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.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
November 30, 2006 - Imagine That
Imagine That
Arguably the most (and perhaps the only) insightful comment in The 911 Commission Report was that a systemic “failure of imagination” kept U.S. officials from understanding the Al Qaeda threat before the attacks on New York and Washington.
A failure of imagination presumably prevented the neocon leaders in the U.S. government from seeing what tens of millions of people around the world saw before the invasion of Iraq: That Saddam had no huge stockpiles of WMD nor any ongoing WMD program, that Saddam and Al Queda were not allies, and that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was going to be a quagmire at best and would likely precipitate a civil war.
Similarly, there is little reason to believe that the “Beltway insiders” (James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson) presently laboring over completion of the Iraq Study Group Report will distinguish themselves by producing any imaginative conclusions regarding the U.S. misadventure in Iraq.
What the authors of the Iraq Study Group Report will almost certainly not imagine is that the Middle East is now at a point of optimal opportunity for longstanding peace because at this moment U.S. and Israel’s prestige and Muslim’s sense of humiliation are all near or at their historical nadirs.
If only U.S. representatives who publicly opposed Bush’s now-discredited “foreign policy” agenda from the outset entered into wide-ranging discussions with humility and in a true spirit of compromise with leaders in the Middle East can the unimaginable finally be made possible, and the unthinkable be avoided.
America is the strongest, most dominant nation since ancient Rome, and what we do affects the entire world. The tone we Americans set for how conflicts get resolved will bring the world happiness or grief in proportion to the courage we have to think holistically, and to act nonviolently.
With that in mind, try to imagine the following imaginative scenario:
1. Congress impeaches and removes President Bush and Vice President Cheney for lying to the U.S. public in order to get their war of choice in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, etc. are brought to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
2. President Nancy Pelosi revokes the policies of “regime change” and “preemptive war” and nominates for U.S. Secretary of State Noam Chomsky who makes a public and detailed declaration of apology and offer of reparations for U.S. foreign policy misdeeds; Dennis Kucinich is selected to head the newly-created U.S. Department of Peace; The U.S. pledges to reduce its WMD stockpiles and overall “defense” spending by 50% and to increase U.S. humanitarian assistance abroad by 1,000% in one year; The U.S. pledges to fund R&D on wind and solar energy commensurate with the goal of achieving 50% renewable energy consumption in the U.S. by 2020 (matching the Danish government’s actual goal.)
3. President Pelosi appoints Randall Robinson and Ralph Nader to coordinate efforts between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America, Cuba, the Caribbean and South America to create the Western Hemisphere Rights of Citizens Convention guaranteeing universal health care, free education from pre-K through college, a living wage, and a safe working environment including the right to unionize, etc.
4. President Pelosi appoints Wangari Maathai and Desmond Tutu to coordinate efforts in Africa to promote sustainable and equitable economic development, sends funds to help stand-up a U.N. force to end the genocide in Darfur, and sends sufficient money and medicine to help end the AIDs crisis in Africa.
5. President Pelosi appoints Arundhati Roy and Vandana Shiva to coordinate efforts in India and Pakistan to promote sustainable and equitable economic development and to take initial steps towards eliminating their nuclear weapons programs.
6. President Pelosi appoints Rabbi Michael Lerner and Scott Ritter as “Special Middle East envoys” who negotiate a “two-states” solution to the Israel/Palestine crisis in which Israel gives up its nuclear weapons and programs, and Jerusalem becomes an international city, a “Mecca” for peace-loving people around the globe, the new headquarters of the new democratic U.N., with the Dalai Lama as mayor.
7. Working with our newly-energized partners in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, the Western Hemisphere, and Asia, the U.S. supports the U.N.- organized referendum in Iraq on whether an international military force should be put in place in Iraq, and for now long. The referendum also includes a vote on whether or not to partition Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite states.
8. The U.S. signs a global nuclear non-proliferation agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons stockpiles in ten years.
9. The U.S. supports a U.N.-sponsored one-year moratorium on the manufacture, sale and transportation of all weapons outside of the U.S., with mandatory life sentences for the owners of the weapons – related companies who are caught breaking the moratorium.
Arguably the most (and perhaps the only) insightful comment in The 911 Commission Report was that a systemic “failure of imagination” kept U.S. officials from understanding the Al Qaeda threat before the attacks on New York and Washington.
