Good Morning Comrades
Something very Soviet is going on here. What’s most surprising is that the very party that brags it’s guy, Ronald Reagan, crushed Soviet communism, is driving this trend. Of course you don’t need to be a Commie to be a Soviet at heart. And the Neocon wing of the GOP are Soviets right down to their toenails. They want one-party rule and all power shifted to the federal government. And they are well on their way to getting what the want.
Confused? I’m not surprised because this came right out of far right field. But let me explain what dawned on me this morning.
Look at what the Bushites have been up to here at home while everyone has been obsessing over their goofy foreign policy. Step by step powers the Constitution explicitly reserved for the states have been systemically weakened or revoked and those powers shifted to appointed Washington bureaucrats. The party that once filibustered for state’s rights has spent the last five years stripping states of those very powers. (Oh, and now that they are in control, they want to outlaw the filibuster too.)
Whether it was Florida’s right to keep Terri Schiavo alive or let her die, or Oregon’s assisted suicide law for the terminally ill, or reining in trial lawyers or pushing for a federal ban on gay marriages -- no matter what the states want the Neocons have chipped away at state independence from central government rule.
But for the GOP Neocons, reducing the independence of individual states is nothing personal, just business – literally. Many states now have voter initiatives where the power of big money has considerably less heft. Such elections were producing way too many laws reigning in big business and big money interests. State laws, for example, that allowed consumers easy access to the courts and liberal class action rules had resulted in huge judgments against the very interests that put George W. in the White House. But under the rules as outlined in the US Constitution the White House could little to help their friends. That is unless of course state’s right could be defined more narrowly and key rights slowly shifted to Washington.
But there was an obstacle … the US Constitution, which specially barred the federal government from any powers not explicitly given it. Every other right belonged to the states.
What to do? Damn Founding Fathers! Well, the Neocons could just do what they want anyway and deny that’s what the framers meant. But that would not work because the damn federal courts would throw a fit and rule against them.
So the Neocons launched a full frontal assault on the federal judiciary. To assure future cooperation from the courts they would nominate judges they could count on. But that would still leave thousands of sitting judges unlikely to side with them. So they decided to publicly pound on those judges until they either get with the program or retire in fear or frustration.
And so began well financed smear campaigns, quickly launched whenever a federal court rules against a hot-button conservative issue… gay marriage, right to die, family planning services, rulings that hobble business interests. Even before the ink dry on the verdict they don’t like the names and faces of judge(s) that made the ruling are plastered all over the Internet and in ads questioning their integrity, intelligence and motives.
"If they don't get what they want, they attack whoever's around,"
(Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)
You can get a handle on just how important de-fanging the federal judiciary is to the far right by how they have put their top leaders right out there on the firing line. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Sen. John Cornyn, both of Texas, openly threatened violence against federal judges in the wake of Terri Schiavo’s death. Cornyn said, right on the Senate floor and in front of Cspan cameras, that he suspected the increase in violence against federal judges was being driven by frustrated voters who believe federal judges were “making political decisions.”
Okay, so far, so good. Congress is now loaded with right-wingers and, now that they also control the Executive Branch, they are more than happy to transfer state powers to Washington. Their smear campaign has stirred up just enough knuckle-dragging citizens out there to have many sitting federal judges low crawling to their cars every morning and afraid to open then incoming mail. And finally they have big crop of sympathetic judges already confirmed more in the pipeline.
Now they can begin to transform the states into Soviet-style vassal states -- the Ukrainization of California. The Romanianization of Oregon. The Lithuaniaization of Wisconsin.
Oh sure some states will try to put up a fight, but they have plan for that too -- break the states financially. Create so much budgetary chaos at the state and local levels that they will not have the time, energy, money or political support to fight Washington.
And, in case you were wondering, that explains the changes the Bushites are trying to push through on Medicaid funding, If passed the accounting changes will strip states of over $15 billion in federal Medicaid matching funds. And, since Medicaid is the fastest growing budget item in nearly every state, this will be crippling.
“Federal and state spending on Medicaid, the nation's largest health insurance program, has grown an average of 10 percent a year over the last five years and now totals more than $300 billion a year. Federal Medicaid officials said the questionable arrangements would cost the federal government $5.8 billion in the next five years and more than $15 billion over 10 years.” (Washington Post)
But wait, they’re not done. As Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy create larger and larger federal budget deficits the states are being told to expect less and less financial help from Washington. If they want better roads, schools, hospitals, prisons, healthcare for the working poor etc, they will just have to raise state income and property taxes and issue more state backed bonds to raise the money.
And, left with no alternative, that’s exactly what states are doing.
“...a review of five years of local budgets shows that those tax-rate cuts have been far too small to offset the climb in home values, and, as a result, average tax bills in much of the region have gone up as much as 70 percent in just five years. Other government expenditures are soaring as well. Budgets for public safety and parks have risen rapidly, a survey of area budgets shows. In five years, public safety budgets have risen by one-third or more across the region. The increases in recent years, however, are more than making up for lost time. Even taking into account the last 10 years of taxes and taking out the effects of inflation, average home tax bills in Fairfax County have risen about 70 percent.” (USA Today)
Are these guys good at what they do, or what? I mean think about it folks, that was a classic two-fer for the Neocons. They not only were able to bag huge tax cuts for their wealthy supporters, but have also gotten away with shifting the burden of those cuts to state and local taxpayers.
Hot diggity! Can the life of a pack of modern-day Robber Barons get any better?
Well, they certainly hope so.
And they have three and half more years to try -- comrades.
By Stephen Pizzo
Raconteur at Large
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
April 11, 2005
The Bigger They Are
There’s an odd saying, sometimes attributed to Henry Ford, but I can find no proof he actually said it. “Nothing fails like success.”
When I was just beginning my working life I thought it was a wacky saying. I mean, really, how can you fail by succeeding? Dumb. Forty years later I understand it all too well.
It’s really quite simple, and the histories of every social grouping, from civilizations to corporation, testify to its accuracy.
The larger any organized group grows the less efficient it gets. It’s the inevitable outcome of initial success. One of the first signs the process has begun is that the quality of people who begin rising to top positions erodes. Just how this happens in interesting in itself.
You find two kinds of people in any organization. Let’s be simplistic and call them the “Smarts” and the “Mediocres.” There are varying degrees of both in any organization but it's the tug of war between the two extremes that leads to failure.
Smarts will only put up with so much BS on the job before they bail out. Mediocres, who see themselves as Smarts, have a natural staying power. Most of them, lacking in genuine abilities, have developed unique survival skills. Like weeds you can never seem to get out of your garden, they tend to set their roots deeply in organizational soil.
Mediocres bristle at resistance from smarter subordinates and, when so threatened, make life miserable for any Smart that challenges them.
Once Mediocres group near the top of an organization they create a kind of mutual protection society, covering each other’s backs against the occasional Smart-attacks from below. (If you work in government or a large company I suspect you know exactly what I am saying. And, dare I say, I feel your pain.)
It was precisely to further fortify the positions of Mediocres that the Orwellian named “Human Resources Department,” was created. This is where subordinates who think they are smarter than their superiors are either re-educated or whacked. I remember a Human Resources Director at a company
A company I once worked for asking an employee who was being discharged, “Can you agree to leave your anger at the door?” The employee, a woman, shot back, “Hell no. It’s my anger and I’m taking it with me.”
Anyway, I am rattling on too much before getting to my point. The process I describe leads me to wonder if we expect too much from government. After all, if nothing fails like success what country on earth has been more successful than the US? Succeed we did, but now failures abound. We can’t seem to do anything right any longer, no matter how much money we spend.
* Intelligence: We spend over $60 billion a year on spies and still have no idea what’s going on outside our borders. While the CIA continued to warn during the 1980’s that the Soviet Union was a super threat, it was actually a hollow rooting tree that fell over on its own. How’d they miss that?
* Intelligence 15 years later: “Dead wrong” on Iraq’s WMD. All those spies. All those satellites, all those analysts, all those wiretaps and purloined emails, and the CIA’s chief source of intelligence was a drunk Iraqi in Germany the CIA aptly code named, “Curveball.”
* Health: The FDA has repeatedly approved drugs that kill many of those who take them. Bextra is the latest, but before that was Vioxx and several others. Sure there’s drug company money involved, but there were Smarts within the FDA who tried to blow the whistle. They were last seen heading off for a chat with the their department’s Human Resources Director.
* Homeland Security: Oh Jesus, I don’t even know where to begin. The Homeland Security Dept. may be new, but the people running it came from the top ranks of government lifers. Mediocrity rules the Homeland Security roost. Running it are people who float to the top… like pesky turds that refuse to be flushed. Almost daily now we learn of boondoggles at Homeland Security. Today’s is the revelation that they pissed away nearly a quarter of a billion taxpayer dollars on a high-tech border surveillance system that does not work
“A critical network of cameras and sensors installed for the U.S. Border Patrol along the Mexican and Canadian borders has been hobbled for years by defective equipment that was poorly installed, and by lax oversight by government officials who failed to properly supervise the project's contractor, according to government reports and public and industry officials. The problems with the $239 million Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), which U.S. officials call crucial to defending the country against terrorist infiltrators, are under investigation by the inspector general of the General Services Administration.”(Washington Post)
Who gets fired for these astronomically expensive screw-ups? Forget about it. Mediocres don’t get fired they get promoted. (Or awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom)
The news about the border surveillance screw up follows on the heels of the nearly three quarters of a billion dollar FBI top brass wasted on a terrorist/criminal data base that does not work, at all. How does such a thing happen? Again, you just know there were Smarts who tried to warn someone above them.
Here is where another Mediocre tactic -- “Buy In,” comes into play. Buy In sounds like a it might be a positive process in which everyone involved in a decision does his or her due diligence on the matter and agrees to proceed. What Buy In becomes in a mature organization is something just the opposite. I ran into the buy in trap once myself. After everyone, including myself, made a decision to proceed in a certain way on a project I decided we had made a potentially expensive mistake. At the next meeting with the group I raised my concerns and suggested we put the thing on hold and devise a better plan. That was not what the group wanted to hear. The group manager’s response: “Pizzo, we had buy in on this, including yours. So I would suggest you make it work.” (It failed.)
That’s how Buy In works in large organizations, especially government. Once the Mediocres achieve Buy In. It's a kind of blood oath and mutual suicide pact. It is also the prime way mediocre managers avoid personal responsibility when things go wrong. "Hey, we had total Buy In on that."
I wish I had a solution to offer. Or at least some hope that somehow organizations can grow themselves out of this death spiral into institutionalized inefficiency. But I don’t. I only mention it because I think we need to understand what goes on down in the bowels of government. There tens of thousands of hardworking folks toil in cubicles reading and writing reports, checking facts and, for the most part trying their best. Above them are layer upon layer of managers who got out of that cubicle-farm by not pissing anyone above them off.
And, while elected officials showboat on TV, it’s those invisible managers who are enforcing Buy In on God knows how many expensive, wacky ideas.
Eventually you’ll read all about them in you morning paper. The only question is, how much inefficiency can any organization have before it collapses under the sheer weight of all its own stubborn mistakes? Ask the Russians. They know.
By Stephen Pizzo
Raconteur at Large
There’s an odd saying, sometimes attributed to Henry Ford, but I can find no proof he actually said it. “Nothing fails like success.”
When I was just beginning my working life I thought it was a wacky saying. I mean, really, how can you fail by succeeding? Dumb. Forty years later I understand it all too well.
It’s really quite simple, and the histories of every social grouping, from civilizations to corporation, testify to its accuracy.
The larger any organized group grows the less efficient it gets. It’s the inevitable outcome of initial success. One of the first signs the process has begun is that the quality of people who begin rising to top positions erodes. Just how this happens in interesting in itself.
You find two kinds of people in any organization. Let’s be simplistic and call them the “Smarts” and the “Mediocres.” There are varying degrees of both in any organization but it's the tug of war between the two extremes that leads to failure.
Smarts will only put up with so much BS on the job before they bail out. Mediocres, who see themselves as Smarts, have a natural staying power. Most of them, lacking in genuine abilities, have developed unique survival skills. Like weeds you can never seem to get out of your garden, they tend to set their roots deeply in organizational soil.
Mediocres bristle at resistance from smarter subordinates and, when so threatened, make life miserable for any Smart that challenges them.
Once Mediocres group near the top of an organization they create a kind of mutual protection society, covering each other’s backs against the occasional Smart-attacks from below. (If you work in government or a large company I suspect you know exactly what I am saying. And, dare I say, I feel your pain.)
It was precisely to further fortify the positions of Mediocres that the Orwellian named “Human Resources Department,” was created. This is where subordinates who think they are smarter than their superiors are either re-educated or whacked. I remember a Human Resources Director at a company
A company I once worked for asking an employee who was being discharged, “Can you agree to leave your anger at the door?” The employee, a woman, shot back, “Hell no. It’s my anger and I’m taking it with me.”
Anyway, I am rattling on too much before getting to my point. The process I describe leads me to wonder if we expect too much from government. After all, if nothing fails like success what country on earth has been more successful than the US? Succeed we did, but now failures abound. We can’t seem to do anything right any longer, no matter how much money we spend.
* Intelligence: We spend over $60 billion a year on spies and still have no idea what’s going on outside our borders. While the CIA continued to warn during the 1980’s that the Soviet Union was a super threat, it was actually a hollow rooting tree that fell over on its own. How’d they miss that?
* Intelligence 15 years later: “Dead wrong” on Iraq’s WMD. All those spies. All those satellites, all those analysts, all those wiretaps and purloined emails, and the CIA’s chief source of intelligence was a drunk Iraqi in Germany the CIA aptly code named, “Curveball.”
* Health: The FDA has repeatedly approved drugs that kill many of those who take them. Bextra is the latest, but before that was Vioxx and several others. Sure there’s drug company money involved, but there were Smarts within the FDA who tried to blow the whistle. They were last seen heading off for a chat with the their department’s Human Resources Director.
