Let me get this straight: Of the 14 Baltimore City Council seats up for election in 2007, there is no opposition in 5 of the races, in one of the races the Sun made no endorsement, and in every single one of the remaining 8 races the Sun endorsed the Democratic incumbent (“The Sun endorses”, 11/6.)
To add insult to injury, the Sun not only did not endorse fresh blood candidates like the Green Party’s Bill Barry, they refused to even mention his name.
Did the Sun editorial board treat Mr. Barry with such disregard because he ran a strong campaign against Governor Martin O’Malley family member Robert W. Curran in District 3?
For me the bottom line is that in a city widely perceived to be on the decline, with a murder rate that is the butt of jokes around the country, with a failed school system, with BGE having just raised its rates by 72% in order to allow Mayo Shattuck to become the highest paid CEO in Maryland, the Sun recommended voters return the same Democratic machine pols, those “assured, knowledgeable leaders” whose “smooth and undramatic” policies have created one of the most corrupt and mismanaged cities in the country!
One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result each time; is the editorial board of the Sun insane?
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Is Red the New Black?
I just read, “Green is the New Red” by Mark Newgent posted at the “Red Maryland” blog (http://redmaryland.blogspot.com/2007/10/green-is-new-red.html) and found Mr. Newgent’s critique of the Green Party and Baltimore city council presidential candidate Maria Allwine (http://www.takebackbge.org/) predictably alarmist. As I understand it, the central tenant of Newgent’s piece is that governments are by their nature coercive, incompetent and corrupt while corporations represent freedom, sagacity and efficiency.
Newgent’s apologia to unfettered corporate capitalism ignores at least two crucial facts: corporations (especially the larger ones) are already the biggest beneficiaries of government largess and because of this corporate socialism, in the past few decades the U.S. has experienced a dramatic consolidation of wealth (and power) into the hands of a relatively few elites.
Point one: The US economic model is now one in which the government socializes the risks and expenses of doing business (e.g. wars of empire, industry subsidies, government underwriting, research grants, corporate bailouts, payment in lieu of taxes [PILOTs], etc.) and privatizes the rewards (the average CEO of a large U.S. corporation made roughly $10.8 million in 2006, or 364 times that of average U.S. workers, who made $29,544.) As with most so-called conservatives, Mr. Newgent’s professed distaste for “socialism” would be more convincing if it extended to denunciations of corporate socialism for the fat cat CEOs who pay the lobbyists who write our laws and who sponsor the campaigns of our (“Republicrat”) elected leaders. Aren’t so-called conservatives like Newgent enablers and proponents of our current revolving-door system of government in Baltimore, Annapolis and Washington?
Point two: The top 1 percent of US taxpayers received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, writing when fascism was a growing threat, reminded us that “We can have a democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." Are so-called conservatives like Newgent even concerned about the inevitable erosion of democracy brought about by an unrestrained consolidation of wealth and power?
As to Newgent’s specific charges, I will address a few of the more outrageous claims. As I understand it Maria Allwine does not promote a regime of “forced solarization” as I believe she understands that weatherization, buyers coops for heating fuel, etc. may be more appropriate for some Baltimoreans. Oddly, Newgent seems to regret the fact that Allwine’s plans “forces [us] to choose how and [sic!] we power our homes and how much energy we use.” I’m confused: I thought the so-called conservative mantra was that citizens know how to spent their money better than the government and that the power of capitalism is the buyer’s freedom of choice!
Newgent further writes that, “Allwine’s economic and tax proposals drip with rank class warfare rhetoric . . . Typical of such socialist twaddle, it lacks the concrete understanding that such livable wages actually creates unemployment.” This conservative shibboleth is easily debunked: the US has raised the minimum wage many times and our unemployment rate is still among the lowest in the world—even despite the influx of millions of illegal workers. I suspect if we mandated prison terms for owners of companies that hired illegal workers, we could raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour while keeping our unemployment rate under 5%. Would Newgent support such a proposal?
Newgent also repeats the “higher taxes creates lower tax receipts” conservative mantra, even at a time when the Republican administration in Washington has lowered taxes on the wealthiest Americans and our federal debt has soared to the highest level in history! So-called conservatives do not have a leg to stand on with regard to taxes and debt because their record of fiscal mismanagement (think of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II) in these regards is disastrous!
Newgent claims “Allwine wants to tax businesses out Baltimore.” This is not true. Allwine wants businesses to pay their fair share of taxes and, as a small business owner myself (and one who has never asked for nor received any government-sponsored “sweetheart deals”) I could not agree with her more. I want a level playing field for small businesses like mine to compete on, and that includes ending corporate subsidies, giveaways and PILOTs.
