Will justice restore faith in rule of law?
Printed by San Francisco Chronicle
January 6, 2006
Editor -- Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders is missing the big picture when it comes to President Bush's issues with the law ("Artifices of impeachment, Jan. 5). Besides the obvious argument that President Bill Clinton's lying was over a personal matter, while the Bush lies have been around war, death and civil liberties, it is the corrosive effect that the Republican Party and the Bush administration in particular are having on our nation's respect for the rule of law that is at stake.
But if justice is brought to those who break the law, as it appears it will be to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former Cheney aide Scooter Libby, Rep. Tom DeLay and numerous other Republicans who call themselves patriots, faith can be restored in our system.
Unfortunately, if Bush is not impeached for his crimes, after Clinton was impeached for his, it is unlikely that these other convictions will be enough to save this democracy from moving even further in the direction of fascism.
Bruce Bartlett, (“Feed the Beast”, April 6, 2005) advocates a value added tax (V.A.T.) to reduce the federal deficit. Essentially, since our government’s deficit is primarily caused by reduced taxes on the rich and an out of control Pentagon budget, he wants to tax the poor and middle class to give pot the rich and the defense companies.
When European countries added V.A.T.s in the 1960s and 1970s, the poor and middle class got something in return: universal health care and a government engineered elimination of poverty. This seems like a fair trade.
No, the U.S. does not need a V.A.T. You can ask anyone who lives in Hawaii (where they already have a V.A.T. of some 4%) how unpopular the V.A.T. is there to realize it is not welcome. The solution to our deficit problems is to raise the top income tax rates back to where they were during the prosperous 1990s, eliminate tax loopholes for corporations and reduce defense spending from $500 billion to $300 billion per year.
Double Standard Confuses China
Written to New York Times
March 28, 2005
The Bush Administration is right to demand that the arms embargo on China continue, but it is not hard to see how the Chinese miscalculated with their authorization to use force against Taiwan. There was no embargo of any kind against the U.S. when it illegally invaded Iraq.
Richard Rowland of the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii writes a scary letter about the guarantee (or lack therefore) of Social Security. Mr. Rowland bases his argument on the unreliability of the government versus investments in private property because social security has changed over the years. But by nearly accounts, social security has only been improved for beneficiaries over the years, enhancing the guarantee it has made to our country’s seniors and disabled.
Further, as far as reliability of income is concerned, the social security trust fund has been very reliable because it is invested entirely in special U.S. Treasury Bills, the most reliable investment anyone can make.
Private investments on the other hand vary in risk, and in the hands of people whose motivation is primarily their own wealth creation rather than the good of the investors, investment results can vary. Even real estate, historically a very conservative investment has its ups and downs, as Hawaiians can personally attest.
Moreover, one reason the social security privatization debate is going nowhere is that corporate America has recently shown how greedy and unreliable it is. For many seniors, the security of T-Bills, is easily preferred over gambling ones retirement on Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Global Crossing and many more corporations that have shattered the lives of millions of trusting investors.
Representative Collen Meyer uses fear mongering in “Minimum wage hike would hurt everyone”, March 27, 2005 in an attempt to protect businesses from having to pay their workers a decent wage. She sums up the standard right wing propaganda well at the end of her column: raising the minimum wage will be inflationary, job reducing, wage compressing and will strengthen the unions, which will hold the state hostage.
Don’t let her convince you. In San Francisco, which has an economy and population nearly as big as Hawaii, we raised our minimum wage to $8.50 (Hawaii plans to go to $8). None of the threats Rep Meyer makes have materialized. Instead, minimum wage workers, whose lives are just as important as Rep Meyer and the business people she works for, are more secure as a result of the new law.
A fair minimum wage is about more than money. It is about human decency. It is about valuing life. Paying an individual a wage that is so low that the person cannot afford food and shelter without assistance is unconscionable, and should not be permitted in a country as wealthy as ours, or a state as rich as Hawaii.
Pseudo States for the Taking
Sent to SF Chronicle, printed February 4, 2005
Robert Delahunty and John Yoo’s Open Forum article “Geneva Convention isn’t the Last word” introduces new terms to the international lexicon that clears the way not only for future torture by the United States, which they unapologetically support, but future invasions by the U.S. as well.
From an apparently hyper nationalistic viewpoint, they have created a new classification of nations that they call pseudo-states: areas and populations that are controlled by “personal, clan or tribal rule”. They argue that, “the Geneva Convention makes little sense when applied to a terrorist group or pseudo state” and “will become increasingly obsolete.” They cite Hussein’s Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Saudi Arabia as examples of pseudo-states.