* Homeland Security: Oh Jesus, I don’t even know where to begin. The Homeland Security Dept. may be new, but the people running it came from the top ranks of government lifers. Mediocrity rules the Homeland Security roost. Running it are people who float to the top… like pesky turds that refuse to be flushed. Almost daily now we learn of boondoggles at Homeland Security. Today’s is the revelation that they pissed away nearly a quarter of a billion taxpayer dollars on a high-tech border surveillance system that does not work
“A critical network of cameras and sensors installed for the U.S. Border Patrol along the Mexican and Canadian borders has been hobbled for years by defective equipment that was poorly installed, and by lax oversight by government officials who failed to properly supervise the project's contractor, according to government reports and public and industry officials. The problems with the $239 million Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), which U.S. officials call crucial to defending the country against terrorist infiltrators, are under investigation by the inspector general of the General Services Administration.”(Washington Post)
Who gets fired for these astronomically expensive screw-ups? Forget about it. Mediocres don’t get fired they get promoted. (Or awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom)
The news about the border surveillance screw up follows on the heels of the nearly three quarters of a billion dollar FBI top brass wasted on a terrorist/criminal data base that does not work, at all. How does such a thing happen? Again, you just know there were Smarts who tried to warn someone above them.
Here is where another Mediocre tactic -- “Buy In,” comes into play. Buy In sounds like a it might be a positive process in which everyone involved in a decision does his or her due diligence on the matter and agrees to proceed. What Buy In becomes in a mature organization is something just the opposite. I ran into the buy in trap once myself. After everyone, including myself, made a decision to proceed in a certain way on a project I decided we had made a potentially expensive mistake. At the next meeting with the group I raised my concerns and suggested we put the thing on hold and devise a better plan. That was not what the group wanted to hear. The group manager’s response: “Pizzo, we had buy in on this, including yours. So I would suggest you make it work.” (It failed.)
That’s how Buy In works in large organizations, especially government. Once the Mediocres achieve Buy In. It's a kind of blood oath and mutual suicide pact. It is also the prime way mediocre managers avoid personal responsibility when things go wrong. "Hey, we had total Buy In on that."
I wish I had a solution to offer. Or at least some hope that somehow organizations can grow themselves out of this death spiral into institutionalized inefficiency. But I don’t. I only mention it because I think we need to understand what goes on down in the bowels of government. There tens of thousands of hardworking folks toil in cubicles reading and writing reports, checking facts and, for the most part trying their best. Above them are layer upon layer of managers who got out of that cubicle-farm by not pissing anyone above them off.
And, while elected officials showboat on TV, it’s those invisible managers who are enforcing Buy In on God knows how many expensive, wacky ideas.
Eventually you’ll read all about them in you morning paper. The only question is, how much inefficiency can any organization have before it collapses under the sheer weight of all its own stubborn mistakes? Ask the Russians. They know.
By Stephen Pizzo
Raconteur at Large
Monday, April 11, 2005
April 10, 2005
A Yankee Abroad
There he was in all his bubbaesque glory. Bill Clinton, big as life strolling the streets of Rome. The Bush’s were in town as well, but the American getting the most attention was Bill. As I watched the footage and listened to the interviews with Clinton I have to admit, a wave of nostalgia and longing wafted over me. The damn guy drove me nuts when he was President, but oh how I miss him now.
Yeah I still hate his guts too. Not for being a bad president, but for being such a self-indulgent putz. His bad-boy behavior just gave the right wingers the keys to kingdom. That and the stickman he picked to be his successor.
But then there’s the Bill Clinton I so miss…. personified in an answer he gave to a question yesterday about what he liked most about the Pope. His response, “The guy really knew how to build a crowd.”
Holy heresy! But also what a breath of fresh air. After days of canned, predictable pious crapola from a long list of phony stinkpots like Tom DeLay, the Bush’s and chief pedophile-protector Cardinal Bernard Law, Clinton’s breezy, honest response was sweet music to my ears.
Clinton, also knows how to build a crowd. And that’s just what he was doing in Rome this week.
While Romans were unlikely to catch a glimpse of President Bush - he moved only in motorcades and appeared only at a few official events - Mr. Clinton was clearly reveling in the fact that shoppers, tourists having lunch at outdoor cafes and Italian business people walking to meetings all stopped to greet him. "Isn't this a great city?" he said. Along the streets, people starting yelling "Bill, Bill, Bill," and a few shouted "U.S.A.!" (Washington Post)
It was a bitter-sweet reminder how, not long ago, the US was both respected and liked abroad. What a difference five years has made. Imagine if President Bush tried strolling down those same streets in Rome, or any other European city, yesterday. Do you think he’d make to the end of the first block without someone spitting on him -- or worse? Forget about it. Not since Hitler has a national leader been so hated by most Europeans. And, I dare say, that is not hyperbole but measurably true.
Now I am no a unqualified fan of the European community. They too have plenty to be ashamed of. Like the way the were more than willing to allow ethnic cleansing to proceed unchallenged in the former Yugoslavia. Clinton had to shame them into action there.
But in Clinton Europeans also saw a man willing to engage with them on issues of common concern, like the environment.
- Clinton or Gore would have signed the Kyoto protocols – the first genuine attempt by the world community to begin reversing the damage done by industrialized humanity. Bush refused.
- Clinton approved of the Court of International Justice. On 31 December 2000 then President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, a step towards establishing the court, which would hear cases alleging war crimes, among other criminal acts. However, on 6 May 2002, George Bush took the unprecedented step of repudiating Clinton’s signature on the Rome Statute and began a worldwide campaign to weaken the Court and obtain impunity for all US nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court. (After Abu Ghraib we now know why.)
Bush supporters would ask, and rightly so, “Yes, but what would Clinton, or Gore, have done in response to 9/11?"
A fair question, and one deserves a response. I suspect neither Clinton or Gore would have attacked Iraq, which of course had nothing to do with 9/11. But would either man have attacked Afghanistan, which richly deserved a thorough shellacking?
Yes, and no. Let’s assume the worst for the moment, that a President Gore would have responded with a few cruise missile strikes against Taliban and al Qaida targets and then turned back to limp-wrist diplomacy. How would the world be different today?
Not so different. The Europeans first response to a crisis is always the same -- wait to see if the US is willing to do all the heavy lifting so they can sit back and criticize. But Europeans understood that 9/11 was not just an attack against the US, but against the West, of which they are part. Countries like France, England and Germany each have growing Muslim immigrant communities and they were all wondering when they would be next on the hit list.
Once they saw that President Gore was not going to spend US money and lives to clean out the al Qaida strongholds in Afghanistan, pressure would have quickly built for NATO to do the job. Afganistan was a cancerous tumor that was a lot closer to Europe than the US. So, the Taliban would have ended up just where they are today under a President Gore. The only difference is it would have been the US as part of a NATO action that kicked their ass.
Now, Iraq. There would have been no attack on Iraq under a President Gore because there would not have been any justification for one. Without political pressure from the White House to cook the WMD intelligence, a CIA under President Gore would have served up conclusions about Iraq that were far more balanced and circumspect. There certainly would not have been the imaginary smoking gun President Bush used to justify launching full scale war. Instead the whole matter would have stayed right where was, at the UN.
Oh I know the UN was running a huge Oil for Food scam, but hell, the money being stolen there was chump change compared to the $200 billion our grandkids will still be repaying for the US going it alone in Iraq.
And yes, Saddam would still be sitting pretty like Mr. Piggy in his palaces, and that would be too bad -- but hardly catastrophic.
Finally, since we now know there were no WMD in Iraq, not attacking would not have resulted in a less secure world, though attacking has certainly resulted in a less secure Iraq.
Bush' supporters are left only with this excuse now; “But Saddam was an undemocratic, brutal dictator!” Well, if that’s the burr under Bush’s saddle he has a sterling opportunity to scratch that itch right now while he is in Rome. He can whack Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, who is also attending the Pope's funeral. How handy. Here is a genuine mean-ass dictator who just stole another election back home. He will be right there, within Bush's arm’s reach, a pew away. Go get him cowboy. (Oh, wait. There’s no oil in Zimbabwe. Besides, the place is chuck full of Africans.)
So, I conclude that if Gore had won instead of Bush the world would not be much different, except for few incidentals:
* About 10,000 Iraqis – mostly civilians- would still be alive
* Over 150,000 US men and women would be home with their families rather than stuck in Iraq
* Over 1500 American soldiers would still be breathing.
* Hundreds of American soldiers would still be in possession of all their limbs
* The national checking account would have a positive balance
* The air would be cleaner and on its way to getting even more so.
* Neither Clarence Thomas nor Anthony Scalia would have a prayer of being Chief Justice of the US.
* A bunch of low-brow, knuckle-dragging evangelicals would not be making US policy on women’s reproductive rights.
* And, if Gore had been elected, Bill Clinton still would have been the most popular American in Rome this week.
One final scene from Rome makes my point. After a formal state dinner yesterday with the Italian leader, Bill Clinton headed out for a second private dinner with newly elected Ukrainian President, Viktor A. Yuschenko. Vik had come to Rome fresh form a photo-op tour to the US where President Bush gushed all over him for bringing Democracy to his former Soviet vassal state. But it wasn’t George W. Bush Yuschenko smoozed with on his own time, but Bill Clinton. And smooze they did, late into the night. It was well after midnight when the two men’s Chianti fueled chat ended.
Can you imagine Yuschenko smoozing with GW Bush until after midnight? Not a chance. Too slim a pickin’ between those two ears. But Bill Clinton.. there’s mind worth mining.
So I miss Bill, or at least I miss most of him. I just wish we could saw this guy into two halves, keeping everything from the waist up and leaving the bottom half with an open tab at a well-stocked French whorehouse. Then, finally, everyone would be happy.
But if I had to make a choice between all of Bill and all of George running my nation, give me all of Bill. Humanity can easily survive the errors of a randy genius. But I am less certain we can survive the antics of an idiot prince.
By Stephen Pizzo
Raconteur at Large
There he was in all his bubbaesque glory. Bill Clinton, big as life strolling the streets of Rome. The Bush’s were in town as well, but the American getting the most attention was Bill. As I watched the footage and listened to the interviews with Clinton I have to admit, a wave of nostalgia and longing wafted over me. The damn guy drove me nuts when he was President, but oh how I miss him now.
Yeah I still hate his guts too. Not for being a bad president, but for being such a self-indulgent putz. His bad-boy behavior just gave the right wingers the keys to kingdom. That and the stickman he picked to be his successor.
But then there’s the Bill Clinton I so miss…. personified in an answer he gave to a question yesterday about what he liked most about the Pope. His response, “The guy really knew how to build a crowd.”
Holy heresy! But also what a breath of fresh air. After days of canned, predictable pious crapola from a long list of phony stinkpots like Tom DeLay, the Bush’s and chief pedophile-protector Cardinal Bernard Law, Clinton’s breezy, honest response was sweet music to my ears.
Clinton, also knows how to build a crowd. And that’s just what he was doing in Rome this week.
While Romans were unlikely to catch a glimpse of President Bush - he moved only in motorcades and appeared only at a few official events - Mr. Clinton was clearly reveling in the fact that shoppers, tourists having lunch at outdoor cafes and Italian business people walking to meetings all stopped to greet him. "Isn't this a great city?" he said. Along the streets, people starting yelling "Bill, Bill, Bill," and a few shouted "U.S.A.!" (Washington Post)
It was a bitter-sweet reminder how, not long ago, the US was both respected and liked abroad. What a difference five years has made. Imagine if President Bush tried strolling down those same streets in Rome, or any other European city, yesterday. Do you think he’d make to the end of the first block without someone spitting on him -- or worse? Forget about it. Not since Hitler has a national leader been so hated by most Europeans. And, I dare say, that is not hyperbole but measurably true.
Now I am no a unqualified fan of the European community. They too have plenty to be ashamed of. Like the way the were more than willing to allow ethnic cleansing to proceed unchallenged in the former Yugoslavia. Clinton had to shame them into action there.
But in Clinton Europeans also saw a man willing to engage with them on issues of common concern, like the environment.
- Clinton or Gore would have signed the Kyoto protocols – the first genuine attempt by the world community to begin reversing the damage done by industrialized humanity. Bush refused.
- Clinton approved of the Court of International Justice. On 31 December 2000 then President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, a step towards establishing the court, which would hear cases alleging war crimes, among other criminal acts. However, on 6 May 2002, George Bush took the unprecedented step of repudiating Clinton’s signature on the Rome Statute and began a worldwide campaign to weaken the Court and obtain impunity for all US nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court. (After Abu Ghraib we now know why.)
Bush supporters would ask, and rightly so, “Yes, but what would Clinton, or Gore, have done in response to 9/11?"
A fair question, and one deserves a response. I suspect neither Clinton or Gore would have attacked Iraq, which of course had nothing to do with 9/11. But would either man have attacked Afghanistan, which richly deserved a thorough shellacking?
Yes, and no. Let’s assume the worst for the moment, that a President Gore would have responded with a few cruise missile strikes against Taliban and al Qaida targets and then turned back to limp-wrist diplomacy. How would the world be different today?
Not so different. The Europeans first response to a crisis is always the same -- wait to see if the US is willing to do all the heavy lifting so they can sit back and criticize. But Europeans understood that 9/11 was not just an attack against the US, but against the West, of which they are part. Countries like France, England and Germany each have growing Muslim immigrant communities and they were all wondering when they would be next on the hit list.
Once they saw that President Gore was not going to spend US money and lives to clean out the al Qaida strongholds in Afghanistan, pressure would have quickly built for NATO to do the job. Afganistan was a cancerous tumor that was a lot closer to Europe than the US. So, the Taliban would have ended up just where they are today under a President Gore. The only difference is it would have been the US as part of a NATO action that kicked their ass.
