It is very unusual for me to do obituary posts. I did one for Simon Wiesenthal a few weeks ago. Then I did my second a few minutes ago for Richard Pryor. This will be the third. In other words, I only do them for people who I really respect and feel that they made a big difference in the world, for the better.
Eugene McCarthy ran for President. He didn't win. He didn't even get nominated. In fact, he got beat in the New Hampshire primary in 1968. Yet it was his effort in losing, that truly shook the nation, caused a President to quit running for re-election, and made it clear that the idea that the war in Vietnam had unlimited support, and the the establishment could count on unlimited patience from the American people, was dead wrong. Later in that year of turmoil that included riots (including at the Democratic convention), the assassination of two great American icons who stood for justice for all, the reactionary Wallace campaign to roll back desgregation, Johnson was succeeded by Richard Nixon-- a President at least as complex and as dishonest as Johnson, but who perhaps ironically, nevertheless saw, after trying and failing to win the war, what Johnson could never see-- that the war was destined to drag on interminably until we left. So, ironically, it was Nixon who finally got us out of there.
But that would not have happened without McCarthy. Had he not run, President Johnson would certainly have won renomination, and very likely re-election (remember that Vice President Humphrey, effectively a 'status quo' candidate who represented Johnson, lost a very close race to Nixon). Then he would have continued his failed policy in Vietnam until a successor (who by that time would very likely have been a Republican, and very possibly Ronald Reagan) was chosen in 1972. The bruises that we as a nation suffered in Vietnam would by that time have become deep and gaping infections. So, the case can be made that McCarthy saved us as a nation from ourselves.
McCarthy ran for President four more times after 1968, but he never again recaptured the lighting that he held for a few brief days in that year, when he inspired and sparked a movement that quickly grew beyond any one person. He didn't need to inspire it anymore. He came along as the right man, with the right message, at the right moment in history.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Richard Pryor, 1940-2005
Richard Pryor died today from a heart attack. He had suffered for years from multiple schlerosis, and had been out of filmmaking since 1991, aside from a brief stint on the television show, 'Chicago Hope,' which highlighted the difficulties of living with MS, and for which he was nominated for an emmy. But he left a big footprint on the world.
I remember as a kid really enjoying watching his movies. But it wasn't until later that I got to know more about this complex comedian, someone who inspired a generation of other successful comedians.
He was vulgar. He was funny. He lived life on the edge and sometimes fell over it. He succeeded in making movies that could poke fun at segregation in an age when it was still very much a part of America. He could see that there was still racism in America, but also see the progress that was being made.
It's hard to categorize Richard Pryor. His early movies were truly on the edge. The first Pryor film I saw was, 'Greased Lightning,' and it was raucus, in your face and not afraid to confront social issues (in the film, Pryor and a white friend are kicked out of a segregated restaurant, taking their food with them; Later, the plates are returned-- through the front window.) In 1977, he had a television series on NBC in which he threated to cancel the contract because of censors' objections to a skit he was doing in which he appeared in a loin cloth.
His later work became much more bland (like the eighties generally). It turned out that during this time, Pryor was battling drug and alcohol addiction-- an addiction that suddenly became very public when he was severely burned over fifty percent of his body in a flash fire that started while he was freebasing cocaine.
His daughter Rain, also an actress, summed up a lot about Richard Pryor: She said her father "put his life right out there for you to look at. I took that approach because I saw how well audiences respond to it. I try to make you laugh at life."
No question that Richard Pryor was a free spirit. Unlike a lot of celebrities, he didn't mind being the butt of jokes (in fact he even was able to tell jokes about himself that might have been considered over the line if others had told them, for example about the cocaine burning incident). He laughed at himself, he laughed at the world, and he made us laugh.
I remember as a kid really enjoying watching his movies. But it wasn't until later that I got to know more about this complex comedian, someone who inspired a generation of other successful comedians.
He was vulgar. He was funny. He lived life on the edge and sometimes fell over it. He succeeded in making movies that could poke fun at segregation in an age when it was still very much a part of America. He could see that there was still racism in America, but also see the progress that was being made.
It's hard to categorize Richard Pryor. His early movies were truly on the edge. The first Pryor film I saw was, 'Greased Lightning,' and it was raucus, in your face and not afraid to confront social issues (in the film, Pryor and a white friend are kicked out of a segregated restaurant, taking their food with them; Later, the plates are returned-- through the front window.) In 1977, he had a television series on NBC in which he threated to cancel the contract because of censors' objections to a skit he was doing in which he appeared in a loin cloth.
His later work became much more bland (like the eighties generally). It turned out that during this time, Pryor was battling drug and alcohol addiction-- an addiction that suddenly became very public when he was severely burned over fifty percent of his body in a flash fire that started while he was freebasing cocaine.
His daughter Rain, also an actress, summed up a lot about Richard Pryor: She said her father "put his life right out there for you to look at. I took that approach because I saw how well audiences respond to it. I try to make you laugh at life."
No question that Richard Pryor was a free spirit. Unlike a lot of celebrities, he didn't mind being the butt of jokes (in fact he even was able to tell jokes about himself that might have been considered over the line if others had told them, for example about the cocaine burning incident). He laughed at himself, he laughed at the world, and he made us laugh.
Friday, December 09, 2005
English only means you better not even think out loud any other way
People who claim they are in favor of everyone learning English (and that is not a bad idea, so long as it is accomplished with respect and help for people who haven't learned it yet) are in fact intolerant when it comes to people even speaking another language.
Just ask Zach.
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - Most of the time, 16-year-old Zach Rubio converses in clear, unaccented American teen-speak, a form of English in which the three most common words are "like," "whatever" and "totally." But Zach is also fluent in his dad's native language, Spanish -- and that's what got him suspended from school.
"It was, like, totally not in the classroom," the high school junior said, recalling the infraction. "We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on restroom break. This kid I know, he's like, 'Me prestas un dolar?' ['Will you lend me a dollar?'] Well, he asked in Spanish; it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I'm like, 'No problema.'
But that conversation turned out to be a big problem for the staff at the Endeavor Alternative School, a small public high school in an ethnically mixed blue-collar neighborhood. A teacher who overheard the two boys sent Zach to the office, where Principal Jennifer Watts ordered him to call his father and leave the school.
Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can't discuss the case. But in a written "discipline referral" explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school."
Since then, the suspension of Zach Rubio has become the talk of the town in both English and Spanish newspapers and radio shows. The school district has officially rescinded his punishment and said that speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension.
This shows how far over the line these people can get. Zach 1. speaks English perfectly well, 2. was not in class, and 3. was responding to a question he was asked in the language it was asked in.
It's bad enough when adults insist that classes be taught only in English (so that, for example, we will one day have adult citizens voting in elections who understand nothing of American history or government because it was taught to them in a language they don't understand), but now it is to the point where a child is punished for even speaking a TWO WORDS of Spanish on campus OUTSIDE OF CLASS TIME.
In the context of an increasingly global economy (and Spanish is one of only four languages in the world for which the proportion of people in the world who are speakers increases each year rather than decreases-- the others are English, Mandarin and Arabic), it is becoming abundantly clear that the people who run (and profit from) international trade in the future will mostly not be Americans, but people from countries where speaking two languages (as Zach does) is considered a virtue and not something to be attacked and punished for.
Aside from this, one has to wonder if a generalized 'Espanolophobia' might be at work here. I've never heard of, for example, two French speaking exchange students, or two students speaking German or Chinese or Hebrew at school being singled out for punishment. But this is not the first time I have heard of students getting in some kind of trouble (though not suspended) for speaking Spanish in school. I know that in my high school (many years ago, to be sure) there were a group of students from Vietnam who conversed between themselves in Vietnamese. No one batted an eyelid about that. But even then, it was discouraged for students to speak Spanish on campus. Why is Spanish discouraged even above all other non-English languages?
Just ask Zach.
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - Most of the time, 16-year-old Zach Rubio converses in clear, unaccented American teen-speak, a form of English in which the three most common words are "like," "whatever" and "totally." But Zach is also fluent in his dad's native language, Spanish -- and that's what got him suspended from school.
"It was, like, totally not in the classroom," the high school junior said, recalling the infraction. "We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on restroom break. This kid I know, he's like, 'Me prestas un dolar?' ['Will you lend me a dollar?'] Well, he asked in Spanish; it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I'm like, 'No problema.'
But that conversation turned out to be a big problem for the staff at the Endeavor Alternative School, a small public high school in an ethnically mixed blue-collar neighborhood. A teacher who overheard the two boys sent Zach to the office, where Principal Jennifer Watts ordered him to call his father and leave the school.
Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can't discuss the case. But in a written "discipline referral" explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school."
Since then, the suspension of Zach Rubio has become the talk of the town in both English and Spanish newspapers and radio shows. The school district has officially rescinded his punishment and said that speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension.
This shows how far over the line these people can get. Zach 1. speaks English perfectly well, 2. was not in class, and 3. was responding to a question he was asked in the language it was asked in.
It's bad enough when adults insist that classes be taught only in English (so that, for example, we will one day have adult citizens voting in elections who understand nothing of American history or government because it was taught to them in a language they don't understand), but now it is to the point where a child is punished for even speaking a TWO WORDS of Spanish on campus OUTSIDE OF CLASS TIME.
In the context of an increasingly global economy (and Spanish is one of only four languages in the world for which the proportion of people in the world who are speakers increases each year rather than decreases-- the others are English, Mandarin and Arabic), it is becoming abundantly clear that the people who run (and profit from) international trade in the future will mostly not be Americans, but people from countries where speaking two languages (as Zach does) is considered a virtue and not something to be attacked and punished for.
Aside from this, one has to wonder if a generalized 'Espanolophobia' might be at work here. I've never heard of, for example, two French speaking exchange students, or two students speaking German or Chinese or Hebrew at school being singled out for punishment. But this is not the first time I have heard of students getting in some kind of trouble (though not suspended) for speaking Spanish in school. I know that in my high school (many years ago, to be sure) there were a group of students from Vietnam who conversed between themselves in Vietnamese. No one batted an eyelid about that. But even then, it was discouraged for students to speak Spanish on campus. Why is Spanish discouraged even above all other non-English languages?
claim of Iraq-al-Qaeda link based on coerced lie
Are you surprised by this? I'm not. And that is sad, because it means that I've come to expect this kind of stuff anymore:
It turns out that the part of our justification for the war in Iraq that involved links to al-Qaeda, and in particular the claims that they were involved in chemical weapons and explosives training in joint exercises with the Iraqi military, were not only obtained by coercion, but turn out to have been complete fabrications by an al-Qaeda suspect who was sent to Egypt for interrogation, under a policy (since revised) by which terror suspects were 'outsourced' for questioning to countries where the use of torture is legal or is carried out despite laws against it.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on statements gathered from the controversial U.S. policy of turning suspects over to foreign authorities for interrogation, according to current and former government officials.
An interrogated prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida in a process known as rendition.
