Saturday, April 28, 2007
What Heart of Darkness festers in the center of the Bush/Republican Onion?
We know and read about the small stuff. Of course, it really isn't small stuff; it's just small stuff "relative to" the big stuff -- you know, the treasonous stuff, the planet killing stuff, the 3rd millennia crusade against Islam stuff.
For openers, it's now common knowledge now that 9/11 could have been prevented. Dear God, they had a blizzard of warnings -- all ignored. But how many layers into the onion is the answer to WHY
these warnings were systematically ignored? What "payoff" did Bush & Cheney, etc. get by ignoring these warnings?
Most of us suspect that the answer is that 9/11 was ignored for treasonous political reasons. They knew that a terrorist attack would help Bush's political capital. Simple as that. Plus, there's also the possibility that 9/11 was (how shall we put it?) more than allowed . . .
Now that, my friends, is big BIG stuff!
The question is will the committees (especially the post 2008 committees) be able to shine legal/constitutional light on these all too realistic possibilities? Will they be able to prove once and for all that the fanatical neocons criminally betrayed America just to drag president pinhead out the political toilet he was in before 9/11?
And speaking of neocons, how far down into the onion are the deep roots of the neocon cabal? To what lunatic fringe of what country is the neocon lobby answering to? They certainly don't represent the well being and national security of the United States of America, as their track of record of failure, genocide, and bankruptcy of the American economy abundantly demonstrates. So are we ever going to find out who has "really" been pulling the strings of American foreign policy? And still is.
Of course, much of the core stuff we already know, even though we've spent most of our country's history being in denial about it. The last seven years have rubbed our patriotic faces in the infinitely ugly truth that our country is now (and always has been) a Dictatorship of the Rich. Said differently, this still is the Middle Ages and the one or two percent are still treating all the rest of us like cattle. We pay the taxes, we fight the wars (see any Bush's in Iraq?), and we clean their commodes. Here's just one of thousands of examples: in the last few years, Texas energy company profits of gone up SEVERAL HUNDRED percent. How are you doing at the pumps these days?
So, deep in the onion is a Class War, and boy are the middle and lower Classes getting slaughtered!
Lastly, where in the onion is hard evidence that things like global warming, expanding ozone holes, stifled medical research, etc., etc., are directly related to policies engineered by nutcase religious fanatics who actually WANT the Earth to die? Let's face it, George's Armageddon death wish is right there in that army of brain less religious fanatics who anticipate being "lifted up" any day now. Yeah, right. The point is, the rapturettes have made their choice, and it's ain't the Earth. The Earth is precisely what they can't wait to be "saved" from. Mother Nature for these people is not a mythological goddess, she's a whore to be used and abused.
And speaking of which, isn't it interesting that this whole complex of pug fundamentalists have so much contempt for anything feminine, e.g., "Mother" Nature. No, they like that 'ol time (male) religion that has always subjugated and exploited women.
Here's a final thought. What do you bet that somewhere in this filthy onion is organized crime? We shouldn't forget that the more constitutional governments disintegrate (like now!), the more organized crime has a feeding frenzy. Plus, the pugs are sure plugged into Florida . . .
**********************************************************************
W. Christopher Epler (Bill)
Posted by W. Christopher Epler at 2:57 PM
Showing posts with label RICH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RICH. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Mismanaging Iraq: Stealing From the Poor and Giving to the Rich
Ramzy Baroud, Aljazeera.net English.
Locating Dartmouth House, where Hans von Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq was scheduled to speak in London on April 18, was a challenge. Yet the moment I slipped quietly into the lecture hall, getting lost for an hour in the ever confusing and yet expanding city of London was the least of my concerns. His statements were shocking as were his many statistics: Iraq was simply and shamelessly robbed blind during the US-led UN sanctions. Sadly, the robbery and mismanagement continue until this day, but this time the figures are much more staggering.
