Monday, June 23, 2003
Thursday, June 19, 2003
The Dismantling of America
At least no one is being shy about it any longer; the Republican agenda for destroying America as we know it is being outted all over the place. In this case, it's by no less a figure than Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. You know...they're the folks who want to see the checkout girl at Safeway paying her taxes at the same rate as Fortune 500 CEOs and fat-cat investment bankers.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed (see below), Grover elaborates on his messianic vision by implying that once a flat tax rate is achieved, it will "unite all taxpayers" toward keeping that rate low. Sorry fella, but I just can't even imagine being united with the likes of Ken Lay or Martha Stewart on much of anything.
So what's the real motivation for a flat tax rate? For one thing, it'll have to be high enough to make the US look much less attractive to immigrants, which might be to Mr. Norquist's liking. More likely, it is the squeezing effect it would have on the Federal government, which would shrink so severely as to catapult us back two centuries in terms of government role in society. In other words, the America we have come to know, love and rely on would disappear forever.
Remember the Constitution?
Establish justice? How about no money left for indigent defendants of federal crimes? Insure domestic tranquility? Where's the money for all those airport security guards going to come from? Provide for the common defense? That already pretty well limited to making the world safe for American and British oil interests.
Promote the general welfare? Watch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security become ghosts of their former selves as payments become worthless in the inevitable inflation flamed by deficit spending. Secure the blessings of liberty? How do you do that with an ignorant public after public education is cut off? I'm afraid our Perfect Union would be history, and I fear for our posterity.
Grover did make one very interesting observation. He pointed out the mistake which the Clintons made in trying to reform health care in one big gulp. He contrasts it with W's strategy of squeezing federal revenues one step at a time. Hillary: keep it in mind for 08!
Step-by-Step Tax Reform By Grover Norquist The Washington Post Monday, June 9, 2003; Page A21 President Ronald Reagan enacted one significant tax cut in 1981 -- and then allowed a series of smaller tax increases almost every year of his presidency. Another tax cut did not follow until 1997. President Bush has proposed and now signed tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The old Republican promise was that a new president would fight for one tax cut and then oppose tax hikes. The new Republican policy is an annual tax cut. The strategy of annual tax cuts has united the center-right coalition and avoided the sort of conflict that bedeviled the 1981 tax cut, when K Street pushed to include its favorite industry or corporation-specific tax change at the cost of paring back Reagan's proposed 30 percent cut in marginal tax rates. Businesses were rightly concerned that this would be the last tax cut for some time. Bush's 2001 tax cut received strong business support, even though it was completely aimed at individual taxpayers. Why? Because the best way to "lobby" to be in next year's tax cut is to cheerfully support the president's tax cut this year. The Bush administration -- wisely -- has not proposed fundamental tax reform in a single piece of legislation. But the president has been taking deliberate steps toward such reform with each tax cut. There are five steps to a single-rate tax, which taxes income one time: Abolish the death tax, abolish the capital gains tax, expand IRAs so that all savings are tax-free, move to full expensing of business investment rather than long depreciation schedules and abolish the alternative minimum tax. Put a single rate on the new tax base and you have Steve Forbes and Dick Armey's flat tax. Each of the Bush tax cuts, past and proposed, moves us toward fundamental tax reform. The step-by-step annual tax cut avoids the problem that faced Bill and Hillary Clinton's too ambitious effort to nationalize health care in one gulp: It is easy to stop oversized reforms. Conservatives want to move to a flat-rate income tax for both economic and political reasons. The economic goal is to reduce the tax rate on labor and capital and reduce the disincentives to savings, investment and work. The political goal is to unite all taxpayers. When taxpayers are divided into different tax brackets, they can be mugged one at a time through the "divide, isolate and tax" strategy that Clinton pursued when he promised to tax "just the top 2 percent" of earners. Bush's surprising call to abolish the double taxation of dividend income was a recognition that the U.S. economy has fundamentally changed. