« January 2004 | Main | March 2004 »
February 29, 2004
Sad, but True
Billy Crystal, at tonight's Oscar Awards:
Posted on 07:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 24, 2004
The U.S. Needs a Divorce from Bush
Well, its happened. Bush tossed his big ugly hat into the ring and joined the extremist chorus of people clamoring to inscribe blatant discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. He claimed an "overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage." Well, he's right--I overwhelmingly support protection of marriage from becoming a stigma of discrimination. In fact, the rest of the country also agrees with me, according to new polling data (PDF).
Perhaps more depressing than this expected move by our idiot president, is the abscence of a loud, clear-cut outrage from Kerry or Edwards. Kerry did issue a statement saying he would vote against such an amendment, but he still insists "marriage is between a man and a woman" and that "marriage should be left to the states." Edwards has no formal statement on the subject on his website, but said today that he doesn't "personally support gay marriage myself," and that "it's for the states to decide."
This is the best the democrats can do? Leave it to the states? You know, this issue illustrates one of the reasons that so many people like Bush (beyond the total and complete propoganda that panders to them, that is). He makes a decision and sticks with it. He's not afraid of it. He says I think this is wrong, and I'm going to keep saying I think its wrong, and I'm going to say everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Now, he does happen to be wrong most of the time, but so are a lot of people, and I think those people tend to appreciate someone else "sticking with their convictions" (as opposed to reconsidering their positions as new evidence contradicts them). Even though this attitude has led the president to certain trouble (i.e. on WMD, tax cuts, jobs, etc.), people still respect it.
The democrats have been doing so well for the last few weeks. They haven't backed down. They've been calling the right on their bullshit. Today was a perfect opportunity for Kerry to step forward and say something like:
He didn't say this of course, but can you imagine if he had? People would respect this--they would react to it. They would see someone who stepped up, wasn't afraid of saying how they felt, and who called things as they saw them.
No question that the U.S. needs a divorce from Bush, but today I'm not too encouraged about our upcoming engagement to Kerry or Edwards.
Posted on 07:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 22, 2004
Nader Forgot to Think
Nader's announcement today that he'll run for president as an indepedent seals my opinion that this guy is losing his mind. I was likely in the minority amongst my progressive friends as a Gore voter in 2000. At that time I was of the opinion that nothing mattered except beating Bush, while my friends extolled the virtues of the Nader platform and the importance of starting a 3rd political party. While I also agreed with many Nader positions, I strongly disagreed with Nader's contention that Gore and Bush were one and the same.
Unfortunately, I feel vindicated. Bush has turned out to be the worst presidential disaster in my lifetime, and every day brings a new move from this White House that wouldn't have been taken by Gore had he been elected. The differences are further illustrated by Gore's speeches since the election, which illuminate his depth of understanding of a wide variety of progressive topics.
Nader tries to justify himself on his website:
I'm sorry, but Nader seems to think its still the year 2000--he just hasn't been paying attention to this election cycle. Bush is the supremely motivating force amongst democrats, progressives, and even some republicans to get out and vote this year. Republicans can't stand the fact that Bush calls himself a fiscal conservative, yet has massively increased federal spending while destroying the revenues to pay for it. Presuming Nader's fantasy is right and that he got Greens and other progressives to vote for Gore in 2000, Bush's extremist actions on everything from gutting the EPA to enacting a pre-emptive war strategy will ensure that these voters vote against Bush this time around, regardless of the alternative choices available to them.
Nader seems to think he needs to be in this thing to help the democrats. He's going to help the dems to be more democratic. Hasn't Dean already done that? The rhetoric on the left has changed dramatically from where it was even 2 months ago, with a [new] willingness to attack this president and his policies. People are determined to overturn Bush. Kerry and Edwards both lead in the polls against Bush (as long as Nader isn't included in them).
So will Nader get some votes in 2004? Probably. Will these votes come out of the democratic nominee's tally? Probably. Will this cost the democrats the election? Probably not, but is it worth it? Wouldn't it make more sense for Nader to embrace the new nominee? Demand a spot on his cabinet? Serve as an advisor? Endorse him to ensure his '04 supporters come out and vote?
It won't be long before we starting seeing Nader 2004 signs and stickers planted in republican yards and plastered on the bumpers of BMW's. This is the best news the Bush White House has had since they captured Saddam.