As von Sponeck spoke, I reflected on my lengthy interview with Iraq’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Mohammed Al-Duri. Al Duri, being interviewed for the first time by English speaking media since claiming his post at the UN, revealed to me in early 2001, in equally shocking details, what sanctions had done to his country and people. He claimed that the UN was part of the problem. Led by two countries, the US and Britain, the UN Oil for Food Program and the “humanitarian” mission it established in Iraq was, he said, robbing the country blind and mismanaging funds, with needy Iraqi families receiving next to nothing. He spoke of the manipulation of Iraq’s wealth for political purposes and alleged that the UN was a tool in the hands of the United States government aimed at encouraging widespread popular disatisfaction with Saddam’s government before the country was dragged off to war.
In hindsight, Al-Duri’s assessment was very accurate. Promoting his new book: “A Different Kind of War,” von Sponeck reiterated in essence and substance Al-Duri’s claims; the only difference is that von Sponeck was an insider; his numbers and stories were impeccable and could hardly be contested. It’s no wonder that one and a half years after assuming his post in Baghdad in 1998, he resigned. Even at such uncongenial bureaucracy like the UN, some people still possess a living conscience; von Sponeck was and remains a man of great qualities.
By March 2003, when Iraq was invaded by American forces, the UN was generating $64 billion in sales of Iraqi oil, according to von Sponeck. But, scandalously, only $28 billion reached the Iraqi people. Around 70 percent of the Iraqi people benefited from the program. If distributed evenly, each Iraqi received half a US dollar per day. According to UN figures, an individual living under one dollar per day is classified as living in “abject poverty”. Even during the most destructive phases of war with Iran, Iraq has managed to provide relatively high living standards. Its hospitals were neither dilapidated, nor did its oil industry lie in ruins. Only after the UN sanctions in 1991 did the Iraqis suffer at such an appalling magnitude. Alas, the tyranny of Saddam expanded to become the tyranny of the international community as well.
“Neither the welfare of the Iraqi people nor the sovereignty of the Iraqis was respected,” by the UN and its two main benefactors, asserted von Sponeck. The UN Security Council’s “elected 10 or veto-wielding five” had nothing for Iraq but “empty words,” but there were “deliberate efforts to make life uncomfortable (for the Iraqis) through the Oil for Food program.” All efforts to modernize Iraq’s oil industry were blocked, said von Sponeck, all at the behest of “two governments that blocked all sorts of items,” which could’ve made that possible: Again, the United States and Britain, coincidently the same two countries that invaded and currently occupy Iraq. The logic in all of this is clear; the “preemptive” war on Iraq was factored into the sanctions from its early days.
The assessments of Al-Duri and von Sponeck converge, revealing the disagreeable intents of the US government and its followers many years before the horror of 9/11 polarized public opinion and allowed Washington’s political elites, the neoconservatives and contractors to make their case for war.
But where did the money go, during the sanctions and now, four years after the invasion?
Von Sponeck reported that a large chunk of the money generated from Iraq’s oil, 55 percent, went to fund the UN’s own inadequate “humanitarian” programs. Much of the rest was taken by the UN compensation commission, entrusted in handling claims of damages made by those allegedly harmed by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. According to von Sponeck, the Iraqi oil pie was so large, there was plenty for everyone: Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, and all the rest. But most ironically, the commission awarded a large sum of money to two Israeli kibbutzim in the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights, for allegedly losing some of their income due to the fact that the war damaged the tourism industry in Israel.
The robbery in Iraq hardly discontinued after the “liberation.” To the contrary, it intensified beyond belief. The US Government Accountability Office uncovered awesome discrepancies in the US military administration’s handling of the money: Billions went missing, hundreds of contractors fully compensated but whose work was never accounted for, layers upon layers of shady companies, contractors and sub-contractors (of which Halliburton and its subsidiary firm Kellogg, Brown & Root are just a mere illustration), in partnership with the new rulers of Iraq, are stealing the wealth of the once prosperous nation, leaving it in shambles.
And now, the Iraqis are facing enormous pressure to approve the new Iraqi oil and gas law. The draft bill, according to Iraqi MP Nur Al-Din Al-Hayyali, would give “50 percent of the Iraqi people’s oil wealth to foreign investing oil firms.” The nationalization of the country’s oil industry in 1972 is being reversed. The robbery that began in the early 1990s continues unabated. Shameful as it is, Iraq’s new rulers are stealing from the poor and giving the spoils to the rich.