A failure of imagination presumably prevented the neocon leaders in the U.S. government from seeing what tens of millions of people around the world saw before the invasion of Iraq: That Saddam had no huge stockpiles of WMD nor any ongoing WMD program, that Saddam and Al Queda were not allies, and that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was going to be a quagmire at best and would likely precipitate a civil war.
Similarly, there is little reason to believe that the “Beltway insiders” (James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson) presently laboring over completion of the Iraq Study Group Report will distinguish themselves by producing any imaginative conclusions regarding the U.S. misadventure in Iraq.
What the authors of the Iraq Study Group Report will almost certainly not imagine is that the Middle East is now at a point of optimal opportunity for longstanding peace because at this moment U.S. and Israel’s prestige and Muslim’s sense of humiliation are all near or at their historical nadirs.
If only U.S. representatives who publicly opposed Bush’s now-discredited “foreign policy” agenda from the outset entered into wide-ranging discussions with humility and in a true spirit of compromise with leaders in the Middle East can the unimaginable finally be made possible, and the unthinkable be avoided.
America is the strongest, most dominant nation since ancient Rome, and what we do affects the entire world. The tone we Americans set for how conflicts get resolved will bring the world happiness or grief in proportion to the courage we have to think holistically, and to act nonviolently.
With that in mind, try to imagine the following imaginative scenario:
1. Congress impeaches and removes President Bush and Vice President Cheney for lying to the U.S. public in order to get their war of choice in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, etc. are brought to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
2. President Nancy Pelosi revokes the policies of “regime change” and “preemptive war” and nominates for U.S. Secretary of State Noam Chomsky who makes a public and detailed declaration of apology and offer of reparations for U.S. foreign policy misdeeds; Dennis Kucinich is selected to head the newly-created U.S. Department of Peace; The U.S. pledges to reduce its WMD stockpiles and overall “defense” spending by 50% and to increase U.S. humanitarian assistance abroad by 1,000% in one year; The U.S. pledges to fund R&D on wind and solar energy commensurate with the goal of achieving 50% renewable energy consumption in the U.S. by 2020 (matching the Danish government’s actual goal.)
3. President Pelosi appoints Randall Robinson and Ralph Nader to coordinate efforts between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America, Cuba, the Caribbean and South America to create the Western Hemisphere Rights of Citizens Convention guaranteeing universal health care, free education from pre-K through college, a living wage, and a safe working environment including the right to unionize, etc.
4. President Pelosi appoints Wangari Maathai and Desmond Tutu to coordinate efforts in Africa to promote sustainable and equitable economic development, sends funds to help stand-up a U.N. force to end the genocide in Darfur, and sends sufficient money and medicine to help end the AIDs crisis in Africa.
5. President Pelosi appoints Arundhati Roy and Vandana Shiva to coordinate efforts in India and Pakistan to promote sustainable and equitable economic development and to take initial steps towards eliminating their nuclear weapons programs.
6. President Pelosi appoints Rabbi Michael Lerner and Scott Ritter as “Special Middle East envoys” who negotiate a “two-states” solution to the Israel/Palestine crisis in which Israel gives up its nuclear weapons and programs, and Jerusalem becomes an international city, a “Mecca” for peace-loving people around the globe, the new headquarters of the new democratic U.N., with the Dalai Lama as mayor.
7. Working with our newly-energized partners in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, the Western Hemisphere, and Asia, the U.S. supports the U.N.- organized referendum in Iraq on whether an international military force should be put in place in Iraq, and for now long. The referendum also includes a vote on whether or not to partition Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite states.
8. The U.S. signs a global nuclear non-proliferation agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons stockpiles in ten years.
9. The U.S. supports a U.N.-sponsored one-year moratorium on the manufacture, sale and transportation of all weapons outside of the U.S., with mandatory life sentences for the owners of the weapons – related companies who are caught breaking the moratorium.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
November 8, 2006 - An Election of “Firsts”
This election brought a number of remarkable “firsts.”
The U.S. House of Representatives will be led by the first woman speaker (Nancy Pelosi); the U.S. Senate will induct its first socialist member (Bernie Sanders); the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress (Keith Ellison from Minnesota); for the first time ever the majority of Americans voted on electronic “black box” voting machines; and here in Maryland a “third-party” candidate for a statewide race was able to participate in (most of) the debates (the Green Party’s senatorial candidate Kevin Zeese.)