For those who oppose the United States’ move towards empire, their arguments are incredibly dangerous. They fail to see how abidance to the Geneva Convention is morally beyond dispute, and the benefits of adhering to international law, even against terrorist groups brings the U.S. respect and assistance from those who can help makes us secure. Acting on their theories could also be fatal to our democracy, as our government's disregard for the rule of law internationally will only lead to similar behavior at home, and eventually authoritarian rule.
Audit War, Not U.N.
Sent to Chronicle 1-9-05
Trying to determine whether or not the United Nations may have mishandled the Iraqi Oil for Food Program is just a desperate attempt to distract the public from the real catastrophe, George Bush’s war on Iraq.
Audits of the oil for food program may show that some of the U.N.’s outside contractors were not properly supervised or that $1.8 billion of the $60 billion (3%--a cheap commission here in the United States) is unaccounted for, but how does that compare to the $200 billion that is now missing from the U.S. treasury or the 1,400 American families who may have a son or daughter missing? What about the more than 10,000 U.S. soldiers who now have limbs missing or the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died who would not have died had Bush not mishandled this war? What about America’s use of torture or nepotistic no-bid contracts to companies that behave like pirates?
How can anyone call for the resignation of Kofi Annan while not demanding the same level of responsibility from Donald Rumsfield and George Bush? Wake up America!
Managed Liability
December 20, 2004
The assault on class action lawsuits by the right wing is simply another phase in the economic war between the insurance and drug companies on one side and the professional class and consumers on the other. Just like the de facto regulation of doctor’s incomes in the 1980s as a result of managed health care, the big corporations and their Republican allies are now trying to institute managed liability. By capping and restricting class action lawsuits the big corporations will benefit and everyone else will lose. Even if products cost 2% more as a result of product liability costs as claimed by the Manhattan Institute, this is a small price for consumer to pay to keep manufacturers and insurance companies honest and their products safe.
Spectacular Defense
December 20, 2004
It appears that the White House has complete faith in America’s gullibility with its latest “spectacular” defenses of the FDA and Donald Rumsfield. Otherwise, how could they claim that the FDA is doing a “spectacular” job, as the White House’s Andrew Card said recently despite evidence that the FDA rashly approved Vioxx, a drug that has claimed an estimated 26,000 lives, or that Donald Rumsfield is doing a “spectacular” job even though he still has not caught Osama bin Laden and his war against Iraq has been an unprecedented disaster. After over 10,000 American casualties, billions of dollars lost and a prisoner abuse scandal that completely undermined what little moral standing America may have had with the Iraq invasion, the Defense Secretary should have been sacked, not praised that he is doing a spectacular job.
Democrats, Rethinking Abortion
December 24, 2004 (Printed by NY Times 12-28-04)
Democrats do not need to change their position on the legality of a woman's right to choose in order to demonstrate their opposition to abortion. they merely need to show how the core Democratic values of universal health care, eradication of poverty, increased job opportunities and better education will be far more effective in reducing abortions than Republican rhetoric.
It's the War, Stupid
Sent to NY Times December 11, 2004
Thomas Friedman keeps ignoring one important reason why other countries won’t get involved in Iraq (Iraq, Ballots and Pistachios, December 11, 2004). It is because by invading Iraq illegally, America gave them an excuse to not get involved. Had Iraq been directly involved in 9-11, or had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the U.S., and the United Nations had authorized the invasion, no doubt many more countries would be willing to help.
Ironically, Friedman seems to still believe that an aggressive, illegal war can be a tool for humanitarian good. But with so many lies told, so many people killed and so many mistakes made, you’d think he’d see that it is this kind of war that it is the problem, not Iraq’s neighbors or the E.U. or even the Sunnis who refuse to stop fighting.
Don't Listen to the Troops
Sent to NY times November 21, 2004
Thomas Friedman wrote in “Postcards From Iraq”, November 21, 2004 that his attitude towards the invasion of Iraq is now being guided by what the troops on the ground tell us.
These are the last people we should be listening to. Our brave soldiers in Iraq are eternally optimistic because they have been trained to be so. Patriotism, nationalism, loyalty and religiosity are so imbedded in these soldiers that they could be losing ten times as many lives as they are now and they would still see what they are doing as good and right.
A brief look at the history of warfare reveals that soldiers will continue to believe in what they are doing even when their cause is judged evil, as in the case of Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan, or when their side is taking huge casualties, such as in Vietnam by both combatants.
If we wait until the troops start to complain about what is happening in Iraq, then most likely, it will be too late.
Immigrant Taxes
Printed in San Francisco Chronicle on August 27, 2004
The Center for Immigration Studies’ report that illegal immigrants receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes (August 26, 2004 article by Tyche Hendricks) fails to mention the indirect revenue employing low cost workers generate.
