Uzbek'n Out

Today, the Uzbek government officially evicted the U.S. from its airbase in Uzbekistan, K2 for unspecified reasons. However, this is certainly a blessing in disguise and something the U.S. should have done, although Bush would have never left voluntarily. The promise of airbases in the former Soviet Union was too much for someone whose advisors are eternally stuck in a Cold War mentality. However, it is the best thing that has happened to the U.S. in terms of salvaging its record and credibility on human rights since the Bush Administration has been in power. The Uzbek government has an abysmal record on human rights including the massacre of a large number of protesters and the surviving protester-refugees fleeing the country. It also has a government with a long record of torture--including boiling people to death--that is the product of a regime desperate to stay in power (it has been in power since the fall of the Soviet union) as it sees similar former Soviet states' governments thrust from power in popular rebellions (the latest being Kyrgyzstan). The U.S. will no longer have an albatross hanging from its neck about its cozy relations with a brutal regime that would make Saddam and Kim Jong Il proud. Without having to play nice with a regime like this, there might be a possibility that the government could be overthrown (by popular insurrection) or convinced to hold free and fair elections in order to avoid that fate.

CAFTA Woes

With the passage of CAFTA it appears that the pharmaceutical industry and the corporate lobbyists have beaten the workers and the residents of the CAFTA area. However, there are also more casualties, and one of those is movement towards free trade. As the NY Times reported, in order for the Republicans to force CAFTA upon the country, they had to promise almost instant gratification by restricting textile trade with China, not exactly what one would expect from a party that claims to be the party of "free trade". It is also emblematic of the party's misuse of the language, especially in economics. For example, the push for 'free markets' and 'capitalism' overshadows many restrictions to competition that the Administration supports that many economists and others, including many in the business community do not support. For example, in the run-up to the War in Iraq, the contracts for reconstruction and support were not procured in a competitive bidding process, but were instead allocated in a process that heavily favored political connections instead of lowest costs. This is a common theme throughout the Administration. They only use the rhetoric when it is convenient (even if it is misleading, as it is with 'free trade' and CAFTA).

CAFTA is not free trade

My letter to my congressmen:

 

Please vote against CAFTA tomorrow.  I received my B.A. in economics and during my course of studies, I came to understand the theoretical and practical difficulties of preferential trade agreement.  It doesn't lead to free trade and therefore it doesn't provide the benefits promised by economic theory.  In addition, it has so many corporate provisions in it that would do nothing except increase profits for certain politically involved corporations at the expense of regular people throughout the Americas.  Therefore, it is not in the interest of the U.S. or the other countries involved.

Non-Disclosure Breach

Regardless of whether Karl Rove and Lewis Libby broke the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 or the Espionage Act of 1917 (which prohibits even unintentional disclosure of confidential information), they may be liable at least for dismissal under the non-disclosure agreement (Standard Form 312. In section 4, it says, "I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws". This clearly gives reason for withdrawing Rove & Libby's security clearance, firing them and possibly also indicting them.

Searching Mass Transit

After the attempt on July 21st to bomb the London Tube and Buses, the NY Mayor Bloomberg started a program to randomly search passengers and their bags as they enter the subway.  With millions of people travelling on the subway everyday in addition to the promise not to racially profile leaves the policy essentially useless.  However, that means that the idea should be scrapped as a needless interference and impossible to effectively do without violating civil rights by racial profiling.  It is not going to make anyone safer, although it will make them feel safer.  It is only possible to increase safety from attack by increasing the proportion of money going to mass transit vis-a-vis airline travel.  It is a backwards looking policy to protect the targets of attacks after those attacks have occurred.  Just because no one has attacked a nuclear or chemical plant or the seaports doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected as much as airports or mass transit.  The money should be doled out based on the location's vulnerability to attack. 

Republican Foot In Mouth

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) today said that if there is a terrorist attack on the U.S. using nuclear weapons, the U.S. "could take out their holy sites", specifically mentioning Mecca. This is a ridiculously offensive statement that undermines any progress towards clarifying that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam, although the Bush administration has blurred that distinction with its conduct and rhetoric. In addition, while on Fox News, Tancredo defended his comments while black and white pictures of atomic blasts were shown on the screen. He should apologize immediately, as should Fox News for its fear-mongering bigotry-enabling coverage in this case, as well as many others.