Now, Iraq. There would have been no attack on Iraq under a President Gore because there would not have been any justification for one. Without political pressure from the White House to cook the WMD intelligence, a CIA under President Gore would have served up conclusions about Iraq that were far more balanced and circumspect. There certainly would not have been the imaginary smoking gun President Bush used to justify launching full scale war. Instead the whole matter would have stayed right where was, at the UN.
Oh I know the UN was running a huge Oil for Food scam, but hell, the money being stolen there was chump change compared to the $200 billion our grandkids will still be repaying for the US going it alone in Iraq.
And yes, Saddam would still be sitting pretty like Mr. Piggy in his palaces, and that would be too bad -- but hardly catastrophic.
Finally, since we now know there were no WMD in Iraq, not attacking would not have resulted in a less secure world, though attacking has certainly resulted in a less secure Iraq.
Bush' supporters are left only with this excuse now; “But Saddam was an undemocratic, brutal dictator!” Well, if that’s the burr under Bush’s saddle he has a sterling opportunity to scratch that itch right now while he is in Rome. He can whack Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, who is also attending the Pope's funeral. How handy. Here is a genuine mean-ass dictator who just stole another election back home. He will be right there, within Bush's arm’s reach, a pew away. Go get him cowboy. (Oh, wait. There’s no oil in Zimbabwe. Besides, the place is chuck full of Africans.)
So, I conclude that if Gore had won instead of Bush the world would not be much different, except for few incidentals:
* About 10,000 Iraqis – mostly civilians- would still be alive
* Over 150,000 US men and women would be home with their families rather than stuck in Iraq
* Over 1500 American soldiers would still be breathing.
* Hundreds of American soldiers would still be in possession of all their limbs
* The national checking account would have a positive balance
* The air would be cleaner and on its way to getting even more so.
* Neither Clarence Thomas nor Anthony Scalia would have a prayer of being Chief Justice of the US.
* A bunch of low-brow, knuckle-dragging evangelicals would not be making US policy on women’s reproductive rights.
* And, if Gore had been elected, Bill Clinton still would have been the most popular American in Rome this week.
One final scene from Rome makes my point. After a formal state dinner yesterday with the Italian leader, Bill Clinton headed out for a second private dinner with newly elected Ukrainian President, Viktor A. Yuschenko. Vik had come to Rome fresh form a photo-op tour to the US where President Bush gushed all over him for bringing Democracy to his former Soviet vassal state. But it wasn’t George W. Bush Yuschenko smoozed with on his own time, but Bill Clinton. And smooze they did, late into the night. It was well after midnight when the two men’s Chianti fueled chat ended.
Can you imagine Yuschenko smoozing with GW Bush until after midnight? Not a chance. Too slim a pickin’ between those two ears. But Bill Clinton.. there’s mind worth mining.
So I miss Bill, or at least I miss most of him. I just wish we could saw this guy into two halves, keeping everything from the waist up and leaving the bottom half with an open tab at a well-stocked French whorehouse. Then, finally, everyone would be happy.
But if I had to make a choice between all of Bill and all of George running my nation, give me all of Bill. Humanity can easily survive the errors of a randy genius. But I am less certain we can survive the antics of an idiot prince.
By Stephen Pizzo
Raconteur at Large
Friday, April 08, 2005
April 7, 2005
Will the Real Progressives
Please Stand Up
Please Stand Up
A story in today’s Washington Post reports on a survey of Howard Dean supporters. The results are hardly surprising. Those who supported, and continue to support, Dean are the most liberal folks in the Democratic Party. And, when asked, they say their party should move further to the left, challenge Republicans more vigorously and aggressively push “progressive” issues.
I think most of “Blues” share the same frustrations, distaste, disdain and depression as the Dean people. But frustration and distain are not policies. And neither is simply vaguely advocating “progressive policies.”
The trouble Democrats face is that, thanks largely to the Clintonite reign, the party triangulated itself right out of orbit. Who the hell do Democrats now represent, anyway? Honestly, I cannot tell you.
The poor? If so why are so many working poor still poor? The American dream is supposed to be readily available to anyone who works hard. Millions of American work very, very hard, and remain dirt poor.
The middleclass? Oh, you mean “the shrinking middleclass.” We are talking here of families in which both partners hold fulltime jobs and are still up to their necks in debt, many cannot afford healthcare for themselves or their kids. And now Congress is about to pass, with Democratic votes, a bankruptcy “reform” bill that will lock middleclass debtors into perpetual indentured servitude to usurious credit card companies.
The trouble with Democrats is their party has gotten all tangled up in its own cynical conniving. What do they believe? Whatever it takes to win. Trouble is they can't seem to even connive their way into office any longer. If this were a chess match, Republicans are simply better players. Time and time again Republicans have thrown red meat into the middle of the road and Democrats have elbowed one another out of the way to become road-kill.
Democrats have become a party without a platform. They don't want to be called liberals any longer, so they have glomed onto the term "progessive," like a drowning man would grab a life preserver that just happened to float by. But they have no idea what the hell to do with the term now that they have hitched themselves to it.
So, let me help. Here is what I think most of us out here would recognize as “progressive” policies:
- Protecting Citizens: Yes that means a strong military. The world is chuck-full of jerks and we always need to be ready to defend ourselves. But citizens can be attacked by many kinds of enemies. Since WWII a whole lot more Americans have died from illnesses than enemy attacks. So, why isn’t the Department of Health funded as lavishly as the Department of Defense? Why do we have a large standing Army and Nation Guard but no National Health Insurance? Personnally I worry a whole lot more about getting a catastrophic illness than I worry about getting bombed. I bet you do too.
- Put the Damn Carrot Back: The labor movement is constipated and employers have gotten away with murder. First they reduced the size of the carrot at the end of the stick, and got away with it. Then they removed the carrot entirely. Companies looted and then dumped their employee retirement funds, replacing them with 401K plans funded out of employee’s paycheck -- and they got away with it. They outsourced million of US jobs -- and got away with it. And they continue to fight increasing the minimum wage which, adjusted for inflation, is now worth less than it was in 1958. A progressive nation would assure that those willing to pay their own way through life by working, be able to do so. Therefore the minimum wage should be increased to reflect the minimum needed cover the cost of food and housing. And, this wage should be calculated based on the actual cost of living for the state and/or city in which the worker resides.
- Stop Crapping in Our Own Mess Kit: A progressive nation is a good steward of its natural resources and environment. So, Detroit should be given no more than ten more years to covert all it’s vehicles to run on clean, renewable fuels. Power plants should be given even less time to do so, five years. They should have and could have done so long ago. Enough with the studies. We know what has to be done, and why. So just get it done. Yes, we know it will cost money. But we seemed able to find $200 billion to make the rubble bounce in Iraq, so I am sure we can find a few bucks to clean the air here at home. (Oh, and Congress should pass a law tomorrow imposing a stiff “idiot tax” on anyone who purchases a Hummer.)
- The Abortion Mitigation Act of 2005: Democrats cannot seem to figure out how to continue supporting a woman’s right to choose and still get elected in Red States. Let me help them. Propose a law that establishes a national adoption database that right to lifers can sign onto. When their name reaches the top of the list they get the next unwanted child born, no matter. Signing on would contractually obligate them to take the next child regardless of color, gender or health. Failing to comply would result in a $100,000 non-dischargeable fine, which would go into a fund for the child. Until right to lifers have some of their own skin in the game they will continue to show no regard for the rights of women or the unwanted children they are forced to bear. By pushing this law Democrats would show they really do care about life, both lives, the child’s and women’s. Then it would be up to the right to lifers to show how much they really care about the lives of full-term babies.
- Representative Democracy for Us Too: While peddling representative democracy to other countries it might be an interesting experiment to try it here. The Electoral College is an artifact of the nation’s nascent configuration. Keeping it now makes no sense at all and only adds to the growing cynicism among voters whose votes should be the final word, but isn’t. Dump the Electoral College now.
- Stop Locking Up Druggies: If alcoholism is a disease, why isn’t drug addiction? Oh don’t worry I know the answer. If drugs were legal like liquor drug addiction would be classified a disease. It’s just not good business to lock customers up because they can’t get to the store. Nevertheless America keeps locking up tens of thousands of harmless druggies. It’s expensive, dumb and counter productive. All that we accomplish by convicting some poor pot smoker or coke sniffer of a felony is to further damage their lives by reducing their chances of straightening out. Get them into treatment instead. Like alcoholics, some druggies will never kick the habit. But whole lot more will, and treatment is cheaper to boot.
Now, those policies would turn some heads out here. They are bold, progressive policies that millions of enlightened Americans could get excited about. But a word of warning to Democrats – there’s one prerequisite before you can succeed by embracing such progressive ideas – you have to really believe in them. If you don’t, then don’t even bother. We can smell a phony, conniving Democrat a mile away. After all, we’ve had a lot practice.
I think most of “Blues” share the same frustrations, distaste, disdain and depression as the Dean people. But frustration and distain are not policies. And neither is simply vaguely advocating “progressive policies.”
The trouble Democrats face is that, thanks largely to the Clintonite reign, the party triangulated itself right out of orbit. Who the hell do Democrats now represent, anyway? Honestly, I cannot tell you.
The poor? If so why are so many working poor still poor? The American dream is supposed to be readily available to anyone who works hard. Millions of American work very, very hard, and remain dirt poor.
The middleclass? Oh, you mean “the shrinking middleclass.” We are talking here of families in which both partners hold fulltime jobs and are still up to their necks in debt, many cannot afford healthcare for themselves or their kids. And now Congress is about to pass, with Democratic votes, a bankruptcy “reform” bill that will lock middleclass debtors into perpetual indentured servitude to usurious credit card companies.
The trouble with Democrats is their party has gotten all tangled up in its own cynical conniving. What do they believe? Whatever it takes to win. Trouble is they can't seem to even connive their way into office any longer. If this were a chess match, Republicans are simply better players. Time and time again Republicans have thrown red meat into the middle of the road and Democrats have elbowed one another out of the way to become road-kill.
Democrats have become a party without a platform. They don't want to be called liberals any longer, so they have glomed onto the term "progessive," like a drowning man would grab a life preserver that just happened to float by. But they have no idea what the hell to do with the term now that they have hitched themselves to it.
So, let me help. Here is what I think most of us out here would recognize as “progressive” policies:
- Protecting Citizens: Yes that means a strong military. The world is chuck-full of jerks and we always need to be ready to defend ourselves. But citizens can be attacked by many kinds of enemies. Since WWII a whole lot more Americans have died from illnesses than enemy attacks. So, why isn’t the Department of Health funded as lavishly as the Department of Defense? Why do we have a large standing Army and Nation Guard but no National Health Insurance? Personnally I worry a whole lot more about getting a catastrophic illness than I worry about getting bombed. I bet you do too.
- Put the Damn Carrot Back: The labor movement is constipated and employers have gotten away with murder. First they reduced the size of the carrot at the end of the stick, and got away with it. Then they removed the carrot entirely. Companies looted and then dumped their employee retirement funds, replacing them with 401K plans funded out of employee’s paycheck -- and they got away with it. They outsourced million of US jobs -- and got away with it. And they continue to fight increasing the minimum wage which, adjusted for inflation, is now worth less than it was in 1958. A progressive nation would assure that those willing to pay their own way through life by working, be able to do so. Therefore the minimum wage should be increased to reflect the minimum needed cover the cost of food and housing. And, this wage should be calculated based on the actual cost of living for the state and/or city in which the worker resides.
- Stop Crapping in Our Own Mess Kit: A progressive nation is a good steward of its natural resources and environment. So, Detroit should be given no more than ten more years to covert all it’s vehicles to run on clean, renewable fuels. Power plants should be given even less time to do so, five years. They should have and could have done so long ago. Enough with the studies. We know what has to be done, and why. So just get it done. Yes, we know it will cost money. But we seemed able to find $200 billion to make the rubble bounce in Iraq, so I am sure we can find a few bucks to clean the air here at home. (Oh, and Congress should pass a law tomorrow imposing a stiff “idiot tax” on anyone who purchases a Hummer.)
- The Abortion Mitigation Act of 2005: Democrats cannot seem to figure out how to continue supporting a woman’s right to choose and still get elected in Red States. Let me help them. Propose a law that establishes a national adoption database that right to lifers can sign onto. When their name reaches the top of the list they get the next unwanted child born, no matter. Signing on would contractually obligate them to take the next child regardless of color, gender or health. Failing to comply would result in a $100,000 non-dischargeable fine, which would go into a fund for the child. Until right to lifers have some of their own skin in the game they will continue to show no regard for the rights of women or the unwanted children they are forced to bear. By pushing this law Democrats would show they really do care about life, both lives, the child’s and women’s. Then it would be up to the right to lifers to show how much they really care about the lives of full-term babies.
- Representative Democracy for Us Too: While peddling representative democracy to other countries it might be an interesting experiment to try it here. The Electoral College is an artifact of the nation’s nascent configuration. Keeping it now makes no sense at all and only adds to the growing cynicism among voters whose votes should be the final word, but isn’t. Dump the Electoral College now.
- Stop Locking Up Druggies: If alcoholism is a disease, why isn’t drug addiction? Oh don’t worry I know the answer. If drugs were legal like liquor drug addiction would be classified a disease. It’s just not good business to lock customers up because they can’t get to the store. Nevertheless America keeps locking up tens of thousands of harmless druggies. It’s expensive, dumb and counter productive. All that we accomplish by convicting some poor pot smoker or coke sniffer of a felony is to further damage their lives by reducing their chances of straightening out. Get them into treatment instead. Like alcoholics, some druggies will never kick the habit. But whole lot more will, and treatment is cheaper to boot.