Under existing tax law, single workers can make up to $28,400 per year and pay taxes at a 15% rate. Married workers can earn up to $56,800. Most of the jobs illegal workers perform pay much less than these thresholds. Even if employers turned to non-immigrant workers and paid them a great deal more, the tax revenue would probably remain at a mere 15%.
But this analysis fails to take into account the increased profit to the employer, which is most likely paying at the corporate rate of 35% (and if they're not, maybe the Center is barking up the wrong tree.) Thus, the increased taxes paid by the beneficiary of the low cost wages must also be added to whatever the immigrants themselves pay.
If the employer is not paying income taxes, as in the case of many farms it should be because they are losing money, in which case the low cost labor is helping keep them afloat. In other words, the $10 billion shortfall in federal funds referred to in the report could also be considered a subsidy to their employers, as well as a subsidy to consumers.
You are absolutely right to call for replacing the Electoral College with direct elections. Not only would it do the things you mentioned, but it would better open up the process for third party candidates as well.
There is something else congress should do: Eliminate state control over redrawing of congressional seats. In this era of easy transportation and fast communication, the Census Bureau could decide districts using concrete formulas modified by population changes only.
Gerrymandering of congressional districts to create strongholds has suffocated the democratic process and contributed directly to the partisanship in Washington, as well as in many statehouses. With districts that may cut cross across party lines, more congressional candidates will need to be moderate to get elected, and the elections will be more heavily contested.
Faith
April 17, 2004
Given how politically polar opposite President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are, it seems amazing that they agree so completely that Christian/Judeo countries have the right, if not the duty to invade and occupy Arab and Muslim countries in the name of fighting terror. Given that there is a much better argument that occupation actually encourages terror, as has been experienced by Britain in many places around the world there must be something else that binds these two in this crusade, I mean mission.
The only link that comes to mind is their deep Christian faith. Given how far we have seen religious fanaticism go, it seems quite plausible that their beliefs are so overwhelming, that they can justify their military invasions by what George Bush has inferred is a mandate from the “Almighty”. Faith can be an all-consuming human condition, and given how reckless they have been as governors, it is the only explanation I can think of to justify the decisions they have made.
It amazes me that you still seem to think that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq to “promote Democracy” in that part of the world (“Better Ways to Attack Bush”.) Given how dangerous Islamic regimes have been to this country, Bush and his advisors would be derelict in their duties to throw the dice on democracy when the result could easily be a radical fundamentalist leader, constitutional laws or not. A brutal yet secular leader would no doubt be safer, and a friendly dictator, as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for, best of all.
But the reason they could claim democracy yet sleep soundly is that the 60% Shiite majority control the outcome, and Dr. Ahmad Chalabi no doubt assured his Bush friends that he will eventually be the elected leader. And if the Sunni Arabs or Kurds object, he could always declare martial law. To think American’s leaders would risk all that Iraq has to chance is pretty naïve.
Senator Bob Dole (Pay More Attention to the Economy, March 28, 2004) believes that “people are better of than they think; the numbers prove it”. But like so many Republicans since Ronald Reagan, he conveniently leaves out one big number--the budget deficit.
If the U.S. economy were a business, we would not include debt when computing our revenues, or our profit and loss. But this is in a sense what Senator Dole and other Republican leaders do when talking about numbers. To get a true picture of economic health, GDP growth should be netted against increased borrowings.
For instance, in the first three years of the Bush Administration, GDP grew in nominal terms by $1.2 trillion, which is almost as much as the Bush Administration has borrowed during that time. Assuming that people’s tax cuts were spent as Bush claimed they would be, the increase in GDP came entirely from borrowed funds, not a good sign.
Much of the same happened during the Reagan years when GDP grew by $2.5 trillion but the national debt increased by nearly $1.8 trillion.
Spain's Democracy
March 26, 2004
Thomas Friedman once wrote that what Iraq needs is a “friendly dictator”. It seems Mr. Friedman would also like Spain to have a friendly dictator (“No Vote for al Queda”).
Close to 90% of Spaniards opposed the war in Iraq yet the conservative government went in anyway. So when they had the chance, the voters, in a democratic decision turned that government away. If the newly elected Prime Minister Zapatero were to defy the voters and not withdraw its troops, it would breach his obligation with the voters and break one of the main promises of his campaign.
I see Spain’s vote not as a victory for terrorism, but a victory for democracy, where leaders are held accountable for their decisions.
Debra Saunders accuses the Clinton administration "biggies" of intending to finger the Bush Administration for not heeding their warnings on al Queda. Who are these Clinton biggies? Richard Clarke, the Reagan Republican appointee? Paul O'Neil the longtime Republican who complained of the same in his book a year ago? At least during the Clinton years they had Osama bin Laden in their sites. Once Bush got in office, they stopped even looking.