But of all the “firsts” perhaps the best is that for the first time since 911, a majority of the national electorate cast their votes out of hope and not fear.
The U.S. House of Representatives will be led by the first woman speaker (Nancy Pelosi); the U.S. Senate will induct its first socialist member (Bernie Sanders); the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress (Keith Ellison from Minnesota); for the first time ever the majority of Americans voted on electronic “black box” voting machines; and here in Maryland a “third-party” candidate for a statewide race was able to participate in (most of) the debates (the Green Party’s senatorial candidate Kevin Zeese.)
But of all the “firsts” perhaps the best is that for the first time since 911, a majority of the national electorate cast their votes out of hope and not fear.
November 8, 2006 - The “Gingrich Revolution” and Rovian Dreams of a “Permanent Republican Majority” are Dead!
This election revealed that in its current incarnation the Republican Party has devolved into a Southern extremist sect whose core members are primarily motivated by their hope of turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy.
Voters abandoned the Republican Party in droves not because their leaders failed to live up to their supposed conservative ideology, but because in the wake of Enron, 911 and Katrina, the ideology of unrestrained corporate greed and ineffective government has no potency.
But in the final analysis this election was mostly about the rejection of Karl Rove’s politics of fear and demonization, which is bound to fail when an arrogant, incompetent and scandal-ridden party employs it.
Voters abandoned the Republican Party in droves not because their leaders failed to live up to their supposed conservative ideology, but because in the wake of Enron, 911 and Katrina, the ideology of unrestrained corporate greed and ineffective government has no potency.
But in the final analysis this election was mostly about the rejection of Karl Rove’s politics of fear and demonization, which is bound to fail when an arrogant, incompetent and scandal-ridden party employs it.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
October 29, 2006 - Cheney and Torture: Do Unto Others
Vice President Cheney’s approval of “dunking a terrorist in water” is a chilling reminder of how shortsighted and amoral are some of the leading members of the Bush administration (“Cheney comment lands White House in hot water”, 10-27.)
I wonder if Mr. Cheney has really thought through the implications of his policies because history is replete with examples of leaders who, having created the machinery of state terror were later consumed by it.
And in a global war without end, even Mr. Cheney himself could conceivably be deemed an “enemy combatant” by some future President, and could face “extraordinary rendition” and its associated terrors.
I think Cheney should watch the 1966 film “A Man for All Seasons” and seriously listen to the speech screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Sir Thomas More: “This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
I wonder if Mr. Cheney has really thought through the implications of his policies because history is replete with examples of leaders who, having created the machinery of state terror were later consumed by it.
And in a global war without end, even Mr. Cheney himself could conceivably be deemed an “enemy combatant” by some future President, and could face “extraordinary rendition” and its associated terrors.
I think Cheney should watch the 1966 film “A Man for All Seasons” and seriously listen to the speech screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Sir Thomas More: “This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
October 29, 2006 - Public Utilities Should Be Publicly Owned
I am frankly bewildered by Tony Ondrusek’s comment that the collapse of the Constellation Energy and Florida Power deal represents a “disgrace” to the residents of Maryland (“Democrats’ dithering doomed the merger”, 10-29-06.)
What I find disgraceful is the record-high profits of the oil and utility companies who are gouging consumers with record-high rates-- Constellation Energy recently declared a 75% increase in third-quarter profits, and even larger profits are expected as the 72% rate increase is phased in.
This is money coming out of the pockets of working people and going into the bank accounts of fat cat CEOs.
Far from being a disgrace, the failed merger represents the best opportunity Marylanders have to take back BGE and set affordable rates because public utilities should be publicly owned and run in the interest of the consumers.
What I find disgraceful is the record-high profits of the oil and utility companies who are gouging consumers with record-high rates-- Constellation Energy recently declared a 75% increase in third-quarter profits, and even larger profits are expected as the 72% rate increase is phased in.
This is money coming out of the pockets of working people and going into the bank accounts of fat cat CEOs.
Far from being a disgrace, the failed merger represents the best opportunity Marylanders have to take back BGE and set affordable rates because public utilities should be publicly owned and run in the interest of the consumers.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
October 22, 2006 - Bush HAS changed his stated goals for Iraq
President Bush claimed, “our goal hasn’t changed” in Iraq (“Bush willing to shift tactics to win in Iraq”, 10-21) but the truth is his administration’s stated goals have continuously changed.
