ken Hatch |
|
|
Links and Writings:
Art, Aviation, Photography,
Photoshop, and Politics
email Kenneth M. Hatch
Houston Center for Photography Photoshop Restoration & Retouching Buzzflash Media Whores Online Brad DeLong's Simi-Daily Journal Talking Points Memo The Daily Howler Archives 
|
Sunday, July 27, 2003
From the Daily Kos: CLELAND: It is a quagmire. SESNO: Why? Why? CLELAND: Because. There's so many similarities here. You have an assessment, which even Wolfowicz now realizes we underestimated the enemy. That was Dean Rusk's view a few years into Vietnam. You get the big land force in there. You know. You don't cure the problem. And you're exposed. And then the guerrilla warfare comes after you. That's Vietnam. That's the quagmire we're in in Iraq. There is no exit strategy. Why? Because we want to do a pre-emptive war. We want to do it all alone. ....... CLELAND: First of all, you got to go back and get the UN in there. we've got to go back to the very people we dissed. And we got to say to Russia and Germany and France and the UN and the Security Council, "We're in deep trouble. Help us out." We got to make a UN protectorate, and that's gonna take a long time. When they attack you from inside a children's hospital you have a lot of problems. Nixon killed over 20,000 American troops to win the 1972 election. Of all the evil things Nixon did that was the one that I will never forget. My question is how many Americans will Shrub kill during his illegal occupation of the White House. Monday, June 30, 2003
From the Moscow Times. I’ve read the quotes in other articles but this one cuts to the chase. Is it just me and my knee jerk reaction to any one who claims god tell them what to do or does Bush, with his hand on the button, scare the fuck out of you also. Hell I have to admit I would find Bush’s statement frightening if it came from the leader of almost any nation that was not Third World. Thursday, June 26, 2003
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
It has been awhile between posts...the usual excuses, work and overload of outrage. The day job sent me to Florida to cover a temporary pilot shortage. The Florida base has a LearJet 36XR. The 36 is an interesting airplane, 19600 lbs. GTOW, over 8000 lbs. of fuel, and it will stay in the air for over 5.5 hours. The problem is it still has a Lear cockpit, after about 3.5 hours my butt would be numb, my legs wouldn’t move and I’m looking for a jar to pee in. I made a small contribution to the Dean campaign yesterday, if you have a favorite now is the time to give. Early money is very important. BTW if you want to send Dean a buck or two http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute will make it easy. Monday, June 02, 2003
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Let’s pass on rage and bewilderment over the latest Bush and/or Republican outrage and link to something important. Saturday, May 31, 2003
Josh Marshal is on a roll. He has the goods on the R’s abuse of power in Texas and if you want to understand Iraq his Washington Monthly articles are a must read. Here and here for Iraq and check out TPM for the ongoing Texas story. Thursday, May 29, 2003
Monday, May 26, 2003
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Robert Scheer on “Saving Private Lynch: Take 2.” You will have to register with the Chicago Tribune but it is worth it. Monday, May 19, 2003
Saturday, May 17, 2003
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
From the Daily Kos : Let's get to the heart of the matter, the Saudis are scared to death of Osama and even more scared that we will find out how deeply supported Al Qaeda is in Saudi society. The Bush Administration can neither protect the Saudi princes from themselves nor destroy Al Qaeda. In the same year that the US devoted its entire military and intelligence apparatus to finding and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which has now boiled down to a mobile brewery and some scrapings from a tank, Al Qaeda is not only not destroyed, but nearly as strong as it was on September 10, 2001. Stories of the return of the Taliban ran in the papers during the Iraq war and were ignored by most people. The pronoucements from Osama have been treated like a trick from the last couple of episodes of 24 and not a real and ongoing threat to national security. Throwing hundreds of people into our Cuban gulag at Gitmo may have been able to prevent some immediate attacks, but it clearly has not killed the Al Qaeda organization, much less the driving force of Islamic revivalist thought (the proper name for what we call fundamentalism) rampant in the region. Tossing out thousands for minor immigration violations has only caused hardship and resentment in Pakistan and around the Arab world. And given the absolute ineptness of US policy in Europe over the last year, we find ourselves more isolated and alone than ever. Our president is hated by the citizens of our allies, our inept management of Iraq is about to take another turn for the worse: Tuesday, May 13, 2003
Myths die hard even when there has never been a reasonable expectation that they are true. When the myth serves the ruling class it is even harder to kill. Monday, May 12, 2003
If you are an economics geek and get all sweaty and wiggly thinking about liquidity traps this is a good link . Wednesday, May 07, 2003
Sunday, May 04, 2003
Thursday, May 01, 2003
