BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com
Thursday, May 15, 2008
U.S. Aid To China Quake Victims Stingy Compared With Other Nations
By MARC MCDONALD
Scores of nations around the world have generously pitched in to offer aid to Sichuan province in China, which suffered a horrific earthquake on May 12 that has claimed at least 20,000 lives.
India offered $5 million in aid. Japan offered $4.8 million. Norway has pledged $3.92 million for disaster relief. And Taiwan has promised $66 million in relief aid.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush has announced that the U.S. government is contributing a mere $500,000 in earthquake relief.
To put this into perspective, the U.S. spends around $500,000 every two minutes in the Iraq War.
Scores of nations around the world have generously pitched in to offer aid to Sichuan province in China, which suffered a horrific earthquake on May 12 that has claimed at least 20,000 lives.
India offered $5 million in aid. Japan offered $4.8 million. Norway has pledged $3.92 million for disaster relief. And Taiwan has promised $66 million in relief aid.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush has announced that the U.S. government is contributing a mere $500,000 in earthquake relief.
To put this into perspective, the U.S. spends around $500,000 every two minutes in the Iraq War.
Labels: china earthquake, earthquake aid
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Today's Corporate Media Multi-Millionaires: Overpaid And Out-Of-Touch
.
Over at Whiskey Fire, Molly Ivors does a brilliant job of taking New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd to task for her "sheer coastal snobbery."
Of course, Dowd isn't alone these days, among the pampered corporate media mouthpieces. I think it's safe to say that all of the multi-millionaire Manhattan media types are truly out of touch these days.
Recall how ABC's Charlie Gibson recently claimed that families making $200,000 a year are "middle-class."
Also, remember Stephen Colbert's brilliant, right-on-target performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner? Incredibly, The New York Times didn't even MENTION Colbert's performance in its coverage of the dinner.
Indeed, it wasn't until the YouTube video of Colbert's performance became an Internet sensation that the MSM bothered to notice.
I get the feeling that the pampered French royalty were just as out of touch with the common people, just before the French Revolution kicked off.
From Whiskey Fire:
Of all Maureen's poses, the ones where she attempts to capture The Spirit of the Heartland© are perhaps the most annoying. Face it, Maureen: you're a Feng Shui-living Manhattanite with 100 pairs of shoes and the best dye job your inexplicably large paycheck can buy, which is to say: still a dye job. You have no secret window into the souls of West Virginians to determine why they vote as they do, and should not pretend to. Your interest in Appalachia is anthropological at best, and shoehorning it into the predetermined narrative you've constructed about the Democratic primary is unfair, belittling, and snide.
More here.
Over at Whiskey Fire, Molly Ivors does a brilliant job of taking New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd to task for her "sheer coastal snobbery."
Of course, Dowd isn't alone these days, among the pampered corporate media mouthpieces. I think it's safe to say that all of the multi-millionaire Manhattan media types are truly out of touch these days.
Recall how ABC's Charlie Gibson recently claimed that families making $200,000 a year are "middle-class."
Also, remember Stephen Colbert's brilliant, right-on-target performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner? Incredibly, The New York Times didn't even MENTION Colbert's performance in its coverage of the dinner.
Indeed, it wasn't until the YouTube video of Colbert's performance became an Internet sensation that the MSM bothered to notice.
I get the feeling that the pampered French royalty were just as out of touch with the common people, just before the French Revolution kicked off.
From Whiskey Fire:
Of all Maureen's poses, the ones where she attempts to capture The Spirit of the Heartland© are perhaps the most annoying. Face it, Maureen: you're a Feng Shui-living Manhattanite with 100 pairs of shoes and the best dye job your inexplicably large paycheck can buy, which is to say: still a dye job. You have no secret window into the souls of West Virginians to determine why they vote as they do, and should not pretend to. Your interest in Appalachia is anthropological at best, and shoehorning it into the predetermined narrative you've constructed about the Democratic primary is unfair, belittling, and snide.
More here.
Labels: class warfare, corporate media
Saturday, May 10, 2008
If You Liked Fallujah, You'll Love The Upcoming Bloodbath In Sadr City
.
As Chris Floyd writes, George W. Bush and David Petraeus are now gearing up to make a new Fallujah in Sadr City, home to 2 million Shiites in Baghdad.
Like Fallujah, it should be quite a bloodbath. Not that the American people will ever know. No, we'll continue to live our carefree lives, mindlessly listening to American Idol and eagerly following the latest exploits of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
God forbid that our corporate mainstream media should ever bring us the reality of the Iraq War. Just as in the case of Fallujah, the upcoming horrific Sadr City bloodbath will be carefully censored and sanitized.
As Floyd notes, the horrors of Fallujah were rarely reported by the MSM.