Libi, handed over to Egyptian custody in January 2002, later said he had fabricated the accounts to escape harsh treatment, according to those officials....
The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
There is nothing mysterious about what happened here. Mr. Libi was being interrogated by Egyptians using methods that were illegal for the CIA at the time (hence the use of Egyptian interrogators in Egypt), and he said what they wanted him to say in order to end the interrogation. Then the Bush administration used his 'confession' to help build the case for the war in Iraq (which as we know from former Bush cabinet member Paul O'Neill and others, was pretty much decided on as a policy even from the earliest days of the Bush administration, well before 9/11.)
And the bigger irony is this: Even with this experience of resounding failure, they want to 'reserve the right' to still conduct torture.
I guess they want to make more people 'say what they want them to' in order to justify some future action.
It turns out that the part of our justification for the war in Iraq that involved links to al-Qaeda, and in particular the claims that they were involved in chemical weapons and explosives training in joint exercises with the Iraqi military, were not only obtained by coercion, but turn out to have been complete fabrications by an al-Qaeda suspect who was sent to Egypt for interrogation, under a policy (since revised) by which terror suspects were 'outsourced' for questioning to countries where the use of torture is legal or is carried out despite laws against it.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on statements gathered from the controversial U.S. policy of turning suspects over to foreign authorities for interrogation, according to current and former government officials.
An interrogated prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida in a process known as rendition.
Libi, handed over to Egyptian custody in January 2002, later said he had fabricated the accounts to escape harsh treatment, according to those officials....
The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
There is nothing mysterious about what happened here. Mr. Libi was being interrogated by Egyptians using methods that were illegal for the CIA at the time (hence the use of Egyptian interrogators in Egypt), and he said what they wanted him to say in order to end the interrogation. Then the Bush administration used his 'confession' to help build the case for the war in Iraq (which as we know from former Bush cabinet member Paul O'Neill and others, was pretty much decided on as a policy even from the earliest days of the Bush administration, well before 9/11.)
And the bigger irony is this: Even with this experience of resounding failure, they want to 'reserve the right' to still conduct torture.
I guess they want to make more people 'say what they want them to' in order to justify some future action.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Credit to Dorsano for this story:
A very interesting letter appeared today (the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor) in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The letter, written by a career Naval Officer, points out that if the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war is taken as a basis for starting a war, then the Pearl Harbor attack would have been justified on the part of the Japanese.
The letter reads:
Remembering Pearl Harbor seems doubly -- or even triply -- important today. With that memory comes also the voice (rebroadcast almost every year) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring to Congress and the nation, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked ..."
My 31 years of service as an officer in the U.S. Navy were richly satisfying -- in large measure because of the men and women with whom I served. But even more, my satisfaction came from an appreciation for living in and serving a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and opportunity and justice for all, and of nobody being above the law.
But now, we are living in a country whose administration both declares and acts upon the belief that preemptive strikes are wise foreign policy, are a legitimate use of our military. Was the attack on Pearl Harbor anything other than a preemptive strike?
I ask President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- are we now to view Pearl Harbor as the product of a sound foreign policy by a nation with a strong military? Or would we instead be wise to remember that December 7, 1941, is still a date which will live in infamy?
ALAN YOUEL, RICHFIELD
Now, the United States was, as we know, involved in supplying the Chinese (with whom the Japanese were then at war) with arms, had adopted an active military posture, (whether to goad the Japanese into war or not, is debatable, but certainly from their viewpoint it was) and as such had to be considered a threat. In fact, the American military was the only one in the Pacific that actually could stand up to the Japanese. And there is absolutely no question that the United States military in 1941 was more capable of attacking Japan than Saddam Hussein was in 2003 of attacking the United States.
So, the whole idea of a pre-emptive war (a new concept in the history of the United States, developed by the Bush administration) is exactly what we were on the receiving end of on December 7, 1941. Making crass distinctions based on governmental types (i.e. it is OK for a Democracy against a dictatorship, but not by a Monarchy against a Democracy) is weak and won't hold water. Either, as Mr. Youel expounds on, 'preemptive war' is acceptable as a national policy or it is not. But saying something is 'acceptable for us to do, but not when used against us' brings us perilously close to the kind of logic we were fighting against in World War II and in the Cold War which followed it.
Now, I still consider December 7, 1941 to be a 'day of infamy.' Do you?
A very interesting letter appeared today (the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor) in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The letter, written by a career Naval Officer, points out that if the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war is taken as a basis for starting a war, then the Pearl Harbor attack would have been justified on the part of the Japanese.
The letter reads:
Remembering Pearl Harbor seems doubly -- or even triply -- important today. With that memory comes also the voice (rebroadcast almost every year) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring to Congress and the nation, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked ..."
My 31 years of service as an officer in the U.S. Navy were richly satisfying -- in large measure because of the men and women with whom I served. But even more, my satisfaction came from an appreciation for living in and serving a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and opportunity and justice for all, and of nobody being above the law.
But now, we are living in a country whose administration both declares and acts upon the belief that preemptive strikes are wise foreign policy, are a legitimate use of our military. Was the attack on Pearl Harbor anything other than a preemptive strike?
I ask President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- are we now to view Pearl Harbor as the product of a sound foreign policy by a nation with a strong military? Or would we instead be wise to remember that December 7, 1941, is still a date which will live in infamy?
ALAN YOUEL, RICHFIELD
Now, the United States was, as we know, involved in supplying the Chinese (with whom the Japanese were then at war) with arms, had adopted an active military posture, (whether to goad the Japanese into war or not, is debatable, but certainly from their viewpoint it was) and as such had to be considered a threat. In fact, the American military was the only one in the Pacific that actually could stand up to the Japanese. And there is absolutely no question that the United States military in 1941 was more capable of attacking Japan than Saddam Hussein was in 2003 of attacking the United States.
So, the whole idea of a pre-emptive war (a new concept in the history of the United States, developed by the Bush administration) is exactly what we were on the receiving end of on December 7, 1941. Making crass distinctions based on governmental types (i.e. it is OK for a Democracy against a dictatorship, but not by a Monarchy against a Democracy) is weak and won't hold water. Either, as Mr. Youel expounds on, 'preemptive war' is acceptable as a national policy or it is not. But saying something is 'acceptable for us to do, but not when used against us' brings us perilously close to the kind of logic we were fighting against in World War II and in the Cold War which followed it.
Now, I still consider December 7, 1941 to be a 'day of infamy.' Do you?
Saddam Hussein trial.
This week, TV and the internet are saturated with talk about the Saddam Hussein trial.
Now, Saddam Hussein is an evil man (there is no other adjective that you can use to describe him). It is not hard to find literally thousands of Iraqis who can testify truthfully about the horrors of his prisons (and those thousands are just the survivors) so the conclusion is pretty much a given-- he will be found guilty, and that will be a just verdict.
What we see coming from the right, however, is an argument that goes like this: Saddam was bad, so therefore we can't be faulted for a war that removed him.
There are several fallacies with this line of thought. The first is that the war was sold as necessary, not to get rid of Mr. Hussein (at best, the whole 'regime change' argument was thrown in as a secondary justification) but because he had WMD, which was not only not true, but recently more and more evidence has been accumulating (some of which I have blogged on) that many in the White House knew that the intelligence reports on WMD were faulty, and simply cherry picked those reports that buttressed their position. But regardless of this, the White House never claimed that simply getting rid of Saddam was enough justification for invasion. So those who claim that it was now, are rewriting history. And the acid test is this: there is a brutal dictator with secret prisons, where torture is practiced, and who is guilty of many of the same crimes as Saddam, and he is only ninety miles from the United States. But (aside from a few neighborhoods in Miami) you won't find anyone advocating that we go invade Cuba just to get rid of Mr. Castro. Of course, Mr. Castro does not have oil, and no one except John Bolton (on one of his more delusional days) has suggested that Mr. Castro possesses any WMD or has any intention to develop them. So the whole argument that a brutal dictator is reason enough for an invasion is not supported by reality.
And on top of that, the worst of Saddam's crimes occurred before the first Gulf War, and if gassing the Kurds and Iranians didn't justify attacking him in 1988 when it occurred (and when the Reagan White House simply excused the first use of gas in warfare since WWI because at that time Saddam was 'our buddy'), it is hard to say that it justified attacking him fifteen years later. In that context, it was a convenient excuse, nothing more.
Further, Saddam has been out of power for two and a half years now. It has been two full years since American soldiers pulled him out of a 'spiderhole.' So, if that was the reason we were there, why are we still there?
Oh, yeah. It is now to fight his former supporters, as well as the terrorists who predictably flooded the country to fight us. As has been noted in a number of quarters, our presence is now fueling the insurgency as much as it is fighting it.
Now, Saddam Hussein is an evil man (there is no other adjective that you can use to describe him). It is not hard to find literally thousands of Iraqis who can testify truthfully about the horrors of his prisons (and those thousands are just the survivors) so the conclusion is pretty much a given-- he will be found guilty, and that will be a just verdict.
What we see coming from the right, however, is an argument that goes like this: Saddam was bad, so therefore we can't be faulted for a war that removed him.
There are several fallacies with this line of thought. The first is that the war was sold as necessary, not to get rid of Mr. Hussein (at best, the whole 'regime change' argument was thrown in as a secondary justification) but because he had WMD, which was not only not true, but recently more and more evidence has been accumulating (some of which I have blogged on) that many in the White House knew that the intelligence reports on WMD were faulty, and simply cherry picked those reports that buttressed their position. But regardless of this, the White House never claimed that simply getting rid of Saddam was enough justification for invasion. So those who claim that it was now, are rewriting history. And the acid test is this: there is a brutal dictator with secret prisons, where torture is practiced, and who is guilty of many of the same crimes as Saddam, and he is only ninety miles from the United States. But (aside from a few neighborhoods in Miami) you won't find anyone advocating that we go invade Cuba just to get rid of Mr. Castro. Of course, Mr. Castro does not have oil, and no one except John Bolton (on one of his more delusional days) has suggested that Mr. Castro possesses any WMD or has any intention to develop them. So the whole argument that a brutal dictator is reason enough for an invasion is not supported by reality.
And on top of that, the worst of Saddam's crimes occurred before the first Gulf War, and if gassing the Kurds and Iranians didn't justify attacking him in 1988 when it occurred (and when the Reagan White House simply excused the first use of gas in warfare since WWI because at that time Saddam was 'our buddy'), it is hard to say that it justified attacking him fifteen years later. In that context, it was a convenient excuse, nothing more.
Further, Saddam has been out of power for two and a half years now. It has been two full years since American soldiers pulled him out of a 'spiderhole.' So, if that was the reason we were there, why are we still there?
Oh, yeah. It is now to fight his former supporters, as well as the terrorists who predictably flooded the country to fight us. As has been noted in a number of quarters, our presence is now fueling the insurgency as much as it is fighting it.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
This is why short-cutting due process is a bad idea. This might be you.
