http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:55:39 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/27/055539.php Justin DelabarThose opposed to the US's economic protectionism should be bolstered by yesterday's announcement that the WTO has ruled to sanction a number of American exports. The ruling comes in response to a controversial US law protecting domestic steel producers by hindering foreign competition through high penalty taxes that redistribute foreign funds to US companies:The World Trade Organization imposed penalties Friday on U.S. exports ranging from apples to textiles, escalating a trade dispute the Bush administration has struggled to defuse by unsuccessfully urging Congress to repeal legislation aimed at protecting American steelmakers....Two years ago, the WTO ruled the law was illegal, arguing that it punishes exporters to the United States twice: First they are fined, then those fines are given to their competitors.... The value of the sanctions hasn't been determined, but trade officials estimated them at more than $150 million a year. That compares with the $2 billion in sanctions the EU threatened in its successful bid to force the United States to lift illegal tariffs on foreign steel last year. The administration has promised compliance. Before anyone critical of the Washington Consensus breaks out champaigne and considers this a resounding victory for the world's exploited and poor, they would be wise to realize that the EU was critical in the sanctions' passage. The Europeans are not exactly saints when it comes to setting an example for fair trade practice, coming under fire themselves for extensive subsidation of their agricultural sector and their aggressive protection of textile producers. If anything, this is a win for the EU and bolsters its image as an economic leader despite the inherent hypocrisy; EU leaders lash out at the US on the basis of its unfair trade agenda while they pursue their own highly unfair trade practices. Economic realpolitik at its best. Politics22661@blogcritics.org Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:55:39 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/24/131851.php Justin DelabarWhy has the US not demanded AQ Khan from Pakistan? It's a question Laura Rozen has asked in the past, and with new information via the CIA pointing to Khan possibliy supplying Iran with both centrifuge and warhead designs I dare bring it up again:A new report from the Central Intelligence Agency says the arms trafficking network led by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan provided Iran's nuclear program with "significant assistance," including the designs for "advanced and efficient" weapons components.The unclassified version of the report, posted Tuesday on the agency's Web site, www.cia.gov, does not say explicitly whether Mr. Khan's network sold Iran complete plans for building a warhead, as the network is known to have done for Libya and perhaps North Korea. But it suggests that American intelligence agencies now believe that the bomb-making designs provided by the network to Iran in the 1990's were more significant than the United States government has previously disclosed....Until now, in discussing Iran's nuclear program, American officials have referred publicly only to the Khan network's role in supplying designs for older Pakistani centrifuges used to enrich uranium. But American officials have also suspected that the Khan network provided Iran with a warhead design as well....Mr. Khan remains in Pakistan, where he was pardoned last year by President Pervez Musharraf. Libya turned over the design to the United States early this year, and it is now being examined at the Department of Energy, the custodian of the American nuclear arsenal.Wouldn't apprehending Khan be a crucial step in making conjecture concrete evidence against Iran? Simply go directly to the source for the info. So, why is the US not attempting to do just that?Perhaps the administration is fearful of Musharraf withdrawing his troops from the Pakistani/Afghani border region, those who continue to hunt down suspected al Qaeda members. Certainly the US is currently too overstretched to replace Pakistani soldiers in such an effort. Although, Musharraf has been firmly in the administration's pocket for years now. If anything, he needs US support in order to recieve economic incentives to further consolidate his power and protect him from his own radicals. Forcing Musharraf to give up Khan would seem to be an easy task for the administration. Even if they did lose Pakistani favor, it would be a small price to pay for the information Khan holds -- when was the last time Pakistani troops actually captured or killed a signifcant al Qaeda member, anyway? Politics22597@blogcritics.org Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:18:51 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/29/020037.php Justin DelabarI'll come out and admit that I believe voter supression did indeed affect the outcome in Florida in 2000. Whether or not it was done as a part of a wide Republican conspiracy is immaterial -- it could have been a gigantic mistake or a simple conincidence that blacks and other minorities seemed to be singled out and mistreated at the polls, as improbable as that may seem (especially with new documents and information emerging that seem to suggest direct Republican involvement in suppression efforts this time around.) What I am most concerned with is that democracy itself is upheld, which is something that transcends partisan leanings and should cast an inquisitive light on