yesterday, and on Page One of today's Washington Post. Tom Loeffler, a former Texas GOP congressman who had been on McCain's staff as a fundraiser, resigned over his status as a lobbyist.
Here's some of what The Washington Post had:
Tom Loeffler, the national finance co-chairman for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, resigned yesterday because of his lobbying ties, a campaign adviser said.
He is the fifth person to sever ties with the campaign amid a growing concern over whether lobbyists have too great an influence over the Republican nominee. Last week, campaign manager Rick Davis issued a new policy that requires all campaign personnel to either resign or sever ties with lobbying firms or outside political groups.
The story also clarifies the question over Charlie Black, a longtime lobbyist who (see my previous post on this subject) was with a firm that has done PR for a who's who of nasty foreign dictators going all the way back to Filipino "strongman" Ferdinand Marcos:
McCain has built his reputation in Congress on fighting special interests and the lobbying culture, but he has been criticized for months about the number of lobbyists serving in key positions in his campaign. Until recently, his top political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., was the head of a Washington lobbying firm. Black retired in March from BKSH & Associates, the firm he helped found, to stay with the campaign. Davis ran a lobbying firm for several years but has said he is on leave from it.
Black, in particular, remains in the cross hairs of McCain's critics. Campaign Money Watch, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, yesterday praised Loeffler's departure but renewed its call for Black's departure. The group has launched a Web site, http://www.firethelobbyists.com, to urge McCain to rid his campaign of their influence. Loeffler's lobbying for Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments was revealed over the weekend.
McCain has steadfastly defended Black and Davis. "Charlie Black and Rick Davis are not in the lobbying business; they've been out of that business," he told reporters. "Charlie Black has been involved in every presidential campaign going back to President Reagan's first campaign. He has severed his connections with the lobbying group that he was with. Rick Davis has not been involved in any lobbying for years."
So, since Charlie Black finally retired from lobbying for international pond scum like Mobutu Sese Seko, it's more than proper for him to stay on as a McCain campaign staffer? And what about his involvement in all these presidential campaigns going back to Reagan's first? (1968, 1976, or 1980? Reagan won the GOP nomination on his third try.) And what does this suggest about the ethics and values of the modern Republican Party?
Back to Loeffler, there's the Saudi connection. (That government isn't exactly one to win over a little-d democrat's heart, is it?) More from WaPo:
Loeffler, a former congressman from Texas, is a close friend of McCain's and took over the campaign's fundraising last summer. He did not respond to e-mails or a message left on his office voice mail yesterday.
Newsweek reported that his firm, the Loeffler Group, had collected $15 million from Saudi Arabia and millions more from other foreign governments. He is listed as chairman and senior partner at the firm.
There is also the matter of past conflicts of interest involving Loeffler and the Arizona senator. ThinkProgress cited the Newsweek article:
[Loeffler’s] lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts. Loeffler last month told a reporter “at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain.” But lobbying disclosure records reviewed by NEWSWEEK show that on May 17, 2006, Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to “discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations.”
What all this indicates is that McCain, for all his grandstanding, is fundamentally no different from others in the modern Machiavellian Republican Party dating back to even Richard Nixon, in terms of ethics and values. If he wins the White House, expect more of what we've been seeing for decades.
Amusing postscript: The late, great Molly Ivins had an anecdote about Tom Loeffler. Molly wrote that Loeffler "wore shower caps on his feet while showering during a visit to San Francisco back in the '80s lest he get AIDS through his feet."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
McCain: Time To Come Clean About Your Lobbyists' Links To Homicidal Dictators
By Manifesto Joe
Sen. John McCain did a fair job in the past of selling himself as a "maverick" Republican -- you know, not one of those whose knees both jerk when Rush Limbaugh's right knee does. I have a vague yet fond memory of him calling Herr Lardbaugh "a circus clown."
But apparently ambition can get the best of people. Or perhaps they never were what they depicted themselves as. Amid all the volleys flying about in the presidential race, it came out early this week that McCain's campaign has been employing lobbyists who have worked for blood-stained foreign dictatorships, and for tidy sums.
The one they call Charlie Black is the senator's "chief political adviser," according to The Washington Post. Here's a current report on Charlie Black's experience as a lobbyist, from Progressive Media USA:
Black Enlisted to Improve Marcos’s Image. The Globe and Mail reported, “A politically well-connected U.S. lobbying firm is being paid nearly $1-million to help a Philippine client linked with President Ferdinand Marcos, and some analysts believe its task is to improve Mr. Marcos’ image.” “The firm, Black, Manafort & Stone Public Affairs, began a year-long contract with a client called the Chamber of Philippines Manufacturers, Exporters and Tourist Associations.” “Stanley Roth, who serves on the staff of a congressional subcommittee investigating Mr. Marcos’ business dealings in the United States, called the arrangement ‘just means of Marcos hiring a public relations firm.’ Under the terms of the contract, the suburban Washington-based concern is to be paid $950,000 plus expenses to provide ‘advice and assistance on matters relating to the media, public relations and public affairs interests’ as well as lobbying services.” [The Globe and Mail, 12/20/85]
Meet Charlie Black: lobbyist, political scientist, public relations man for homicidal dictators. As far as I can gather from the latest news dispatches, Charlie is still on the John McCain payroll.
But wait, there's more:
While Black Lobbied for Somalia, Siad Barre’s Army Killed 40,000 – 50,000 Civilians. The Associated Press reported, “The Somali army killed 40,000 to 50,000 unarmed civilians between June 1988 and January 1990, according to human rights group Africa Watch.” [Associated Press, 1/2/95]
Black Lobbied for Zaire’s Dictator. Black, Manafort, Stone lobbied for “Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire.” The “military dictator, Mobuto, was a $1 million-per-year Black, Manafort client until December 1990.” [Common Cause Magazine, Winter 1993; Department of Justice, FARA database, accessed 2/26/08]
There's actually much more than that, but space limitations compel me to keep things relatively brief. Just bear in mind that this is one of Mad Jack's main men.
Granted, there are now a couple of dudes who are no longer on The Straitjacket Express. They were the ones who had to fall on their swords. This is from a recent post on MSNBC:
Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport, the two McCain aides who resigned from positions within the GOP contender's campaign, stepped down this weekend after Newsweek reported that their lobbying firm, Washington power player DCI Group, represented Myanmar's military junta in 2002 to the tune of $348,000.
It should be noted that Mr. Goodyear was, until his resignation, heading McCain's GOP convention team. That's not a small post to award someone without checking their background -- or perhaps figuring instead that no one important would ever know.
In 2008, we're in a political mode of Barack Obama having to give multiple speeches explaining that he differs markedly from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on crucial issues. So perhaps this calls for, at the very least, an explanation from McCain to the effect that he doesn't agree with lobbyists who promoted murderous dictators for pay. It seems appropriate and equitable for Mr. Black to get his walking papers, too. I'm sure he will prosper in his Faustian bargains for many years to come, so no one should worry.
Except maybe John McCain?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sen. John McCain did a fair job in the past of selling himself as a "maverick" Republican -- you know, not one of those whose knees both jerk when Rush Limbaugh's right knee does. I have a vague yet fond memory of him calling Herr Lardbaugh "a circus clown."
But apparently ambition can get the best of people. Or perhaps they never were what they depicted themselves as. Amid all the volleys flying about in the presidential race, it came out early this week that McCain's campaign has been employing lobbyists who have worked for blood-stained foreign dictatorships, and for tidy sums.