So, finally, I ask: Are red (state) supporters the new black (shirt) fascists? Are so-called conservatives the modern equivalent of the Italian fascists who under Mussolini created a government that combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, militarism and anti-Communism? It rather sounds like that to me: From what I can tell fear of “socialism” has replaced fear of communism in the arsenal of scare tactics employed by so-called conservatives like Mr. Newgent.
But the citizens aren’t buying it: They know corporations have too much power over their lives, they want “socialized” medicine, they want to keep their social security as a public trust, and they want to raise the minimum wage. Many want public financing of elections and publicly owned utilities. Almost all Baltimoreans are pissed off that their utility rates had to increase by 72% in order for BGE’s Mayo Shattuck to become the highest paid CEO in Maryland! Some are now even (finally) questioning the unholy alliance between corporatism and our wars of empire, the latest of which (in Iraq) is said to have already cost every American man, woman and child over $8,000!
One thing hasn’t changed however, as Newgent noted in his revealing comment at the end of his piece that “If the Greens are the so-called ‘alternative’ to business as usual, business as usual doesn’t sound so bad.” This is an echo of the early 1900’s Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman’s denunciation of the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.” What was true then is true today: the Republicans and Democrats (“Republicrats”) know a good thing when they see it and are not about to change the status quo in which their leaders are allowed to revolve between their corporate jobs and their government jobs, all the while serving the interests of the rich few at the expense of the poorer many. And that is the way, presumably, so-called conservatives like Mr. Newgent like it.
Newgent’s apologia to unfettered corporate capitalism ignores at least two crucial facts: corporations (especially the larger ones) are already the biggest beneficiaries of government largess and because of this corporate socialism, in the past few decades the U.S. has experienced a dramatic consolidation of wealth (and power) into the hands of a relatively few elites.
Point one: The US economic model is now one in which the government socializes the risks and expenses of doing business (e.g. wars of empire, industry subsidies, government underwriting, research grants, corporate bailouts, payment in lieu of taxes [PILOTs], etc.) and privatizes the rewards (the average CEO of a large U.S. corporation made roughly $10.8 million in 2006, or 364 times that of average U.S. workers, who made $29,544.) As with most so-called conservatives, Mr. Newgent’s professed distaste for “socialism” would be more convincing if it extended to denunciations of corporate socialism for the fat cat CEOs who pay the lobbyists who write our laws and who sponsor the campaigns of our (“Republicrat”) elected leaders. Aren’t so-called conservatives like Newgent enablers and proponents of our current revolving-door system of government in Baltimore, Annapolis and Washington?
Point two: The top 1 percent of US taxpayers received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, writing when fascism was a growing threat, reminded us that “We can have a democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." Are so-called conservatives like Newgent even concerned about the inevitable erosion of democracy brought about by an unrestrained consolidation of wealth and power?
As to Newgent’s specific charges, I will address a few of the more outrageous claims. As I understand it Maria Allwine does not promote a regime of “forced solarization” as I believe she understands that weatherization, buyers coops for heating fuel, etc. may be more appropriate for some Baltimoreans. Oddly, Newgent seems to regret the fact that Allwine’s plans “forces [us] to choose how and [sic!] we power our homes and how much energy we use.” I’m confused: I thought the so-called conservative mantra was that citizens know how to spent their money better than the government and that the power of capitalism is the buyer’s freedom of choice!
Newgent further writes that, “Allwine’s economic and tax proposals drip with rank class warfare rhetoric . . . Typical of such socialist twaddle, it lacks the concrete understanding that such livable wages actually creates unemployment.” This conservative shibboleth is easily debunked: the US has raised the minimum wage many times and our unemployment rate is still among the lowest in the world—even despite the influx of millions of illegal workers. I suspect if we mandated prison terms for owners of companies that hired illegal workers, we could raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour while keeping our unemployment rate under 5%. Would Newgent support such a proposal?
Newgent also repeats the “higher taxes creates lower tax receipts” conservative mantra, even at a time when the Republican administration in Washington has lowered taxes on the wealthiest Americans and our federal debt has soared to the highest level in history! So-called conservatives do not have a leg to stand on with regard to taxes and debt because their record of fiscal mismanagement (think of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II) in these regards is disastrous!