Posted on 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 19, 2004
Stupid Award
A bunch of college republicans came up with the brilliant idea to create a college scholarship for white students only in order to protest affirmative action. Isn't this kind of like creating a high-paying management job for men only in order to protest the ERA?
Posted on 11:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 17, 2004
You Can Take My Marriage License and Shove It
If you haven't been paying attention to the gay marriage extravaganza going on in San Francisco, then you've been missing one of the most encouraging acts of civil disobedience that I can remember. Since February 12th, under order from Mayor Newsom, San Francisco has been marrying any gay couple that applies, and as such have married over 2000 couples in the last 5 days.
While California passed a ballot measure defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Newsom had the following to say:
Imagine that--a politician who is willing to risk everything for what he believes in. Of course, his actions are likely supported by the residents in a city like San Franscisco, but it could still easily get him thrown out of office.
Contrast that with Mr. Bush, who goes off and kills thousands of innocent people, but supports a constitutional amendment that would encode discrimination against gays as a fundamental right. God forbid, those gays might want health benefits, or the right to be by their partner's side as they die!
You can really understand the thinking on this though. I mean, man/woman marriage is such a grand institution that it ensures strong families and lasting relationships, right? If gays and lesbians, who have been holding together long-lasting relationships without the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage were to all of the sudden be included into the mix, why we might find out that they're better at marriage than the heterosexuals are!
I actually wonder if this isn't one of the main motivations behind the right's determination to codify the exclusion of gays from this act. I think they are actually just plain afraid that state-sanctioned gay marriage will make "traditional" marriage look worse than it already does. It is common practice these days to have had multiple marriages while leaving a trail of children floating around between them. Add long-lasting gay marriages to the mix, and it will further highlight the failure of traditional marriage, and the ways in which these unions don't adhere to the religious values that sanction them.
Why will gay marriages last longer than traditional ones? Well, they won't all last longer, of course. But imagine having to develop and maintain a healthy long-term relationship in an environment that not only looks down upon your choice, but wants to federalize its exclusion. Now imagine the stability and calm that would come to these people were these burdens of discrimination to be lifted. They might just find it a little easier to concentrate on each other and less on the world.
And this of course brings me to the separation of church and state. Marriage is a state-sanctioned union between two people. The constitution mentions nothing about gays and lesbians one way or another. So where is this anti-gay rhetoric coming from--from the bible. Obviously there's nothing wrong with people reading and believing whats in the bible, but for the state to all of the sudden adopt a biblical criteria for marriage turns this state-sanctioned union into one controlled by religion but enforced by the state. In other words, you get a complete wipeout of the founder's insistence on this separation.
State-sanctioned marriage should be irrespective of ones religious preferences or beliefs. The question is whether or not committed gay and lesbian couples should enjoy the same benefits as everyone else--not whether this or that religion thinks it is the right thing to do.
The constitutional amendment supported by Mr. Bush is the following two sentences:
Supposedly knowledgable people disagree over whether or not this language excludes gay couples from ever receiving traditional marriage benefits. Those who want to pass it say that it will prevent judges from forcing states to recognize the gay marriage or civil union of another state, but will not prevent the states from allowing civil unions that provide traditional marriage benefits to same-sex couples. Its part of this "leave it to the state" rhetoric that you may have heard from such divergent voices as Bush and Kerry. So we want to leave it to the state, except that we won't leave it to the state because we enforce it in the federal constitution?
When I read this amendment, here is what I see:
While some will certainly disagree with my interpretation, many will not. I think those who try to convince us my interpretation is wrong know which way the so-called radical judges will vote--they'll uphold my reading of the amendment. Regardless of the reading, do we really want text in the constitution that states that nobody shall be required to give one group the benefits that another group has?
When I read this amendment text and read that Bush supported it, I found myself embarrassed to be a married partner in a heterosexual marriage. When I got married, it was not supported by the church (although it also wasn't opposed as far as I know)--it was supported by the state. A judge signed a certificate that proclaimed that the state sanctioned our committment, and that we were entitled to the benefits normally given to married couples. The exclusion implied in our marriage was that we had chosen to be committed to each other instead of to someone else.
