Sunday, September 14, 2003

Steal From The Poor and Give To The Rich If the GOP is the "party of the people," is supposedly for the common man and not just the wealthy and corporations, why are they so intent to cut taxes for and give juicy handouts to the wealthy and corporations, and so eager to cut the pay and benefits for the common worker? Right now, a majority of those in the Senate have followed the Democratic lead to turn down President Bush's plan to eliminate overtime pay for eight million workers, but the Republicans, with a razor's edge of a majority, are refusing to allow it to come to a vote, at least as long as the Democratic candidates are in D.C. The GOP hopes to wait for a dark and lonely evening, like they have done so often over the past two years, when no one is looking, to pass this law. And this Bush pay decrease would come at a time when countless American families depend on both parents working overtime just to get by. It comes on the heels of other Bush proposals to cut pay, benefits, and education funding for the same working stiffs and soldiers in the military who are fighting Bush's wars, as Bush ladles out lucrative, non-competitive contracts to businesses the administration has close ties to. Add to this the measly token of a tax cut given to many, but not all of the middle class, while people making millions or billions get huge amounts of what little they still pay in taxes returned to them because "it's only fair." And the GOP's traditional grudge against ever raising the minimum wage--each and every time, they claim it will put companies in a crunch and cause workers to be fired, and every time nothing of the sort comes close to happening. Party of the people? For the common man? Just like Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and the GOP's claim to "inclusiveness," these are lip-service platitudes that have no standing in reality. Ever wonder why labor unions so regularly support the Democrats? [The Blog From Another Dimension] 9:27:34 AM

Quotes of the day: From the Economist: Microsoft has paid for a series of studies, the latest of which appeared this week, which invariably find that, in specific applications, Windows costs less than Linux. Jeneane, in Smelling her breath and public relations: I think everyone over there is in agreement that Valium is the answer for me. [Doc Searls] 9:16:08 AM

Kristof on the ANWR The New York Times Nicholas Kristof has completed a week in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- the pristine wilderness coveted by oil companies -- and has come away with a reasoned opinion: I would endorse drilling in the Arctic refuge if it were part of a mega-environmental package that also addressed global warming, an environmental challenge where we have even more at stake than in the Arctic. Daniel Esty, a Yale scholar of the environment, proposes such a deal -- with trepidation -- in the interest of breaking the national deadlock on environmental policy. The package could include careful oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (exploratory drilling could be done in winter without permanent damage) and, if it turned out to be the oil lake that proponents claim, commercial drilling as well. In exchange, the right would accept a beyond-Kyoto framework to control carbon emissions, with tighter standards but a longer time frame. The deal would include $1 billion in additional financing for solar, wind and hydrogen energy, and significant increases in vehicle mileage standards to promote conservation. This is the kind of pragmatism, the give-and-take, the willingness to see both sides that we're going to need -- and that has been so sadly lacking in American politics of late. Kristof concludes: Yet President Bush's push to open the Arctic refuge is not part of such a bold and thoughtful package to break the stalemate on the environment. Rather it is simply a lunge for oil. Without trying to conserve oil, Mr. Bush would gobble up a national treasure, the birthright of our descendants, as a first resort. The argument that I find most compelling is that this primordial wilderness, a part of our national inheritance that is roughly the same as it was a thousand years ago, would be irretrievably lost if we drilled. The Bush administration's proposal to drill is therefore not just bad policy but also shameful, for it would casually rob our descendants forever of the chance to savor this magical coastal plain... By actually visiting the ANWR and writing about his experiences, Nicholas helped me make up my mind on the issue -- no drilling except as part of a broad, pro-conservation energy measure -- and for that I'm grateful. [pseudorandom] 9:15:39 AM

Science Suffers Security Complex Homeland security laws hinder scientific advancement with bureaucratic mazes, policies that oust foreign researchers and jail time for improper lab operation. Scientists are resorting to self-censorship to avoid the hassle. [Wired News] 8:52:44 AM

© Copyright 2003 The Decline and Fall of the American Empire.