Americans "were spared shots of engineers cutting off water and electricity to the city – a flagrant war crime under the Geneva Conventions, as CounterPunch notes, but standard practice throughout the occupation. Nor did pictures of attack helicopters gunning down civilians trying to escape across the Euphrates River – including a family of five – make the TV news, despite the eyewitness account of an AP journalist. Nor were tender American sensibilities subjected to the sight of phosphorous shells bathing enemy fighters – and nearby civilians – with unquenchable chemical fire, literally melting their skin, as the Washington Post reports. Nor did they see the fetus being blown out of the body of Artica Salim when her home was bombed during the "softening-up attacks" that raged relentlessly – and unnoticed – in the closing days of George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Scotland Sunday Herald reports."
In case you never saw it, the video Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, (which documents the war crimes in the 2004 assault) can be viewed online here.
As Chris Floyd writes, George W. Bush and David Petraeus are now gearing up to make a new Fallujah in Sadr City, home to 2 million Shiites in Baghdad.
Like Fallujah, it should be quite a bloodbath. Not that the American people will ever know. No, we'll continue to live our carefree lives, mindlessly listening to American Idol and eagerly following the latest exploits of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
God forbid that our corporate mainstream media should ever bring us the reality of the Iraq War. Just as in the case of Fallujah, the upcoming horrific Sadr City bloodbath will be carefully censored and sanitized.
As Floyd notes, the horrors of Fallujah were rarely reported by the MSM.
Americans "were spared shots of engineers cutting off water and electricity to the city – a flagrant war crime under the Geneva Conventions, as CounterPunch notes, but standard practice throughout the occupation. Nor did pictures of attack helicopters gunning down civilians trying to escape across the Euphrates River – including a family of five – make the TV news, despite the eyewitness account of an AP journalist. Nor were tender American sensibilities subjected to the sight of phosphorous shells bathing enemy fighters – and nearby civilians – with unquenchable chemical fire, literally melting their skin, as the Washington Post reports. Nor did they see the fetus being blown out of the body of Artica Salim when her home was bombed during the "softening-up attacks" that raged relentlessly – and unnoticed – in the closing days of George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Scotland Sunday Herald reports."
In case you never saw it, the video Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, (which documents the war crimes in the 2004 assault) can be viewed online here.
Labels: Bush Crime Family, Bush war crimes, Iraq War
Friday, May 09, 2008
Blackwater Unlikely To Face Charges In Iraq Shooting
By MARC MCDONALD
AP reports that Blackwater Worldwide, the profiteering, mercenary outfit, is not expected to face criminal charges in the September shooting deaths of 17 civilians in Iraq.
So it looks like it'll soon be back to business as usual for Blackwater in Iraq. And make no mistake, business has been very good for Blackwater in recent years.
As the The Virginian-Pilot has noted, since 2000, Blackwater has raked in $505 million in publicly identifiable federal contracts. About two-thirds of that amount was in no-bid contracts.
Indeed, times are good for Blackwater these days. As HuffingtonPost.com reported on April 4, Blackwater's multimillion-dollar contract to protect diplomats in Baghdad was renewed, according to the State Department.
From the Associated Press:
Blackwater unlikely to face charges in Iraq shooting
Blackwater Worldwide, the security contractor blamed by an angry Iraqi government for the shooting deaths of 17 civilians, is not expected to face criminal charges-—all but ensuring the company will keep its multimillion-dollar contract to protect U.S. diplomats.
Instead, the seven-month-old Justice Department investigation is focused on as few as three or four Blackwater guards who could be indicted in the Sept. 16 shootings, according to interviews with a half-dozen people close to the investigation.
The final decision on any charges will not be made until late summer at the earliest, a law enforcement official said. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation.
The State Department publicly raised the question of Blackwater's corporate liability last month when it extended the company's contract by one year. The contract could still be canceled if criminal charges are brought, but the department said it was unlikely to penalize the corporation if only its employees were charged.
More here.
AP reports that Blackwater Worldwide, the profiteering, mercenary outfit, is not expected to face criminal charges in the September shooting deaths of 17 civilians in Iraq.
So it looks like it'll soon be back to business as usual for Blackwater in Iraq. And make no mistake, business has been very good for Blackwater in recent years.
As the The Virginian-Pilot has noted, since 2000, Blackwater has raked in $505 million in publicly identifiable federal contracts. About two-thirds of that amount was in no-bid contracts.
Indeed, times are good for Blackwater these days. As HuffingtonPost.com reported on April 4, Blackwater's multimillion-dollar contract to protect diplomats in Baghdad was renewed, according to the State Department.
From the Associated Press:
Blackwater unlikely to face charges in Iraq shooting
Blackwater Worldwide, the security contractor blamed by an angry Iraqi government for the shooting deaths of 17 civilians, is not expected to face criminal charges-—all but ensuring the company will keep its multimillion-dollar contract to protect U.S. diplomats.