Stop Roberts

Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court has a short record in the judiciary, but a long record as a Republican operative before Bush nominated him for the DC circuit appeals court in 2001 (he was confirmed in 2003).  He worked for Rehnquist & Reagan, donated significant amounts to Republican candidates and PACs.  He opposes the right of due process, ostensibly only for 'enemy combatants', according to a recent ruling that he signed, but which does not expressly state that it doesn't apply to Americans or non-enemy combatants.  It is also pretty clear that he does not believe that the federal government can regulate labor and environmental standards.  He is, while mostly unknown, a dangerous choice for the Supreme Court.

Religion

A clarification that is a mainstay for this blogger:

ANY RELIGION THAT GIVES CERTAIN RIGHTS TO ANY SECTION OF THE POPULATION OVER ANY OTHER SECTION IS WRONG!!!! THAT IS AGAINST ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, INCLUDING THE BELIEF TO HAVE NO RELIGION.

Iraqi Bullshit

Well, to make a bad situation worse, it appears that in a draft version of the Iraqi constitution, women lose rights in terms of divorce and family inheritance. In addition to losing 1,770 troops already, we are not going to be able to ensure equal rights for women. That is bullshit. Any religion that delegates lesser rights for women is a load of shite! And in it's more fundamentalist breeds, that applies to EVERY RELIGION IN EXISTENCE. And now, apparently, that will be what we have bestowed on the Iraqi people. We should be in there (if it was necessary in the first place...it wasn't) to make sure that international values (i.e. those for women, we haven't signed the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child, so we can't say shit about that) will be instituted in our puppet government. If that doesn't happen, how can the illegal war be justified. We aren't spreading 'values' and we don't even follow the International rules on waging war. America has become the idiot bastards of the world. We disregard the Geneva Conventions AND we wage illegal wars. Where is the international pressure for regime change??? Get these fucking bastards out!!!

Don't Look at the 'Shiny Object' (A Supreme Court Nominee)

My letter to the editor of the Washington Post:

Bush's announcement today that he has decided upon a Supreme Court nominee was not surprising, given the heat heaped upon Karl Rove and Scooter Libby's involvement with the Valerie Plame Wilson affair. According to Republican operatives, most people anticipated the announcement of a nominee sometime next week. However, in order to distract attention from the troubles with his Administration and his constantly changing ethical standards for his politically appointed staff, he moved the announcement date up to today. The American people are not that easily distracted 'shiny object' tactics and neither should the media.

Letter to Alliance for Justice

I wrote this email about their recent email about the new Supreme Court Nominee:

While I applaud your effort to ensure a fair review of nominees for Supreme Court justice positions, I was sorely disappointed by your list of standard for these nominees. After clicking on the "standards" link, I was greeted by a letter to the heads of the two parties in the senate that was both unfulfilling to me as a Liberal, as well as poorly written and excessively wordy. It repeated several phrases and did not concisely present the standards for a supreme court nominee that both parties could agree upon, fulfilling the constitution in its entirety without regard to political or religious belief. I would appreciate a short list of these concerns. I, too, am concerned about the potential harm a radical rightist justice could produce on the Supreme Court, especially one filling Sandra Day O'Connor's role as a court moderate. I believe a new justice SHOULD protect the right to safe, legal abortions, should protect the environment, labor rights, etc., but your letter conveyed little of that and much more of confusion about the "message" that should have been conveyed. YES, we do want labor rights, environmental protection, the right to free speech, the option of safe, legal abortions. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT! I think you understand that, but that is what needs to come across to anyone reading that letter.

I thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Have you no decency, Mr. Bush?

Well, confronted with the choice between keeping his promise to fire anyone involved with the leaking of Valerie Plame's name and sticking with his political bogeyman Karl Rove, Bush has done what he does so well, lie and pretend that he hasn't lied. Today, he said that anyone found to be breaking the law will be fired. This is a marked departure from what he promised shortly after Robert Novak identified Valerie Plame as a covert operative working for the CIA on WMD non-proliferation. If Bush had any honor or sense of decency, he would have immediately demanded to know who leaked Plame's name and fired them on the spot...2 years ago! However, now that it has been revealed that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, are the leakers (or at least two of them), he would rather make himself into a liar than lose their scheming manipulative talents. For shame. As Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, has said, they should be frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. The entire Administration should be impeached, if for nothing else than the huge cover-up on a scale not seen since Richard Nixon was forced to resign. Once again, for shame!

