MAUREEN DOWD: A Wartime Love Story

November 4, 2006

from http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/

Friday, November 03, 2006

MAUREEN DOWD: A Wartime Love Story

Washington


At the heart of every administration, there is one relationship above all others that shapes history. Ron and Nancy. Poppy Bush and James Baker. Billary. Cheney & Rummy.

W. is the hood ornament, but Cheney & Rummy are the chitty chitty bang bang engine of this administration. Their four-decade friendship stretches from Nixon to Bush II, from Vietnam to Vietnam II.

It’s a beautiful love story, really, even more touching than Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher and Bush White House adviser, asking a male prostitute for crystal meth, or Borat putting a bag over the head of a squealing Pamela Anderson and carrying her off.

The country, the world, a growing number in their party, and some of the president’s own family may object to the star-crossed match of Cheney & Rummy, but the two men are secure in each other’s embrace. They’ve had tons of fun, from unmanning Colin Powell to unraveling the Geneva Conventions to undoing half a century of American foreign policy to unnerving the small Chesapeake Bay town of St. Michaels, Md., where they have bought weekend estates near each other.

Like some out-of-control manbot, Vice says they will continue “full speed ahead” in Iraq, no matter what voters say. “We’re not running for office,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re doing what we think is right.” Damn the democracy — full speed ahead.

W. ratified the Cheney-Rummy mésalliance this week, saying they were doing “fantastic” jobs and vowing to stick with them. He said “the good thing about Vice President Cheney’s advice is, you don’t read about it in the newspaper after he gives it.” (How would he know?) Being discreet when you give disastrous advice: priceless.

Noting that Rummy had presided over Afghanistan and Iraq while overhauling the military, W. said he was “pleased with the progress we’re making.” (Insert your own punch line here.)

Rummy did have one other defender. The House majority leader, John Boehner, told Wolf Blitzer that it is the generals who should be blamed if the war is going badly. So now Republicans are trashing Democrats for undermining the troops even as they’re undermining the troops?

Mr. Bush will go down in history as an isolated, naïve president who was led by Cheney & Rummy, when he could have gotten better advice from his dad and wife.

In his new book, “State of Denial,” Bob Woodward sketches a scene in which an anxious first lady presses Andy Card for information about the war. Mr. Card says he can’t tell her classified information, and she says that W. won’t tell her that stuff, either. She confides her fear that Rummy is hurting her husband and wonders why he puts up with it.

It’s enough to make you long for Nancy Reagan, who quickly dispatched advisers who were hurting her husband.

Even Rummy’s Iraq war cheerleaders, “Cakewalk” Ken Adelman and Richard “Nix Blix” Perle, are falling all over themselves to knife the Pentagon boss. Scaling new heights in the annals of Now They Tell Us, the two men blame the “dysfunctional” Bush team for the “disaster” in Iraq and say that if they had known then what we all know now (and what some of us knew then), they never would have pushed to invade Iraq.

In January’s Vanity Fair, Mr. Adelman told David Rose that when he wrote in 2002 that “liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk,” he “just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.”

He said of his old friend Rummy: “I’m crushed by his performance. Did he change, or were we wrong in the past? Or is it that he was never really challenged before? I don’t know. He certainly fooled me.” He concludes that “the idea of using our power for moral good in the world” is finished, at least for a generation.

The neocons insist that it was the execution of the war that was wrong. Actually, it was wrong to go to war with a trumped-up casus belli and without ever debating what could happen if they took a baseball bat to a beehive. A war designed to bring moral good shouldn’t start with a pack of lies. As a Shakespeare expert, Mr. Adelman should have known about ends and means.

ZoomClouds

This ZoomClouds site looks fun!  go to http://zoomclouds.egrupos.net/


A Call from the Zapatistas: Oaxaca Is Not Alone

October 30, 2006

A Call from the Zapatistas: Oaxaca Is Not Alone

Shut-Down of Roads, Highways and the Media on November 1; General Strike Called for November 20

By the Sixth Commission of the EZLN
The Other Mexico

October 30, 2006

Message from the
CLANDESTINE REVOLUTIONARY INDIGENOUS COMMITTEE-GENERAL COMMAND
of the
ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION
MEXICO.

October 30, 2006.

To the people of Mexico:
To the people of the world:
To the Other Campaign in Mexico and the other side of the Rio Grande:
To the entire Sixth International:

Compañeros and compañeras:
Brothers and sisters:

It is now known publicly that yesterday, 29th of October 2006, Vicente Fox’s federal forces attacked the people of Oaxaca and its most legitimate representative, the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO).

Today, the federal troops have assassinated at least 3 people, among them a minor, leaving dozens of wounded, including many women from Oaxaca. Dozens of detainees were illegally transported to military prisons. All this comes in addition to the existing total of deaths, detainees and missing persons since the beginning of the mobilization demanding that Ulises Ruiz step down as Oaxaca’s governor.

The sole objective of the federal attack is to maintain Ulises Ruiz in power and to destroy the popular grassroots organization of the people of Oaxaca.

