Musings of Big T

Levees are critical, and a good deal.....

2005-12-11T18:13:00.000-06:00

This Op Ed in the New York Times contains a few relative cost statistics which truly offer some perspective.

"The price tag for protection against a Category 5 hurricane, which would involve not just stronger and higher levees but also new drainage canals and environmental restoration, would very likely run to well over $32 billion. That is a lot of money. But that starting point represents just 1.2 percent of this year's estimated $2.6 trillion in federal spending, which actually overstates the case, since the cost would be spread over many years. And it is barely one-third the cost of the $95 billion in tax cuts passed just last week by the House of Representatives.
Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion."

It makes the delay in the Federal commitment necessary to give confidence to the private market seem far more eggregious.

Bush's Marie Antoinette response.....

2005-11-26T17:45:00.000-06:00

From NOLA.com: "Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said that her legislation, co-sponsored by Vitter and Landrieu, for bridge loans to help small businesses reopen after the hurricane was stymied because of opposition from the White House, which indicated the program would be too expensive. Such loans, Snowe said, are critical to New Orleans' recovery. "

Liquidity, in the form of bridge loans, grants, loan restructuring, tax credits or whatever, is one of the most valuable contributions the Federal Govt. could make to help New Orleans' recovery. The City and State have little or reduced revenues and little savings; business owners have to survive for 6-12 months with no income just to return to their shops. Liquidity provides the avenues to recovery; the details of the long-term financial solution can be worked out later.

As usual, this "business-friendly" administration doesn't understand rudimentary business principles and the "compassionate" conservatives don't trust the small business-person enough to want to rebuild their lives, to make the loan.

resistance

2005-01-17T21:05:00.000-06:00

i believe that i shall begin to resist ideological kleptocracies.

BigT

censorship: one thing we need to avoid...

2005-01-17T19:04:00.000-06:00

This article on the BBC NEWS site about the death of Zhao Ziyang (Tienanmen Square incident) includes the quote

"China's government has issued just a brief statement, confirming Zhao's death. But the official Xinhua news agency instructed domestic radio and television not to carry the item.

There have been many grieving postings on internet bulletin boards. 'Time will vindicate him,' said one. 'We will miss you forever,' said another.

All were deleted speedily by chatroom monitors, our Beijing correspondent says. "

I had to wonder how different, really, our own situation is. The censorship is, perhaps, less overt government censorship than economic/plutocratic control of state.

I do worry.

Definition of an Ideologue, by David Brooks

2004-10-23T11:42:00.000-05:00

If you read this rubbish in The New York Times from David Brooks he does actually define the choice in this election:

Modern Head of State or Ideologue

Here are Brooks' closing comments:

"Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated above his executive branch colleagues. It is impossible to imagine George W. Bush or Reagan as a cabinet secretary. Instead, they are set apart by virtue of exceptional moral qualities. Relying on their core values, they set broad goals and remain resolute in times of crisis.

Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial job. They admire presidents who engage in constant deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been well versed in the inner workings of government. "

To claim exceptional morality for the Republicans is idiotic, just ask Jimmy Carter. As is their claim to broad vision or resolution in crises. The truth, really, is that in addition to those qualities of strength, Democrats improve their lot with a thoughtful understanding of our place in the Global theater and a vision of the entire planet that extends far into the future.

The difference is whether your strength and resolve are guided by blindness and ignorance or informed thought.

Do Not Despair

2004-09-08T15:17:00.000-05:00

As Bush's "Bounce" magically disappears, The Kerry surge has begun already.

2004: Referendum on Democracy

2004-09-02T11:49:00.000-05:00

BigT thinks Bush and the GOP are dangerously undermining our democratic institutions with the goal of the U.S. becoming a one-party state. As a cat, BigT can't always articulate his thoughts that well, but he thinks Will Saletan of Slate has done a pretty good job:

But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

Are you?

NEOCONS OUT OF CONTROL

2004-08-29T21:10:00.000-05:00

I think BigT would want you to read this post by Juan Cole. It provides the context for understanding the recent stories about someone in the pentagon spying for Israel. It is complicated but a must read, showing how out-of-control foreign policy has become under this administration.

good graphics of important stuff

2004-08-08T09:34:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Chris Dykstra for this link and graphic which is awesome to view. It must resemble the path of the Titanic viewed from the side; now we see the path of the neocons, sinking...seen from our perch, solid, high on the coast of the massive land of opportunity, home of freedom, fairness and truth that should, and can be, America.