The one they call Charlie Black is the senator's "chief political adviser," according to The Washington Post. Here's a current report on Charlie Black's experience as a lobbyist, from Progressive Media USA:
Black Enlisted to Improve Marcos’s Image. The Globe and Mail reported, “A politically well-connected U.S. lobbying firm is being paid nearly $1-million to help a Philippine client linked with President Ferdinand Marcos, and some analysts believe its task is to improve Mr. Marcos’ image.” “The firm, Black, Manafort & Stone Public Affairs, began a year-long contract with a client called the Chamber of Philippines Manufacturers, Exporters and Tourist Associations.” “Stanley Roth, who serves on the staff of a congressional subcommittee investigating Mr. Marcos’ business dealings in the United States, called the arrangement ‘just means of Marcos hiring a public relations firm.’ Under the terms of the contract, the suburban Washington-based concern is to be paid $950,000 plus expenses to provide ‘advice and assistance on matters relating to the media, public relations and public affairs interests’ as well as lobbying services.” [The Globe and Mail, 12/20/85]
Meet Charlie Black: lobbyist, political scientist, public relations man for homicidal dictators. As far as I can gather from the latest news dispatches, Charlie is still on the John McCain payroll.
But wait, there's more:
While Black Lobbied for Somalia, Siad Barre’s Army Killed 40,000 – 50,000 Civilians. The Associated Press reported, “The Somali army killed 40,000 to 50,000 unarmed civilians between June 1988 and January 1990, according to human rights group Africa Watch.” [Associated Press, 1/2/95]
Black Lobbied for Zaire’s Dictator. Black, Manafort, Stone lobbied for “Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire.” The “military dictator, Mobuto, was a $1 million-per-year Black, Manafort client until December 1990.” [Common Cause Magazine, Winter 1993; Department of Justice, FARA database, accessed 2/26/08]
There's actually much more than that, but space limitations compel me to keep things relatively brief. Just bear in mind that this is one of Mad Jack's main men.
Granted, there are now a couple of dudes who are no longer on The Straitjacket Express. They were the ones who had to fall on their swords. This is from a recent post on MSNBC:
Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport, the two McCain aides who resigned from positions within the GOP contender's campaign, stepped down this weekend after Newsweek reported that their lobbying firm, Washington power player DCI Group, represented Myanmar's military junta in 2002 to the tune of $348,000.
It should be noted that Mr. Goodyear was, until his resignation, heading McCain's GOP convention team. That's not a small post to award someone without checking their background -- or perhaps figuring instead that no one important would ever know.
In 2008, we're in a political mode of Barack Obama having to give multiple speeches explaining that he differs markedly from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on crucial issues. So perhaps this calls for, at the very least, an explanation from McCain to the effect that he doesn't agree with lobbyists who promoted murderous dictators for pay. It seems appropriate and equitable for Mr. Black to get his walking papers, too. I'm sure he will prosper in his Faustian bargains for many years to come, so no one should worry.
Except maybe John McCain?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, May 12, 2008
If I Wuz A Trrrrrist ...
This video, posted by HillbillyReport on YouTube, should explain itself -- MJ
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Blue Dogs: DINOs Could Be More Of A Problem Next Year
By Manifesto Joe
Imagine it's January 2009. A Democratic president has just been inaugurated. In the Senate, the party has won a 60-vote supermajority, enough to invoke cloture on Republican filibuster attempts. For liberals and progressives, it's party time.
But there's one big problem -- by April, it's apparent that a number of crucial bills can't get through the House of Representatives. The problem is the group of lawmakers known to some as the Blue Dogs, to others as Democrats in Name Only (DINOs).
You can recognize them by their voting records. Americans for Democratic Action rates members of Congress on a liberal/conservative dichotomy. When you spot one who's got a voting record like a moderate Republican of old (not the Republicans who are being characterized as "moderates" now), that's a Blue Dog.
The potential for this to become a big problem for any new Democratic administration became clear Thursday during a House fight over GI educational benefits. The Web site Politico reported in its feature called "The Crypt":
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) issued a stern rebuke to a group of fellow House Democrats on Thursday, saying that the behavior of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition was “absolutely shameful,” after the group revolted on Wednesday over the cost of veterans’ educations benefits in a war funding measure, delaying consideration of the $183 billion supplemental spending bill.
“It is absolutely shameful that members of the Blue Dog coalition would vote to take this country into Iraq on false intelligence and lies, repeatedly vote to fund the disastrous military occupation of that country, but choose to turn their backs on the brave members of our armed forces by refusing to support an expansion of education benefits for them when they come home,” Hinchey said in a statement. ...
House Democrats were forced to postpone consideration of the measure after many Blue Dogs objected to the bill, saying a provision to provide education benefits for returning soldiers violates “pay-as-you-go” rules, which require offsetting new spending.
The veterans benefits package was estimated to cost $720 million for the first two years of the program.
Many Blue Dogs argued the GI benefits package was tantamount to creating a new entitlement program and thus should be offset, an argument that did not sit well with Hinchey, who has long opposed the Iraq war.
“This is a slap in the face to our servicemen and women who courageously risk their lives each day in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” Hinchey said.
“The idea that these benefits should be subject to pay-go is ridiculous,” Hinchey said in an interview. Instead, Hinchey argued that providing returning soldiers with a college education is an investment that will benefit the country far more than paying for reconstruction in Iraq. ...
“How can the Blue Dog coalition possibly say that an expansion of education benefits is too costly when their votes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq violate the same pay-as-you-go rules they claim to so deeply respect?”
The "fiscally conservative" Bloo Dawgs, among them Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, not only didn't back down but pushed back. Ross pointed out that a number of Blue Dog caucus members are veterans.
I, for one, was less than impressed with their response, and found Hinchey's comments rather damning. On the scale of federal spending, this is penny wisdom and pound foolishness.
Imagine it's January 2009. A Democratic president has just been inaugurated. In the Senate, the party has won a 60-vote supermajority, enough to invoke cloture on Republican filibuster attempts. For liberals and progressives, it's party time.
But there's one big problem -- by April, it's apparent that a number of crucial bills can't get through the House of Representatives. The problem is the group of lawmakers known to some as the Blue Dogs, to others as Democrats in Name Only (DINOs).
You can recognize them by their voting records. Americans for Democratic Action rates members of Congress on a liberal/conservative dichotomy. When you spot one who's got a voting record like a moderate Republican of old (not the Republicans who are being characterized as "moderates" now), that's a Blue Dog.
The potential for this to become a big problem for any new Democratic administration became clear Thursday during a House fight over GI educational benefits. The Web site Politico reported in its feature called "The Crypt":
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) issued a stern rebuke to a group of fellow House Democrats on Thursday, saying that the behavior of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition was “absolutely shameful,” after the group revolted on Wednesday over the cost of veterans’ educations benefits in a war funding measure, delaying consideration of the $183 billion supplemental spending bill.
“It is absolutely shameful that members of the Blue Dog coalition would vote to take this country into Iraq on false intelligence and lies, repeatedly vote to fund the disastrous military occupation of that country, but choose to turn their backs on the brave members of our armed forces by refusing to support an expansion of education benefits for them when they come home,” Hinchey said in a statement. ...
House Democrats were forced to postpone consideration of the measure after many Blue Dogs objected to the bill, saying a provision to provide education benefits for returning soldiers violates “pay-as-you-go” rules, which require offsetting new spending.
The veterans benefits package was estimated to cost $720 million for the first two years of the program.
Many Blue Dogs argued the GI benefits package was tantamount to creating a new entitlement program and thus should be offset, an argument that did not sit well with Hinchey, who has long opposed the Iraq war.
“This is a slap in the face to our servicemen and women who courageously risk their lives each day in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” Hinchey said.
“The idea that these benefits should be subject to pay-go is ridiculous,” Hinchey said in an interview. Instead, Hinchey argued that providing returning soldiers with a college education is an investment that will benefit the country far more than paying for reconstruction in Iraq. ...
“How can the Blue Dog coalition possibly say that an expansion of education benefits is too costly when their votes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq violate the same pay-as-you-go rules they claim to so deeply respect?”