First Bush said the goal was to rid Iraq of its (nonexistent) WMDs, then the goal was to remove Saddam and his sons, then the goal was to establish a demonstration model of Arab democracy, and most recently the goal seems to be the imposition of order and stability, perhaps by installing another “strongman” like Saddam!
On the other hand, Bush’s unstated goal probably hasn’t changed: To control Iraqi oil by establishing a huge permanent military presence near the epicenter of the world’s largest oil deposits.
Regardless of his stated and unstated goals, the wheels long ago flew off Bush’s foreign policy wagon.
In one sense this is a very good thing because no nation should ever benefit from a war of aggression.
First Bush said the goal was to rid Iraq of its (nonexistent) WMDs, then the goal was to remove Saddam and his sons, then the goal was to establish a demonstration model of Arab democracy, and most recently the goal seems to be the imposition of order and stability, perhaps by installing another “strongman” like Saddam!
On the other hand, Bush’s unstated goal probably hasn’t changed: To control Iraqi oil by establishing a huge permanent military presence near the epicenter of the world’s largest oil deposits.
Regardless of his stated and unstated goals, the wheels long ago flew off Bush’s foreign policy wagon.
In one sense this is a very good thing because no nation should ever benefit from a war of aggression.
October 22, 2006 - Who IS Michael Steele?
While I am sure the Sun’s recent article about Senatorial candidate Michael Steele will be decried by Republicans as another “hit piece”, it struck me as a much-needed and sobering reminder that after four years in the spotlight, Mr. Steele’s past, present and future plans are still largely unknown (“A personality for politics”, 10-22).
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
October 15, 2006 - Microcredit Can Work in Baltimore as Well as Bangladesh
It was inspiring and instructive to read about Noble Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, the pioneer of “microcredit” in which small loans “unleash the entrepreneurial talents of people who had historically been written off” (“Small-loan pioneer wins peace prize”, 10-14-06.)
I believe that in this new millennium, governments, institutions and corporations will be judged by how well they promote social justice, grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom and nonviolence.
The example of Yunus should be repeated elsewhere—even here in Maryland— as a practical method of finally breaking the recurring cycle of poverty amongst our own “permanent underclass.”
I believe that in this new millennium, governments, institutions and corporations will be judged by how well they promote social justice, grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom and nonviolence.
The example of Yunus should be repeated elsewhere—even here in Maryland— as a practical method of finally breaking the recurring cycle of poverty amongst our own “permanent underclass.”
October 15, 2006 - Four on the Ballot but Only Two in the Debate?
The Sun again neglected to mention that although there are four candidates on the ballot in Maryland for governor, only two of them were allowed into the debates Saturday (“Two rivals clash with two styles”, 10-15.)
In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates, voters in November will also see Green Party candidate Ed Boyd and Populist Party candidate Chris Driscoll’s names on the ballot.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if voters knew something about these candidates before they entered the polling booth—in other words, isn’t it the responsibility of the Sun to cover ALL of the candidates on the ballot?
I can only assume that Boyd and Driscoll were denied their just places beside Ehrlich and O’Malley because of the shellacking Green Party candidate for Senate Kevin Zeese gave Ben Cardin and Michael Steele at their first Senatorial debate.
The fact that third-party candidates may outclass their ossified competition is good reason for Republicans and Democrats to try to keep them out of debates, but it is a lousy reason for the Sun to decline covering these serious and exciting campaigns.
In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates, voters in November will also see Green Party candidate Ed Boyd and Populist Party candidate Chris Driscoll’s names on the ballot.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if voters knew something about these candidates before they entered the polling booth—in other words, isn’t it the responsibility of the Sun to cover ALL of the candidates on the ballot?
I can only assume that Boyd and Driscoll were denied their just places beside Ehrlich and O’Malley because of the shellacking Green Party candidate for Senate Kevin Zeese gave Ben Cardin and Michael Steele at their first Senatorial debate.