.....what cheese.

but the point, the POINT people.

now, go look at the chart again

things they say......

2004-08-08T08:50:00.000-05:00

Statements by prospective attendees to the 2004 GOP Convention, taken from this article in the New York Times The comments are about the cost of the event which this year for the first time will be passed on to its attendees.

About the cost of the event:

"'A lot of us looked at that thing and said, whoa!''

"A lot of people just can't afford that.''

"We want to use our hard money resources in the smartest way possible,''

"The price of playing the game has risen dramatically,''

"I don't think anybody is happy about writing the check. But it's a cost of doing business.''

About the Bush Campaign:

"These are about the stingiest bunch of guys I've ever seen.''

"I don't blame them," ..... "They didn't have a choice. They are not trying to stick it to us, there are costs to these things."

Abouth ambitions:

"I really wanted to be a Pioneer or a Ranger; that's what I worked my butt off to do,'' ...... "I don't have an endless pot of money to commit to political events. But I didn't want to go there and not participate in the Pioneer and Ranger stuff. That felt horrible.''

Can you hear Will Farrell saying that last line?

Read the article, it's great.

The 35% of "republicans" that are living not quite as far over the median income line as they think are, are about to realize they're getting screwed in this deal too. Then we will have common cause that they understand.

Best Thing I've Read Today

2004-08-02T11:42:00.000-05:00

In a follow up to the post below, Bob Herbert's column today points out that, to a certain extent, it is our laziness and desire to be told what we want to hear, instead of hard truths, that have driven politics to their current sorry state:

These are incredibly difficult issues and an honest search for solutions can only come from a sustained effort by the broadest array of America's brightest and wisest men and women. What the U.S. really needs is leadership that could marshal that effort.

Unfortunately, we've become a society addicted to the fantasy of a quick fix. We want our solutions encompassed in a sound bite. We want our leaders to manipulate reality to our liking.

[snip]

The voters may deserve better, but there's a real question about whether they want better. It may well be that candidates can't tell voters the truth and still win. If that's so, then democracy American-style may be a lot more dysfunctional than even the last four years has indicated.

Important thoughts to keep in mind as we search for ways to reclaim our democracy from the looming corporate oligarchy. However if you read Herbert's column in the actual print version of the NYT, read past the end of the column, below his email address, you see the following words:

William Safire is on vacation.

Music to my ears.

how we don't learn....

2004-07-30T10:14:00.000-05:00

This editorial by Krugman is a must read. As tough as he is, his comments still fail to describe the hideous and despicable way the mainstream media is covering this presidential race:

"The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq."

If you watched CNN's coverage last night of Kerry's acceptance speech, you would have witnessed one of the most biased, poorly executed and trivial coverage of a nominating speech in history. They crossed audio feeds, broadcasting the Dem. event director ordering the balloons to drop...and when they didn't, CNN didn't turn off the guy's mike, cut to another scene, or anything..they just let it play, and then the anchors got on to talk about the balloons.

WHO GIVES A FLYING F*** ABOUT BALLOONS. THIS IS A PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

Please boycott CNN. In fact, don't do that. Write them a letter and tell them just how surprised you are to find out that they hang out with the editorial staff of the National Enquirer. That's about the level they are performing on.

Democracy broken.....

2004-07-25T09:29:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has an article today discussing the many ways in which the 9/11 Commission report sets the record straight about the terrorist attacks, saying, in part:

"...in its most contentious effort to set the record straight about the origins of the plot, the bipartisan commission's final report found no evidence of close collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, appearing to undermine a justification for the Iraq war."

I don't think anyone would have been able to prevent some sort of attack; the attackers were well planned, and we are not willing to give up our open society to the degree necessary fully to prevent such an attack.

What this article does very well is expose the Bush Administration for what it is: a self-centered, self-righteous group of people who think they know everything. Even when they've been proven NOT to know everything, they continue to claim that they do (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice to name two in the article). This cannot be excused as situational ignorance, "resoluteness" or anything of the sort. These people are lying to the American public to protect their ability to tighten their grip on power. This behavior is nothing short of that which we have seen in any fledgling dictatorship.