Oaxaca’s people are resisting. Not one single honest person can remain quiet and unmoved while the entire society, of which the majority are indigenous, is murdered, beaten and jailed.

We, the Zapatistas, will not be silent; we will mobilize to support our brothers, sisters and comrades in Oaxaca.

The EZLN’s Sixth Commission has already consulted the Zapatista leadership and the following has been decided:

First: During whole day of November 1, 2006, the major and minor roads that cross Zapatistas territories in the southwestern state of Chiapas will be closed.

Consequently, we ask that everyone avoid traveling by these roads in Chiapas on this day and that one make the necessary arrangements in order to do so.

Second: through the Sixth Commission, the EZLN has begun making contact and consulting other political and social organizations, groups, collectives and individuals in the Other Campaign, in order to coordinate joint solidarity actions across Mexico, leading to a nationwide shut-down on the 20th of November, 2006.

Third: the EZLN calls out to the Other Campaign in Mexico and north of the Rio Grande, so that these November 1st mobilizations happen wherever possible, completely, partially, at intervals or symbolically shutting down the major artery roads, streets, toll booths, stations, airports and commercial media.

Fourth: The central message that the Zapatistas send and will continue sending is that the people of Oaxaca are not alone: They are not alone!

Ulises Ruiz out of Oaxaca!

Immediate withdrawal of the occupying federal forces from Oaxaca!

Immediate and unconditional freedom for all detainees!

Cancel all arrest warrants!

Punish the murderers!

Justice!
Freedom!
Democracy!

From the North of Mexico.
For the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee-General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
For the EZLN Sixth Commission.

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Mexico, October, 2006.

Translation: Radio Pacheco

Life during wartime.. Oaxaca City under siege, by Michael McCaughan

from http://chiapas.indymedia.org/

November 4, 2006

Life during wartime.. Oaxaca City under siege, by Michael McCaughan


“be careful my friend, people die all the time.’ came the warning from a passerby outside Oaxaca university this afternoon. In his shorts and t-shirt he strolled off in the opposite direction, looking like he was going to the beach.

In the meantime hundreds of people swarmed through side streets close to the University to challenge the Federal police as they fought street by street to disperse supporters of the popular movement, APPO.

This was the war of the flea as protestors outnumbered police by ten to one but were in turn outgunned by the well-armed and trigger happy troops. Several serious injuries have been reported but so far today, no fatalities.

The battle was uneven to the point of suicidal. And yet the people won.

Renowned Writers, Artists Send Letter of Support to Oaxaca

from Department of Citizen Alice blog at http://www.pscelebrities.com/alice/

November 3, 2006

Renowned Writers, Artists Send Letter of Support to Oaxaca

NEW YORK
Thirty-three prominent writers, artists, filmmakers, plus many others have signed an open letter denouncing the Mexican government’s manipulation of the death of Brad Will, a 36-year-old U.S, journalist and filmmaker, as an excuse to attack the grassroots people’s movement in the state of Oaxaca.


PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
November 3, 2006 Contact:
Beka Economopoulos, (917) 202-5479
Eric Laursen, (917) 806-6452
Simon Sedilla, (646) 842-7556

RENOWNED WRITERS, ARTISTS SEND LETTER OF SUPPORT TO OAXACA

DANNY GLOVER, WALLACE SHAWN, EVE ENSLER, MICHAEL MOORE, ALICE WALKER,
GLORIA STEINEM, EDUARDO GALEANO, HOWARD ZINN, ARUNDHATI ROY AND OTHER
LUMINARIES DENOUNCE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT’S USE OF DEATH OF BRAD WILL TO
JUSTIFY REPRESSION

NEW YORK – Thirty-three prominent writers, artists, filmmakers, plus
many others have signed an open letter denouncing the Mexican
government’s manipulation of the death of Brad Will, a 36-year-old U.S,
journalist and filmmaker, as an excuse to attack the grassroots people’s
movement in the state of Oaxaca.

The letter reads, in part: “We are extremely alarmed to see that rather
than cracking down on the violent paramilitaries who have been launching
regular attacks on the people of Oaxaca, President Vicente Fox is using
these murders as a pretext for escalating violence against the popular
grassroots organization of the people of Oaxaca.” Signatories include:
Noam Chomsky, Mike Davis, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Eve Ensler, Danny
Glover, Naomi Klein, Michael Moore, Mira Nair, Arundhati Roy, Wallace
Shawn, Starhawk, Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker, and Howard Zinn.

The signatories demand that the government recognize the removal of
ousted Oaxaca governor Ulises Ruiz, withdraw federal troops from Oaxaca,
free all detainees, and bring to justice the paramilitaries and other
government allies who for months have conducted a reign of terror
against the people of Oaxaca.