everything that occurs at the polls both Republican and Democratic. The Republicans are crying that Democrats are planning to attempt massive voter fraud come election day, while Democrats are already pointing to what they consider to be Republican attempts at minority voter suppression. I think both charges are rather outlandish in cementing an idea that the parties themselves are sponsoring widespread attacks on the democratic process -- it's not as clear cut as that and making electoral legitimacy a strictly partisan issue is highly dangerous. Partisan lenses can obscure and even apologize for certain problems that occur at the polls. Democrats will ignore any problems that occur that can be attributed to other Democrats while Republicans will downplay anything that can be traced back to Republicans -- basically, the election will enter into an unmitigated spin mode of blame deflection that does nothing but weaken traditional democratic institutions. It is this concept that scares me more than these early reports of voter suppression since this spin game can cause breaches of democratic protocol and hurt the Republic at its very core.Frankly, it matters little to me which party is doing what to alter the vote illegally. I am more concerned with the fact that the true vote is being altered, whether Democrats or Republicans are behind it. If there is one issue that should remain non-partisan, it is what happens on November 2nd and if, for any reason, some Democrats do commit voter fraud I will be the first to denounce it and call for a recount since democracy is more important to me than who actually wins. I just hope other Democrats can say this, along with a majority of Republicans, who, for all intents and purposes, still seem totally fine with a president who may have won the last election illegitimately.More at Digital Dissent. Politics21575@blogcritics.org Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:00:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/19/144345.php Justin DelabarAlan Keyes, former Republican presidential candidate and current long-shot Illinois senatorial candidate, has claimed that the children of gay parents will inevitably end up comitting incest simply because they do not know who their biological brothers and sisters are:"Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of." What the...? While that's intended to be a screed against gay couples, it actually is anti-adoption, regardless of the couple's sexual status. When a gay couple adopts a child it doesn't magically erase the kid's files at the adoption agency or hospital, at least no more than it would if it were a straight couple.Keyes has become a liability for the RNC, especially now considering the majority of Americans support gay adoptons and, obviously, the concept of adoption itself. It seems he's only running against Obama at this point to effectively end his political career, because there truly is no other explanation for his lacking performance.All I can say: Good riddance. Politics21167@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:43:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/18/233509.php Justin DelabarPresident Bush simply does not grasp the danger North Korea and Iran pose, and he proved as much today aboard Air Force One: Asked in a wide-ranging interview if Iran and North Korea pose bigger threats now with their nuclear programs than when he took office, Bush said, "No, I don't." But then he said, "Let me rephrase that." He said the strategy he has followed "makes them less likely to take action that would make the world more dangerous."Bush, not surprisingly, is totally off. The threat posed by North Korea and Iran has, at the least, doubled since the Iraqi invasion. The neoconservative policymakers keep touting Iraq as the great deterrent; basically that rogue nations will not aid terrorists now since they saw the US squash the Iraqi administrative establishment. In fact, the reverse is actually the truth -- the situation in Iraq only emboldens North Korea and Iran especially. The US government effectively wiped out a threat to Iran by taking out Saddam and has, more than likely, set the stage for an Iran-friendly Iraqi government to emerge. Why else would Iran suddenly begin funneling funds into Iraqi reconstruction? The Islamic consevative government of Iran, the one which has labeled America the Great Satan, knows they have a burdgeoning ally in Iraq to aid in all of their future endeavours. North Korea is not deterred by anything, since they have the bomb. They know direct military action by the United States would not be ordered lightly for it could, in a real sense, mean the ruin of Austraila and/or Japan. Bush, in the same article, also completely contradicts his (revised) reason for going to war in Iraq. In an interview with The Associated Press, Bush also said he'd be disappointed if the Iraqi people chose an Islamic fundamentalist government in free elections, "but democracy is democracy.""If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose," the president said, two weeks before facing his own re-election. The problem is, that new democracy's government can anull democracy as soon as it takes power -- we're talking the creation of a regime that does not exactly speak to liberty and freedom that's supposedly on the march. The crux of the issue is that Bush really can't do or say anything to change the outcome because this is what he's left with, in fact what he wanted. He believed, almost religiously, that the people of Iraq would welcome the US' breed of freedom and be infected with viral