Locating Dartmouth House, where Hans von Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq was scheduled to speak in London on April 18, was a challenge. Yet the moment I slipped quietly into the lecture hall, getting lost for an hour in the ever confusing and yet expanding city of London was the least of my concerns. His statements were shocking as were his many statistics: Iraq was simply and shamelessly robbed blind during the US-led UN sanctions. Sadly, the robbery and mismanagement continue until this day, but this time the figures are much more staggering.
As von Sponeck spoke, I reflected on my lengthy interview with Iraq’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Mohammed Al-Duri. Al Duri, being interviewed for the first time by English speaking media since claiming his post at the UN, revealed to me in early 2001, in equally shocking details, what sanctions had done to his country and people. He claimed that the UN was part of the problem. Led by two countries, the US and Britain, the UN Oil for Food Program and the “humanitarian” mission it established in Iraq was, he said, robbing the country blind and mismanaging funds, with needy Iraqi families receiving next to nothing. He spoke of the manipulation of Iraq’s wealth for political purposes and alleged that the UN was a tool in the hands of the United States government aimed at encouraging widespread popular disatisfaction with Saddam’s government before the country was dragged off to war.
In hindsight, Al-Duri’s assessment was very accurate. Promoting his new book: “A Different Kind of War,” von Sponeck reiterated in essence and substance Al-Duri’s claims; the only difference is that von Sponeck was an insider; his numbers and stories were impeccable and could hardly be contested. It’s no wonder that one and a half years after assuming his post in Baghdad in 1998, he resigned. Even at such uncongenial bureaucracy like the UN, some people still possess a living conscience; von Sponeck was and remains a man of great qualities.
By March 2003, when Iraq was invaded by American forces, the UN was generating $64 billion in sales of Iraqi oil, according to von Sponeck. But, scandalously, only $28 billion reached the Iraqi people. Around 70 percent of the Iraqi people benefited from the program. If distributed evenly, each Iraqi received half a US dollar per day. According to UN figures, an individual living under one dollar per day is classified as living in “abject poverty”. Even during the most destructive phases of war with Iran, Iraq has managed to provide relatively high living standards. Its hospitals were neither dilapidated, nor did its oil industry lie in ruins. Only after the UN sanctions in 1991 did the Iraqis suffer at such an appalling magnitude. Alas, the tyranny of Saddam expanded to become the tyranny of the international community as well.
“Neither the welfare of the Iraqi people nor the sovereignty of the Iraqis was respected,” by the UN and its two main benefactors, asserted von Sponeck. The UN Security Council’s “elected 10 or veto-wielding five” had nothing for Iraq but “empty words,” but there were “deliberate efforts to make life uncomfortable (for the Iraqis) through the Oil for Food program.” All efforts to modernize Iraq’s oil industry were blocked, said von Sponeck, all at the behest of “two governments that blocked all sorts of items,” which could’ve made that possible: Again, the United States and Britain, coincidently the same two countries that invaded and currently occupy Iraq. The logic in all of this is clear; the “preemptive” war on Iraq was factored into the sanctions from its early days.
The assessments of Al-Duri and von Sponeck converge, revealing the disagreeable intents of the US government and its followers many years before the horror of 9/11 polarized public opinion and allowed Washington’s political elites, the neoconservatives and contractors to make their case for war.
But where did the money go, during the sanctions and now, four years after the invasion?
Von Sponeck reported that a large chunk of the money generated from Iraq’s oil, 55 percent, went to fund the UN’s own inadequate “humanitarian” programs. Much of the rest was taken by the UN compensation commission, entrusted in handling claims of damages made by those allegedly harmed by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. According to von Sponeck, the Iraqi oil pie was so large, there was plenty for everyone: Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, and all the rest. But most ironically, the commission awarded a large sum of money to two Israeli kibbutzim in the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights, for allegedly losing some of their income due to the fact that the war damaged the tourism industry in Israel.
The robbery in Iraq hardly discontinued after the “liberation.” To the contrary, it intensified beyond belief. The US Government Accountability Office uncovered awesome discrepancies in the US military administration’s handling of the money: Billions went missing, hundreds of contractors fully compensated but whose work was never accounted for, layers upon layers of shady companies, contractors and sub-contractors (of which Halliburton and its subsidiary firm Kellogg, Brown & Root are just a mere illustration), in partnership with the new rulers of Iraq, are stealing the wealth of the once prosperous nation, leaving it in shambles.