Budgetary Red Herring

In the last day or two, the Karl Rove treasonous has distracted attention from what the White House would like to use as cause for celebration, the reduction in the deficit for the previous quarter compared to what was expected. However, this focus on the current quarter budget deficit reduction distracts from the dire financial straits in which the U.S. finds itself after years of war and unsustainable expensive tax cuts for the very wealthy (52 percent go to the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. just in the 2001 tax cuts, not including the tax cuts that reduced the rate of capital gains and dividends, which are predominately paid by the wealthy). The problem with celebrating over the current tax revenue increase is partially the way it explained. The San Francisco Chronicle reports on July 14, 2005 that "Administration officials credited Bush's tax cuts with reducing the red ink by accelerating growth, thereby pushing up tax receipts." This clearly is the much debunked Laffer Curve argument about tax cuts and growth. There have been numerous studies that have found no link between tax rates and economic growth in the U.S. The Laffer curve argument only works when the tax rates are exceptionally high (at least 50% of income), whereas the U.S. has tax rates significantly under 35% on average, even before the tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003. It is preposterous to claim that the tax cuts reduced the deficit. In fact, according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report, the reduction was due to the expiration of business tax cuts (expired in 2004) and increases in capital gains and dividends in 2004 (the elimination of that tax was passed in 2002, but not fully phased in until the end of this decade). Instead, the deficit is largely the fault of the tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003, as well as some planned overstatement of future deficits in years past. Furthermore, the OMB reports adjust future expected deficits in line with current reductions, even though those reductions were based upon temporary increases in revenue and do not include anticipated spending on Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall War on Terrorism.

Roving into treason

Well, if there wasn't already suggestions that Karl Rove was the primary source of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, it is all but a foregone conclusion at this point. And with this, Rove is identifying himself as a traitor more concerned with crass political calculation than any other goal, say, national security. However, that Rove is a crass political operative is already known, as demonstrated by his politicizing comments about Democrat's reaction to 9/11. Therefore, it is not necessarily most important that Rove is the leaker, as much as I would like to see him 'handcuffed and frog-marched out of the White House'. If Rove was the leaker, there is not much likelihood that he was alone in the planning of the leak. It suggests that at least other high-level members of the White House staff, if not Bush and Cheney themselves, were involved or at least informed about the release of Valerie Plame's identity, and should resign as a result in order to remove the stain this affair (as well as the many other scandals) have brought to the office of the president.

The New Al Qaeda

Well, to follow from my first posting today, the London bombings still do need mention today. The main signal that the London bombings give is that Al Qaeda, unlike the Bush Administration, believe in evolution. Until the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in November 2001, Al Qaeda was a largely centralized terrorist group based in Afghanistan. After the invasion, it was dispersed. Most of the people captured in Afghanistan probably were not involved with or big players if they were involved in Al Qaeda. Starting with the bombings in Bali and also in the bombings in Madrid and London, not to mention the numerous Al Qaeda related bombings in Iraq (which, it should be noted are almost footnotes in the Western press compared to the London bombing, despite similar civilian casualty rates), the group has become much more dispersed. In my opinion, it demonstrates that while the group may be dispersed and in hiding (or in Pakistani shelter), the ideology of Osama bin Laden lives on with very little overall coordination. It is unlikely that the planners of the London bombings had any direction or even communication with the pre-9/11 heads of Al Qaeda. This provides a stark lesson for the West if the terrorism is to end soon: either elimate the causes for sympathy with Al Qaeda or expect more Al Qaeda attacks. It is a difficult challenge, but one that we can rise to. If we do rise to eliminate the causes of terrorist sympathizing, we will automatically also engage in behaviour that will repair the damage Bush has caused thus far to the U.S. image in the world. The Iraq war has nothing to do with it, or didn't before we invaded, and the best solution there is to withdraw our troops and fully support a U.N. resolution to the insurgency (as we were hesitant to do so many times in Central America; does anyone remember El Salvador in the 1980s and early 1990s and the "Communist threat" posed by the FMLN). Al Qaeda's cause is explainable without being unfixable and is most certainly an extreme fringe of the Muslim world who live under the same conditions. Their tactics are unforgivable, but so are some of the things the West has done in retaliation. It is time to hold those who have done us wrong to justice and hold our own who do wrong to others accountable and work towards a situation where there is no support for terrorist ideology and tactics anywhere.