If Clinton can be blamed, it was for being too timid with killing innocents. With Bush, it was being blind to al Queda so long as he had bigger fish to fry in Iraq.
As the Bush Administration has proven with Haiti, Venezuela and their remarks about Spain, they only like democracy when they also like the results.
In Iraq, they are no doubt confident that democracy will give them a leader they can work with. Most likely, this will be Dr. Ahmad Chalabi, a former exile who just so happens to be a Shiite as well as long time friends with Cheney and Rumsfield. With Shiites representing 60% of the population and a cohesive voting block after a century of suppression, so long as Chalabi plays his cards right with the Shiite leader Ayatollah al-Sistani, he should be assured the country’s presidency or something close. Winning over the Ayatollah should be easy because no other Shiite has the close relationship with Bush Administration that Chalabi has, which can translate into American aid and protection from disgruntled Sunnis.
But the Bush Administration must see how this political fait accompli scares the Sunnis, the long time rulers of Iraq. Guaranteed to be out of power by democracy, they are of course forced to fight militarily, unless they accept their role as powerless minorities. But this will not come easy because 95% of the Muslim world is Sunni and outsiders will constantly be helping them fight.
What the Bush people fail to admit is that the insurgency in Iraq may have less to do with freedom versus tyranny, and more to do with Shiite rule versus Sunni rule.
The only peaceful answer to Iraq may be to divide the country up into its natural parts, preferably by peaceful referendum.
I believe just enough Americans are going to be tired of the hypocrisy, strong arm tactics and lies coming out of this White House to vote for a change come November.
One of the latest is the Bush view on the election in Spain. Implying that the Spanish people’s choice for a new government, brought on in big part because of the incoming prime minister's promise during his campaign to withdraw troops from Iraq if the United Nations did not assume command is somehow appeasing and rewarding terrorism, is insulting to reasonable people who believe there is more than one way to bring about peace in the world. The fact that the mishandling of the terrorist attack afterwards by the conservative government may have tipped the scales towards the Socialist challengers was an internal political matter, not an alliance with the terrorists.
Somehow with the Bush Administration democracy is only democracy if it yields to their agenda or beliefs; otherwise it is on the side of terrorism. This position will not win in November.
A Second Change with Kerry
March 20, 2004
Serious pundits on both sides of the ideological aisle agree that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has created a huge credibility gap for the United States in the world and that it may take many years to overcome this.
I disagree. I think the mistrust is solely with the Bush Administration and that a change in government will immediately provide a fresh start with our allies and foes alike. Whether a John Kerry White House will take advantage of this opportunity and return our country to its former position of respected leadership rather than feared behemoth will be the challenge he will face, but he will be given the chance to do so.
Wrong Again
March 20, 2004
By comparing the select democratic principals imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. to the mostly peaceful, home grown democratizations of Eastern Europe, Spain and Portugal, President Bush once again reveals his ignorance of world history, and that of his voter base.
No people want to be occupied by foreigners or told what to do and how to do it, regardless of how bad their system might have been before. Doesn’t Mr. Bush wonder why Iraqi protestors hold up placards that say “No Saddam” as well as “No America?” If anything., somebody needs to point out to the President the differences in what happened in the countries he referred to in his anniversary speech, so he can stop making a fool of himself to those who know.
Excuses
March 9, 2004
The Bush reelection ad that features 9/11 pictures did not disgust me. Instead, along with the reference to the recession and dot-com bubble it felt like the president was making excuses for why he has been one of the worst presidents this country as ever seen.
March 8, 2004
The delay in Iraq’s Governing Council signing the interim constitution seems to have as much to do with disagreements within the Shiite factions as it does with the Sunnis and Kurds. With the political neophyte Ayatollah al-Sistani essentially holding the cards for the country’s next president and prime minister, the Shiite exile no doubt preferred by the Bush Administration to run the country—Ahmed Chalabi—must kowtow to Sistani’s often unrealistic and impatient demands. But if Chalabi and friends can keep the Ayatollah on board, a brilliant plan of using the cloak of democratic legitimacy to gain control of the world’s second largest oil supply will be complete.
Then, when the probable civil unrest that Kurds and Sunnis from around the Muslim world will no doubt wage against the Chalabi-led Shiite government occurs, martial law will be declared and Iraq will have what Thomas Friedman called for al long time ago: An Iraqi dictator friendly to the United States.
Only an Hour?
March 5, 2004
It is astonishing to me that President Bush, who claims that national security is his primary strength will only offer the congressional committee investigating 9/11 one hour of his time. With nearly 3,000 Americans killed on his watch and his only got an hour to spare? What could possibly be more important?
