From: Todd Lockwood
Sent:
Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:14 PM
Subject: Digest #092
This
writing-on-the-wall is from a rabidly Republican e-newspaper:
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/october/1009_syria.shtml
State Department: Syria Needs to do More to Stop
Terrorism
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- As the U.S. Congress
moves forward on the Syria
Accountability Act, State Department officials
said Wednesday that Syria
hasn't taken "any significant action" against
terrorist groups.
During the daily State Department briefing, spokesman
Richard Boucher
reminded reporters that during Secretary of State Colin
Powell's trip to
Syria in May, the secretary told the Syrian government that
unless
"significant steps" were taken by Syria against activities of
terrorists
groups, then there would be "moves in our Congress, in
particular, to
restrict our relationship between Syria and the United
States."
The Syria Accountability Act calls for Syria to halt support for
terrorism,
end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of
mass
destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and be
accountable
for its role in the Middle East. Versions of the bill are
currently being
considered in committee.
In a statement to
supporters, Roberta Combs, President of the Christian
Coalition of America,
said, "Christian Coalition commends the bipartisan
efforts of Congresswoman
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Congressman Engel (D-NY)
for their perseverance in
gathering co-sponsors and for seeking a vote in
the House. The fact that
their bill has an overwhelming number of
co-sponsors in the House and Senate
shows that the American people want to
rein in the terrorist state of Syria
and want Syria to get out of Lebanon so
that a democracy can be returned
there."
"We are very happy that the Bush administration has given the
Congress the
go-ahead to approve new United States penalties against the
dictatorship in
Syria," Combs
added.
________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3160-2003Oct9.html
Bush Urges Public To Be Upbeat on Iraq
Situation Termed
Better Than Perceived
Bush's twin speeches here in New Hampshire, to
service members and business
leaders, were meant to be the keynote of the
administration's reply to
critics urging a reduced U.S. commitment in Iraq.
"Americans," the president
said, "are not the running kind." Bush's speech,
however, was delivered on
one of the more violent days in postwar Iraq: An
attack on a police station
killed eight, a Spanish diplomat was slain and
another U.S. soldier was
killed in an attack on a convoy.
________________________________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/opinion/09JACK.html?th
It's Even Worse Than You Think
Last week the federal
government ended the fiscal year with a reported
deficit of approximately
$400 billion, pushing the federal debt held by the
public to nearly $4
trillion. Sobering though these numbers are, they
actually understate the
problem. Through an accounting sleight of hand with
far greater consequences
than the corporate scandals of recent years, the
federal government distorts
public debate, threatens social programs and
impoverishes future
generations.
What's missing from the $400 billion figure is an accurate
recognition of
the mounting obligations of the Social Security system. Under
current
practices, Social Security reports its financial performance on a
cash-flow
basis: it compares annual revenues to annual costs and reports a
surplus or
a deficit. Last year, Social Security enjoyed a surplus of
roughly $160
billion. The government used this money to mask what would
otherwise have
been a $560 billion federal deficit.
Were the federal
government to account for its Social Security obligations
under the rules of
accrual accounting, which govern public companies, its
financial outlook
would be far worse. By the end of last year, the Social
Security system owed
retirees and current workers benefits valued at $14
trillion. The system's
assets, in contrast, were only $3.5 trillion. These
assets include not only
the trust funds' current reserves ($1.4 trillion),
but also the present
value of the taxes that current workers will pay over
the remainder of their
working lives ($2.1 trillion).
In other words, the system's current
shortfall — its assets minus its
liabilities — is $10.5 trillion. Unless
Congress chooses to rescind Social
Security benefits that have already been
earned, this shortfall must be
shouldered by future generations. This
implicit debt of the Social Security
system is more than two and a half
times larger than the government's public
debt.
Accrual accounting is
the gold standard for the private sector because it
forces long-term
liabilities to be recognized when they are incurred and can
be controlled.
