Common Myths

  • Republicans are against unions
    Republicans are not always anti-union, but generally side with big business over the interests of labor. But lost in much of the discussions, is the awareness that big business usually consists of unions of owners. These owners collectively bargain with their employees, either with the employees singly or in groups. Quite often those groups of employees are not based on unions, but instead on bureaucratic determinations made by the corporation. Republicans, and often Democrats, will side with the more powerful union of owners against the employees. Why is there a false understanding of corporations? Because clearly the market supports unions of owners over individual large owners and because of decades of misconceptions often fostered by corporations. Somehow many believe unions of owners are efficient and unions of employees or consumers are inefficient. Of course, democracy, a system based on the equality of humans, can be portrayed as inefficient in the short terms and tyranny of the powerful much more efficient. And that gets to the main distinction in the form of unions of owners versus employees, generally corporations are anti-democratic (power decided by wealth) versus unions of labor or consumers (power decided by people).
  • Republican leaders are against regulations
    Look it up, regulations are essentially laws. What Republicans tend to be against are both laws and regulations that force corporations to favor protecting life over profits. Republicans tend to be strongly for regulations and laws that protect corporation profits and protect corportations being held accountable by a democratic society.
  • Social Security is running out of money
    Repeating a lie doesn't make it so. Williams repeats the myth that Social Security is running out of money despite evidence and protestations to the contrary by Krugman. Unfortunately this myth is designed to allow a wealthy minority to steal the savings of generations of Americans.

Cures for the common myth

  • HeadlineUpdate
    William Klein tears apart the headlines to get to the real story.
  • On the Media
    Show that savages co-opted and self-censored media coverage.
  • RIP - Wall Street Journal
    Until recently, perhaps, the best newspaper in the United States. Murdoch decided to squeeze the life out of this golden goose. Previously had fantastic muckracking pieces. The ruling class preferred WSJ to the whitewashed and watered down mass media.
  • Technorati

    Hidden among the millions of blogs and RSS feeds is the vox populi.

« Guilty if you do, guilty if you don't | Main | Like Lambs to the Slaughter »

Holding US hostage and letting them go free

Listening to conversations without warrants, without real oversight and without clear authority should have been enough bring a stop to such practices and a thorough investigation. Instead the administration hides behind vague assertions of authority and works to punish those who would interfere. But in their excuses they bring more questions than answers about their ability to protect us.

Bush claimed that the wiretaps were necessary for his war, as they were "designed to intercept communications from known associates of Al Qaeda to the United States."* Why does this matter?  The legal aspect of intercepting calls depending on their origin is not as important as why there are calls originating in the United States needing to be intercepted. Is it that the administration is aware of "associates of Al Qaeda" in the United States? Are these people actually associated or is it like the connection of Iraq with Al Qaeda prior to the invasion? If known associates are able to have their calls bugged, why not actually stop calls and pick them up. How long have these "associates" been in the U.S.? Why won't the courts allow wiretaps of "known associates?"

My guess is that the program outlines were leaked, because the program was not an effective tool in the "war against terrorism." Probably the knowing and the associating were at best speculative and easy to expand into nonrelated areas. Probably the administration did not want to use the specially designed court, because the lack of real associations would have been evident. (Using "probabilities" because the facts are being obstructed.)

Should not we just assume that the administration would not abuse their power? Should not we just assume that their lawyers know the constitution sufficiently to advise the President without need for oversight. The U.S. Constitution is right to allow for check and balances and to both note what is allowed and not allowed. The Congress appears to have adbicated its oversight responsibilities and has led to a Presidency that is out of control. And now we may never know what rights of ours that are being trampled and how our security is quickly eroding.

*-Eric Lichtblau, Bush Defends Spy Program and Denies Misleading Public, NYTIMES.com, January 2, 2006

January 09, 2006 in Current Affairs |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454913e69e200d8355a29b869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Holding US hostage and letting them go free:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.