Instead, the seven-month-old Justice Department investigation is focused on as few as three or four Blackwater guards who could be indicted in the Sept. 16 shootings, according to interviews with a half-dozen people close to the investigation.
The final decision on any charges will not be made until late summer at the earliest, a law enforcement official said. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation.
The State Department publicly raised the question of Blackwater's corporate liability last month when it extended the company's contract by one year. The contract could still be canceled if criminal charges are brought, but the department said it was unlikely to penalize the corporation if only its employees were charged.
More here.
Labels: Blackwater, Iraq War
Monday, May 05, 2008
More Americans Shun "Best Health-Care System In The World" To Have Surgeries Performed Overseas
.
America has the best health-care system in the world. (Or so we've been told, over and over, by our corporate media and many of our political leaders).
Hmmmm, that I guess this would explain why more and more Americans who need complex, major surgeries are going overseas to have them performed.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
More who need major surgery are leaving U.S.
Robert Lupo of Santa Rosa had never been on an airplane until last month, when he flew to India to get his hip replaced.
The 45-year-old self-employed contractor had dropped his Kaiser coverage before an uninsured driver hit him last summer while he was riding his motorcycle. A $50,000 settlement covered those medical bills and living expenses while he was unable to work, but Lupo later learned he needed a hip replacement - a $30,000 price he couldn't afford.
With pain as his primary motivator, Lupo started researching his options online. He eventually found his way to WorldMed Assist, a 2-year-old Concord company that is part of a growing industry that makes arrangements for Americans to get medical care abroad.
Lupo's hip surgery and hospital stay cost $8,880 at Wockhardt Hospital in Bangalore. Even with the $1,300 airfare, the procedure totaled about a third of what it would have cost Lupo at a local hospital.
"My hip feels great," said Lupo, who was recovering at home while making magnets out of photographs from India to send back to the nurses and hospital staff in Bangalore. "But I really don't want to go to another Third World country again, to tell you the truth, unless I had to. This was a means to an end. But the pain was so bad I would have swum the English Channel if that's what it took."
No official statistics are kept on how many Americans travel overseas for medical care, but one estimate places the number at 150,000 in 2006.
Other trends are more clear-cut. Many Americans are uninsured - nearly 47 million at last count - and others have health insurance that does not adequately cover procedures they desperately want or need.
A medical tourism industry has grown to facilitate global health travel. A trade association to represent these companies formed last year. Also last year, a major insurer started a separate company to help members seek international care.
Crossing international borders for medical care is not new. For decades, Americans have sought certain types of care in other countries, specifically elective or cosmetic procedures, along with treatments that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
But now, industry experts say, Americans are going overseas for increasingly complex surgeries. In addition, more patients seem willing to accept that quality of care in some foreign hospitals may be the same or higher as that found on U.S. soil, at a fraction of the cost.
America has the best health-care system in the world. (Or so we've been told, over and over, by our corporate media and many of our political leaders).
Hmmmm, that I guess this would explain why more and more Americans who need complex, major surgeries are going overseas to have them performed.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
More who need major surgery are leaving U.S.
Robert Lupo of Santa Rosa had never been on an airplane until last month, when he flew to India to get his hip replaced.
The 45-year-old self-employed contractor had dropped his Kaiser coverage before an uninsured driver hit him last summer while he was riding his motorcycle. A $50,000 settlement covered those medical bills and living expenses while he was unable to work, but Lupo later learned he needed a hip replacement - a $30,000 price he couldn't afford.
With pain as his primary motivator, Lupo started researching his options online. He eventually found his way to WorldMed Assist, a 2-year-old Concord company that is part of a growing industry that makes arrangements for Americans to get medical care abroad.
Lupo's hip surgery and hospital stay cost $8,880 at Wockhardt Hospital in Bangalore. Even with the $1,300 airfare, the procedure totaled about a third of what it would have cost Lupo at a local hospital.
"My hip feels great," said Lupo, who was recovering at home while making magnets out of photographs from India to send back to the nurses and hospital staff in Bangalore. "But I really don't want to go to another Third World country again, to tell you the truth, unless I had to. This was a means to an end. But the pain was so bad I would have swum the English Channel if that's what it took."
No official statistics are kept on how many Americans travel overseas for medical care, but one estimate places the number at 150,000 in 2006.
Other trends are more clear-cut. Many Americans are uninsured - nearly 47 million at last count - and others have health insurance that does not adequately cover procedures they desperately want or need.
A medical tourism industry has grown to facilitate global health travel. A trade association to represent these companies formed last year. Also last year, a major insurer started a separate company to help members seek international care.