Democracy Loses Again
March 1, 2004
The Bush Administration’s precondition that Haiti’s democratically elected President leave the country before help would be provided is further evidence of Washington’s willingness to support the rule of man when the rule of law doesn’t yield the results it wants. It is this policy that causes people around the world to hate us, and increases the risk of terrorism against us.
If American policy would be to exclusively support the democratic process without trying to influence its outcome, our country would be safer. By championing the rights of any country’s people to choose their leaders, even if it means a populace communist in Venezuela or an Islamic Republic in Iraq, it is less likely that terrorists will emerge who would want to harm us, and even if they did, those in the countries where democracy was permitted would have a vested interest in stopping them.
It is time the United States stopped trying to control the world by force, and instead, lead by example as well as words towards freedom of choice, respect for the rule of law and equality for all.
Globalization
February 21, 2004
Outsourcing of jobs may benefit the U.S. economy by supplying low cost goods and services to consumers in addition to increased profits to America’s businesses, but benefiting corporations have a moral obligation in a country that treats them well to finance the cost of retooling America’s workers for the new global economy.
Since corporations are not going to hire new workers unless they are needed, the best way to force businesses to share in the domestic needs is through the tax code. First, this means eliminating all subsidies for foreign activities; the benefits of globalization are substantial enough as it is.
Second, there should be no tax loopholes for corporations headquartered in tax havens but operating substantially in America. Any corporation doing 50% or more of its business in the U.S. should pay tax like a domestic corporation should.
Third, Congress should assess a value added tax on all offshore activities of U.S. corporations--whether it be on revenues or payroll--with the funds used to finance extended unemployment benefits, retraining and early education for America workers.
Finally, the 15% tax on corporate dividends needs to be reanalyzed. It has obviously done nothing to spur domestic hiring, and is only draining the U.S. treasury for the benefit of the rich. This money also needs to go to education.
Bush's Tax Cut
May 2, 2003
The only sector that might see an increase in jobs as a result of George Bush’s tax plan is the accounting profession. There are two big problems that this president needs to come to grips with if he is going to have the same success domestically as he did bombing
Second, running the federal budget into deficits will do nothing for consumer confidence or long term economic growth, especially if the money is diverted to the wealthiest of Americas who will not (I can assure you as a person who will benefit handsomely in the short term if Bush prevails) create a single job with this tax savings if there is no need for an employee.
Why Republicans Really Want a Tax Cut
Sent to Chronicle 5-15-03
Howard Mauthe’s letter (May 14, 2003) charging that the Democrat’s only hope to winning elections is for the economy to continue to get worse is possible given how this country has been seduced by victories over petty foreign dictators, but it is not as plausible as a Republican strategy to use tax cuts and massive spending shifts to the states as a way to not only reinforce their current majorities in Washington, but to capture the local governments as well.
It’s been hard enough to accept that President Bush and his neo-conservative advisors act more like bullies than diplomats in their dealings with the world, but this threatening to “punish”
Bad Luck Bush
March 12, 2002
Sent to SF Chron and LA Times
It is not hard to imagine the fear President Bush and members of congress must feel when considering another terrorist attack on American soil. Bush especially must dread every day that 9/11 happened on his watch, and understandably wants to do everything he can to avoid his legacy being one of horrific bad luck to the American people.
Unless this country’s direction changes significantly very soon, it seems this president won’t need another terrorist attack to go down in history with
How Do You Sleep?
May 23, 2002
Perpetuating a failed punitive policy towards
How many more elections will
And while President Bush demands transparency from Castro and Arafat and other fellow despots around the world, the America people are forced to legal action to get the Bush administration to disclose even part of it’s involvement in the country’s energy crisis, criminal companies like Enron or how deeply involved they were involved in the attempted overthrow of Venezuela’s elected president. And now Bush’s hit man Dick Cheney is challenging the American’s people’s right to know what the Administration knew of American’s security risk before 9/11 and Bush wants to keep a lid on public presidential records no doubt to protect his dad and staff.
This Bush has ushered in a whole new approach to governing
Syria
Sent to Chronicle 4-15-03
Talking heads are revving up support for a
But these same talking heads never point out that
If the Bush Administration wants to promote reforms in
Carrot and Stick
Sent to NY Times April 15, 2003
Hawkish Middle East pundits say that the U.S. should use a
carrot and stick approach with Syria, the carrot being economic and diplomat
sanctions, the stick being Iraq’s recent fate. What a choice! I can think of a
carrot that might work well enough to get
Sent to Chronicle April 15, 2003
If the United States attacks Syria, even if it targets terrorist camps it will join Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, Stalinist Russia and Israel in an exclusive group of countries that over the last century have initiated military action against three or more sovereign nations in less than two years.
