|
Post by Wildrider on Nov 25, 2002 18:34:42 GMT -5
Posted on Sun, Nov. 24, 2002
How 1984 and 2002 add up to trouble Molly Ivins
Readin' the newspapers anymore is eerily reminiscent of all those bad novels warning of the advent of fascism in America. "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis was a bad book, and the genre shades off into right-wing paranoia about black helicopters, including the emorably awful The Turner Diaries. I don't use the f-word myself -- in fact, for years, I've made fun of liberals who hear the approach of jackbooted fascism around every corner.
But to quote a real authority on the subject, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- Benito Mussolini.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently quoted "the quite apolitical Web site Corporate Governance, which matter-of-factly remarks, 'Given the power of corporate lobbyists, government control often equates to de facto corporate control anyway.' " It's gettin' downright creepy out there.
The most hair-raising news du jour is about Total Information Awareness, a giant government computer spy system being set up to spy on Americans, run by none other than John Poindexter of Iran-contra fame.
Total Information Awareness will provide intelligence agencies and law enforcement with instant access to information from e-mail, telephone records, credit cards, banking transactions and travel records, all without a search warrant. It will, said Poindexter, "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases. The just-passed Homeland Security bill undermines the Privacy Act of 1974, which was intended to limit what government agencies can do with personal information.
And can we trust the government to keep all this information solely for the task of tracking terrorists? Funny you should ask. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that shortly after Sept. 11, the FBI circulated the names of hundreds of people it wanted to question to scores of corporations around the country, sharing the list with car rental companies, banks, travel firms, casinos, truckers, chemical companies and power plants.
"A year later, the list has taken on a life of its own, with multiplying -- and error-filled -- versions being passed around like bootleg music. Some companies fed a version of the list into their databases and now use it to screen job applicants and customers."
|
|
|
Post by Wildrider on Nov 25, 2002 18:36:32 GMT -5
The list included people who were not suspects at all -- just people whom the FBI wanted to talk to because they might have had some information. But, the Journal reports, a Venezuelan bank's security officer sent the list, headed "suspected terrorists sent by the FBI," to a Web site.
The great writer on the subject of totalitarianism was George Orwell, and 1984 is always worth rereading. Damned if GeeDubya Bush didn't pop up the other day to announce that we must fight a war "for the sake of peace." That's not vaguely Orwellian -- it's a direct steal.
During another time of rampaging fear when civil liberties were considered a frivolous luxury -- the late, unlamented McCarthy era -- the American Civil Liberties Union chickened out on some big issues, and so an Emergency Civil Liberties Union had to be created to fight McCarthyism. The present ACLU, under Anthony Romero, is fighting hard, but I think we need a new coalition organization -- civil libertarians, libertarians and principled conservatives … real patriots who believe in the Constitution.
The blowhard right-wingers sometimes put down Barry Goldwater these days as "the liberals' favorite conservative," and so he was. But in your heart, you know Goldwater would have had a cow over all this.
Rep. Dick Armey has already announced that he will do consulting work with the ACLU on privacy issues (good on him). Rep. Ron Paul and columnist Bill Safire are stout on these matters, as are other unlikely suspects such as Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia.
For those who relish irony, there's a comical extent to which liberals are the new conservatives, exactly where the old principled Republicans used to be -- reluctant to get involved in foreign wars, suspicious of foreign entanglements, harping on fiscal responsibility and worried about constitutional freedoms.
Personally, I still believe that internationalism makes more sense than isolationism because our major problems in the future -- global warming, overpopulation and water shortage -- are going to have to be dealt with on a global basis. This is an environmental struggle as well as a civil liberties struggle. I think it is inarguable that this is the most anti-environmental administration since before Teddy Roosevelt.
The corporatists in this administration, particularly those from the oil bidness, apparently have some grand imperialist schemes to keep us in cheap oil indefinitely.