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the single political measure of the economy's health was the unemployment rate. After the Great Inflation of the 1970s, inflation became an equal measure of economic well-being, and Jimmy Carter added together the unemployment rate and inflation rate to create the "Misery Index." Today, with 70 percent of voters owning shares of stock, there is a third measure: the value of the stock market. Politicians used to like to "hide" tax increases in taxes on corporations. Now 70 percent of voters understand that looting big business is actually looting their retirement portfolios. When Tom Daschle said that cutting taxes on investors was cutting taxes for the "wrong people," he was reminding voters that the Democratic leadership still thinks the American economy is in the 1930s, with only the Rockefellers and Kennedys owning stock. In crafting its agenda for economic reform, the Bush administration has the luxury of being able to think and plan over a full eight years. This is because the 2002 redistricting gave Republicans a lock on the House of Representatives until 2012 and the Founding Fathers gerrymandered the Senate for Republican control. In the 50-50 election that was 2000, Bush carried 30 states and Al Gore 20. Over time, a reasonably competent Republican Party will tend to 60 Republicans in the Senate. This guarantee of united Republican government has allowed the Bush administration to work and think long-term. Reagan could move in bursts, using his political capital from the 1980 and 1984 elections to push through key reforms, but then the Democratic majority in the House would slow or stop most other initiatives. The Bush administration can plan over an eight-year period, moving various initiatives at different paces. Progress need not come in short, fleeting moments of political strength. One sees this longer time horizon not only in the annual tax cuts that move slowly toward a flat rate income tax, but also in the decades-long move to free trade in the hemisphere and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick's call for zero tariffs on manufactured goods within 10 to 15 years, the focus on transformation in the Defense Department, reforms in personnel management and the Social Security changes that will take a generation to phase in. The Pentagon used to debate whether we had enough strength to fight two wars at the same time. The Bush administration is demonstrating that it can operate successfully on two fronts, fighting the war on terrorism and at the same time embarking on fundamental economic reform.
 We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. |
Step-by-Step Tax Reform By Grover Norquist The Washington Post Monday, June 9, 2003; Page A21 President Ronald Reagan enacted one significant tax cut in 1981 -- and then allowed a series of smaller tax increases almost every year of his presidency. Another tax cut did not follow until 1997. President Bush has proposed and now signed tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The old Republican promise was that a new president would fight for one tax cut and then oppose tax hikes. The new Republican policy is an annual tax cut. The strategy of annual tax cuts has united the center-right coalition and avoided the sort of conflict that bedeviled the 1981 tax cut, when K Street pushed to include its favorite industry or corporation-specific tax change at the cost of paring back Reagan's proposed 30 percent cut in marginal tax rates. Businesses were rightly concerned that this would be the last tax cut for some time. Bush's 2001 tax cut received strong business support, even though it was completely aimed at individual taxpayers. Why? Because the best way to "lobby" to be in next year's tax cut is to cheerfully support the president's tax cut this year. The Bush administration -- wisely -- has not proposed fundamental tax reform in a single piece of legislation. But the president has been taking deliberate steps toward such reform with each tax cut. There are five steps to a single-rate tax, which taxes income one time: Abolish the death tax, abolish the capital gains tax, expand IRAs so that all savings are tax-free, move to full expensing of business investment rather than long depreciation schedules and abolish the alternative minimum tax. Put a single rate on the new tax base and you have Steve Forbes and Dick Armey's flat tax. Each of the Bush tax cuts, past and proposed, moves us toward fundamental tax reform. The step-by-step annual tax cut avoids the problem that faced Bill and Hillary Clinton's too ambitious effort to nationalize health care in one gulp: It is easy to stop oversized reforms. Conservatives want to move to a flat-rate income tax for both economic and political reasons. The economic goal is to reduce the tax rate on labor and capital and reduce the disincentives to savings, investment and work. The political goal is to unite all taxpayers. When taxpayers are divided into different tax brackets, they can be mugged one at a time through the "divide, isolate and tax" strategy that Clinton pursued when he promised to tax "just the top 2 percent" of earners. Bush's surprising call to abolish the double taxation of dividend income was a recognition that the U.S. economy has fundamentally changed. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the single political measure of the economy's health was the unemployment rate. After the Great Inflation of the 1970s, inflation became an equal measure of economic well-being, and Jimmy Carter added together the unemployment rate and inflation rate to create the "Misery Index." Today, with 70 percent of voters owning shares of stock, there is a third measure: the value of the stock market. Politicians used to like to "hide" tax increases in taxes on corporations. Now 70 percent of voters understand that looting big business is actually looting their retirement portfolios. When Tom Daschle said that cutting taxes on investors was cutting taxes for the "wrong people," he was reminding voters that the Democratic leadership still thinks the American economy is in the 1930s, with only the Rockefellers and Kennedys owning stock. In crafting its agenda for economic reform, the Bush administration has the luxury of being able to think and plan over a full eight years. This is because the 2002 redistricting gave Republicans a lock on the House of Representatives until 2012 and the Founding Fathers gerrymandered the Senate for Republican control. In the 50-50 election that was 2000, Bush carried 30 states and Al Gore 20. Over time, a reasonably competent Republican Party will tend to 60 Republicans in the Senate. This guarantee of united Republican government has allowed the Bush administration to work and think long-term. Reagan could move in bursts, using his political capital from the 1980 and 1984 elections to push through key reforms, but then the Democratic majority in the House would slow or stop most other initiatives. The Bush administration can plan over an eight-year period, moving various initiatives at different paces. Progress need not come in short, fleeting moments of political strength. One sees this longer time horizon not only in the annual tax cuts that move slowly toward a flat rate income tax, but also in the decades-long move to free trade in the hemisphere and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick's call for zero tariffs on manufactured goods within 10 to 15 years, the focus on transformation in the Defense Department, reforms in personnel management and the Social Security changes that will take a generation to phase in. The Pentagon used to debate whether we had enough strength to fight two wars at the same time. The Bush administration is demonstrating that it can operate successfully on two fronts, fighting the war on terrorism and at the same time embarking on fundamental economic reform.
Hideous Pregnancy Disease Enveloped in Silence-UN
Wed June 18, 2003 03:49 PM ET
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Calling it a condition too unpleasant to discuss, a U.N. agency on Wednesday urged African nations to end the silence and confront one of the world's worst pregnancy-related disabilities.
Girls and women suffering from obstetric fistula, which results from obstructed labor, endure an uncontrollable leakage of urine or feces that often means being shunned by their family and isolated in a hut.
The U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and EngenderHealth, a New York-based international reproductive health group, went to nine African nations to analyze hospital data, public obstetrics information and available treatment as part of a survey to shed light on the problem said to afflict millions.
"We hope this report will sound a global alarm about fistula," said Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UNFPA's executive director told a news conference. "Most women living with fistula today suffer in silence, unaware that a simple cure is available.
Prevention involves a Caesarean section for delivery and if this is not done, reconstructive surgery, even years after the pregnancy, can cure the condition. The cost ranges from $100 to $400, often a prohibitive amount for impoverished women.
Obaid has appointed her predecessor, Nafis Sadik, a Pakistani physician, as her special envoy on fistula.
The 96-page survey was unable to say how many women suffer from the condition in sub-Sahara Africa. The World Health Organization in 1998 estimated 2 million girls and women are afflicted and another 50,000 to 100,000 were stricken each year. The new study believes the figures are much higher.
In Nigeria alone, the report said, as many as 1 million women may be living with the condition. The other nations surveyed were Benin, Chad, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Uganda and Zambia.
Dr. France Donnay of UNFPA said that requests for surveys have multiplied with Tanzania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Ghana, Togo and Senegal next on the list.
"Everybody knows somebody who has fistula," she said.
The obstruction usually occurs because the woman's pelvis is too small, the baby's head is too big, or the baby is badly positioned. The baby usually dies and if the mother survives she is left with extensive damage to her birth canal.
"Women are totally stigmatized when they have this problem, said Dr. Amy Pollack, president of EngenderHealth. "They are often rejected by their families and by their spouses -- almost always. They are the survivors."
In some nations women hear of a surgeon and are "willing to walk for days, for weeks, for months, hoping that surgeon will return and change their life," she said.
The condition is nearly wiped out in developed nations. In New York, the last hospital dedicated to fistula closed about 100 years ago on the site where the Waldorf Astoria Hotel now stands, Donnay noted.
African women with fistulas are often under 20, some as young as 13, illiterate and poor. Many live in nations devastated by AIDS, malaria, famine, endemic poverty and years of political instability, leaving public hospitals in crumbling condition with chronic shortages of staff and equipment.
