Democratic catch phrases

A group of democrats are working together to draft a one page statement of the Democratic Party (from the so-called "Democratic wing of the Democratic party") and they are conducting five weeks of discussions and suggestions for modifying the document. It is a nice broad statement of beliefs that can be used as a starting point for spreading the ideas that liberals believe in to people with the attention span of a gnat and people who are too busy working to make ends meet to study in depth the specific policies that Democrats support.

Dirty Chemicals

As I was reading the Nation, I came across an article about a lawsuit of the widow of an employee at a chemical plant who had died of a rare form of liver cancer. The article provided a link to a group that has published online many internal documents from the chemical industry that show a clear pattern of the companies knowing their workers were in danger from the production and they could do something. Instead, these companies covered up their research into the detrimental effects of the production processes. An interesting resource about chemical company hijinxes.

My letter to Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)

It is critical for the survival of democracy in America that the government not be allowed to tamper in the reporting of news. It is bad enough that blatant partisans are allowed to promote a harmful agenda on television and call it news (Fox News), but the government financing of propaganda to support their legislative priorities leaps over the line of journalistic integrity. As one who has studied the Soviet Union, it seems even worse. In the U.S.S.R. at least most people knew that Pravda was spouting government propaganda (what an ironic name). In the U.S. today, millions of Americans are getting slanted news coverage from Fox News and commentators whose salaries draw upon my tax dollars. Thank you for standing up and endorsing a free and vigilant press that is a prerequisite of democracy.

Williamsonian Ethics

In recent weeks there have been many reports of journalistic propoganda. It all started with the revelations that the neocon Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 to report favorably on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). In the past few days, it has come out that Maggie Gallagher was on the payroll of HHS to report favorably on the marriage initiative. These cases question the independence of the media. How may more can there be? The White House claimed that Armstrong Williams was an unusual case and not representative of most the media. However, with the revelation that Maggie Gallagher was also paid by the government (HHS in this case), the very idea of an independent media becomes more and more suspect. In order for democracy itself to flourish, the economy needs to move towards more environmentally and labor friendly policies so we have a more egalitarian distribution of income. More importantly, when the leadership of the Democratic Left re-asserts itself, democracy may yet return to the U.S. Without an independent and critical media, democracy cannot exist and totalitarianism is the word of the day.

Tsunami salvation and speculation

In the month since the devastating tsunami struck southern Asia, a few alarming thoughts have struck me from some of the reporting (and non-reporting). First, how could the British base (used by America to bomb Afghanistan) at Diego Garcia not make headlines. There surely would have been damage to it given its location in the Indian Ocean. To be a conspiracy theorist for a second, how could they not have been affected by the tsunami. One could theorize that they knew in advance that a tsunami was coming and have taken precautions to prevent any loss of life. If so, they could have alerted countries in the region to the impending disaster which could have saved thousands of lives.
Regardless of that situation, it is alarming that there has been much relief work done by organizations that are strongly evangelical in the affected countries, particularly Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world. It sends the wrong signal to the Islamic world if the West sends in relief workers that have a religious agenda in their relief work. Do you want clean water? Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior? It brings to attention the possibility that much relief work may be detrimental to the recipient countries’ image of the West. If we are not denouncing groups that provide aid with a religious component attached, we could be doing more harm than good in terms of our reputation as a generous, caring country. The evangelical relief work could be seen as a way to establish a foothold for a broader agenda of religious conversion within the Muslim world. What a way to isolate and marginalize the very modeate Muslims we should be allied with to fight the more militant groups who claim Islam as their guide.

