GLOBALIZE THIS!

Saturday, January 31, 2004

REALIGNING THE ANTI-WAR DISCOURSE

Maxspeak's point about not needing a "permission slip" a la Bush's SOT(dis)U 2004 is well taken. This was the frailness of the anti-war and fence-sitting Democratic position back in October 2002-March 2003, essentially the Republicans had trapped them in a discursive "lock box" that's difficult to escape from. The Rs are arguing two points at the same time: (1) that Iraq was a threat to national security, and (2) that the ends justify the means, which is the point alluded to here with Bush's revisionist justification for war--that Iraqi's are better off today not under a maniacal dictator. Argument one is a loser for D's, not because they were wrong that Iraq posed no threat (or was contained, as Collin Powell asserted), but because for better or worse to most Americans the question is no longer relevant. What is relevant is that we have not reached the liberal democracy "ends" implicitly promised by the revisionist justification and these ends are not attainable by any means the Bush administration has or is likely to pursue.

¶ 1/31/2004 01:37:15 PM

Friday, January 30, 2004

SHOUT OUT TO MAXSPEAK.ORG

Thanks to my colleague Maxspeak, who shall remain marginally anonymous, for publicizing my blog. No one I know has a better knack for standing conventional lefty wisdom on its head [I should add: while also reasserting the validity of progressive principles]--and doing so with eye-opening, compelling logic. Thanks to Maxspeak, GLOBALIZE THIS! enjoyed record-breaking traffic today (probably more than in our entire previous existence).

I considered giving Maxspeak a plug, but everyone is coming here from his page. So you already know the value he adds to the public debate, no matter what your political ilk.

¶ 1/30/2004 10:11:56 PM

THE BUSH HEALTH CARE PLAN: DEREGULATORY AGENDA UNDER A NEW, SOFTER BANNER

President pro tem Bush yesterday outlined his vision for fixing the American health care system. The proposals, though, had little to do with the real problems in health care (runaway prescription drug prices, tens of millions without access to health care, and millions more on the cusp of losing health care due to rising costs and and insecure job market), and more to do with advancing the ongoing Republican agenda to create tax shelters for the rich and to prevent regular people from seeking retribution from big corporations through the civil justice system.

"Yesterday I gave a talk about how to continue economic vitality. One of them is to help controlling costs of health care. There's way to do that without nationalizing health care. I'm absolutely convinced if the federal government tries to run the health care system, it will foul it up -- people will get lousy care, the doctor-patient relationship will be destroyed, and the cost of medicine will go up. I believe in -- I believe in allowing small businesses to pool risk across association health plans in order to control costs. I believe in expanding health savings accounts for Americans, which will create cost savings in the system. I believe we need medical liability reform all across America to get rid of the junk lawsuits that raise the cost of medicine. "

I'm not sure about the rationale for not having a single-payer system: people already get lousy care (or none at all), and the cost of medicine is skyrocketing (just since Bush took office, medical care costs are up 13.5%, versus 5% overall increase in the CPI).

It's not a bad idea to allow small businesses to buy into larger insurance pools, but there is really no justification for believing that personal savings accounts will create cost savings in the health care system. All that would do is allow people with high enough incomes to be able to shelter their earnings from income taxes. So the rich pay less taxes, the poor still pay taxes (because their marginal propensity to save is near zero or even negative), shoulder more of the tax burden, but still cannot afford health care.

On the "junk lawsuits" issue, the Fortune 500 companies and indutry associations behind the American Tort Reform Association would like to limit you to a maximum $250,000 in awards should, for example, someone you love die while in the care of a hospital that maintains unsafe nurse to patient ratios in order to improve their bottom line...or, say, a doctor performs unneccessary heart surgery on you and scores of other patients, and his employer knows but takes no action to keep him from practicing. (Sadly, these things really happen).

I'm not defending trial lawyers. Without being a legal expert, it's plain to see there are real problems in the system that should be fixed. But simply exonerating big corporations (who patronize the president) from an culpability is clearly not the way to go to help people.

¶ 1/30/2004 01:16:07 PM

MORE STRAIGHT TALK ON IRAQ FROM OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF

President pro tem Bush, along with President Kwasniewski of Poland, fielded reporters' questions on Tuesday:

Q Mr. President, a year ago you said the dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction. Are you still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, given what Dr. Kay has said?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me first compliment Dr. Kay for his work. I appreciate his willingness to go to Iraq and I appreciate his willingness to gather facts. And the Iraq Survey Group will continue to gather facts.

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know. We know from years of intelligence -- not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence gathering organizations -- that he had weapons -- after all, he used them. He had deep hatred in his heart for people who love freedom. We know he was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We know that he defied the United Nations year after year after year. And given the events of September the 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein, because he didn't have any.

There is no doubt in my mind the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. America is more secure, the world is safer, and the people of Iraq are free.

Hmmm...That's not really an answer to the question. But, reading between the lines here, I'd have to say that's an astounding "not confident."