Crossing international borders for medical care is not new. For decades, Americans have sought certain types of care in other countries, specifically elective or cosmetic procedures, along with treatments that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
But now, industry experts say, Americans are going overseas for increasingly complex surgeries. In addition, more patients seem willing to accept that quality of care in some foreign hospitals may be the same or higher as that found on U.S. soil, at a fraction of the cost.
Labels: health-care crisis, medicine
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Bill O'Reilly Continues To Lie About His "Humble" Roots
By MARC MCDONALD
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has long maintained that he came from humble, working-class roots.
In his interview Wednesday with Hillary Clinton, O'Reilly once again displayed his "I'm just a regular working stiff" persona and reminded viewers that he grew up in Levittown, a working-class suburb of New York City.
Indeed, O'Reilly's bio on the Fox News Web site continues to claim that O'Reilly came from "from humble beginnings" and that he "lived in a modest house with his father, mother and sister in the Westbury section of Levittown."
"You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale," O'Reilly once claimed.
Indeed, in his interview with Clinton, O'Reilly regularly trotted out the phrase "the folks," as though he knows what's on the minds of ordinary working-class Americans. It's a gimmick often used by Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush, as well. Which is ironic, because all three men are immensely wealthy. For example, O'Reilly makes an eye-popping $9 million a year.
O'Reilly has previously pointed out that his father, who retired in 1978, never made more than $35,000 a year. It's a misleading and dishonest claim though that this made the O'Reilly family's circumstances "humble." As the media watch group FAIR has pointed out, O'Reilly's father's income is actually equivalent to over $90,000 today in inflation-adjusted dollars.
And as Media Matters has noted, the median income for a U.S. household today is $48,451. Which means O'Reilly's father earned almost double the nation's household median income. Hardly "working-class."
Of course, O'Reilly is hardly alone among millionaire media celebrities in being clueless about the lives of real ordinary working Americans these days. After all, during a Jan. 5 Democratic debate ABC's Charlie Gibson claimed that families making $200,000 a year are "middle-class."
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has long maintained that he came from humble, working-class roots.
In his interview Wednesday with Hillary Clinton, O'Reilly once again displayed his "I'm just a regular working stiff" persona and reminded viewers that he grew up in Levittown, a working-class suburb of New York City.
Indeed, O'Reilly's bio on the Fox News Web site continues to claim that O'Reilly came from "from humble beginnings" and that he "lived in a modest house with his father, mother and sister in the Westbury section of Levittown."
"You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale," O'Reilly once claimed.
Indeed, in his interview with Clinton, O'Reilly regularly trotted out the phrase "the folks," as though he knows what's on the minds of ordinary working-class Americans. It's a gimmick often used by Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush, as well. Which is ironic, because all three men are immensely wealthy. For example, O'Reilly makes an eye-popping $9 million a year.
O'Reilly has previously pointed out that his father, who retired in 1978, never made more than $35,000 a year. It's a misleading and dishonest claim though that this made the O'Reilly family's circumstances "humble." As the media watch group FAIR has pointed out, O'Reilly's father's income is actually equivalent to over $90,000 today in inflation-adjusted dollars.
And as Media Matters has noted, the median income for a U.S. household today is $48,451. Which means O'Reilly's father earned almost double the nation's household median income. Hardly "working-class."
Of course, O'Reilly is hardly alone among millionaire media celebrities in being clueless about the lives of real ordinary working Americans these days. After all, during a Jan. 5 Democratic debate ABC's Charlie Gibson claimed that families making $200,000 a year are "middle-class."
Labels: Fox News, Hillary Clinton, right-wing lies
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
How Hagee's Hate Speech Encourages Violence Against Gays
By MARC MCDONALD
A lot of us have been shocked and appalled by John Hagee's hate speech against gays. But the worst aspect of this hate speech is that it is precisely the sort of provocation that encourages violence against gay people.
Last week, Hagee made comments linking Hurricane Katrina to a planned gay pride parade in New Orleans.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out the dangers in making such reckless, idiotic remarks. This is the sort of thing that encourages small-minded bigots who suffered devastation during Katrina to go out and beat up gay people for bringing God's wrath down upon the Gulf Coast.
I have no evidence of any such attacks specifically prompted by hate speech remarks (at least any more evidence than Hagee has to back up his idiotic assertion that Katrina was somehow divinely tied to a gay parade). But evidence is often lacking in hate crimes, in any case. After all, the Community United Against Violence, a San Francisco advocacy group, has noted that many gay-bashing hate crimes actually "go unreported, and many are mishandled by police."
And the fact is, anti-gay hate crimes have become a very real problem in today's America. And it's a problem that certainly isn't helped by bigots like Hagee blaming terrible natural disasters on gays.