The fact that third-party candidates may outclass their ossified competition is good reason for Republicans and Democrats to try to keep them out of debates, but it is a lousy reason for the Sun to decline covering these serious and exciting campaigns.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
October 10, 2006 - Bush’s foreign policy blunders
Observing President Bush’s foreign policy is like watching an immanent train wreck: You can see looming disaster from a mile away but there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Critical observers knew that the reasons for war on Iraq were all lies and that the resulting invasion would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the U.S. and the Iraqi people.
Similarly, critical observers knew that Bush’s doctrine of military “preemption” coupled with Bush’s short list of countries ripe for “regime change” would accelerate Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.
And now, as predicted, we have North Korea announcing “publicly for the first time that it had nuclear weapons” (“Failed tactics leave U.S. policymakers facing ‘rough go’", 10-10.)
How is it that in the span of six years the U.S. has gone from being the “indispensable nation” to being a country that is reviled by its allies and disregarded by its enemies?
The short answer is that our chief executive is totally out of his depths with regard to foreign policy: The man is truly a “Bush league” president.
Critical observers knew that the reasons for war on Iraq were all lies and that the resulting invasion would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the U.S. and the Iraqi people.
Similarly, critical observers knew that Bush’s doctrine of military “preemption” coupled with Bush’s short list of countries ripe for “regime change” would accelerate Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.
And now, as predicted, we have North Korea announcing “publicly for the first time that it had nuclear weapons” (“Failed tactics leave U.S. policymakers facing ‘rough go’", 10-10.)
How is it that in the span of six years the U.S. has gone from being the “indispensable nation” to being a country that is reviled by its allies and disregarded by its enemies?
The short answer is that our chief executive is totally out of his depths with regard to foreign policy: The man is truly a “Bush league” president.
October 10, 2006 - Implement Instant Runoff Voting
Implementing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), would instantly eliminate the “spoiler effect” that has trapped many voters like Robert A. “Buzz” Kerr who said he “support[s] the views of the Green Party” candidate Kevin Zeese, but is likely to vote for Ben Cardin because he “think[s] it’s real important for the Democrats to take control of Congress” ("Running hard – uphill”, 10-9.)
Under instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates: a 'one' for their favorite candidate, a 'two' for their second favorite and so on. Votes are then counted for the top-ranked candidate on each ballot. After counting these ballots, if no candidate has a majority of the vote and thus no candidate had won, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots of that candidate's supporters are counted for their next (second) choice, etc. until a candidate wins with a majority of the vote.
Since IRV eliminates the spoiler effect, saves time and money by eliminating the need for a primary election, ensures that the winner of race has the support of a majority of the voters, and brings more voices and choices into the election, why hasn’t the Democratic Party- controlled legislature in Maryland enacted IRV?
The answer is simple: most Democratic leaders in Maryland are fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, not much has changed in this regard since the early 1900s, when Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman denounced the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.”
Under instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates: a 'one' for their favorite candidate, a 'two' for their second favorite and so on. Votes are then counted for the top-ranked candidate on each ballot. After counting these ballots, if no candidate has a majority of the vote and thus no candidate had won, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots of that candidate's supporters are counted for their next (second) choice, etc. until a candidate wins with a majority of the vote.
Since IRV eliminates the spoiler effect, saves time and money by eliminating the need for a primary election, ensures that the winner of race has the support of a majority of the voters, and brings more voices and choices into the election, why hasn’t the Democratic Party- controlled legislature in Maryland enacted IRV?
The answer is simple: most Democratic leaders in Maryland are fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, not much has changed in this regard since the early 1900s, when Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman denounced the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.”
Friday, October 06, 2006
October 6, 2006 - Blame Both Parties for International Terrorism
I think Mr. DeCicco is wrong on a number of points in his letter that criticized former President Bill Clinton (“Democrats lack will to win war on terror”, 10-6.)
First of all, there is no “war on terror” and there cannot ever be a war against a tactic; Mr. DeCicco falls into a trap when he accepts this false premise.
Secondly, Mr. DeCicco got it wrong when he argued that Clinton was, “overly concerned about his sexual misdeeds.” In fact Clinton was regrettably cavalier about his sexual affairs before he was caught, and it was the Republicans who were, for purely political motives, fixated on Clinton’s sexual misdeeds after they came to light.
Thirdly, like many other “conservatives”, Mr. DeCicco seems to decry the “rewriting” of history but as every good historian knows, history is not a dead thing but must continuously be revisited in light of the appearance of new facts and changing perspectives.