Were this amendment to pass, however, my marriage would now be a supportive implementation of the discrimination I am writing against. In other words, I'm not sure that I could stay married if this amendment were to become law. I do realize that in some ways my marriage is already at least a reminder to gays and lesbians of the differences between our acceptance by society--but I am also hopeful that everyone will have the same choice I and my spouse had.
Which brings me back to San Francisco. I've been planning to write this entry ever since I read the amendment, but have been too depressed about the subject to do so. Now that thousands of gays and lesbians are lining the streets to get married, I find myself with a renewed sense of enthusiasm for the ideal of equality on this issue.
The right must surely be going nuts. What will they do--nullify the marriage licenses? Throw them in jail? Send them to Guantanamo Bay? Perhaps the only way to protect our failed institution of marriage is to ensure that it doesn't succeed.
There are many sources out there on this issue if you want to read additional perspectives. One blog that I rather enjoy and have taken to reading every day is Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish. Andrew is a self-described fiscal conservative and cultural liberal. I don't find myself agreeing with him that often, but his writing on gay marriage is eloquent and thought-provoking. I also get to smile every time he gets angry at Bush for spending more money we don't have--because I imagine his conservative voter friends might feel the same way.
In mainstream sources, the Post had a nice article outlining the amendment issue last weekend. Nearly every source is running an article about the San Francisco marriage actions going on right now. The Times has a writeup today about the court's decision to not order an immediate halt to the marriages, but to wait for more information from the city to answer the conservative challenge.
Posted on 08:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Touch Nothing
The Guardian has an article today that touches on several issues in my last entry about touchscreen voting problems. David Dill of Stanford University says the touchscreen voting system "is in crisis." A few tidbits from the article:
In an election in Indiana last year, an electronic system recorded more than 144,000 votes in an election with fewer than 19,000 registered voters. ...
The criticisms center on three issues: the machines offer no record of how a vote was cast - so no prospect of a repeat of the "hanging chad" fiasco of the 2000 election; the accuracy with which they record votes has been called into question; and they could be vulnerable to computer hackers.
And if you thought the potential for computer hacking was bad, check this out:
The article says a bill has been introduced to require a paper trail (although it isn't clear in what state they are referring to).
Posted on 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 15, 2004
Touchscreen Vote Stealing, etc.
Questions continue about the reliability of various touchscreen voting technologies produced by private companies like Diebold. In one of the latest news articles to come out on the subject, the Florida Dept. of State has decided that there's no need to include touchscreen voting machines in any future manual recounts. You see, according to the state of Florida, the reason for a manual recount is to determine if the voter made a clear choice, and there is absolutely no question on that when it comes to the new technology. I would have thought the reason for a manual recount would be to discern whether or not the original count was accurate, but I guess Florida made it clear in 2000 that that wasn't a particular interest of theirs.
Regardless, since these machines do not lie, there's no need to recount with them. More than likely, this is rather because there is no paper trail associated with these machines, thus, nothing to recount. You have a number, that's your number. Of course, don't worry about the fact that these machines have huge, documented security holes, can easily be hacked by a 12 year old, and are produced by a company run by a CEO who is a known large Bush campaign contributor on the record as intending to "deliver Ohio's votes to Bush in 2004."
These machines may play a much larger role in the 2004 election than anyone is expecting. They are already suspected in strange, poll-defying election results in 2002. We know that Bushco will go to great lengths to illegally sway elections their way (i.e. have your cousin call the state of Florida for you on Fox News, then have your brother halt the recounts, have your daddy's friends step in and direct traffic, etc., etc.). How are these machines going to be trusted in '04? What happens if a state is close, and there's some question regarding these machines? Heck, what happens if a state is really not close ... can we trust it? This question goes for either party, incidentally.
This technology, and the code behind it, should be open source. Without clear scrutiny from a talented public, there is no way to ensure its integrity. But really, this whole thing should be created and managed by the government, not a private corporation. In another great example of privitization of services by Bushco that should be public, we are leaving perhaps the most important piece of the democracy puzzle to a handful of people whose primary motivations are greed, wealth, and power.
Anyway, what really led me to write about this today was to lead you to one of my favorite sites on the net--Mark Fiore's political satire cartoons. Mark is regularly featured on Salon, and maintains a gallery of all of his political cartoons. These are often brilliant, engaging, and revealing satires of current events, and make for great laughs. One of his latest is about the topic of touchscreen voting. I encourage you to watch every one of his cartoons when you have the time.
