Category: Politics

Of course Woody Harrelson doesn’t have the credentials of a George W or most of the patsies in government and in the commercial media, but he does seem to understand the issues. It ain’t that hard, afer all.
It also seems like he may even understand he’ll be blackballed for speaking out.
Harrelson is writing in the British Guardian.

This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them “hawks”, but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation’s grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist.
To the men in Washington, the world is just a giant Monopoly board. Oddly enough, Americans generally know how the government works. The politicians do everything they can for the people – the people who put them in power. The giant industries that are polluting our planet as well as violating human rights worldwide are the ones nearest and dearest to the hearts of American politicians.
But in wartime people lose their senses. There are flags and yellow ribbons and posters and every media outlet is beating the war drum and even sensible people can hear nothing else. In the US, God forbid you should suggest the war is unjust or that dropping cluster bombs from 30,000ft on a city is a cowardly act. When TV satirist Bill Maher made some dissenting remarks about the bombing of Afghanistan, Disney pulled the plug on him. In a country that lauds its freedom of speech, a word of dissent can cost you your job.

He answers a friend’s question about what he himself would do in Bush’s shoes.

Easy: I’d honor Kyoto. Join the world court. I’d stop subsidizing earth rapers like Monsanto, Dupont and Exxon. I’d shut down the nuclear power plants. So I already have $200bn saved from corporate welfare. I’d save another $100bn by stopping the war on non-corporate drugs. And I’d cut the defense budget in half so they’d have to get by on a measly $200bn a year. I’ve already saved half a trillion bucks by saying no to polluters and warmongers.
Then I’d give $300bn back to the taxpayers. I’d take the rest and pay the people teaching our children what they deserve. I’d put $100bn into alternative fuels and renewable energy. I’d revive the Chemurgy movement, which made the farmer the root of the economy, and make paper and fuel from wheat straw, rice straw and hemp. Not only would I attend, I’d sponsor the next Earth Summit. And, of course, I’d give myself a fat raise.

At least someone in Washington is willing to say it.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – CIA Director George Tenet said on Thursday al Qaeda has reorganized and become as serious a threat to the United States as it was in the months before last year’s Sept. 11 attacks.
Tenet, in a joint hearing before the congressional intelligence committees, also said the CIA and the FBI could not be flawless all the time in fighting the terror threat.
“The threat environment we find ourselves in today is as bad as it was last summer, the summer before 9/11,” Tenet told the committees. “It is serious, they’ve reconstituted, they are coming after us, they want to execute attacks.”
“You see it in Bali, you see it in Kuwait,” he said, referring to attacks this month on American troops in Kuwait and the bombing in Bali that killed more than 180 people. [JAW–although we have not been shown evidence of Al Qaeda involvement in these crimes], “They plan in multiple theaters of operation, they intend to strike … again.”
The United States launched a war on terrorism last year with a military campaign in Afghanistan to destroy Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, which it blamed for the hijacked plane strikes that killed 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.
Despite routing al Qaeda forces and making some key arrests around the world, the United States does not know the whereabouts of bin Laden and other network leaders.

Oh, but we really have done a lot. Aside from killing unknown thousands of Afghans, and abrogating most of the U.S. Constitution, our de facto government has managed to alienate that part of the world which didn’t already regard us as evil.

The next nut who speaks of the great job the Unelected One is doing with the “war on terror” should be committed.

The blast that killed nearly 200 people on the Indonesian resort island of Bali this weekend is a different type of terrorism from what the Bush administration has campaigned against, and will open a new geographic front in that campaign, Western officials said yesterday.
The target was not an American embassy, military outpost or financial institution that would represent American power, of the sort that terrorists have attacked in the past. Rather, it was a nightclub whose revelers were mostly Europeans and Australians; indeed, Indonesians were often turned away at the door.

Oh yes, another “front!” The NYTimes can describe the significance of the event, but neither it nor any other commercial media source or political hack will tell it like it really is.
Are you better off than you were two years ago? Is the world better off? Of course not, but ain’t it wonderful how the little Bush is handling his “war on terror!”
Wait, just what has he accomplished even in that one area of his responsibilities as putative Chief Executive? I don’t get it. Did he manage to snatch, and smash the plans, of the nineteen men who hijacked four planes September 11? Did he capture Osama Bin Laden? Did he put Sheik Oman on trial? Is Al Qaeda destroyed? Are Americans safe where they travel and live around the world? Do we all feel safer here at home? In fact, can we, or anyone in the world, ever feel safe again after what this government has done in the last two years, or not done?
Are you better off than you were two years ago?
Calling it a “war on terror” was an excellent move. It’s not officially a war with Afghanistan, a war with Osama, a war with Al Qaeda or a war with any people or thing, so there isn’t any real objective for which the White House can be held accountable. The truth is, it’s not really a war, but a blind for political opportunism and incompetence. The possibly perpetual junta will always be able to claim that it is winning, but that it’s not over yet, and won’t be for generations, so stay in line, people!
But what does this “war on terror” mean? What does a war on an invisible, stateless foe, war on an idea, war on an anger and a resentment, have to do with closing our borders, our courts and our minds and our hearts?