Women treated at the Niamey National Hospital in Niger were strikingly similar. Some 22 percent had experienced some form of female circumcision or genital mutilation, 88 percent were married at 16.
In Mozambique just three physicians treat fistula. Counseling is nonexistent and the perception of women who go to family planning clinics is that they "have more than one man" or they would not need such services, the report said.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
1 x 8 + 1 = 9
12 x 8 + 2 = 98
123 x 8 + 3 = 987
1234 x 8 + 4 = 9876
12345 x 8 + 5 = 98765
123456 x 8 + 6 = 987654
1234567 x 8 + 7 = 9876543
12345678 x 8 + 8 = 98765432
123456789 x 8 + 9 = 987654321
A Reply From Dr. Clark
The following letter came from Dr. Judy MacArthur Clark, chairwoman of the Farm Animal Welfare Council of England, in reply to my letter posted below.
Dear Linda
I appreciate your comments. I agree that, as I understand it, the Jewish method of slaughter is historically based upon a wish to be as humane as possible in treating the animal in its last few moments of life. In ancient days this was certainly the case with the Schechita method. And I'm sure my own ancestors were far less humane.
However the world has moved forward and I am convinced (from personal observation and from scientific evidence) that the most humane way to slaughter an animal is to rapidly stun it so that it immediately loses consciousness, and then to kill it before it has any opportunity to recover consciousness.
I am hopeful that we can all find a middle road which is acceptable to those concerned about the pain animals may experience, and to those who are trying to meet the demands of their religions. Please understand that the view of my Council is based purely upon welfare and is not an expression of disapproval of any form of religious belief.
The scientific evidence shows clearly that cattle may be conscious for periods up to 40 seconds after their throats are cut. Calves for up to two minutes. These are long times to suffer. Perhaps we must agree to differ just now - but maintaining a dialogue is very important if we are to achieve ultimate resolution.
Yours
Judy
Dr Judy MacArthur Clark DVMS DLAS DipECLAM FIBiol MRCVS
Veterinary Director
BioZone Ltd and BioZone Inc
Tel: +44 1843 232090 and +1 803 547 8826
Fax: +44 1843 228875 and +1 803 547 0635
email: judy@biozone-eu.com
www.biozoneglobal.com
Monday, June 16, 2003
Humane Today, Gone Tomorrow
My friend Frederik sent me a link to an article which appeared in the London Evening Standard on attempts by an English animal rights organization to ban kosher ritual slaughter. Fortunately, I was able to find an email address for the president of that organization. Here's the result:
Dr. Judy MacArthur Clark Chairwoman, Farm Animal Welfare Council Dear Dr. Clark-- Your objection to methods used by observant Jews and Moslems to slaughter their animals has come to my attention through a recent article in the London Evening Standard online edition. As an observant Jew, I cannot speak for the halal method of slaughter, but I can speak about kosher slaughter. Have you ever witnessed a kosher slaughter? Perhaps you should, so that you can see for yourself the humane treatment accorded animals by shochtim (Jewish ritual slaughterers). Among other things, the shochet places his hands on the head of the animal, in much the same way as he blesses his children on the Sabbath. This not only calms the animal prior to slaugher, but imprints on the shochet the grave responsibility he has to treat the animal with humanity and dignity. Just because stunning an animal prior to slaughter is more "high-tech," it's not necessarily more humane. An animal that is slaughtered by the kosher method may take a negligable amount of time longer to lose consciousness, but there is no telling what the stunning does to the animal on either a physical or spiritual level, because the animal is unable to let us know. I'm confident that some other technology will eventually come along to replace stunning (when I was a youngster, they use to shoot them), driven by "humane" or maybe financial considerations. But the kosher method has been used by Jews for thousands of years (while others were still clubbing), and has always been praised as the most humane of methods. Spiritual laws are timeless, and transcend "trendy" movements like animal rights. Well after "civilized" people find it convenient to give up their civility, for whatever reason, the Jewish people will continue to follow their timeless tradition of humane treatment of animals, including their slaughter methods. I hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter so that the positive relationships developed over 350 years between the Jews of England and their fellow countrymen may proceed undisturbed.
By the way, if you're so moved, the Standard has a poll running on the subject, so be sure to click and be heard.