From Newsweek: April 30 — Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks... I wonder if it has anything to do with AWOL and Company being asleep at the wheel? Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Humm...where have I heard the name N. Gregory Mankiw ? N. Gregory Mankiw (1998), Principles of Economics (New York: Dryden: 0030982383). Thinking Like an Economist: Why Economists Disagree: Charlatans and Cranks: pp. 29-30: An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group fo economists advised presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would raise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenue would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder, and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent. But there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to caues tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. George Bush, also a presidential candidate in 1980, agreed with most of the professional economists: He called this idea "voodoo economics." Nonetheless, the argument was appealing to Reagan, and it shaped the 1980 presidential campaign and the economic policies of the 1980s.... Tuesday, April 29, 2003
More 0n Korea, Nicholas Kristof in the NYT . Other than his “...Mr. Bush's refusal to reward North Korean bad behavior is perfectly admirable, but it's also entirely impractical...” line it is a pretty good op-ed. There is nothing admirable about stupidity and if Bush misses this opportunity the blood of the world will be on his hands. From the New York Times : “Workers in other industries could only dream about the rules of everyday conduct established by agreements between the major airlines and their unions over the last few decades. Pilots worked 80 hours or less during an entire month. Mechanics were paid for waving planes away from gates. Flight attendants got to stay in luxury hotels on the road...” Such a short paragraph, so much Bull Shit. Pilots are paid by the hour flown and they bid airline established “lines” that usually run from 70 hours to 100 hours per month. That doesn’t sound like much until you add in the fact that most “lines” are for 4 day trips and the duty days are usually over 10 hours each. On most lines the duty day will be close to fourteen hours, the maximum allowed by FAA regulation. Do the math; a 4 day line at an average of 12 hours on duty per day is 48 hours per week or 192 per month and that doesn’t include the 3 nights spent away from home. Airline management is getting away with only paying for 80 hours when their pilots are working at least twice as many hours. Some dream work rules. Mechanics “waving” planes away from gates gives the image of a high paid mechanic doing a “Queen Elizabeth” wave as the plane pulls away. The mechanic waving she so airily dismisses is using very specific hand signals to guide the pilot and the aircraft out of a crowded ramp area. During the “push back” phase the pilot can’t see where he is going. Yep real feather bedding there. Airline management wants to turn the job over to baggage handlers? Like I say fish stinks from the head. Those damn Flight Attendants and “luxury “ hotels, she may have a point if you think any hotel nicer than a Motel 6 is a “luxury” hotel. Flying the line is a tough job and the only thing that makes it bearable is the airline workers unions have fought very hard for pay and work rules over the years. It pisses me off to read management’s mau-mauing of their workers repeated by reporters. It makes for a nice catchy opening paragraph but doesn’t serve the public. I expect more from the Newspaper of Record. What am I missing on North Korea? They are signaling by almost every means at their disposal except standing on the street corner with a “I will give up nukes for food" sign that they will exchange their nuke program for security and economic help. If that isn’t a no brainer I don’t know what is. How can Shrub blow this one? From TPM: (On Korea) “...the real question is this: it seems likely to a lot of people now that Colin Powell, Armitage and Kelly could give President Bush a very big diplomatic victory in Northeast Asia over the next year or so. The price, however, would be going back to the basic model that was pursued by the previous administration. Tougher, more comprehensive, to be sure. But the same basic idea: aid and security guarentees in exchange for getting out of the nuclear biz. Can the White House swallow its pride? And will the AEI Fedayeen ever sit still for it? Monday, April 21, 2003
I first posted about the Israeli pipeline April 5. Today I’m seeing posts on the Mosul to Haifa pipeline in TPM and the Daily KOS. The Rs started us on this road to becoming Mexico in the 80’s. If Shrub has his way we could be there in a couple of generations. Sunday, April 20, 2003
From TPM : “Here is a key part of America's strategic vision for Iraq coming into focus. According to this article in The New York Times, the Pentagon is expecting to secure long-term access to four key Iraqi military bases...” In its perverted way this is one of the few things that make sense of the Iraq Turkey Shoot. The question is will the gain be worth the cost. Wednesday, April 16, 2003
It is reported that more than half of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This means that the U.S. media have utterly, spectacularly, shamefully and pathetically failed...More Monday, April 07, 2003
Sunday, April 06, 2003
From the New York Times: “Shortly after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week, declaring that any "hostile acts" they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of President Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word — "Good" — and went back to work...” If this doesn’t give you the night sweats you have been drinking the neo-con Koolaid. Saturday, April 05, 2003