We’re long overdue. There is simply no rational explanation for our continuing to treat health care as a commodity like, oh, say, a new car or a flat-screen tv. Marcia Angell’s Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes neatly flattens every argument against a single-payer system.
She insists that even in our market-based society, universal health care belongs in the category of “essential services like education, clean water and air and protection from crime, all of which we already acknowledge are public responsibilities.”
But we’re marching off to war now, or at least the pretense of war, so nothing will be done. Sane arguments have been blown off the face of the planet.

Look at what happens to the health-care dollar as it wends its way from employers to the doctors and hospitals that provide medical services. Private insurers regularly skim off the top 10 percent to 25 percent of premiums for administrative costs, marketing and profits. The remainder is passed along a gantlet of satellite businesses — insurance brokers, disease-management and utilization-review companies, lawyers, consultants, billing agencies, information management firms and so on. Their function is often to limit services in one way or another. They, too, take a cut, including enough for their own administrative costs, marketing and profits. As much as half the health-care dollar never reaches doctors and hospitals — who themselves face high overhead costs in dealing with multiple insurers.
….
Many people believe a single-payer system is a good idea, but that we can’t afford it. The truth is that we can no longer afford not to have such a system. We now spend more than $5,000 a year on health care for each American — more than twice the average of other advanced countries.
….
It is sometimes argued that innovative technologies would be scarce in a national single-payer system, so we would have long waiting lists. This misconception is based on the fact that there are indeed waits for elective procedures in some countries with national health systems like Great Britain and Canada. But that’s because they spend far less on health care than we do. If they were to put the same amount of money as we do into their systems, there would be no waits.

Two prizes were awarded today. Bush won the booby prize. Carter won the the real one.
If there is an award the opposite of the Nobel Peace Prize it would be that handed to George W. Bush, his entire administration, the Supreme Court, and every member of the two houses of Congress who voted for war in the last twenty-four hours.
If there is an award for stupidity, greed, selfish careerism and evil, both intended and consequent, it was announced by the Nobel Committee today.
A simple statement honoring a man of peace is usually made in Oslo on these occasions. This time there was also a condemnation of those who make work for the peacemakers.
As an American, I hang my head in shame this morning, but the extraordinary timing of this honor for Jimmy Carter gives me some hope for the world as a whole. If we survive as a nation, or even if only the idea of America survives, it will be because of people like the good man from Georgia.

So asks the public interest site, TomPaine.com.

Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat OR he’s just a convenient political distraction wielded by the White House.
Whichever way you see it, you must agree: The attack-Iraq tempest has eclipsed most other issues.
With mid-term elections just weeks away, the lack of substantive debate and coverage of domestic issues poses more of a threat to the nation’s security than Saddam. But anyone who says so has trouble getting a microphone.
Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, is trying. He’s asking a question made famous in 1980 by California Republican Ronald Reagan: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
“An analysis of current indicators of the nation’s social and economic well-being shows that many are again declining,” Waxman writes. He cites a dozen examples, including rising unemployment, record-high numbers of bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures, and the return of the federal budget deficit. The number of Americans living in poverty and the number of people without health insurance are both at their highest level in years, and prescription drug costs are soaring.
Look past Iraq and a broad picture of an uneasy nation emerges. A New York Times/ CBS News poll found that 70 percent of people would like to hear candidates talk about the economy rather than the war. Most voters (57 percent) say they will cast their ballots based more on economic issues than on foreign policy.
Yet it still seems like the upcoming elections will be more about Saddam’s fate than the future of Social Security. Preemptive war will get more attention than prescription drug prices. We’ll talk more about high-flying F-16s than crashing 401(k)s.
Americans must be wondering: When did Iraq become more important than America?

This is an excerpt, from an online excerpt, from Chapter 13 of The Iron Heel by Jack London (1908).