Dr. Judy MacArthur Clark Chairwoman, Farm Animal Welfare Council Dear Dr. Clark-- Your objection to methods used by observant Jews and Moslems to slaughter their animals has come to my attention through a recent article in the London Evening Standard online edition. As an observant Jew, I cannot speak for the halal method of slaughter, but I can speak about kosher slaughter. Have you ever witnessed a kosher slaughter? Perhaps you should, so that you can see for yourself the humane treatment accorded animals by shochtim (Jewish ritual slaughterers). Among other things, the shochet places his hands on the head of the animal, in much the same way as he blesses his children on the Sabbath. This not only calms the animal prior to slaugher, but imprints on the shochet the grave responsibility he has to treat the animal with humanity and dignity. Just because stunning an animal prior to slaughter is more "high-tech," it's not necessarily more humane. An animal that is slaughtered by the kosher method may take a negligable amount of time longer to lose consciousness, but there is no telling what the stunning does to the animal on either a physical or spiritual level, because the animal is unable to let us know. I'm confident that some other technology will eventually come along to replace stunning (when I was a youngster, they use to shoot them), driven by "humane" or maybe financial considerations. But the kosher method has been used by Jews for thousands of years (while others were still clubbing), and has always been praised as the most humane of methods. Spiritual laws are timeless, and transcend "trendy" movements like animal rights. Well after "civilized" people find it convenient to give up their civility, for whatever reason, the Jewish people will continue to follow their timeless tradition of humane treatment of animals, including their slaughter methods. I hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter so that the positive relationships developed over 350 years between the Jews of England and their fellow countrymen may proceed undisturbed.
By the way, if you're so moved, the Standard has a poll running on the subject, so be sure to click and be heard.
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Yea, and Hitler Was A Wonderful Little Dancer.
The Terrorist Apologetics Award goes to the Associated Press for this sickenly sentimental ditty...
Rantisi, 55-year-old pediatrician and occasional poet, is voice of Hamas
by Jason Keyser, Associated Press
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
For more than a decade, Abdel Aziz Rantisi -- a doctor and sometime poet -- has been the most recognizable voice of Hamas.
The 55-year-old pediatrician, who was wounded in an Israeli missile strike Tuesday, has issued fiery calls for deadly attacks on Israelis and is an outspoken critic of any Hamas cease-fire.
In 1987, Rantisi was one of six men who founded Hamas, which became one of the region's largest militant Islamic groups. Its ideology calls for a Muslim Middle East without an independent Jewish state -- Israel.
Hamas pioneered suicide bombings in Israel in the early 1990s. Over the past 32 months, the group has killed hundreds of Israelis with suicide bombings, remote-controlled bombs and rifle attacks.
The fourth of 12 children, Rantisi was born Oct. 23, 1947, in Yibnah, now the Israeli town of Yavneh.
When he was six months old, his parents fled fighting around Israel's 1948 creation and took him to the Gaza Strip, then part of Egypt, where they settled in the impoverished Khan Younis refugee camp.
He traveled to Alexandria, Egypt, after high school and studied pediatrics, later working at a hospital in Gaza and earning a degree in medicine.
After the founding of Hamas, Rantisi was the first of the group's leaders to be arrested by Israel. In and out of Israeli custody several times, he spent more than seven years behind bars altogether.
During one confinement, he shared a cell with Hamas' spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin and memorized the Quran -- 600 pages in most standard editions.
In prison, he used empty milk, toothbrush and cigarette cartons -- though he's a nonsmoker -- to construct a model of Jerusalem's Al Aqsa Mosque, which still sits, colorfully painted, on a table in his Gaza City living room.
Israel sent Rantisi and more than 400 other Hamas members into temporary exile in Lebanon in 1992 after the killing of an Israeli soldier. Rantisi became internationally known there, using his fluent English to speak for the deportees.
Appearing at the head of Gaza street marches in his gold-framed tinted glasses, Rantisi now often serves as a spokesman for Hamas. He welcomes journalists to his apartment, setting out sweets and coffee for his visitors.
Hamas considers Rantisi a political leader. But Israeli security sources say he sets the policy of operations against Israel and is responsible for recruiting Arab Israelis for attacks. Israeli government spokesman Ranaan Gissin said Rantisi masterminded an attack Sunday that killed four Israeli soldiers.