Announcing...

I am now also a European Social Democrat. The European system of good benefits and free national healthcare (this all excludes the U.K. to some degree) is the right way to go. That is all...

The End of Social Security Reform

While the events today in London were tragic and highlighted distinct problems which I have addressed in numerous posts, the real issue for this post still (I can't believe it either) is Bush's rampant disregard for the foundations of Social Security and the facts underlying it. It is very clear that Social Security has been an enormously supported program as compared with ANY other government program. It is also abundantly clear that the Bush White House has selectively lifted facts from conjured reports that suggest the program is in imminent danger of collapes. This is a lie. The program is on sound financial and actuarial footing until at least 2041 (by the Social Security Administration projections) and at least 2053 by Congressional Budget Office projections. The swindling of Americans to "reform" Social Security will destroy it. The program is an insurance program designed to safeguard retirees and survivor (widows and widowers) and those whose wage-earner is disabled. It is not an investment program. The proponents of private accounts revel in the idealistic assumption that private accounts can generate returns of 7 or 8 percent after inflation when the historical legacy of the stock market demonstrates otherwise. Furthermore, they ignore any risk premium attached to alternative investments from the Social Security program. The U.S. government debt is, as of now, the safest possible investment, the closest investment to the risk-free assets of economists. In addition, investing in private accounts, even if there is a 7 or 8 percent average return, does not account for the generational lottery it creates. The average return on investments in a privatized retirement system depends heavily upon when the recipient was born. If the recipient reaches retirement when the economy is in recession, that person, to put it mildly, is screwed compared to the retiree who retires when the economy is booming. And based on the track record of Republicans, when they are in power, the chances of a strong economy are small.

Jailing Judith Miller

As much as the jailing of reporters worries me, I think that Judith Miller deserves it. She obstructed justice in the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Although she and Matthew Cooper argued that they were protecting confidential sources and appealing to whistleblower protection, the argument does not hold up. First, the leak was not part of a whistleblower report. It was a politically motivated act of revenge for Joseph Wilson's, Valerie Plame's husband, op-ed in the NY Times before the start of the Iraq war that showed the lie for what it was that Saddam had tried to get yellowcake uranium from Niger. It was a criminal act with no public value. Indeed, Valerie Plame was responsible for working on WMD non-proliferation and her unveiling may have caused deaths of her contacts. Furthermore, she was responsible for many of the untrue articles she wrote for the NY Times about Iraqi WMD capabilities. For that, she has received her comeuppance. However, it is unnerving that Robert Novak is not in jail because he was the first reporter to unveil her name connected with her title as a CIA operative. Real justice will not be done until Bush resigns in shame, and Robert Novak and Karl Rove is sent to jail.

Bush's 4th Of Ju-Lies

Today in West Virginia, Bush claimed that Iraq is the last battlefield in the "war on terror", but that idea is simply naive. Because the war in Iraq happened, there will be many more battlefields. A little truth managed to come out of Rumsfeld's mouth the other day when he said the U.S. occupation of Iraq could last 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 years (technically, he was talking about how long it could take to defeat the insurgency, but that appears to be equivalent to maintaining the occupation). If the U.S. presence in Iraq could last that long, how can Bush assert that Iraq will be the final battlefield? Bush further shamed himself by trying to link patriotism and the "spirit" of Independence Day with support for the war in Iraq. Once again the Bush Administration would like to equate dissent with a lack of patriotism. This is simply ridiculous. Why is it patriotic to blindly support an illegal war that has never had a suitable number of troops nor a viable exit strategy ("completing the mission" is not an exit strategy, it is a hollow phrase that allows for any necessary interpretation at a later date)? It is less patriotic to give blind support to an Administration intent on dismantling civil liberties, the freedom to have (or not to have) a religion that differs from the President's, etc. So, on the 4th of July, my patriotism is expressed by opposing the undemocratic, illegal policies of the Bush Administration, not because I hate the country, but because I love it and I feel obligated to help change things when the country has gone astray.