As the Gay.com online community site has pointed out, hate crimes against gays are on the rise in America. The site quotes the FBI as reporting that "hate crimes against gays made up 16 percent of total documented hate crimes across the U.S. in 2006, up from 14 percent in 2005."
A lot of us have been shocked and appalled by John Hagee's hate speech against gays. But the worst aspect of this hate speech is that it is precisely the sort of provocation that encourages violence against gay people.
Last week, Hagee made comments linking Hurricane Katrina to a planned gay pride parade in New Orleans.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out the dangers in making such reckless, idiotic remarks. This is the sort of thing that encourages small-minded bigots who suffered devastation during Katrina to go out and beat up gay people for bringing God's wrath down upon the Gulf Coast.
I have no evidence of any such attacks specifically prompted by hate speech remarks (at least any more evidence than Hagee has to back up his idiotic assertion that Katrina was somehow divinely tied to a gay parade). But evidence is often lacking in hate crimes, in any case. After all, the Community United Against Violence, a San Francisco advocacy group, has noted that many gay-bashing hate crimes actually "go unreported, and many are mishandled by police."
And the fact is, anti-gay hate crimes have become a very real problem in today's America. And it's a problem that certainly isn't helped by bigots like Hagee blaming terrible natural disasters on gays.
As the Gay.com online community site has pointed out, hate crimes against gays are on the rise in America. The site quotes the FBI as reporting that "hate crimes against gays made up 16 percent of total documented hate crimes across the U.S. in 2006, up from 14 percent in 2005."
Labels: gay issues, GOP hypocrisy, hate speech
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Rush Limbaugh Puts His Foot In His Snout
By MARC MCDONALD
Rush Limbaugh has caused another controversy with his latest comments. UPI reported Friday that Limbaugh said that riots at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver would be "like a dream come true."
The Fat One was reported as saying that "There won't be riots at our (the GOP) convention."
Well, maybe not. (Although I know of a lot of Republicans who are angry and upset that the "liberal" John McCain is on the GOP ticket).
But what I objected to most with Limbaugh's latest OxyMoron nonsense were the other statements he made Friday. For example, Limbaugh claimed that, unlike Democrats, Republicans "don't riot."
Hmmm, I guess the drugs have turned The Fat One's brain into mush (or made it even mushier than it was before).
As I recall, Republicans don't hesitate to riot, when it suits their purpose.
Does anyone remember the GOP rent-a-mob rioters in Florida in 2000 who disrupted the Gore-Bush vote counting process? Those Brownshirts played a role in the theft of the election and the installation of the Bush Crime Family.
As far as Limbaugh's comment Friday that Republicans "don't kill our children," I really have to wonder about his mental state these days. Granted, Limbaugh likely isn't up on what's going on in Iraq. In fact, he doesn't seem to be aware of what war is all about (no surprise there: Limbaugh was a chickensh*t coward who ran away from serving his country during the Vietnam War).
After all, Limbaugh's hero, Bush, is the one who ordered a war based on lies that has killed over 4,000 of America's soldiers (most of them young people).
So, yes: the Republicans do have the blood of a lot of children on their hands. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi children who have been slaughtered in this nightmare of a war.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: these NeoCon extremists scare me a hell of a lot more than Al Qaeda ever could.
Rush Limbaugh has caused another controversy with his latest comments. UPI reported Friday that Limbaugh said that riots at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver would be "like a dream come true."
The Fat One was reported as saying that "There won't be riots at our (the GOP) convention."
Well, maybe not. (Although I know of a lot of Republicans who are angry and upset that the "liberal" John McCain is on the GOP ticket).
But what I objected to most with Limbaugh's latest OxyMoron nonsense were the other statements he made Friday. For example, Limbaugh claimed that, unlike Democrats, Republicans "don't riot."
Hmmm, I guess the drugs have turned The Fat One's brain into mush (or made it even mushier than it was before).
As I recall, Republicans don't hesitate to riot, when it suits their purpose.
Does anyone remember the GOP rent-a-mob rioters in Florida in 2000 who disrupted the Gore-Bush vote counting process? Those Brownshirts played a role in the theft of the election and the installation of the Bush Crime Family.
As far as Limbaugh's comment Friday that Republicans "don't kill our children," I really have to wonder about his mental state these days. Granted, Limbaugh likely isn't up on what's going on in Iraq. In fact, he doesn't seem to be aware of what war is all about (no surprise there: Limbaugh was a chickensh*t coward who ran away from serving his country during the Vietnam War).
After all, Limbaugh's hero, Bush, is the one who ordered a war based on lies that has killed over 4,000 of America's soldiers (most of them young people).
So, yes: the Republicans do have the blood of a lot of children on their hands. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi children who have been slaughtered in this nightmare of a war.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: these NeoCon extremists scare me a hell of a lot more than Al Qaeda ever could.