The federal government is increasingly in the business of
making long-term
promises to its citizens. Until the federal government
adopts principles of
accounting that recognize these promises, the federal
budget will remain the
most misleading document in Washington. And that's
saying a lot.
________________________________________________________
First
the headline, then my views:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5790-2003Oct9.html
Clark Under Sharp Attack In Democratic Debate
PHOENIX,
Oct. 9 -- Wesley K. Clark was roundly criticized at Thursday
night's debate
here for shifting his position on the war in Iraq, as the
nine Democratic
presidential candidates argued bitterly over their positions
on the
congressional resolution authorizing the
war.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bullshit.
I watched the entire debate, and that is as poor a characterization
of what
transpired as you could imagine. No doubt written by a right wing
pundit?
Sure there were a couple of moments of dispute over what Clark said
when, and what he meant by it, but that was hardly the meat or even the
spice in the debate. Argued bitterly? I saw seasoned debate, but not
arguing. They were fairly resolute and in harmony on the main points, not
the least of which was Bush's failure as a president.
Dean had a
surprisingly small role, overall, as did Clark. Leiberman talked
too much.
I must say that Clark made a more solid showing this time around.
Dean
seemed a bit stiff and stuffy, and tended to muddle about when he was
off
his prepared statements, though he stuck to his guns and still says
what I want to hear. Gephardt had some brilliant moments, as did Braun
and
Sharpton; I hope they will stay in for the long haul, even though I
don't
see them winning the nomination. The candidate who made the biggest
impression on me, though, was John Edwards. He was intelligent and
articulate, and spoke well on the fly. I would vote for him in a
heartbeat.
Bottom line: don't depend on mainstream newspapers to watch
the debates for
you.
________________________________________________________
Go
to the original for accreditation:
http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10092003.html
President Bush Presents Two-Faced
Reaction to National Security
Leaks
President Bush clearly believes in a double standard
when it comes to
holding accountable those insiders who divulge classified
information.
When someone on Capitol Hill leaked information in 2001
President Bush
personally called congressional leaders to tell them, "This
can't stand. We
can't have leaks of classified information. It's not in our
nation's
interest." In the case of a White House official who revealed the
identity
of an undercover CIA operative this summer, however, Bush has been
nonchalant, saying "this is a large administration, and there's a lot of
senior officials . . . I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker
is."
With the congressional case Bush's press secretary, Ari
Fleischer, warned
that leaks can put lives at risk: "The President wants to
make certain that
all people in government are protected, so that nobody can
make any mistakes
and put anybody else's life in danger."
But now
that a CIA operative's cover has actually been blown neither the
President
nor his staff have expressed any concern. Bush said he has "no
plans" to
call for the leaker on his staff to come forward. Indeed, the White
House
has left open the possibility they may act to protect the leaker,
suggesting
they may invoke executive privilege if the facts warrant
it.
________________________________________________________
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/10/ana03001.html
Bush Swears He'll Hunt Down Osama and Saddam,
But Says He Can't Find a
Treasonous Betrayer in
His Own Administration Because It's Too
Big
A BUZZFLASH GUEST NEWS ANALYSIS
by David
Sirota
The Bush Administration on finding Osama Bin Laden in Central
Asia:
³We're going to hunt them down one at a timeŠit doesn't matter
where they
hide, as we work with our friends we will find them and bring
them to
justice.² - President George W. Bush, 11/22/02
The Bush
Administration on finding Saddam Hussein in the Mideast:
"We are
continuing the pursuit and it's a matter of time before [Saddam] is
found
and brought to justice.² - White House spokesman McClellan, 9/17/03
The
Bush Administration on finding the leaker in the close confines of the
White
House:
³I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration
official.