Bork 'em

The Right's chance to move one step closer to facism is upon us. With Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation, and the impending resignation of William Renquist, Bush has the opportunity to remake the majority of the Supreme Court in his own tyrranical, fundamentalist, extremist image where the government can snoop on anyone without a legal hearing, can detain people indefinately, can undo decades of social legislation and unburden business from any responsibility for iits actions and the costs it creates for society. However, it would take the country in an increasingly unpopular direction, as the War in Iraq, Social Security destruction and the other initiatives that have become increasingly unpopular as their details have been revealed. To allow Bush to have free reign in appointing radical Supreme Court justices is to accept the end of multi-party democracy in any effective capacity. The Republicans in Congress are already in lockstep (although a few have come out and staunchly opposed some of Bush's policies) so it is up to the Democrats to unite and block and out-of-the-mainstream nominees for the Supreme Court, whether they are a anti-choice, anti-labor, anti-civil rights right winger (a "wing nut") or a relative moderate on social issues, such as Alberto Gonzales, who authorized the torture of illegally held detainees and who dismissed the Geneva Conventions as "quaint". It's time to band together to get a moderate appointee whose views are moderate and not out of range of the majority of Americans who are not wing nuts. If you haven't already, sign up to volunteer with your local Democrats, MoveOn.org, Planned Parenthood or any of the other organizations promoting liberal values and make the choice of a new Supreme Court justice a debate instead of a process of executive fiat and legislative rubber-stamping.

Hunger, Homelessness and Food Security in Oregon

Excusing the hunger rate and homeless problems n Oregon does not do any service to the homeless and hungry. Oregon has a prevalent problem with hunger, food insecurity and homelessness. Dealing with these problems takes more than handouts and cigarettes. It takes a real social change that begins with accepting these issues as serious and pressing.
While things have improved in Oregon, they have not met the acceptable social standards we believe they have. Despite the gains in homeless rights, particularly in the establishment of Dignity Village, life is still difficult for homeless people. Even working families face difficulty in meeting basic needs like food, healthcare and decent housing. While hunger and food instability has decreased in Oregon over the past 10 years, it is still at an unacceptable level, even when compared to the national average. The Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) (2003) reports that 4.3 percent of families in Oregon had at least one member of the family go hungry at times during the year and over 12 percent of working families experienced food instability. This is much higher than even the rest of the country, not to mention our owns expectations and goals. The national rate of at least one member of a family going hungry during a year is 3.4 percent. The situation in Oregon is far more significant. To express it numerically, the difference in people in families who are hungry in Oregon as compared to the rest of the country is 35,596 (Census Bureau, 2003). That is, there are 35,596 people in Oregon who are families experiencing hunger who would not experience hunger if Oregon’s rate was equal to the national rate.
Homelessness in Oregon is a problem as well. While Oregonians might be content with the visible signs of progress, such as fewer homeless people on the street and more news of shelters, there are still pressing problems. According to Oregon Housing & Community Services (2000), “Of [the] 8,840 seeking assistance on any given night, 2,144 were turned away due to lack of space or dollars to provide shelter. These turnaways included 794 children” (Oregon Housing & Community Services 2000, 2). That means that for every three people served, there was one person turned away for lack of space or funding and that out of the population of homeless people nine percent were children who were turned away from homeless shelters due to lack of space or funds. This is not a relativistic problem, this is a catastrophe.
It is going to take a lot more than quarters on the street to solve the problems facing Oregon in terms of food insecurity, hunger and homelessness. It will take a full-on social commitment to eliminate these problems at their root. The focus on these issues needs to be a community-wide one. Anything less will be a disservice to those in our community who are struggling.

Works Cited

Oregon Center for Public Policy (2003) “Hunger in Oregon Improves” http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=nr041119 (Accessed 06/30/05).

Oregon Housing & Community Services (2000) “Homelessness In Oregon” http://www.ohcs.oregon.gov/OHCS/docs/HomelessnessInOregonReport.pdf (Accessed 06/30/05).

United States Census Bureau (2003) Oregon Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41000.html (Accessed 06/30/05).