The ACLU has joined a lawuit filed by Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, who was illegally snatched by the CIA on Christmas Eve 2003 while on his way to visit relatives in Macedonia, then sent to a CIA prison in Afghanistan (a country where he has no relatives or other connections) where he was held without charges for five months.
Last year, the CIA thought it had an important al-Qaida terrorist in custody. CIA agents secretly detained him in Europe and flew him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan, in a so-called "rendition." But now senior U.S. officials tell NBC News that CIA realized early on, it had the wrong man — but kept him in prison anyway. They say he was kept in the primitive prison for more than a month after CIA director George Tenet was informed of the case, while officials tried to figure out a way to fix their mistake.
On New Year’s Eve 2003, German citizen Khaled El-Masri says he was kidnapped in Macedonia, and then flown by U.S. officials to Afghanistan where he was held in secret in harsh conditions until May. The mysterious events were seen as a case study in "renditions," or secret CIA operations to move terrorist suspects to third countries, outside U.S. legal authority.
Al-Masri, which the US admitted falsely imprisoning earlier this year, isn't suing for a great deal of money-- reportedly only $75,000 to cover the lost income and medical bills he has suffered as a result-- so clearly the man isn't trying to profit from this. He would be justified if he sued for a lot more though:
Among the details NBC News has learned:
Macedonian officials arrested El Masri first and told the CIA that El-Masri’s German passport was fake. His name set off bells because it matched someone who had trained in Osama bin Laden’s camps.
A CIA "black renditions" team swept into Macedonia and then flew El-Masri to a prison in Afghanistan nicknamed the "Salt Pit."
In February, CIA officers in Kabul began to suspect he was the wrong man, and they raised the red flag. They sent his passport back to the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va. In March, sources say, the CIA finally finished checking his passport and found it was not a fake. The Macedonians had been wrong. The CIA realized it had the wrong man, a genuine German citizen, in custody.
El-Masri told NBC News that back in Afghanistan, in the prison, one American was frustrated over what was happening.
"He seemed to get mad about the situation and shouted, 'I don't think you belong here, I will once more call Washington,'" El-Masri says.
But in Washington, sources say, in mid April, officals called a special meeting at the CIA to brief director George Tenet. An officer quotes Tenet as saying, "You’ve got an innocent guy in the Salt Pit?" Tenet said El-Masri should be released.
By May, sources say National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice learned of the mistake and ordered El-Masri's immediate release. She said as well that the German government should be told of the incident, for diplomatic reasons. But that didn’t end the case. About two weeks later, Rice learned El-Masri was still being held and ordered him released again.
In late May 2003, he finally was freed.
but the more important aspect of the suit are these:
1. It makes it plain that this is happening. Some on the right have said that the idea that people are being sent to secret prisons without a hearing to determine guilt are pure speculation. But now we have someone who it happened to.
2. It makes the case as well as anything could, that due process is necessary. People on the right are always going on about how terror suspects don't deserve due process. But they forget what due process is. Due process is a way to determine whether someone who is accused, is in fact guilty. Without it, you can have people like al-Masri who are innocent and still end up in secret prisons, with no access to legal help, and for as long as our government decides to keep them there. Due process rights are not to 'coddle' the guilty, but to protect the falsely accused, and as we see for example the writ of habeas corpus, an integral part of the law since the middle ages and since the founding of the United States (thereby guaranteeing access to the Federal Courts), about to be jettisoned in the newly revised Patriot Act III, we would do well to remember that. Get rid of due process, and an accusation becomes the foundation for punishment, as happened to Mr. al-Masri.
3. According to the article, George Tenet and Condoleeza Rice both demanded, once they found out that an innocent man was in prison, that he be released immediately. But he was not for several more weeks. If that is accurate, then someone else is exercising more power than the CIA director and the Secretary of State. It might be the President. It might be the Vice President. Or it might be someone you have never heard of. The implications of this are so frightening that it makes me HOPE that this part of the story is false, and that they are only covering up now.
IN THE COMMENTS:
This post originally made reference to torture. However, a reader points out that there has been no evidence offered that Mr. al-Masri was physically tortured while there. Therefore, all references to torture have been expunged (we will follow the trial closely), but the point about due process continues to stand.
Last year, the CIA thought it had an important al-Qaida terrorist in custody. CIA agents secretly detained him in Europe and flew him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan, in a so-called "rendition." But now senior U.S. officials tell NBC News that CIA realized early on, it had the wrong man — but kept him in prison anyway. They say he was kept in the primitive prison for more than a month after CIA director George Tenet was informed of the case, while officials tried to figure out a way to fix their mistake.
On New Year’s Eve 2003, German citizen Khaled El-Masri says he was kidnapped in Macedonia, and then flown by U.S. officials to Afghanistan where he was held in secret in harsh conditions until May. The mysterious events were seen as a case study in "renditions," or secret CIA operations to move terrorist suspects to third countries, outside U.S. legal authority.
Al-Masri, which the US admitted falsely imprisoning earlier this year, isn't suing for a great deal of money-- reportedly only $75,000 to cover the lost income and medical bills he has suffered as a result-- so clearly the man isn't trying to profit from this. He would be justified if he sued for a lot more though:
Among the details NBC News has learned:
Macedonian officials arrested El Masri first and told the CIA that El-Masri’s German passport was fake. His name set off bells because it matched someone who had trained in Osama bin Laden’s camps.
A CIA "black renditions" team swept into Macedonia and then flew El-Masri to a prison in Afghanistan nicknamed the "Salt Pit."
In February, CIA officers in Kabul began to suspect he was the wrong man, and they raised the red flag. They sent his passport back to the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va. In March, sources say, the CIA finally finished checking his passport and found it was not a fake. The Macedonians had been wrong. The CIA realized it had the wrong man, a genuine German citizen, in custody.
El-Masri told NBC News that back in Afghanistan, in the prison, one American was frustrated over what was happening.
"He seemed to get mad about the situation and shouted, 'I don't think you belong here, I will once more call Washington,'" El-Masri says.
But in Washington, sources say, in mid April, officals called a special meeting at the CIA to brief director George Tenet. An officer quotes Tenet as saying, "You’ve got an innocent guy in the Salt Pit?" Tenet said El-Masri should be released.
By May, sources say National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice learned of the mistake and ordered El-Masri's immediate release. She said as well that the German government should be told of the incident, for diplomatic reasons. But that didn’t end the case. About two weeks later, Rice learned El-Masri was still being held and ordered him released again.
In late May 2003, he finally was freed.
but the more important aspect of the suit are these:
1. It makes it plain that this is happening. Some on the right have said that the idea that people are being sent to secret prisons without a hearing to determine guilt are pure speculation. But now we have someone who it happened to.
2. It makes the case as well as anything could, that due process is necessary. People on the right are always going on about how terror suspects don't deserve due process. But they forget what due process is. Due process is a way to determine whether someone who is accused, is in fact guilty. Without it, you can have people like al-Masri who are innocent and still end up in secret prisons, with no access to legal help, and for as long as our government decides to keep them there. Due process rights are not to 'coddle' the guilty, but to protect the falsely accused, and as we see for example the writ of habeas corpus, an integral part of the law since the middle ages and since the founding of the United States (thereby guaranteeing access to the Federal Courts), about to be jettisoned in the newly revised Patriot Act III, we would do well to remember that. Get rid of due process, and an accusation becomes the foundation for punishment, as happened to Mr. al-Masri.
3. According to the article, George Tenet and Condoleeza Rice both demanded, once they found out that an innocent man was in prison, that he be released immediately. But he was not for several more weeks. If that is accurate, then someone else is exercising more power than the CIA director and the Secretary of State. It might be the President. It might be the Vice President. Or it might be someone you have never heard of. The implications of this are so frightening that it makes me HOPE that this part of the story is false, and that they are only covering up now.
IN THE COMMENTS:
This post originally made reference to torture. However, a reader points out that there has been no evidence offered that Mr. al-Masri was physically tortured while there. Therefore, all references to torture have been expunged (we will follow the trial closely), but the point about due process continues to stand.
Lowering the standard
As we know, talk left has uncovered evidence that when President Bush said,
And I know he's thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito Sr. came to this country as a immigrant from Italy in 1914.
he was wrong. Alito senior was apparently born in New Jersey.
Now, this in itself is a tempest in a teapot, but what it points out is yet another situation where the 'shoot from the hip' Bush administration has failed to do their homework, and jumped into action without proper preparation.
It seems that this administration doesn't feel they need to look at all the information that is available, instead they make a decision and then only look as far as they feel they need to in order to support their decision. Research? For the birds.
These instances of jump in, then test the water have ranged from the minor embarrassment (this) to the major embarrassment (Bernard Kerik) to the tragic (cutting New Orleans flood control levee funding), to the 'pay the price in the future' (ignoring more and more evidence about global warming) and of course the granddaddy of them all, ignoring evidence that ran contrary to the administration claims about Iraq before invading.
Now say what you want about past Presidents, but Clinton, Bush Sr. and even Reagan made sure that they had done their homework before they did something, so that these kinds of embarrassments were rare in their administrations.
But we have now reached a lower standard.
And I know he's thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito Sr. came to this country as a immigrant from Italy in 1914.
he was wrong. Alito senior was apparently born in New Jersey.
Now, this in itself is a tempest in a teapot, but what it points out is yet another situation where the 'shoot from the hip' Bush administration has failed to do their homework, and jumped into action without proper preparation.
It seems that this administration doesn't feel they need to look at all the information that is available, instead they make a decision and then only look as far as they feel they need to in order to support their decision. Research? For the birds.
These instances of jump in, then test the water have ranged from the minor embarrassment (this) to the major embarrassment (Bernard Kerik) to the tragic (cutting New Orleans flood control levee funding), to the 'pay the price in the future' (ignoring more and more evidence about global warming) and of course the granddaddy of them all, ignoring evidence that ran contrary to the administration claims about Iraq before invading.
Now say what you want about past Presidents, but Clinton, Bush Sr. and even Reagan made sure that they had done their homework before they did something, so that these kinds of embarrassments were rare in their administrations.
But we have now reached a lower standard.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
A step in the direction of sanity
Credit to Buzzflash for the story.
The Transportation and Safety Authority will soon be allowing some items that were banned post-Sept. 11, including small pairs of scissors (4 inches or less) and screwdrivers back on board in carry on items. Later, nail clippers are also mentioned as now being allowed in carry on bags. Sharp knives and boxcutters are still not allowed.
And I think this is well overdue. Not only because it was making travel a bigger headache than it had to be:
"We are opening a lot of bags to take away objects that do not pose a great risk," [TSA Deputy Administrator Kip Hawley] said. "We found that a disproportionate amount of our resources go to line-slowing bag searches directed at objects that do not pose a real threat of taking control of an aircraft."
But also, it is a step in the right direction because it makes a great deal of sense. The reason why 9/11 worked was because it was a surprise. The passengers and crew didn't expect it. And at that, once the passengers on the fourth flight learned from cell phone conversations what was going on, they prevented that flight from reaching its target. In a post-9/11 environment, the idea that a few people could take over a plane with four inch scissors, nail clippers and screwdrivers is ridiculous. Modern crew and passengers are well aware of 9/11 and would not simply sit by and let it happen (in addition to new security measures designed to prevent an unauthorized breach of the cockpit.)