¶ 1/30/2004 11:46:41 AM

PAUL KRUGMAN INVOKES THE MEMORY HOLE

Always a step behind me, eh Paul? Just kidding, all of us at Globalize This! love your work.

¶ 1/30/2004 11:38:06 AM

Thursday, January 29, 2004

WERE WE ALMOST ALL WRONG?

If you haven't heard by now, Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat when Bush led the US to war, according to David Kay, formerly President Bush's chief weapons inspector in Iraq.

Oops.

That can't be good, and now the Bush administration (including Kay) is circling the wagons:

Kay defended President Bush and laid blame on the intelligence community.

Let's call this the memory hole strategy: hope that no one remembers exactly what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and others told us about the status of Iraq and their use of intelligence in justifying the rush for war. After all, that debate happened over a year ago, and g-d knows there's been an abundance of Survivor and American Idol viewing with which to displace America's collective memory in the meantime.

Fortunately, the good people at the Center for American Progress have compiled this handy little timeline, complete with links to original White House press releases and transcripts and other primary sources.

It's not so clear cut that American (and foreign) intelligence agencies handed Bush faulty information which prompted him to war and the ensuing fiasco in Iraq. After all, Colin Powell paraded scores of photographs of purported WMDs before the UN Security Council.

Rather, intelligence was an ex post facto justification for a forgone policy decision to attack Iraq made on September 12, 2001 (see Bob Woodward's shameless told-directly-from-the-mouth-of-the-administration Bush at War for evidence of this--though I implore you to read it at the book store, borrow it from the library, or steal it--don't waste your hard earned money on this tripe).

¶ 1/29/2004 12:52:58 PM

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Still working on the subscription form, though. Please bear with me.

¶ 1/28/2004 10:36:45 PM

I'm really moving into the 21st Century. Last week I got a TV and cable. Today, I figured out how to allow Globalize This! readers to post comments. What a world.

Enjoy.

¶ 1/28/2004 10:23:02 PM

WHO SAYS NEW ENGLAND LIBERALS ARE STODGY?

That looks like an empty bottle of Jim Beam left over from yesterday's victory celebration in New Hampshire.

¶ 1/28/2004 04:04:08 PM

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

HOW POPULAR IS BUSH?

This popular, according to the BBC: 0

"As one voter put it, she would vote for her cat if she thought it could defeat the president. "

They always seem the strongest right before the fall.

¶ 1/27/2004 09:19:23 PM

Sometimes you forget this man is supposed to look out for the interests of 293 million people:

Strong-armed by President Bush, members of the U.S. Senate last
week backed off a filibuster against this year's government
spending bill they were holding up because it failed to block
the Bush overtime pay take-away. Bush had threatened to veto the
bill if it included an overtime pay protection guarantee for
America's workers, even though both houses of Congress voted to
block the overtime pay cuts in earlier votes. The Bush Labor
Department is expected to announce an implementation date for
the overtime pay take-away before March 1.
¶ 1/27/2004 02:24:43 PM

SCORE ONE FOR INTERNET dEMOCRACY

The World Economic Forum, a.k.a. Davos, is what is affectionately known in some circles as the Capitalist Cabal--a clandestine tryst where the world's most powerful barons of industry, financiers, and political scions convene behind closed doors to plot the course of the global political economy.

For a few years now, civil society organizers from across the globe have convened a World Social Forum in an attempt to push back on the social pendelum in the direction of dEMOCRACY, while a few political actors "invited to amuse, surprise and, within moderation, attack, the gathered throng" at Davos are allowed in to plead with the rich for mercy upon the destitute and impoverished in the world.

"Okay, so let me say this one more time. All we are asking for is to be able to eat and to send our kids to school and not to be plagued by AIDS and malaria anymore. Deal?"

In the past, some business leaders questioned why a World Social Forum was necessary at all? Why couldn't everyone just like, ya know, meet together? How can one be so powerful and yet so naiive?

Here's what happens when we try to get together: human rights violations

But according to the latest from the Int'l Herald Tribune, internet dEMOCRACY pierced the veil of Davos:

"Davos has now been breached by the blog," said Joichi Ito, chief executive of Neoteny Co., a venture capital firm based in Japan. "Anyone interacting with my blog gets past the guards."

...For some, however, such obsessive use of communications technology totally misses the point of meeting in Davos. Its isolation is exactly what is needed to have room to think, they say.

One perk of being invited to Davos is a goody bag of gifts, including regularly the latest and most poewrful in handheld PDA computing technology. That these global leaders (and their minions who marshall such international summits) did not forsee that insiders would blog-broadcast Davos into the outside world kind of makes you wonder how they got to be in charge in the first place.

The best cure for the pathologies of avarice and power-lust is sunshine, by blog or any other means. A special thanks to my gracious supporters at blogger and kudos to bloggers of all political persuasions.
¶ 1/27/2004 11:52:41 AM