In a democracy, freedom of information and truth should underlie our freedom to choose our leaders.

This is the choice we face in this election: do we want to restore a democracy here? or do we feel more safe in a dictatorship? The latter choice could be one we live with for a very long time.

Oddly, Safire said it best....

2004-07-21T08:59:00.000-05:00

In his study of the Republican mind (his own) Safire today described exactly the fundamental value of Republicanism today that makes it vile and abhorrent:

"My values include self-reliance over community dependence, intervention over isolation, self-discipline over society's regulation, finding pleasure in work rather than working to find pleasure."

Me.

Me, Me, Me.

Not you, not us, except for exclusion.

Me, Me, Me.

That's it.

ME.

Fiscal Sanity at Bay

2004-07-20T11:05:00.000-05:00

This is a NYTimes editorial in its entirety (but it's short). It is important to read. After you read it, write a letter or email to any one or all four of the mentioned sitting Senators. They represent a reasonable voice on a potentially disastrous event on the horizon. Let's try to get in front of it. The link to the editorial is here:

"For all the late-blooming talk of fiscal responsibility from Republican moderates, an election year cave-in is shaping up in the Senate as the White House pushes for a fast renewal of some of the 'temporary' tax breaks set to expire this year. Unlike the administration's giveaways to the wealthy, these cuts are among the more worthy and politically risky to oppose: extending tax relief for married couples, for families with children and for taxpayers in the lowest bracket, 10 percent.

But the issue is not the virtue of the cuts but whether Congress should be forced to make up the cost with spending reductions or - great idea - by increasing taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes for corporate taxes. Until now, four Senate Republicans have been standing with the Democrats, demanding an end to the administration's binge of record budget deficits and detaxation. Two of the Republicans, John McCain of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine, have indicated support for the tax-cut extensions without their usual stipulation that the money to pay for them be found elsewhere first. This is unfortunate.

The White House obviously feels it cannot lose by pushing the tax-cut extensions right before the political conventions. Either Mr. Bush will be able to brag about still more tax cuts, or he can demonize Democrats and others who dare to defeat the package on budgetary grounds. We urge the Republican moderates, including Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, not to abandon their fight for fiscal responsibility."

The Arabian Candidate: Trojan Horse

2004-07-20T10:57:00.000-05:00

Ok, after you've read the post below (which I created this morning PRIOR to reading this editorial by Paul Krugman), then read this editorial by Paul Krugman, from which this quote comes:

"In the original version of 'The Manchurian Candidate,' Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting to put in the White House, is a right-wing demagogue modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan is to 'use anticommunist hysteria as a cover for a communist takeover.'

The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn't have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his position to undermine national security, while posing as America's staunchest defender against communist evil."

Hello?

worker shortage and low wages????

2004-07-20T10:25:00.000-05:00

Check out this article from the New York Times, which starts with the following quote:

"With tens of thousands of their citizen soldiers now deployed in Iraq, many of the nation's governors complained on Sunday to senior Pentagon officials that they were facing severe manpower shortages in guarding prisoners, fighting wildfires, preparing for hurricanes and floods and policing the streets."

There are two points to be made here:

1. in juxtaposition with our other posts below regarding wages, what we seem to have is high unemployment contributing to low wages in new job creation, yet we have a shortage of labor for crucial government services;

2. is the terrorist threat, the distraction we've been tempted into by Chalabi in attacking Iraq and the potential for problems in Iran a huge distraction to our security at home? are we about to get snuck?

I personally think that the answer to number 2 is NOT more war. It is constructive, inclusive, benevolent global citizenship. This is a long-run strategy. In the short run, I suppose there are reasons to be concerned.

But, what about the labor picture? (I'm not going to adderss the appropriateness of having lightly trained N.G. folks in Iraq....different question.) Seems to me that we DO have plenty of idle hands around (since wages are falling and people are working in no-skills jobs at WalMart) and that the training of these folks in the skills we need while the N.G. folks are in Iraq would be skills that would serve them well in future employment. They could also probably demand higher wages for these skills in re-employment after the war is over. AND, if in the short run there is a labor shortage for these jobs, let's take advantage of that and pay a decent wage to folks that are struggling to get by.