Does this have the sound of truth? “An Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, has reported that Israel is seriously considering restarting a strategically important oil pipeline that once transferred oil from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel's northern port of Haifa. Given the Israeli claim of a positive US approach to the plan, the Israeli project provides grounds for a theory that the ongoing war against Iraq is in part a joint US, British and Israeli design for reshaping the Middle East to serve their particular interests, including their oil requirements...” More. Friday, April 04, 2003
Monday, March 31, 2003
Time Magazine has a long-thumb sucker on how we ended up in this mess. As usual, they are too kind to the major players, but it gives a pretty good outline. The “First Law of Holes” is if you find yourself in one is to stop digging. Robin Cook understands; now if the boy idiot from Midland can stop pumping his fist long enough to see the ground disappearing under his feet maybe we can get out of this mess. Sunday, March 30, 2003
From :Josh Marshal ."President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials. Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said." That's the devastating lede of Warren Strobel's piece on the administration meltdown..." Unfucking real. From ABC News: "They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush. Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush..." Saturday, March 29, 2003
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History March 20, 2003 By Thom Hartmann The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world. It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.) But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones. Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference. "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion. Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display. Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism. To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it. Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.) Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us. Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite. His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true. Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments. His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies. To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished. But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family. With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece. It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources. In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators." To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies. Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life. A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy. As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering. February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year." Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS. We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press. Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity. Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests. To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours. Thom Hartmann is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached. Thursday, March 27, 2003
From the Washington Post and Harold Meyerson : “...Combine the neos and CEOs with a president who seems ego-invested in his own provincialism and -- voilà! -- the United States has alienated a planet that has long looked to us as a force for decency in human affairs. In George Bush's America, however, it's the bombs that show the human face of our nation, while our statecraft, to steal a line from W.B. Yeats, reveals a gaze as blank and pitiless as the sun.” Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Friday, March 21, 2003
I grew up during the same time and just down the road from Shrub Bush in the white-collar city of Midland. My home in the rougher blue-collar town of Odessa. I can still remember the ”Get the US out of the UN” signs. Well, it looks like Shrub and Company believe they have at last accomplished that goal. Thursday, March 20, 2003
From David Corn : “...Unlike other big-time endeavors sought by the neocons and conservatives, this is a no-holds-barred effort. To use a cliché, a swing for the fences. Conservatives often gripe that their principles are never fully put to the test. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but deficits occurred because Congress didn't curtail spending. Welfare reform was passed, but it wasn't strict enough. Ballistic missile defense hasn't gone operational yet because the program has not been sufficiently funded and supported. Saddam Hussein was pushed back in 1991, but not pursued. This time out, the cons and neocons should have no complaints. This is what they have desired for years. Bush has his war, and it's step one in their (and his) crusade. Bush and the rest are placing much at risk for their grand promises. Let them take credit, if success transpires. And let them bear responsibility for whatever might be unleashed.” Sunday, March 16, 2003
Monday, March 10, 2003
No one should forget Bush mocking a woman on Texas’ death row pleading for life. Bush has moved on to greater things and is no longer the Governor of Texas so at least as Delma Banks Jr. goes to his death, for a murder he most likely did not commit, he will not have to endure being an object of Bush’s famous moral clarity. Bob Herbert on the national disgrace of the Texas Criminal Justice system. Richard Perle is just another scumbag, money grubbing, un-ethical Republican and then he has the balls to call Seymour Hersh a terrorist. While I respect Mr. Reese’s desire to support Americans and not criticize the war they are in once the fighting starts I think he is wrong. The rest of the column is must reading. Sunday, March 09, 2003