The "fiscally conservative" Bloo Dawgs, among them Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, not only didn't back down but pushed back. Ross pointed out that a number of Blue Dog caucus members are veterans.
I, for one, was less than impressed with their response, and found Hinchey's comments rather damning. On the scale of federal spending, this is penny wisdom and pound foolishness.
The $3 trillion (estimated cost to the U.S. -- read here) folly known as the Iraq war is arguably the most fiscally irresponsible thing our government has ever perpetrated. And the Blue Dogs are worried about $720 million over two years? That's chump change compared to what they've been complicit in.
But back to next year. Even if the Democrats have wishes come true in November, it's inevitable that many of the returning members of their House majority will be Blue Dog DINOs.
Republican obstruction could turn out to be among the least of the leadership's worries. This underscores the importance of primaries, and of electing real Democrats, not "fiscally responsible" poseurs.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, May 5, 2008
A Green Zone Of Hotels And Amusement Parks: Six Plagues Over Baghdad
By Manifesto Joe
There is a place, right next door to hell, that stays under regular mortar and rocket fire, and there's no working sewer system. My wife has a first cousin who was a contract worker in the Baghdad Green Zone for a year, and she's been doing the PTSD thousand-yard stare much of the time since she returned.
But developers envision condos, luxury hotels, amusement parks and high-end shopping there -- and in the not-so-distant future. And the Pentagon is with them, all the way and more.
Welcome to the Green Zone of Western dreams. It's an air-conditioned yuppie paradise rising from sun-baked rubble. Starbucks, Macy's, Neiman-Marcus, Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, an Audi dealership, and a few of those ice bars that are so popular now in oil-rich Arab cities (no booze in Muslimland, of course).
It's everything that a well-paid Halliburton type could ask for, except that the beer, wine and martini gin would come from smuggling or the black market.
Sound crazy? Well, lunacy has been sold more than once within the past seven or so years. It's a real plan, and here are some details, as reported by The Associated Press:
For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy to serve as a kind of high-end buffer for the compound, whose total price tag will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.
"When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time," said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.
Karnowski said a deal already has been completed for Marriott International Inc. to build a hotel in the Green Zone. He also said a possible $1 billion investment could come from MBI International, a conglomerate that focuses on hotels and resorts and is led by Saudi Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber.
For the moment, however, it's mortars and rockets — not investment money — pouring into the Green Zone, which includes the U.S. and British embassies, key Iraqi government offices and other international compounds. Militants have escalated their shelling of the enclave since Iraqi forces began a crackdown on Shiite militias in late March.
But developers are clearly looking many years ahead and gambling that Baghdad could one day join the list of former war zones such as Sarajevo and Beirut that have rebounded and earned big paydays for early investors.
If it wasn't official before, I think it is now: One can dredge up, just about any place, anytime, wealthy vermin who are more than willing to capitalize on the organic rot of human misery, like maggots feeding on compost. It's so predictable.
And, our government is more than willing to encourage this, but not because of any economic concern for the Iraqi on the street. It's so that they can surround that new U.S. Embassy, the one that is supposed to top out bigger than the Vatican, with lots of swell commerce and housing so that perhaps the neighborhood guerrillas will think twice before shelling it.
Just when I think I've seen and heard it all, damn, I haven't. But wait, there's more:
Last week, a Los Angeles-based holding company for equity firms, C3, confirmed it was starting a $500 million project to build an amusement park on the outskirts of the Green Zone in an area encompassing the Baghdad Zoo. The first phase, a skateboard park, is scheduled to open this summer.
The investors' gamble is that by the time they get Six Plagues Over Baghdad completely open, conditions will have quieted considerably. It's just a matter of time, and staying the course.
Yeah. Like, where have we heard that one before?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
There is a place, right next door to hell, that stays under regular mortar and rocket fire, and there's no working sewer system. My wife has a first cousin who was a contract worker in the Baghdad Green Zone for a year, and she's been doing the PTSD thousand-yard stare much of the time since she returned.
But developers envision condos, luxury hotels, amusement parks and high-end shopping there -- and in the not-so-distant future. And the Pentagon is with them, all the way and more.
Welcome to the Green Zone of Western dreams. It's an air-conditioned yuppie paradise rising from sun-baked rubble. Starbucks, Macy's, Neiman-Marcus, Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, an Audi dealership, and a few of those ice bars that are so popular now in oil-rich Arab cities (no booze in Muslimland, of course).
It's everything that a well-paid Halliburton type could ask for, except that the beer, wine and martini gin would come from smuggling or the black market.
Sound crazy? Well, lunacy has been sold more than once within the past seven or so years. It's a real plan, and here are some details, as reported by The Associated Press:
For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy to serve as a kind of high-end buffer for the compound, whose total price tag will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.
"When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time," said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.
Karnowski said a deal already has been completed for Marriott International Inc. to build a hotel in the Green Zone. He also said a possible $1 billion investment could come from MBI International, a conglomerate that focuses on hotels and resorts and is led by Saudi Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber.
For the moment, however, it's mortars and rockets — not investment money — pouring into the Green Zone, which includes the U.S. and British embassies, key Iraqi government offices and other international compounds. Militants have escalated their shelling of the enclave since Iraqi forces began a crackdown on Shiite militias in late March.
But developers are clearly looking many years ahead and gambling that Baghdad could one day join the list of former war zones such as Sarajevo and Beirut that have rebounded and earned big paydays for early investors.
If it wasn't official before, I think it is now: One can dredge up, just about any place, anytime, wealthy vermin who are more than willing to capitalize on the organic rot of human misery, like maggots feeding on compost. It's so predictable.
And, our government is more than willing to encourage this, but not because of any economic concern for the Iraqi on the street. It's so that they can surround that new U.S. Embassy, the one that is supposed to top out bigger than the Vatican, with lots of swell commerce and housing so that perhaps the neighborhood guerrillas will think twice before shelling it.
Just when I think I've seen and heard it all, damn, I haven't. But wait, there's more:
Last week, a Los Angeles-based holding company for equity firms, C3, confirmed it was starting a $500 million project to build an amusement park on the outskirts of the Green Zone in an area encompassing the Baghdad Zoo. The first phase, a skateboard park, is scheduled to open this summer.
The investors' gamble is that by the time they get Six Plagues Over Baghdad completely open, conditions will have quieted considerably. It's just a matter of time, and staying the course.
Yeah. Like, where have we heard that one before?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Manifesto Joe's Great Moments In Conservative History, Chapter 8: Fox News Has Lincoln Debating Frederick Douglass
By Manifesto Joe
The Pythons (as in Monty) couldn't have done better than this. The American history scholars at Fox News aired this Monday, in an attempted reference to Hillary Clinton's debate challenge to Barack Obama. A lot of bloggers and pundits got to the item before I did, but hey, better late than never for something this priceless:
An intern apparently had to take the rap for this screw-up, but the immaculately groomed boobs on the air seemed pretty oblivious as well. The conservative spin would be to blame it on the deficiencies of our public school system. You know, the one that pays so poorly that brighter teachers tend to leave the profession post haste.
Others went on to have fun with this gem:
And more fun still:
When Joseph Pulitzer was asked, what are the three most important things in journalism, he is said to have replied, "Accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy."
Fox must be sharing a fact-checking intern with Rush Limbaugh. They "report." This time, some of us get to deride.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The Pythons (as in Monty) couldn't have done better than this. The American history scholars at Fox News aired this Monday, in an attempted reference to Hillary Clinton's debate challenge to Barack Obama. A lot of bloggers and pundits got to the item before I did, but hey, better late than never for something this priceless:
An intern apparently had to take the rap for this screw-up, but the immaculately groomed boobs on the air seemed pretty oblivious as well. The conservative spin would be to blame it on the deficiencies of our public school system. You know, the one that pays so poorly that brighter teachers tend to leave the profession post haste.