In fact, I was a bit embarrassed that the person speaking out against making these changes is a Democrat:
Congressman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he will introduce a bill that would roll back the new TSA changes.
"Mohamed Atta and the other September 11 hijackers used box cutters as a weapon to launch their deadly attack against our country," he said. "TSA should not make it easier for future Mohamed Attas to arm themselves with razor sharp objects and bring down a passenger plane."
But Mr. Hawley said truly dangerous objects will still be banned from planes.
"TSA is not removing items like ice picks, box cutters, or knives of any kind from the prohibited list," he said. "Based on our research and analysis, however, I am convinced that the time now spent searching bags for small scissors and tools can be better utilized searching for the far more dangerous threat of explosives."
Just because something is proposed by some Republicans doesn't automatically make it bad. In this case, Mr. Markey, who hopefully simply bit before looking very closely, is wrong.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day. And it makes sense to take measures to prevent it from happening again. But all too often, the specter of 9/11 has been invoked to justify actions that in fact have very little to do with fighting terrorists and all too often have everything to do with maintaining or gaining control over the American people. This includes provisions in the Patriot Act authorizing the storing of every single email sent in the United States on a government computer (for how long? Given how much the government is averse to getting rid of information, we can assume it's forever), or authorizing Federal agents to search your home while you are not there and without telling you. It also includes the invasion of Iraq, and the announcement that you will need a passport to get into the United States from Canada or Mexico starting in 2008 (which real terrorists always have their paperwork impeccably in order, so this one is aimed more at forcing Americans who cross the border to buy prescription drugs to pay the much higher prices for the same drugs that the same manufacturers charge when they selectively gouge only Americans).
The Transportation and Safety Authority will soon be allowing some items that were banned post-Sept. 11, including small pairs of scissors (4 inches or less) and screwdrivers back on board in carry on items. Later, nail clippers are also mentioned as now being allowed in carry on bags. Sharp knives and boxcutters are still not allowed.
And I think this is well overdue. Not only because it was making travel a bigger headache than it had to be:
"We are opening a lot of bags to take away objects that do not pose a great risk," [TSA Deputy Administrator Kip Hawley] said. "We found that a disproportionate amount of our resources go to line-slowing bag searches directed at objects that do not pose a real threat of taking control of an aircraft."
But also, it is a step in the right direction because it makes a great deal of sense. The reason why 9/11 worked was because it was a surprise. The passengers and crew didn't expect it. And at that, once the passengers on the fourth flight learned from cell phone conversations what was going on, they prevented that flight from reaching its target. In a post-9/11 environment, the idea that a few people could take over a plane with four inch scissors, nail clippers and screwdrivers is ridiculous. Modern crew and passengers are well aware of 9/11 and would not simply sit by and let it happen (in addition to new security measures designed to prevent an unauthorized breach of the cockpit.)
In fact, I was a bit embarrassed that the person speaking out against making these changes is a Democrat:
Congressman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he will introduce a bill that would roll back the new TSA changes.
"Mohamed Atta and the other September 11 hijackers used box cutters as a weapon to launch their deadly attack against our country," he said. "TSA should not make it easier for future Mohamed Attas to arm themselves with razor sharp objects and bring down a passenger plane."
But Mr. Hawley said truly dangerous objects will still be banned from planes.
"TSA is not removing items like ice picks, box cutters, or knives of any kind from the prohibited list," he said. "Based on our research and analysis, however, I am convinced that the time now spent searching bags for small scissors and tools can be better utilized searching for the far more dangerous threat of explosives."
Just because something is proposed by some Republicans doesn't automatically make it bad. In this case, Mr. Markey, who hopefully simply bit before looking very closely, is wrong.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day. And it makes sense to take measures to prevent it from happening again. But all too often, the specter of 9/11 has been invoked to justify actions that in fact have very little to do with fighting terrorists and all too often have everything to do with maintaining or gaining control over the American people. This includes provisions in the Patriot Act authorizing the storing of every single email sent in the United States on a government computer (for how long? Given how much the government is averse to getting rid of information, we can assume it's forever), or authorizing Federal agents to search your home while you are not there and without telling you. It also includes the invasion of Iraq, and the announcement that you will need a passport to get into the United States from Canada or Mexico starting in 2008 (which real terrorists always have their paperwork impeccably in order, so this one is aimed more at forcing Americans who cross the border to buy prescription drugs to pay the much higher prices for the same drugs that the same manufacturers charge when they selectively gouge only Americans).
Friday, December 02, 2005
Starting to close in.
Last month the Washington Post revealed that the CIA has been detaining 'suspected terrorist' prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan not only without due process, but at secret detention facilities in eastern Europe where the prisoners have been tortured.
Of course, every country in Eastern Europe denied being the host of such camps, especially after the European Union pledged to enact economic and other sanctions against any country found to have hosted one.
So, which country or countries is it? Well, the Guardian newspaper checked flight logs (here reported via Common Dreams.
It turns out that while the largest number of CIA flights occurred to Britain and Germany, countries which have not been accused (nor is there any reason to suspect) of hosting the camps,
The logs also showed regular trips to eastern Europe, including 15 stops in Prague.
"Only one visit is recorded to the Szymany airbase in northeast Poland, which has been identified as the alleged site of a secret CIA jail," The Guardian reported.
Romania has also been cited.
I hope in particular that the Szymany allegation does not turn out to be true-- it would be bizarrely unfitting to open a torture camp in a country which was the home to Auschwitz and then to more KGB interrogation centers than any other in eastern Europe.
But whoever it is, the noose is starting to close, and it won't be long before we find out for sure which eastern European countries.
Of course, every country in Eastern Europe denied being the host of such camps, especially after the European Union pledged to enact economic and other sanctions against any country found to have hosted one.
So, which country or countries is it? Well, the Guardian newspaper checked flight logs (here reported via Common Dreams.
It turns out that while the largest number of CIA flights occurred to Britain and Germany, countries which have not been accused (nor is there any reason to suspect) of hosting the camps,
The logs also showed regular trips to eastern Europe, including 15 stops in Prague.
"Only one visit is recorded to the Szymany airbase in northeast Poland, which has been identified as the alleged site of a secret CIA jail," The Guardian reported.
Romania has also been cited.
I hope in particular that the Szymany allegation does not turn out to be true-- it would be bizarrely unfitting to open a torture camp in a country which was the home to Auschwitz and then to more KGB interrogation centers than any other in eastern Europe.
But whoever it is, the noose is starting to close, and it won't be long before we find out for sure which eastern European countries.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
What are the odds that all these liberals 'cheated' the system?
Today, "Wicked Witch of the Right" Ann Coulter in her column attacked John Murtha's military record.
Murtha, a retired U.S. Marine colonel who served in Vietnam from 1966 to 1967, received the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Coulter questioned Murtha's medals, writing that he "refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts."
Of course he hasn't released his medical records. No one has even asked him to. And why is it that the right (correctly, in fact) defends Rush Limbaugh's medical records as 'confidential' between he and his doctor, even in a case where Limbaugh has been accused of a crime and the records are relevant in determining whether a crime was committed, but somehow for a military veteran to consider that they are confidential (really, would YOU want your medical history published in the newspaper) proves something is wrong with them?
Let's not forget that it was Coulter, who last year wrote that triple amputee and former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who earned a silver star and a bronze star in Vietnam, lost his limbs while playing with a hand grenade while drinking. Of course, as has been widely reported, Cleland lost his limbs while picking up a hand grenade dropped by a fellow soldier while they were disembarking from a helicopter during a mission. But the truth never matters to smear miesters like Coulter (whose outright lies are listened to by millions several times a week on Fox News).
Of course, this is nothing new for the right. We all remember the Swift Boat ads about John Kerry. The right also went after retired four star general Wes Clark last year when he first entered the Presidential race, (remember the term, coined by Peggy Noonan, 'apple-polishing operator who abused the chain of command,' implying that he didn't deserve his rank).
If nothing else, one would hope that thinking conservatives (and no, that isn't an oxymoron, I know quite a few) would wake up to these kinds of attacks and question whether it even makes sense, just according to the law of averages, that SO MANY liberals who were decorated in the military and therefore spoke with some influence about military matters, in fact didn't deserve the medals, promotions or other honors they were awarded. If that were true, then the system would be rotten to the core (meaning that all medals and promotions would be called into question). The other case is that people like Coulter are flat out liars and not ashamed to say or imply anything about anybody.
Murtha, a retired U.S. Marine colonel who served in Vietnam from 1966 to 1967, received the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Coulter questioned Murtha's medals, writing that he "refuses to release his medical records showing he was entitled to his two Purple Hearts."
Of course he hasn't released his medical records. No one has even asked him to. And why is it that the right (correctly, in fact) defends Rush Limbaugh's medical records as 'confidential' between he and his doctor, even in a case where Limbaugh has been accused of a crime and the records are relevant in determining whether a crime was committed, but somehow for a military veteran to consider that they are confidential (really, would YOU want your medical history published in the newspaper) proves something is wrong with them?
Let's not forget that it was Coulter, who last year wrote that triple amputee and former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who earned a silver star and a bronze star in Vietnam, lost his limbs while playing with a hand grenade while drinking. Of course, as has been widely reported, Cleland lost his limbs while picking up a hand grenade dropped by a fellow soldier while they were disembarking from a helicopter during a mission. But the truth never matters to smear miesters like Coulter (whose outright lies are listened to by millions several times a week on Fox News).
Of course, this is nothing new for the right. We all remember the Swift Boat ads about John Kerry. The right also went after retired four star general Wes Clark last year when he first entered the Presidential race, (remember the term, coined by Peggy Noonan, 'apple-polishing operator who abused the chain of command,' implying that he didn't deserve his rank).
If nothing else, one would hope that thinking conservatives (and no, that isn't an oxymoron, I know quite a few) would wake up to these kinds of attacks and question whether it even makes sense, just according to the law of averages, that SO MANY liberals who were decorated in the military and therefore spoke with some influence about military matters, in fact didn't deserve the medals, promotions or other honors they were awarded. If that were true, then the system would be rotten to the core (meaning that all medals and promotions would be called into question). The other case is that people like Coulter are flat out liars and not ashamed to say or imply anything about anybody.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Don't put your faith in Bush, my boy.
A couple of days ago, I blogged on the possibility that George W. Bush might make the right call and call for a withdrawal (with whatever cover he needed) of our troops from Iraq.
Obviously, that optimism was misplaced. Many people in the rest of the GOP might see the need to do that, and even some who have held senior positions in his own White House (I named one last night) but, while his speech did discuss a sudden 'improvement' in the Iraqi forces (which the Slate article I linked to predicted would happen) he said nothing that indicates that we will be out of Iraq any time soon.