Newgent claims “Allwine wants to tax businesses out Baltimore.” This is not true. Allwine wants businesses to pay their fair share of taxes and, as a small business owner myself (and one who has never asked for nor received any government-sponsored “sweetheart deals”) I could not agree with her more. I want a level playing field for small businesses like mine to compete on, and that includes ending corporate subsidies, giveaways and PILOTs.
So, finally, I ask: Are red (state) supporters the new black (shirt) fascists? Are so-called conservatives the modern equivalent of the Italian fascists who under Mussolini created a government that combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, militarism and anti-Communism? It rather sounds like that to me: From what I can tell fear of “socialism” has replaced fear of communism in the arsenal of scare tactics employed by so-called conservatives like Mr. Newgent.
But the citizens aren’t buying it: They know corporations have too much power over their lives, they want “socialized” medicine, they want to keep their social security as a public trust, and they want to raise the minimum wage. Many want public financing of elections and publicly owned utilities. Almost all Baltimoreans are pissed off that their utility rates had to increase by 72% in order for BGE’s Mayo Shattuck to become the highest paid CEO in Maryland! Some are now even (finally) questioning the unholy alliance between corporatism and our wars of empire, the latest of which (in Iraq) is said to have already cost every American man, woman and child over $8,000!
One thing hasn’t changed however, as Newgent noted in his revealing comment at the end of his piece that “If the Greens are the so-called ‘alternative’ to business as usual, business as usual doesn’t sound so bad.” This is an echo of the early 1900’s Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman’s denunciation of the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.” What was true then is true today: the Republicans and Democrats (“Republicrats”) know a good thing when they see it and are not about to change the status quo in which their leaders are allowed to revolve between their corporate jobs and their government jobs, all the while serving the interests of the rich few at the expense of the poorer many. And that is the way, presumably, so-called conservatives like Mr. Newgent like it.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Tortured Logic Behind the Logic of Torture
Neither President Bush, nor his nominee for Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, nor anyone else in the Bush administration is willing to publicly answer the simple question: "Is waterboarding (an interrogation method that simulates drowning) a form of torture?"
The excuses they have given for their reticence to answer the question are themselves tortuous: Bush argued terrorists would get an advantage if he answered and Mukasey cited his concern that to answer would, "put [interrogators'] careers or freedom at risk" ("Mukasey hearing turns testy," 10/19).
In truth, even if Bush acknowledged waterboarding was torture, terrorists know that the US "out sources" (through the program known as "extraordinary rendition") harsh detainee interrogation to countries where waterboarding is employed, and thus terrorists determined to steel themselves against this simple and widely documented technique are not waiting for a definitive answer from Bush which they would in any case presume was a lie.
As for Mukasey's alleged concern for protecting the interrogators- nothing could put them more at risk than not knowing whether the methods they employ are legal under international conventions.
In short all this obfuscation boils down to the proposition that Bush & Co. will not say whether they approve interrogation techniques against our enemies that they would consider torture if our enemies performed them against US citizens.
In a just world President Bush, Vice President Cheney, other members of the Bush Administration and some Republican and Democratic members of Congress would find themselves facing war crime charges at The Hague, where they would have to publicly and explicitly defend their torture and "preemptive war" policies.
The excuses they have given for their reticence to answer the question are themselves tortuous: Bush argued terrorists would get an advantage if he answered and Mukasey cited his concern that to answer would, "put [interrogators'] careers or freedom at risk" ("Mukasey hearing turns testy," 10/19).
In truth, even if Bush acknowledged waterboarding was torture, terrorists know that the US "out sources" (through the program known as "extraordinary rendition") harsh detainee interrogation to countries where waterboarding is employed, and thus terrorists determined to steel themselves against this simple and widely documented technique are not waiting for a definitive answer from Bush which they would in any case presume was a lie.
As for Mukasey's alleged concern for protecting the interrogators- nothing could put them more at risk than not knowing whether the methods they employ are legal under international conventions.
In short all this obfuscation boils down to the proposition that Bush & Co. will not say whether they approve interrogation techniques against our enemies that they would consider torture if our enemies performed them against US citizens.
In a just world President Bush, Vice President Cheney, other members of the Bush Administration and some Republican and Democratic members of Congress would find themselves facing war crime charges at The Hague, where they would have to publicly and explicitly defend their torture and "preemptive war" policies.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
With enemies like these who needs friends?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’ s jaw-dropping stupid comments at Columbia University about gays and the holocaust are further reminders of President Bush’s great good luck and the world’s misfortune that the U.S.’s most vociferous foreign critics reduce themselves to figures of ridiculousness in their evident desire to get applause from their audiences back home when they appear before cameras in New York (“Iranian president gets hostile reception”, 9/26.)