democracy; that's simply not how it has worked out. What is left is the very real possibility of a Shi'ite Iraq tethered to an unpredictable Iran, and there is very little George W. Bush or the United States itself can do in order to cease this tremendous shift in the Middle East's balance of power. Politics21134@blogcritics.org Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:35:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/12/013220.php Justin DelabarThe rivalry between the State Department and Pentagon over Iraq has been widely-reported, although the extent of that rivalry is just now starting to become clear. According to two US aid workers, the Pentagon in its mad lust for total control of post-war policy created a humanitarian relief team that overtook and stifled the government's traditional humanitarian aid programs housed within the State Department. Due to this, the workers claim that the Pentagon alienated non-governmental organizations and created issues due to lack of field experience, especially during the period of looting directly after the war:The traditional American response to humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters abroad is carried out by the State Department's US Agency for International Development (USAID) and Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA).In the months leading up to the war, these agencies trained up an 80-person team specially for Iraq, many of them with long expertise in emergencies, says the commentary, published by Frederick Burkle and Eric Noji in Saturday's Lancet.But that initiative was hamstrung by the Pentagon which, breaking with tradition, decided to set up its own humanitarian planning team, say the authors....The big problem, though, was that Pentagon planners had not taken into account the risk of looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein.The pillaging wrecked clinics, hospitals, emptied pharmaceutical stores and destroyed laboratories, "causing the collapse of the already tottering health system," the commentary says.That crisis was worsened by chronic insecurity, hours-long power cuts and lack of sanitation.Meanwhile, the ORHA team that was rushed to Baghdad was mainly staffed by policy wonks, it says.They had little field experience in relief operations, many were ignorant of functions, charter and capabilities of UN agencies, Red Cross organisations or NGOs, and they simply created another unnecessary level of bureaucracy.If there's an example of internal governmental distrust negatively affecting policy outcome, this is it. Currently there are two primary foils working within the US foreign policy apparatus -- the White House/Pentagon and the State Department/CIA. How can foreign policy be formulated, let alone successfully implemented, when the entire governmental structure is fractured and is at what amounts to bureaucratic civil war? A massive overhaul is required, not simply the resignations of Rumsfeld and Powell. Only a new administration can successfully patch together the foreign policy community and make it functional once again. Is there nothing more important in a global war on terrorism than sanity within the foreign policy arm of the executive branch?What's truly ironic is that Bush once claimed he was a uniter and not a divider. Hell, he can't even keep his own appointees from going at each other's throats. Politics20873@blogcritics.org Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:32:20 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/09/020434.php Justin DelabarTwo presidential debates down, one to go. Here's the compilation of the best debate comments from Digital Dissent tonight:"Reduce the marriage penalty." Bush is so going to insinuate Kerry wants to tax married people, which is an outright lie. Of course Kerry thought Saddam had weapons; the administration scared the Hell out of everyone with prospects of mushroom clouds. Why is Bush yelling? He's scaring my cat. Oooo, Bush almost admitted a mistake, but instead came up with some odd phrase about the global community not understanding American values or some such thing. So close to being somewhat respectable, but denied. "It's the military's job to win the war, the president's job to win the peace." Nice, Senator Kerry. Very nice. Bush just made his first zinger, "That almost made me want to scowl." HAHAHA! Good one! That totally repairs the first debate! Yeah. Wow, Bush knows about the "internets." Yes, plural. Somewhere Al Gore weeps, one for losing to this guy and two for being beaten to the creation of the other internets. Holy crap, Bush just exploded, basically giving the moderator and everyone else a gigantic presidential middle finger. Bush is pushing the "Kerry as most liberal senator" BS -- It's simply not true. Keep pushing Kerry to the left George, because you have no other defense. Bush just blamed the recession on Clinton -- "...it began 6 months before I took office." Such gull; this man can take on no responsibility for anything. A $5 trillion surplus was squandered. I think Kerry just had his "no new taxes" moment. If he dare raises taxes for any reason on anyone making under $200,000/year during his presidency, it's so over. Bush is somehow going to increase the wetlands, I'm guessing by sptting a lot. The stem cell issue; Bush is highly vulnerable on this issue and Kerry is hitting it home. Bush is claiming stem cell research calls for the destruction of life. Mr President, there are other forms of stem cells than embyrionic -- adult and umbilical cord, neither one bringing up any moral issues whatsoever Kerry just pointed out Bush's