Posted on 06:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 13, 2004
Bush the Glossy Uppercrust
Bob Herbert's column in the Times today, called Bush's Duty, and Privilege, is a nice, short summary of the relevance of the president's military service (or lack thereof).
Krugman's column follows the composed photographic image of Bush as President, its role in the 2004 budget, and the ways in which these images control the public perception of the man vs. the office.
A couple of great reads.
Posted on 12:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 09, 2004
PDB = Particularly Dumb Bush
Political Parrhesia quotes a story from MSNBC about how members of the 9/11 commission are considering issuing a subpoena to the White House to force them to cooperate with document requests for the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB's). Must be something pretty juicy 'ol Bushco doesn't want us to see. I say do it.
And in a sign that the investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame is heating up, the Times reports about the investigators dragging Bush aides into the Grand Jury this week, including the press secretary, Scott McClellan. The most buzz seems to be around I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. TPM talked about this several days ago, before it hit the mainstream press.
And in case you missed it, Calpundit has pulled off a grand feat of reporting and potentially broken the Bush AWOL story wide open with an analysis of some newly FOIA'd military records.
I've only been doing this blog thing for a short time, and when I started writing one I started reading others as well. I must say I've been amazed at the level of reporting being offered on some of the well-known blogs, like Talking Points Memo, Eschaton, and now Calpundit. These people are doing real reporting and breaking stories well before the mainstream press picks them up.
Posted on 10:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 08, 2004
MTP Transcript: Short Version
Ara Rubyan's got a great distillation of Bush's Meet the Press interview on his site E Pluribus Unum. If you don't want to read the whole transcript, then read this instead (or in addition).
Posted on 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Jobs President
I highly recommend reading the transcript of Bush's interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press today. It offered a glimpse of the president's strategy for how he'll deal with his horrendous record during the upcoming campaign. Russert questioned him on several issues, including Iraq, the economy, his military service, and the 2004 election.
One thing of note is the degree to which I think Bush seemed uncomfortable. Many responses began with some bit of stuttering, as if he was trying to remember the spin he's been taught to respond with (unfortunately, the transcript doesn't show this). Most questions were not actually answered, but used as an opportunity to blab the White House line. There were a couple of instances of followup by Russert, but, for the most part, he let the non-answers go. When is someone going to ask this man a question and keep on him until he actually answers it?
The blogosphere will be tearing this transcript apart all day I suspect. I decided to pick just one section I haven't seen covered yet, and offer a few thoughts.
When asked a question about how he can call himself a fiscal conservative when he's run up the largest deficit in history, he said the following (quotes are in boxes). I interject my comments inline:
President Bush: Well, they're wrong.
Russert: Mr. President
President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
Aha. The 'ol blame-it-on-Clinton trick. Except, oops. Clinton created a surplus to work with, not the worlds largest deficit. And, this is wrong anyway...federal discretionary spending is up over 25% the last two years. It rose an average of 2% a year during the 1990's.
Russert: That's a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?
President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you will slow down economic growth. You will make it harder.
He means the best way for him to keep his job is to make sure his contributors get to keep more of their money. The best way to ruin the economy is to make sure we expand the already all-time record deficit and play accounting tricks (like not including the war costs in the budget) to ensure the goverment will be bankrupt in twenty years. We can't have a war, and a tax cut, and increased spending--all at the same time.
Then the loss of 2.5 million jobs, the most since Hoover, would be a good indication that Bush is not capable of following up on his 'worries,' I guess.
President Bush: Well, that's a hypothetical question which I can't answer to you because I don't know how strong the economy is going to be.
Uh, I thought the economy was recovering--that the president was in control of these things. How about "no more tax cuts if we don't know how strong the economy will be?"
Here he goes again. 'Don't let those democrats take away the measly little credit we gave them! Even though most of my tax cuts went to the wealthy, and the likely nominee won't rescind the middle-class tax cuts, I'm telling you...you'll be in the poorhouse without me!' State budgets across the country are strapped, sucking more money in taxes and services. The few hundred dollars people supposedly save (without a child you don't necessarily get any relief) doesn't make up for the 2.5 million jobs lost, the higher healthcare costs, the higher tuition at state universities, etc...