Now, those policies would turn some heads out here. They are bold, progressive policies that millions of enlightened Americans could get excited about. But a word of warning to Democrats – there’s one prerequisite before you can succeed by embracing such progressive ideas – you have to really believe in them. If you don’t, then don’t even bother. We can smell a phony, conniving Democrat a mile away. After all, we’ve had a lot practice.
Raconteur at Large
Thursday, April 07, 2005
April 6, 2005
Immigration Whores
Ah, terrorism, the all-purpose excuse for almost anything these days. Whenever politicians are up to no good they mask their monkey business in a great cause; fighting Communism, war on poverty, making the world safe for democracy and of course, protecting Americans from terrorists.
Since 9/11 we have seen terrorism used for a lot of questionable stuff, including torture, and bombing, or threatening to bomb, the crap out of any country that looks at us sideways.
Which brings me to the latest anti-terrorism scam… immigration reform. Did you hear? If Osama bin Laden wants to sneak into the US across the Mexican boarder he has only three years left to do so. Beginning in 2008 he will need a passport. That’s the Bush administration’s idea of immigration and national security reform.
Feel safer? Yep, that should do it. Unless of course bin Laden’s minion decide to take the scenic route into the US along any of the few hundred miles of rusty two-strand barbwire in New Mexico or Arizona or Texas or California.
So, what’s really up with all this? Well, first, it has nothing to do with bin Laden or keeping terrorists out of the US. It’s about getting elected in 2008.
We are talking immigration here… the new Third Rail of politics. With US voters split almost 50/50, red/blue, Confederate/Union, both parties see the Hispanic vote as their ticket to office. Remember when being black was all the rage in Washington? Well, African Americans are so yesterday. Affirmative action what? It’s “que pasa, amigo,” time in Washington now.
Proof abounds. Today’s news that the US is going to get tough on illegal immigration by requiring passports when crossing Canadian or Mexican boarder points is just a way members of both parties can look like they’re doing something about illegals without risking pissing off Hispanic voters in key states like Arizona and New Mexico. After all, down there “they don’t need no stinkin’ passports.” They just stroll across the boarder.
As for the national security angle, give me a break. No self-respecting terrorist would be lame enough to apply for a passport. Why would they when they can just slip on a Corona tee shirt, a baseball cap and blend into a group of Mexican workers sneaking across the boarder during the normal Monday morning commute? It’s so easy I am surprised some enterprising American entrepreneur hasn’t organized a “Run For the Boarder” adventure tourism business for bored yuppies.
Don’t look to Washington for any genuine help. Members of both parties are too busy selling their votes to phony Hispanic “immigration rights” groups. These groups have already succeeded in making it politically incorrect to oppose illegal immigration. I call them phony because they are not talking about protecting legal immigrants. They are talking about illegal immigrants. This has to be the first political movement in US history with the chutzpah to insist that law enforcers clear the path for illegal activity.
But they a good, I’ll give them that. They hit the political correctness jackpot with their new slogan, “No human being is illegal.” Cute, but spare me the phony bleeding hearts. It’s not their humanness that is illegal, but their immigration status. (That kind of crap really pisses me off.)
One of the dangers of talking straight about illegal immigration is that the issue has always been a favorite of rightwing and racist groups. And the immigration rights folks have used that unfortunate fact skillfully to keep liberals and progressives away from the issue. On the right side of the political spectrum they play a different game. By encouraging GOP pols to side with them they offer them the opportunity to chip away at a traditionally Democratic voting block and to look less like the Wonderbread party at the same time.
So, how much is all this nonsense costing you? Plenty, according to a recent Center for Immigration Studies Report: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html. I am not going to snow you under with numbers but here are few you should chew on:
The political hypocrisy on both sides of the US/Mexican border is so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it. Recently President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox met. Fox used the occasion to lash out at those in the US who want to do anything about illegal immigration.
Ah but all you have to do is look south to see something very different. Mexico has, you might say, it’s own Mexico south of them, Honduras. Mexico has been complaining for years that their southern neighbor wasn’t doing enough to control illegal immigration. It seems Mexicans did not appreciate even lower wage Hondurans and drug smugglers flooding into their country.
And, while Fox complained bitterly that Mexican illegals face rough handling by US border patrols, things are a lot worse for Hondurans sneaking into Mexico. Many of the illegals in Mexico, who emigrate from Central and South America, complain say they are robbed, beaten and murdered by Mexican authorities and organized gangs. (According to human rights group, El Universal, 142 Hondurans died in Mexico in 2003 while migrating north, and Mexico deported approximately 36,000 others.)
For President Bush immigration is not a national security issue, but a political issue. And, for President Fox it’s a national economic imperative. Illegal immigrants produce more revenue each year for Mexico than the country’s oil resources. By not only allowing illegal immigration, but also actually facilitating it, Fox shifts his country’s fiscal deficit from Mexican taxpayers to American taxpayers. Simple as that.
But members in Congress are facing increasing pressure from southwest voters to do something about illegal immigration. Notice the so-called “Minute Man,” citizen patrols going on this week in Arizona. The heat is on from legal Americans. Even many naturalized Mexican/Americans worry that the flood of illegals into the US threatens to turn this country into the country they fled.
Bush’s solution is to legalize illegals that want to work here while holding out the promise of a future amnesty. He figures that’s going to be a real vote getter in the southwest, and he is probably right. The trouble is, while the issue may be win for some politicians, it’s a losser for the country. One of the key findings of this CIS report was that legalization would dramatically increase the costs of illegal immigration.
So, what should Washington do about illegal immigration? Requiring passports is not going to stop a single determined illegal. Period. And, we have too long a boarder to build an Israeli-type wall. Nor can we hire enough boarder patrol agents to stop all illegal crossings.
Bu the solution is really quite simple, and cheap. Focus on the two magnets that draw illegal immigrants form Mexico in the first place: jobs and US citizenship for children born here.
Begin by aggressively enforcing sanctions against American companies that employ illegals. Instead of wasting time futilely patrolling a thousand miles of border, INS agents should put on suits and ties and audit workplaces. And this time put real teeth into the law. Any employer caught hiring illegals should face a stiff fine calculated as a percentage of that company’s gross adjusted income for the last tax year. Any subsequent offenses and the percentage penalty doubles, then triples, etc. Sooner or later the fines would be so large that it just would not be worth it to hire low-wage illegals.
Then change US citizenship law to require than any baby born of an illegal must apply for US citizenship just like anyone else, whether baby is born to a foreign “visitor” or an illegal. Sorry kid, but don’t blame us, blame the people who run Mexico.
Don’t hold your breath though. Niether of those two changes will happen. Why? Because they would work, that’s why. And, because they would work, they would lose contributions and votes from two of Washington’s most important constituents these days, businesses looking for low wage workers and Hispanic groups looking to re-colonize El Norte and then, using simple birthrate demographics, finish the job.
But instead of doing anything real Washington will hire more people to check passports of regular chumps and tourists crossing the border legally. Meanwhile there are already large sections of Los Angeles and Miami and other major US cities where, if you don’t speak or read Spanish you’re a foreigner. I call it the Quebecization of America.
Oh, and of course our ballots are available in Spanish now too, which is another reason nothing is going to change.
I wonder what would happen if I snuck into Mexico and started demanding that their ballots be available in English. But then, I don't have to wonder too long.
Hasta amigos y amigas. Or something like that...
Raconteur at Large
Ah, terrorism, the all-purpose excuse for almost anything these days. Whenever politicians are up to no good they mask their monkey business in a great cause; fighting Communism, war on poverty, making the world safe for democracy and of course, protecting Americans from terrorists.
Since 9/11 we have seen terrorism used for a lot of questionable stuff, including torture, and bombing, or threatening to bomb, the crap out of any country that looks at us sideways.
Which brings me to the latest anti-terrorism scam… immigration reform. Did you hear? If Osama bin Laden wants to sneak into the US across the Mexican boarder he has only three years left to do so. Beginning in 2008 he will need a passport. That’s the Bush administration’s idea of immigration and national security reform.
Feel safer? Yep, that should do it. Unless of course bin Laden’s minion decide to take the scenic route into the US along any of the few hundred miles of rusty two-strand barbwire in New Mexico or Arizona or Texas or California.
So, what’s really up with all this? Well, first, it has nothing to do with bin Laden or keeping terrorists out of the US. It’s about getting elected in 2008.
We are talking immigration here… the new Third Rail of politics. With US voters split almost 50/50, red/blue, Confederate/Union, both parties see the Hispanic vote as their ticket to office. Remember when being black was all the rage in Washington? Well, African Americans are so yesterday. Affirmative action what? It’s “que pasa, amigo,” time in Washington now.
Proof abounds. Today’s news that the US is going to get tough on illegal immigration by requiring passports when crossing Canadian or Mexican boarder points is just a way members of both parties can look like they’re doing something about illegals without risking pissing off Hispanic voters in key states like Arizona and New Mexico. After all, down there “they don’t need no stinkin’ passports.” They just stroll across the boarder.
As for the national security angle, give me a break. No self-respecting terrorist would be lame enough to apply for a passport. Why would they when they can just slip on a Corona tee shirt, a baseball cap and blend into a group of Mexican workers sneaking across the boarder during the normal Monday morning commute? It’s so easy I am surprised some enterprising American entrepreneur hasn’t organized a “Run For the Boarder” adventure tourism business for bored yuppies.Let me stop here for a moment to make something perfectly clear. I am not a white supremacist nut or anti-immigrant. I am here because my grandparents immigrated (legally) from Sicily early in the last century. I am just against uncontrolled, illegal immigration – as you should be as well -- and, as should all our elected representatives.
Don’t look to Washington for any genuine help. Members of both parties are too busy selling their votes to phony Hispanic “immigration rights” groups. These groups have already succeeded in making it politically incorrect to oppose illegal immigration. I call them phony because they are not talking about protecting legal immigrants. They are talking about illegal immigrants. This has to be the first political movement in US history with the chutzpah to insist that law enforcers clear the path for illegal activity.
But they a good, I’ll give them that. They hit the political correctness jackpot with their new slogan, “No human being is illegal.” Cute, but spare me the phony bleeding hearts. It’s not their humanness that is illegal, but their immigration status. (That kind of crap really pisses me off.)
One of the dangers of talking straight about illegal immigration is that the issue has always been a favorite of rightwing and racist groups. And the immigration rights folks have used that unfortunate fact skillfully to keep liberals and progressives away from the issue. On the right side of the political spectrum they play a different game. By encouraging GOP pols to side with them they offer them the opportunity to chip away at a traditionally Democratic voting block and to look less like the Wonderbread party at the same time.
So, how much is all this nonsense costing you? Plenty, according to a recent Center for Immigration Studies Report: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html. I am not going to snow you under with numbers but here are few you should chew on:
• Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 while paying only $16 billion in taxes a $10.4 billion deficit, or $2,700 per illegal household.
• Among the largest costs are those to already hard-pressed Medicaid - $2.5 billion for treatment of the uninsured ($2.2 billion); plus food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
• Even if illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
• Among the largest costs are those to already hard-pressed Medicaid - $2.5 billion for treatment of the uninsured ($2.2 billion); plus food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
• Even if illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
The political hypocrisy on both sides of the US/Mexican border is so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it. Recently President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox met. Fox used the occasion to lash out at those in the US who want to do anything about illegal immigration.
Ah but all you have to do is look south to see something very different. Mexico has, you might say, it’s own Mexico south of them, Honduras. Mexico has been complaining for years that their southern neighbor wasn’t doing enough to control illegal immigration. It seems Mexicans did not appreciate even lower wage Hondurans and drug smugglers flooding into their country.
And, while Fox complained bitterly that Mexican illegals face rough handling by US border patrols, things are a lot worse for Hondurans sneaking into Mexico. Many of the illegals in Mexico, who emigrate from Central and South America, complain say they are robbed, beaten and murdered by Mexican authorities and organized gangs. (According to human rights group, El Universal, 142 Hondurans died in Mexico in 2003 while migrating north, and Mexico deported approximately 36,000 others.)
For President Bush immigration is not a national security issue, but a political issue. And, for President Fox it’s a national economic imperative. Illegal immigrants produce more revenue each year for Mexico than the country’s oil resources. By not only allowing illegal immigration, but also actually facilitating it, Fox shifts his country’s fiscal deficit from Mexican taxpayers to American taxpayers. Simple as that.
But members in Congress are facing increasing pressure from southwest voters to do something about illegal immigration. Notice the so-called “Minute Man,” citizen patrols going on this week in Arizona. The heat is on from legal Americans. Even many naturalized Mexican/Americans worry that the flood of illegals into the US threatens to turn this country into the country they fled.
Bush’s solution is to legalize illegals that want to work here while holding out the promise of a future amnesty. He figures that’s going to be a real vote getter in the southwest, and he is probably right. The trouble is, while the issue may be win for some politicians, it’s a losser for the country. One of the key findings of this CIS report was that legalization would dramatically increase the costs of illegal immigration.
Even if illegals were given green cards and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants, the net annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,736 to $7,668 per household under the most likely scenario. (Total costs could grow from $10.4 billion a year to $28.8 billion. That’s how much the vote selling on this issue will cost you if they succeed.)
Just Do It!So, what should Washington do about illegal immigration? Requiring passports is not going to stop a single determined illegal. Period. And, we have too long a boarder to build an Israeli-type wall. Nor can we hire enough boarder patrol agents to stop all illegal crossings.
Bu the solution is really quite simple, and cheap. Focus on the two magnets that draw illegal immigrants form Mexico in the first place: jobs and US citizenship for children born here.
Begin by aggressively enforcing sanctions against American companies that employ illegals. Instead of wasting time futilely patrolling a thousand miles of border, INS agents should put on suits and ties and audit workplaces. And this time put real teeth into the law. Any employer caught hiring illegals should face a stiff fine calculated as a percentage of that company’s gross adjusted income for the last tax year. Any subsequent offenses and the percentage penalty doubles, then triples, etc. Sooner or later the fines would be so large that it just would not be worth it to hire low-wage illegals.