waffling on the stem cell issue. About time that was pointed out publicly. Bush paraphrase: "Life has been destroyed, so let's use it but not destroy more life." Wow, if he was so morally against stem cells since they destroy life, wouldn't one think he'd disallow the use of the current stem cell lines in an act of protest? Flip-flopper. Hey, Mr. President, I think the entire "under God" thing actually is strictly based on constitutional law and not just on "personal opinion." Seperation of church and state and all. From Kos from an older FactCheck.org article:President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)So, yeah, Bush does own a timber company, at least partially; ABC even picked up on it post-debate. According to Bush the Duelfer report confirmed the need to invade Iraq. Total and utter dillusion, blinding in its intensity and reach. Kerry: "...slush fund to Halliburton" in regards to the $87 billion. Highly impressive, and the last word on that issue for the night. Politics20783@blogcritics.org Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:04:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/07/140044.php Justin DelabarSometimes I wonder how Dick Cheney can sleep at night, and then I remember that not only has he become immune to lies and distortion, he has developed an insatiable hunger for them. Following Charles Duelfer's testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday, Cheney began the amazing spin game by mischaracterizing the weapons inspector's findings in order to make the Iraqi invasion seem sane by attempting to divert attention away from the WMD issue. In a town hall meeting, Cheney pointed to the corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program as evidence of Saddam's desire to get the international community to lift sanctions so he could continue weapons programs he had completely abandoned in 1995. Some of Cheney's quotes are simply jaw-dropping:"The headlines all say no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad. We already knew that,'' Cheney said. He said other parts of the report were "more intriguing.''...Although the report says Saddam's weapons program had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War and did not pose a threat to the world in 2003, it also says Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions."As soon as the sanctions were lifted he had every intention of going back'' to his weapons program, Cheney said.The vice president said the report concluded that the United Nations' "Fuel for Food'' program "was totally corrupted by Saddam Hussein. There were suggestions employees of the United Nations were part of the scheme as well.''"The suggestion is clearly there by Mr. Duelfer that Saddam had used the program in such a way that he had bought off foreign governments and was building support among them to take the sanctions down,'' Cheney said.Thus there was no reason to wait to invade Iraq to give inspectors more time to do their work, Cheney said.For one, the United States invaded Iraq because the administration was certain that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, not because Hussein was bribing people, which is an absolutely idiotic angle for the administration to take. Now they want the American people to believe that over 1000 Americans have died because Hussein was passing bills under the table so he could, one day, make the WMD they believed were already there? Lunacy! Had the United States continued diplomatic pressure Hussein would have never had sanctions lifted, even if every nation-state in the world wanted to since the US holds Security Council veto authority. It's understandable that Bush/Cheney cannot admit to the war being a mistake since it would effectively dismantle their election bid, but they should reconsider their responses to bad news because it serves no other purpose than to make them seem increasingly desperate and petty. Give it up, guys, this is a dead end for you and sometimes no amount of spin can create an escape route. Politics20726@blogcritics.org Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:00:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/06/224715.php Justin DelabarThe problem of outsourcing has cemented job retraining education as an issue of top importance, yet it is something that is not publicly discussed often. Bush, however, is firmly behind the idea of retraining and has mentioned it on several campaign stops in those folksy "Ask Bush" sessions, although the administration's actions have not exactly added up to Bush's retraining advocation. Earlier this year the Labor Department made it more difficult for workers in lower population states to receive federal grants to attain job retraining by striking the states' ability to put laid-off persons from small companies together to reach the minimum 50-person threshold for federal retraining aid. Former manufacturing workers in states such as Iowa have been hit particularly hard by this new modus operandi and are currently feeling the full brunt of the economy's stagnation. Bush has also suggested a $151 million cut to job retraining programs this year, even though the economy has not yet emerged from its sickbed.In a global economy where outsourcing is inevitable, an administration cannot skimp on retraining programs as the Bush administration has -- Howard Rosen, head of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition even claims retraining programs should have their funding doubled. The administration seems to not be interested in abating outsourcing, as their reluctance to close the corporate tax