I don't have any idea....This is a large administration, and there
are a lot
of senior administration officials² - President George W. Bush,
10/7/03
________________________________________________________
A
friend in a discussion circle came across this quote from Dorothy Parker,
<http://users.rcn.com/lyndanyc/dorothy.html> circa
1940, when Congressman
Martin Dies of Texas had formed the House Committee
on Un-American
Activities and came to Hollywood to investigate Communist
sympathizers:
"The people want democracy -- real democracy, Mr. Dies --
and they look to
Hollywood to give it to them because they don't get it
anymore in their
newspapers. And that's why you're out here, Mr. Dies --
that's why you want
to destroy the Hollywood progressive organizations --
because you've got to
control this medium if you want to bring fascism to
this
country."
________________________________________________________
Bizarre
news from Philly: Two days ago a sweep of Democratic Philly Mayor
John
Street's office found two multi-microphone bugs planted by the FBI. As
a
swift response the FBI announced a "probe." Interesting, considering a
mayoral race looms for control of a key, traditionally Democratic
city.
This may be Street's own pigeons coming home to roost (doubtful,
considering
how long this man has been in the spotlight), but why aren't
Republican
pigeons also doing what pigeons do best? I remember something not
too long
ago about a number of Republican judges pressuring litigants for
campaign
donations:
"Do we believe that the Republican Party, both
at the federal level and
state level, is pulling out every stop to get
Pennsylvania in 2004?" Street
campaign spokesman Frank Keel said.
"Absolutely. Is the Republican Party
capable of dirty tricks? I think that
is well documented."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/6966674.htm
The Bug: Who knew what - and when?
The fog of suspicion
that had descended over the mayoral campaign with the
discovery of a bug in
Mayor Street's office only thickened yesterday as the
candidate and federal
investigators squabbled over who knew what when.
Street, running for a
second term, and leaders of both political parties had
been demanding that
the FBI fully explain what it knew about the bug, with
Street saying
yesterday: "I would like to know what's up."
A federal spokesman
responded late in the day that Street already knew.
"We have stated very
clearly to Mayor Street and his attorney the mayor's
status in this matter,"
said Richard Manieri, spokesman for U.S. Attorney
Patrick Meehan.
It
took the Street administration several hours to respond with a statement
of
its own: "My friend and adviser Arthur Makadon spoke with the United
States
Attorney's Office to inquire about listening devices discovered in my
office. They advised him that I am not a target of any federal
investigation."
Reached last night for comment, Makadon said: "I'm
not commenting beyond
that. That is the statement. I'm not telling you
anything."
Street campaign spokesman Dan Fee said that the mayor was
heartened by the
assurances but still would like to have federal authorities
speak directly
to the public. "We would certainly encourage and support any
public
confirmation," he
said.
________________________________________________________
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9074
Reagan's Legacy
American political institutions
and the nation's view of their role changed
profoundly under Ronald Reagan's
antigovernment, market fundamentalist
philosophy that now dominates American
political thinking.
It is not hyperbole to label the political and
economic changes in less than
a quarter century as a radical transformation.
Yet, surprisingly, pundits
and the public generally have failed to recognize
that the drastic changes
caused by Reaganism constitute a seismic shift
comparable in the size, but
not the direction, of its impact to the New
Deal.
In particular, the political and economic changes since 1981 have
undermined
the key national institutions created by the framers of the
Constitution to
sustain representative governance, and have brought a Second
Gilded Age.
The deterioration in the nation's political institutions that
had been
striking in the first two decades of Reaganism gained speed under
George W.
Bush. Twenty years of this political philosophy afforded Bush the
base for
"out-Reaganing" Reagan as he inflicted more damage to the American
political
system than any of his predecessors during a comparable period of
time.
Reaganism during its two-plus decades became the ideological driver
of
disastrous initiatives. These policies have weakened the nation's most
important federal institutions and brought their domination by corporate
America and the wealthiest 1 percent of the income
distribution.