As a matter of both foreign and environmental policy, it makes a lot more sense to lay rail, promote renewable energy and get serious about conserving oil. We subsidize the oil bidness with innumerable tax breaks, loopholes and support programs. For heaven's sake, why not support renewable energy instead? Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 25, 2002 22:47:31 GMT -5
The reason the Republicans are now ok with it is because they now control the government, and this time a rouge defector can't change that. Back in the old days they were on the out. The Democrats have controlled Congress for 40 years, and before the four year period that the Republicans had had it in the fifties it was all the way back in the Roaring Twenties that they last did if I'm not mistaken. They were naturally fearful of what those in real power could do. Now that they are in power they control that machinary, and obviously like all others in power "they'll use it responsibly." (Note: it usually isn't the king you appoint who abuses power, it's usually his kids and grandkids). Interestingly enough, wasn't it the last time the Republicans had everything that we had McCarthy? And back then it was good 'ole Ike! The problem with Bush is he lives in a world where since birth he's used to others defering to him and giving orders that are followed pronto and to the letter. Now heap the office on that and see how much power he has. That's why he's so sore over the Germans. He's not used to having people tell him no and not being able to do much about it. Mark my words, if war approval was in the 90% range we'd be at war already, UN be d@mned. As it is the latest I saw was 60% and even that I'm skeptical on. But this kind of thing is what every dictatorship is based on. Krup, Junkers, Meserschmitt, and all the other German companies were in bed with Hitler, particularly the arms industry. The difference between Mussolini and Hitler was that Hitler controlled a powerful nation, whereas Italy was one of the weaker powers in Europe. The businesses were also able to exert a small amount of control over Mussolini, whereas the Germans completely lost control of Hitler, to the point they couldn't even kick him out with Berlin crumbling around them. The funny part is they had put him in power thinking they could control him . We almost had this here in America. When big business saw what Franklin Roosevelt wanted they tried to engineer a coup against him. I forget the details, but he never forgave business.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Nov 25, 2002 23:40:14 GMT -5
Homeland A Megamerger Messby Lou Dobbs After months of lectures from politicians on how to run their businesses, corporate executives must be chuckling to themselves. They're watching Washington policymakers make what will likely be a major organizational misstep of their own - pushing forward a massive, ill-conceived merger that puts many of the failed megadeals of the '90s to shame. The largest reorganization of the federal government in a half-century is now underway. Last week, the Senate followed the House in approving the Homeland Security bill. The legislation will combine 22 existing agencies and 170,000 federal employees to create a new government department with at least a $35 billion annual budget request. The new super-sized security bureau could take years to fully put in place. And there's no assurance that we will be any safer than when we started. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute says Republicans and conservatives are falling into the same traps that liberals have over the last 50 years. "If there is a problem in America, create a new government program or government agency to deal with it," says Moore. "And we've seen over the last 30 years that when we created the Department of Energy, that certainly didn't solve the energy crisis. We created the Education Department. That didn't solve the education problem." Indeed, you could argue these departments compounded rather than solved problems. Bigger-is-better thinking Washington apparently hasn't learned from the mistakes of corporations. Agencies like the Immigration and Naturalization Service have deep-rooted structural problems. As if we needed further evidence, a new report shows the INS is doing a lousy job at our borders, the U.S. Border Patrol is undermanned, and our frontiers leak like a sieve. Instead of focusing on fixing these existing system failures, the government is trying the bigger-is-better approach. Granted, the urge to merge can be hard to resist. A successful merger promises increased market share, supposed economies of scale and, of course, my personal favorite - synergy. Sounds terrific, but far too often the risks of merging far outweigh the potential benefits. Companies fail to clearly define goals. Corporate cultures clash. New layers of bureaucracy choke off innovation. For the investing and taxpaying public, this may sound depressingly familiar. Merger mania played a big part in the excesses of the late '90s. Odds are bad Take, for example, Vivendi's troubled merger with Houghton-Mifflin. Just 18 months after the deal went through, Vivendi sold off the publisher for less than it originally paid. Analysts blamed the fiasco on a bad fit. Add this to the list of doomed deals - Conseco, Tyco, MCI-WorldCom and a legion of other misbegotten mergers. In fact, as Wall Street and big business know, mergers most often simply don't work. A much publicized study by KPMG in 1999 found that 83% of mergers were unsuccessful in producing any business benefit, and even share prices didn't rise for the long-term. And, in a study done by Kaplan and Weisbach in the early '90s, 44% of acquisitions failed and were divested after, on average, seven years. That suggests the Department of Homeland Security has about a 50-50 chance of working. Those aren't good odds for something as important as national security, whether at home or abroad. But don't lose hope. When the economy and the stock market sputtered and investors got angry, Wall Street finally went back to the basics - focusing on fixing business fundamentals. If, as I expect, the new Homeland Security Department fails organizationally and the public eventually demands answers, the politicians may finally focus on the core problems in our security system - and that's what we should be doing now. But reorganization is always easier than improving performance, whether in business or government. www.nydailynews.com/11-24-2002/business/story/38068p-35915c.html Businesses Gun For Homeland FundsBy SHARON THEIMER www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-homeland-lobbying1121nov21.story
|
|
|
Post by Wildrider on Nov 26, 2002 8:18:17 GMT -5
Those articles are heartening, LS. I've been reading "I Claudius" lately, and the corrolations between the fall of the Roman Republic under Augustus and what's happening now in America are way to eerily similar, especially with what appears to be a gigantic clump of Americans rushing eagerly to throw out their civil liberties in order for the "government to keep them safe." Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by Wildrider on Nov 26, 2002 23:41:35 GMT -5