The New Deal was a fantastically successful attempt to leverage the State in the development of both skills, jobs and the infrastructure which has underpinned this country's dominance over the last 50 years. Why would we ignore this empirical evidence, particularly when the circumstances so strongly promote this strategy???

Call your governor. They clearly need some suggestions.

Schwarzenegger Calls Budget Opponents 'Girlie Men'

2004-07-19T18:09:00.000-05:00

This quote is beautiful....read the whole article:

"Mr. Schwarzenegger has compared lawmakers to kindergartners who need a timeout and threatened to seek a constitutional amendment making the Legislature a part-time body. He is also appearing in the districts of vulnerable Democrats and promising to 'terminate' those who stand in his way."

We had Jesse the Body here in Minnesota hoping to be reincarnated as a 38DD bra, or something close. He also reportedly gave out "Jackal" passes to the media at his annual fishing opener.

Obviously these statements and actions are amusing in a number of ways, but they just do too much damage to the quality of political discourse.

I DO think that Jesse did a good job at speaking directly and simply (but not a'la GWB; I do think he had an informed opinion) and demanding of the legislature to cease & desist with the most eggregious of game-playing and partisanship. I think Ahh-nold's frustration is similar. But it is the pot calling the kettle black for a name-caller to liken the legislators to kindergardners. And, to threaten "termination" is very much playing the political game that Jesse at least seemed to try and avoid. Ahh-nold is undermining what little credibility he has.

In any event, what we need to do is continue to push information, find ways to access folks that have not participated in politics in the past, and do everything we can to make us all feel validated in our practice of democracy. Eventually we should demand dialogue at the high level to which we are entitled. But we have to start talking that way ourselves first.

Vote with your checkbook

2004-07-18T11:00:00.000-05:00

From the New York Times:

"On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings of production workers - nonmanagement workers ranging from nurses and teachers to hamburger flippers and assembly-line workers - fell 1.1 percent in June, after accounting for inflation. The June drop, the steepest decline since the depths of recession in mid-1991, came after a 0.8 percent fall in real hourly earnings in May"

This is particularly relevant to me with respect to work I'm doing on tax policy for a Minnesota think tank. Because our mission is to try and better marry the concepts of economic justice (read, people) and growth (read, business) (hence the name of the group Growth & Justice) we are very interested in WHERE tax policy might best be adjusted, i.e. at the business level or at the individual level.

Much of the history of business incentives has seen tax breaks aimed at capital (mostly machines, real estate, and other business inputs EXCEPT labor). It can probably be shown that reducing the cost of business helps business create jobs...this has been the rationale for business tax cuts. It is notable, however (confirmed by this article), that business won't necessarily create GOOD jobs, or ones that pay a living wage (one that is sufficient, at minimum, to pay basic healthcare costs in addition to housing and food). WalMart is in the news recently for creating lots of really BAD jobs. Not only do they not pay a living wage, but to avoid requirements to pay healthcare as part of the employment package, WalMart hires people on a part-time basis.

There seems ample evidence that business will continue to act like business...maximizing the bottom line. (I'm not sure if I mean this in a factual way, or with a harsh judgement about business' failure to take up their share of the social contract that everyone should have a basic lifestyle, including healthcare....Paul Krugman, in an editorial I noted previously, exonerated business from any responsibility beyond making profits because, in his words, "they are business". An editorial letter writer objected to the idea that business should be so-relieved of its responsibility to this social issue)...but, I digress.

Whether you believe that business should take up part of this social contract or not, clearly today they are not incented to, either through law or social mandate. Couple this with the statements recently by Alan Greenspan which recognize, as does this article, that retail spending is the ONLY thing that is keeping this economy afloat right now and you are faced with a very obvious policy platform: business will not create jobs unless someone is there to buy their stuff; therefore, rather than making business rich by "reducing" their cost of business, put public tax incentives into the hands of consumers, and business will be along for the ride BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO....they make money.