Others went on to have fun with this gem:
And more fun still:
When Joseph Pulitzer was asked, what are the three most important things in journalism, he is said to have replied, "Accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy."
Fox must be sharing a fact-checking intern with Rush Limbaugh. They "report." This time, some of us get to deride.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, April 28, 2008
A Compliment To Jeremiah Wright: Reverend, You're No John Hagee
In perusing YouTube, I found contrasting videos that vividly illustrate something: Barack Obama shouldn't have to be ducking any association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Agree with him or not, Wright is a gifted preacher and a genuine intellectual. "Pastor" John Hagee, who has endorsed John McCain for president, is at best a demented, foolish zealot, and at worst an opportunistic bigot.
McCain has been largely given a news media pass on his association with Hagee, a man who actually said that Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on that modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah, New Orleans. (It's on one of the videos to follow.)
Well, enough from this Jeremiah. Let's go on to the one called Wright. And then, to John the Rubber-Room Baptist. -- MJ
Intermission. Have a barf bag ready.
Any questions, class?
McCain has been largely given a news media pass on his association with Hagee, a man who actually said that Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on that modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah, New Orleans. (It's on one of the videos to follow.)
Well, enough from this Jeremiah. Let's go on to the one called Wright. And then, to John the Rubber-Room Baptist. -- MJ
Intermission. Have a barf bag ready.
Any questions, class?
World Food Riots: When The 'Free' Market Starves Many Millions
By Manifesto Joe
"Free" market dogma and stereotypes have long portrayed "socialism" and protectionism as ideologies that bring only poverty and hunger to nations. There is some modest historical evidence for that case. Yet now, after decades of globalization, neoliberalism, deregulation, tearing down trade barriers and such, world food prices are alarmingly inflated. Food riots are erupting all over the developing world.
The Bush administration's response to a suddenly burgeoning crisis has been predictably pathetic. Congress has been ineffectual as well. The modern agricultural marketplace, with aggressive and skewed export policies and overemphasis on "free" trade, has brought the U.S. and the world the latest in a cluster of existential crises.
Well-fed Americans can truly no longer just look the other way while many millions around the globe go hungry. World hunger is a threat to our own national security.
Oakland Institute Executive Director Anuradha Mittal, writing for AlterNet, reports:
World food prices rose by 39 percent in the last year. Rice alone rose to a 19-year high in March - an increase of 50 per cent in two weeks alone - while the real price of wheat has hit a 28-year high.
As a result, food riots erupted in Egypt, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen. For the 3 billion people in the world who subsist on $2 a day or less, the leap in food prices is a killer. They spend a majority of their income on food, and when the price goes up, they can't afford to feed themselves or their families.
Analysts have pointed to some obvious causes, such as increased demand from China and India, whose economies are booming. Rising fuel and fertilizer costs, increased use of bio-fuels and climate change have all played a part.
But less obvious causes have also had a profound effect on food prices.
Over the last few decades, the United States, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have used their leverage to impose devastating policies on developing countries. By requiring countries to open up their agriculture market to giant multinational companies, by insisting that countries dismantle their marketing boards and by persuading them to specialize in exportable cash crops such as coffee, cocoa, cotton and even flowers, they have driven the poorest countries into a downward spiral.
In the last thirty years, developing countries that used to be self-sufficient in food have turned into large food importers. Dismantling of marketing boards that kept commodities in a rolling stock to be released in event of a bad harvest, thus protecting both producers and consumers against sharp rises or drops in prices, has further worsened the situation.
Those policies of marketing boards, of keeping commodities in a rolling stock in the event of a poor harvest, sound a lot like Keynesian economics in principle, do they not? It's analogous to, in government fiscal policy, running a surplus in good times and a deficit in bad. That's classic Keynes.
Regulation and planning, when done judiciously, moderately and in the genuine public interest, are suddenly looking very wise. Too bad so few people have been heeding that viewpoint for the past 30 years.
From The Washington Post, we have a report on what the Beltway People are doing. The report:
The Bush administration and Congress have been caught flat-footed by rapidly escalating global food prices and are scrambling to respond to a crisis that they increasingly view as a threat to U.S. national security, according to government officials, congressional staffers and human rights experts.
(Never mind all those hungry bellies. National security is Job One.)
The White House released $200 million in emergency wheat stores for developing countries last week ...
Top Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are pressing the White House to devote more money to emergency food aid ...
But administration officials and legislative aides acknowledge that they have only recently begun to focus on the severity of the problem, and humanitarian groups fear that assistance from the United States, which supplies about half of the world's total food aid, may come too late to provide much benefit in the near term.
It is an especially horrible problem in Haiti, one of the Western Hemisphere's poorest countries. Local rice production has been gradually undermined by "market" preference for exports from Florida, rendering the nation much less able to feed its struggling population than ever before. The crisis recently cost Haitian Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis his job.
Poor people down there are literally eating cookies made partially from mud. I'm not joking; there are stories and photos about this. Impoverished Haitians are really doing anything, and everything, that can be done to fill empty bellies.
Welcome to the New World Order -- it's a lot different from the one advertised 15 or 20 years ago. Most of the world literally got f**ked on the altar of "free" enterprise and globalism.
Mittal goes on to make what seem like very sane suggestions to prevent mass starvation:
First, it is essential to have safety nets and public distribution systems put in place. Donor countries should provide more aid immediately to support government efforts in poor countries and respond to appeals from U.N. agencies, which are desperately seeking $500 million by May 1.
Second, we should help affected countries develop their agricultural sectors to feed more of their own people and decrease their dependence on food imports. We should promote production and consumption of local crops raised by small, sustainable farms instead of growing cash crops for western markets. And we should support a country's effort to manage stocks and pricing so as to limit the volatility of food prices.
To embrace these crucial policies, however, we need to stop worshipping the golden calf of the so-called free market and embrace, instead, the principle of food sovereignty. Every country and every people have a right to food that is affordable. When the market deprives them of this, it is the market that has to give.
Amen, bro. Now try telling that to American Republicans, and in particular to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. You know, one of the three people from among whom we will choose the next U.S. president. That's a chilling thought.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
"Free" market dogma and stereotypes have long portrayed "socialism" and protectionism as ideologies that bring only poverty and hunger to nations. There is some modest historical evidence for that case. Yet now, after decades of globalization, neoliberalism, deregulation, tearing down trade barriers and such, world food prices are alarmingly inflated. Food riots are erupting all over the developing world.
The Bush administration's response to a suddenly burgeoning crisis has been predictably pathetic. Congress has been ineffectual as well. The modern agricultural marketplace, with aggressive and skewed export policies and overemphasis on "free" trade, has brought the U.S. and the world the latest in a cluster of existential crises.
Well-fed Americans can truly no longer just look the other way while many millions around the globe go hungry. World hunger is a threat to our own national security.
Oakland Institute Executive Director Anuradha Mittal, writing for AlterNet, reports:
World food prices rose by 39 percent in the last year. Rice alone rose to a 19-year high in March - an increase of 50 per cent in two weeks alone - while the real price of wheat has hit a 28-year high.
As a result, food riots erupted in Egypt, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen. For the 3 billion people in the world who subsist on $2 a day or less, the leap in food prices is a killer. They spend a majority of their income on food, and when the price goes up, they can't afford to feed themselves or their families.
Analysts have pointed to some obvious causes, such as increased demand from China and India, whose economies are booming. Rising fuel and fertilizer costs, increased use of bio-fuels and climate change have all played a part.
But less obvious causes have also had a profound effect on food prices.
Over the last few decades, the United States, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have used their leverage to impose devastating policies on developing countries. By requiring countries to open up their agriculture market to giant multinational companies, by insisting that countries dismantle their marketing boards and by persuading them to specialize in exportable cash crops such as coffee, cocoa, cotton and even flowers, they have driven the poorest countries into a downward spiral.
