Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Looting

The problems in the New Orleans area is not looting. This is the last problem that should be addressed. When the city has diverted police away from search and rescue and towards preventing looting, it is doing a dis-service to the refugees in the city. The problem is not looting, indeed that is not an appropriate term. The proper term is survival and salvage. Any goods in New Orleans stores are either destroyed or will be as the water rises and thus it is appropriate for people to take whatever they can use to survive. It shouldn't be encouraged, but diverting resources to stop it is the wrong decision. The solution should have been designed before the hurricane. The government should have a program whereby it provides the resources to evacuate anyone who wants to evacuate and provide for their survival while they are evacuated in the case of large storms. This is an imperative. Many New Orleans residents were willing to evacuate but did not have the resources or strength to evacuate on their own. If the government had provided the means, much of the human catastrophe would have been avoided. How is it that the non-survivalistic looting in Iraq was allowed with no interference but the struggle for survival and taking of necessary goods has caused the diversion of needed search and rescue resources in New Orleans? All the effort should be towards evacuating the city and saving the people still alive and struggling to stay alive and get out of city!

"America will be a stronger place for it"?

In his speech today, Bush claimed that "America will be a stronger place for it" (i.e., because of Hurricane Katrina), he showed the callousness and disconnectedness that has catagorized his response (or lack thereof) to Hurricane Katrina. There is nothing that will come of the Hurricane that will strengthen the country. The only people in America who will benefit are the oil companies. Bush's delay in releasing oil loans from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve benefited the oil companies. As an article in today's Financial Times noted "The output disruption has swelled refiner margins for petrol production to more than $20 a barrel, a far cry from the 1990s when refiners were incurring losses for each barrel of petrol produced". This is caused by the increases in oil costs from the War in Iraq and the Hurricane. The companies' losses from the storm in terms of equiptment will be re-couped by the insurance companies or the federal government. They are the only true winners from the storm. Everyone else will be hurt directly or by higher gas prices and lower economic growth in the years following the hurricane.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Hurricane Profiteering

Apparently Bush didn't feel that the Category 4 hurricane Katrina as he did for Terri Schiavo and felt that biking and fishing were more important. However, more problematic was Bush's reaction to a storm that derailed a large amount of refinery activity in the Gulf Coast area. Instead of immediately promising to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an effort to contain spikes in the price of crude oil and the retail gasoline prices, he instead did nothing. This hurts the entire country and its economic activity. Who, one may ask, does it benefit? Energy companies, who recieve inflated prices on their current supplies of gasoline will see increased profits from this hurricane across the country, not just in the regions affected by the hurricane. The price increase is especially prominent because there have been no new refineries built in the past 20 years and the current capacity is stretched to the limit as it is. Thus, Hurricane Katrina's impact on reducing supply of gasoline to a nation already experiencing increases in gas prices will increase prices even more. There is no room in the current production capacity to increase production outside of the Gulf Coast region, so, holding demand constant, prices must increase. By not acting, Bush has done a service to energy companies like ExxonMobil at the expense of the rest of the country. He should be punished for price gouging through his inaction.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

The Economy Lags For Most

Paul Kruugman notes that while economic growth has been stronger in the past 2 years than during the first 3 years of the Bush Administration, it has not translated into most people seeing their economic situation improving. As he rightly notes, this is because it is absorbed in corporate profits, CEO and other executive pay increases and increases in health care costs and gas prices. This is the economic legacy of the Bush Administration: moderate net economic growth, huge increases in corporate profit and executive compensation, no action to reduce medical costs and near zero employment or wage growth when adjusted for the growth in the labor force and inflation, respectively. This is an abysmal record for anyone who has concern for the general economic condition of the nation (and for which Bush does not seem to care). All these factors lead to further economic stratification, which hurts 'the family' that Bush seems to care for so much with his rhetoric on divorce, abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also exposes rather dramatically, the real desires of Bush when it comes to economics (the effect of government activity felt more than any other): Enrich those who are rich and well-connected at the expence of those who are not rich and do not have access to the levers of power. In a nation founded upon the idealistic construct that "All men [i.e., people] are created equal", Bush's actions demonstrate his disdain for this ideal. He harkens the return of the 19th century, where the robber barons profited on the backs of the rest of the people.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Robertson: Off to Guantanamo

Pat Robertson's comments that the U.S. government should assassinate Hugo Chavez are appalling and should result in criminal penalties. He should be sent on a 'test-visit' to Guantanamo for threatening a head of state. If nothing else, he should be removed from the television. His comments fuel an image of the U.S. as arrogant and aggressive. He said that Venezuela is being transformed into a communist state and radical Islamic headquarters. First, these two groups could never be allied, much less in a strongly Catholic country because communists are officially atheist and the radical Islamic terrorist groups are trying to force a fundamentalist version of their religion on the rest of the world (not unlike Pat Robertson and his wingnut-right wing buddies). Furthermore, Robertson is suggesting the U.S. government break its own laws. President Ford signed a presidential order in 1976 banning the U.S. government or its agents (broadened in the 1980s to include paid workers or representatives of the U.S. government) from assassinating foreign leaders.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