He's going to do his best to spin the economy (its growing--you just can't tell yet); the WMD issue (the commission hasn't released its report yet); his military service (if you can find the records, then sure, you can read them, but nobody can find them); and any other criticism of his decisions (its politics at its worst--I'm a uniter, not a divider). Time will tell whether the media reveals the truth behind the spin, or helps to support it.
Posted on 11:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 06, 2004
At Least We Get a Pretty Picture (If Nothing Else)
Bush's handlers are masters at controlling his image. Every visual scene in which Bush appears has been completely composed, down to the pin on his lapel, the color of his suit, the height of the lectern, the people behind him, the background, etc., etc. The people who control this image got their experience in Hollywood.
In just another example from yesterday, Bush gave a speech in South Carolina to try and defend the Iraq war. Mike Allen from the Post: " The morning was raw, with wind whipping his hair, script and overcoat. Moments before the speech, the White House staff had to get the Coast Guard to reposition a cutter anchored behind him because it had drifted out of position and was no longer providing a perfect backdrop."
I encourage you to take a look at the resulting photo.
Posted on 01:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 05, 2004
Not I, Said the CIA
George Tenet said today: "They [his intelligence analysts] never said there was an imminent threat."
Well if the CIA didn't tell Bush Iraq was an imminent threat, then he must have made it up all by himself. Its hard to tell if Tenet was supposed to help or hurt Bush today. Whatever the intention, the usual effect of anything resembling truthtelling seems to be damaging to Bush. Its clear that Tenet wants to dispel the Bush line that it was all the CIA's fault, and I'm happy to see someone bringing this up. He also rejected the idea that the CIA was told to lie about their information to justify the war. Frankly, I'd tend to believe this. I think it was all the White House that created the 'imminent threat' language and tried to convince the world that war was the only answer...not the CIA.
Of course, Tenet also echoed Rumsfeld's statement from yesterday that they may still find some of those WMD's. Uh huh. Sounds like some more good CIA intel.
Posted on 07:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 03, 2004
The AWOL Story Just Won't Go AWOL
In case you've heard some say how reckless it is to suggest George blew off a year or two of National Guard duty during Vietnam (others who did this got sent to Vietnam in the Army), you'll be interested to know that this story just won't go away. Others have already summed it up well so far, including Josh Marshall, the Post (here and here), and the Times. His commander in the Guard during the time in question said again yesterday that Bush never reported to him. In 1973, his commanders couldn't write their annual evaluation because "Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report." (5/72 - 4/73).
This issue was brought back into prominence by Michael Moore in his support of Wesley Clark. Moore has been pounded on this issue, but has a rebuttal online.
Posted on 11:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Freedom to Lie
Bush today: "We also want to look at our war against proliferation and weapons of mass destruction in a broader context, so I'm putting together an independent, bipartisan commission to analyze where we stand, what we can do better as we fight this war against terror."
Scott McClellan today (press secretary): " We knew he had weapons of mass destruction, we knew he had used chemical weapons on his own people. ... I think it's important -- it's important that we not only look back, but that the commission looks forward to look at ways we can improve our ability to meet the challenges we face in confronting the new threat we face from weapons of mass destruction and the spread of weapons of mass destruction."
They still think you'll believe there actually were WMD in Iraq. If you've never watched a Bush administration press conference, or read a transcript, I highly recommend it so that you can get an idea about how these people handle the press. There's often criticism that the press aren't asking the tough questions, but you'll see that at least today they asked some. And the answers were not forthcoming.
If there were ever any doubts about the purpose of this independent commission, they can now be cast away. Here are some of the main reasons they agreed to form this commission:
1. They look irresponsible if they don't.
2. Once they do, the news focuses elsewhere (i.e. Jackson's breasts, Martha Stewart, etc.)
3. It gives them some avenue for contradicting probable negative findings by other commissions on this subject.
4. It allows them to dispel any questions on this topic throughout the campaign and until after the election: "We need to wait and see what the commission finds."
5. They get to blame it all on the CIA. They were duped!
6. They'll handpick the independent members.
7. They'll write the rules (i.e. no access to the President's papers).
8. They'll make sure nothing substantive emerges whatsoever (see 6. and 7.).
They are so confident (and why shouldn't they be) that the best way to hide their lies is to tell a bigger one, that they'll not only use this commission to absolve themselves of all guilt, but they'll actually use it to justify their next war. Its a friggin pep rally. They should hang the "Mission Accomplished" sign already.
