Greg Hartnett

In the debate over Social Security, President Bush’s handlers have already won some victories, at least in the short term.

Bush and Karl Rove, his deputy chief of staff, have succeeded in convincing most of the US population, including more than two-thirds of college students, that there is a serious problem with Social Security, which opens the way for considering the administration’s program of private accounts instead of relying on the public pension system. The public has been frightened, much as it was by the imminent threat of Sadaam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. The pressure on politicians is rising as leaders in the US House of Representatives hope to draft Social Security legislation by next month (June 2005).

For perspective, perhaps it should be noted that Social Security is one of the least generous public pension systems among advanced countries, according to a new report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The Bush administration wants to “reform” Social Security - meaning dismantle it. A huge government-media propaganda campaign has concocted a “fiscal crisis” that is mostly imaginary. If some problem does arise in the distant future, it could be overcome by trivial measures, such as raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax.

The official story is that the baby boomers are going to impose a greater burden on the system because the number of working people relative to the elderly will decline, which is true. But what happened to the baby boomers when they were zero to twenty? Weren’t working people taking care of them? And it was a much poorer society then.

In the 1960s the demographics caused a problem but hardly a crisis. The bulge was met by a big increase in expenditures in schools and other facilities for children. The problem wasn’t huge when the baby boomers were zero to twenty, so why when they’re seventy to ninety?

The relevant number is what’s called the dependency ratio of working people to population. That ratio reached its lowest point in 1965. It won’t reach that point again until 2080, according to Social Security Administration figures. Projections that far ahead are meaningless.

Furthermore, any fiscal problem that might arise in caring for the elderly boomers has already been paid for, by the payroll tax rise of 1983, designed for this purpose. And by the time the last boomer has died, the society will be far richer, with each worker producing far greater wealth.

In other words, we’re already past that crisis. Anything that comes is just a matter of one or another kind of adjustment.

Meanwhile a very real fiscal crisis is looming: namely medical care. The United States has one of the most inefficient systems in the industrialized world, with per capita costs far higher than other nations and among the worst health outcomes. The system is privatized, one reason why it’s so inefficient, with administrative costs far higher than Medicare or public programs in other countries, among many other severe flaws inherent in privatized health care.

But “reforming” the health-care system is not on the agenda. So we face an apparent paradox: The real and very serious fiscal crisis is no crisis, and the non-crisis requires drastic action to undermine an efficient system that is quite sound.

Rational observers will seek differences between the Social Security and health-care systems that might explain the paradox.

Some of the reasons seem clear. You can’t go after a health system under the control of insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations. That system is immune, and will remain so even if it is causing tremendous financial problems (quite apart from the human cost), until some other sector of concentrated power, probably manufacturing industry, throws its weight into the fray on this issue - or better, until formal democratic institutions function sufficiantly well for public opinion to become a factor in policy formation.

A further reason is that Social Security is of little value for the rich though it is crucial for survival for working people, the poor, their dependents, and the disabled. And as a government program, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. It benefits only the “underlying population,” not the “substantial citizens,” to borrow Thorstein Veblen’s acid terminology.

The medical system, however, works very well for the people who matter. Health care is effectively rationed by wealth, and enormous profits flow to private power thanks to management practices geared to profit, not health care. The underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.

The US Congress has recently enacted bankruptcy reform that tightens the stranglehold on the underlying population. About half of US bankruptcies result from medical bills.

Opinion and official policy are once again in conflict. As in the past, most Americans favor national health insurance. To cite just one of many illustrations, in a 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 80 percent regarded universal health care as “more important than holding down taxes.”

Quite apart from these considerations, Social Security is based on an extremely dangerous principle: that you should care whether the widow across town has food to eat. The Social Security “reformers” would rather have you concentrate on maximizing your own consumption of goods and subordinating yourself to power. Caring for other people, and taking community responsibility for things like health and retirement - that’s deeply subversive.

- Noam Chomsky, Interventions pp 129-132

It’s not what a candidate stands for that gets him/her elected. The issues rarely come into play. Politicians have been trained to say nothing while spouting the party approved talking points. History has proven that getting into office is less about where you stand and more about how you play the media (think Nixon vs Kennedy or the surrealistic rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger).

This next election should prove to be the candidates’ most prolific use of the web to attract those all-important swing voters. Never before have so many candidates embraced so many elements of the web to reach formative minds. With the meteoric rise of social media sites, the candidates have an abundance of real estate to tackle.

In the first of a four part series, the search marketing blog at 10e20 examines how each of the most popular of the Presidential candidates embraces search and what how they are faring at search marketing. You can check out the full post here.

Keep your eyes on what each of these candidates does online - it may prove to be pivotal in determining who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania through 2012.

Most people think it is impossible to change our government, yet they fail to remember that they are the government. The government is simply an extension of the people, serving the implicit and explicit wishes of the populace. Our daily lives have the most to do with the situation of the world. If we can change our daily lives, we can change our governments and we can change the world.

Nourish awareness and compassion will follow.

Do not say that I’ll depart tomorrow
because even today I still arrive.

Look deeply: I arrive in every second
to be a bud on a spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, whose wings are still fragile,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.

I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
in order to fear and to hope,
the rhythm of my heart is the birth and death
of all that are alive.

I am the mayfly
metamorphosing on the surface of the river.
And I am the bird which, when spring comes,
arrives in time to eat the mayfly.

I am the frog swimming happily
in the clear water of a pond,
and I am also the grass-snake who,
approaching in silence, feeds itself on the frog.

I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks.
And I am the arms merchant,
selling deadly weapons to Uganda.

I am the twelve-year-old-girl, refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean
after being raped by a sea pirate,
and I am the pirate,
my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.

I am a member of the politburo,
with plenty of power in my hands.
And I am the man
who has to pay his “debt of blood” to my people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.

My joy is like Spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom,
my pain is like a river of tears,
so full it fills up the four oceans.

Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and my laughs at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are but one.

Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up,
and so the door of my heart can be left open,
the door of compassion.

- Thich Nhat Hanh, 1976

Last week, Illinois Senator Barak Obama announced that he will be running for President in 2008. In the months to come, if his campaign manager does his job correctly, you’ll see commercial after commercial extolling the virtues of Mr. Obama. And if the Clinton camp does it’s job, you’ll see no shortage of commercials focusing on why Mr. Obama should not be your next Commander in Chief. One thing is for certain: nobody will be talking about where Barak stands, and how he has served to date.

Here are some key issues Sen. Obama sponsored or voted for during his eight years as an Illinois state senator:

Budget and Taxes

Crime and Gun Control

Health Care

Other

So at least now, it’s not all a popularity contest.

Source - Sacramento Bee print edition

I have long been a critic of guns. I hate them. They scare the hell out of me, and their widespread acceptance is a disgrace to our nation. The gun control issue may be the first thing that got me politically motivated.

The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981 left Press Secretary James Brady nearly dead and permanently disabled. For the next decade Sarah Brady championed gun control legislation, and with much fanfare President Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (The Brady Bill) into law on November 30, 1993. Over the course of those 10 years, I was exposed to a lot of information on gun control and gun violence. As an inquisitive lad, I read what I could find on the topic (pre-Internet). The more I learned, the more I grew disgusted with guns.

Throwing all firearms to the bottom of the sea would be ideal, but a more reasonable goal would be an outlawing of all handguns and automatic weapons. If you want to go out and shoot some deer, quail, turkey, or whatever defenseless animal of your choice with your rifle and call it a sport, then knock your socks off. But there is no need for Joe Citizen to own a handgun or automatic weapon - or some semi-automatic knock off of some military assault rifle. WTF??

I can already hear calls of Second Ammendment garbage. Drop it already. It was written to keep the King out of your living room when his soldiers all had muskets, and maybe you had to worry about a couple dozen of them showing up on your farm. The Founding Fathers never imagined the advanced weaponry that we have today. If the FBI wants to come into your living room, they’re coming in.

Boo hoo - what about home protection?? Get an alarm - or a rottweiler. Or get both, and keep a shotgun in the closet. What the hell are you anticipating that you need that Bushmaster A3?? Hey Rambo, that’s what the National Guard is for. Go get your rocks off there one weekend a month, and keep your big toys on base. Believe it or not, you’re not making your neighborhood any safer with all that firepower.

Fortunately for America, the Brady Campaign didn’t end with the Brady Bill. For over two decades, the Bradys have been combatting gun violence and the country is a safer place for it. The latest November elections are proof positive that their vigilance and determination have paid off. According to their latest report: 95% of all Brady endorsed candidates won their races; 80% of Brady endorsed candidates beat NRA-backed candidates in head-to-head match-ups; and, 18 out of 26 Senate candidates backed by the NRA lost their race.

That’s a good start - now let’s follow it up with some responsible legislation.

With all the talk of which country is good, which is bad, and which is evil, it’s getting tougher and tougher for a good American to know which people we are permitted to like, and those we are compelled to fear.  Of course we already know that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are bad bad bad, but what about some of those less overtly evil regimes?

Recently, we have heard with more urgency of Venezuela’s flirtation with the Dark Side.  Their democratically elected official, Hugo Chavez, has become a lightning rod for American critics, wary of his bravado and his democratic socialist rallying cries.  However, most Americans don’t know of (at least not yet) Equadorian leader Rafael Correa.  An outspoken critic of American foreign policy, Mr. Correa has promised that if elected, he plans to nationalize oil production and will remain committed to “popular revolution”.

In a recent TV interview, when asked to comment on Chavez’s comparison of Mr. Bush to “el diablo”, Mr. Correa  replied that it was an unfair comparison.  “The devil is bad, but at least he’s smart.  Bush is a tremendously clumsy president who has done damage to his country and to the world.”  Ouch.

While it’s not yet a fate complete, most pollsters expect Correa to emerge victorious in the elections.  At which point, Americans can expect an onslaught of Correa smearing and Equadorian fear mongering.  By the end of Q1 2007, it will be like we hated Equador since the dawn of the nation.  All in a day’s work for the propaganda machine…

FOX News, America’s beacon for fair and balanced reporting, and home of bully Bill O’Reilly. When I watch TV news (not very often), I always watch FOX. Hey, I like my news fair and balanced so I can decide for myself - ha! Seriously, I watch FOX because at least I know they are full of shit. Not like the folks at CNN or MSNBC who pretend to provide unbiased reporting while pushing their agenda, at least when watching FOX (or Faux, as many lefties endearingly refer to it) I don’t have to sift through the propaganda. It’s right up there on a big plate, with none of that ugly pretense of objectivity to sift through.

Yesterday, O’Reilly “interviewed” professor Jim Fetzer. Fetzer, an outspoken critic of the Bush junta, was on the show to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories. The entire piece is a character assassination, never once actually addressing any points - in typical O’Reilly fashion. See for yourself, here.

Wouldn’t it have been better for all parties if Mr. O’Reilly had given Mr. Fetzer the opportunity to provide some points, at which point Mr. O’Reilly would have ample opportunity to debunk Mr. Fetzer’s outlandish claims? Aren’t all sides served better when an open debate ensues? Instead of name calling, marginalization, and character assassination.

Not debating Mr. Fetzer and relying on bully tactics shows O’Reilly for what he truly is - a mouthpiece for the furthering of the American elite’s propaganda. God forbid the public have access to alternative views. It is much easier, and the system much less vulnerable, when those who are charged with promoting open discourse use their positions to fein debate while stifling the voice of the opposition. Bully Bill is a master.

Throughout the piece O’Reilly repeatedly calls Fetzer a “loon” a “nut” and tells him that he must have an alien in his bedroom too. All the while, never even hearing a point Fetzer may have to make. Perhaps the most deplorable act is O’Reilly’s accusation that Fetzer et al, “hate your country”. What the hell does that even mean? News flash Mr. O’Reilly - questioning your government does not mean you hate your country. Having a deep resentment towards the current administration does not mean that you hate your country. Hell, even those that hate the government don’t necessarily “hate their country”. Empty words, no meaning, thrown out there to evoke emotion, and call the credibility of the accused into question. A despicable act given that Bully Bill knows exactly what he is doing.

And since we are on the subject of meaningless expressions, how about “Support our Troops”? What the hell does that mean? How do you support our troops? Send them money (because they are not getting paid enough by the government to risk life and limb)? Send them flowers? How about sending them some armor - that would help support them. How about coming up with a plan to get them home safe - before 2010? That sounds like supporting them. But that’s not what the expression means now, is it? As far as I can tell, “Support our Troops” means “Shut the Hell up - GW Knows Best”. Now that’s some good propaganda.

In perhaps the most important Congressional battle this year, that weird kid with the cool dog will be battling the greatest linguist in history. That’s right, the perennial underdog will be duking it out with the animal translator turned naturalist for a coveted seat at the Round Table.

In what is proving to be a close race, Democratic candidate Charlie Brown is making big promises. While quick to point a critical eye at incumbent, Republican Dr. Doolittle, Mr. Brown has recently had trouble keeping his own critics at bay.

At a recent press conference, Charlie Brown lashed out at reporters for criticizing his poor math skills. Mr. Brown quipped, “Well, what the hell do you expect? That’s why I have made schools one of my highest priorities. How can you expect a kid to learn if they can’t understand a single word any of the adults are saying? Maybe my opponent can understand - the guy can talk to ducks - but until we get some teachers in the classromm that our kids can understand, we’re stuck at square one. The current Congressman, Dr. Doolittle, is too busy taking money from special interests to pay attention to our schools. California will not be safe until we have a representative that values our kids more than his animal friends. ”

An aide to Dr. Doolittle, Gub-Gub the pig, declined to comment.

More on this as news from the Fourth Congressional District unfolds.

There have been quite a few calls to boycott Citgo recently. After the most recent outburst by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, right-wing bloggers and other keepers of the gate have been ranting and raving about how Americans should unite and stop supporting this madman. Apparently, they seem to think that a boycott of Citgo would teach Chavez a lesson. I would oppose such a boycott for the following reasons:

• The boycott wouldn’t hurt Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A (the parent company) at all. They’d still be able to sell all of their gas to plenty of other interested parties - China, Russia, etc… Your local dealer might get screwed, but your boycott won’t hurt El Presidente at all.
• Punishment of the Venezuelan population for the outbursts of their leader doesn’t seem very fair. Our elected officials have insulted more than their share of other leaders. How about applying the same rules to all parties?
• Today’s foe may be tomorrow’s friend. Remember when Citgo bailed helped us out when Katrina hit? Seems a prudent course of action would be to not alienate ourselves from non-Middle Eastern crude oil sources.

Most of the outrage seems to stem from the recent UN debacle. However, this isn’t the first time Chavez has been on the radar. Remember when Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez? A truly deplorable moment in the cross section of church and state. However, in the heat of his cry for state sponsored terrorism, Robertson does have one moment of clarity. One thought that really touches at the heart of the matter:

This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced.

That’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it? “God damnit, this guy is playing in our section of the world, and if he doesn’t get with the program, then take him out by any means necessary.” His failure to bow to our power is unacceptable to the corporate interests pulling the strings. What kind of example would that set? We couldn’t let Latin America break loose of our shackles.

At present, Chavez poses no threat to the US. There is no chance of Venezuela invading or militarily attacking us. The only attack we face from them is an attack on ideology. Venezuelan’s socialist democracy can’t be permitted the chance to flourish, or our Latin American house of cards may come tubmling down. The propaganda machine will ensure that the public stays ill-informed, or focused on the clowns climbing out of the car in the third ring. All the while, ignoring the elephant in the room.

I saw this on a newly added blog to my reader - The Indy Voice. I tend to miss things on network news, and feel I am better off for it. This however, I applaud.

Keith Olbermann “offers a special comment” on President Bush’s soon-to-be (in)famous Rose Garden news conference. Watch the video here (it’s only 8 minutes).

I commend the bravery of Mr. Olbermann in standing what appears to be alone amongst his peers. Why didn’t this get more airtime? How come more members of the media aren’t asking similar questions, or making similar demands? Oh, that’s right. NFL season is back, the MLB race is on for the playoffs, and Clay Aiken has a new look.

Equally important, and regretably ignored by Olbermann, we were told that not only were we not allowed to think about a comparison, but that:

It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

How many women and children have died at the pursuit of American objectives? If there is anything that we have in common with those Islamic extremists, it’s our willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents. Not only are we willing (eager?) to make those sacrifices, we have a history of stripping away any annoying little civil liberty that may interfere with the operation.

So what’s next? What opinion are we prohibited from expressing next? How far away are we from a full-fledged attack on any form of dissension? Is this the country that you believed it to be?

In early August, a friend of mine, Sumo Rob, told me that he had heard a poll reporting more than a third of Americans believed that Bush and company may have had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. While I had heard some of the “inside job” arguments before, the number seemed abusrdly high, and I wrote it off as bad information. Most of the people I know, and I run with a fairly liberal crowd, would scoff at the notion.

Last week, I heard Bill Maher reference the same poll, citing the same results. I decided to look a little further, and indeed they were correct. According to a recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll 36% of respondents replied that

it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

The entire article is worth a read. Of additional interest is the role that the web has taken in the dissemination of alternative views, and how the rival philosophies reside on opposite sides of the technological divide. But that’s for another post.

Things aren’t looking good for GW. His approval ratings are abysmal, currently hovering anywhere between 30 - 40%, depending upon which poll you look at. Even his loyal supporters are beginning to run for the exit. I knew back when right-wing mouthpiece Anne Coulter slammed him for his nomination of Harriet Miers that there was trouble in paradise.

With the November elections approaching quickly, expect the Bush-bashing to reach new heights. Republicans seeking election will try to distance themselves from the Cheney-Bush junta, and Democrats will sling more mud than ever. Grassroots organizations and liberal bloggers will continue to prop up their candidate of choice, with increasing fervor as November approaches. But where will these naysayers be when Bush is gone? I wonder if DailyKos and Salon will report of the deception and chicanery of a Democratic leader if/when one is in office? What will all the “crazy liberals” do when they can no longer blame everything on GW?

Only time will tell, but if history is any indicator, I would imagine these outlets will gloss over the misgivings and misdeeds of a Democratic leader, probably resorting to pointing the finger at a hostile Senate or Congress. Complicitly playing their role in the polarizing of the American populace in an effort to advance their own agendas. A song and dance, getting you talking and thinking about issues that are not really important, in the guise that your officials are actually concerned about your well being. They are not. The system is broken, and spiraling ever more out of control.

So now that it is socially acceptable, you can hop on the bandwagon and let the world know that you think GW is a bumbling fool - truly redefining incompetence. But you had better start planning on what card you are going to play next. GW day’s are numbered, and you can’t afford to be a one-trick pony.

As I sit here this morning, catching up on some work related reading, I have CNN on my office TV. Of course the big news is the crisis taking place in the Middle East, and the talking heads have no shortage of theories to explain the controversy. The one thing I have yet to hear though is the role of the US in the growing hot-bed. Outside of the occasional discussion of whether or not the US will get involved (only if Israel asks for help), there seems to be no discussion of the responsibility of the US in the conflict.

Let us not forget that were it not for the US military industrial complex, the conflict in the Middle East would be fought with sticks and stones. Almost 80% of all casualties thus far have been civilian - women and children killed with missles and bombs manufactured here in the USA. Pennies per share for Lockheed Martin, earned with the blood and tears of brown women and children. A smalll price to pay to help hit the earnings numbers.

As the violence continues to escalate, and the troops progressively mount on the border, I wonder how this will turn out. How many additionl lives will be lost? How many shells will drop on Haifa, destroying families and infrastructure? How many Lebanese refugees will flee for their lives? Where will all these innocents go, and who will take them in? Who will be the first to flinch and proceed towards a peaceful resolution?

Further reading:

The Real Ugly American - Lebanese Government is Complicit; Cowardly

Shandyking - WWIII Has Started - Be Afraid, Very Afraid

HomeboyMediaNedws - Refugees find safe haven in Cyprus

NY Times - US Plan Seeks to Wedge Syria From Iran

A Gathering of Fools - Children Always Die

I’m not a fan of Senator McCain. While everybody denounced Kerry for being such a flip-flopper, McCain appears to epitomize the pandering politician. His double talk, and playing to the crowds and cameras, demonstrate that John McCain stands for political business as usual.

I would go so far as to say that his returning donations made by the Wyly family was nothing more than an attempt to manipulate public opinion. The Wyly family have long been backers of the GOP, and McCain has long been a friend of corporate money. Why would McCain bite the hand that feeds him here? Simply to provide the appearance that he is tough on campaign reform, and attempt to distance himself from what could potentially turn out to be illegal money.

For all his tough talk on reform, Senator McCain reeks of corporate America. I find it hard to imagine that anything would change for Joe Public under an administration lead by McCain. Who does he represent? Not conservatives. Not liberals. Definitely not me.

See Also:

Lobby Watch
George Bush’s Wise Guys
John McCain’s War on Political Speech
John McCain on Government Reform
Free Ride
Open Secrets - John McCain

If you fancy yourself a Democrat, and would like to express your opinion on the party’s current leadership, head over to Daily Kos. A widely read progressive blog, the Daily Kos often runs compelling pieces, and provocative calls to action. If you’d like to participate, voice your opinions:

Do you approve of the way DNC Chairman Howard Dean is doing his job? Vote here.

Do you approve of the way Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is doing his job? Vote here.

Do you approve of the way House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is doing her job? Vote here.

Timeless pearls of wisdom regarding the war mongers. Though originally written over 40 years ago, the words ring just as true today. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin’
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I’m young
You might say I’m unlearned
But there’s one thing I know
Though I’m younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand o’er your grave
‘Til I’m sure that you’re dead