It's Time To Leave

Finally, the publc has woken up in significant numbers to come out and oppose the War in Iraq, but more is needed. As soldiers die every day, each one being one too many casualties for a war based on lies, the outcome of the war becomes clearer and clearer. The insurgency that Dick Cheney said was in its 'final throes' has become more sophisticated and deadlier while the Iraqi police forces have not been trained fast enough (partly because of low pay and partly because they keep getting blown up and ambushed, often for being 'collaborators' with the U.S. occupation force. In this context, a continued military presence by the U.S. makes little or no sense. Our presence there is a recruiting tool for the people who kill our troops and the Iraqis. Furthermore, the government being set up does not appear favorable to our interests (it appears to be an Islamic government, the type we helped Saddam fight during the 1980s in Iran) and the government also is seen as illegitimate by many Iraqis, particularly the Sunni. While a withdrawl would not be a perfect solution, and Iraq may have a government we dislike, it will be a better outcome than a 5, 8, 10 or 12 year (or longer) occupation that serves as a terrorist/nationalist recruiting tool for the violent opposition.

CAFTA Complaints

A good article in the NY Times about the possible problems with the CAFTA agreement that was rammed through the U.S. Congress on threats and bribes. It highlights the problem with calling preferential trade agreements with no clauses on eliminating subsidies 'free trade'. One of the focal points of this article is on the impact of CAFTA on small farms in the countries involved. The fear is that they will not be able to compete with the large meat factories and corporate farms in the U.S. that are heavily subsidized (part of the reason the Doha Agreements broke down was the developed countries' rejection of their phasing out. One farmer said "It's impossible for is to be competitive with all the subsidies that the North Americans have," said Emilio Rodríguez Pacheco, 48, who farms about 25 acres of rice here. "For the rice sector it's a tragedy." This highlights the difficulties of calling any reduction in trade barriers a progress towards free trade. It is only a move towards free trade if there are no subsidies involved that reduce the cost for the large corporate farms that already have a scale advantage over smaller, unsubsidized farms.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Right Wing Blindness

Reading "What's the Matter With Kansas?" provides valuable insight on how the right wing has used a sense of victimhood coupled with ignoring economic class (but using it to bash 'liberals') to gain power over people whose economic interest lies with the Democrats. If the left can do the same as the right, except focusing on economic class rather than 'cultural' class, the pendelum could swing the other way. More on this later...

Monday, August 15, 2005

Exporting Gangs

This article about the visit of a Montgomery County (MD) executive, who plans to run for governor, to El Salvador mentions some very pressing issues about one of the worst exports to El Salvador since the civil war ended in 1992, gangs. During the civil war, refugees fled El Salvador and were granted asylum in the United States. However, many youths joined gangs in their new cities. When they were caught committing crimes, they were deported back to El Salvador, where they started new branches of the gangs they were part of in the U.S. Therefore, it is not uncommon to hear about gang violence committed by members of gangs with the names of gangs in the U.S., particularly Los Angeles. Stopping the problem has proved difficult, even with the government's excessively harsh no-tolerance policy (which is questionable for a country that is aspiring to be a democracy). It is good policy for there to be sharing of information about possible solutions to the root causes of the export of gangs, and should be continuted and broadened in order to stem the tide of gang export.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Abramoff behind bars

Today Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist under investigation for campaign finance violations was arrested for bank fraud involving a cruise-gambling firm in Florida. This spells a lot of trouble for Republicans, especially Tom DeLay, who have been connected with him by campaign contributions that he coordinated. DeLay also met with Abramoff around the time of the purchase of the cruise-gambling company by Abramoff, his associate and friend Adam Kidan, from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis in 2000. In 2001, Boulis was murdered in a mob-like hit that has never been solved. The DeLay Affair continues.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Roberts: Anti-Choice, Pro-Violence

The article above relates to an ad that has generated controversy because it highlights Roberts' role in a Supreme Court case in October 1991 that considered whether the Ku Klux Klan Act (which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws") applied to violent anti-choice protests outside of abortion clinics. Roberts argued the nonsensical position that it the Act does not cover violent protests at abortion clinics because although physically only women can become pregnant and get abortions, the protests weren't specifically targeted at women. This is a ridiculous position and should be seen through quickly. Not only do the violent anti-choice activists specifically target women, a predominate number of them are poor. They are trying to deprive poor women of rights protected (as the Roe v. Wade decision established) under the Constitution. Even apart from his anti-choice views, Roberts shouldn't be on the Supreme Court for his ridiculous argument in support of violent misogynistic extremists.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Montana's GOP Spins & Intimidates