In the last thirty years, developing countries that used to be self-sufficient in food have turned into large food importers. Dismantling of marketing boards that kept commodities in a rolling stock to be released in event of a bad harvest, thus protecting both producers and consumers against sharp rises or drops in prices, has further worsened the situation.
Those policies of marketing boards, of keeping commodities in a rolling stock in the event of a poor harvest, sound a lot like Keynesian economics in principle, do they not? It's analogous to, in government fiscal policy, running a surplus in good times and a deficit in bad. That's classic Keynes.
Regulation and planning, when done judiciously, moderately and in the genuine public interest, are suddenly looking very wise. Too bad so few people have been heeding that viewpoint for the past 30 years.
From The Washington Post, we have a report on what the Beltway People are doing. The report:
The Bush administration and Congress have been caught flat-footed by rapidly escalating global food prices and are scrambling to respond to a crisis that they increasingly view as a threat to U.S. national security, according to government officials, congressional staffers and human rights experts.
(Never mind all those hungry bellies. National security is Job One.)
The White House released $200 million in emergency wheat stores for developing countries last week ...
Top Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are pressing the White House to devote more money to emergency food aid ...
But administration officials and legislative aides acknowledge that they have only recently begun to focus on the severity of the problem, and humanitarian groups fear that assistance from the United States, which supplies about half of the world's total food aid, may come too late to provide much benefit in the near term.
It is an especially horrible problem in Haiti, one of the Western Hemisphere's poorest countries. Local rice production has been gradually undermined by "market" preference for exports from Florida, rendering the nation much less able to feed its struggling population than ever before. The crisis recently cost Haitian Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis his job.
Poor people down there are literally eating cookies made partially from mud. I'm not joking; there are stories and photos about this. Impoverished Haitians are really doing anything, and everything, that can be done to fill empty bellies.
Welcome to the New World Order -- it's a lot different from the one advertised 15 or 20 years ago. Most of the world literally got f**ked on the altar of "free" enterprise and globalism.
Mittal goes on to make what seem like very sane suggestions to prevent mass starvation:
First, it is essential to have safety nets and public distribution systems put in place. Donor countries should provide more aid immediately to support government efforts in poor countries and respond to appeals from U.N. agencies, which are desperately seeking $500 million by May 1.
Second, we should help affected countries develop their agricultural sectors to feed more of their own people and decrease their dependence on food imports. We should promote production and consumption of local crops raised by small, sustainable farms instead of growing cash crops for western markets. And we should support a country's effort to manage stocks and pricing so as to limit the volatility of food prices.
To embrace these crucial policies, however, we need to stop worshipping the golden calf of the so-called free market and embrace, instead, the principle of food sovereignty. Every country and every people have a right to food that is affordable. When the market deprives them of this, it is the market that has to give.
Amen, bro. Now try telling that to American Republicans, and in particular to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. You know, one of the three people from among whom we will choose the next U.S. president. That's a chilling thought.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Belated Appreciation For The Insanity Of Captain Beefheart
Here's a video incorporating Don Van Vliet's surrealist song titled Tropical Hot Dog Night (1978), posted by flowerpunkchip on YouTube:
For those who prefer, here's a more straight-up rendition:
Madness, on occasion, can be exquisite. -- MJ
For those who prefer, here's a more straight-up rendition:
Madness, on occasion, can be exquisite. -- MJ
Monday, April 21, 2008
Blast From The Recent Past: Olbermann Calls Il Doofus A Fascist
I missed this when it came out in February, after that "spontaneous" Republican walkout from the House. It's a good enough comment to do a redux now, many weeks later. This was posted on YouTube on Valentine's Day by CSPANJUNKIEdotORG.
Just how long the media moguls are going to let Keith Olbermann do this sort of thing on MSNBC is a question to ponder. In many places, he would not merely be suspended or fired. He would go to a concentration camp, or perhaps just disappear. The Pinochet regime in Chile had a trick, I've read, where they would just fly a plane off the coast, with a suspected dissident on board, then just eject the person over open water. Like, we'll let the sharks do the rest.
Well, on with the show, this is it. -- MJ:
Just how long the media moguls are going to let Keith Olbermann do this sort of thing on MSNBC is a question to ponder. In many places, he would not merely be suspended or fired. He would go to a concentration camp, or perhaps just disappear. The Pinochet regime in Chile had a trick, I've read, where they would just fly a plane off the coast, with a suspected dissident on board, then just eject the person over open water. Like, we'll let the sharks do the rest.
Well, on with the show, this is it. -- MJ:
Cornyn Watch: The Apparatchik Has Mucho Dinero, So Noriega Vs. Cornyn Will Be David Vs. Goliath
By Manifesto Joe
In Texas, we've gotten used to perennially uneven contests. They reflect a dysfunctional plutocracy, and then the beneficiaries try to pass it off as "democratic."
The latest on Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas and shill supreme for Il Doofus, is that he's floating (not swimming -- that actually takes work) atop a veritable ocean of donations. According to the April 20 "PoliTex" blog of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
The first-term Republican announced this week (now last) that he has raised $1.6 million since winning the March primary in a walk. That gives him $8.7 million in the bank for his race against Democratic state Rep. Rick Noriega. ...
Noriega's camp said the Houston Democrat raised $478,548 for the first quarter of 2008 and has about $329,000 on hand.
It's easy to understand why Texas isn't the best place to go up against the smug forces of evil plutocracy in America. It's practically Ground Zero for that: all those oil and natural gas thieves, reactionary agricultural interests, unregulated scam businesses, practitioners of the new sex slavery, human trafficking, sweatshops ... you name it, we've got it.
A fight for decency has got to start somewhere.
John Cornyn, with his laissez-faire Republican philosophy, represents, at best, an ineffectual, privileged status quo. At worst, he is a de facto mouthpiece for the very people who brought the underground Third World here. As one of the typical "conservatives" of his generation who demonizes government, he always played into the hands of the wealthy who routinely hired undocumented gardeners and maids because they worked cheap. But now, the monied ones are unseemly indignant when the restaurant help can't speak a lot of English. Such an inconvenience.
Enter state Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston. This is a man who embodies the greatness of Texas' Hispanic heritage, one who could show us the path to a far better state. If Rick can get the crucial backing he needs, I think he has a real chance to topple our reigning Ken Doll in November.
More about Rick, from his Web site:
Rick was raised in Houston, Texas. He graduated from Mt. Carmel High School in 1976 and attended Alvin Junior College on a Rusk athletic scholarship. It was during these formative years that he learned to work hard to get far in life.
In 1984, Rick completed his undergraduate education with the help of an ROTC scholarship at the University of Houston, receiving his commission in the United States Army. He went on to earn a Master's Degree in Public Administration in 1990 at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he was an editor of the Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy.
Rick felt compelled to answer the call and serve in the U.S. Army in the wake of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. He was an airborne school and service commander of the 143rd Infantry Detachment (Long-Range Surveillance), an aide to Brigadier General David Heuer, and aide-de-camp to General Samuel Turk, Adjutant General of the Texas Army National Guard.
But Rick's service in the Army did not end there. He became a Lieutenant Colonel in the Texas Army National Guard, and served as deputy garrison commander of the KMTC training facility in Kabul, Afghanistan after 9/11. Rick was deployed in Afghanistan for a total of 14 months until August 2005, and he was also the Laredo Border Sector Commander in Operation Jump Start during the summer of 2006.
Upon his return from Afghanistan, Rick was tapped by Mayor Bill White as Incident Commander of Houston's Hurricane Katrina relief efforts at the George R. Brown Convention Center. His leadership with the military, as well as his record in community service, was crucial as the GRB was transformed into a virtual city that cared for nearly 30,000 evacuees, and was then dismantled in the course of less than a month. At the center, Rick coordinated medical, employment, travel, housing and food services for more than 2,000 evacuees living on-site.