And now, the Iraqis are facing enormous pressure to approve the new Iraqi oil and gas law. The draft bill, according to Iraqi MP Nur Al-Din Al-Hayyali, would give “50 percent of the Iraqi people’s oil wealth to foreign investing oil firms.” The nationalization of the country’s oil industry in 1972 is being reversed. The robbery that began in the early 1990s continues unabated. Shameful as it is, Iraq’s new rulers are stealing from the poor and giving the spoils to the rich.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Democracy is for the rich
KEVIN BARR
Friday, March 30, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Democracy is a system of government where the political power rests with the nation's population either directly or through elected representatives. It is government of the people, for the people, by the people.
From this one should be able to infer that the purpose of democracy is to build a just society where the interests of all the people are cared for rich and poor, men and women, minorities as well as the majority and the economy works for the benefit of all. Democracy should be about the ordering of society to bring about justice for all. If it does not work for the common good then there is something seriously wrong.
The United States, in particular, has been a staunch promoter of democracy and has fought to have democracy entrenched throughout the world. Yet some writers have raised a number of important questions about the nature of US democracy.
For example, why is it that only those from wealthy backgrounds are able to become presidential candidates?
Why is it that the US not only champions democracy but champions extreme individualism and unbridled capitalism and has strongly opposed any form of socialism (which might spread the benefits of development more widely among people)?
Why is it that America's wealthy elites are able to exert such strong influence on political elections and economic decisions?
Alesina and Glaeser in their book Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe (2004) point out that all the American political institutions are ultimately the product of an 18th Century Constitution which was crafted by a minority of white and wealthy men of property determined to stop the State from expropriating their wealth and to limit the amount of redistribution the poor could demand of the rich.
Hence, the concerns of the rich are strongly protected and the US has a bias against welfare for the poor and redistribution of wealth. Comparing the US and Europe they note:
"Not only does government spending in the Europe favour the poor much more than in the United States, but government tax policy as well is much more distributive. Income tax rates are more progressive than in the United States."
Phillips in his book, Wealth and Democracy: a Political History of the American Rich (2002) provides hard evidence of the extreme prosperity of America's wealthy elite and shows how they are able to use their strong political influence to structure economic policy (e.g. tax policy) in their own self-interest. On the other hand, Barbara Ehrenreich in her Nickel and Dimed (2001) shows how the US economic system so adversely affects the lives of the working poor.
So, while all Americans may be able to vote in elections, does democracy in the US work for the benefit of all the people or mostly for the benefit of those with wealth and power?
If democracy is for the benefit of all the people of a nation, why is such blatant inequality tolerated? Does democracy necessarily work in the interests of justice for all?
William Blum once of the US State Department in his book Rogue State (2000:170) notes that: "Americans are raised to fervently believe that no progress can be made in any society in the absence of elections. They are taught to equate elections with democracy, and democracy with elections."
Yet, as we know, elections alone do not guarantee real democracy.
Some would say that liberal democracy in the US (and some other countries as well) has become an integral part of the capitalist system and, therefore, is class-based and not fully or truly democratic or participatory. It is "bourgeois democracy" where only the most financially powerful people have their say.
Consequently it is fundamentally un-egalitarian and facilitates economic exploitation of the poorer classes. Certainly the cost of political campaigning may mean that the system favours the rich (who may be a small minority of the total number of voters) and thus in reality the elected government becomes a form of plutocracy (or rule of the elite).
Thus, according to Marx, parliamentary elections are an opportunity citizens of a country get every few years to decide who among the ruling classes will misrepresent them in parliament.
Or again, modern democracy may be regarded as a dishonest farce used to keep the masses from getting restless by providing the hope that things might get better when they have another election.
Reforms are needed in the electoral process so that the power of big money is removed. Otherwise democracy can never be "of the people" i.e. poor or middle class people. It will always be class dominated. Democracy will be for the rich.
In this connection ownership of the media by a few of the rich elite may lead to more specific distortion of the electoral process. The media are themselves a vital element of the electoral process. They can be used to protect the interests of their own class and suppress any criticism of the status quo.