Labels: HateWing radio, NeoCons
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Despite Record Low Poll Numbers, Bush Still Bullies Wimpy Democrats
By MARC MCDONALD
George W. Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents ever. He has record low poll numbers. He is a lame-duck president.
Given his seemingly weak position, how does Bush continue to bully the Democrats? Good question.
The fact is, these days, Bush is actually less compromising than ever. And the wimpy Democrats continue to roll over for Bush.
Take the looming showdown on Capitol Hill over Bush's war funding. As the Associated Press pointed out, Bush has promised to veto any bill that exceeds his pending $108 billion request for war funding.
This is actually a tougher line than Bush took last spring, when he accepted $17 billion in domestic funding as part of a $120 billion war funding measure, AP notes.
The extra spending the Democrats have proposed includes $12.7 billion in funding to extend unemployment benefits. Bush has also signaled he'll oppose increased funding for GI Bill benefits for veterans.
So not only does Bush expect the Democrats to rubberstamp his war funds request, he's not even willing to compromise on the spending bill this time around.
AP notes that the GOP is actually eager to "battle with Democrats over add-ons to the war funding bill." So not only is Bush bullying Democrats, but his fellow Republicans continue to solidly support him as though he were enjoying robust approval ratings.
How can the clout of an unpopular lame duck like Bush actually be rising these days? The only reason I can come up with is that the Democrats have shown themselves to be such pushovers, that Bush knows he can get away with bullying them. If there's anything that emboldens a bully, it is wimpy behavior.
George W. Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents ever. He has record low poll numbers. He is a lame-duck president.
Given his seemingly weak position, how does Bush continue to bully the Democrats? Good question.
The fact is, these days, Bush is actually less compromising than ever. And the wimpy Democrats continue to roll over for Bush.
Take the looming showdown on Capitol Hill over Bush's war funding. As the Associated Press pointed out, Bush has promised to veto any bill that exceeds his pending $108 billion request for war funding.
This is actually a tougher line than Bush took last spring, when he accepted $17 billion in domestic funding as part of a $120 billion war funding measure, AP notes.
The extra spending the Democrats have proposed includes $12.7 billion in funding to extend unemployment benefits. Bush has also signaled he'll oppose increased funding for GI Bill benefits for veterans.
So not only does Bush expect the Democrats to rubberstamp his war funds request, he's not even willing to compromise on the spending bill this time around.
AP notes that the GOP is actually eager to "battle with Democrats over add-ons to the war funding bill." So not only is Bush bullying Democrats, but his fellow Republicans continue to solidly support him as though he were enjoying robust approval ratings.
How can the clout of an unpopular lame duck like Bush actually be rising these days? The only reason I can come up with is that the Democrats have shown themselves to be such pushovers, that Bush knows he can get away with bullying them. If there's anything that emboldens a bully, it is wimpy behavior.
Labels: Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq War Funding
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sign The Petition: Ask Air America To Give Sam Seder A Daily Show
.
A lot of us were disgusted and disappointed when Air America recently suspended the progressive talk radio goddess Randi Rhodes (she later quit the network and has now moved over to the Nova M radio network).
But in any case, Randi's departure opens up a key slot on Air America's daily 3-6 p.m. EST schedule that we think ought to be filled by the brilliant Sam Seder. (If you've never heard his program, you're missing out on some of the most intelligent talk radio on the airwaves). Currently Seder's insightful program only airs weekly on Air America (Sundays, 4-7 p.m. EST).
Go here to sign a petition to urge Air America to give Seder a daily slot in their schedule.
A lot of us were disgusted and disappointed when Air America recently suspended the progressive talk radio goddess Randi Rhodes (she later quit the network and has now moved over to the Nova M radio network).
But in any case, Randi's departure opens up a key slot on Air America's daily 3-6 p.m. EST schedule that we think ought to be filled by the brilliant Sam Seder. (If you've never heard his program, you're missing out on some of the most intelligent talk radio on the airwaves). Currently Seder's insightful program only airs weekly on Air America (Sundays, 4-7 p.m. EST).
Go here to sign a petition to urge Air America to give Seder a daily slot in their schedule.
Labels: Air America, Randi Rhodes, Sam Seder
Friday, April 18, 2008
Pentagon Institute: Iraq War "A Major Debacle" With Outcome "In Doubt"
By MARC MCDONALD
A report released Thursday describes the Iraq War as "a major debacle" in which the outcome "is in doubt."
Who published these harshly critical words? An anti-war group? Some obscure left-wing blog? The Huffington Post? Code Pink?
Uh, no: actually this sharp criticism came from none other than the National Defense University, a leading Pentagon military educational institute.