In Texas, we've gotten used to perennially uneven contests. They reflect a dysfunctional plutocracy, and then the beneficiaries try to pass it off as "democratic."
The latest on Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas and shill supreme for Il Doofus, is that he's floating (not swimming -- that actually takes work) atop a veritable ocean of donations. According to the April 20 "PoliTex" blog of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
The first-term Republican announced this week (now last) that he has raised $1.6 million since winning the March primary in a walk. That gives him $8.7 million in the bank for his race against Democratic state Rep. Rick Noriega. ...
Noriega's camp said the Houston Democrat raised $478,548 for the first quarter of 2008 and has about $329,000 on hand.
It's easy to understand why Texas isn't the best place to go up against the smug forces of evil plutocracy in America. It's practically Ground Zero for that: all those oil and natural gas thieves, reactionary agricultural interests, unregulated scam businesses, practitioners of the new sex slavery, human trafficking, sweatshops ... you name it, we've got it.
A fight for decency has got to start somewhere.
John Cornyn, with his laissez-faire Republican philosophy, represents, at best, an ineffectual, privileged status quo. At worst, he is a de facto mouthpiece for the very people who brought the underground Third World here. As one of the typical "conservatives" of his generation who demonizes government, he always played into the hands of the wealthy who routinely hired undocumented gardeners and maids because they worked cheap. But now, the monied ones are unseemly indignant when the restaurant help can't speak a lot of English. Such an inconvenience.
Enter state Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston. This is a man who embodies the greatness of Texas' Hispanic heritage, one who could show us the path to a far better state. If Rick can get the crucial backing he needs, I think he has a real chance to topple our reigning Ken Doll in November.
More about Rick, from his Web site:
Rick was raised in Houston, Texas. He graduated from Mt. Carmel High School in 1976 and attended Alvin Junior College on a Rusk athletic scholarship. It was during these formative years that he learned to work hard to get far in life.
In 1984, Rick completed his undergraduate education with the help of an ROTC scholarship at the University of Houston, receiving his commission in the United States Army. He went on to earn a Master's Degree in Public Administration in 1990 at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he was an editor of the Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy.
Rick felt compelled to answer the call and serve in the U.S. Army in the wake of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. He was an airborne school and service commander of the 143rd Infantry Detachment (Long-Range Surveillance), an aide to Brigadier General David Heuer, and aide-de-camp to General Samuel Turk, Adjutant General of the Texas Army National Guard.
But Rick's service in the Army did not end there. He became a Lieutenant Colonel in the Texas Army National Guard, and served as deputy garrison commander of the KMTC training facility in Kabul, Afghanistan after 9/11. Rick was deployed in Afghanistan for a total of 14 months until August 2005, and he was also the Laredo Border Sector Commander in Operation Jump Start during the summer of 2006.
Upon his return from Afghanistan, Rick was tapped by Mayor Bill White as Incident Commander of Houston's Hurricane Katrina relief efforts at the George R. Brown Convention Center. His leadership with the military, as well as his record in community service, was crucial as the GRB was transformed into a virtual city that cared for nearly 30,000 evacuees, and was then dismantled in the course of less than a month. At the center, Rick coordinated medical, employment, travel, housing and food services for more than 2,000 evacuees living on-site.
There's a lot more here. I don't think anybody is going to give this man any shit if he forgets to wear a flag lapel pin some Monday morning on the campaign trail. (But, looking at his resume, he's probably the sort of guy who will always remember to do that.)
Noriega represents a unique chance for a Democrat to win statewide office in Texas, for the first time since 1990. I hope he can get some out-of-state money; Cornyn has most of the Lone Star State high-rollers lined up. It's high damn time Texas had someone besides the usual plutocrats representing us in Washington.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Debate, And The West Texas Sect: American Media Have Reached A Historic Nadir
By Manifesto Joe
For decades it has been noted that a highly effective device that characterizes modern ruling-class America -- (crypto-fascism, that smiley-face wearing a flag lapel pin) -- is news media that confuses and trivializes issues, ever digressing from substance and toward the most contemptible sideshows.
It's been a few days since the astonishing ABC News mishandling of the Democratic Pennsylvania Primary debate, so everyone's had a chance to watch YouTube and then just calm down a bit. But in hindsight, this remains one of the most obvious examples of a corporate media con job.
We got a great deal of time from moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous, you know -- going over the Rev. Wright, Hillary's Bosnia account, flag lapel pins, and so forth. This was a lot of time that could have been spent talking about the Iraq war (turning for the worse lately), health care, taxes, spying on citizens, and other issues of at least marginally greater importance. I really wish Hillary, and especially Barack Obama, would have, or could have, told these fools in so many words just how completely full of shit they are.
I suppose this shouldn't pose any surprise for people who have been watching the American media situation for a good while.
To digress a bit myself, the other day I was watching CNN Headline News -- my God, what tabloid trash that channel has become -- and heard one of their model-ish happy faces "ask," regarding the story of the West Texas polygamist ranch: Why is there so much fascination with this story? And this model-ish woman didn't even snicker.
This story is a prime example of how U.S. media usually serve the purpose of distracting the public, getting them to think about anything, yes, but anything, other than what really counts.
The focus of the polygamist ranch story, so far, has been largely lascivious. Dirty old men forcing "marriage" and rape upon 13-year-old girls, and so forth.
Largely ignored amid all this was a story in the April 13 Fort Worth Star-Telegram, one that I got around to about a week later. That's how good our national media are at getting to the marrow of things.
The headline on Page One was "Federal money helped finance polygamist sect." This illustrates how easy it really is to get a no-bid military contract. Here are excerpts from the story:
American taxpayers have unwittingly helped finance a polygamist sect that is now the focus of a massive child abuse investigation in West Texas, with a business tied to the group receiving a nearly $1 million loan from the federal government and $1.2 million in military contracts. ...
... New Era Manufacturing in Las Vegas, has been awarded more than $1.2 million in federal government contracts, with most of the money coming in recent years from the Defense Department for wheel and brake components for military aircraft.
A large portion of the awards were preferential no-bid or "sole source" contracts because of the company's classification as a small business, according to online databases that track federal government appropriations.
It's bad enough that this sect was functioning, sanctifying statutory rape, and eventually kicking a couple of thousand teenage boys out onto the road (you know, less competition for the smelly old men for the young girls) and so forth. Yes, it's all very contemptible.
But lost in all this was the use of taxpayer money to actually subsidize this outlaw sect's existence. And, nobody was even minding the store when it came to handing out these no-bid military contracts. (Hey, at least Halliburton doesn't allow its employees stationed in the hard-core Muslim Mideast to practice the four-wives custom. That's about all I would give them credit for.)
Back to the Democratic debate: No, it should come as no surprise that our news media have become the source of bread and circuses for a multitude of fools. Clearly, this seems to have become their job. But, in what could be the most crucial presidential campaign in U.S. history, we have people figuratively in polka-dot bloomers and red rubber noses who are more or less in control of the largest, most influential channels of public discourse.
I can only hope that the eventual Democratic presidential nominee will somehow persevere.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish -- but I suspect that most of this has come about somewhat by corporate design. The goal has been to create toothless, diversionary TV news monoliths for the masses. I am sure that Edward R. Murrow, or even Walter Cronkite, couldn't get a decent gig in today's media. ("Dudes, you're too homely. And Ed, you smoke too much. Get a job at a newspaper. If you can find one.")
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
For decades it has been noted that a highly effective device that characterizes modern ruling-class America -- (crypto-fascism, that smiley-face wearing a flag lapel pin) -- is news media that confuses and trivializes issues, ever digressing from substance and toward the most contemptible sideshows.