It is important for us to understand this US bias towards individualism and wealth and against welfare and redistribution because the US dominates decisions made by the World Bank and other financial institutions.
Moreover it is a key player in the decisions of the G8 countries which advise us on development.
The US will obviously side with regimes which think as it does and try to mould us in their own image. Consequently the benefits of its form of democracy will not benefit all the people but only the elite. We have seen this happen even in our own country. In this connection it is interesting to note the words of Epeli Hau'ofa (1987:101): "One very important development that we have to watch carefully is the emergence of privileged classes in the islands of the South Pacific for it is certain that the fates of the island communities are being decided by the ways in which these groups act, first, in relation to their own underprivileged people and, second, in relation to their important connections with each other and with similar groups elsewhere. It is the privileged who decide on the needs of their communities and whose rising aspirations and affluence entail worsening conditions for the poor."
Father Kevin Father is the program co-ordinator economic justice for ECREA. The views expressed are his and not necessarily that of his employer
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Yes, You Are the Person of the Year! : FRANK RICH - Fleeing Reality
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Yes, You Are the Person of the Year!
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 24, 2006
This was the year Americans escaped as often as they could into their private pleasure pods.
TIME’S choice for 2006 Person of the Year — “You” — was a bountiful gift of mirth to America, second only to the championship Donald Trump-Rosie O’Donnell bout as a comic kickoff to the holiday season. The magazine’s cover stunt, a computer screen of Mylar reflecting the reader’s own image, was so hokey that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert merely had to display it on camera to score laughs. The magazine’s disingenuous rationale for bestowing its yearly honor on its readers was like a big wet kiss from a distant relative who creeps you out.
According to Time, “You” deserve to be Person of the Year because you — “yes, you,” as the cover puts it — “control the Information Age” and spend a lot of time watching YouTube and blogging instead of, well, reading dead-tree media like Time. The pronouncements ginned up to inflate this theme include the observation that “Thomas Paine was in effect the first blogger” (which presumably makes the Old Testament in effect the first Facebook). The desperation of Time to appear relevant and hip — “fantastically cutting-edge and New Media,” as Nora Ephron put it in a hilarious essay for The Huffington Post — was embarrassing in its nakedness.
And sad.
--MORE--
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Yes, You Are the Person of the Year!
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 24, 2006
This was the year Americans escaped as often as they could into their private pleasure pods.
TIME’S choice for 2006 Person of the Year — “You” — was a bountiful gift of mirth to America, second only to the championship Donald Trump-Rosie O’Donnell bout as a comic kickoff to the holiday season. The magazine’s cover stunt, a computer screen of Mylar reflecting the reader’s own image, was so hokey that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert merely had to display it on camera to score laughs. The magazine’s disingenuous rationale for bestowing its yearly honor on its readers was like a big wet kiss from a distant relative who creeps you out.
According to Time, “You” deserve to be Person of the Year because you — “yes, you,” as the cover puts it — “control the Information Age” and spend a lot of time watching YouTube and blogging instead of, well, reading dead-tree media like Time. The pronouncements ginned up to inflate this theme include the observation that “Thomas Paine was in effect the first blogger” (which presumably makes the Old Testament in effect the first Facebook). The desperation of Time to appear relevant and hip — “fantastically cutting-edge and New Media,” as Nora Ephron put it in a hilarious essay for The Huffington Post — was embarrassing in its nakedness.
And sad.
--MORE--
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Good Daughter, in a Brothel: NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF & Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy: FRANK RICH
THE COMPLETE ARTICLES
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Good Daughter, in a Brothel
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 17, 2006
In poor countries where sex trafficking and globalization have fostered new forms of slavery, stories like Yan Kosal’s are still wrenchingly common.
BATTAMBANG, Cambodia
One of the oldest social dichotomies is the one dividing good girls from bad, the madonna from the whore. But in poor countries where sex trafficking and globalization have fostered new forms of slavery, it is the saintly ones — those who risk leaving their villages to help their families — who often end up as whores.
Yan Kosal is a 26-year-old woman here in northwestern Cambodia who was devoted to her aging parents and desperately concerned with providing for them. Her mother is blind, her father is frail, and they depend on her — the only surviving child — for food.