Offense as the Best Defense
Sent to NY Times April 13, 2002
In response to William Safire’s “The Best Defense”, both cited proponents for offense as the best defense had finite objectives in mind: Dempsey to last 12 rounds, George Washington to throw off the British. In Safire’s world, the potential enemies are nearly endless, and by victimizing innocents in our preemptive policies, we are sure to generate more enemies as we continue our “defense” so long as our weapons are only military.
Various letters sent to Economist and Chronicle on 4-12-03
The looting of the National Museum of Iraq while Baghdad was under U.S. occupation has to be one of the greatest tragedies of this war. How the Bush Administration, which appeared to be working so hard to win over the Iraqi people and maintain American public support for their invasion could have failed to safeguard these hugely important historical treasures seem totally inconsistent with their war plan.
Either the Bush Administration just didn’t care about the artifacts, a plausible answer since it’s possible many of them have never even stepped foot in a museum; or leaving it to the inevitable looters was all part of their wider war plan to humiliate the government by allowing for the destruction of one of its symbols of pride. They cannot claim ignorance or blame the looters, because they had seen it on a smaller scale in the first Gulf War. Rumsfield had even called looting a “natural” reaction.
Whatever the reason, the bottom line is the world has had a chance to see how much the Bush Administration really respects the people it conquered, or mankind in general.
No Place Like Home (To The Economist)
Once again, Lexington has uncovered an American trend (“the Left-out coast”). As a fourth generation Californian, I was starting to feel isolated in my views over invading Iraq as first my state, then the Bay Area and then my City became pro-war, albeit by a razor thin margin. For a week or so the only place I felt totally comfortable was my morning coffeehouse in San Francisco’s North Beach. But then your article reassured me that despite California’s “irrelevance”, there’s still no place like home.
In Lexington, “The Left-out coast”, you could have modified one sentence to exemplify why California is out of step with the rest of the nation: While “Young Journalist flocked to San Francisco to work for Red Herring and the Industry Standard” the rest of country has started subscribing to Rudolf Murdoch’s the Weekly Standard.
Sean Engmann’s “Lefty haters” typifies why the U.S was able to attack a sovereign nation with public support: He can turn unknowns into truths. First, we have no idea how many civilians were killed in the war, nor do we know how many Iraqi military people, many of whom were not much more guilty then the civilians as they were conscripts, might have slaughtered by the relentless shock and awe bombing. Secondly, he considers the war a resounding success yet even the president says it is not over, and with anarchy nearly everywhere, there is still the question as to whether the U.S. has sent enough forces to adequately do the job.
Finally, he claims Bush was honest with Americas. Yet the overriding reason for this war and one that without there would have been little support from the public was Bush’s claims of imminent danger to Americans from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Well, it also remains to be seen whether Iraq even had any, let alone enough to justify conquering their country.
No, I disagree with Mr. Engmann. There are plenty of reasons to demonstrate against this continuing war and occupation and any possibly replication of it by Horowitz et al.
The deaths and destruction notwithstanding, the loss of the entire collection of artifacts from the Iraq National Museum is proof enough that military invasion of a sovereign country is the wrong policy for regime change. While Saddam could not have lasted forever, until today, the relics of this cradle of civilization nearly had, some dating back 7,000 years. Shame on you, Mr. Bush.
A Changing View?
Sent to Chronicle 4-9-03
As a person who has opposed the war on
But does the easy victory change my view? No. The fact that we beat up on overmatched enemy does not impress me. I was quite comfortable that after the pounding they got in 1991, along with the punitive no fly zones and strangle hold of economic sanctions, at best Saddam was a threat to his own people, but no one else.
Liberating people oppressed by dictatorial regimes is
something I support, not only in
So if the nation building phase of this conquest is as
easily accomplished as the military one was, will I come around and join the
majority of Americans? Possibly. But only if the U.S respects whatever decisions
the Iraqi people make, even if it means no American bases on their soil, an
elected government that is Islamic or even a referendum that calls for the
dissolution of
Forget About the U.N.
March 14, 2003 Letter to S.F. Chronicle
Dear editor,
You are right about the political damage to America’s
allies over the Bush Administration’s push for a second U.N. resolution on
Iraq (Far From Baghdad, March 14, 2003), with several other countries also
worthy of your list. But you failed to take a position stating the obvious: It
is time for the
With or without a second resolution, this war is
Shirking 1-27-3
It is not difficult to agree with the Bush Administration’s rhetoric about Iraq. It is a like a bad movie.
It desperately seeks any excuse it can to justify the war it appears intent on waging.
It is a re-run of aggression played time and time again in history.
The only disagreement, the U.S. is the aggressor.