I don’t know about you but I’m tired of the constant outrage, of my government acting like bullies, of seeing the same ignorant thugs running Washington D.C. that I fled in 1961 when I left Odessa, Texas. I had hoped I’d left that meanness of spirit and bigotry behind. I started this Blog to write about Art, Aviation, Photography, Photoshop and Politics pretty much in that order and as I look over my Blog all I read are posting about the incredible stupidity of the Bush government. I’m sorry it has come to this, I feel like a one trick pony, but the fear and anger are all consuming. My hope, my light shining for a better future is the knowledge that most systems reach their zenith and then quickly fade away. We can only hope this is the death rattle of the Reactionary Right and the U.S.A. rejects Shrub and Company’s vision of the world. If this doesn’t convince you that we have a government of dangerous kooks you are living in a fantasy world and need help: “...He (Bush) and his aides have outlined a quick and successful overthrow of Hussein and rebuilding of a democratic Iraq that spreads peace through the Middle East. Establishing unchallenged world dominance for the United States, it cows the leaders of Iran, North Korea and al Qaeda. In this view, the domestic economy would soar, and help Bush and his party in 2004 to a victory that would realign the country's political allegiances...” For the complete article. “... If we are not now at the mercy of the least rational, least humane, least responsible pack of yahoos who ever seized control of the American war machine, then I have learned exactly nothing in 35 years as a professional observer...” For all of the rant, it’s long but worth the time. Are there any men and women of principle in Shrub's government? Mr. Powell where is yours or does Europe have a monopoly on balls? Does anyone else find this AP story disturbing? My understanding of the U.S.A. is changing and the new country is not the home of hope and freedom I have known for most of my life. Bush has wished for a dictatorship in one of his throwaway “jokes.” I have found people “joke” about things they believe but haven’t the balls to tell you but if you watch what they do their true beliefs and wants will show. Bush gives every indication of wanting a police state from the way he was selected to his control of who is allowed a voice in his presence. I have disagreed with some of the policies of every President as I have watched them try to balance the conflicting demands on our country, Republican much more than Democrat, but this is the first time in my life I have feared for the future of my country and the world because of the actions of the President. “Large Groups Barred From Protesting Near White House Washington (AP) - Large groups of anti-war demonstrators will no longer be allowed anywhere near the White House. U.S. Park Police have been limiting the number of people near the White House since September 11. Chief Teresa Chambers says groups larger than 25 will not be allowed in Lafayette Park. They will have to apply for a permit and will be monitored by officers using a helicopter and closed-circuit TV cameras. Groups that are granted a permit will be relegated to a section of the Ellipse. Chambers says individuals will still be allowed on the sidewalk in front of the White House. She says if war breaks out and large groups want to get to the White House, officers will ring Lafayette Park top make sure no one gets in. Park Police will get some work handling anti-war demonstrators tomorrow, then the group "Code Pink" plans a march to the White House. Thousands are expected to participate.” Saturday, March 08, 2003
From the Daily Mirror: BUSH: CLAP ME OR NO EU SPEECH Mar 8 2003 By Paul Gilfeather GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation. Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome. A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address. "His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling. "I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen." Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters. It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe. The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help." Friday, March 07, 2003
From Brad DeLong “Right-Wing British Financial Newspaper Calls Bush Economic Policy "Lunacy" Gerard Baker, the Washington correspondent for the Financial Times, calls the Bush Administration's economic policy "lunacy." Note that Gerard Baker is not a partisan Democrat. Gerard Baker is a normal, smart, conservative, keen-eyed financial reporter who is trying to give the largely well-off European readers of the Financial Times some idea of what is going on in economic policy in Washington... ...Some day, at great cost to the American taxpayer and the economy, someone will have to deal with the consequences of this lunacy. It will make running Iraq's central bank look like a breeze by comparison.” Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Monday, March 03, 2003
Brad DeLong ...”This picture, as painted by Powell or whichever of Powell's people is Woodward's source, is not at all pretty. It has a wavering president, a wavering secretary of defense, and a madman of a deputy defense secretary (Wolfowitz) who has not only forgotten that we in the United States are supposed to be the good guys but who has next to no conception of who the good guys are, accompanied by a national security advisor who wants a war that can be characterized as "short and victorious" and doesn't seem to much care whether the rapid victories are won against people who were in some way linked to 9/11...” Auckland - New Zealand - Prime Minister Helen Clark said Sunday she believes war in Iraq was likely around March 17... Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson ... Project for the New American Century ... If those three don’t give you night terrors you live in the fantasy world of the New American Century. Sunday, March 02, 2003