Kosal earned only $30 a month as a peddler, barely enough to scrape by. So when a woman acquaintance told her that she could earn $90 a month selling snacks in Thailand, Kosal leapt at the opportunity.
"I thought I should do this to feed my parents," Kosal said, particularly because her acquaintance offered to escort her to Bangkok. Kosal borrowed $15 to pay her travel expenses, and they set out in September. But once they were in Thailand, where Kosal couldn't speak the language, the trafficker sold her to a brothel.
"First, I cried," Kosal said. But the brothel manager beat Kosal until she capitulated. "If the men wanted to go to the room," Kosal said numbly, "the girl had to go." The women were paid nothing, except for tips — but the sad ones who wept and were uncooperative didn't get tips.
--MORE--
---
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 17, 2006
Gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good.
IT'S not the least of John McCain's political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn't talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC's "This Week" two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants' room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn't let him off the hook.
"Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" he asked the senator, who replied, "No, I'm not." When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — "So you're for civil unions?" — Mr. McCain answered, "No." In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos's show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
--MORE--
Sunday, December 17, 2006
The Good Daughter, in a Brothel: NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF & Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy: FRANK RICH
THE COMPLETE ARTICLES
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Good Daughter, in a Brothel
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 17, 2006
In poor countries where sex trafficking and globalization have fostered new forms of slavery, stories like Yan Kosal’s are still wrenchingly common.
BATTAMBANG, Cambodia
One of the oldest social dichotomies is the one dividing good girls from bad, the madonna from the whore. But in poor countries where sex trafficking and globalization have fostered new forms of slavery, it is the saintly ones — those who risk leaving their villages to help their families — who often end up as whores.
Yan Kosal is a 26-year-old woman here in northwestern Cambodia who was devoted to her aging parents and desperately concerned with providing for them. Her mother is blind, her father is frail, and they depend on her — the only surviving child — for food.
Kosal earned only $30 a month as a peddler, barely enough to scrape by. So when a woman acquaintance told her that she could earn $90 a month selling snacks in Thailand, Kosal leapt at the opportunity.
"I thought I should do this to feed my parents," Kosal said, particularly because her acquaintance offered to escort her to Bangkok. Kosal borrowed $15 to pay her travel expenses, and they set out in September. But once they were in Thailand, where Kosal couldn't speak the language, the trafficker sold her to a brothel.
"First, I cried," Kosal said. But the brothel manager beat Kosal until she capitulated. "If the men wanted to go to the room," Kosal said numbly, "the girl had to go." The women were paid nothing, except for tips — but the sad ones who wept and were uncooperative didn't get tips.
--MORE--
---
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 17, 2006
Gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good.
IT'S not the least of John McCain's political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn't talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC's "This Week" two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants' room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn't let him off the hook.
"Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" he asked the senator, who replied, "No, I'm not." When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — "So you're for civil unions?" — Mr. McCain answered, "No." In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos's show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
--MORE--
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Good Daughter, in a Brothel
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 17, 2006
In poor countries where sex trafficking and globalization have fostered new forms of slavery, stories like Yan Kosal’s are still wrenchingly common.
BATTAMBANG, Cambodia
One of the oldest social dichotomies is the one dividing good girls from bad, the madonna from the whore. But in poor countries where sex trafficking and globalization have fostered new forms of slavery, it is the saintly ones — those who risk leaving their villages to help their families — who often end up as whores.
Yan Kosal is a 26-year-old woman here in northwestern Cambodia who was devoted to her aging parents and desperately concerned with providing for them. Her mother is blind, her father is frail, and they depend on her — the only surviving child — for food.
Kosal earned only $30 a month as a peddler, barely enough to scrape by. So when a woman acquaintance told her that she could earn $90 a month selling snacks in Thailand, Kosal leapt at the opportunity.
"I thought I should do this to feed my parents," Kosal said, particularly because her acquaintance offered to escort her to Bangkok. Kosal borrowed $15 to pay her travel expenses, and they set out in September. But once they were in Thailand, where Kosal couldn't speak the language, the trafficker sold her to a brothel.
"First, I cried," Kosal said. But the brothel manager beat Kosal until she capitulated. "If the men wanted to go to the room," Kosal said numbly, "the girl had to go." The women were paid nothing, except for tips — but the sad ones who wept and were uncooperative didn't get tips.
