Monday, January 31, 2005
World Social Forum Not in the papers, but 100,000+ attended the Brazil meetings. Its goal: fostering hope in democratic, grassroots structures.
The leaders of the industrialised North and the developing South must hold regular meetings, and global reforms must be instituted if the Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved, according to the Helsinki Process meeting at the fifth World Social Forum (WSF).
The WSF, the giant civil society meet currently under way in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, has brought together over 120,000 representatives of non-governmental groups from around the globe to reflect on strategies for creating an alternative world order http://allafrica.com/stories/200501280706.html
That Election: A “Resounding Success”; Exit Next? Bush’s words, the spin. The NY Times and most others cooperated by producing banner headlines and most media folk sought to portray it as a success, if not a turning point. Yet, ‘between the lines’ commentators noted that it was a distraction, a temporary reprieve based on extra security that can’t be sustained.
Marty Meehan joined Kennedy (and Russ Feingold) in calling for withdrawal; Kerry opposed such.
One can admire Iraqis for stating, in effect, that they want to participate in their country’s future, but we must continue to note that they want us out. Zogby, our pal who called it for Kerry on Election Day, reports that Iraq has “deep divisions” (duh), that
Majorities of Iraq's Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place… http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957
The Washington Post had similar surveys, similar results.
Public opinion polls show 80 percent want the Americans out of their country. In the election campaign, one common theme among candidates was the withdrawal of occupying forces. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46796-2005Jan29.html
Juan Cole offers:
I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan. http://juancole.com/
Exiting: How is taken care of; now, as to when…
The US and Britain have privately agreed an exit strategy from Iraq based on doubling the number of local police trainees and setting up Iraqi units that would act as a halfway house between the police and the army.
The agreement was reached on Monday between the US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon.
It was based on recommendations from retired US general Gary Luck, sent to Iraq by the Pentagon last month to look at the failings of Iraq's security force. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1400634,00.html
Social Security: The Big Push. Bush’s upcoming travel is intended to muscle Republicans who haven’t gotten on board. (e.g. he’ll go to Montana to pressure local Rep. Denny Rehberg after the State of the Union pitch.) The Congressional Repubs have their part to play:
The congressional Republicans' confidential plan was developed with the advice of pollsters, marketing experts and communication consultants, and was provided to The Washington Post by a Republican official. The blueprint urges lawmakers to promote the "personalization" of Social Security, suggesting ownership and control, rather than "privatization," which "connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security." Democratic strategists said they intend to continue fighting the Republican plan by branding it privatization, and assert that depiction is already set in people's minds. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49938-2005Jan30?language=printer
Another… Typically, this was announced late Friday, so it got buried in Saturday’s papers, the least read.
The Bush administration acknowledged on Friday that it had paid a third conservative commentator, and at least two departments said they were conducting internal inquiries to see if other journalists were under government contract. The investigative arm of Congress also formally began an inquiry of its own.
The Department of Health and Human Services confirmed having hired Michael McManus, who writes a weekly syndicated column and is director of a nonprofit group called Marriage Savers. Mr. McManus was paid $10,000 to help train counselors about marriage, an arrangement first reported in USA Today, but officials said he was paid for his expertise rather than to write columns supporting administration policies. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/politics/29column.html?oref=login&oref=login
They Ain’t Journalists: Joe Conason on the previously noted hacks
It is remarkable that Williams and Gallagher, who claim to understand why democracy and freedom are superior to tyranny, don't fully understand why pundit payola is so repugnant. American journalists don't take money from the politicians they cover because we don't live in a totalitarian regime where state-subsidized scribblers are expected to glorify the Beloved Leader.
Yet that's essentially what Williams and Gallagher did. While quietly taking money from the Bush administration, they promoted the president and his party, as well as his policies, while denigrating the opposition. Their misconduct gives off a nauseating whiff of totalitarianism that should outrage any honest conservative. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/01/27/flacks/index.html
Soros Looks Back: Kerry blew it
Billionaire investor George Soros, the biggest financial contributor to the failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush in November's election, said Democratic challenger John Kerry was a flawed candidate.
Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, spent $26 million in last year's campaign that he said was undermined by the candidate he supported.
``Kerry did not, actually, offer a credible and coherent alternative,'' Soros, 74, said yesterday in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``That had a lot to do with Bush being re-elected.'' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=aqkoN4tLMDv8
Rove’s Strategy: Good article on the politicization of all, that all steps are chosen so as to disempower the Democrats
…a recurring theme of many items on" President Bush's "second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years.