And more fun... High Court to Hear Miranda Challenge By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer OXNARD -- Maybe you don't have a right to remain silent after all. The Supreme Court in its landmark Miranda opinion ruled that police must respect the rights of people who are held for questioning. Officers must warn them of their right to remain silent, and, equally important, honor their refusal to talk further. But that widely known rule is about to be reconsidered in the high court in the case of a farm worker here who was shot five times after a brief encounter with police. Legal experts say the case has the potential to reshape the law governing everyday encounters between police and the public. Full article here: www.latimes.com/la-na-miranda24nov24,0,1038975.story
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 27, 2002 0:30:43 GMT -5
Further erosion of our basic rights. Technically no, Miranda is not explicitly in the Constitution, but then I don't see anything on abortion in the 4th Amendment either. It is all based on what the justices want. These guys have decades of legal experience, so they can find rulings and twist them to justify whatever their personnal feelings are. Of course the Bushies are gonna support this, they've been going for taking away all our other rights. the sad part is that he really thinks that these tactics are going to work. They're not gonna work at all. The guys we're talking about needing to be coerced aren't going to respond to any coercion. Meanwhile you'll have folks being beat like in Iraq for confessions that are false. How bad is that that we're becoming like the very regime that is supposed to be the greatest threat to the existence of humanity. It's a quick solution to a problem that has no quick fix. "...Gonna party like it's 1984!"
|
|
|
Post by SanAntonioMike on Nov 27, 2002 21:21:58 GMT -5
Sometimes life is too ridiculous to even bother living it (paraphrasing from "Little Big Man"). Ah, America. I love her, but just like my kids, sometimes she does wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 27, 2002 21:47:27 GMT -5
Yeah, the problem is how do we spank the country (read the Bush Administration) and put her in the corner?
|
|
|
Post by Travelinman on Nov 28, 2002 9:06:20 GMT -5
I know a family that came to America 10 years ago from Russia. In talking to one of the sons he said, "When we first came here my father was watching the news, I do not remember what it was about, but there was a riot. My father sat shaking his head and said there is too much freedom here."
When he said this to me it did not fully register until about a week later, when I really gave it thought. Seeing the turmoil in present day Russia since the fall of Communism. Who is to say if those people are better off now then they were then.
With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the potential for what it can turn into, I wonder what the former Communist leaders of Russia are thinking. The things our government and military are capable of is frightening.
The problem I see with this whole Homeland Security, is that our governmet looks at the big picture, but disregards the small details. Unfortunatly the small detail that have snowballed over 30 or 40 years are the details that have created the problems. Do I have faith in our government to use the power they now have effectively.......... NO!!!!
I think the time has come for the people of America to speak out. OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT A TOOL OF THE SPECIAL INTEREST, BUT IT IS A TOOL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The people need to realize the power that we really do have. We just need to come together and show that we have HAD ENOUGH! We need to take back the power that was granted us, Of the people, by the people, and for the people.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Nov 29, 2002 22:50:43 GMT -5
Those articles are heartening, LS. I've been reading "I Claudius" lately, and the corrolations between the fall of the Roman Republic under Augustus and what's happening now in America are way to eerily similar, especially with what appears to be a gigantic clump of Americans rushing eagerly to throw out their civil liberties in order for the "government to keep them safe." Yikes. I didn't find much there very heartening...What originally started out, as at least an attempt, at trying to shore up national security, somehow got twisted by the Republicans into just another opportunity for big business patronage...once again at the taxpayers expense. Both Dobbs and TM are right when they say government looks at the big picture...yet never sees the forest for the trees...The latest example being DuHbya's "No kid left behind" policy. Under this policy- any parent/guardian of any child that attends a poor performing school- can transfer to a better school...unconditionally. Nice theory...but it doesn't quite work out in logistics. Take for example...NYC is now about to loose 600 million in federal education funds...at a time when we're in the midst of a major financial disaster- a good chunk of it being the direct result of 9/11 (which BTW...we still haven't seen most of the promised federal aid, and the government is trying every way possible to renig on the amounts promised). Why?? Because the NYC schools are not adhering to the "no kid left behind" policy. And why isn't NYC adhering to the policy?? Well, because as things stand, there's already on average, 40 kids to a class. People in other parts of this country take kindergarten as a given...Here, there's a waiting list, and every kid doesn't get to go to kidergarten. Why?? Because there's not enough classroom space. Right now, every available inch has been converted to accomodate mandatory grades (kindergarten is not mandatory)...everything from broom closets to gyms being divided into classrooms. Now there's a lot a bad schools throughout the 5 boroughs that don't meet the state averages...and there's thousands of kids that put in for transfers under the DuHbya policy. But exactly WHERE are they supposed to transfer these students to?? There's just no PHYSICAL room in order to accomodate this policy!! So what is this stupid policy accomplishing?? Moving students around is supposed to fix things?? All that's being done with that is burying the primary problem and creating new ones in the process...instead of directing money to where the real problems are and fixing them. And basically that's all this Homeland Security Dept is...he's just moving around a bunch of people...but the real problems aren't being addressed. Then he appointed Henry The K to head the 9/11 inquiry...a man not only very well respected in his ability to "hide" things...but who's appointment blatantly smacks of "conflict" of interest. www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit283023372nov28,0,6001766.column?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dcolumnists Now we're dealing with the Iranians again...obviously no one in this administration has learned a danged thing from the past... Deal With Another Ayatollah May Cost U.S.www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vppin273023272nov28,0,4948592.column?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dcolumnists And the one on Miranda just cracked me up after getting a laugh reading this one... Modern Democracy Explainedwww.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit193009336nov19,0,98929.column?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dcolumnists Yup...it's time to party like it 1984 alright...