Posted on 10:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 01, 2004
Bushco Blames World
The UK Observer reports today that the administration knew there were no WMD to be found as early as last May. We know Bush lied about Iraq purchasing uranium from Niger in his State of the Union speech a year ago. We now know that Powell's 'evidence' presentation at the U.N. was full of holes and distortions. Cheney said just two weeks ago that we have 'conclusive evidence' of WMD in Iraq.
So now Bush wants a bi-partisan commission to investigate 'intelligence failures' regarding the missing WMD in Iraq. If this goes anything like the 9/11 commission, he'll first try to appoint Kissinger to head it, then he'll deny them access to anything and everything that relates to the White House, he'll stretch out their deadline past the election, and will wait out the storm.
When is this man going to stop blaming the world for his own problems? Wouldn't one who decides to adopt a policy of pre-emption make sure his intelligence was rock-solid before commencing an action driven by that policy? Bush has blamed the CIA, Rice, the U.N., France, Germany, and anyone else he can for his problems in Iraq.
The unavoidable facts for this administration are that they decided to overthrow Saddam on day 1; they used a national tragedy to propel them into the preplanned conflict; they told the country that Iraq was an imminent threat from nuclear weapons; they told the country the war was over on May 1; they bankrupted the government in the process; they gave out no-bid contracts to the VP's buddies; they outed a covert CIA operative to silence their critics; they tried to rewrite history and say Iraq hadn't allowed inspectors into the country before the war; and they are directly responsible for over 500 U.S. solider deaths and the deaths of 10,000 Iraqis.
Who should be investigated here? Is it the CIA or the administration? There is merit in finding out what the CIA knew, how they came to their conclusions, and what they presented to the president--but there is equal if not more merit in finding out what Bush was told, what questions he asked, and how he came to the decisions he made.
You know, one thing to think about is why? What was in it for Bush to put himself in this difficult situation, so close to the election. Bush supporters would say he is just trying to protect the country. Bush campaign staff would say he's just a regular guy doing a difficult job. I would say that at least one main reason comes down to money.
He has to pay back all of the fat cats who put him in office. Remember that George Bush is a failed businessman with a terrible CV that any second-rate journalist could have (and did) uncover during his campaign. But throw enough money at the problem, and it all gets buried in propagandistic bullshit. He's back on this train again, now with an even worse CV than before. And he's been using taxpayer funds every week to jet around the country and collect more money than last time for the second round. Heck, he's already spent $33 million of his campaign money this year, and he's not even running against anyone in the primary. Where'd it all go?
He's spent his administration effectively transferring the wealth of the country into the pockets of large corporations. The wars are all about this. Remember Eisenhower's warning about the 'military industrial complex?' The new warning would be about the 'privatized social service complex.' The Bush formula for payback is: take a large goverment program, bid it out to a private company, and you get in its place a program with reduced effectiveness whose funds are siphoned by administrative costs. Bush wants to try this with everything he can think of, from schools to medicare, from social security to half the federal workforce. In a realm of increasingly large global corporations, this formula accelerates the country's transition to a corporate state, and ensures outside control over federal income (i.e. your checkbook) from a marketplace with a dwindling number of competitors.
You've seen me and others refer to "Bushco" as a toungue-in-cheek reference to Bush as corporation (I first got this from the great satirical cartoonist Mark Fiore). But its not so far-fetched. Bush has overseen the largest and fastest increase in the size of the federal government in modern history. The republican ideal is 'smaller government', or 'government off your back.' Bush seems to think the best way to get government off your back is to turn it over to those ever-responsible Bush-friendly corporations that put him in office, like Enron and Worldcom.
I'm sure there are motivations beyond money that drive Bush to do the things he does. Stupidity comes to mind. So does arrogance, pride, and ignorance. Power was this man's birthright destiny, and his family has made sure he gets it despite his lack of aptitude for much of anything.
Which brings me back to my question, which is why? Why did Bush screw this up so badly? Why didn't he hide the lies better, or wait a few more weeks before attacking Iraq, or build a coalition, or move a bit more slowly? Because he doesn't have to worry about any of these things. Money buys power and power gets money and he's got all he needs of both.
Posted on 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack