Wake Up |
 |
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
It's the economy, Stupid! According to a CBS News/New York Times poll that came out this weekend: "70% of voters say they want to hear what candidates have to say about the economy, while 17% of voters want to hear the candidates' positions on Iraq. 56% of Americans, more than at any time since 1993, say the national economy is in bad shape. Just 41% approve of the way President Bush is handling the economy - the lowest number since he took office. Most think the President should be paying more attention to the economy than he is, even with the pressures of the war in Afghanistan. And President Bush, members of his administration, and the Republican Party are seen as caring more about the needs of large corporations than about the needs of ordinary Americans. " George's father didn't get it either.
The Day After "Given what is at stake, one would have thought that the administration would have made a stronger case for going to war than President George W. Bush did on Monday evening. The weakness of the administration's position is apparent in its insistence of repeating stories of Iraqi atrocities from more than 10 to 20 years ago, such as its support for international terrorist groups like Abu Nidal and its use of chemical weapons. It was during this period when the United States was quietly supporting the Iraqi regime, covering up reports of its use of chemical weapons and even providing intelligence for Iraqi forces that used such weapons against Iranian troops. Though the 1980s marked the peak of Iraq's support for terrorist groups, the U.S. government actually dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism because of its own ties to the Iraqi war effort." An excellent analysis of President Bush's speech last night, the one that he told the major networks they didn't need to bother broadcasting. Seems like a strange way to make your case to the American people, but then, since he didn't have anything worthwhile to say, I guess it was just as well. Read the article here, and another great analysis here.
Bush vs. Workers "This is the first time in the history of the United States that a president has let an employer lock out workers in an extended quest to undermine the workers' union -- creating a phony crisis -- and then reward that employer's action with government intervention. It is a tragedy with historic ramifications." -- Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO Secretary- Treasurer Today President Bush invoked the anti-union Taft-Hartley act to end the lockout that has virtually shut down ports on the west coast of the US, once again firmly aligning himself with big business rather than with workers. Read an article about today's events here, an analysis of the situation (with lots of links) in Nathan Newman's excellent weblog here, and an informative article about many of Bush's union busting activities here.
Monday, October 07, 2002
Standing up, and getting ignored "O.K., most Washington press conferences aren't anything more than self-serving noise that's not worth covering, but this one was an exception. Nineteen Democrats in Congress pulled themselves together and stood tall in a press conference to say something that millions of Americans -- indeed, an American majority -- have been desperate to hear: 'Wait one damned minute, Mr. Bush, we don't agree with your rush to attack Iraq.'" The always interesting political commentator Jim Hightower has a column this week about the Democratic members of the House of Representatives who spoke out against the rush toward war... and about how the mainstream media more or less ignored them. Read it here.
How many dead? "But no one in the Bush administration is talking about how many of our soldiers will be sent home in body bags. And not a single reporter has stood up at a press conference -- or at one of the president's countless fundraising appearances -- and asked, 'Mr. President, how many young Americans are going to die?'" An interesting column that asks an important question... why haven't we heard more about possible American casualties in any war against Iraq? Could it be because any realistic estimation of casualties would turn the American public firmly against the idea of attacking? Read the whole piece here.
Well said, Senator Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia gave an excellent speech on the floor of the Senate last week, speaking out against the idea of attacking Iraq, and against the resolution which would, in effect, empower the President to make war whenever and wherever he chooses, without having to come before Congress again. I guess it just goes to show that every now and then something of worth can come from our [un]esteemed members of Congress. Read Senator Byrd's remarks here, and a brief article about them here.
When Police Riot From today's issue of Undernews: "What happened during the recent Washington demonstrations - just as a couple of years earlier in DC, Philadelphia and Seattle - can properly be classified as a police riot. In all four cases, the major crimes were committed not by the protesters but by law enforcement. Most recently, approximately 650 peaceful protesters were arrested in Washington on one day, the third largest mass arrest in the city's history and the second greatest on a single day. The offenses with which they were charged were almost all minor misdemeanors that in a civilized society would have been handled with a ticket or a summons. Instead the protesters were manhandled, assaulted, dragged, handcuffed and then incarcerated under conditions that constituted deliberate mistreatment in some cases bordering on - as in the case of those left cuffed long hours from hand to foot - a form of torture. Many, if not most, of the protesters had committed no offense at all. They had simply been at the wrong place at the wrong time when the DC police decided to coral anyone within a certain area and take them off to jail. In doing so, the police committed a number of serious criminal offenses including false arrest - seizing those who had been given no lawful order to disperse and, worse, physically preventing them from leaving the scene. The police also engaged in assaults on protesters. These were not just "violations of civil liberties" but actual criminal attacks that within another context - with the offending party out of uniform - would have been easily seen as a felony. In uniform or not, however, those engaging in such offenses should be confronted not just with civil actions but with criminal complaints. Further, the fact that the offenders were in uniform aggravated the assaults on at least three counts: - The offenses were not only against the victims but against the laws and the Constitution the officers had sworn to uphold. - The offenses damaged the reputation of those law enforcement officers who try to enforce the law fairly. - Worst, the offenses intimidate those who wish to express their constitutional rights, clearly discouraging them from doing so. The media has made sure, however, that most people don't understand this. Through endless TV police shows and the blasé manner in which the press covers police brutality and misconduct, the media has encouraged the public to accept criminal excesses by the police and has encouraged We could find only one mainstream journalist - Adrienne Washington of the Washington Times - who spoke up for the First amendment and one In such ways has the media deeply enabled the sociopathy of contemporary law enforcement, the end of constitutional government, and the growing One of the best descriptions of the proper role of a law enforcement officer was that delivered by Alexander Hamilton to the first group of officers of the Revenue Marine, later the US Coast Guard. Said Hamilton: 'While I recommend in the strongest terms to the respective officers, activity, vigilance and firmness, I feel no less solicitude that their deportment may be marked with prudence, moderation and good temper. . . They will bear in mind that their countrymen are freemen, and as such are impatient of everything that bears the least mark of domineering spirit. They will, therefore refrain, with the most guarded circumspection, from whatever has the semblance of hautiness, rudeness or insult. If obstacles occur, they will remember that they are under the particular protection of the laws and they can meet with nothing disagreeable in the execution of their duty which these will not severely reprehend. . . This reflection, and regard to the good of the service, will prevent at all times a spirit of irritation or resentment. They will endeavor to overcome difficulties, if any are experienced, by a cool and temperate perseverance in their duty -- by address and moderation rather than by vehemence and violence.' Little so well measures how far this country has fallen than the archaic sound of these wise words." - SAM SMITH
|