I guess we can only hope that the American people have the good sense to elect a Congress that will attach some conditions to any more money they vote for the war, and one of those conditions being a withdrawal plan.
I have come to the conclusion that sitting around and waiting for George W. Bush to make the right call on Iraq is like waiting for the devil to announce that hell is full and is now closed to any new souls.
Obviously, that optimism was misplaced. Many people in the rest of the GOP might see the need to do that, and even some who have held senior positions in his own White House (I named one last night) but, while his speech did discuss a sudden 'improvement' in the Iraqi forces (which the Slate article I linked to predicted would happen) he said nothing that indicates that we will be out of Iraq any time soon.
I guess we can only hope that the American people have the good sense to elect a Congress that will attach some conditions to any more money they vote for the war, and one of those conditions being a withdrawal plan.
I have come to the conclusion that sitting around and waiting for George W. Bush to make the right call on Iraq is like waiting for the devil to announce that hell is full and is now closed to any new souls.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
When even your guys question you.
Sure, Republicans and the Bush administration will always say that their critics, those who accuse them of fudging the intelligence on Iraq are on the left, or somehow the political opposition.
OK, then how about a member of their own administration, someone who as recently as this past January was in a position of authority in the Bush White House?
In a BBC Interview, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was formerly a top advisor to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, while focusing on the treatment of prisoners also had this to say:
In the BBC interview, Col Wilkerson also developed his views on whether or not pre-war intelligence was deliberately misused by the White House.
He said that he had previously thought only honest mistakes were made.
But recent revelations about doubts in the intelligence community that appear to have been suppressed in the run-up to the war have made him question this view.
Now, this goes along with Wilkerson's coming to grips that some of the information he got, and gave to Powell, was false. I blogged on Wilkerson and Powell on August 19, Trading honor for a pack of lies and September 10,Righties should pay attention to this Republican. I do. In the August 19 post, I quote Wilkerson (and David Kay) as saying,
How did it happen? Wilkerson gives some hints:
"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'...It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."
David Kay, who was once the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says it even more bluntly: "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator..."
So, Wilkerson, a former high official in the Bush state department, has gone from thinking it was just bad intel to thinking it was deliberately manipulated, scarcely ten months after he left the administration.
And his former boss is becoming more vocal as well. Powell blasted the White House for smearing Murtha last week.
Now, I've said before that if I were put on a spot and forced to name a Republican who I thought was most qualified to serve as President, it would be Colin Powell. And I'm glad he is starting to speak out, not as beholden to the Bush administration, but as an independent and reasonable voice that we should all listen to.
OK, then how about a member of their own administration, someone who as recently as this past January was in a position of authority in the Bush White House?
In a BBC Interview, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was formerly a top advisor to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, while focusing on the treatment of prisoners also had this to say:
In the BBC interview, Col Wilkerson also developed his views on whether or not pre-war intelligence was deliberately misused by the White House.
He said that he had previously thought only honest mistakes were made.
But recent revelations about doubts in the intelligence community that appear to have been suppressed in the run-up to the war have made him question this view.
Now, this goes along with Wilkerson's coming to grips that some of the information he got, and gave to Powell, was false. I blogged on Wilkerson and Powell on August 19, Trading honor for a pack of lies and September 10,Righties should pay attention to this Republican. I do. In the August 19 post, I quote Wilkerson (and David Kay) as saying,
How did it happen? Wilkerson gives some hints:
"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'...It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."
David Kay, who was once the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says it even more bluntly: "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator..."
So, Wilkerson, a former high official in the Bush state department, has gone from thinking it was just bad intel to thinking it was deliberately manipulated, scarcely ten months after he left the administration.
And his former boss is becoming more vocal as well. Powell blasted the White House for smearing Murtha last week.
Now, I've said before that if I were put on a spot and forced to name a Republican who I thought was most qualified to serve as President, it would be Colin Powell. And I'm glad he is starting to speak out, not as beholden to the Bush administration, but as an independent and reasonable voice that we should all listen to.
Some stories, there just isn't much you can say about them.
There are times when something so tragic and stupid happens that it takes my breath away. I would like to find some big political story that goes with this but there really isn't one. Just a really sad story that leaves me shaking my head.
A couple in Miami tried to get their baby daughter to sleep by giving her massive doses of vodka. Her father called 911 after she was unresponsive, but she was prononced dead at the scene.
I can't imagine giving alcohol to a three month old.
Small quantities of alcohol have historically been used to quiet crying babies, but authorities said the amount fed to Makeisha was extreme.
The Broward County Medical Examiner's Office determined that the infant had a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent. The legal limit for drivers in Florida is 0.08 percent.
Former Medical Examiner Dr. Ronald Wright said that for a baby to ingest that much alcohol would be the equivalent of a 160-pound adult drinking 18 beers.
Now I understand that parenting is a learned, not a born skill, and that some people have never learned how to be parents. It took me quite a few years, and there are some days I still question whether I'm any good at it. But common sense would dictate that this would be at best very risky. Even if the baby survived, it's hard to imagine what kind of effects this would cause on her still developing body.
In fact, the autopsy pinpoints the cause of death:
According to a police report, the final autopsy showed that the child had been fed fatal doses of alcohol shortly before her death and her liver indicated severe buildup of excess fat due to alcohol consumption.
I'd like to be angry at the parents, but this story just drained me to the point that I am just shaking my head, at a loss for words.
A couple in Miami tried to get their baby daughter to sleep by giving her massive doses of vodka. Her father called 911 after she was unresponsive, but she was prononced dead at the scene.
I can't imagine giving alcohol to a three month old.
Small quantities of alcohol have historically been used to quiet crying babies, but authorities said the amount fed to Makeisha was extreme.
The Broward County Medical Examiner's Office determined that the infant had a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent. The legal limit for drivers in Florida is 0.08 percent.
Former Medical Examiner Dr. Ronald Wright said that for a baby to ingest that much alcohol would be the equivalent of a 160-pound adult drinking 18 beers.
Now I understand that parenting is a learned, not a born skill, and that some people have never learned how to be parents. It took me quite a few years, and there are some days I still question whether I'm any good at it. But common sense would dictate that this would be at best very risky. Even if the baby survived, it's hard to imagine what kind of effects this would cause on her still developing body.
In fact, the autopsy pinpoints the cause of death:
According to a police report, the final autopsy showed that the child had been fed fatal doses of alcohol shortly before her death and her liver indicated severe buildup of excess fat due to alcohol consumption.
I'd like to be angry at the parents, but this story just drained me to the point that I am just shaking my head, at a loss for words.
Monday, November 28, 2005
It's about time that the White House sets the right course on Iraq-- OUT!
I've always said that George W. Bush was the last one in town to know when he is stubbornly pushing forward on a lost cause. Hence, he was the last one to still be pushing for Social Security Privatization or Harriet Miers, to name a couple of lost causes from earlier this year. But sooner or later he wakes up and gets of the ship before it goes under.
So that is one reason why I really hope the article in Slate today is true:
Brace yourself for a mind-bog of sheer cynicism. The discombobulation begins Wednesday, when President George W. Bush is expected to proclaim, in a major speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, that the Iraqi security forces—which only a few months ago were said to have just one battalion capable of fighting on its own—have suddenly made uncanny progress in combat readiness. Expect soon after (if not during the speech itself) the thing that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, just this month, denounced as near-treason—a timetable for withdrawal of American troops.
Hey, if it gets us out of there, then that's just fine with me. We don't need to be pouring any more American lives and dollars down this rathole. Even the Pentagon can see that. And if George Bush wants to take credit for whatever happens in Iraq, that is fine with me too. I've always given Richard Nixon credit for getting us out of Vietnam (whatever other transgressions the man may committed, he deserves credit for being the one with the good enough sense to pull the plug on that war.) Now granted, Nixon inherited a war and Bush would be getting us out of a war that he started, but right now that is still good enough for me.
President Bush would declare his mission complete and begin to pull out—this, despite his public pledge to "stay the course" until the insurgents were defeated.
This theory explains Bush's insistence that the Iraqis draft and ratify the constitution on schedule—even though the rush resulted in a seriously flawed document that's more likely to fracture the country than to unite it. For if the pullout can get under way in the opening weeks of 2006, then the war might be nullified as an issue by the time of our own elections.
Well, there are benefits to our political system. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to schedule national elections every two years so if someone goes too far off the deep end against the will of the public then political pressure will be enough to make them change their direction. Or, as the New York Times put it in discussing the same story,
But in private conversations, American officials are beginning to acknowledge that a judgment about when withdrawals can begin is driven by two political calendars - one in Iraq and one here
Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton knew what they were doing.
UPDATE: Word out today is that the President won't announce a pullout tomorrow, although he will set parameters that will lead to one by next year whether the insurgents are gone or not. Still an improvement and a concession to reality on his part, but not as good as it looked at first.
UPDATE #2 (11/30): The President gave his speech today, and while he did say that American troops would be taken out of cities (the sites of most encounters) he did not say that a withdrawal was forthcoming. My optimism was premature, but I do believe that by next year, political pressure will cause us to begin to get out.
So that is one reason why I really hope the article in Slate today is true:
Brace yourself for a mind-bog of sheer cynicism. The discombobulation begins Wednesday, when President George W. Bush is expected to proclaim, in a major speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, that the Iraqi security forces—which only a few months ago were said to have just one battalion capable of fighting on its own—have suddenly made uncanny progress in combat readiness. Expect soon after (if not during the speech itself) the thing that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, just this month, denounced as near-treason—a timetable for withdrawal of American troops.
Hey, if it gets us out of there, then that's just fine with me. We don't need to be pouring any more American lives and dollars down this rathole. Even the Pentagon can see that. And if George Bush wants to take credit for whatever happens in Iraq, that is fine with me too. I've always given Richard Nixon credit for getting us out of Vietnam (whatever other transgressions the man may committed, he deserves credit for being the one with the good enough sense to pull the plug on that war.) Now granted, Nixon inherited a war and Bush would be getting us out of a war that he started, but right now that is still good enough for me.
President Bush would declare his mission complete and begin to pull out—this, despite his public pledge to "stay the course" until the insurgents were defeated.
This theory explains Bush's insistence that the Iraqis draft and ratify the constitution on schedule—even though the rush resulted in a seriously flawed document that's more likely to fracture the country than to unite it. For if the pullout can get under way in the opening weeks of 2006, then the war might be nullified as an issue by the time of our own elections.
Well, there are benefits to our political system. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to schedule national elections every two years so if someone goes too far off the deep end against the will of the public then political pressure will be enough to make them change their direction. Or, as the New York Times put it in discussing the same story,
But in private conversations, American officials are beginning to acknowledge that a judgment about when withdrawals can begin is driven by two political calendars - one in Iraq and one here
Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton knew what they were doing.
UPDATE: Word out today is that the President won't announce a pullout tomorrow, although he will set parameters that will lead to one by next year whether the insurgents are gone or not. Still an improvement and a concession to reality on his part, but not as good as it looked at first.