Rantisi has six children and 10 grandchildren. He has written poetry for one of them, a girl named Assma.
On a personal Web site he set up, Rantisi posted a poem. One line exults: "The mockingbird burst into song. He was drawn by her magic when he saw her."
In an introduction, he said he was inspired when his first granddaughter visited him in an Israeli prison. "She kissed me and it was one of the wonderful moments in my life," he wrote.
_______________________________
Pardon me while I puke.
Webmama
For more than a decade, Abdel Aziz Rantisi -- a doctor and sometime poet -- has been the most recognizable voice of Hamas.
The 55-year-old pediatrician, who was wounded in an Israeli missile strike Tuesday, has issued fiery calls for deadly attacks on Israelis and is an outspoken critic of any Hamas cease-fire.
In 1987, Rantisi was one of six men who founded Hamas, which became one of the region's largest militant Islamic groups. Its ideology calls for a Muslim Middle East without an independent Jewish state -- Israel.
Hamas pioneered suicide bombings in Israel in the early 1990s. Over the past 32 months, the group has killed hundreds of Israelis with suicide bombings, remote-controlled bombs and rifle attacks.
The fourth of 12 children, Rantisi was born Oct. 23, 1947, in Yibnah, now the Israeli town of Yavneh.
When he was six months old, his parents fled fighting around Israel's 1948 creation and took him to the Gaza Strip, then part of Egypt, where they settled in the impoverished Khan Younis refugee camp.
He traveled to Alexandria, Egypt, after high school and studied pediatrics, later working at a hospital in Gaza and earning a degree in medicine.
After the founding of Hamas, Rantisi was the first of the group's leaders to be arrested by Israel. In and out of Israeli custody several times, he spent more than seven years behind bars altogether.
During one confinement, he shared a cell with Hamas' spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin and memorized the Quran -- 600 pages in most standard editions.
In prison, he used empty milk, toothbrush and cigarette cartons -- though he's a nonsmoker -- to construct a model of Jerusalem's Al Aqsa Mosque, which still sits, colorfully painted, on a table in his Gaza City living room.
Israel sent Rantisi and more than 400 other Hamas members into temporary exile in Lebanon in 1992 after the killing of an Israeli soldier. Rantisi became internationally known there, using his fluent English to speak for the deportees.
Appearing at the head of Gaza street marches in his gold-framed tinted glasses, Rantisi now often serves as a spokesman for Hamas. He welcomes journalists to his apartment, setting out sweets and coffee for his visitors.
Hamas considers Rantisi a political leader. But Israeli security sources say he sets the policy of operations against Israel and is responsible for recruiting Arab Israelis for attacks. Israeli government spokesman Ranaan Gissin said Rantisi masterminded an attack Sunday that killed four Israeli soldiers.
Rantisi has six children and 10 grandchildren. He has written poetry for one of them, a girl named Assma.
On a personal Web site he set up, Rantisi posted a poem. One line exults: "The mockingbird burst into song. He was drawn by her magic when he saw her."
In an introduction, he said he was inspired when his first granddaughter visited him in an Israeli prison. "She kissed me and it was one of the wonderful moments in my life," he wrote.
_______________________________
Pardon me while I puke.
Webmama
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
So Nu, Where's The Outrage??
Funny how the American media seems to have missed this one, don't you think?
Palestinians are driven from homes by armed Iraqis
by Jack Fairweather
The (London) Daily Telegraph
Monday, June 9, 2003
The gardens of Baghdad's Haifa Club have been turned into Middle East's newest refugee camp as hundreds of Palestinians are driven out of their homes at gunpoint by their Iraqi neighbours.
The Haifa Club, where Palestinians came to meet, drink coffee and play table tennis, is now packed with more than 250 tents, housing 2,000 people forced to flee.
The reason for their eviction is their inability to pay their rent, previously paid by Saddam's government. For all its golden words in support of the Palestinian cause, the government refused to let them own their homes and restricted their employment to manual labour.
In the climate of fear and reprisals that persists in the Iraqi capital, however, Palestinians' association with Saddam Hussein has made them easy targets.