The Bush Administration wants to put some spine in the
United Nations around the issue of
These countries are not shirking, as Secretary of State Powell suggests, but growing in their resolve to let the inspections achieve what the Bush Administration cannot, a peaceful approach to deterring Saddam Hussein’s evil ways.
If
Bush's Legacy
(Printed by S.F. Chronicle 3/3/03)
One has to wonder whether the Bush Administration is willing—if not secretly wishful—that the U.N. become irrelevant, if not collapse outright, as a result of the pressure being applied to it for a sanction of an invasion of Iraq.
Since the Bush Administration seems unequivocally certain
that its militaristic approach to world tyrants is correct, eliminating the
obstructive U.N. has to be an important first step to effectuating their policy.
With the U.N. out of the way, the road for further unilateral actions, including
possibly attacks on
The Reagan’s administration’s aggressive and expensive
push to cause the implosion of the
Divine Intervention
2-7-03
With growing evidence that the Shuttle Columbia was hit by a cosmic bolt or other object from space, it’s beginning to look like the loss of the NASA spaceship was an “Act of God”, rather than mechanical or human error.
For the superstitious, or the super religious, this evidence could be seen as a sign of God’s will. Given that the three cultures most immersed in conflict with Islam were represented by the Columbia crew--including a Jewish fighter pilot who had twice fought in wars against Arabs and Muslims and had dropped a bomb on an Iraqi nuclear power plant--it is not surprising that Islamic believers might interpret the tragedy as a proof of their virtue and the sins of their adversaries.
But if would seem equally plausible that a Christian
believer might interpret this “act of God” as a sign that God is unhappy
with
But since those intent on war with
More Providence
2-9-03
President Bush’s faith in faith (The Nation, 2-9-03), begun with a spiritual awakening when he quit drinking, makes it hard to believe that he is dead set on waging war on Iraq, even if Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. The God that saves alcoholics from ruining their lives with drink is a forgiving, loving God, not a vengeful one.
But if the God that saved George W. is the angry, jealous God that annihilated all of earth’s creatures save Noah and a few animals, then maybe President Bush should look again at the Columbia Shuttle disaster—now reportedly closer than ever to being classified as an “Act of Nature (e.g. God)—for what else it could be: God’s warning against vanquishing Saddam or any other human life, unless it’s an eye for an eye.
The Bullied Bully the Weaker
July 24, 2004
I wonder if any of the Middle East policy experts have asked whether Arab aggression in Sudan against Black Muslims isn’t a bullying reaction to Arab impotence against Israeli and American aggression? It is widely known that humiliation and face are two of the most important emotions in Arab culture. Yet rather than give the Arab’s face, or respect, the Israelis and Americans continue to humiliate Arabs, both in war and in words.
Tiny Israel’s success in continually taking Arab land and attacking their neighbors with impunity must especially hurt Arab pride, both in the street and in the palaces. So just like kids on a playground, the bullied find someone weaker to bully.
When the leader of nations kills thousands of people in war to impose its view, it makes it very difficult to persuade others to act differently, especially through diplomatic means. Taking the low moral road, let alone committing similar crimes of ethnic cleansing, will do nothing to promote peace in the world, nor make America safer.
A Proposal For Peace
Printed by S.F. Chronicle
Crown Prince Abdullah of
The incentives are staggering. The Palestinians would have
a true chance at self government, a first for them, and the Jews, although
giving up their designs on a greater
The U.S needs to do more than just make a phone call on this one. The benefits of Mid East peace to this country and the world—of which we allegedly lead—would justify dropping the embargo on Iran, reducing threats against Iraq, pressuring Israel for immediate withdrawal and making significant financial investments in the depleted occupied territories even before the ink dries.
Hurrah to Prince Abdullah for having the courage to make this suggestion of comprehensive peace, and to the Israelis for being immediately receptive.
President Bush hopes that once Israel is “secure”, the wall going up in the West Bank should become irrelevant.
But does Bush really think that if that happens the Israelis will return to the Palestinians the hundreds of square miles effectively annexed by the wall? Doesn’t he see that this wall, just like the settlements is allegedly about security but is really about taking land?
I can understand U.S. presidents tolerating certain violations of human rights and international law by Israel if there is no consequence to American security, but we know this implicit (and sometimes explicit) support increases the chances of terrorism being directed at us. If we are willing to invade sovereign countries allegedly to increase our security, how is it we don’t do more to stop Israel’s exploitation of the Palestinians?
Voters who want to keep Davis can also have an influence on who may succeed him if the recall is successful.
Since polling shows no less than 45% of likely voters are against the recall and the most attractive Republican candidate may only get about 17% of the vote, the anti-recall block is by far the largest. If even half of them vote for the same replacement candidate, that person will be assured of winning if Davis goes down.