On the ground, this smacks of liberal tax and spend mentality. BUT, even the conservatives will admit that consumer spending is driving the economy. I would argue strongly that conservative and liberal interests are actually aligned. Targeting tax relief and tax law changes to put more incremental dollars in the hands of average and low-income consumers will create the demand business needs to invest in new jobs and new capital. This sort of tax policy (reflecting a more generous social policy) IS consistent with business goals and, implicitly, with the long-term goals of those that own business, overwhelmingly conservative.

I would argue that the marginal propensity to spend, i.e. that portion of each additional dollar that gets spent rather than saved, is substantially higher among the middle and low-income population, because they MUST spend that money on necessities. Wealthy people put it in their savings account or stock portfolio and maybe, just maybe, a few years from now that better capitalized business MIGHT create a few more jobs which MIGHT pay a living wage.....it MIGHT.

If somebody is banging on their door, trying to purchase their "stuff", they WILL.....I guarantee it. That's what business does.

Undermining Democracy

2004-07-16T09:52:00.000-05:00

Along the same lines as the post below, Joanathan Chait at TNR has an article detailing at length how the Bush Administration and the GOP in congress has gone about systematically undermining our democracy:

Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bear-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They're undemocratic.

Read the entire article, it will scare you. Send it to anyone you know who may be on the fence. More evidence why this election could be the most important in out history. We stand at the precipice looking into the abyss of one-party rule, the first step on the slippery slope to fascism. This is one we cannot lose.

Demand Verifiable Election Results

2004-07-15T19:19:00.000-05:00

From Verified Voting - Campaign To Demand Verifiable Election Results:

"'I clearly believe that there are certain people within the election process who don't want that scrutiny on how elections are run,' Heller said. 'Why elections directors so fight this process is just incredible to me.'" -- Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller

The "scrutiny" is that which is necessary to prove what people's votes really were. Paper proof. (The manfacturers make cash machines for god's sake.) (Big T recognizes that proof doesn't seem to be required for this presidential administration to, say, go to war......nonetheless, we aim to promote a higher standard)

The counties fight new systems because of all of the friction, territorialism and bureaucratic red tape inevitably involved in change, particularly of public systems. But read the rest of the article....

The real problem here is that this friction serves to enforce the status quo which in itself is costing us dearly in our practice of democracy. Add to that a deliberate program of confusion, contradiction, and rule ambiguity and you have the power of the Secretary of State to control the outcome of a close election.

Voter Registration, accurate records and access on the voting day are all necessary to have a fair election.

Registration forms must be integrated, information must be cross-checked for accuracy, voting machines must be installed, people must be trained, systems must be tested and their reliability absolutely confirmed before the system can be relied upon to measure the will of the people.

Our current registration and vote tally system (VEMS), though imperfect, has a known tolerance for error. A new system won't. A new system could be tested against the current one, run side by side, both in full operation. Relying on a new system that is untested in THIS election is ludicrous.

We are up to this task, but the Secretary of State has made our job ever more challenging. In Minnesota we, like all other states, were given a few years to develop a totally reliable system. Our secretary of state along with about 8 others, waived most of that time, and intends to rely on a system that will be unproven in an actual election.

New metropolitan airport systems, for example, are tested and retested for years to work out the bugs. The Secretary's lieutenant described the process of developing a way to integrate the various data sources as their department's "summer project". Do we really think we can rely on an untested system in the most important election of a generation?

Do not be deceived. The status quo favors the group in power. Regardless of your feelings on that, democracy really demands full and encouraged access to the voting polls.

Voter participation is another matter altogether.

Corporate ownership of Politics, behind the scenes

2004-07-13T10:34:00.000-05:00

I only have a minute this morning, but I have been making the case for the imminent power grab which the ideological right has an option make. In this editorial from Paul Krugman he makes the point well. This is a must read if you have any doubts that the political playing field is far from fair. The conclusion:

"Mr. DeLay and his fellow hard-liners, whose values are far from the American mainstream, have forged an immensely effective alliance with corporate interests. And they may be just one election away from achieving a long-term lock on power. "

how to be a global power.....

2004-07-12T09:09:00.000-05:00

This quote from the New York Times is part of an article discussing the strategy of pre-emptive war as a core principle of our foreign policy:

"The Democratic Party platform is expected to include a sentence declaring that the 'doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has driven away our allies,' and Mr. Kerry argued in the interview that while he would reserve the right to act pre-emptively, he would never make it a core doctrine of American foreign policy."