--MORE--
---
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 17, 2006
Gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good.
IT'S not the least of John McCain's political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn't talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC's "This Week" two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants' room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn't let him off the hook.
"Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" he asked the senator, who replied, "No, I'm not." When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — "So you're for civil unions?" — Mr. McCain answered, "No." In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos's show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
--MORE--
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Americans See Widening Rich-Poor Income Gap as Cause for Alarm
By Matthew Benjamin
Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Americans overwhelmingly say the growing gap between rich and poor has become a serious national concern, a sentiment that may bolster Democrats' plans to narrow the income divide when they take control of Congress.
Almost three-quarters of Americans believe inequality is a major issue, versus 24 percent who don't think so, according to a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. Most of the concern is among Democrats and independent voters, though a majority of Republicans -- 55 percent -- also called the situation serious.
``Income inequality is widening quite rapidly,'' said Alice Rivlin, a former vice chairwoman of the Federal Reserve who's now a public policy professor at Georgetown University in Washington. ``It does matter to people that there are such unequal chances to get ahead.''
A month after Republicans lost their majority in Congress, poll respondents generally expressed optimism about the economy, with about three in five saying it's doing well. They were divided over how effectively President George W. Bush is managing the economy, with almost half saying they approve of the job he's doing and about the same number saying they disapprove.
There's little concern about a housing-market collapse, with only 15 percent of respondents saying they expect home values in their neighborhoods to fall during the next six months. And while more than a third expect to spend less money on gifts this holiday season, 68 percent called their personal finances secure.
Anxiety
Still, anxiety about the growing rich-poor divide unites Americans, crossing income and political divisions. Among those earning less than $40,000 a year, 84 percent called the gap a serious problem, with more than half saying it's ``very serious.'' Among those earning more than $100,000, more than three in five said it's a serious concern. Those in the middle- income group making between $40,000 and $60,000 were almost as concerned as the least wealthy.
``The ultra rich and the rich continue to have mechanisms to make money like the stock market and executive salaries,'' Kevin Godsea, an employee with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, said in a follow-up interview. ``And the wages of middle class workers are stagnant,'' said Godsea, 30, a registered Republican in Fort Myers, Florida, who considers himself middle class.
Rich Get Richer
Income growth has begun to pick up, with average hourly wages gaining 4.1 percent over the last 12 months, the biggest increase since February 2001. Still, Census Bureau data point to a long-term trend of the rich taking home a larger slice of U.S. income every year.
The portion of national income earned by the top 20 percent of households grew to 50.4 percent last year, up from 45.6 percent 20 years ago; the bottom 60 percent of U.S. households received 26.6 percent, down from 29.9 percent in 1985, according to the Census Bureau. Meanwhile, average pay for corporate chief executive officers rose to 369 times that of the average worker last year, according to finance professor Kevin Murphy of the University of Southern California; that compares with 131 times in 1993 and 36 times in 1976.
``We are creating have and have-not classes in this country,'' said Jane Huntley, 77, a retired elementary school teacher from Brunswick, New York.
Democrats are considering proposals to shrink the income gap, such as boosting the minimum wage, scrutinizing executive pay, increasing tax credits available to the poor, and making health care and higher education more affordable.
Stagnation
Several of those ideas, if implemented, can provide immediate relief to the working poor, said Gene Sperling, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic research group in Washington. More difficult, he said, is dealing with the ``insecurity in the middle class. People want to know where the new middle class jobs are coming from,'' said Sperling, who is a Bloomberg News contributor.
Americans have become more optimistic about the state of the economy, with those saying it's doing well rising to 61 percent from 54 percent in September. That may reflect the drop in gasoline prices in the last several months and the burst of wage growth, analysts say.
Marks Improving
Bullishness rose with household income, with more than three-quarters of those earning more than $100,000 a year saying the economy is doing well. Those earning less than $40,000 were the only group in which a majority said the economy is doing badly. About seven in 10 respondents said they expect the economy to be about the same six months from now.
The poll of 1,489 adults was taken Dec. 8 to Dec. 11 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Bush's marks on the economy also improved since September, with 48 percent of respondents saying they approve of how he's handling it, up from 43 percent three months ago. An equal percentage said they disapprove, down from 51 percent in the last poll.