Then change US citizenship law to require than any baby born of an illegal must apply for US citizenship just like anyone else, whether baby is born to a foreign “visitor” or an illegal. Sorry kid, but don’t blame us, blame the people who run Mexico.
Don’t hold your breath though. Niether of those two changes will happen. Why? Because they would work, that’s why. And, because they would work, they would lose contributions and votes from two of Washington’s most important constituents these days, businesses looking for low wage workers and Hispanic groups looking to re-colonize El Norte and then, using simple birthrate demographics, finish the job.
But instead of doing anything real Washington will hire more people to check passports of regular chumps and tourists crossing the border legally. Meanwhile there are already large sections of Los Angeles and Miami and other major US cities where, if you don’t speak or read Spanish you’re a foreigner. I call it the Quebecization of America.
Oh, and of course our ballots are available in Spanish now too, which is another reason nothing is going to change.
I wonder what would happen if I snuck into Mexico and started demanding that their ballots be available in English. But then, I don't have to wonder too long.
Hasta amigos y amigas. Or something like that...
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
April 5, 2005
Notes From the Underground
When I wrote my piece yesterday accusing our mainstream media of becoming little more than peddlers of maudlin misery, I figured I was going to get slammed. After all, I was way off the media's mourning script on both the Schiavo and Pope’s deaths. I came bearing no platitudes of praise, no flowers, no Teddy bear for the Schiavo lawn shrine, Worse yet, I even pointed out that there were dark sides to both these individual’s lives that were being swept under the blanket of manufactured media mourning.
Well, I did get slammed. But not from outraged pod-people who slipped their media-leash just long enough to inform me that I was going to burn for all eternity in hell. Instead I heard from a ton of folks who were mightily relieved to discover they were not the only one who was sick and tired of being force-fed 24/7 coverage of the lives and deaths of two individuals. It was like a ripple of applause from some long lost Diaspora of the sane and rational.
Yes. Good news. They may be in hiding, but they still exist. And they are onto the failings of mainstream media – big time. On to the panderers to the lowest common of denominators, peddlers of pabulum, milquetoast media, soap opera masquerading as news.
Whew. What a relief. Not that I didn’t get a lot of hate mail because I love hate mail. When I get hate mail from right-wingers it makes my job easy. I just have to reprint the email verbatim. Case closed.
I am less enthusiastic about reprinting mail from those who agree with me. Not because I am ungrateful, I love reading them. Everyone has an ego, after all. But I hesitate to publish them. It just fee;s a bit too self-congratulatory for my tastes.
But the batch of mail I got yesterday was different. There was something common in all these emals that should send chills up the spines of mainstream media folk. If the outpouring I got in response to my piece yesterday is any measure, lots of folks have had it right up to here with the crap being peddled as news by formerly respected sources, particularly broadcast and cable sources. Mainstream media may be on the cusp of losing it’s grip on what little respect the public still has for it.
Having said that, I have no idea what happens after viewers lose their last shred of patience and respect for these tumorously large broadcast news outlets. Only time will tell. But I was so impressed by the email I got yesterday I am reprinting some of them below. I also left the original piece at the bottom of this page in case you missed it.
Readers Respond to Mainstream Media Misery Pimps
Steve,
As usual, you are able to say it better than most and today's missive on the media is right on point. For the very reasons you have stated, I gave up watching television, I mean ALL television on November 4th, 2004. I just could not bear another babbling day of CNN, MSNBC (I never did watch Fox) or the network news. It became obvious such activity was a waste of time.
Now the only time the T.V. set goes on (it's hidden behind a painting and so we have to make an effort to turn it on) is my husband's sometimes nightly visit to the Sci Fi channel. Even more gratifying is the fact that our 10 year old granddaughter, an almost daily visitor to our home, doesn't even ask to watch cartoons anymore. I feel we have been liberated.
All of my news comes from the Internet - Buzz Flash, Bush Watch, Talking Points, Daily Kos and your site along with my local paper here in St. Louis and the occasional New York Times. I also admit to listening to NPR in the morning, although with the loss of Bob Edwards, it is not the same. I am as well informed as anyone and I don't have to listen to the likes of Bill Hemmer or around the world in how many degrees does it take Anderson Cooper. I don't bother with the screeching of Chris Matthews and the superior attitude of Joe Scarborough. For their antics I can pull up Media Matters and see what garbage they are spewing out.
I know more than I ever wanted to about Terri Schiavo and the Pope's death. I’m Catholic and I'm sick of his death. This morning, as I listened to yet another story on NPR about the crowd gathering in Rome, I thought back to the death of Pius XII who died when I was a child. We heard it, it was announced at Church, he was buried and then they elected a new Pope. End of story. The Pope died and Terri died, just as we will all die.
I was also struck by the fact that no one was petitioning Congress to keep the Pope alive by any means possible and that somehow his release from this life and his multitude of health problems was legitimate. He could go peacefully to a better life in heaven but Terri, she was not entitled to the same release. Apparently she was headed towards something more sinister since she was young and had lived with a tube in her stomach for fifteen years not knowing or caring who or where she was.
I, too, shared the same thought about the news that the Pope was responsible for the demise of Communism. Last fall it was Ron Reagan. Wish someone would get their stories straight.
What have we gained by turning off the T.V.? More than anything a sense of control over our lives. I don't care about Desperate Housewives (and the fact that I know about the show is a testament to advertising), Trading Spaces, Trading Spouses or Trading Kids. Give me a good book, an evening with my granddaughter discussing what is going on in her 4th grade class or a glass of wine with my spouse (and no background noise) and my life is good.
Thanks for all your hard work Steve. Keep it up. It is appreciated.
Connie Warner
Editor
This pandering to ignorance by the media is most responsible for the mess the nation's in. Prior Reagan this ignorance reproduced a la mushrooms in chicken manure, in the dark, mostly in the south. Now they're in power. Politicians in power wanting to stay in power pander to this ignorance via the media.
Today's media lacking self esteem, having no self respect, is but a whore to power and so the circle is complete. So it is that it is left up to those like you (and me) to point out the hypocrisy of being pro life while supporting the death penalty and letting a million children starve to death, of being opposed to the right to die while thinking it just dandy to kill hundreds of thousands of black, brown or yellow for oil; it is left to us to tell them first thing every morning of every day what ignorant asses they are.
Alas, we must do so because lo these hundreds of years no one told them, the ignorance fermented, reproduced and now threatens the nation, the world.
Ken Melvin
Editor
Well, thank you for finally SAYING it! I have stopped watching all the "news" programs and reading, with any seriousness, all mainstream publications. Will these eventually cycle back to actual news products some day?
Or will they become the next generation of National Enquirer(s)? Dare we hope for this? Something's gotta give... surely.
What a bunch of crap. Thanks for really really putting it out there.
Leila Parratt
Steve,
Thanks for that opinion and I could not agree more. I find it particularly telling that it is the so-called "saved," from death and damnation or whatever, who are so afraid of death.
As a 57 year old woman who has lived through Vietnam, Watergate, Nixon, Ronald Raygun, Poppy and their illegal wars, endless reports on Clinton's penis and now this nightmarish hell called the Bush administration; I can honestly say I am not afraid of death. Perhaps the only people who can truly live without being very disturbed in this environment, made toxic, not only by Bush's corporate cronies, but by the radical right and their self-righteous blowing of smoke about everything from that poor, brain-dead woman to whether or not we should give equal protections under the law for men who sleep with dogs and box turtles, or something like that, are the brain-dead.
It is often funny what is the straw that breaks the Camel's back, so to speak. This Terry Schiavo thing is the last straw for me. I think we are way too whacked out on brain twisting religious beliefs in this country. Worse yet, are the corrupt, cynical sons-of-bitches who use religion to manipulate the Crusading-crackpots of the Radical Right, and some genuinely faithful people, who are good and kind people; who really live their faith in ways that help others everyday and without a contract to Jesus, or anyone else.
I have never been one to criticize another person's belief system (BS), because my mother told me it was impolite and because you can never tell what you might be getting yourself into. I was more than fine with that practice and policy until now. I believe when people set themselves up as the epitome of anything they are aching for a breakin'. If other's are very public with their BS and insist that I partake of it, I am gonna get a little pushy. If they attempt to force-feed me anything under penalty of law, I am going to go ballistic on them.
I am not a disinterested party when it comes to religion. I studied comparative religion for 15 years and then became a confirmed Episcopalian, because they were a community that was interested in things like Human Rights, Poverty, homelessness, the working poor, good educations for children (including science) for everyone, all over the world. They ordained gay priests and welcomed gay parishioners. The Church in America is still a little too white and upscale in most areas for my taste, but I hear things are getting better.
Haven't been to Church in awhile; since I moved to Georgia, but I think I will find a Church up north this summer, because I am beginning to believe that moderate to Liberal Christians may well be all that stands between us an Armageddon.
These will have to be the voices that challenge the radical right on their hypocrisy and the true teachings of Jesus Christ, with which they are apparently not all that familiar. Fortunately for all of us, it is already happening. What will it take for the corrupted media to report on it? They report every sanctimonious utterance that falls from the lips of the Crusading-crackpots; like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson and the holly-rollin' politicians.
Dot Dedman
Georgia
Stephen,
I am a Catholic, not practicing since being disillusioned some years ago. I am sure this Pope has done some wonderful things but I am remembering so well the pedophile issues, the stand the Vatican took during the 2004 election that anyone pro-choice should not be voted for and lastly last week the statement that whomever took out Terri's food line are "murderers".
I resent the fact that this man could not support all the men who, as boys, were sexually abused by priests . These suits cost the Church millions of dollars and the closure of many parishes because of lack of funds. Then he enters the political world and makes very strong dictums as to who the Catholics should vote for, and more importantly, NOT vote for. Inexcusable!
The statement about "murderers" was so over the top as to what a Pope should do or say or even delve into, that I am speechless! I understand that the Church can only have one Pope at a time, precluding a Pope from ever retiring, but I question the mental faculties of a man in such poor health and in pain. I don't believe his last few years of serving the Church were served with dignity.
Sigh...
Curry
Mill Valley,CA
Stephen,
I think our addiction to drama is a function of two factors:
First, who among us can drive past a traffic accident without rubber-necking, at least a little?
Second, excitement is itself addicting, the tolerance level moving ever so slightly upward as we are bombarded, saturated, leaving us shouting, demanding MORE. The war death in Iraq are now boring. See how quickly the tsunami deaths became boring.
So we want something new. Actually, the focus on change, on figure versus ground, is evolutionarily desirable. Even the receptors in our retinas and on our skin function as to highlight novelty and change.
The Pope meant little to me. The selection process for his successor is much more interesting. I was fascinated to hear one of the Big Dudes opine that abortion, celibacy, and female priest are not the significant issues because they are "inevitable." The big issue is choosing a Pope who will lead us to see that even the poorest among us, etc. Oh, if only that were true.
Terri Schiavo had some idiosyncratic appeal, but obviously, the big issue there was, what is life, and when is there justification for ending it, one of the Great Questions as we lurch into the age of the gene and the virus.
On public radio over the weekend, I heard an editor talking about how newspapers could be on the verge of extinction because anything in print was available via TV or the Internet 24 hours earlier. As a result, journalists are changing their way of writing.
Instead of the traditional “W's” - Who, What, Where, When? - articles now begin with implications and significance and get to the w's in the third or fourth paragraphs. On that basis, I classify myself a fossil. I subscribe to two newspapers and several magazines because the sound bite is scarcely enough. Actually, I use the sound bite to guide me to print articles in which I am likely to have interest. I will send you the fruit of one such recent labor, and oddly, people thank me for that labor.
Carry on. There will always be inquiring minds that want to know.
Jim Sorrells
Steve:
You named your poison and they're selling it to you! Here's an idea -- TURN OFF THE F--KING TUBE!!!, if something important happens, it's likely you'll hear about it sooner or later anyway.
Mark in Tulsa
Mr. Pizzo,
Great commentary! I had been thinking about that very thing. I challenged myself to come up with one word to describe today's TV news (network and cable.)
The word I came up with is: MAUDLIN.
Keep up the good work. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Bonnie M. Matheson
Editor,
I live in Scott County, Ky., home of Toyota, a pregnant teen shot by her boyfriend in the county park in 2003. Your paragraphs on the media grief process immediately brought to mind the circus surrounding her death here in Georgetown.
The family, and their emotionally hysterical relatives, have made everyone's life miserable. Everybody, especially the beleaguered county commission, has had to tiptoe around while this bunch demanded all sorts of concessions to their grief, which they cannot seem to limit to her gravesite or their home.
Numerous objections by the public to using the county park as a memorial to her death have been met with hysterical hyperbole and EMAILS TO THE EDITOR IN ALL CAPS. The whole family also trooped to DC to watch Bush sign the fetal victims bill or whatever. Most of us in the county just want this to be gone.
Jane Hay
P.S. - great Pope comments, too - my sentiments exactly.
Steve,
I have been saying the same thing for a long time. I got cable because I am not always home at 6 o’clock and wanted to know about what is going on in the world. I am so sick of the cable news. I have been complaining to the cable company because there is no news. I figure that we will have to hear about the pope for the next week or two.
Not that I'm not sad, but that it makes me angry because I know that they don't want me to realize what is going on in this country and the world. I am paying $70 per month for this garbage and I am really getting angry. You have to turn on the weather channel to find out there is flooding in the east.
I don't mind hearing about the pope's life history but how many times do I have to hear it? I agree with you whole heartedly and couldn't have said it better.
Beccy Bank
April 4, 2005: I wonder how many people died last week. There are about 6 billion of us worldwide. So, let’s just pick a low number. Say 1% of us croak every year, that would be 60 million stiffs worldwide. Divide by 52 weeks and we get about 1.5 million former folks.