While the Palestinian cause may stir the passions of Arabs across the Middle East, Palestinians themselves are often regarded with suspicion.
Palestinian militants were involved in civil wars in Jordan and Lebanon. In 1991, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were evicted from Kuwait after the emirate was liberated from the Iraqis. And in 1993 and 1994, hundreds were evicted from Libya on the grounds that Yasser Arafat had supported Saddam.
Now it is the Palestinians in Baghdad who are the victims of the political upheaval.
Youssef Nabil, who lives in one of the tents with 10 other family members, recalled how his landlord beat him with a gun before giving him five minutes to leave his home for the past 27 years. "We were not even given time to collect our belongings. Baghdad has become a jungle in which the strongest animals pick on the weakest."
Inside the club, the walls are stacked with furniture from evicted families and bags of grain and water supplies block the corridors. About 50 armed men patrol the club's perimeter.
Makeshift classrooms have been built because camp dwellers have had to remove their children from school for fear of attack.
"Iraqis say we brought about the war and all the bad things which followed because of Saddam's support for us," said one refugee.
Monday, June 9, 2003
Is There Anything Left That Matters?
by Sister Joan Chittister, OSB
from The National Catholic Reporter
Thursday, May 29, 2003
This is what I don't understand: All of a sudden nothing seems to matter.
First, they said they wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive." But they didn't get him. So now they tell us that it doesn't matter. Our mission is greater than one man.
Then they said they wanted Saddam Hussein, "dead or alive." He's apparently alive but we haven't got him yet, either. However, President Bush told reporters recently, "It doesn't matter. Our mission is greater than one man."
Finally, they told us that we were invading Iraq to destroy their weapons of mass destruction. Now they say those weapons probably don't exist. Maybe never existed. Apparently that doesn't matter either.
Except that it does matter. I know we're not supposed to say that. I know it's called "unpatriotic." But it's also called honesty. And dishonesty matters.
It matters that the infrastructure of a foreign nation that couldn't defend itself against us has been destroyed on the grounds that it was a military threat to the world.
It matters that it was destroyed by us under a new doctrine of "pre-emptive war" when there was apparently nothing worth pre-empting.
It surely matters to the families here whose sons went to war to make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction and will never come home.
It matters to families in the United States whose life support programs were ended, whose medical insurance ran out, whose food stamps were cut off, whose day care programs were eliminated so we could spend the money on sending an army to do what did not need to be done.
It matters to the Iraqi girl whose face was burned by a lamp that toppled over as a result of a U.S. bombing run.
It matters to Ali, the Iraqi boy who lost his family - and both his arms - in a U.S. air attack.
It matters to the people in Baghdad whose water supply is now fetid, whose electricity is gone, whose streets are unsafe, whose 158 government ministries' buildings and all their records have been destroyed, whose cultural heritage and social system has been looted and whose cities teem with anti-American protests.
It matters that the people we say we "liberated" do not feel liberated in the midst of the lawlessness, destruction and wholesale social suffering that so-called liberation created.
It matters to the United Nations whose integrity was impugned, whose authority was denied, whose inspection teams are even now still being overlooked in the process of technical evaluation and disarmament.
It matters to the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world, both now and for decades to come, perhaps. And surely it matters to the integrity of this nation whether or not its intelligence gathering agencies have any real intelligence or not before we launch a military armada on its say-so.
And it should matter whether or not our government is either incompetent and didn't know what they were doing or were dishonest and refused to say. The unspoken truth is that either as a people we were misled, or we were lied to, about the real reason for this war. Either we made a huge - and unforgivable - mistake, an arrogant or ignorant mistake, or we are swaggering around the world like a blind giant, flailing in all directions while the rest of the world watches in horror or in ridicule.
If Bill Clinton's definition of "is" matters, surely this matters. If a president's sex life matters, surely a president's use of global force against some of the weakest people in the world matters. If a president's word in a court of law about a private indiscretion matters, surely a president's word to the community of nations and the security of millions of people matters.
And if not, why not? If not, surely there is something as wrong with us as citizens, as thinkers, as Christians as there must be with some facet of the government. If wars that the public says are wrong yesterday - as over 70% of U.S. citizens did before the attack on Iraq - suddenly become "right" the minute the first bombs drop, what kind of national morality is that?