Release of the letter has already made news in Mexico, where it was
featured on the front page of yesterday’s edition of leading newspaper
La Jornada. It is still accumulating signatories. Complete text of the
letter and list of signatories can be viewed at
http://www.friendsofbradwill.org/supportletter

Harper/Flaherty kick investors (and pension fund-holders) in the gonads

Ah, another election promise is broken with the tax changes to income trusts.  I do feel sorry for the people who lost 20% of their money - a hard thing for older people who had taken Harper at his word.  On the other hand, he has harmed many of the very people who helped him get elected (they must feel betrayed).  Aside from the economics, it seems like a dumb political move.

BC - Social assistance/welfare rates

No wonder there is so much despair and drug use on Hastings Street in Vancouver (as well as increasing homelessness in other parts of BC).  Did you know that single, ‘employable’ adults on welfare in BC receive $510. a month ($325. for shelter/housing and $185. for all other living expenses) …. like, wake up politicians/bureaucrats!  (See www.raisetherates.org for more information.)  There is no skimping going on in terms of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Whistler, just more and more money being thrown at companies (and friends?).   And, get this, the welfare/social assistance policy in effect does not consider addiction to be a medical condition thus people with addictions are declined social assistance (unless they have another medical condition). 

The social assistance/welfare system in BC is more punitive than in Ontario (and that is after 10 years of the Conservatives).  Not that McGuinty (Liberal Premier of Ontario) has done anything to improve the finances of the poor or working poor in Ontario, despite his promises.  The article below describes the impact of the McGuinty government’s clawback of the federal child-income benefit.

From:  MDignam@peelcas.org
Children bear scars of clawback Nov. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM COLIN HUGHES AND MELANIE DIGNAM

MPPs wore purple ribbons in the Ontario Legislature on Oct. 2 to recognize Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month.

A pressing question was asked about child poverty "a major social risk factor in child-protection cases” and the province’s practice of clawing back federal child-income benefits.

The federal government provides a National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS) to low-income families to reduce child poverty. The province of Ontario deducts, or claws back, up to $1,463 a year of the NCBS from every child on social assistance.

Premier Dalton McGuinty promised to end the clawback of the NCBS in 2003. So his government was asked: When is it going to honour its promise?

Because of the NCBS clawback, families with children on social assistance are as poor as ever. This is of great concern in child welfare because poverty debilitates families. Consider these typical case scenarios:

·  A single parent’s children go to school regularly with little to eat, holes in their shoes, and ripped and tattered clothes. Mom is quite isolated, relies on social assistance, much of which goes for rent, and relies on food banks.

·  A landlord calls the police about a mother and children screaming in their basement apartment. Father, who has addictions, is charged with assault. Mother leaves with her children to a shelter. She qualifies for welfare but, unable to find affordable housing, returns to an abusive relationship.

·  Grandparents consider taking in a grandchild whose parents cannot provide care. Social assistance provides $221 a month to look after a child in financial need. But $122 a month in federal child benefits is deducted. The grandparents have small pensions and wonder how they can afford to help.

A decade of inflation and social assistance cuts has deepened poverty and sapped the purchasing power of benefits by about 40 per cent. At the same time, poverty among families on social assistance has been established as one of a number of contributing factors, independent of changes to child welfare policy, to increased referrals and admissions to Children’s Aid Societies.

A University of Western Ontario study of London-area child protection cases found that families on social assistance are now having much greater trouble coping. Between 1995 (when welfare rates were cut dramatically) and 2001, the rate of children in the London area being admitted into Children’s Aid Society care among families relying on social assistance almost doubled. In addition, the proportion of cases of child neglect where mothers were relying social assistance mushroomed to 86 per cent of cases.

Why deduct federal child income benefits targeted to poor children from families who rely on social assistance?

Apparently it is to lower a "welfare wall," the "wall" arising when social assistance benefits are marginally better than low-paid employment. Notably, single able-bodied adults are better off if employed full-time than on $536 a month in social assistance.

In reality, the "wall" is about children and the real additional costs and responsibilities of their daily care. Using child benefits to reduce welfare leaves unemployed parents and their children no better off and at a standard of living that is too low. Do we really want to reduce a "welfare wall" so low-paid work appears more attractive and raise a "child welfare wall" within which children are at a higher degree of risk? What’s on the other side of the "wall" for children? Does employment guarantee children escape poverty? No.

As Campaign 2000 To End Child Poverty reports, since 1995, the proportion of children living in poverty who have a parent working full-time has doubled to 33 per cent. Indeed, many families living in poverty cycle between welfare and precarious low-paying jobs.


Poverty is the problem. We must reduce poverty overall so parents can raise children in decent and dignified living conditions, and so children get a good start in life, whether their parents are employed or unemployed. Investing in the next generation is important. The experiences children have in their formative years have lifelong consequences. Society benefits socially and economically when families raise healthy children.


Our social policies must respond to the presence of children by investing in them, not by neglecting them. McGuinty should act on promises to end the NCBS clawback and invest in more child care and affordable housing. That would lay the foundation for developing a multi-year, made-in-Ontario poverty reduction strategy, which could include a new Ontario Child Benefit, to ensure that low-income parents are better off whether they are in the workforce or on social assistance. Ontario’s children deserve no less.