But, unless one of the dearly departed happened to be a person close to your family, you would have thought only two people had died last week, Terri Schiavo and the Pope. Now, I am not trying to be a smart-ass or insensitive here. Any death is a loss no matter the circumstances that surround them.
But really folks, is it just me or didn’t we overdue the coverage of both the Schiavo and Pope’s passing by, oh let’s say about ten thousand, two hundred and three quadrillion percent?
Yes we did. Man, did we ever. But you better get used to it, because it’s trend in the news biz -- because we have become a nation of drama-queens. We apparently have so many people in this country whose own lives are so empty of purpose that they must find in the suffering and misery of others. Leach-like, they attach to the misery du jour.
And the mainstream media (MSM) have become American’s misery pimps. Bring a heart-wrenching case to their attention and they are off and running. Queue the serious sounding music, roll the new tear-jerker graphic whipped up just for this story, fly a talking head to the corpus locale, satellite trucks with microwave masts fully erect as though they were running on pure Viagra. It’s show time!
Rock and roll, 7/24! Time to whip up some tears and ratings. Be it a child abduction, a brain-dead girl whose relatives in a tug of war over her carcass, or someone famous, like the Pope, dying of natural causes. Never mind. It’s an opportunity to make media wine from the grapes of grief. All that matters at that point is to figure out how much drama can be leveraged from the personal history of the soon-to-be-deceased. Misery Pimp producers have it down to a science now. Each case has three distinct phases to exploit:
Next case?
Why do the cable news channels do this to us? Well, because, we want it. No, we need it. Like most addictions it started innocently enough, a televised car chase or two. But then that got old. The thrill was gone. We needed to up the dose. Reality TV was born and we were able to watch people act badly on camera. That was fun for a while, but hey, no one actually died or anything. We needed something more powerful to stimulate emotions lacking in our normal lives. For a short time we had the best of all reality TV shows, the War In Iraq, live from the battlefield. But that too got old.
Our titillation nerves have become so dulled we now need fresh stuff all time. And so MSM Misery Pimps were born. And, they have succeeded beyond even their own perverted dreams! If most American viewers were not drama queens, believe me, the networks would not dedicate the vast amounts of valuable airtime on of these events, coverage that all but eliminates all other news.
It seems almost weekly they find a new case that can grab our attention, cry about, and praise the Lord over. The Terri Schiavo case was a jackpot. It had all the right elements.. a Jerry Springer-style family feud, a husband with girlfriend, lawyers, doctors, and religious wing-nuts. Even the friggin President, Congress and the Supreme Court made cameo appearances. Holy cow, how are they going to top that!?
Oh, the Pope, of course. What a godsend, and the perfect segue. And in the nick of time too! When Schiavo finally died there was a serious risk the MSM Misery Pimps would lose all those teary eyeballs. What to do?
For a moment it looked as though they would have to settle for the death of O.J. Simpson’s lawyer, Johnny Cochran. The MSM began gearing up for Cochran Watch; rolling out obit pieces that made a scumbag who got a double-murderer off scott free, sound like a modern-day Martin Luther King. They got O.J. to interrupt his golf game to get a statement from him. O.J. described Cochran as “a good Christian man.” Perfect.
But Johnny Cochran was no Terri Schiavo. It wasn't working. Then fate smiled on the MSM Misery Pimps. The Pope began to slip towards the grave. Time for CNN’s Bill Hemmer to climb onto a jet for Rome. And so began 36 hours of wall-to-wall TV coverage of the Pope’s bedroom window. (Don’t even bother to reach for the remote. It’s on every channel. There was no escape. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the media’s ministry of misery.)
To fill airtime as the Pope took his time dying, the Misery Pimp producers scoured the earth for anyone who may have met the Pope, walked by the Pope, went to the same barber as the Pope or came to the faith after the Pope's face appeared to her in custard pudding.
At 3 a.m. the morning the Pope died, a puncy CNN anchor stationed above St. Peter’s Square reported, “The crowds are still flocking to the square even at this time of the morning.” The camera panned to the giant square to reveal about twenty people milling around. He quickly caught himself. “Of course the crowds have thinned considerably.” Yes, but not the coverage. It was thick as ever. (Damn Italians! Where are those blubbering American ladies with the Teddy bears when a network really needs them?)
Once the Pope was officially dead they moved into the final, post-death phase of the show. There’s still plenty of drama to be squeezed from this baby before the MSM Misery Pimps have to come up with fresh meat for their growing flock of professional mourners. During this final squeezing of the grapes the MSM Misery Pimps goal is to maintain the misery momentum so viewers don't fade away. So, they found people willing to nominate the Pope for Sainthood and tell viewers that the reason they have to keep watching is that this was no run-of-the-mill Pope.. nosiree. This was a Pope for all the ages. That we haven’t seen the likes of him since Jesus himself. And that watching coverage of his funeral would be almost as good as watching Christ's burial. (Right after this message from our sponsor. “My man uses Levitra for a quality, lasting erection…)
Of course, there was no mention during Pope-Watch about how he failed to use his Popedom to do anything meaningful about the fact that his Church had become the largest organized pedophile ring in modern history. Or that, despite the all the suffering in the third world from overpopulation, he continued the ban on birth control. Or that he continued the Church's longstanding discrimination against women. There would be none of that right now. No throwing cold water on what was shaping up as a world-class, once in a generation, sob job.
Instead they talked up the Pope’s humble childhood in Poland. And, oh, oh… oh,… don’t forget that he was the guy who defeated Communism…. (Note to Producers. This is only true unless you are doing a tear-jerking retrospective on the life of Ronald Reagan, in which case HE is the guy who defeated Communism.)
Just keep those tears flowing for the Pope for as long as it lasts. Roll footage of midwestern drama kings and queens filling the pews of Her Mother of Perpetual Blame church, tears glistening in flicker of votive candles. Ah, nice stuff. (Camera 5, can you get a close up of the little girl in the white dress sobbing uncontrollably? Perfect. Roll dead Pope ID. Overlay ID over crying girl. Fade in somber churchy theme music. Fade out to commercial.) “Our non-stop coverage of the death of Pope John Paul will continue, after this.”
Okay, okay. I agree, the Pope’s death deserved more news coverage than, say, the passing of some schmuck who’s only claim to fame was that he lived to be 80 without getting arrested for anything. So, give the Pope’s death 10% of all news coverage for two days. Then, for chrimmeny sakes, move the hell on.
The Schiavo case didn’t even deserve that much coverage. Hundreds of people die under the same circumstances every year and we never hear about them. And Terri Schiavo herself (rest her poor soul,) was not exactly a candidate for personal adulation. After all, (and let’s be brutally honest here,) this was a woman who had puked herself into a vegetative state trying to stay thin. The MSM could have used her death as an example to young girls where thin-mania can lead.. But no mention of that.
Okay, go ahead, yell at me for saying that about poor Terri right out loud. But damn it, someone had to. Certainly none of the those drama queen, born-agains outside her hospice, waving their hands in the air and praying to the pretend friend of their choice, were going to deal with that little sympathy-dampening fact. They were enjoying their moment in the spotlight of this production of the Mainstream Media Misery's latest reality TV production far too much to risk letting facts get in the way.
I’m sick of it. Sick, sick, sick of it. I beg someone to start a new cable news network that swears it will NEVER engage in a non-stop deathwatch, no matter who the hell is dying. Just tell us he/she is sick and might die. Then, when he/she dies, tell us that too. I’d like to know that. Then let me deal with that piece of news as I please. Don’t force-feed me one more factoid about that person’s life. Just move on to the other news of the day.
I want a news network that respects me more than CNN and MSNBC apparently do. They seem to think I want to spend an entire week focused on one story, one person’s personal struggles. Well, they’re wrong. I have a larger attention span than that. And I want a news channel that respects that. I don’t want to pay an already too high cable bill just to be forced to stare at shinny object all week. I want a news channel that understands the difference between news and manufactured news. I want a news channel that would fire the first person that uses the term “entertainment value” in the same sentence with the word “news.”
If I want to have my emotions fiddled with and exploited, I will tune into Days of Our Lives, Dr. Phil or Oprah. But when I turn on CNN or MSNBC I want news. Remember news? The world is lousy with the stuff, though you might not have known it last week.
When I wrote my piece yesterday accusing our mainstream media of becoming little more than peddlers of maudlin misery, I figured I was going to get slammed. After all, I was way off the media's mourning script on both the Schiavo and Pope’s deaths. I came bearing no platitudes of praise, no flowers, no Teddy bear for the Schiavo lawn shrine, Worse yet, I even pointed out that there were dark sides to both these individual’s lives that were being swept under the blanket of manufactured media mourning.
Well, I did get slammed. But not from outraged pod-people who slipped their media-leash just long enough to inform me that I was going to burn for all eternity in hell. Instead I heard from a ton of folks who were mightily relieved to discover they were not the only one who was sick and tired of being force-fed 24/7 coverage of the lives and deaths of two individuals. It was like a ripple of applause from some long lost Diaspora of the sane and rational.
Yes. Good news. They may be in hiding, but they still exist. And they are onto the failings of mainstream media – big time. On to the panderers to the lowest common of denominators, peddlers of pabulum, milquetoast media, soap opera masquerading as news.
Whew. What a relief. Not that I didn’t get a lot of hate mail because I love hate mail. When I get hate mail from right-wingers it makes my job easy. I just have to reprint the email verbatim. Case closed.
I am less enthusiastic about reprinting mail from those who agree with me. Not because I am ungrateful, I love reading them. Everyone has an ego, after all. But I hesitate to publish them. It just fee;s a bit too self-congratulatory for my tastes.
But the batch of mail I got yesterday was different. There was something common in all these emals that should send chills up the spines of mainstream media folk. If the outpouring I got in response to my piece yesterday is any measure, lots of folks have had it right up to here with the crap being peddled as news by formerly respected sources, particularly broadcast and cable sources. Mainstream media may be on the cusp of losing it’s grip on what little respect the public still has for it.
Having said that, I have no idea what happens after viewers lose their last shred of patience and respect for these tumorously large broadcast news outlets. Only time will tell. But I was so impressed by the email I got yesterday I am reprinting some of them below. I also left the original piece at the bottom of this page in case you missed it.
(PS: Oh, just a quick note to those readers who have suggested I get a editor, I am not ignorning you. I will comply just as soon as someone sends me a year’s salary to pay such a brave soul. Everything I am today I owe to my former editors and I'd love to have one. Until I do, just pick through my dyslectic spelling and fractured prose the same way you would walk through a minefield… very carefully.)
Readers Respond to Mainstream Media Misery Pimps
Steve,
As usual, you are able to say it better than most and today's missive on the media is right on point. For the very reasons you have stated, I gave up watching television, I mean ALL television on November 4th, 2004. I just could not bear another babbling day of CNN, MSNBC (I never did watch Fox) or the network news. It became obvious such activity was a waste of time.
Now the only time the T.V. set goes on (it's hidden behind a painting and so we have to make an effort to turn it on) is my husband's sometimes nightly visit to the Sci Fi channel. Even more gratifying is the fact that our 10 year old granddaughter, an almost daily visitor to our home, doesn't even ask to watch cartoons anymore. I feel we have been liberated.
All of my news comes from the Internet - Buzz Flash, Bush Watch, Talking Points, Daily Kos and your site along with my local paper here in St. Louis and the occasional New York Times. I also admit to listening to NPR in the morning, although with the loss of Bob Edwards, it is not the same. I am as well informed as anyone and I don't have to listen to the likes of Bill Hemmer or around the world in how many degrees does it take Anderson Cooper. I don't bother with the screeching of Chris Matthews and the superior attitude of Joe Scarborough. For their antics I can pull up Media Matters and see what garbage they are spewing out.
I know more than I ever wanted to about Terri Schiavo and the Pope's death. I’m Catholic and I'm sick of his death. This morning, as I listened to yet another story on NPR about the crowd gathering in Rome, I thought back to the death of Pius XII who died when I was a child. We heard it, it was announced at Church, he was buried and then they elected a new Pope. End of story. The Pope died and Terri died, just as we will all die.
I was also struck by the fact that no one was petitioning Congress to keep the Pope alive by any means possible and that somehow his release from this life and his multitude of health problems was legitimate. He could go peacefully to a better life in heaven but Terri, she was not entitled to the same release. Apparently she was headed towards something more sinister since she was young and had lived with a tube in her stomach for fifteen years not knowing or caring who or where she was.
I, too, shared the same thought about the news that the Pope was responsible for the demise of Communism. Last fall it was Ron Reagan. Wish someone would get their stories straight.
What have we gained by turning off the T.V.? More than anything a sense of control over our lives. I don't care about Desperate Housewives (and the fact that I know about the show is a testament to advertising), Trading Spaces, Trading Spouses or Trading Kids. Give me a good book, an evening with my granddaughter discussing what is going on in her 4th grade class or a glass of wine with my spouse (and no background noise) and my life is good.
Thanks for all your hard work Steve. Keep it up. It is appreciated.
Connie Warner
Editor
This pandering to ignorance by the media is most responsible for the mess the nation's in. Prior Reagan this ignorance reproduced a la mushrooms in chicken manure, in the dark, mostly in the south. Now they're in power. Politicians in power wanting to stay in power pander to this ignorance via the media.
Today's media lacking self esteem, having no self respect, is but a whore to power and so the circle is complete. So it is that it is left up to those like you (and me) to point out the hypocrisy of being pro life while supporting the death penalty and letting a million children starve to death, of being opposed to the right to die while thinking it just dandy to kill hundreds of thousands of black, brown or yellow for oil; it is left to us to tell them first thing every morning of every day what ignorant asses they are.
Alas, we must do so because lo these hundreds of years no one told them, the ignorance fermented, reproduced and now threatens the nation, the world.
Ken Melvin
Editor
Well, thank you for finally SAYING it! I have stopped watching all the "news" programs and reading, with any seriousness, all mainstream publications. Will these eventually cycle back to actual news products some day?