One wonders how the Bush White House (as well as its allies at Fox News and HateWing radio) will spin this story. No doubt, they will either ignore the story, or attack or smear its authors.
To which I say: Good luck with that.
Bush will have a tough time trying to debunk this stunning report. After all, as McClatchy Newspapers noted, "the report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations."
The report's opening sentence says it all: "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle."
Watch out for major NeoCon spin control in the weeks ahead. And look out for the Republicans to throw a major hissy fit. I suspect they'll also be angry at McClatchy for simply publishing this story in the first place.
Here's the McClatchy Newspapers story on the Pentagon institute's report:
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, McClatchy Newspapers
The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.
The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.
The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.
It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.
"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.
At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .
"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.
The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.
"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.
Read the rest of the McClatchy story here. Go here to read the Pentagon institute report.
A report released Thursday describes the Iraq War as "a major debacle" in which the outcome "is in doubt."
Who published these harshly critical words? An anti-war group? Some obscure left-wing blog? The Huffington Post? Code Pink?
Uh, no: actually this sharp criticism came from none other than the National Defense University, a leading Pentagon military educational institute.
One wonders how the Bush White House (as well as its allies at Fox News and HateWing radio) will spin this story. No doubt, they will either ignore the story, or attack or smear its authors.
To which I say: Good luck with that.
Bush will have a tough time trying to debunk this stunning report. After all, as McClatchy Newspapers noted, "the report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations."
The report's opening sentence says it all: "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle."
Watch out for major NeoCon spin control in the weeks ahead. And look out for the Republicans to throw a major hissy fit. I suspect they'll also be angry at McClatchy for simply publishing this story in the first place.
Here's the McClatchy Newspapers story on the Pentagon institute's report:
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, McClatchy Newspapers
The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.
The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.
The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.
It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.
"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.
At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .
"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.
The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.
"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.
Read the rest of the McClatchy story here. Go here to read the Pentagon institute report.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Whatever Happened To Protest Music?
.
"You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"
"Masters of War," ---Bob Dylan, 1963
__________________________________
"We can dance, we can dance, we can dance, we can dance tonight
Come on just move your body
Come on just move your body"
"Not Leaving Without You," ---Paris Hilton, 2006
By MARC MCDONALD
Back in the 1960s, even the biggest-selling music artists routinely released songs that protested the Vietnam War and demanded change. From John Lennon ("Give Peace A Chance") to the Rolling Stones ("Street Fighting Man") to Bob Dylan ("Masters of War") the pop charts were full of protest songs.
Today, we're living in an era that is like the 1960s in many ways. The nation's social fabric has been torn asunder. An unpopular war based on lies rages on. And the occupant in the White House is a crook who makes even Richard Nixon look like a good president. In short, America is going down the toilet.
But unlike the 1960s, if you listen to today's music, you'd be unaware that there was any problem at all with today's America. The top pop stars of today have little to say about anything. Outside of some of the socially conscious hip-hop artists, today's music stars are content to peddle the most bland, innocuous lyrics imaginable. Mostly, the songs are about sex, sex, and more sex. If there's any message at all, it's: "Be apathetic. Don't use your brain. Be a good little consumer."
The shame of it all is that there's probably never been an era in American history that cried out more for protest songs.
Today, America is saddled with an unbelievably corrupt occupant in the White House. George W. Bush is guilty of a long list of serious crimes, from embracing torture as official state policy to illegal wiretaps to lying America into a $3 trillion fiasco of a war.
What's worse is that our nation's mainstream media has failed in its responsibility to inform the American people about Bush's crimes. Indeed, "journalists" like the Judith Miller of The New York Times actually worked hand-in-hand with the White House, to sell Bush's war to the American people.
Given this sad state of affairs, one might think that at least some of today's pop stars would be inclined to speak out about the ongoing crisis in America. The crimes of Bush and Cheney could easily be the inspiration for hundreds of protest songs.
But sadly, this isn't the case. Today's pampered pop and rock stars are quite content to sit in their mansions and count their cash and refuse to speak out on the issues of the day, much less write songs about them.
And as a result, our radio stations and pop charts today are full of the most sugary, banal, shallow dross imaginable. In fact, there's probably never been an era in U.S. musical history where popular music was as sanitized and apolitical as it is today.
True, there is the occasional exception (like when the Dixie Chicks dared to speak up against Bush). As a result, their career took a hit when Clear Channel yanked the group's songs from its radio stations. The band even received death threats from the NeoCon Bush supporters.
Most other top artists, though, have failed to follow the Dixie Chicks' lead and speak out. It's clear that they are cowards who are afraid any sort of risks of damaging their commercial prospects. (Of course, it's also possible that they simply don't give a sh*t about what's going on in America). I'm not sure which is worse: apathy, or cowardice---but today's pop stars are similar to the mainstream media in that they lack a spine and they're only concerned about making as much money as possible.