When the history of this administration is written it will be a story of almost total incompetence. Everything they touch gets fucked up. Then after it is in total disarray, the SOP is to blame Clinton. What I can’t believe is how the mainstream press has allowed the process to happen time after time. I expect we will see thumb-sucking stories about how Clinton is the reason Turkey’s Parliament will not allow our troops to use Turkey as a staging base to attack Iraq. Friday, February 28, 2003
A letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from an American hero. Where is your letter, Mr. Powell? Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Bush's speech signaled the end of rule of law Craig Barnes Santa Fe N.M. Sunday, February 23, 2003 - When I grew up on the plains of eastern Colorado, I walked across wheat fields to a little three-room country school. I slept on summer nights under the cottonwoods, raised chickens and sheep and some days rode horses like the wind flying across the prairies. In school, we had three classes in the same room, but I learned what we thought were the values of America... ... On Jan. 28, in one speech, George W. Bush threw away and rejected all this that I had learned. He scorned the rationality of his opponents, scorned the diplomatic process, scorned containment, condemned deterrence, declared the right of pre-emptive aggressive war, implied a willingness to use nuclear weapons first and authored a new doctrine of American imperialism for the Middle East...more. Sunday, February 23, 2003
Saturday, February 22, 2003
From one of my favorite Bloggers, Avedon Carol , “...Reagan had Alzheimer's and he wasn't as bad as these guys”...Link . Thursday, February 20, 2003
In the upside down world of Shrub and Company they have solutions the need is for problems. An example is the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance document produced while Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense and written by Paul Wolfowitz. The connections between the positions outlined in the parts of the 1992 DPS I have read, the present players in the Bush Administration, 9/11, and Iraq read like a bad spy novel. Only one problem: this isn’t from the imagination of a hack novelist. Does Old Europe Hate New America, Or Just President? by Will Hutton It wasn’t only in London, Paris and Berlin that hundreds of thousands took to the streets on Saturday, Feb. 15, in protest against war in Iraq—there were plenty of protesters on the streets of American cities. To characterize "old Europe" as peopled wholly by cheese-eating surrender monkeys and the U.S.A. by a warrior race uniformly and bravely behind military action is to traduce reality. As George W. Bush’s ratings fall to new lows, the conservatives around him—and the right-wing American commentariat—might reflect that many of the attitudes they detest as "old Europe" are alive and well in America. Europeans—to the extent anyone on this continent of 370 million conforms to the generic stereotype—are baffled and extraordinarily anxious at the rhetoric now emanating from the world’s most powerful country. Mockery of President Bush’s linguistic faux pas has given way to the realization that he and the people round him are very different from the American elites we’ve become used to. Europeans expect America to live up to the high standards it sets for itself—and, at key moments over the last century, it has done so. Now there’s a realization that Mr. Bush is not of the same ilk; he is potentially very dangerous both for America and the world...more . Compassionate conservatism at work or Shrub’s usual bait and switch. It doesn’t matter — the end result is always the same: talk a good game and distract the rubes with smoke, mirrors, and red meat while you reach for the KY Jelly. Wednesday, February 19, 2003
A word about non-profits ... they are all hurting for funds. If you have a favorite arts organization, non-profit youth group, or believe in what the Red Cross is doing, please think about writing them a check if you have a few extra bucks. It will help more than you will ever know. Monday, February 17, 2003
From Eric Alterman: WILL HISTORY FORGIVE GEORGE W. BUSH? With Bin-Laden and company still at large, al-Qaida regrouping, and both the NATO alliance and homeland security in chaos, the attack against Iraq is one of single most irresponsible acts ever perpetrated by an American president, (and an unelected and increasingly unpopular one at that). When the Iraqis attack innocent Americans at home and abroad in response, I can only hope the nation knows just who should be held responsible...more>. 09:39 Thursday, February 13, 2003
Ok, wetheads, now is the time to put your money where your mouth is. Like they say money talks, BS walks :-). The Houston Center for Photography has a Durst 45S enlarger for sale. It is a beauty; a few years ago I would have been scrambling to find $10,000 US to buy it. The enlarger comes with the cold light head and all the condensers for every film size up to 4 X 5. BTW, when I checked with RK Equipment they said the cold light head was worth $2000. If you buy the cold light head, I will throw in the enlarger if you pay shipping. A hell of a deal ... any takers? Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Monday, February 10, 2003