Or will they become the next generation of National Enquirer(s)? Dare we hope for this? Something's gotta give... surely.
What a bunch of crap. Thanks for really really putting it out there.
Leila Parratt
Steve,
Thanks for that opinion and I could not agree more. I find it particularly telling that it is the so-called "saved," from death and damnation or whatever, who are so afraid of death.
As a 57 year old woman who has lived through Vietnam, Watergate, Nixon, Ronald Raygun, Poppy and their illegal wars, endless reports on Clinton's penis and now this nightmarish hell called the Bush administration; I can honestly say I am not afraid of death. Perhaps the only people who can truly live without being very disturbed in this environment, made toxic, not only by Bush's corporate cronies, but by the radical right and their self-righteous blowing of smoke about everything from that poor, brain-dead woman to whether or not we should give equal protections under the law for men who sleep with dogs and box turtles, or something like that, are the brain-dead.
It is often funny what is the straw that breaks the Camel's back, so to speak. This Terry Schiavo thing is the last straw for me. I think we are way too whacked out on brain twisting religious beliefs in this country. Worse yet, are the corrupt, cynical sons-of-bitches who use religion to manipulate the Crusading-crackpots of the Radical Right, and some genuinely faithful people, who are good and kind people; who really live their faith in ways that help others everyday and without a contract to Jesus, or anyone else.
I have never been one to criticize another person's belief system (BS), because my mother told me it was impolite and because you can never tell what you might be getting yourself into. I was more than fine with that practice and policy until now. I believe when people set themselves up as the epitome of anything they are aching for a breakin'. If other's are very public with their BS and insist that I partake of it, I am gonna get a little pushy. If they attempt to force-feed me anything under penalty of law, I am going to go ballistic on them.
I am not a disinterested party when it comes to religion. I studied comparative religion for 15 years and then became a confirmed Episcopalian, because they were a community that was interested in things like Human Rights, Poverty, homelessness, the working poor, good educations for children (including science) for everyone, all over the world. They ordained gay priests and welcomed gay parishioners. The Church in America is still a little too white and upscale in most areas for my taste, but I hear things are getting better.
Haven't been to Church in awhile; since I moved to Georgia, but I think I will find a Church up north this summer, because I am beginning to believe that moderate to Liberal Christians may well be all that stands between us an Armageddon.
These will have to be the voices that challenge the radical right on their hypocrisy and the true teachings of Jesus Christ, with which they are apparently not all that familiar. Fortunately for all of us, it is already happening. What will it take for the corrupted media to report on it? They report every sanctimonious utterance that falls from the lips of the Crusading-crackpots; like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson and the holly-rollin' politicians.
Dot Dedman
Georgia
Stephen,
I am a Catholic, not practicing since being disillusioned some years ago. I am sure this Pope has done some wonderful things but I am remembering so well the pedophile issues, the stand the Vatican took during the 2004 election that anyone pro-choice should not be voted for and lastly last week the statement that whomever took out Terri's food line are "murderers".
I resent the fact that this man could not support all the men who, as boys, were sexually abused by priests . These suits cost the Church millions of dollars and the closure of many parishes because of lack of funds. Then he enters the political world and makes very strong dictums as to who the Catholics should vote for, and more importantly, NOT vote for. Inexcusable!
The statement about "murderers" was so over the top as to what a Pope should do or say or even delve into, that I am speechless! I understand that the Church can only have one Pope at a time, precluding a Pope from ever retiring, but I question the mental faculties of a man in such poor health and in pain. I don't believe his last few years of serving the Church were served with dignity.
Sigh...
Curry
Mill Valley,CA
Stephen,
I think our addiction to drama is a function of two factors:
First, who among us can drive past a traffic accident without rubber-necking, at least a little?
Second, excitement is itself addicting, the tolerance level moving ever so slightly upward as we are bombarded, saturated, leaving us shouting, demanding MORE. The war death in Iraq are now boring. See how quickly the tsunami deaths became boring.
So we want something new. Actually, the focus on change, on figure versus ground, is evolutionarily desirable. Even the receptors in our retinas and on our skin function as to highlight novelty and change.
The Pope meant little to me. The selection process for his successor is much more interesting. I was fascinated to hear one of the Big Dudes opine that abortion, celibacy, and female priest are not the significant issues because they are "inevitable." The big issue is choosing a Pope who will lead us to see that even the poorest among us, etc. Oh, if only that were true.
Terri Schiavo had some idiosyncratic appeal, but obviously, the big issue there was, what is life, and when is there justification for ending it, one of the Great Questions as we lurch into the age of the gene and the virus.
On public radio over the weekend, I heard an editor talking about how newspapers could be on the verge of extinction because anything in print was available via TV or the Internet 24 hours earlier. As a result, journalists are changing their way of writing.
Instead of the traditional “W's” - Who, What, Where, When? - articles now begin with implications and significance and get to the w's in the third or fourth paragraphs. On that basis, I classify myself a fossil. I subscribe to two newspapers and several magazines because the sound bite is scarcely enough. Actually, I use the sound bite to guide me to print articles in which I am likely to have interest. I will send you the fruit of one such recent labor, and oddly, people thank me for that labor.
Carry on. There will always be inquiring minds that want to know.
Jim Sorrells
Steve:
You named your poison and they're selling it to you! Here's an idea -- TURN OFF THE F--KING TUBE!!!, if something important happens, it's likely you'll hear about it sooner or later anyway.
Mark in Tulsa
Mr. Pizzo,
Great commentary! I had been thinking about that very thing. I challenged myself to come up with one word to describe today's TV news (network and cable.)
The word I came up with is: MAUDLIN.
Keep up the good work. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Bonnie M. Matheson
Editor,
I live in Scott County, Ky., home of Toyota, a pregnant teen shot by her boyfriend in the county park in 2003. Your paragraphs on the media grief process immediately brought to mind the circus surrounding her death here in Georgetown.
The family, and their emotionally hysterical relatives, have made everyone's life miserable. Everybody, especially the beleaguered county commission, has had to tiptoe around while this bunch demanded all sorts of concessions to their grief, which they cannot seem to limit to her gravesite or their home.
Numerous objections by the public to using the county park as a memorial to her death have been met with hysterical hyperbole and EMAILS TO THE EDITOR IN ALL CAPS. The whole family also trooped to DC to watch Bush sign the fetal victims bill or whatever. Most of us in the county just want this to be gone.
Jane Hay
P.S. - great Pope comments, too - my sentiments exactly.
Steve,
I have been saying the same thing for a long time. I got cable because I am not always home at 6 o’clock and wanted to know about what is going on in the world. I am so sick of the cable news. I have been complaining to the cable company because there is no news. I figure that we will have to hear about the pope for the next week or two.
Not that I'm not sad, but that it makes me angry because I know that they don't want me to realize what is going on in this country and the world. I am paying $70 per month for this garbage and I am really getting angry. You have to turn on the weather channel to find out there is flooding in the east.
I don't mind hearing about the pope's life history but how many times do I have to hear it? I agree with you whole heartedly and couldn't have said it better.
Beccy Bank
MakingWhine from the Grapes of Grief
April 4, 2005: I wonder how many people died last week. There are about 6 billion of us worldwide. So, let’s just pick a low number. Say 1% of us croak every year, that would be 60 million stiffs worldwide. Divide by 52 weeks and we get about 1.5 million former folks.
But, unless one of the dearly departed happened to be a person close to your family, you would have thought only two people had died last week, Terri Schiavo and the Pope. Now, I am not trying to be a smart-ass or insensitive here. Any death is a loss no matter the circumstances that surround them.
But really folks, is it just me or didn’t we overdue the coverage of both the Schiavo and Pope’s passing by, oh let’s say about ten thousand, two hundred and three quadrillion percent?
Yes we did. Man, did we ever. But you better get used to it, because it’s trend in the news biz -- because we have become a nation of drama-queens. We apparently have so many people in this country whose own lives are so empty of purpose that they must find in the suffering and misery of others. Leach-like, they attach to the misery du jour.
And the mainstream media (MSM) have become American’s misery pimps. Bring a heart-wrenching case to their attention and they are off and running. Queue the serious sounding music, roll the new tear-jerker graphic whipped up just for this story, fly a talking head to the corpus locale, satellite trucks with microwave masts fully erect as though they were running on pure Viagra. It’s show time!
Rock and roll, 7/24! Time to whip up some tears and ratings. Be it a child abduction, a brain-dead girl whose relatives in a tug of war over her carcass, or someone famous, like the Pope, dying of natural causes. Never mind. It’s an opportunity to make media wine from the grapes of grief. All that matters at that point is to figure out how much drama can be leveraged from the personal history of the soon-to-be-deceased. Misery Pimp producers have it down to a science now. Each case has three distinct phases to exploit:
- Pre-death: A child goes missing. Where is the child? Could the parents have done it? Drag out footage of earlier cases that ended badly. The drama builds. It’s working. Fat ladies begin to arrive uninvited at the home of the missing child bearing Teddy Bears and flowers and begin building an impromptu shrine on the lawn. Great visuals. Keep it going. Interview the grieving parent(s) as they sob through pleas to the kidnappers to return their child. Great stuff. Mention that the police have not ruled the parents out as suspects.
- Death: They find the body of the missing child. Time to switch from “America’s Most Wanted” bravado to somber mode. Roll the photos of the child in life, the blowing candles out on the birthday cake photo. (Yo! Camera 3, get a shot of the fat ladies sobbing at the lawn shrine. This time they brought their own kids with them. The whole pack of them is in tears. Get a close up. )
- Post-death: The perp is caught. Get footage of him being led to jail in cuffs. Cut to two lawyers, a defense lawyer and a prosecutor, as they argue the case. They both agree, the perp is probably toast. He will almost certainly get the death penalty. Ah, closure.
- Death: They find the body of the missing child. Time to switch from “America’s Most Wanted” bravado to somber mode. Roll the photos of the child in life, the blowing candles out on the birthday cake photo. (Yo! Camera 3, get a shot of the fat ladies sobbing at the lawn shrine. This time they brought their own kids with them. The whole pack of them is in tears. Get a close up. )
- Post-death: The perp is caught. Get footage of him being led to jail in cuffs. Cut to two lawyers, a defense lawyer and a prosecutor, as they argue the case. They both agree, the perp is probably toast. He will almost certainly get the death penalty. Ah, closure.
Next case?
Why do the cable news channels do this to us? Well, because, we want it. No, we need it. Like most addictions it started innocently enough, a televised car chase or two. But then that got old. The thrill was gone. We needed to up the dose. Reality TV was born and we were able to watch people act badly on camera. That was fun for a while, but hey, no one actually died or anything. We needed something more powerful to stimulate emotions lacking in our normal lives. For a short time we had the best of all reality TV shows, the War In Iraq, live from the battlefield. But that too got old.Our titillation nerves have become so dulled we now need fresh stuff all time. And so MSM Misery Pimps were born. And, they have succeeded beyond even their own perverted dreams! If most American viewers were not drama queens, believe me, the networks would not dedicate the vast amounts of valuable airtime on of these events, coverage that all but eliminates all other news.
(By Sunday I began to wonder if the war in Iraq had ended. All I had heard all weekend was that one man had died, the Pope. Surely if the war was still going on in Iraq someone must have died there too, or more likely, several someones. Of course, several people did die in Iraq over the weekend. But you see the war is old drama, like reruns of the first season of the Sopranos. It fails to move us any longer. America’s drama queens had long since slapped a yellow “I Support the Troops,” sticker on their SUV and moved on. I mean, how long can we expect them to feel for young soldiers dying ten thousand miles from home, or a cute little Iraqi kids with legs and arms blown off? Been there, done that. Boooooring. Next?)
It seems almost weekly they find a new case that can grab our attention, cry about, and praise the Lord over. The Terri Schiavo case was a jackpot. It had all the right elements.. a Jerry Springer-style family feud, a husband with girlfriend, lawyers, doctors, and religious wing-nuts. Even the friggin President, Congress and the Supreme Court made cameo appearances. Holy cow, how are they going to top that!?
Oh, the Pope, of course. What a godsend, and the perfect segue. And in the nick of time too! When Schiavo finally died there was a serious risk the MSM Misery Pimps would lose all those teary eyeballs. What to do?
For a moment it looked as though they would have to settle for the death of O.J. Simpson’s lawyer, Johnny Cochran. The MSM began gearing up for Cochran Watch; rolling out obit pieces that made a scumbag who got a double-murderer off scott free, sound like a modern-day Martin Luther King. They got O.J. to interrupt his golf game to get a statement from him. O.J. described Cochran as “a good Christian man.” Perfect.
But Johnny Cochran was no Terri Schiavo. It wasn't working. Then fate smiled on the MSM Misery Pimps. The Pope began to slip towards the grave. Time for CNN’s Bill Hemmer to climb onto a jet for Rome. And so began 36 hours of wall-to-wall TV coverage of the Pope’s bedroom window. (Don’t even bother to reach for the remote. It’s on every channel. There was no escape. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the media’s ministry of misery.)
To fill airtime as the Pope took his time dying, the Misery Pimp producers scoured the earth for anyone who may have met the Pope, walked by the Pope, went to the same barber as the Pope or came to the faith after the Pope's face appeared to her in custard pudding.
At 3 a.m. the morning the Pope died, a puncy CNN anchor stationed above St. Peter’s Square reported, “The crowds are still flocking to the square even at this time of the morning.” The camera panned to the giant square to reveal about twenty people milling around. He quickly caught himself. “Of course the crowds have thinned considerably.” Yes, but not the coverage. It was thick as ever. (Damn Italians! Where are those blubbering American ladies with the Teddy bears when a network really needs them?)