Of what are we really capable as a nation if the considered judgment of politicians and people around the world means nothing to us as a people? What is the depth of the American soul if we can allow destruction to be done in our name and the name of "liberation" and never even demand an accounting of its costs, both personal and public, when it is over?
We like to take comfort in the notion that people make a distinction between our government and ourselves. We like to say that the people of the world love Americans, they simply mistrust our government. But excoriating a distant and anonymous "government" for wreaking rubble on a nation in pretense of good requires very little of either character or intelligence.
What may count most, however, is that we may well be the ones Proverbs warns when it reminds us: "Kings take pleasure in honest lips; they value the one who speaks the truth." The point is clear: If the people speak and the king doesn't listen, there is something wrong with the king. If the king acts precipitously and the people say nothing, something is wrong with the people.
It may be time for us to realize that in a country that prides itself on being democratic, we are our government. And the rest of the world is figuring that out very quickly.
From where I stand, that matters.
A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Sister Joan is a best-selling author and well- known international lecturer. She is founder and executive director of Benetvision: A Resource and Research Center for Contemporary Spirituality, and past president of the Conference of American Benedictine Prioresses and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Sister Joan has been recognized by universities and national organizations for her work for justice, peace and equality for women in the Church and society.
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
Can Dean Dig Dems out of Doldrums?
I received an email message from Charles Schumer (who doesn't even represent my state) chastising me for not re-upping my membership in the Democratic party.
Why should I? What do they have to offer me that I can't get from voting Green or sitting out 2004 altogether?
All Schumer could come up with in his message was more Dem hand wringing about jobs and health care. You bet those are important issues, and I'm one of the first who would benefit from the Democrats coming along and fixing both (how do you think I have all this time to blog?).
But come on, folks, our current administration just got done fighting a war on bogus grounds (anyone read Paul Krugman today? look below), turning our airwaves over to their buddies in exchange for a pile of loophole campaign cash and a boy-in-khaki election-time documentary, and rewarding the rest of their supporters with a lucious tax cut at the expense of 25 million of America's poorest children (not to mention the rest of us).
If someone doesn't take the gloves off and start disrobing the emperor, I'm gonna sit the next one out, and probably start looking for a real democracy in which to spend the rest of my days (I hear Europe is full of them nowadays). If Dr. Dean (no, not Adel!) is up to the job, I'm all for him. In fact, I suggest visiting his website at www.deanforamerica.com and taking a look for yourself.
I received an email message from Charles Schumer (who doesn't even represent my state) chastising me for not re-upping my membership in the Democratic party.
Why should I? What do they have to offer me that I can't get from voting Green or sitting out 2004 altogether?
All Schumer could come up with in his message was more Dem hand wringing about jobs and health care. You bet those are important issues, and I'm one of the first who would benefit from the Democrats coming along and fixing both (how do you think I have all this time to blog?).
But come on, folks, our current administration just got done fighting a war on bogus grounds (anyone read Paul Krugman today? look below), turning our airwaves over to their buddies in exchange for a pile of loophole campaign cash and a boy-in-khaki election-time documentary, and rewarding the rest of their supporters with a lucious tax cut at the expense of 25 million of America's poorest children (not to mention the rest of us).
If someone doesn't take the gloves off and start disrobing the emperor, I'm gonna sit the next one out, and probably start looking for a real democracy in which to spend the rest of my days (I hear Europe is full of them nowadays). If Dr. Dean (no, not Adel!) is up to the job, I'm all for him. In fact, I suggest visiting his website at www.deanforamerica.com and taking a look for yourself.
You Almost Got It, Paul...
So what is Paul missing? Well, maybe it's time for someone to dig into 9/11 itself. Like why does Dubya continue to cuddle with the hosts, educators and financial supporters of those responsible for the 9/11 tragedy? And why is the so-called "Congressional Investigation" into the matter under lock and key?
Standard Operating Procedure
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times, June 3, 2003
The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s.
And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.
In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."
Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.
Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.
And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?
It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.
If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war — writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."
It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.
But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.
Monday, June 2, 2003
Thank you, Dana Lyons
Hit it!
Be sure to check out Dana's Cows with Guns website.
(You're going to need a Windows Media player for this)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)