How the West Was Lost * Europeans view Bush as a cowboy, and the president sees himself as one too. But Europe's version is wearing a black hat. By Vince Canzoneri, Vince Canzoneri is an attorney. BOSTON -- Europeans, particularly the French, love to deride President Bush as a cowboy, and Bush, apparently, enjoys playing the part. This disconnect probably has several causes, but one of them is surely that Europeans don't see the same cowboy from across the Atlantic that Bush sees in the mirror. Steeped in classics of American cinema, I suspect Europeans imagine a smirking gunslinger with an itchy trigger finger, a drunken barroom bully -- Lee Marvin as John Ford's Liberty Valance -- bristling for a fight and ready to shoot up the neighborhood just for kicks. Although the president seems incapable of wiping a smirk off his face, the rest of the French view doesn't really fit. The cowboy he portrays is the soul of rectitude -- the reformed drunk, not the libertine. His model appears to be one of the Western sheriffs that American television depicted so vividly when Bush and I were kids. The closest fit is Matt Dillon of "Gunsmoke"... All told, Bush's cowboy is no less scary that the one the French imagine. Still scarier is his apparent inability to move beyond the "Gunsmoke" stage of imaginative development. America's frontier heroes grew up a bit in the early 1960s, evolving into "adult Western" characters like Bret Maverick in "Maverick" and Paladin in "Have Gun -- Will Travel"; but the complexities and ironies they embraced would only undermine the moral clarity Bush is also keen to project...If Paladin is not the president's cup of tea, one can only wonder what Bush the cowboy would make of "Maverick"...Maverick thought gunplay was inherently stupid and preferred to talk his way out of trouble. He also made sure that he knew where the exits were. Bush appears to lack Maverick's verbal gift and nimble mind, talking himself into troubles that too often offer only Dillon's way out... Ironically, however, Bush may have more in common with Maverick than he knows. When this country finally confronts Saddam Hussein, most of us in the audience will be hard put to imagine that we're watching the dictator's death rattle through Bush's bowlegs, for we know that this president has never been fond of putting himself in the line of fire. In fact, when offered the chance to carry a gun in Vietnam, he opted, Maverick-like, for the exit, choosing to play just a good ol' boy in the reserves. When push comes to shove in Iraq, it will be other Americans' sons who will step out onto main street for the house-to-house fighting; and Bush's role will be to cheer them on from the sidelines, wondering perhaps if it would be unmanly to tell them to be careful. Some cowboy. For the whole article . Sunday, February 09, 2003
A Caper Flick With a Lone Star by Joe Conason People hate reading about budgets. Budgets are often not only depressing, but tedious and difficult to comprehend. If citizens are to pay attention, the budget debate has to be a lot more entertaining. So, from now on—or at least until 2004—think of the federal budget as a caper movie: The Great Treasury Robbery. In this script, there are no car chases or high-tech gadgets. All the violence takes place off-screen. (That’s a different movie.) There isn’t even an explosion that blows open the bank vault. But by the end of the story, trillions of dollars have disappeared from the U.S. Treasury, and the guys who heisted the money are long gone. Put in the traditional "high concept" Hollywood terms: It’s The Sting meets The Grifters at the Heritage Foundation! Like other caper movies, this one begins with assembling the team. It’s a challenging and incredibly expensive process that offers some sense of the plot’s scope: The movie opens with the successful seizure of the White House. In the early scenes, lobbyists and corporate executives collect a couple of hundred million dollars for the war chest of the most expensive Presidential campaign in history. But that’s chicken feed compared with the eventual pay-off. Their front man is George (Dubya) Bush, a smooth, playful guy with a down-home drawl. The closest advisers in his crew—sometimes whispered to be the real brains behind his operation—are Dick (Big Time) Cheney and Karl (Boy Genius) Rove. Their backstory is that Dubya and Boy Genius took over and looted the state of Texas, leaving behind a gigantic deficit. Now they’re aiming for the biggest score in history... Link for the rest of the story. Boy, does Brad DeLong nail it. “Truth to tell, these people in the Bush Administration are no more competent in foreign policy than they are in domestic economic policy--or in simple day-to-day truth-telling. That foreign policy doesn't look as bad is due to the fact that the Bush Administration was handed control over a remarkably good military machine, which has performed very well.” Link Friday, February 07, 2003
Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist has a fine rant: “So let's see if we have this straight. We still don't seem to have this straight: Because there stands emasculated and completely Cheney-whipped Colin Powell, up in front of the U.N. Security Council and the world's TV cameras, scowling and pounding his fist and making a big show of indignation and showing everyone -- what? Some blurry satellite photos with little red squares? An audiotape of an alleged phone conversation between members of the Iraqi military, proving the existence of some biological agents we probably sold to them? Is he serious? There is no real evidence. There is no smoking gun. There isn't even a smoking spit wad. There is only, basically, a smoking middle finger...” You should read the rest. Thursday, February 06, 2003