Once the Pope was officially dead they moved into the final, post-death phase of the show. There’s still plenty of drama to be squeezed from this baby before the MSM Misery Pimps have to come up with fresh meat for their growing flock of professional mourners. During this final squeezing of the grapes the MSM Misery Pimps goal is to maintain the misery momentum so viewers don't fade away. So, they found people willing to nominate the Pope for Sainthood and tell viewers that the reason they have to keep watching is that this was no run-of-the-mill Pope.. nosiree. This was a Pope for all the ages. That we haven’t seen the likes of him since Jesus himself. And that watching coverage of his funeral would be almost as good as watching Christ's burial. (Right after this message from our sponsor. “My man uses Levitra for a quality, lasting erection…)
Of course, there was no mention during Pope-Watch about how he failed to use his Popedom to do anything meaningful about the fact that his Church had become the largest organized pedophile ring in modern history. Or that, despite the all the suffering in the third world from overpopulation, he continued the ban on birth control. Or that he continued the Church's longstanding discrimination against women. There would be none of that right now. No throwing cold water on what was shaping up as a world-class, once in a generation, sob job.
Instead they talked up the Pope’s humble childhood in Poland. And, oh, oh… oh,… don’t forget that he was the guy who defeated Communism…. (Note to Producers. This is only true unless you are doing a tear-jerking retrospective on the life of Ronald Reagan, in which case HE is the guy who defeated Communism.)
Just keep those tears flowing for the Pope for as long as it lasts. Roll footage of midwestern drama kings and queens filling the pews of Her Mother of Perpetual Blame church, tears glistening in flicker of votive candles. Ah, nice stuff. (Camera 5, can you get a close up of the little girl in the white dress sobbing uncontrollably? Perfect. Roll dead Pope ID. Overlay ID over crying girl. Fade in somber churchy theme music. Fade out to commercial.) “Our non-stop coverage of the death of Pope John Paul will continue, after this.”
Okay, okay. I agree, the Pope’s death deserved more news coverage than, say, the passing of some schmuck who’s only claim to fame was that he lived to be 80 without getting arrested for anything. So, give the Pope’s death 10% of all news coverage for two days. Then, for chrimmeny sakes, move the hell on.
The Schiavo case didn’t even deserve that much coverage. Hundreds of people die under the same circumstances every year and we never hear about them. And Terri Schiavo herself (rest her poor soul,) was not exactly a candidate for personal adulation. After all, (and let’s be brutally honest here,) this was a woman who had puked herself into a vegetative state trying to stay thin. The MSM could have used her death as an example to young girls where thin-mania can lead.. But no mention of that.
Okay, go ahead, yell at me for saying that about poor Terri right out loud. But damn it, someone had to. Certainly none of the those drama queen, born-agains outside her hospice, waving their hands in the air and praying to the pretend friend of their choice, were going to deal with that little sympathy-dampening fact. They were enjoying their moment in the spotlight of this production of the Mainstream Media Misery's latest reality TV production far too much to risk letting facts get in the way.
I’m sick of it. Sick, sick, sick of it. I beg someone to start a new cable news network that swears it will NEVER engage in a non-stop deathwatch, no matter who the hell is dying. Just tell us he/she is sick and might die. Then, when he/she dies, tell us that too. I’d like to know that. Then let me deal with that piece of news as I please. Don’t force-feed me one more factoid about that person’s life. Just move on to the other news of the day.
I want a news network that respects me more than CNN and MSNBC apparently do. They seem to think I want to spend an entire week focused on one story, one person’s personal struggles. Well, they’re wrong. I have a larger attention span than that. And I want a news channel that respects that. I don’t want to pay an already too high cable bill just to be forced to stare at shinny object all week. I want a news channel that understands the difference between news and manufactured news. I want a news channel that would fire the first person that uses the term “entertainment value” in the same sentence with the word “news.”
If I want to have my emotions fiddled with and exploited, I will tune into Days of Our Lives, Dr. Phil or Oprah. But when I turn on CNN or MSNBC I want news. Remember news? The world is lousy with the stuff, though you might not have known it last week.
Monday, April 04, 2005
April 1, 2005
Tom DeLay
Mad or Mad as A Hatter?
Mad or Mad as A Hatter?
After Terri Shiavo died Thursday people on both sides of the issue focused on the tragic nature of the entire affair. Not Tom DeLay. For the embattled House Majority Leader Shiavo’s passing was a golden opportunity to drag out his favorite whipping boy, the judiciary.And oh, was he in rare form on this day:
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. The courts have thumbed their nose at Congress and the president.”
Never mind that that the freedom to “thumb its nose” at the other two branches of government was precisely the job the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established an independent judiciary. Tom DeLay is not interested in checks and balances, just winning. And he does not want lectures from judicial constitutional goody-two-shoes on the matter either.
What we saw yesterday was Tom DeLay who was both at the top and bottom of his game. He had once again skillfully and aggressively leveraged a hot button social issue to attack judges. But this time there was something else going on. Back in his home district a grand jury had already indicted three of DeLay’s campaign henchmen and were hearing evidence that could get DeLay himself indicted for campaign finance fraud. This time DeLay had a very personal reason to set up judges as out of control.
DeLay’s over-the-top attack on judges yesterday sets the stage for his alibi if he is indicted. If indicted DeLay will point to his threat yesterday and pronounce, “See, I told you. These arrogant, out of control judges will do anything to stop anyone who tries to rein them in. By indicting me on these trumped up charges they are sending a message that they are not only above the law, but above the lawmakers as well.”
You wanna bet against that? If so email me your bets. I’ll be happy to take your money.
Judge DreadDelay's political career began when federal judges banned the pesticide DDT because the stuff was killing off a lot more than just bugs. At the time DeLay ran a small-time extermination company in Sugarland, Texas and DDT was his tool of choice. He was outraged when told he could no longer use the stuff. DeLay decided there and then that someone had to rein in the judiciary and that he was just the guy for the job.
DeLay ran for Congress and, in 1984 won. From that day forward he has fought to undermine the independence of judges. When asked by a reporter why he was so riled up at federal judges DeLay explained, "I woke up one day realizing that the judiciary had turned themselves into a regulatory branch."
His first concerted assault on the courts came when the GOP took control of the House in 1994. DeLay became a fervent supporter of litigation reforms that would ultimately strip shareholders of many of their rights to sue company executives, like Enron's Kenneth Lay. (Later Enron returned the favor by providing the money to jumpstart DeLay’s leadershp PAC.)
But DeLay's big stick approach to bringing the judiciary to heel emerged in 1997. Citing a Supreme Court order forcing the Virginia Military Institute to admit women, DeLay alleged federal judges were exceeding their constitutional authority and it was up to the legislature to rein them in. "We can impeach judges who get drunk," DeLay said at the time, "so why not impeach those who get drunk with power?"
Why not? Well, for starters, the Constitution does not allow the impeachment of judges simply because someone disagrees with their verdicts:
"No serious student of the impeachment provisions can conclude that the Constitution of the United States contemplates impeachment of judges on account of their actual decisions from the bench -- their interpretations or their rulings." (Constitutional scholar Terry Eastland.)
But DeLay rejects the idea that the Constitution limits impeachment of federal judges to just "high crimes and misdemeanors." Instead, DeLay argues, whenever a judge rules in ways that "usurp the powers of Congress," he or she should face impeachment. What DeLay was suggesting was a coup d'etat by members of Legislative Branch against members of the Judicial Branch. It was precisely the kind of politically motivated intimidation of the judiciary that America's Founding Fathers wished to avoid by putting the judiciary safely outside the political arena.
DeLay's position was closer to one put forth three decades earlier when Rep. Gerald Ford was trying to get Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas impeached for being too liberal. Back then Ford defended his position this way:
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment of history."
It took the legal wrangling in Florida during the 2000 Presidential race to reveal that DeLay's outrage over judicial activism was really a façade to mask nothing more than a naked partisan agenda. When the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gore campaign for a hand recount of contested ballots, DeLay roared that the court had "squandered and violated the trust of the people of Florida in trying to manipulate the results of a fair election." And he vowed, "This judicial aggression must not stand."
But, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida court's ruling, handing the victory to Republican George W. Bush in one of the Court's most controversial rulings in history, DeLay expressed pleasure with the ruling.
Some among the imperial judiciary appear more equal than others, in DeLay's view.
It was a double standard that exposed DeLay's anti-judiciary campaign as little more than a naked attempt to weaken the Constitutional independence of the Judicial Branch and replace it with a cowed judiciary more compliant to the wishes and actions of politically driven legislators.
But yesterday’s outburst may have gone over the line, even for DeLay. Making threats designed to intimate judges with the intent to influence their judgments is a federal felony.. a high crime and misdemeanor that could itself be grounds for impeachment -- his own.
(Relevant Footnote: Today it was reported that nearly a decade after he was appointed to investigate Clinton's Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, independent counsel David M. Barrett spent more than $1.26 million of federal money in the last six months of fiscal 2004, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday. Since its inception, the Cisneros investigation has cost nearly $21 million, a total rivaling some of the largest independent counsel investigations in history.)
Hello Democrats… anyone in there?
Your Weekend DeLay Reading Assignment
(And yes, there will be a quiz on this)
(And yes, there will be a quiz on this)
Friday, April 01, 2005
March 31, 2005
Tick, tick, tick, tick
My pal Tony emailed me a story yesterday with the subject line, “We are smarter than I thought.” It was a story that detailed the results of a recent AP poll on public attitudes towards nuclear weapons. The key finding:
Two-thirds of Americans said no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the U.S., and that those nations that do not currently have them should not be allowed to get them.
It was an unusually sane result for a nation split evenly, Blue and Red. I am not surprised that liberal Blues would vote that way, but what explains the softening among the Reds?
Maybe it was this.
Another question asked those polled how likely they thought it was that there would be a nuclear attack someplace in the world within the next five years. Fifty two percent rated that likelihood as ‘high” and 53% said they believed a nuclear attack by a terrorist group was “somewhat likely,” as well.
I have said for some months that terrorists would eventually strike a US with some kind of nuclear device. It's only a matter of when. It is inconceivable to me that those tenacious little wing nut Islamic terrorists have not already acquired either the parts to build a crude nuke or an entire bomb. It’s just too easy to get the stuff. Anyone with hard cash, gold or large quantities of heroin can just shop until they drop the flotsam of the former Soviet empire.
In fact the Russians have admitted they cannot account for around 100 of their old “suitcase” nukes. And guess who might have some of those missing nukes. Even before 9/11 Israeli and Russian intelligence were reporting that Bin Laden might have acquired some of the suitcase nukes through Muslim friends in Chechnya. The only question in their minds was how many he got his hands on.
"Master terrorist Osama Bin Laden has acquired portable nuclear devices, a U.S.-based expert on non-conventional terror believes. The only real question now is whether Bin Laden has "a few," as Russian intelligence seems to think, or "over 20," a figure cited by intelligence services of moderate Arab regimes. "There is no longer much doubt that Bin Laden has finally succeeded in his quest for nuclear ‘suitcase bombs," says Yossef Bodansky, head of the Congressional Task Force on Non-Conventional Terrorism in Washington. In a recent book, Bodansky reports that Bin Laden’s associates acquired the devices through Chechnya, paying the Chechens $30 million in cash and two tons of Afghan heroin, worth about $70 million in Afghanistan and about 10 times that on the street in Western cities." (Jerusalem Report: October 25th, 1999 )
So, if he’s got them why hasn’t he used them? There are theories on that too. Like all nuclear weapons the user requirers two "keys" or codes to activate it. One of the two codes would have been sent with the device to the field commander. The other would have remained in Moscow until the use of the weapon was authorized at the highest levels. While Bin Laden may have one of the codes, he would not have been able to obtain the second. So, if he has these bombs it is likely al Queada’s technical people are still trying to devise a reliable way to detonate the things. Since a suicide bomber would not be concerned with getting clear of the blast, a timer would be unnecessary.
But, if Bin Laden has gotten his hands on a nuke it would be far too valuable to risk on a crude suicide attack. There are too many chances someone lugging around an item that large would be caught. What is far more likely is they will yank the o
ld Soviet timer/detonator entirely and replace it with an inexpensive GPS device connected to a new detonator. Then it would just be a matter of loading the coordinates of the target city into the GPS device – say Long Beach Harbor – and hiding the suitcase nuke in a cargo container heading for California. When the freighter reaches the GPS coordinates, kaboom. Eighty percent of America’s import/export trade is comes through US Ports. Imagine what such an attack would accomplish. Besides killing roughly 2 million Southern Californians, it would virtually shut down world trade while countries tried to figure out how to prevent another such attack. It would stop deliveries of oil, natural gas and liquid natural gas. It would paralyze the West and have catastrophic economic consequences that would linger for years, maybe decades. The Great Depression would no longer be our measure of social misery.
Not a very rosy outlook, huh? A reader asked me the other day if sometimes I don’t feel like Cassandra. Yes, sometimes I do. But we all tend to want to gloss over catastrophic potentialities. The worse the potential outcome, the less we want to think about it and, since planning for such things forces us to think about them, we don’t plan. Look no further than Indonesia for proof of this behavior. Coastal Indonesians had to lose 200,000 of their own people before they got around to even beginning work on a long-avoided tsunami warning system.So, I prefer to imagine catastrophes. I am, you might say, a virtual connoisseur of catastrophe. So I will continue to imagine the likelihood of a nuclear attack on a US city and continue to think of how we might, even now, prevent one.
First, I have an inkling we may have already dallied too long. It may already be too late. If that’s so, and a nuke may already be heading our way in a load of soybeans or rice, then the logical thing to do is to inspect every single cargo container heading this way. The Bush administration has said that inspecting every container would be too expensive and too disruptive to world commerce. To which I ask how expensive would it be to have to replace, oh say, the entire waterfronts and much of the cities of New York or San Francisco?
Or we can just continuing acting like the pre-tsunami Indonesians. There is at least one advantage to that approach. There will be a whole lot fewer people to argue with about it afterwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