As a slap to the Republicans for this costly, disruptive, vindictive power play, I hope it’s the Green Party Candidate, Peter Camejo.
Fiscal Irresponsibility Act
Sent to Chronicle December 14, 2003
Governor Schwarzenegger
seems to be learning fast how to govern the new Republican way, with debt and
deception.
Calling his scheme to borrow $15 billion a “fiscal recovery plan” is like President Bush calling his loosening of air pollution standards the Clean Air Act. “Recovery” is a word that should only be used when revenues catch up to expenditures. Going in hock $15 billion to make up for the shortfall between revenues and expenditures should be called the “Fiscal Deferral Act” or the “Financial Irresponsibility Act.”
Republicans (and apparently quite a few California Democrats) are either praying that a economic miracle is around the corner, in which case the retirement of all this new debt will be managed by the increase in tax revenues, or the borrowings are truly part of a recovery plan, one in which the rich corporations and individuals recover all their wealth from the poor, disabled and elderly.
More Schwarzenegger
Sent to Chronicle, LA times 2, 2004
Governor Schwarzenegger charm and popularity are frightening in their effectiveness. Rather than do the prudent thing—and what every Republican governor in this state’s history has done—by temporarily raising revenues to bridge the budget gap, this governor appears on the verge of convincing Californians into voting to defer the problem for another day to save the terminator’s political skin.
The money to solve the deficit is here, in the vast untapped wealth of our 350,000 millionaires, the trillions of dollars of under taxed real estate equity and our intense love affair with cars.
By returning the top tax rate to 11% for earnings of $200,000 per year, $3 billion or more could be generated. By restoring the vehicle license fee to where it was prior to 1997, $4 billion per year would be available. And by eliminating the unjust property tax protections of Prop 13 on commercial property, the state could generate no less than $4 billion a year from an industry so wealthy few even can imagine. Two years of these cuts and you have $22 billion. There is no reason to borrow.
Sent to Chronicle December 3, 2003
San Francisco’s mayoral election offers upside for liberal Democrats no matter who is elected.
If Newsom wins, the Democratic Party will retain a large key city that was very vulnerable to Green Party inroads, protecting its flank and possibly discouraging Nadar from running for President in 2004.
If Gonzales wins, the City could become a social experiment in policy change that will be a breath of fresh air for liberals choking on the constricting direction the nation and state are taking. Then if the policies actually work, maybe other Americans will take notice, which will hurt conservative Republicans more than it will hurt the Democrats.
Dismantle Social Security
December 15, 2004
Democrats should not let George Bush dismantle Social Security with his privatization plan. Instead, the Democrats should beat him to the punch, and propose a plan to merge the trust fund into the federal budget.
This move would reverse the regressive nature of the social security tax, simplify government and eliminate $2.5 trillion in paper debt from the U.S. books.
To pay for this merger, the Democrats would offer a fairer income tax code, where profitable corporations and high-income individuals would pay higher income taxes. The elimination of the payroll tax would stimulate the economy and encourage hiring by employers. The direct obligation to our country’s seniors would put pressure on congress to balance the budget, and for those taxpayers who want to invest their savings, they will have the money to do it.
Finally, to insure total fairness, mean testing should apply to benefits.
Privatizing Social Security
Sent to NY times December 10, 2004
David Brooks is right about the social security debate. It is about the market. But he has incorrectly framed Democrat’s opposition.
Democrats are skeptical of the markets because markets are inherently risky. The burst of the dot-com bubble proved that. It seems especially foolhardy to gamble with one’s retirement, especially if it is all you have.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that the markets will continue to grow at 4.6%. Corporations currently have every advantage government can give them, including a tiny tax burden, nearly zero regulation and labor costs at a 75-year low. Plus there is the growing competition from abroad.
Confidence in a privatization plan might also be higher if our government was more fiscally responsible. With the federal debt headed over $8 trillion and the country bleeding a trillion dollars per year, to borrow another $1-2 trillion to speculate in the stock market is just too risky for many people.
National Sales Tax
August 12, 2004
To New York Times
You are right that the Bush Administration’s mostly supply side tax cuts have not created the kind of job growth and sustained economy recovery the country needed. But rather than acknowledge the mistakes and make suggestions that will more directly stimulate demand, Bush is using the faltering economy as an excuse to promote something supply-siders have clamored to have for years: A tax based on consumption rather than income.
This would be a terrible mistake. Adding 20% or more to the cost of goods would shift the tax burden directly onto the consumer class, and reducing the tax burden of the investment class to nearly nothing for those who are especially rich.
The worry is, based upon Bush’s track record of getting the country to do things it shouldn’t do he could get this crazy idea through the congress if reelected. It would make the 15% dividend tax rate look like child’s play in the game of raiding the country’s treasury for the rich.