The general strike was the one great victory we American socialists won. On 4 December the American minister was withdrawn from the German capital. That night a German fleet made a dash on Honolulu, sinking three American cruisers and a revenue cutter, and bombarding the city. Next day both Germany and the United States declared war, and within an hour the socialists called the general strike in both countries.
For the first time the German war-lord faced the men of his empire who made his empire go. Without them he could not run his empire. The novelty of the situation lay in that their revolt was passive. They did not fight. They did nothing. And by doing nothing they tied their war-lord’s hands. He would have asked for nothing better than an opportunity to loose his war-dogs on his rebellious proletariat. But this was denied him. He could not loose his war-dogs. Neither could he mobilize his army to go forth to war, nor could he punish his recalcitrant subjects. Not a wheel moved in his empire. Not a train ran, not a telegraphic message went over the wires, for the telegraphers and railroad men had ceased work along with the rest of the population.
And as it was in Germany, so it was in the United States. At last organized labor had learned its lesson. Beaten decisively on its own chosen field, it had abandoned that field and come over to the political field of the socialists; for the general strike was a political strike. Besides, organized labor had been so badly beaten that it did not care. It joined in the general strike out of sheer desperation. The workers threw down their tools and left their tasks by the millions. Especially notable were the machinists. Their heads were bloody, their organization had apparently been destroyed, yet out they came, along with their allies in the metal-working trades.
Even the common laborers and all unorganized labor ceased work. The strike had tied everything up so that nobody could work. Besides, the women proved to be the strongest promoters of the strike. They set their faces against the war. They did not want their men to go forth to die. Then, also, the idea of the general strike caught the mood of the people. It struck their sense of humor. The idea was infectious. The children struck in all the schools, and such teachers as came, went home again from deserted class rooms. The general strike took the form of a great national picnic. And the idea of the solidarity of labor, so evidenced, appealed to the imagination of all. And, finally, there was no danger to be incurred by the colossal frolic. When everybody was guilty, how was anybody to be punished?

It is, of course, entirely fiction, but there is no reason why the concept of The General Strike must remain fiction.
Besides, if just by raising the spectre of war the White House can so easily distract the entire world from it’s real problems, perhaps just by raising the spectre of a massive, even universal work stoppage, we can accomplish a similar wonder.

For the life of me (and for the lives of so many who died needlessly in Southeast Asia on both sides), I’ll never understand how the media can describe the Democrats’ “lesson of Vietnam” as the resolve to appear forevermore at least as hawkish as the noble Republicans. I see such discussions regularly lately, apparently in the attempt to account for the timidity, easy acquiescence, or even zealous enthusiasm of the official “opposition party” for the Administration’s military adventurism in the Middle East.
Among the most important of the Democratic supporters of this nonsense is Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana. In an amazing statement published in monday’s NYTimes, he claims to be reflecting public opinion on the war:

“The majority of the American people tend to trust the Republican Party more on issues involving national security and defense than they do the Democratic Party,” he said. “We need to work to improve our image on that score by taking a more aggressive [the italics are my ironic comment] posture with regard to Iraq, empowering the president.”

Democrats as aggressive passivists [sic].
Let me get this straight. The Democrats hope to prove how strong and aggressive they are by passively going along with those sexy macho Republicans who have apparently persuaded the entire country to think that the Democrats lost the Viet Nam war with their wimpy ways and we can never let that happen again. Yikes!

We really really really love Maine!

As U.S. House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt stepped away from the crowd Sunday in Kennedy Park, the crowd followed.
It was not the crowd that showed up to support Democrat Mike Michaud in his run for the House, it was the crowd unhappy with members of Congress, especially Gephardt.
“Gephardt, Gephardt has no spine! He just follows Bush’s line,” the crowd loudly repeated, holding signs and banging drums, standing a few feet away from the high-ranking Democrat. The age of protesters ranged from college students to middle-aged parents to white-haired seniors.
The protesters were angry that Gephardt and other congressional leaders signed off on a resolution giving Bush the authority to use military action against Iraq. That resolution is expected to be taken up in Congress this week.

Just maybe, this could be the start of something great.

“war as only a tool of statecraft” [my characterization of the accelerating Republican talk of war] Now that sounds like a fine old European tradition, although one modern Europe was happy to abandon a couple of generations ago. For our own mad engineers in the twenty-first century White House it is a brand-new tool, and they are using it against their benighted subjects at home. War as a ruse.
We are being/have been used.
Not to take back anything from my previous posting calling for a last attempt to keep Bush from being invested with legitimacy as American Lord of War, but I believe that the real damage has already been done.
Primary evidence: We are all now talking only of “guns,” not of “butter.”
Those of you who have been following my remarks lately have seen me arguing that it’s not necessarily actual war that the White House wants, but the solid Republican Congress that talk of war will almost certainly ensure. The invention of this war has virtually overnight changed the subject of the 2002 campaign from issues like the economy, the stock market, executive scandals, health care, the environment, schools, racism, or anything else which really threatens the country, to the phony issue of the imagined imminent threat from a small tin dictator on the other side of the world.
Bush’s handlers have already succeeded in hijacking the election. The next Congress will be Cheney’s rubber stamp (well, yes, something like this one, only even more so). The war? Iraq? Oh, that. Well, it may not be necessary other than as a bugbear.
Paraphrasing part of the argument of David Morris on AlterNet, this week Congress is likely to give the White House the blank check it wants, which means that at any time in the future, should we ever again have to be distracted from debating real issues, the war drums will be heard once again.
I suppose I can even imagine this scheme working without the war powers being released to George at this time, but it would definitely be much smoother with the check in his their pockets.
So write to Congress nevertheless. It just might help us all.