In the recent furor of the Montana GOP over a Montana Dems ad that makes light of the link between Conrad Burns, the senator up for re-election, and Jack Abramoff, the shady lobbyist under investigation for breaking campaign finance laws, there is spin and intimidation well underway. The Dems' ad claims (rightfully so; see the linked Washington Post Article from February 28, 2005) that Burns received donations from Abramoff. The Montana GOP disputes this claim and has threatened legal action against the stations that are planning to carry the ad. Their assertion that Abramoff did not donate money to Burns' campaign is a spin using terminology so specifically, that it makes the argument worthless. It is true that Abramoff did not ever donate money to Burns' campaign, but he did support the campaign by providing plane flights and directing donations from the Indian lobbies he is under investigation for in the law firm he is associated with. While the assertion by the Montana Dems that Abramoff donated money to Burns' campaign is not true, this only holds up under the most restrictive use of the lexicon. In the more general sense, he did donate to Burns by funneling money from other donors and by providing non-monetary favors to Burns. Yet another Republican has been implicated in the Abramoff-DeLay affair and yet again, they use spin and intimidation to try to weasel their way out of it.

Robbing Veterans

This article in Salon documents the Bush Administration and the Congressional Republicans' efforts to reduce V.A. benefits by reviewing all full disability PTSD veterans to see if they should get less money from the V.A. It is a dishonorable way to cut costs. First, the President and the Republicans lied us into the war and therefore owe more to the veterans than they otherwise do. They shouldn't even try to cut benefits for the veterans of their unnecessary war.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Fire Rove!

Ethics Need Not Apply

Since the Republicans took control of Congress, they have overlooked the ethical lapses of DeLay, Rove, Libby, Randy Cunningham, among others, but had the time, effort and money to go after President Clinton for an adulterous escapade with an intern. In the last year, since the Republicans replaced the leadership of the Ethics Committee and tried to change the rules to de-claw it, the Ethics Committee has been dormant and silent. Even as the evidence that many Congressional members made illegal contributions and took trips paid by lobbyists, there has been no activity in the Ethics Committee. If the government is to be respected as a separate entity from the industries that it is supposed to pass laws to regulate (in order to fulfill their duty to their constituents), there should be more ethical oversight.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Roberts on the Voting Rights Act

An interesting article that suggests Roberts was quite against expanding the Voting Rights Act in 1981 With the Voting Rights Act up for renewal shortly, having a supreme court nominee that could swing the court against civil rights looks increasingly dangerous.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Ban Handguns

It makes a lot of sense to ban handguns. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment (which is designed to allow for a "well regulated milita", i.e. the National Guard) and it could help restrain gun violence. In the current state, the government has to determine whether people are allowed to own handguns, and in that process, whether their ownership will endanger society due to their previous behavior. With a handgun ban, anyone that has a handgun is breaking the law. There is no justification for having handguns. The common example, that people should have guns for hunting, does not have any validity with handguns because the only animal hunted with handguns are people.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Crisis in The Sudan

I find it appaling that there is so little coverage of the death of the main Sudanese rebel leader in the South in a helicopter crash. This has become a big issue. There are riots in Khartoum. When there were riots in Kabul over the desecration of the Koran, there were right-wingers blaming a slighlty mis-sourced Newsweek article (of course without addressing any of the main concerns). Since John Garang's death, the wholee peace process that the Bush Administration was out trumpeting has been shaken up, if not eliminated. The need now is for the U.S. and Europe to re-engage the issue to head off the possibility of renewed civil war, a war that has been going on for more than 20 years before the fragile peace treaty that was brokered a short time ago.

A Post Script on Bolton

In addition to what I said earlier about Bolton, the NY Times Editorial has a good assessment of his weaknesses, particularly in his credibility. Bolton's main flaws in dealing with the rest of the world deal with the initial quotes attributed to him that came out once he was nominated, not the domestic disputes after he was nominated. Those mainly deal with his ability to act as an agent and representative of the U.S. government, and which are still damning in the indictment of his inability to work in a large agency, particularly one associated with government, where he encounters any resistance to his ideology and ideas. In the U.S., he should be viewed as unfit to serve as U.S. ambassador because he was unable to deal with the crisis with North Korea. In fact, he was pulled from the negotiating team at the insistence of the North Koreans. If the psychologically questionable regime of Kim Jong Il cannot understand him, how can a democracy like the U.S. abide his madness.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Bolton over-ride

It is a travesty and an insult to the role of the Senate for advise and consent that Bush has now recess-appointed John Bolton to the post as the U.S.'s ambassador to the U.N. The Administration did not allow skeptics of Bolton's nomination to see the information they requested, did not address Bolton's role in the outing of Valerie Wilson's identity as an undercover CIA operative to Robert Novak, nor did it address any of the concerns over Bolton's bullying past, as well as issues he may be blackmailed on in the future, like his forcing of his ex-wife to go to swinger clubs in New York that could leave the U.S. government open to blackmail and ransom demands.