Since 1981, excessive deregulation and massive rate
reductions in the
highest income tax brackets produced a rapidly growing
maldistribution of
income and wealth that provided corporate America and the
nation's
wealthiest citizens with ample financial resources to fill the
campaign
coffers of incumbents and to hire an army of lobbyists.
Big
money's clout in the halls of Congress and in the early stages of the
national election process at least partially disenfranchised the
constituents of the members of the House and Senate.
As Reaganism led
to the death of representative democracy, the nation
underwent a radical
political transformation. The Gilded Age of the late
19th century and its
robber barons had morphed into the late 20th century
and its predatory
corporate chief executive officers such as Enron's Kenneth
Lay. The much
weakened institutions of governance were again dominated by
moneyed
interests.
Rebuilding the federal government's institutional capacity is
the first
pivotal step toward restoring a truly representative government.
If the key
institutions are to be revivified, the nation must turn away from
Reaganism.
Such a change will come about, however, only if ordinary
Americans can cut
through the unceasing propaganda to see the harm being
done to them
individually and to the United States in total. The problem is
that the
broad middle class appears to have limited comprehension that their
declining economic security and political equality derive in part from
Reaganism and the harsh application of its principles by President
Bush.
In the Constitution, the Preamble began "We The People" to signify
that the
government did not belong to hereditary aristocrats, but to
ordinary
citizens. A government of the people, by the people, and for the
people,
however, will perish unless the people's vigilance can keep
representative
governance alive.
The people failed their most basic
political responsibility. Reaganism had
stolen representative democracy from
them.
________________________________________________________
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9094
For God's Sake
Andrew Korfhage
After touring
the American South for seven days, without even stopping to
rest on the
Sabbath, the "Spirit of Montgomery" arrived in Washington, DC on
October 5.
The touring caravan, which promotes government-supported display
of the Ten
Commandments, settled in for two days of events in the nation's
capital,
including prayer vigils, a revival and a Monday morning rally at
the Supreme
Court.
Sponsored by the Christian Defense Coalition and other
ultra-conservative
Christian organizations, the caravan represents an
increasingly influential
constituency opposing judicial promotion of a
secular agenda. With
protestors and speakers alike affirming an approach to
the U.S. Constitution
as literal and narrow as their approach to the Bible,
the Commandments
activists argued that Judge Moore is not bound by a
constitutional
separation of church and state. Referring to the First
Amendment ("Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof"), they insist that
because Moore, a
representative of the state, is not a member of Congress,
he's free to mix
government and religion as he sees fit.
It's a
dangerous position‹and one that could threaten Christians as well‹to
posit
that the 535 members of the federal legislature are the only elected
officials prohibited from establishing religion. Our nation has a patchwork
of religions‹do local and state officials get to set the religious tone for
their individual fiefdoms?
This sort of logic fails to move the
protestors. Elliott went on to condemn
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
for ruling that the phrase "under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional, and affirmed that his
"grassfire" supporters "will resist
these rulings." He then threatened the
Supremes with an impeachment
campaign, should they rule unfavorably on the
"under God" appeal, which
comes before the Court this term.
This drive to "take back" legislative
power reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of the role of the courts. The
judiciary branch, we learn
in seventh-grade civics, interprets law; that is,
they make sure the law is
fair for everyone. It's a power that has nothing
to do with the majority,
and isn't anything that Aderholt or the "spirit"
campaign ever had, or can
"take back."
Moreover, while reasonable
Americans may disagree over how broadly to
understand the First Amendment,
this appeal to Congress is in direct
opposition to the Constitution‹even by
the caravan's own standards.
If Congress can "make no law respecting the
establishment of religion", then
Congress can by no means authorize the
States to enshrine Judeo-Christian
commandments in their courthouses, much
less to enshrine them at the U.S.
Capitol itself.