It's been a few days since the astonishing ABC News mishandling of the Democratic Pennsylvania Primary debate, so everyone's had a chance to watch YouTube and then just calm down a bit. But in hindsight, this remains one of the most obvious examples of a corporate media con job.
We got a great deal of time from moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous, you know -- going over the Rev. Wright, Hillary's Bosnia account, flag lapel pins, and so forth. This was a lot of time that could have been spent talking about the Iraq war (turning for the worse lately), health care, taxes, spying on citizens, and other issues of at least marginally greater importance. I really wish Hillary, and especially Barack Obama, would have, or could have, told these fools in so many words just how completely full of shit they are.
I suppose this shouldn't pose any surprise for people who have been watching the American media situation for a good while.
To digress a bit myself, the other day I was watching CNN Headline News -- my God, what tabloid trash that channel has become -- and heard one of their model-ish happy faces "ask," regarding the story of the West Texas polygamist ranch: Why is there so much fascination with this story? And this model-ish woman didn't even snicker.
This story is a prime example of how U.S. media usually serve the purpose of distracting the public, getting them to think about anything, yes, but anything, other than what really counts.
The focus of the polygamist ranch story, so far, has been largely lascivious. Dirty old men forcing "marriage" and rape upon 13-year-old girls, and so forth.
Largely ignored amid all this was a story in the April 13 Fort Worth Star-Telegram, one that I got around to about a week later. That's how good our national media are at getting to the marrow of things.
The headline on Page One was "Federal money helped finance polygamist sect." This illustrates how easy it really is to get a no-bid military contract. Here are excerpts from the story:
American taxpayers have unwittingly helped finance a polygamist sect that is now the focus of a massive child abuse investigation in West Texas, with a business tied to the group receiving a nearly $1 million loan from the federal government and $1.2 million in military contracts. ...
... New Era Manufacturing in Las Vegas, has been awarded more than $1.2 million in federal government contracts, with most of the money coming in recent years from the Defense Department for wheel and brake components for military aircraft.
A large portion of the awards were preferential no-bid or "sole source" contracts because of the company's classification as a small business, according to online databases that track federal government appropriations.
It's bad enough that this sect was functioning, sanctifying statutory rape, and eventually kicking a couple of thousand teenage boys out onto the road (you know, less competition for the smelly old men for the young girls) and so forth. Yes, it's all very contemptible.
But lost in all this was the use of taxpayer money to actually subsidize this outlaw sect's existence. And, nobody was even minding the store when it came to handing out these no-bid military contracts. (Hey, at least Halliburton doesn't allow its employees stationed in the hard-core Muslim Mideast to practice the four-wives custom. That's about all I would give them credit for.)
Back to the Democratic debate: No, it should come as no surprise that our news media have become the source of bread and circuses for a multitude of fools. Clearly, this seems to have become their job. But, in what could be the most crucial presidential campaign in U.S. history, we have people figuratively in polka-dot bloomers and red rubber noses who are more or less in control of the largest, most influential channels of public discourse.
I can only hope that the eventual Democratic presidential nominee will somehow persevere.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish -- but I suspect that most of this has come about somewhat by corporate design. The goal has been to create toothless, diversionary TV news monoliths for the masses. I am sure that Edward R. Murrow, or even Walter Cronkite, couldn't get a decent gig in today's media. ("Dudes, you're too homely. And Ed, you smoke too much. Get a job at a newspaper. If you can find one.")
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
More Evidence: IRS Bullies Pick On Little Folks, Let Fatcats Skate
By Manifesto Joe
OK, it's April 15, so a skewering of the IRS is de rigueur. And The New York Times has furnished just the skewer for the job.
NYT reports that, according to a new study, big corporations have less to fear from the IRS than at any time in the past 20 years. The study was released Sunday by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a research group affiliated with Syracuse University.
The study cited "a historic collapse in audits" of Corporate America. And it wouldn't surprise me if there are some unofficial Bush administration policies lurking in the woodpile.
According to The Times:
It found that major corporations -- defined as those with assets of at least $250 million -- have about a 1-in-4 chance of being audited, down from about 3 in 4 in 1990.
In contrast, audits of smaller businesses, defined as those with between $10 million and $50 million in assets, increased from 12.3% in 2005 to 15% in 2007. The comparable figures for increasingly larger corporations went like this:
-- $50 million to $100 million in assets, 16.4% in 2005, 11.4% in 2007.
-- $100 million to $250 million, 17.5% in 2005, 12.1% in 2007.
Detect a pattern here? Some in the tax profession do. Again from The Times:
The IRS focus on smaller companies upset some tax professionals. "I'm still trying to find my jaw on the ground from the finding that audit rates for the big boys are plummeting," said Dean Zerbe, managing director of Alliant Group, a tax planning company.
What does the IRS have to say about this, considering all their tough talk about enforcement in recent years? The Times, again:
... IRS officials ... said Friday that TRAC had misinterpreted a basic shift in corporate America in recent years, saying that companies of all sizes -- and some wealthy individuals -- have embraced the use of partnerships and other opaque entities in an effort to minimize taxes.
I just checked, and my wallet is still in my back pocket.
If you've had the experience of dealing with the IRS as a little fish, you know that the fillet knife is usually wielded to scale. The big fish are much harder to handle, and the trend seems to reflect this.
And, given the Gilded Age, robber-baron sensibilities that our executive branch of government has exhibited for seven-plus years, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that the IRS has changed its focus in this way.
Congress investigates a lot of things, and the IRS has been called on the carpet in the past over other abuses. Maybe it's time for our intrepid reps to find out why, when audit time comes, the tax Gestapo now tends to bully smaller companies while turning a blind eye to Cayman Islands tax dodgers. Inquiring minds should want to know.
For more on the subject, here's a link to my post from last April.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
OK, it's April 15, so a skewering of the IRS is de rigueur. And The New York Times has furnished just the skewer for the job.
NYT reports that, according to a new study, big corporations have less to fear from the IRS than at any time in the past 20 years. The study was released Sunday by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a research group affiliated with Syracuse University.
The study cited "a historic collapse in audits" of Corporate America. And it wouldn't surprise me if there are some unofficial Bush administration policies lurking in the woodpile.
According to The Times:
It found that major corporations -- defined as those with assets of at least $250 million -- have about a 1-in-4 chance of being audited, down from about 3 in 4 in 1990.
In contrast, audits of smaller businesses, defined as those with between $10 million and $50 million in assets, increased from 12.3% in 2005 to 15% in 2007. The comparable figures for increasingly larger corporations went like this:
-- $50 million to $100 million in assets, 16.4% in 2005, 11.4% in 2007.
-- $100 million to $250 million, 17.5% in 2005, 12.1% in 2007.
Detect a pattern here? Some in the tax profession do. Again from The Times:
The IRS focus on smaller companies upset some tax professionals. "I'm still trying to find my jaw on the ground from the finding that audit rates for the big boys are plummeting," said Dean Zerbe, managing director of Alliant Group, a tax planning company.
What does the IRS have to say about this, considering all their tough talk about enforcement in recent years? The Times, again:
... IRS officials ... said Friday that TRAC had misinterpreted a basic shift in corporate America in recent years, saying that companies of all sizes -- and some wealthy individuals -- have embraced the use of partnerships and other opaque entities in an effort to minimize taxes.
I just checked, and my wallet is still in my back pocket.
If you've had the experience of dealing with the IRS as a little fish, you know that the fillet knife is usually wielded to scale. The big fish are much harder to handle, and the trend seems to reflect this.
And, given the Gilded Age, robber-baron sensibilities that our executive branch of government has exhibited for seven-plus years, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that the IRS has changed its focus in this way.