UPDATE #2 (11/30): The President gave his speech today, and while he did say that American troops would be taken out of cities (the sites of most encounters) he did not say that a withdrawal was forthcoming. My optimism was premature, but I do believe that by next year, political pressure will cause us to begin to get out.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
The least of these, my brethren
I read a very good post on Girl on the Blog's blog about a destitute veteran. One of those people who live among us who people ignore, or worse.
I'd also read an article while websurfing earlier today about how some suburban communities and, just today, hospitals are dumping homeless patients into skid row, an area of LA which is rife with drugs, alcoholism and other problems, not the least of which are allegations that hundreds of homeless people, mostly blacks, disappeared during the recent UCLA cadaver scandal and ended up as involuntary cadavers and organ donors. Then, the cadavers that were 'purchased' by UCLA medical school from a trafficer in bodies, were subsequently (and illegally) hacked apart before being used in the medical school for organs to be then sold to local hospitals.
During the "UCLA's Cadaver Scandal" hundreds of homeless persons, mostly Blacks, were mysteriously disappearing from the Los Angeles downtown "Skid Row" area that is not very far from UCLA
In light of this, the behavior of the hospitals, sending patients, some of whom can barely walk, to an area where it was not so long ago that many of them were apparently getting murdered and their organs returned to the hospital as a form of 'payment,' is particularly disturbing.
Now, in the United States, while there were always a few hobos who chose to remain homeless, they were generally single men, and in small numbers. However a myth grew up around them that was used to justify slashing housing funds beginning in the 1980's. It was that ALL homeless were that way 'by choice' (which may have been very nearly true when Federal funds for housing for the destitute peaked in the 1970's.) I've talked to a number of homeless or formerly homeless people myself and I can tell you that very few want to always remain homeless. Further, there are now thousands of homeless children, living with their families on the streets of America. How can a child 'choose' to be homeless? Of course, if I (a homeowner) forced my kids to sleep out in the yard on a piece of cardboard every night, I would quite rightly be accused of child abuse and have my kids collected by CPS. But if we treat kids this way as a society, then it is not considered child abuse. Further, I would consider it beneath what America can stand for if we allow ANY American, adult or child, to live on the street simply because they don't have the means to pay for shelter. There are of course, privately run homeless shelters, but as we are continually reminded, especially at this time of year, there are just plain not enough places in the shelters for all of them. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that in the 1980's we closed down a lot of mental institutions (a flawed alliance between conservatives who didn't want to continue funding them and liberals who thought it was a terrible place to keep people locked up-- even though with the benefit of hindsight, that was a better place for people who had problems that prevented them from functioning in society than simply sending them out into the world to make their way; Darn that Louise Fletcher for doing such a perfect job playing Nurse Ratched). What it does show is that there is more need for this than there are private donations (and I am saying that as a person who has in the past donated to some of these same shelters). The whole myth of people CHOOSING to be homeless is a cop-out. The dehumanizing of homeless people, by chasing them from town to town to town through the use of local ordinances (out of sight, out of mind) only makes this worse. I have no problem with privately operated shelters and nonprofits being PART of the solution, but if it is too big for that then government has to be involved.
But it isn't just the homeless. What of those who may have a roof over their head, thanks to family, or because they have a subsistence level job- just enough to pay for an apartment (though heating it this year may be problematical)? With the last round of budget cuts they may not be there very much longer. Katrina exposed the poverty that is present in many inner cities. People may even be homeowners, of an old house that has been in the family for years, but without decent jobs, that is about all they have. We have to tackle this with a mixture of strategies. And it has to be done on a large scale-- Giving a poor person a sandwich will work on an individual scale, but it will require a significant investment of federal funds to actually solve the underlying problem, and will have to include funds for economic development and employment training (if Republicans really believed their old saw about 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime' they wouldn't be so quick to cut funds for job training programs.)
There are, of course, people with serious drug problems. We have to rethink our strategy towards drugs, and focus less on prison (where about half of prisoners are there due to drug offenses, and it still runs rampant in society) to more effective solutions-- ranging from simple common sense (like the Oklahoma law that requires that cold tablets that are the precursor to meth be stored in a locked cabinet and signed for in small amounts at a time) to more controversial but perhaps overdue solutions like the legalization of marijuana so we can focus our resources on 1) preventing the manufacture, sale and transport of harder drugs and 2) education towards young people about drugs (and alcohol) as we have with tobacco (and we need to be specific-- every time there is a new drug, those who push it claim it is 'safe,' which is invariably a lie). And we have to include education about alcohol. In my own community (which is a dry town) we don't have a problem with alcoholic vagrants, but drive ten miles or twenty miles away (depends which direction you are going) you will find many, many of them sleeping on sidewalks, panhandling people in parking lots and in convenience stores spending whatever they have panhandled on large bottles of liquor. Now, I don't believe that education in schools about the effects of alcohol, similar to what we do with tobacco, will solve this problem by itself (most of them are adults well out of school anyway) but we have to look at funding alcohol intervention programs and make AA and other programs more readily available. Funding these programs with taxes on marijuana and increased taxes on alcohol would mean that we wouldn't have to go into debt to do it. Additionally, we should look at alcohol abuse (as opposed to use) in homes as seriously as we look at drug abuse, so that children of adult alcoholics are given special attention and counseling to prevent them from continuing the cycle. The rampage yesterday by black men in suits this week at an Oakland liquor store may not be a method I agree with, but their frustration over what alcohol is doing in their community (and it is doing the same to native American communities) has to be addressed. We know that Prohibition won't work, but giving people effective alternatives now and hope for a better future is one of the best weapons we do have.
Another group that we often overlook are former convicts. Now, I have no problem with tough sentencing laws, but once someone has served their sentence, if we continue to punish and make life difficult for them (I blogged on this on October 15) by slashing funding for rehabilitation programs and transition programs, making it difficult for them to obtain employment and denying them their basic rights of citizenship, aren't we in effect pushing them towards the one avenue of making a living--crime-- that they don't need special training or a resume to go back to? The worst that happens to them in that case is that they go back to prison, but since they have food and a roof in prison, it is better in some ways than unemployment.
Now we have by now a great number of those who we seem to ignore as a society. But they are always with us, and a measure in the end of what kind of a society we are is how we treat all of these people.
I'd also read an article while websurfing earlier today about how some suburban communities and, just today, hospitals are dumping homeless patients into skid row, an area of LA which is rife with drugs, alcoholism and other problems, not the least of which are allegations that hundreds of homeless people, mostly blacks, disappeared during the recent UCLA cadaver scandal and ended up as involuntary cadavers and organ donors. Then, the cadavers that were 'purchased' by UCLA medical school from a trafficer in bodies, were subsequently (and illegally) hacked apart before being used in the medical school for organs to be then sold to local hospitals.
During the "UCLA's Cadaver Scandal" hundreds of homeless persons, mostly Blacks, were mysteriously disappearing from the Los Angeles downtown "Skid Row" area that is not very far from UCLA
In light of this, the behavior of the hospitals, sending patients, some of whom can barely walk, to an area where it was not so long ago that many of them were apparently getting murdered and their organs returned to the hospital as a form of 'payment,' is particularly disturbing.
Now, in the United States, while there were always a few hobos who chose to remain homeless, they were generally single men, and in small numbers. However a myth grew up around them that was used to justify slashing housing funds beginning in the 1980's. It was that ALL homeless were that way 'by choice' (which may have been very nearly true when Federal funds for housing for the destitute peaked in the 1970's.) I've talked to a number of homeless or formerly homeless people myself and I can tell you that very few want to always remain homeless. Further, there are now thousands of homeless children, living with their families on the streets of America. How can a child 'choose' to be homeless? Of course, if I (a homeowner) forced my kids to sleep out in the yard on a piece of cardboard every night, I would quite rightly be accused of child abuse and have my kids collected by CPS. But if we treat kids this way as a society, then it is not considered child abuse. Further, I would consider it beneath what America can stand for if we allow ANY American, adult or child, to live on the street simply because they don't have the means to pay for shelter. There are of course, privately run homeless shelters, but as we are continually reminded, especially at this time of year, there are just plain not enough places in the shelters for all of them. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that in the 1980's we closed down a lot of mental institutions (a flawed alliance between conservatives who didn't want to continue funding them and liberals who thought it was a terrible place to keep people locked up-- even though with the benefit of hindsight, that was a better place for people who had problems that prevented them from functioning in society than simply sending them out into the world to make their way; Darn that Louise Fletcher for doing such a perfect job playing Nurse Ratched). What it does show is that there is more need for this than there are private donations (and I am saying that as a person who has in the past donated to some of these same shelters). The whole myth of people CHOOSING to be homeless is a cop-out. The dehumanizing of homeless people, by chasing them from town to town to town through the use of local ordinances (out of sight, out of mind) only makes this worse. I have no problem with privately operated shelters and nonprofits being PART of the solution, but if it is too big for that then government has to be involved.
But it isn't just the homeless. What of those who may have a roof over their head, thanks to family, or because they have a subsistence level job- just enough to pay for an apartment (though heating it this year may be problematical)? With the last round of budget cuts they may not be there very much longer. Katrina exposed the poverty that is present in many inner cities. People may even be homeowners, of an old house that has been in the family for years, but without decent jobs, that is about all they have. We have to tackle this with a mixture of strategies. And it has to be done on a large scale-- Giving a poor person a sandwich will work on an individual scale, but it will require a significant investment of federal funds to actually solve the underlying problem, and will have to include funds for economic development and employment training (if Republicans really believed their old saw about 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime' they wouldn't be so quick to cut funds for job training programs.)
There are, of course, people with serious drug problems. We have to rethink our strategy towards drugs, and focus less on prison (where about half of prisoners are there due to drug offenses, and it still runs rampant in society) to more effective solutions-- ranging from simple common sense (like the Oklahoma law that requires that cold tablets that are the precursor to meth be stored in a locked cabinet and signed for in small amounts at a time) to more controversial but perhaps overdue solutions like the legalization of marijuana so we can focus our resources on 1) preventing the manufacture, sale and transport of harder drugs and 2) education towards young people about drugs (and alcohol) as we have with tobacco (and we need to be specific-- every time there is a new drug, those who push it claim it is 'safe,' which is invariably a lie). And we have to include education about alcohol. In my own community (which is a dry town) we don't have a problem with alcoholic vagrants, but drive ten miles or twenty miles away (depends which direction you are going) you will find many, many of them sleeping on sidewalks, panhandling people in parking lots and in convenience stores spending whatever they have panhandled on large bottles of liquor. Now, I don't believe that education in schools about the effects of alcohol, similar to what we do with tobacco, will solve this problem by itself (most of them are adults well out of school anyway) but we have to look at funding alcohol intervention programs and make AA and other programs more readily available. Funding these programs with taxes on marijuana and increased taxes on alcohol would mean that we wouldn't have to go into debt to do it. Additionally, we should look at alcohol abuse (as opposed to use) in homes as seriously as we look at drug abuse, so that children of adult alcoholics are given special attention and counseling to prevent them from continuing the cycle. The rampage yesterday by black men in suits this week at an Oakland liquor store may not be a method I agree with, but their frustration over what alcohol is doing in their community (and it is doing the same to native American communities) has to be addressed. We know that Prohibition won't work, but giving people effective alternatives now and hope for a better future is one of the best weapons we do have.