Furthermore, since
it was Congress, which, in 1954, inserted the words
"under God" into the
Pledge of Allegiance, the case before Supreme Court is
practically open and
shut. The reasoning of the 9th Circuit's ruling is
sound, finding
significant evidence that Congress, fearful of the Soviet
Union's growing
influence in the world, sought unconstitutionally to advance
religion in the
United States by tinkering with the Pledge to draw a sharp
contrast to
atheistic communism.
Should the Supreme Court open its term by upholding
the Ninth Circuit's
ruling, the decision will likely provoke the ire of the
"Spirit of
Montgomery" as surely as the Lawrence decision, the Court's final
ruling of
the summer. But in neither case will "judicial tyranny" be at
fault.
In a country with separation of powers, it falls to the judiciary
to check
the legislatures when they overstep their bounds. Even if those
legislatures
accurately reflect the will of vast numbers of people‹say, 70
percent of
Americans according to USA Today‹the real tyranny to be checked
is the
tyranny of the majority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Items:
From Care2.com:
Oppose S.274
S. 274 would deprive people of their day in
court when fighting big
polluters that harm the environment and pose serious
health risks to
communities.
Many Senators have indicated their
opposition to S. 274. Unfortunately, they
are also getting increased
pressure from Big Business right now to change
their position. We need
to call our reps to let them know we don't want
them to change.
Tell
your Senator to stand strong - call Washington, DC Today!
If you don't
know your senators' phone numbers, go
to
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Note: When you call, please
click this link so we know how many of you made
a difference
today:
http://www.care2.com/go/z/8041
After reaching
the receptionist, register your opposition for S. 274 using
the following
talking points:
Sample: I am calling about bill # S.274, the
Class Action Fairness Act. I
would like to let the Senator know that I
am strongly opposed to this bill.
Please take down my name and
register my opposition. Thank you.
Just registering your
opposition should be enough, but if you are asked to
discuss the matter
further, you may find the talking points below useful.
What Would S. 274 Do?
S.274 would erode the rights of
state citizens to hold out-of-state
businesses accountable for violations of
state law in state courts by moving
virtually all consumer class action
cases to federal court.
Why is moving state consumer class action
cases to federal court a bad idea?
It is more difficult to certify a
consumer class action case in federal
courts, so the consumer cases tend to
get tossed out by federal judges.
Federal law discourages federal judges
from providing remedies for
violations of state law.
Federal
appellate courts can be hundreds of miles away, in another state.
Once in
the federal system:
Corporate defendants often ask for the case to be
moved to federal court in
their home state, making it more difficult and
more costly for plaintiffs to
bring the case thousands of miles away and
providing a friendlier
jurisdiction to an irreponsible corporation.
Example: Delaware, home to
many corporations, may see an
increase in cases under S. 274, or Philip
Morris might try to have all
consumer fraud class action cases removed to
tobacco-friendly federal courts
in Virginia, where the company is based.
Federal courts are already
overburdened and under-resourced and consumer
cases often take years to be
heard as it is now. Pushing more cases into an
already-clogged federal court
makes no sense at all, unless you want to
delay justice for consumers for
years. There are approximately 30,000 state
judges and only 1,200 federal
judges. It is estimated that between 2,000
and 3,000 cases could be
shifted to federal dockets as a result of this
bill. The backlog of cases
has doubled since 1999 to more than 34,000 at the
present
time.
________________________________________________________
The
Digests are a labor of my own personal passion. I receive no money for
these. They grew out of a realization that most people work long hours (I
certainly do), with the hairy eyeball over their left shoulder most of the
day, making it impossible to do in-depth investigations of the news for
themselves. The stories collected are usually condensed to the most
salient
or important points. My only desire is that the news in them is
shared and
explored further. If you know someone who would like to stay
informed, but
doesn't have time to search seven or eight papers every day,
send these to
them, and ask them if they would like to be included in my
mailings.
You can also find them archived online at a friend's website;
A perfect way to introduce someone to them:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/misc/politics/pwa.html
Thank
you,
Todd Lockwood