loopholes that promote the practice seems to suggest, so one would think they would have tackled retraining in a way befitting true free trade proponents, but they simply haven't. Social Democratic Corporatist states in Europe, such as Denmark, have adjusted nicely to the new global economic system through their promotion and funding of far-reaching retraining programs, which is absolutely required when a country's leadership commits an economy to the whims of global change. However, the United States is much larger and more complex than any of the small Social Democratic European countries and it, quite possibly, may not be able to undertake a policy of unabated outsourcing no matter the funds put into retraining programs.Kerry and Edwards have claimed that they will close the tax loopholes in order to cease large numbers of jobs from being outsourced while increasing funding for retraining programs within communities, which is the only effective way to tackle the problem. The Bush administration's acceptance and even promotion of outsourcing (Bush's top economic adviser claimed outsourcing is a good thing for the American worker earlier this year) puts them in an impossible bind. In order to spur true economic growth they would have to fund an impossibly large retraining program, which by itself is against Conservative nature (even if they can spend $120 billion on a misguided foreign invasion.) The only way to satiate the economic burdens brought about by the outsourcing epidemic is to limit outsourcing itself -- it cannot be stopped completely -- and couple that with retraining programs that are adequately, but not overly, funded. The Kerry/Edwards ticket is the only serious one promoting such a plan. Politics20705@blogcritics.org Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:47:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/05/225525.php Justin DelabarWe ran another debate thread over at Digital Dissent tonight. Jon took the primary posting reigns this time around, so expect an even more noticeable lean to the right -- just enough to even me out, maybe. Here are some of the better comments:Jon: Cheney had the ability to say, We never claimed there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, which is technically true, even though the administration managed to dance right up to actually saying it, evidenced by the large number of people who claim such a link exists when polled. Justin: While CEO of Halliburton, Cheney had no problem with Hussein -- he actually sold him oil equipment in 1998 and 1999, against international sanctions. Why did Cheney suddenly change his mind about the threat posed by Hussein even though he found him docile enough to profit from? Justin: Cheney did indeed head an energy taskforce focused on lifting sanctions on Iran, Libya, and Iraq in mid-2001. Profiteering at the expense of safety, ho! Jon: If Edwards says Cheney is lying, and Cheney says Edwards is lying, what the hell does that actually mean? Justin: When asked if the chance of terrorist attack would be higher under a Kerry administration, Cheney did not say 'no'. He moved to attack Kerry's record, but did not attempt to retract his earlier statements. The fact stands that Cheney wants voters to believe they're going to die if Kerry is elected. Jon: Honestly, I almost cannot even stand to listen to this debate. Watching these people as they go at it is like watching apes in some sort of violent coital state, bloody froth running down lips gaping in ecstacy. Cheney claims the coalition today is stronger than the Gulf War coalition. 34 countries then and 30 today. The difference: countries like France, Egypt, and Syria had boots on the ground in the Gulf War. Where are they this time around? Replaced by the Faukland and Marshall Islanders? Poland? Oh, right, they're leaving now... How ironic. Justin: Edwards misconstrues the cost of the Iraqi occupation. $200 billion is the total cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction efforts. Jon: Cheney says that we shouldn't lift sanctions, and that we should involve other countries in sanctions. Isn't that exactly what Kerry said a few nights back? Jon: One of my points about Bush's policy of going after those who harbor terrorists is that it is difficult to differentiate between countries who willingly house terrorists and ones that unknowingly have some living on their lands. If you really wanted to follow this logic, you could say America housed terrorists because we trained some of the 9/11 hijackers to fly planes. Jon: 9:40 - Halliburton count: at least 5. Jon & Justin: Good job, Dick, for entirely sidestepping the Israel-Palestine stuff. Jon: I find it odd that a Republican is competing with a Democrat on a record of bloated government handouts. Something is definitely wrong here. Justin: Cheney silenced by Edwards following comment: "He voted against Head Start. He voted against banning plastic weapons that can pass through medical detectors. He voted against 'Meals on Wheels' for Seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela." Now that's the nice, cuddly Cheney we all know. Justin: Cheney paraphrase: I wasn't aware that a lot more black women are dying due to AIDS because the overall numbers look better.What he probably actually means: I wasn't aware that a lot more black women are dying of AIDS because they're not white nor are they rich. Oh, and they wouldn't vote for us anyway. Of course, we'll be running another one of these over at DD for Friday's presidential debate. Politics20672@blogcritics.org Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:55:25 EDT