Another group that we often overlook are former convicts. Now, I have no problem with tough sentencing laws, but once someone has served their sentence, if we continue to punish and make life difficult for them (I blogged on this on October 15) by slashing funding for rehabilitation programs and transition programs, making it difficult for them to obtain employment and denying them their basic rights of citizenship, aren't we in effect pushing them towards the one avenue of making a living--crime-- that they don't need special training or a resume to go back to? The worst that happens to them in that case is that they go back to prison, but since they have food and a roof in prison, it is better in some ways than unemployment.
Now we have by now a great number of those who we seem to ignore as a society. But they are always with us, and a measure in the end of what kind of a society we are is how we treat all of these people.
Any excuse will be good enough, let's get out now.
Today, the President's radio address said that we need to stay in Iraq because of the 2,100 casualties we have sustained. That is the worst reason yet. If they were sent there chasing WMD's that didn't exist, and are now fighting terrorists who wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaded the country, and we have helped Iran establish the fundamentalist Islamic government in Iraq that they fought to create for a decade in the 1980's but failed to create, saying that we need to lose more soldiers because of those who have already died is like sending your horse into quicksand to try and rescue your ox. And as often as the mission has changed, it's hard to know what the 'course' is, but the President insists we have to 'stay it' anyway, whatever it is.
And there is, in fact, some good news from Iraq today. According to breaking news, apparently US forces killed al-Zarqawi's number 2 during a raid in Iraq last month.
Now, this is a good thing. Zarqawi and the rest of his organization are murdering thugs and anytime our soldiers are successful against them, that is a good thing (although, like Patrick McGoohan's character in the 1960's show, 'prisoner,' it seems that we have now captured or killed at least a half dozen 'number 2's' and one wonders how many number 2's we will go through before we get to number 1).
Now, hopefully we will soon get Zarqawi or have an elected government or achieve someother kind of a success so that President Bush can declare victory and GET OUT ! It is accurate to point out that had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, no one would ever have heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the organization he put together would not exist at all, nor would all the people they have recruited in Iraq (as I pointed out a few days ago). Our presence there helps them as much as it hinders them, so the sooner the President sees this and finds an excuse to leave (and any excuse is good enough) the better.
And there is, in fact, some good news from Iraq today. According to breaking news, apparently US forces killed al-Zarqawi's number 2 during a raid in Iraq last month.
Now, this is a good thing. Zarqawi and the rest of his organization are murdering thugs and anytime our soldiers are successful against them, that is a good thing (although, like Patrick McGoohan's character in the 1960's show, 'prisoner,' it seems that we have now captured or killed at least a half dozen 'number 2's' and one wonders how many number 2's we will go through before we get to number 1).
Now, hopefully we will soon get Zarqawi or have an elected government or achieve someother kind of a success so that President Bush can declare victory and GET OUT ! It is accurate to point out that had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, no one would ever have heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the organization he put together would not exist at all, nor would all the people they have recruited in Iraq (as I pointed out a few days ago). Our presence there helps them as much as it hinders them, so the sooner the President sees this and finds an excuse to leave (and any excuse is good enough) the better.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Another price for not having a national healthcare plan
Last week, General Motors Corporation announced massive layoffs and restructuring, with its intention to close or significantly downsize seventeen plants (fourteen in the United States) and lay off over 30,000 workers. GM cited a slump in sales combined with the rapidly increasing cost of providing healthcare under a union negotiated contract for employees and their families, as well as the cost of the company pension fund which pays retirees under another union negotiated contract.
Critics on both the right and the left have missed the point though.
Critics on the left have criticized GM for stupid planning. Even as late as this fall, as fuel prices soared and GM sales, particularly of SUV's, fell through the floor, GM executives were talking at trade shows about building bigger SUV's. They can't take a hint from the fact that Toyota sales have skyrocketed during the same time period. Toyota, with some justification, is considered to build more fuel efficient vehicles. Now, this is somewhat of an exaggeration as well, since Toyotas are definitely better than comparable American cars for fuel mileage, but not by a huge amount, and Toyota is still building its own mammoth gas guzzling SUV, the Sequoia. Toyota executives read the changing market much better though and began cutting back on production of the Sequoia last year and produced more of their smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Toyota also has a well deserved reputation for quality (which I can attest to, having owned two Toyotas which I collectively drove for nearly half a million miles). However, of American cars, GM vehicles hold their own in quality compared to Fords and Chryslers, and again aren't that far below Toyotas. So while these criticisms of GM are justified, there is something more.
Critics on the right are quick to point fingers at the union contracts negotiated between GM and the United Auto Workers (UAW), and claim that the union contracts tied GM's hands, cost it billions of dollars at a time when GM could ill afford the expense, and have forced it to make this decision. And it is true, that under the terms of the contracts, even when they do close the plants, part of the contract says that GM will still continue to pay the laid off workers a large portion of their salaries. And it is true that health care costs have risen as much for GM workers as they have nationally, at a double digit rate of increase yearly for over a decade. At the same time, the UAW is right to point out that they have worked with GM on this problem. In fact, only two weeks ago, UAW workers ratified a contract over health care benefits that involved substantial givebacks (especially in the area of retiree healthcare). The union negotiated this in good faith with the belief it would protect the jobs of workers, and it is hard to believe that GM (which will now benefit from the newly ratified agreement even while it closes the plants) didn't know two weeks ago what they knew one week ago about the financial problems that would lead them to make this week's announcement. Quite plainly, GM knew they were going to shut the plants down anyway and they negotiated this contract in bad faith. Also, the UAW is right to criticize the 'golden parachute' payments given to executives when they are cutting employee benefits. For example, GM's major parts supplier, Delphi, recently declared bankrupcty in order to try and end their employee pension plan and spend the money that has been deposited into it to pay creditors (which worked for United Airlines, so now everyone is trying to do it). But before filing bankrupcty, Delphi found the money to pay some of its top executives millions of dollars in bonuses.
So if the left doesn't have the whole story, and the right doesn't have the whole story, then why IS General Motors in such dire straights, especially compared to foreign auto makers (not just Toyota)? For that matter, Ford is limping along as well, hamstrung in similar ways, and Chrysler has had a mild resurgence, and that only since being absorbed by Daimler-Benz, a German company.
It doesn't take a big look to figure that out. Remember back about fifteen years ago when the complaint was that foreign governments were 'subsidizing' their auto manufacturers? At the time, people were using it as an excuse for everything from tariffs to taking a hard line in union negotiations. Well, it turns out that the 'subsidies' that these people were talking about were 1) the national health care systems in those countries (meaning that employers there don't have to provide health insurance), and 2) the national retirement systems there (unlike Social Security, the retirement systems in many industrialized countries is designed to directly pay retirees 100% of their retirement benefits, meaning there is no corporate pension plan). True, companies make contributions towards both the national health plan and the national retirement plan. But with other countries much more successful with their regulated approach than we have been with our 'laissez-faire' approach to holding down healthcare costs, (as reflected in the link, we spent 15.3% of our GDP on health care in 2003 with a high rate of growth, while countries with national health care systems spend 10% or less with low growth rates) the total in taxes they pay for this is far less than what employers and workers collectively pay in America (plus we still pay taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, to cover a couple of high risk groups which in those countries are just part of the same system as everyone else). Those who exclusively blame either GM management OR the unions (or even both together) are missing the point, that they are fighting over how to allocate costs that their competition, simply put, doesn't have to pay. I read somewhere that health care costs add $1,500 to the price of every new GM vehicle (that may or may not be an accurate number, but the point is made). Manufacturers in other industrialized countries have to deal with unions, too, but negotiations are a lot simpler if health care and retirement aren't even on the table to be negotiated. Plus, they don't have to hire anyone to administer the plans. So, if GM prices its vehicles competitively with other manufacturers who make their vehicles elsewhere, then that is money that comes directly out of their profit margin when they do sell a vehicle.
What this means, is that American corporations are at a competitive disadvantage precisely because we DON'T have a national health care system. And corporate pension plans, as we now see, have become simply sand castles, to be built up and then washed away when a big wave of red ink hits. And until we figure this out, then it is certain that we will continue to lose sales to foreign competitors (to say nothing of jobs; GM and other companies have moved some factories to Canada, Korea and other countries where they get to take advantage of those countries national healthcare systems-- and their American plants took the brunt of GM's announcment last week; No operations outside of North America were impacted, and the impact in Canada was limited to the effects that the Oshawa #1 plant will be reduced from three shifts to two in 2006 and the Oshawa #2 plant will cease production two years later, as well as a parts manufacturer in St. Catherines).
Critics on both the right and the left have missed the point though.
Critics on the left have criticized GM for stupid planning. Even as late as this fall, as fuel prices soared and GM sales, particularly of SUV's, fell through the floor, GM executives were talking at trade shows about building bigger SUV's. They can't take a hint from the fact that Toyota sales have skyrocketed during the same time period. Toyota, with some justification, is considered to build more fuel efficient vehicles. Now, this is somewhat of an exaggeration as well, since Toyotas are definitely better than comparable American cars for fuel mileage, but not by a huge amount, and Toyota is still building its own mammoth gas guzzling SUV, the Sequoia. Toyota executives read the changing market much better though and began cutting back on production of the Sequoia last year and produced more of their smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Toyota also has a well deserved reputation for quality (which I can attest to, having owned two Toyotas which I collectively drove for nearly half a million miles). However, of American cars, GM vehicles hold their own in quality compared to Fords and Chryslers, and again aren't that far below Toyotas. So while these criticisms of GM are justified, there is something more.
Critics on the right are quick to point fingers at the union contracts negotiated between GM and the United Auto Workers (UAW), and claim that the union contracts tied GM's hands, cost it billions of dollars at a time when GM could ill afford the expense, and have forced it to make this decision. And it is true, that under the terms of the contracts, even when they do close the plants, part of the contract says that GM will still continue to pay the laid off workers a large portion of their salaries. And it is true that health care costs have risen as much for GM workers as they have nationally, at a double digit rate of increase yearly for over a decade. At the same time, the UAW is right to point out that they have worked with GM on this problem. In fact, only two weeks ago, UAW workers ratified a contract over health care benefits that involved substantial givebacks (especially in the area of retiree healthcare). The union negotiated this in good faith with the belief it would protect the jobs of workers, and it is hard to believe that GM (which will now benefit from the newly ratified agreement even while it closes the plants) didn't know two weeks ago what they knew one week ago about the financial problems that would lead them to make this week's announcement. Quite plainly, GM knew they were going to shut the plants down anyway and they negotiated this contract in bad faith. Also, the UAW is right to criticize the 'golden parachute' payments given to executives when they are cutting employee benefits. For example, GM's major parts supplier, Delphi, recently declared bankrupcty in order to try and end their employee pension plan and spend the money that has been deposited into it to pay creditors (which worked for United Airlines, so now everyone is trying to do it). But before filing bankrupcty, Delphi found the money to pay some of its top executives millions of dollars in bonuses.
