Sunday, November 23, 2003
FBI and Demonstrators:
You’re not surprised, are you? Paranoic thoughts are justified! As the NY Times reported on its front page (Eric Lichtblau)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.
The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/national/23FBI.html
Other Times highlights: Saturday’s paper confirmed both the Bush view and the common sense prediction: The Administration claims it is killing al-Qaida leaders and many of us warned that invading Iraq would produce more terrorists. Said one European counter terrorism official, “there are fewer leaders, but more followers.”
Sunday Times’ editorials include this reminder (emphasis added) “Most Americans remember the president’s firm resolve after 9/11 with admiration and do not want those memories challenged.” And, in reference to the 9/11 Commission, “After some reluctance, the White House is cooperating.” Talk about understatement. They’ve resisted handing over documents for most of a year, seeking to ‘run out the clock’ as the Commission is scheduled to finish in May.
Medicare and Energy Bills: It would be nice to have a fighter in the Senate instead of Tom Daschle. His latest is to undercut resolve to filibuster the Medicare bill He remains the forever mild-mannered misfit in the face of the take-no-prisoners Republicans. Democracy in action: Many still have not read the legislation as it gets rammed through, and the rewards are plentiful for health care and energy companies at the (as usual) expense of the public. Still some hope on energy…
Meanwhile the first Bush ad is out there, attacking the Democratic candidates for attacking Bush’s attack on terrorism. This really should not work; Clark had a decent part-response, addressing the woefulness of the Administration’s efforts fighting terrorism.
Social Security and the Deficit: Daniel Gross in the Times summarizes the nonsense re our deficit, how Social Security’s surplus is added to the deficit to mask the size of the enormous sum.
If we factor out the so-called Social Security surplus - payroll taxes collected by the government but not paid out in benefits - the deficit in fiscal 2003 was actually far larger: $531 billion, or 4.9 percent of gross domestic product. For the current fiscal year, the administration expects that this figure, also called the on-budget deficit, will be even higher: $639 billion, or a whopping 5.4 percent of gross domestic product.
Using excess payroll taxes for unintended purposes masks the true size of the operating deficit. The budget office predicts that the net deficit will shrink from $475 billion in fiscal 2004 to $226 billion, or 1.7 percent of gross domestic product, in 2008. Take away the ever-larger Social Security surpluses used in each of those years, however, and the on-budget deficit will stand at $464 billion in 2008.
The reality will likely be far worse, especially if you factor in costs that the White House doesn't include in its projections - like the $87 billion recently appropriated for the war, or the extension of recently enacted tax cuts. In doing so, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the business-oriented Committee for Economic Development, and the anti-deficit Concord Coalition have concluded that next year's on-budget deficit will be $687 billion - not $639 billion, as the administration suggests. In 2008, the groups say, the on-budget deficit will be $692 billion and the net deficit will be $457 billion, or twice the Bush administration's projection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/business/yourmoney/23view.html
Latest Environmental travesty
Forum # 47, or thereabouts whereby the Administration rewards its fat cat contributors is the forest bill which closely resembles the so-called Healthy Forests Initiative. Allegedly geared to protect the forests, prevent future fires, etc., it actually does the usual- limit oversight, as it limits appeals and environmental reviews when forests are selected for ‘thinning’. So Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) aptly summarizes,
“We're not interested in healthy forests. What we are interested in is a big giveaway to people who want to cut down trees on public lands. That's what this bill is all about."
"http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/22/congress_backs_a_plan_to_thin_national_forests/
The Bush visit: Bush got some pictures for the campaign and Blair got zip. Leader (Guardian) summarizes:
Perhaps this is as much as any visiting political leader can expect to achieve in these Bin Laden-constrained times. If so, it can only reinforce the feeling that Mr Bush leaves behind him that we - the Queen, Tony Blair and the British people - have in some fairly serious way been used this week. Before Mr Bush arrived there was speculation and perhaps even hope that there would be some response to British concerns on US steel tariffs and British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay - to say nothing of concerns about the Middle East peace process and the rebuilding of Iraq. At the end of the week, however, what is there to show for it? Not a great deal so far. Television pictures of Mr Bush behaving courteously and speaking coherently may have quieted some of the more extreme doubts about him on this side of the Atlantic - and that is a small political gain both for the president and for Mr Blair. Beyond that, however, it is hard to see in what way Britain is better off at the end of this week than we were at the start. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1090828,00.html
What’s Happening, Iraq: Helicopter fatalities, 2 soldiers shot and pulled from their cars, other casualties… Now if the media wouldn’t play this up, we could be happier.