An example of this “rewriting” principle is that now we can see there is plenty of blame to go around among both Democratic and Republican leaders for the advent of global terrorism. I for one chiefly blame President Jimmy Carter for allowing his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to talk him into the insane program of funding, recruiting, training, and arming young Islamic fanatics from all over the world.
It is important to remember that, from Carter through President George H.W. Bush, a majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the development of an international jihad against the West.
First of all, there is no “war on terror” and there cannot ever be a war against a tactic; Mr. DeCicco falls into a trap when he accepts this false premise.
Secondly, Mr. DeCicco got it wrong when he argued that Clinton was, “overly concerned about his sexual misdeeds.” In fact Clinton was regrettably cavalier about his sexual affairs before he was caught, and it was the Republicans who were, for purely political motives, fixated on Clinton’s sexual misdeeds after they came to light.
Thirdly, like many other “conservatives”, Mr. DeCicco seems to decry the “rewriting” of history but as every good historian knows, history is not a dead thing but must continuously be revisited in light of the appearance of new facts and changing perspectives.
An example of this “rewriting” principle is that now we can see there is plenty of blame to go around among both Democratic and Republican leaders for the advent of global terrorism. I for one chiefly blame President Jimmy Carter for allowing his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to talk him into the insane program of funding, recruiting, training, and arming young Islamic fanatics from all over the world.
It is important to remember that, from Carter through President George H.W. Bush, a majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the development of an international jihad against the West.
October 6, 2006 - Zeese Cleaned Cardin & Steele’s Clocks!
I want to thank the Sun for covering the first Senatorial debate (“Senate hopefuls launch tough talk”, 10-4.)
However, there are two important points that were missing from the report.
The first is that Maryland political history was made at the debate when Kevin Zeese became the first “third party” candidate to appear in a debate for a statewide office.
Secondly, I think readers who were not at the debate should have been informed that Zeese clearly won the debate, a fact acknowledged even by debate moderator Doni Glover.
If Zeese is allowed to participate in a statewide-broadcasted televised debate, and if he again routs Michael Steele and Ben Cardin as he did Tuesday night, then the Maryland senatorial contest really will become a three-way race.
In short, if Ben Cardin truly believes in democracy and agrees to another debate that includes Zeese, Maryland voters will be treated to one of the most exciting and widely covered races in the nation this year!
However, there are two important points that were missing from the report.
The first is that Maryland political history was made at the debate when Kevin Zeese became the first “third party” candidate to appear in a debate for a statewide office.
Secondly, I think readers who were not at the debate should have been informed that Zeese clearly won the debate, a fact acknowledged even by debate moderator Doni Glover.
If Zeese is allowed to participate in a statewide-broadcasted televised debate, and if he again routs Michael Steele and Ben Cardin as he did Tuesday night, then the Maryland senatorial contest really will become a three-way race.
In short, if Ben Cardin truly believes in democracy and agrees to another debate that includes Zeese, Maryland voters will be treated to one of the most exciting and widely covered races in the nation this year!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
October 3, 2006 - Marylander's Need to Vote by Mail
I agree with Dick Tatlow’s recommendations in support of Maryland adopting a vote-by-mail system in order to “increase voting, decrease fraud, [and] increase accuracy” (“Let everyone vote through the mail”, 9-28.)
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system has proven to be a success with 81% of Oregonians preferring it to voting at polling stations; Oregon has consistently higher voter “turnouts” than the national average; Oregon has evidently had no claims of fraudulent election results since they implemented their vote-by-mail system.
In addition to voting by mail, I also support two other voting reforms: automatic voter registration based on state income tax filings and drivers license registration, and the inclusion of representatives from all political parties with candidates on the ballot (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Populist, Republican, etc.) to monitor the counting of ballots at each county election board headquarters on election day.
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system has proven to be a success with 81% of Oregonians preferring it to voting at polling stations; Oregon has consistently higher voter “turnouts” than the national average; Oregon has evidently had no claims of fraudulent election results since they implemented their vote-by-mail system.
In addition to voting by mail, I also support two other voting reforms: automatic voter registration based on state income tax filings and drivers license registration, and the inclusion of representatives from all political parties with candidates on the ballot (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Populist, Republican, etc.) to monitor the counting of ballots at each county election board headquarters on election day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