|
|
|
Post by Wildrider on Nov 30, 2002 11:46:54 GMT -5
Well, I've been feeling very nostaligic for the 80's lately.... but not so much the Orwellian vision of same. The only tiny amount of joy I derived from the latest run of elections was Arizona very marginally did NOT elect Matt the Moron Salmon to highest office. For the first time since 1984 (or so), Arizona does not have an idiot for a governor (not counting the brief period Rose Moffort replaced good ol' Ev). However, the closeness of the election was hair-raising.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Dec 16, 2002 15:31:23 GMT -5
At last!! Somebody finally "gets" where I'm coming from!! The Two Big Parties Have Had ItBy Jacqueline Salit A little noticed USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll done in October showed that 35 percent of Americans consider themselves independents - a plurality of the national electorate. (Republicans comprise 32 percent, Democrats 31 percent.) Thus, it is statistically obvious that independent voters decided the results of the Nov. 5 elections. But who are the independent voters? And how does their plurality fit into our political scene? Independent voters are largely misunderstood because they are always examined through a parochial two-party lens as voters who swing to one or the other of the major parties. The fact that these millions of Americans have declared themselves to be neither Democrats nor Republicans is considered irrelevant. I have sat in endless campaign meetings with political consultants who relate to independents simply as voters to "poll and pull" on the "issues," never willing to investigate why nor respecting that they have made a particular statement in defining themselves outside the two parties. The problem with this analysis is that it fails to note that independents actually span the ideological spectrum and, more importantly, reject the traditional left/center/right ideological paradigm altogether. No small part of why independents declare themselves as such is that they balk at the idea of being categorized. Independents seek solutions to policy questions that are free of labels - which means free of partisan politics. The bipartisan approach to independents is to try to plug them back into the paradigm with the mantra "they're really centrists," or whatever label fits the bill. Those of us who've been building the independent movement know otherwise. The independent voter may support policies associated with diverse points along the spectrum, but he or she is independent because of a beliefthat there is something wrong with the existing order. Independents believe politicians and government have been corrupted. They're looking for a way out of special interest-driven politics. Link to entire article: www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsal163047165dec16,0,2354599.story?coll=ny%2Dviewpoints%2Dheadlines ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This date in history: December 16, 1773 The Boston Tea Party took place as American colonists boarded a British ship and dumped more than 300 chests of tea overboard to protest tea taxes. Ah...the irony. Lol!!
|
|
|
Post by SweetNadine on Dec 19, 2002 19:11:38 GMT -5
Independents believe politicians and government have been corrupted. They're looking for a way out of special interest-driven politics.
I agree with that statement. I personally feel the love of money and taxing the citizens to death is root of what is wrong in this Nation.
|
|
|
Post by SanAntonioMike on Dec 20, 2002 19:45:35 GMT -5
We were discussing this topic the other night and a friend of mine agrees with another Molly Ivins comment, that our country is no longer democratic, but instead an oligarchy -- rule by a few... i.e., the corporate powers. Them who run this country are the heads of Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney, Infinity and their ilk. When they stumble and fall, we're the ones who foot the bill (witness Enron -- caught, accused, fined... and the taxpayers will pay their fines).
Now we're "detaining" Middle Eastern people. Can concentration camps be far behind? It's a mind-blowing idiocy that this is happening in the 21st Century in America, which is supposed to be the most tolerant and racially sensitive country on the planet. At least, goodness knows you can't even hint that you might have thoughts about any kind of superiority or you'll be hounded by the media ruthlessly and relentlessly, no matter how innocent your statements.
But it's all right to arrest innocent men because of their descent?
Hmmmm.
|
|