Prairie Weather

Fighting the hammerhead shark

Pudentilla has some interesting ideas about how to fight the Bush Social Security "reform" onslaught.

There are some ideas over there that might counter the Bush tactics Ed Kilgore notes in his guest-blog at Talking Points Memo:

Down south where I'm from, this tactic is known as the Redneck Theory of Seduction. It involves repeating one's demands tirelessly, in hopes that the victim will succumb out of sheer fatigue. It's a subtle as a hammerhead shark.

Novak, journalist

Robert Novak, as Media Matters demonstrates,  screws up again.

    NOVAK: The Democratic line that this isn't a problem -- Howard Dean gave a speech at Cornell on Thursday of this week in which he said that 80 percent -- over the years, 80 percent of the Social Security benefits will be lost. There is a problem. So, Howard sometimes tells the truth. He doesn't get the exact line.

   MEDIA MATTERS:  In fact, Dean did not say "80 percent of the Social Security benefits will be lost," as Novak claimed, but rather that "if Social Security were left alone for 30 years, benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now," as The Cornell Daily Sun reported in its coverage of Dean's February 23 speech at the university.

Like, who cares, man!  80 percent is 80 percent, isn't it?   What's the beef?

Change of tone, not substance

James Petras, in Rebelión, writes that in spite of theories to the contrary:

It is extremely doubtful that Washington will secure any lasting agreement with Europe on any basic question. The reason is simple, the civilian militarists who run US foreign policy, the newly appointed and promoted, are profoundly enamored with the military route to world power. Their biographies and their immediate pronouncements and actions are convincing proof that they are incapable of any open negotiations, compromise or diplomatic settlements. European leaders will have to choose between pursuing their divergent path of global power via trade, diplomacy and selective coercion or capitulate to a regime dominated by civilian-militarist extremists driven by an irrational desire to militarily confront China, intervene in Venezuela, destroy the Middle East adversaries of Israel and provoke Russia.

Can budgets be immoral?

Here's something we might want to think about:  does how you and I spend our money reflect on us morally?  I've always thought it did -- from the obvious stuff like withholding an annual contribution to the community fund for the poor because you want a better radio in your car, to investing in a company which is screwing people but whose share values are rising steadily.   

So okay -- what about our government?  Can government spending be described as moral or immoral?

That's the question raised by David Francis in a commentary in the Christian Science Monitor  today:

Immoral. That's what several religious groups are calling President Bush's latest budget. The charge has political ramifications. It threatens to undermine some of Mr. Bush's support from voters concerned with values. But it also raises a deep question: Can budgets be moral or immoral? Is that really how the nation's spending plan should be judged? This emerging challenge is turning the "values" debate on its head. Liberals are putting policy issues in moral terms. Conservatives are resisting it.

Gleichschaltung, again

Rahul Mahajan continues to apply the concept of gleichschaltung to Bush's second term.  He writes:

According to anonymous officials quoted in the Washington Post, “The Pentagon is promoting a global counterterrorism plan that would allow Special Operations forces to enter a foreign country to conduct military operations without explicit concurrence from the U.S. ambassador there.” Says the Post, “The plan would weaken the long-standing ‘chief of mission’ authority under which the U.S. ambassador, as the president's top representative in a foreign country, decides whether to grant entry to U.S. government personnel based on political and diplomatic considerations.” One counterterrorism official is even quoted as saying, "This is a military order on a global scale, something that hasn't existed since World War II.”

The domestic impact is, of course, a not so gradual close-down of any input from those who disagree with policies.

The first piece on this was posted at Mahajan's Empire Notes a few days ago.  Today's piece can be found here.

Didja notice? Syria is getting eviler and eviler!

Well, there are two of us now who have noticed how Syria is getting blamed for everything this February.   

It's so convenient!  We want to tame Syria and Iran, and we're going about it in a very organized way -- just the way a CEO would do it (a CEO with the goals and the morals of a Ken Lay). 

Today we hear Sharon blame the latest bombings on Syria -- albeit with a little help from those Palestinians. It sounded as though he'd been turned into a sock puppet. Again.

Lots of Feith, little hope and charity when it comes to Syria!

Here's someone else who has doubts.  I like what this blogger (new to me) writes. 

I'll bet the US has a connection to the Hariri murder.  I'll bet this corrupt administration will stop at nothing as long as it's able manipulate not only events but the information we receive about them.  Let's keep an eye on the press in Europe and  the Middle East.