Some think the media have been more than fair. A commentary from William Powers:
To me, what's consistently stunning about the Iraq coverage is how hard journalists are trying, even in the face of such disasters, to capture the rays of sunshine in postwar Iraq. This was happening before Bush had his "filter" moment, and it's happening still. Far from being the naysayers the White House says they are, American media people often seem, way down in their heart of hearts, to be rooting for the mission in Iraq. Sometimes, the effort is downright poignant.
As I wrote the last few sentences, I could hear the howls from the White House. I wonder, did they even open their New York Times on October 26, just days before Rumsfeld issued his "darn good" complaint, and notice the headline: "Iraqis Get Used to Life Without Hussein, and Many Find They Like It"?…
First, we've been in on this war since before it even began. The policy debate last fall and winter was complex and often rancorous, but in the end, countless leading media figures and institutions bought the administration's core argument that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a just cause.
Second, the profession's enthusiastic response to the embed program made the media virtually comrades in arms with the warriors and, in a real way, complicit. Journalists did their best to keep their distance, but let's face it: There was a patriotic subtext to the coverage. The United States was trying to rid the world of a horrible dictator, and the media were along for the glorious ride.
Third, journalists are hypersensitive to charges of bias. This is why, every time the White House complains about negative coverage, the complaints themselves become a meta-story all their own. Such stories may appear to be media narcissism, but they're also a measure of how much journalists care what the White House thinks of them: a lot. http://nationaljournal.com/powers.htm
-R
You’re not surprised, are you? Paranoic thoughts are justified! As the NY Times reported on its front page (Eric Lichtblau)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.
The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/national/23FBI.html
Other Times highlights: Saturday’s paper confirmed both the Bush view and the common sense prediction: The Administration claims it is killing al-Qaida leaders and many of us warned that invading Iraq would produce more terrorists. Said one European counter terrorism official, “there are fewer leaders, but more followers.”
Sunday Times’ editorials include this reminder (emphasis added) “Most Americans remember the president’s firm resolve after 9/11 with admiration and do not want those memories challenged.” And, in reference to the 9/11 Commission, “After some reluctance, the White House is cooperating.” Talk about understatement. They’ve resisted handing over documents for most of a year, seeking to ‘run out the clock’ as the Commission is scheduled to finish in May.
Medicare and Energy Bills: It would be nice to have a fighter in the Senate instead of Tom Daschle. His latest is to undercut resolve to filibuster the Medicare bill He remains the forever mild-mannered misfit in the face of the take-no-prisoners Republicans. Democracy in action: Many still have not read the legislation as it gets rammed through, and the rewards are plentiful for health care and energy companies at the (as usual) expense of the public. Still some hope on energy…
Meanwhile the first Bush ad is out there, attacking the Democratic candidates for attacking Bush’s attack on terrorism. This really should not work; Clark had a decent part-response, addressing the woefulness of the Administration’s efforts fighting terrorism.
Social Security and the Deficit: Daniel Gross in the Times summarizes the nonsense re our deficit, how Social Security’s surplus is added to the deficit to mask the size of the enormous sum.
If we factor out the so-called Social Security surplus - payroll taxes collected by the government but not paid out in benefits - the deficit in fiscal 2003 was actually far larger: $531 billion, or 4.9 percent of gross domestic product. For the current fiscal year, the administration expects that this figure, also called the on-budget deficit, will be even higher: $639 billion, or a whopping 5.4 percent of gross domestic product.