``I don't take issue with his domestic policy, just his foreign policy,'' said Jon Jackson, 32, of Raleigh, North Carolina.
Jackson, a registered Republican who works as an operations manager at a snack food company, said he will spend less this holiday season than last year on gifts, mostly because he's got a new baby and health-care costs are crimping his budget.
About one in five of those surveyed said they expect to spend a lot less money on gifts this year. Almost half said they will spend the same amount and only 15 percent said they plan to increase spending.
``It's time to be really, really careful with our money because the economy is overrated,'' said Francisco Garcia, 50, a computer systems architect in Houston and an independent voter. ``With so many jobs that have been outsourced, the only thing I can compute is that a lot of people are just spending on credit cards, and that's going to cave in.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Matt Benjamin in Washington at mbenjamin2@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 12, 2006 18:35 ESTMonday, December 11, 2006
The Sunshine Boys Can’t Save Iraq: FRANK RICH - No Quick Fix Here
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Sunshine Boys Can’t Save Iraq
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 10, 2006
By prescribing placebos, the Iraq Study Group isn’t plotting a way forward but delaying the recognition of our defeat.
IN America we like quick fixes, closure and an uplifting show. Such were the high hopes for the Iraq Study Group, and on one of the three it delivered.
The report of the 10 Washington elders was rolled out like a heartwarming Hollywood holiday release. There was a feel-good title, “The Way Forward,” unfortunately chosen as well by Ford Motor to promote its last-ditch plan to stave off bankruptcy. There was a months-long buildup, with titillating sneak previews to whip up anticipation. There was the gala publicity tour on opening day, starting with a President Bush cameo timed for morning television and building to a “Sunshine Boys” curtain call by James Baker and Lee Hamilton on “Larry King Live.”
Sunday, December 10, 2006
The Sunshine Boys Can’t Save Iraq: FRANK RICH - No Quick Fix Here
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Sunshine Boys Can’t Save Iraq
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 10, 2006
By prescribing placebos, the Iraq Study Group isn’t plotting a way forward but delaying the recognition of our defeat.
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Sunshine Boys Can’t Save Iraq
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 10, 2006
By prescribing placebos, the Iraq Study Group isn’t plotting a way forward but delaying the recognition of our defeat.
FRANK RICH: The Sunshine Boys Can’t Save Iraq
IN America we like quick fixes, closure and an uplifting show. Such were the high hopes for the Iraq Study Group, and on one of the three it delivered.
The report of the 10 Washington elders was rolled out like a heartwarming Hollywood holiday release. There was a feel-good title, “The Way Forward,” unfortunately chosen as well by Ford Motor to promote its last-ditch plan to stave off bankruptcy. There was a months-long buildup, with titillating sneak previews to whip up anticipation. There was the gala publicity tour on opening day, starting with a President Bush cameo timed for morning television and building to a “Sunshine Boys” curtain call by James Baker and Lee Hamilton on “Larry King Live.”
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Bush & Super Rich Screwing America
Bush & Super Rich Screwing America
Krugman, Fox TV via Yahoo Finance, 7-12-06
Krugman, Fox TV via Yahoo Finance, 7-12-06
Monday, December 4, 2006
Has He Started Talking to the Walls? : FRANK RICH - Bush’s Unreality
Reposted
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 3, 2006
The more President Bush loses his hold on reality, the more language is severed from its meaning altogether.
IT turns out we’ve been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what’s going on with President Bush. The text we should be consulting instead is “The Final Days,” the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn’t merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t know what the truth is.
--MORE--
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Has He Started Talking to the Walls? : FRANK RICH - Bush’s Unreality
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 3, 2006
The more President Bush loses his hold on reality, the more language is severed from its meaning altogether.
IT turns out we’ve been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what’s going on with President Bush. The text we should be consulting instead is “The Final Days,” the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn’t merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t know what the truth is.
--MORE--
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 3, 2006
The more President Bush loses his hold on reality, the more language is severed from its meaning altogether.
IT turns out we’ve been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what’s going on with President Bush. The text we should be consulting instead is “The Final Days,” the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn’t merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t know what the truth is.
--MORE--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)