Last year Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s idiotic comments about Bush being the Devil overshadowed his U.N. address which should instead be remembered for his highlighting efforts to create an alternative economic model for the Americas, one that is intended to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.
Similarly, Ahmadinejad’ s pointed observation this week that the Palestinian people have been made to suffer for the sins of the Germans (Nazis) was completely lost in the din of condemnations surrounding his many preposterous claims.
It could be argued that with enemies like these Bush hardly needs friends; but if another world is possible we need to hear from leaders with vision and integrity who strike chords that resonate among all peace loving peoples of the world, and soon.
Last year Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s idiotic comments about Bush being the Devil overshadowed his U.N. address which should instead be remembered for his highlighting efforts to create an alternative economic model for the Americas, one that is intended to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.
Similarly, Ahmadinejad’ s pointed observation this week that the Palestinian people have been made to suffer for the sins of the Germans (Nazis) was completely lost in the din of condemnations surrounding his many preposterous claims.
It could be argued that with enemies like these Bush hardly needs friends; but if another world is possible we need to hear from leaders with vision and integrity who strike chords that resonate among all peace loving peoples of the world, and soon.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Iraq & Vietnam
Having spent his stateside “military service” in and AWOL from the “Champagne Corp” unit of the Texas Air National Guard, it is understandable (but not excusable) that George W. Bush now thinks the primary lesson to glean from Vietnam is that U.S. soldiers have to keep killing and dying for a lost cause to prevent more killing and dying after they leave.
In fact the key lessons to learn from Vietnam (and Iraq) are that U.S. presidents should never start wars based on lies, especially against countries that aren’t threatening us.
Until the next American president acknowledges these truths, and until the “neocon” perpetrators of the Iraqi fiasco are tried and imprisoned, it is probably unrealistic to expect that any ally (particularly from “Old” Europe) will help any U.S. administration extricate our country from this costly and predicted debacle, or enthusiastically cooperate in our efforts to reduce the international threat of anti-American terrorism.
Furthermore, until Americans stop voting for candidates and parties that believe war is a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to be a favorite terrorist target, and our middle class standard of living (health, education, welfare, etc.) will continue to slip further behind the standards set by the best post-imperial “Western” societies.
In fact the key lessons to learn from Vietnam (and Iraq) are that U.S. presidents should never start wars based on lies, especially against countries that aren’t threatening us.
Until the next American president acknowledges these truths, and until the “neocon” perpetrators of the Iraqi fiasco are tried and imprisoned, it is probably unrealistic to expect that any ally (particularly from “Old” Europe) will help any U.S. administration extricate our country from this costly and predicted debacle, or enthusiastically cooperate in our efforts to reduce the international threat of anti-American terrorism.
Furthermore, until Americans stop voting for candidates and parties that believe war is a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to be a favorite terrorist target, and our middle class standard of living (health, education, welfare, etc.) will continue to slip further behind the standards set by the best post-imperial “Western” societies.
Monday, January 08, 2007
January 8, 2007 - Humane Citizens, Not God, Make Great Societies
I profoundly disagree with Hugh Thompson’s conclusion that, “Without the belief in God . . . the world would be a far colder, harsher, less humane place to live" (“Faith is inspiration for charity, peace”, 1/6.)
In fact the opposite is the case.
One needs only to look at contemporary secular Western Europe to see societies with the lowest rates of religious observance and the highest rates of atheism, the highest rates of education, the highest longevity rates, the lowest rates of violent crime, the lowest rates of poverty, and the lowest rates of infant mortality, etc.
By humane standards these post-Christian countries are the great societal successes of human history and they offer a blueprint for how we can finally eradicate poverty and violence in the U.S.
In short, I think that the need for god is diminished in direct proportion to the well being (universal health care, universal education K-through-college, a living wage, etc.) the state guarantees every citizen.
In fact the opposite is the case.
One needs only to look at contemporary secular Western Europe to see societies with the lowest rates of religious observance and the highest rates of atheism, the highest rates of education, the highest longevity rates, the lowest rates of violent crime, the lowest rates of poverty, and the lowest rates of infant mortality, etc.
By humane standards these post-Christian countries are the great societal successes of human history and they offer a blueprint for how we can finally eradicate poverty and violence in the U.S.
In short, I think that the need for god is diminished in direct proportion to the well being (universal health care, universal education K-through-college, a living wage, etc.) the state guarantees every citizen.