Congress investigates a lot of things, and the IRS has been called on the carpet in the past over other abuses. Maybe it's time for our intrepid reps to find out why, when audit time comes, the tax Gestapo now tends to bully smaller companies while turning a blind eye to Cayman Islands tax dodgers. Inquiring minds should want to know.
For more on the subject, here's a link to my post from last April.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Obama Vs. Strawmen: Barack Knows Some Of The Context, But ...
By Manifesto Joe
Nobody got very tough with Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker during Tuesday's questioning by senators on the Iraq disaster. That really wasn't to be expected, not even from presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. John McCain, of course, aped the banal Republican rah-rahs that were anticipated from him.
But Obama did show a shining moment of clarity during a round of questioning. He took a couple of minutes to make a flat statement: In essence, the decision to invade Iraq was a massive strategic blunder -- one that he opposed from the start. He laid out some historical context of this fiasco -- but unfortunately, not all.
Understanding that he's running for president, that's probably as candid a statement as could be expected from Obama. For pragmatic reasons, he had to stop short of certain arguments: That the Iraq war is, at its core, about oil, as the U.S. and other powers would not have worried about a local despot like Saddam Hussein had he not been sitting atop the world's third-largest reserve; that this was clearly an invasion, an act of aggression, arguably in violation of international law; and that the rest of the world has widely regarded the U.S. as a rogue superpower ever since.
Obama pointed out that the particular terrorist "threats" in Iraq exist because of the invasion, and did not exist prior to it. He said there is really no hope for stabilizing the region without the involvement of neighboring Iran, so we're going to have to talk with them sooner or later.
He acknowledged that the men he was questioning were not the ones who made the decision to invade. They are simply the ones left to "clean up the mess."
A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq seems to have been ruled out by all concerned, including Obama.
The Illinois senator seems to appreciate some of the context of this predicament, but perhaps not all.
I am just old enough to have started following public affairs as a tween/teen during the late '60s and early '70s. I, for one, do not love the smell of napalm in the morning -- it smells much like defeat, not victory. It smells like the Vietnam War, and all those familiar rationalizations for the U.S. to just stay, and stay, and stay some more, year after bloody year.
The historical context that Obama doesn't grasp, or at least feigns not to, is that there really isn't going to be a quick way to "clean up" a mess this big. Ultimately, the Iraqis will have to do that themselves, and it won't be easy. The wounds will still be there in 50 years, maybe even 100.
As Yogi Berra said, it's deja vu all over again. I vividly remember the "de-Americanization" and "Vietnamization" of the war of 40 years ago. The escalation, and how that buildup of troops was supposed to eventually pacify the country. I recall Richard Nixon on TV many nights, telling us about how we had to stick it out and "win the peace."
I remember being told how much more competent, how much less corrupt, how much more democratic the South Vietnamese puppet government was becoming. How the South Vietnamese were going to control their destiny, as soon as those communist villains were beaten back into the jungle holes where they belonged.
There are different words for all this nowadays. Instead of escalation, we have the "surge." We have "progress," "sustainable security," and the like. And of course, we have a time frame for these things that, listening to Petraeus and Crocker, seems without end.
Obama did go so far as to suggest that a timetable for withdrawal would be pressure that the current Iraqi government may need if it is ever to become truly viable. If he's thinking anything beyond that, he was careful not to let on, and I expected that.
Barack Obama was born in 1961 (and I honestly don't hold that against him). But consequently, he was a first-grader during the Tet offensive. He would have been an eighth-grader when America saw video of a helicopter being pushed off the side of an aircraft carrier headed out of a lost Vietnam. What he knows about the parallels between then and now would mostly have to come from history lessons.
I hope he was a great student of that subject, and knows more about this than he's letting on just now.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Nobody got very tough with Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker during Tuesday's questioning by senators on the Iraq disaster. That really wasn't to be expected, not even from presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. John McCain, of course, aped the banal Republican rah-rahs that were anticipated from him.
But Obama did show a shining moment of clarity during a round of questioning. He took a couple of minutes to make a flat statement: In essence, the decision to invade Iraq was a massive strategic blunder -- one that he opposed from the start. He laid out some historical context of this fiasco -- but unfortunately, not all.
Understanding that he's running for president, that's probably as candid a statement as could be expected from Obama. For pragmatic reasons, he had to stop short of certain arguments: That the Iraq war is, at its core, about oil, as the U.S. and other powers would not have worried about a local despot like Saddam Hussein had he not been sitting atop the world's third-largest reserve; that this was clearly an invasion, an act of aggression, arguably in violation of international law; and that the rest of the world has widely regarded the U.S. as a rogue superpower ever since.
Obama pointed out that the particular terrorist "threats" in Iraq exist because of the invasion, and did not exist prior to it. He said there is really no hope for stabilizing the region without the involvement of neighboring Iran, so we're going to have to talk with them sooner or later.
He acknowledged that the men he was questioning were not the ones who made the decision to invade. They are simply the ones left to "clean up the mess."
A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq seems to have been ruled out by all concerned, including Obama.
The Illinois senator seems to appreciate some of the context of this predicament, but perhaps not all.
I am just old enough to have started following public affairs as a tween/teen during the late '60s and early '70s. I, for one, do not love the smell of napalm in the morning -- it smells much like defeat, not victory. It smells like the Vietnam War, and all those familiar rationalizations for the U.S. to just stay, and stay, and stay some more, year after bloody year.
The historical context that Obama doesn't grasp, or at least feigns not to, is that there really isn't going to be a quick way to "clean up" a mess this big. Ultimately, the Iraqis will have to do that themselves, and it won't be easy. The wounds will still be there in 50 years, maybe even 100.
As Yogi Berra said, it's deja vu all over again. I vividly remember the "de-Americanization" and "Vietnamization" of the war of 40 years ago. The escalation, and how that buildup of troops was supposed to eventually pacify the country. I recall Richard Nixon on TV many nights, telling us about how we had to stick it out and "win the peace."
I remember being told how much more competent, how much less corrupt, how much more democratic the South Vietnamese puppet government was becoming. How the South Vietnamese were going to control their destiny, as soon as those communist villains were beaten back into the jungle holes where they belonged.
There are different words for all this nowadays. Instead of escalation, we have the "surge." We have "progress," "sustainable security," and the like. And of course, we have a time frame for these things that, listening to Petraeus and Crocker, seems without end.
Obama did go so far as to suggest that a timetable for withdrawal would be pressure that the current Iraqi government may need if it is ever to become truly viable. If he's thinking anything beyond that, he was careful not to let on, and I expected that.
Barack Obama was born in 1961 (and I honestly don't hold that against him). But consequently, he was a first-grader during the Tet offensive. He would have been an eighth-grader when America saw video of a helicopter being pushed off the side of an aircraft carrier headed out of a lost Vietnam. What he knows about the parallels between then and now would mostly have to come from history lessons.
I hope he was a great student of that subject, and knows more about this than he's letting on just now.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Job Market 2009: A Video Forecast
The meaning of this video, recently posted on YouTube by Hillbillycuzz, seems ambiguous. Looked at one way, one could consider it xenophobic. But I found the role-reversal humor irresistible. Regardless of your viewpoint on immigration policy, this is funny. --MJ
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Manifesto Joe's Great Moments In Conservative History, Chapter 7: Bush Turns Masher
There's been a news report that German Chancellor Angela Merkel does not plan to attend the opening ceremony of the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing because of China's human rights record.
George W. Bush, the report said, plans to be there. It's my theory that Merkel isn't going to show because she doesn't want another of those shoulder massages like Bush gave her a couple of years ago at the G-8 Summit.
I wonder, did he call her Merkie-Merk? -- MJ
George W. Bush, the report said, plans to be there. It's my theory that Merkel isn't going to show because she doesn't want another of those shoulder massages like Bush gave her a couple of years ago at the G-8 Summit.
I wonder, did he call her Merkie-Merk? -- MJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