From consortiumnews.com: “When the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002, some enthusiastic sportswriters found the victory fitting because, since Sept. 11, “we’d become a nation of patriots.”...Following that logic, the outcome of Super Bowl XXXVII means that the United States is now “a nation of pirates.” ...The “nation of pirates” theme, of course, doesn't have quite the ring that “nation of patriots” did. The image might be a little troubling, too, with George W. Bush moving toward a possible invasion of Iraq outside the sanction of international law, a war could begin with the seizure – or “protection” – of Iraq’s oil fields holding the second-largest known petroleum reserves in the world...” For the rest of the editorial. This is late but I think it is important: “ Maury Maverick Jr., a cantankerous Texas liberal who regarded his passionate public pursuit of unpopular causes — as a civil liberties lawyer, a legislator and a newspaper columnist — to be his proud birthright, died Tuesday in his native San Antonio. He was 82...” for more from the New York Times or from Texana. The Mavericks were related on my grandmother’s side of the family. I can’t say I’ve patterned my life after Maury and his dad’s but they were both tremendous influences on how I thought and acted. Texas will miss him. Wednesday, February 05, 2003
From Brad DeLong: I Really Cannot Understand Why Anyone Would Do This Even a year ago people could think that the finances of the U.S. federal government were not grossly out of balance for at least two generations to come. Looking beyond 2050, projections of an ever-aging population and ever-growing health care costs sent the budget into increasing deficit. But the long-run budget projections in the back of the 2003 Budget documents told us that the yawning gap between the pledges and spending policies of the U.S. government on the one hand and the taxes levied by the U.S. government on the other--the yawning gap that had opened after the productivity slowdown that started in 1973 and had then exploded in size with the grave fiscal policy mistakes of the Reagan administration--no longer existed. Projections of current-policy budget balances showed the budget remaining in surplus until 2025 or so. Thereafter they showed deficits widening (if spending growth was not cut to less than the rate of growth of GDP, and if taxes were not raised) to nearly 5% of GDP by 2050. But even so the national debt held by the public as of 2050 was projected to be 46.5% of GDP: only a percentage point or two higher than the peak debt level reached as a result of the Reagan deficits. 
Now--one year later--things are very different indeed! The numbers in the back of the 2004 Budget documents project that the budget year that began when Clinton was still President will be America's last surplus year, ever. The policies proposed in the 2004 Budget are projected to see the deficit widen steadily to 17.5 percent of GDP by 2050. By that date debt held by the public is projected to be 229.4 percent of GDP--a debt and deficit level that no economy could possibly sustain. What does this mean? It means that the (not very bad) economic news of the past year coupled with the provisions the Bush Administration has put into its 2004 Budget will, if enacted, put the U.S. once more on the path to national bankruptcy. Once again the commitments of the government--to defense, administration of justice, the safety net, and the large elderly programs of Medicare and Social Security--will be far beyond the reach of federal revenues. Why would any administration deliberately unbalance the long-term finances of the federal government? Why would anybody want to set up a situation in which the taxpayers one and two generations hence will find themselves stuck with an enormous bill? Why set up a situation in which what HHS and SSA tell potential beneficiaries of programs is radically inconsistent with what the White House and Treasury tell taxpayers about tax burdens? It really is beyond my comprehension why anyone would do this. The Ds are the party of good government. While sometimes they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to making the right choice when it gets to the nut cutting, for the most part, you can rely on Ds to do the right thing even if it means trouble with the voters in the future. The Rs on the other hand talk a good game but have a record of seldom doing what is best for the country. On issue after issue the Rs will go for power and short term gain that benefits only the rich and/or panders to the worst of human nature. This graph illustrates just one aspect of the Rs inability to govern and what happens when you have only one answer to all problems with the economy; tax cuts for the wealthy. This gang of incompetent thieves have shown the only thing they do well is steal elections. Korea is a total fuck up and getting worse daily, relations with our allies are at the lowest point I can remember, the Iraq insanity makes the other problems seem small but the one bit of incompetence that may finally rid the U.S. and the world of these ideological hacks is their economic policy. Read Newsweek’s Allan Sloan on “Bush’s Depressing Economy.” Monday, February 03, 2003
This one is long but worth the time. Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni on Oct.10, 2002 spoke before the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C. about the war with Iraq. When the Rs were passing out the Iraq Koolaid, someone missed Paul Craig Roberts: “The Republican Party will not survive its invasion of Iraq, its commitment to open borders and its pandering to preferred minorities. "An invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history. It has the support of only two overlapping small groups: neoconservatives infused with the spirit of 18th century French Jacobins who want to impose American "exceptionalism" on the rest of the world, and foreign policy advisers who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel...” For more . Friday, January 31, 2003