Ironically, despite the blatant commercialism of today's pop scene, music sales continue to plunge in the U.S. The big record labels bitch and moan endlessly about this. They point the finger of blame at file-sharing services. The latter, no doubt, have some of the blame---but I believe the main culprit is that today's music just plain sucks.
The best pop/rock music has always been risk-taking, rebellious, bold and creative. That's the polar opposite of today's sad line-up of Britney, Paris Hilton, Justin Timberlake and their endless clones.
Meanwhile, here's a salute to some of the best protest music of yesteryear:
"You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"
"Masters of War," ---Bob Dylan, 1963
__________________________________
"We can dance, we can dance, we can dance, we can dance tonight
Come on just move your body
Come on just move your body"
"Not Leaving Without You," ---Paris Hilton, 2006
By MARC MCDONALD
Back in the 1960s, even the biggest-selling music artists routinely released songs that protested the Vietnam War and demanded change. From John Lennon ("Give Peace A Chance") to the Rolling Stones ("Street Fighting Man") to Bob Dylan ("Masters of War") the pop charts were full of protest songs.
Today, we're living in an era that is like the 1960s in many ways. The nation's social fabric has been torn asunder. An unpopular war based on lies rages on. And the occupant in the White House is a crook who makes even Richard Nixon look like a good president. In short, America is going down the toilet.
But unlike the 1960s, if you listen to today's music, you'd be unaware that there was any problem at all with today's America. The top pop stars of today have little to say about anything. Outside of some of the socially conscious hip-hop artists, today's music stars are content to peddle the most bland, innocuous lyrics imaginable. Mostly, the songs are about sex, sex, and more sex. If there's any message at all, it's: "Be apathetic. Don't use your brain. Be a good little consumer."
The shame of it all is that there's probably never been an era in American history that cried out more for protest songs.
Today, America is saddled with an unbelievably corrupt occupant in the White House. George W. Bush is guilty of a long list of serious crimes, from embracing torture as official state policy to illegal wiretaps to lying America into a $3 trillion fiasco of a war.
What's worse is that our nation's mainstream media has failed in its responsibility to inform the American people about Bush's crimes. Indeed, "journalists" like the Judith Miller of The New York Times actually worked hand-in-hand with the White House, to sell Bush's war to the American people.
Given this sad state of affairs, one might think that at least some of today's pop stars would be inclined to speak out about the ongoing crisis in America. The crimes of Bush and Cheney could easily be the inspiration for hundreds of protest songs.
But sadly, this isn't the case. Today's pampered pop and rock stars are quite content to sit in their mansions and count their cash and refuse to speak out on the issues of the day, much less write songs about them.
And as a result, our radio stations and pop charts today are full of the most sugary, banal, shallow dross imaginable. In fact, there's probably never been an era in U.S. musical history where popular music was as sanitized and apolitical as it is today.
True, there is the occasional exception (like when the Dixie Chicks dared to speak up against Bush). As a result, their career took a hit when Clear Channel yanked the group's songs from its radio stations. The band even received death threats from the NeoCon Bush supporters.
Most other top artists, though, have failed to follow the Dixie Chicks' lead and speak out. It's clear that they are cowards who are afraid any sort of risks of damaging their commercial prospects. (Of course, it's also possible that they simply don't give a sh*t about what's going on in America). I'm not sure which is worse: apathy, or cowardice---but today's pop stars are similar to the mainstream media in that they lack a spine and they're only concerned about making as much money as possible.
Ironically, despite the blatant commercialism of today's pop scene, music sales continue to plunge in the U.S. The big record labels bitch and moan endlessly about this. They point the finger of blame at file-sharing services. The latter, no doubt, have some of the blame---but I believe the main culprit is that today's music just plain sucks.
The best pop/rock music has always been risk-taking, rebellious, bold and creative. That's the polar opposite of today's sad line-up of Britney, Paris Hilton, Justin Timberlake and their endless clones.
Meanwhile, here's a salute to some of the best protest music of yesteryear:
- "Ohio," ---Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, 1970.
- "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag," ---Country Joe & the Fish, 1967.
- "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," ---Gil Scott-Heron, 1970.
- "Power To The People," ---John Lennon, 1971.
- "The Call Up," ---by The Clash, 1980.
- "For What It's Worth," ----Buffalo Springfield, 1967.
- "Shipbuilding," ---Elvis Costello, 1982.
- "Between the Wars," ---Billy Bragg, 1985.
- "Talkin' World War III Blues," ---Bob Dylan, 1963.
- "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," ---Pete Seeger, 1967.
- "Get Up, Stand Up," ---Bob Marley, 1973.
Labels: culture, progressives, protest music
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