And,
Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White House. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47559-2005Jan29.html
Afterthought: So why did Obama vote for Condi? What was he risking? Hopefully more will see that he and Hillary are not necessarily the Democrats’ future…
-R
The leaders of the industrialised North and the developing South must hold regular meetings, and global reforms must be instituted if the Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved, according to the Helsinki Process meeting at the fifth World Social Forum (WSF).
The WSF, the giant civil society meet currently under way in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, has brought together over 120,000 representatives of non-governmental groups from around the globe to reflect on strategies for creating an alternative world order http://allafrica.com/stories/200501280706.html
That Election: A “Resounding Success”; Exit Next? Bush’s words, the spin. The NY Times and most others cooperated by producing banner headlines and most media folk sought to portray it as a success, if not a turning point. Yet, ‘between the lines’ commentators noted that it was a distraction, a temporary reprieve based on extra security that can’t be sustained.
Marty Meehan joined Kennedy (and Russ Feingold) in calling for withdrawal; Kerry opposed such.
One can admire Iraqis for stating, in effect, that they want to participate in their country’s future, but we must continue to note that they want us out. Zogby, our pal who called it for Kerry on Election Day, reports that Iraq has “deep divisions” (duh), that
Majorities of Iraq's Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place… http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957
The Washington Post had similar surveys, similar results.
Public opinion polls show 80 percent want the Americans out of their country. In the election campaign, one common theme among candidates was the withdrawal of occupying forces. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46796-2005Jan29.html
Juan Cole offers:
I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan. http://juancole.com/
Exiting: How is taken care of; now, as to when…
The US and Britain have privately agreed an exit strategy from Iraq based on doubling the number of local police trainees and setting up Iraqi units that would act as a halfway house between the police and the army.
The agreement was reached on Monday between the US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon.
It was based on recommendations from retired US general Gary Luck, sent to Iraq by the Pentagon last month to look at the failings of Iraq's security force. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1400634,00.html
Social Security: The Big Push. Bush’s upcoming travel is intended to muscle Republicans who haven’t gotten on board. (e.g. he’ll go to Montana to pressure local Rep. Denny Rehberg after the State of the Union pitch.) The Congressional Repubs have their part to play:
The congressional Republicans' confidential plan was developed with the advice of pollsters, marketing experts and communication consultants, and was provided to The Washington Post by a Republican official. The blueprint urges lawmakers to promote the "personalization" of Social Security, suggesting ownership and control, rather than "privatization," which "connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security." Democratic strategists said they intend to continue fighting the Republican plan by branding it privatization, and assert that depiction is already set in people's minds. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49938-2005Jan30?language=printer
Another… Typically, this was announced late Friday, so it got buried in Saturday’s papers, the least read.
The Bush administration acknowledged on Friday that it had paid a third conservative commentator, and at least two departments said they were conducting internal inquiries to see if other journalists were under government contract. The investigative arm of Congress also formally began an inquiry of its own.
The Department of Health and Human Services confirmed having hired Michael McManus, who writes a weekly syndicated column and is director of a nonprofit group called Marriage Savers. Mr. McManus was paid $10,000 to help train counselors about marriage, an arrangement first reported in USA Today, but officials said he was paid for his expertise rather than to write columns supporting administration policies. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/politics/29column.html?oref=login&oref=login
They Ain’t Journalists: Joe Conason on the previously noted hacks
It is remarkable that Williams and Gallagher, who claim to understand why democracy and freedom are superior to tyranny, don't fully understand why pundit payola is so repugnant. American journalists don't take money from the politicians they cover because we don't live in a totalitarian regime where state-subsidized scribblers are expected to glorify the Beloved Leader.
Yet that's essentially what Williams and Gallagher did. While quietly taking money from the Bush administration, they promoted the president and his party, as well as his policies, while denigrating the opposition. Their misconduct gives off a nauseating whiff of totalitarianism that should outrage any honest conservative. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/01/27/flacks/index.html
Soros Looks Back: Kerry blew it
Billionaire investor George Soros, the biggest financial contributor to the failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush in November's election, said Democratic challenger John Kerry was a flawed candidate.
Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, spent $26 million in last year's campaign that he said was undermined by the candidate he supported.
``Kerry did not, actually, offer a credible and coherent alternative,'' Soros, 74, said yesterday in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``That had a lot to do with Bush being re-elected.'' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=aqkoN4tLMDv8
Rove’s Strategy: Good article on the politicization of all, that all steps are chosen so as to disempower the Democrats
…a recurring theme of many items on" President Bush's "second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years.
And,
Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White House. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47559-2005Jan29.html
Afterthought: So why did Obama vote for Condi? What was he risking? Hopefully more will see that he and Hillary are not necessarily the Democrats’ future…
-R