I think Stephen Roach has it about right: “The just-released US GDP report for the fourth quarter of 2002 is an important warning sign. It paints a picture of a US economy that has slowed to its "stall speed" before it was hit with the full force of any impacts associated with looming war in Iraq. To the extent that a further shock is in the offing, I fear it will be exceedingly difficult for the United States to avoid a recessionary relapse. The risk is it may already be too late...” For more. Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Friday, January 24, 2003
I would really like to know what Charles Krauthammer smokes; it has to be some strong shit. He trots out the “we have gone too far to back down now” argument. I always thought that when you found that you have dug yourself into a hole, the first was you stopped digging. Instead Krauthammer calls for a bigger shovel. Dumb...dumb...dumb. But the real capper is his fantasy last paragraph ... ”France will be speaking very differently of the United States when a decent, democratizing, pro-American government in liberated Baghdad begins its rule -- and opens bids for oil contracts. Our cynical sometime-friends will astonish us with their, um, flexibility as they accommodate themselves to the reality of a Middle East without Saddam Hussein, without his weapons of mass destruction and with its first chance since decolonization for a real birth of freedom.” We can only wish. “The Bush Exit Ramp” by Sam Parry makes the case that words matter and Shrub’s John Wayne act has made a bad situation worse. His driver metaphor: “...For now, however, the American public is like a passenger riding in a speeding car with a dangerous driver. As he weaves through traffic shouting and gesturing at other drivers on the highway, there’s not much to do but tighten the seat belt and urge more responsible behavior. There may be no reasonable chance to wrestle the steering wheel away without making a bad situation worse... .” This would be funny if it were not so true. Thursday, January 23, 2003
This year is the 100th anniversary of manned controlled flight. The Wright brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk was on December 17, 1903. I’m re-reading Harry Combs’ “Kill Devil Hill: Discovering the Secret of the Wright Brothers” ISBN 0-940053-01-2 to refresh my memory of their wonderful genius. If you have any interest in flight or insight into how the minds of discoverers work, this is a wonderful book. I’ve been involved in aviation for almost half of its history. One of my first mentors had a pilot’s certificate in the low 4 numbers. When I started flying, some production aircraft were still being made of wood and covered in fabric just like the first Wright aircraft. The radio, if the airplane had one, was a VHT-3 with 3 crystals and whistle stop tuning. Today we have GPS and EFIS and corporate airplanes that fly at the edge of space. The Wright’s first flight measured in seconds and hundreds of feet (59 seconds and 852 feet) for today’s civilian aircraft a normal flight could be over 6000 nm. at .87 mach and 51,000’ MSL. What can I say other than there is no greater testament to the mind of man than the history of aviation. Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Monday, January 20, 2003
Saturday, January 18, 2003
The combination of reactionary ideology and the rigidity of intellect that can come from years of being catered to because of position of wealth or station leads to policy disasters like we are seeing from the Bush Administration. If there is anything more telling of the incompetence of everyone associated with this government than the handling of the Korea situation, it is in their handling of the economy. Friday, January 17, 2003
Would you like to know what the British think of our un-elected President? Now if we can bring that understanding across the water before 2004 the world will be safer. Monday, January 13, 2003
More from Joshua Micah Marshall on North Korea. If there was ever any doubt that Shrub and Company were incompetent hacks it should be erased by their total fuck-up of Korean policy. I have the Houston Chronicle delivered daily. I hate to say it, but the main reasons are habit and snobbery (I can't bear to be among the people who don't subscribe to a newspaper). However, for years I have not read the Chronicle thoroughly; I glance at the headlines and the lead paragraphs. Newspapers in the U.S. are being replaced by the web. The Guardian has a good article on why American papers have become so insignificant and un-readable. Saturday, January 11, 2003
From Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal a chart answering the central political question: “who gets what.” Wednesday, January 08, 2003
If you are paying any attention to North Korea, Joshua Micah Marshall is a must read. Watching this bunch of un-elected, Supreme Court selected thugs at work on the world stage reminds me of a Donald Westlake novel. The problem is, it’s real life and has consequences and costs that are being paid by real people. Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Deep Throat gave the best political advise any one can give: “Follow the money.” Once the rules, the framework of the political system, are stripped away politics always comes down to one basic question: who gets what, how and when. The Rs have been masters of hiding the answer to that question through the use of money, race, religion, lies and throwing red meat to mouth-breathing reactionaries. E.J. Dionne Jr. has a good Op-Ed on class warfare in the WP. |