Using excess payroll taxes for unintended purposes masks the true size of the operating deficit. The budget office predicts that the net deficit will shrink from $475 billion in fiscal 2004 to $226 billion, or 1.7 percent of gross domestic product, in 2008. Take away the ever-larger Social Security surpluses used in each of those years, however, and the on-budget deficit will stand at $464 billion in 2008.
The reality will likely be far worse, especially if you factor in costs that the White House doesn't include in its projections - like the $87 billion recently appropriated for the war, or the extension of recently enacted tax cuts. In doing so, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the business-oriented Committee for Economic Development, and the anti-deficit Concord Coalition have concluded that next year's on-budget deficit will be $687 billion - not $639 billion, as the administration suggests. In 2008, the groups say, the on-budget deficit will be $692 billion and the net deficit will be $457 billion, or twice the Bush administration's projection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/business/yourmoney/23view.html
Latest Environmental travesty
Forum # 47, or thereabouts whereby the Administration rewards its fat cat contributors is the forest bill which closely resembles the so-called Healthy Forests Initiative. Allegedly geared to protect the forests, prevent future fires, etc., it actually does the usual- limit oversight, as it limits appeals and environmental reviews when forests are selected for ‘thinning’. So Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) aptly summarizes,
“We're not interested in healthy forests. What we are interested in is a big giveaway to people who want to cut down trees on public lands. That's what this bill is all about."
"http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/22/congress_backs_a_plan_to_thin_national_forests/
The Bush visit: Bush got some pictures for the campaign and Blair got zip. Leader (Guardian) summarizes:
Perhaps this is as much as any visiting political leader can expect to achieve in these Bin Laden-constrained times. If so, it can only reinforce the feeling that Mr Bush leaves behind him that we - the Queen, Tony Blair and the British people - have in some fairly serious way been used this week. Before Mr Bush arrived there was speculation and perhaps even hope that there would be some response to British concerns on US steel tariffs and British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay - to say nothing of concerns about the Middle East peace process and the rebuilding of Iraq. At the end of the week, however, what is there to show for it? Not a great deal so far. Television pictures of Mr Bush behaving courteously and speaking coherently may have quieted some of the more extreme doubts about him on this side of the Atlantic - and that is a small political gain both for the president and for Mr Blair. Beyond that, however, it is hard to see in what way Britain is better off at the end of this week than we were at the start. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1090828,00.html
What’s Happening, Iraq: Helicopter fatalities, 2 soldiers shot and pulled from their cars, other casualties… Now if the media wouldn’t play this up, we could be happier.
Some think the media have been more than fair. A commentary from William Powers:
To me, what's consistently stunning about the Iraq coverage is how hard journalists are trying, even in the face of such disasters, to capture the rays of sunshine in postwar Iraq. This was happening before Bush had his "filter" moment, and it's happening still. Far from being the naysayers the White House says they are, American media people often seem, way down in their heart of hearts, to be rooting for the mission in Iraq. Sometimes, the effort is downright poignant.
As I wrote the last few sentences, I could hear the howls from the White House. I wonder, did they even open their New York Times on October 26, just days before Rumsfeld issued his "darn good" complaint, and notice the headline: "Iraqis Get Used to Life Without Hussein, and Many Find They Like It"?…
First, we've been in on this war since before it even began. The policy debate last fall and winter was complex and often rancorous, but in the end, countless leading media figures and institutions bought the administration's core argument that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a just cause.
Second, the profession's enthusiastic response to the embed program made the media virtually comrades in arms with the warriors and, in a real way, complicit. Journalists did their best to keep their distance, but let's face it: There was a patriotic subtext to the coverage. The United States was trying to rid the world of a horrible dictator, and the media were along for the glorious ride.
Third, journalists are hypersensitive to charges of bias. This is why, every time the White House complains about negative coverage, the complaints themselves become a meta-story all their own. Such stories may appear to be media narcissism, but they're also a measure of how much journalists care what the White House thinks of them: a lot. http://nationaljournal.com/powers.htm
-R