So far, largely as a result of the intelligence failures now documented by the 911 Commission, the strategy of pre-emption has been a dismal failure. Not only have we waged a pre-emptive war, costing thousands of lives; not only have we alienated our allies with our egotism; not only have we dramatically increased the appeal of terror as an acceptable retaliatory answer among disaffected muslims;....we have also given our global competitors, namely China, (not to mention actual enemies) all the traction they need to oppose us on issues like North Korea and Iran (points also made in this article).

On a non-military note, China already has substantial power over the U.S. in the form of its foreign exchange reserves held in dollars. China represents an enormous challenge to us in global diplomacy and in international economic dynamics. We are concerned about offshoring jobs, yet we are squandering any leverage we have with China through our foreign policy failures.

Certainly the nature of terror in today's world is different than conventional war. The adequacy of our intelligence community needs to be addressed if we are to be successful against terror and rogue states, whether we adopt pre-emption as our primary policy or not. BUT, particularly where we can't rely solely on our own intelligence community, we have to be able to rely on our global partners as we address international security together.

It goes even further...beyond the technical and logistical issues of intelligence cooperation we have said to the world (in no uncertain terms shortly after 9/11) that we know better (and clearly we do not); and, furthermore we will act on that supposed knowledge even if the consequence is high casualty numbers.

A pre-emptive strategy will promote a quick end to our global influence. John Kerry appears to understand that we can't be alone in this regard and that our future as a global power depends it. It's one of many reasons we should support him.

informed electorate? i think not!

2004-07-11T14:34:00.000-05:00

Another post related to the perception that our electorate is either informed or involved. I am not familiar with the credentials of Jack Germond, but found this quote in the Star Tribune (it was in the print edition):

"Today, after 50 years of exposure to thousands of politicians, I am convinced that we get about what we deserve at all levels of government, up to and including the White House. These days, because so many Americans -- almost half -- don't bother to vote even in presidential elections, they deserve choices like the one they were offered in 2000, between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Beause so few Americans understand the political process or bother to follow it with even a modicum of attention, we elect presidents as empty as George H.W. Bush or as self-absorbed as Bill Clinton -- only to be followed by a choice between a Republican obviously over his head and a Democrat too unsure of his own persona to be convincing."

Whom to blame for this? Individuals for not realizing the power they truly hold, politicians for allowing our media culture to define politics in overly simplistic terms and the mainstream media for being interested only in sound bytes, controversy and skin. Of course, the issue is far more complex than this. Institutional barriers to adequte information abound: poverty, multiple jobs and a mainstream media owned by the corporate (read conservative political) establishment, to name just a few.

I'd suggest that these three substantial institutional barriers are a direct result of neocon policies. The continued consolidation of power between the conservative political establishment and their media partners is having the insidious (and perhaps intended) effect of precluding the exercise and validity of citizen participation in our democracy; these barriers thoroughly disenfranchise an enormous portion of the American citizenry. Sure, the neocons are part of representative government...but do they represent America? Emphatically NO.

In whose interest?

2004-07-11T12:19:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Chris Dykstra on his blog for reference to this article in The New Republic

The article discusses the explicit pressure by the U.S. Administration on the Pakistani government to locate Osama bin Laden and other high level terrorist targets. What it also clearly shows is that the interest in catching Osama bin Laden is NOT in the interests of protecting the American people, as Bush would have you believe; rather, the interest is in protecting this junta's political power. One more successful election for this group and their consolidation of power will be almost complete.

Fair comparisons can now be made to other "dictators" who would do most anything to hold onto power, even things contrary to the interests and safety of their people. We all hope these terrorists can be captured, and as quickly as possible. Given the apparent motives of the administration, consider a case where the election was farther off; would the Administration delay aggressive tactics to capture these terrorists in order better to leverage the issue for their own political gain?

While our election should be on issues that affect us as Americans and issues that define us as global citizens, the most important issue upon which we should vote this election is TRUST. How much more evidence do we need that this Administration has no interests in common with the rest of the American people?

I've seen it on bumper-stickers: regime change begins at home.