So if the left doesn't have the whole story, and the right doesn't have the whole story, then why IS General Motors in such dire straights, especially compared to foreign auto makers (not just Toyota)? For that matter, Ford is limping along as well, hamstrung in similar ways, and Chrysler has had a mild resurgence, and that only since being absorbed by Daimler-Benz, a German company.
It doesn't take a big look to figure that out. Remember back about fifteen years ago when the complaint was that foreign governments were 'subsidizing' their auto manufacturers? At the time, people were using it as an excuse for everything from tariffs to taking a hard line in union negotiations. Well, it turns out that the 'subsidies' that these people were talking about were 1) the national health care systems in those countries (meaning that employers there don't have to provide health insurance), and 2) the national retirement systems there (unlike Social Security, the retirement systems in many industrialized countries is designed to directly pay retirees 100% of their retirement benefits, meaning there is no corporate pension plan). True, companies make contributions towards both the national health plan and the national retirement plan. But with other countries much more successful with their regulated approach than we have been with our 'laissez-faire' approach to holding down healthcare costs, (as reflected in the link, we spent 15.3% of our GDP on health care in 2003 with a high rate of growth, while countries with national health care systems spend 10% or less with low growth rates) the total in taxes they pay for this is far less than what employers and workers collectively pay in America (plus we still pay taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, to cover a couple of high risk groups which in those countries are just part of the same system as everyone else). Those who exclusively blame either GM management OR the unions (or even both together) are missing the point, that they are fighting over how to allocate costs that their competition, simply put, doesn't have to pay. I read somewhere that health care costs add $1,500 to the price of every new GM vehicle (that may or may not be an accurate number, but the point is made). Manufacturers in other industrialized countries have to deal with unions, too, but negotiations are a lot simpler if health care and retirement aren't even on the table to be negotiated. Plus, they don't have to hire anyone to administer the plans. So, if GM prices its vehicles competitively with other manufacturers who make their vehicles elsewhere, then that is money that comes directly out of their profit margin when they do sell a vehicle.
What this means, is that American corporations are at a competitive disadvantage precisely because we DON'T have a national health care system. And corporate pension plans, as we now see, have become simply sand castles, to be built up and then washed away when a big wave of red ink hits. And until we figure this out, then it is certain that we will continue to lose sales to foreign competitors (to say nothing of jobs; GM and other companies have moved some factories to Canada, Korea and other countries where they get to take advantage of those countries national healthcare systems-- and their American plants took the brunt of GM's announcment last week; No operations outside of North America were impacted, and the impact in Canada was limited to the effects that the Oshawa #1 plant will be reduced from three shifts to two in 2006 and the Oshawa #2 plant will cease production two years later, as well as a parts manufacturer in St. Catherines).
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Things to be Thankful For.
On this Thanksgiving day, it is appropriate to step back from the daily partisan battles and remember some of the things that we can all be thankful for.
I am thankful for this earth. Whatever disagreements we all may have about how we are treating it, or how best to manage its resources, it is a miracle in itself, and I am grateful to live in such a wonderful place.
I am thankful for the United States of America. Although I have been very critical of some of the decisions made by our leaders, let's remember that because of the better nation that the Founding Fathers created, I have that right, and this blog can criticize the government all we want, and still be here. And whatever differences we may have about immigration, we can all be grateful that we still live in a nation where people still want to come to, instead of one they want to leave.
I am thankful for the Constitution of the United States of America. The founding fathers could not have foreseen every possible circumstance of life today, but it remains an inspired document that serves as a strong and firm foundation for our Republic. I am thankful that the founding fathers recognized that changing circumstances would require it to be amended from time to time and included a process for doing that.
I am thankful for the right to choose our leaders. Even when people choose leaders I may not personally agree with, I am grateful for the right to vote, and for the fact that we undergo a peaceful transition of power on a regular basis, and don't need to worry about gunmen battling it out in the street about who will lead what part of the land.
I am thankful that I have the right to go to my church on Sunday, but also that no one forces me to or penalizes me if I don't.
I am thankful for my wife.
I am thankful for my family. I love them all dearly, and I am thankful I don't live in a nation where children are taken away from their parents without cause.
I am thankful that my children (all girls) have the right to attend kindergarten, elementary school and high school.
I am thankful for the internet. This wonderful 'information superhighway' (to cop the term that Al Gore used in 1992) means that no matter how much control a few people get over the broadcast media, no one can competely prevent any story from getting out there.
I am thankful for the American people. Whatever our failings as a people and whatever the failings of our elected leaders, I have found that, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed during his travels through America when it was still a young nation, the American people are collectively the most generous in the world. I have lived in New Mexico, Montana, Texas and Arizona, and I have met some really wonderful people in all of those places.
I am thankful for these gifts and many others I have gotten from God. And, I am grateful that He shares them even with people who don't believe in him.
There are a lot of things to be thankful for.
I am thankful for this earth. Whatever disagreements we all may have about how we are treating it, or how best to manage its resources, it is a miracle in itself, and I am grateful to live in such a wonderful place.
I am thankful for the United States of America. Although I have been very critical of some of the decisions made by our leaders, let's remember that because of the better nation that the Founding Fathers created, I have that right, and this blog can criticize the government all we want, and still be here. And whatever differences we may have about immigration, we can all be grateful that we still live in a nation where people still want to come to, instead of one they want to leave.
I am thankful for the Constitution of the United States of America. The founding fathers could not have foreseen every possible circumstance of life today, but it remains an inspired document that serves as a strong and firm foundation for our Republic. I am thankful that the founding fathers recognized that changing circumstances would require it to be amended from time to time and included a process for doing that.
I am thankful for the right to choose our leaders. Even when people choose leaders I may not personally agree with, I am grateful for the right to vote, and for the fact that we undergo a peaceful transition of power on a regular basis, and don't need to worry about gunmen battling it out in the street about who will lead what part of the land.
I am thankful that I have the right to go to my church on Sunday, but also that no one forces me to or penalizes me if I don't.
I am thankful for my wife.
I am thankful for my family. I love them all dearly, and I am thankful I don't live in a nation where children are taken away from their parents without cause.
I am thankful that my children (all girls) have the right to attend kindergarten, elementary school and high school.
I am thankful for the internet. This wonderful 'information superhighway' (to cop the term that Al Gore used in 1992) means that no matter how much control a few people get over the broadcast media, no one can competely prevent any story from getting out there.
I am thankful for the American people. Whatever our failings as a people and whatever the failings of our elected leaders, I have found that, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed during his travels through America when it was still a young nation, the American people are collectively the most generous in the world. I have lived in New Mexico, Montana, Texas and Arizona, and I have met some really wonderful people in all of those places.
I am thankful for these gifts and many others I have gotten from God. And, I am grateful that He shares them even with people who don't believe in him.
There are a lot of things to be thankful for.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Jose Padilla charged with conspiracy, aiding terrorists.
So this week, after holding him for three years with no charges being filed, the Government finally filed charges against Jose Padilla (I would say, 'dirty bomb' suspect Jose Padilla, but none of the charges involves conspiring to use a 'dirty bomb,' a conventional bomb surrounded by radioactive materials designed to spread radiation.) The charges were conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes overseas, and providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy. If he is convicted on all counts, he could get life in prison.
Now, if Mr. Padilla is guilty of these charges, then he certainly needs to be put in prison for life.
But the issue regarding Mr. Padilla is not what he may have done or may not have done-- that will come out in court. The issue is that now, three years later, they file charges. The issue is that now that they have set a precedent that a U.S. citizen (as he is) can be held indefinitely with no charges being filed, who will be the next person held indefinitely. And based on what evidence.
I blogged about this on September 9, after Judge Michael Luttig had reversed a lower court decision and allowed the government to continue to hold Padilla indefinitely without filing charges.
At the time, I quoted Mr. Padilla's laywer, who succinctly summed up what the ruling meant:
Padilla's lawyer, Andrew Patel, responded by saying, "It's a matter of how paranoid you are... What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail — without a hearing (or) a trial."
This also brings up a couple of questions:
1. What happened to the 'dirty bomb' charge, the one which was used to scare everyone into supporting holding Mr. Padilla indefinitely? Apparently, there was not enough evidence to charge him with that one. So, they held him for three years, claiming he was planning something there was not enough evidence to file charges with. If lack of evidence is good enough, then in theory all it becomes necessary to do is to accuse someone of a crime, and then arrest them and hold them for years.
2. Why now? After all, Judge Luttig overturned the lower court ruling and ruled in the administration's favor, so for the moment they don't have to file anything. True, but perhaps that is why now. The precedent has been set, and since Mr. Padilla's lawyer had indicated that he was planning to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, which would be problematical (and a Supreme Court decision that went against them would permanently prevent them from doing this), so perhaps George Bush and Alberto Gonzales simply decided to call the game while they are ahead.
And of course, IF it turns out that Mr. Padilla is not guilty of what he is charged with, then the Bush admistration will face some very hard questions.
Now, if Mr. Padilla is guilty of these charges, then he certainly needs to be put in prison for life.
But the issue regarding Mr. Padilla is not what he may have done or may not have done-- that will come out in court. The issue is that now, three years later, they file charges. The issue is that now that they have set a precedent that a U.S. citizen (as he is) can be held indefinitely with no charges being filed, who will be the next person held indefinitely. And based on what evidence.
I blogged about this on September 9, after Judge Michael Luttig had reversed a lower court decision and allowed the government to continue to hold Padilla indefinitely without filing charges.
At the time, I quoted Mr. Padilla's laywer, who succinctly summed up what the ruling meant:
Padilla's lawyer, Andrew Patel, responded by saying, "It's a matter of how paranoid you are... What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail — without a hearing (or) a trial."
This also brings up a couple of questions:
1. What happened to the 'dirty bomb' charge, the one which was used to scare everyone into supporting holding Mr. Padilla indefinitely? Apparently, there was not enough evidence to charge him with that one. So, they held him for three years, claiming he was planning something there was not enough evidence to file charges with. If lack of evidence is good enough, then in theory all it becomes necessary to do is to accuse someone of a crime, and then arrest them and hold them for years.
2. Why now? After all, Judge Luttig overturned the lower court ruling and ruled in the administration's favor, so for the moment they don't have to file anything. True, but perhaps that is why now. The precedent has been set, and since Mr. Padilla's lawyer had indicated that he was planning to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, which would be problematical (and a Supreme Court decision that went against them would permanently prevent them from doing this), so perhaps George Bush and Alberto Gonzales simply decided to call the game while they are ahead.
And of course, IF it turns out that Mr. Padilla is not guilty of what he is charged with, then the Bush admistration will face some very hard questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