Social Security theft

In the past few months, Bush has been pushing hard for privatization of Social Security (or what the pollsters have suggested Bush call it, "personal accounts"). This is one of the worst ideas proposed and depends upon the illusion of an 'imminent crisis'. It is also an idea that Bush pushed in his unsuccessful bid for a seat in the House of Representatives in 1978, when he desribed an 'imminent crisis' that he said could only be solved by privatization (it was solved in 1983 when the Greenspan Commission increased the payroll tax to build up a trust fund for when the baby boomers). Gary Ott, then of the Plainview Daily Herald describes Bush's campaign platform, "he [Bush] warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years [1988] unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves". There is a long-term problem, but it will not occur until 2042 according to the Social Security Actuaries or 2052 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and even after that point, there will still be money to pay between 70 and 80% of promised benefits. To privatize Social Security would also cost 2 trillion dollars just over the next ten years and between 10 and 15 trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Another proposal that would cost far less and would solve the long-term problem of Social Security far more effectively than Bush's proposal would be to increase the limit of payroll tax. Currently, payroll taxes are paid on wages up to $78,000 but not at all for any wages above that level. If that limit were raised, a large amount of money would be raised to pay for Social Security in the future and would come predominately from a tax on the wealthier people, making the tax system slightly more progressive.

Lies and the Condi Liar that Told Them

Today during the full Senate's discussion of the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to a position as Secretary of State, some Democrats finally developed the courage to question the Administration's policy and justification for the war in Iraq. It's about time. The Democrats need to stand united to challenge the promotion of one of this country's worst National Security Advisor. During her tenure as NSA, Condi lied to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to war and continues to support her lies to this day. It was nice to see for a change Democrats following the lead of Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who opposed the certification of the Ohio electoral votes as well as delivering tough questions in the Foreign Relations Committee questioning of Condi (and, along with John Kerry (D-MA), the only votes against approving her as Secretary of State...for shame, Joe Biden). as Senator Dayton (D-MN) pointed out:
"Lying to Congress, lying to our committees and lying to the American people. It's wrong, it's immoral." The only way to stop it, Dayton said, is to keep the administration from promoting officials "who have been instrumental in deceiving Congress and the American people, and regrettably that includes Dr. Rice."
Democratic Senators need to stand aside of Kerry, Boxer and Dayton in opposing the promotion of Condi from NSA to Secretary of State, if not to change the outcome than to reassure their consituents (the Left, last time I heard) that they will stand by their principles when put to the test.

A new Nixon

It is interesting to hear the comparisons made between Bush and Richard Nixon. They both lied to the country about an unwinnable war (of course the former went farther by starting that war) and an obsessive concern over secrecy. Much Democratic attention has become focused on 2008. However, the more important date is 2006. In 2006, the Democrats have a chance to add a new similarity between Bush and Nixon. In 2006, every member of the House of Representatives is up for re-election. With the discontent within the Republican party over Social Security "reform" (read: theft), a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and the Bush Administration's bungling of the war in Iraq and the lack of a viable exit strategy from Iraq, it would be an opening for the Democrats to retake the house. Once that happens, the House could pass Articles of Impeachment and the process would be started to make the ultimate comparison between Nixon and Bush.

Another (vast) right wing conspiracy

Have you ever noticed that the only two shows on Fox that do not contain gratuitous sex are 24 and Cops. I think there is something to this pattern. They both show signs of right-wing government power. Cops shows how (as Bill Hicks has noted) the police (and therefore the government) can break down your door and exert state power whenever they feel it is called for. This dovetails nicely with their post-9/11 show 24 that focuses exclusively on the wisdom of the government and how it must always be acting in the interests of Americans while also demonizing Arabs (and in a subtle way that feeds off the misperception that all terrorists are Arabs and all Arabs are Muslim). If one watched 24 without any idea of the political situation currently prevailing, one would most likely come under the impression that the U.S. government is involved in benevolent State action to protect the people of the country against anarchist fundamentalist Muslim Arabs that have an irrational hatred towards the "American Way". However, with any knowledge of what Bush has said (that in the post-9/11 world the U.S. is involved in a "crusade" against Islamic terrorists), it becomes clear how the right-wing bias manifests itself on Fox. If there were no bias involved, would Fox really be broadcasting a show that does not depict scandalous ribald manifestations of sexuality and promiscuity? One just needs to compare a show like 24 to a show like The O.C.

Welcome!

This blog was created to express my political and economic viewpoints and also be associated with my new solo project, Thieving Monkeys (music available at MySpace.com. Politically I am a liberal and also well versed in the study of economics. Feel free to post!