My Two Cents

If the Bush administration privatization plan gets pushed through, a key premise of the whole proposal is that retirement contributions will be diverted into stock market accounts. On Wall Street.

Well, some firm or firms on Wall Street will manage those accounts, and will gain all the fees derived from them. Fees from billions, if not trillions, of dollars worth of retirement contributions.

And who will decide which firms get those lucrative fees? Why, the Bush administration, of course. And to whom will they award that juicy plum? Why, people who are going to use those fees to make generous campaign contributions to Republican candidates and PACs, of course.

So Social Security “reform” is really all about creating a new, generous source of Republican campaign contributions. With your retirement savings gamble.

Their fees will be guaranteed.

Your retirement security won’t be.

I find it utterly disgusting what passes for news at CNN these days.

I was flipping channels tonight (Sat, 2/26) at about 8:00 p.m. (or maybe 9:00), when I crossed the beginning of CNN Presents. When I heard the title (read with a low, menacing-sounding voice): Impact of Terror, I knew I had to watch, to monitor, and what I saw was quite frankly what I've grown to expect from CNN, the "most trusted source" in news. Ha. I trust 'em about as much as I trust my landlord, but that's an entirely different story...

The show, Impact of Terror, was an entirely one-sided piece, profiling a suicide bombing which occurred in Jerusalem in August of 2001. Time frame references within the piece indicate that it was originally produced in 2003, 2 years after the attack. The original attack, which killed 15 and wounded 90 more, was highly publicized at the time.

First of all, I have to wonder why the choice was made to re-broadcast this piece, and why now? What particular relevance does it have that warrants re-broadcast? And why, now that there is a new Palestinian leader, and renewed peace negotiations, doesn't the whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict merit a new, in-depth investigation into BOTH sides of the story?

My particular complaint is that the piece is entirely superficial, an "human interest" exercise in emotional manipulation which does not even attempt to investigate or report on the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. The Palestinians are complete non-entities, the way this story is presented, except of course for the evil suicide bomber. The piece is entirely pro-Israel, pro-administration, and designed (with ominous music and the oft-menacingly-repeated title, Impact of Terror) to instill fear of terrorism in the viewing audience, a straight-from-the-playbook Bush administration tactic.


Don't get me wrong, the suicide bombing in the story (and all others) was tragic, and a horrible occurence. But what happens on the other side of the story is equally tragic and horrific, and deserves objective coverage. The reason Arab nations hate our country is because of precisely this sort of unabashed pro-Israeli bias, and the general refusal of our media or our government to even consider the Palestinians as humans.

This story was masterfully done, insofar as it presented very successful emotional manipulation. The casting was pitch perfect, utilizing a primary protagonist who is an undeniably gorgeous 16 year old girl. What better protagonist to garner sympathy than an exceptionally beautiful 16 year old girl who is able to smile bravely and charmingly even when discussing some of the horrific aspects of the bombing, but who also provides plenty of touching, tearful moments for the camera as well? And it doesn't hurt that the protagonist who gets the next largest amount of coverage is an attractive mother of 4 very attractive young children, including a beautiful three year old girl traumatized by the event. CNN could not have invented a better set of protagonists had they tried.

The piece presents absolutely no investigation into the background of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, no investigation into what this particular bombing may have been in retaliation for, and is completely one-sided. That is neither investigation nor reporting. It is manipulation, pure and simple. CNN claims that their documentary CNN Presents series is "in-depth reporting". In this case, it most certainly was not.

I expect far better from "the most trusted name in news". I had long believed CNN was the source for serious, balanced news, but have been very quickly disabused of that inaccurate notion in the recent past, particularly since Bush's re-election. At this point, I look at CNN's administration-friendly "reporting" with the same skepticism that I view FOX News, the ultimate right-wing propaganda machine.

Democrats have a bad habit of eating our own. We will take any opportunity to criticize one wing or perspective within the party, or to silence an outspoken liberal voice. Perhaps the idea is to beat the Republicans to the punch. As if they would take things easier on us because we figure out what they’re going to attack before they attack it. In fact, we’re just doing their dirty work for them, and giving even more oomph to their arguments against us.

I propose this, if any given Democrat is going to spend thirty minutes, or some column inches, or radio time, or screen time, bitching, spend that time BITCHING ABOUT REPUBLICANS. They’ve learned how to do this. When they’re angry, or pissed about something not going their way, or just generally feeling grumpy or petulant, they take it out on Democrats. Doesn’t matter whether the Dems actually have anything to do with it or not. But they know that if they’re going to expend the energy, they’ll get more bang for their bitch now and further down the line if they bitch about the opposition party.

We need to do that. So next time any Dem feels like bitching about something, pick a Republican policy, or frame, lie or unfounded accusation to take issue with (there will always be plenty). We’ll get a lot more mileage now and in the future if we stop biting each other’s heads off and take the fight where it should be – the Republicans’ doorstep.

To re-visit and slightly clarify part of my framing post on SS:

The absolute worst-case scenario with the current system, if we do *nothing* at all, is that somewhere between 2037 and 2042, benefits will drop from 100% payout to 70-something %.

The Bush plan GUARANTEES benefit cuts for everyone, *immediately*, plus Two Trillion Dollars of federal debt.

How the hell is that an improvement?

I gotta tell you, if I were on the IOC, NYC wouldn't even be a consideration. Period.

Especially after the recent fire destroying the A C line signaling station. Security in NYC is completely inadequate for New Yorkers now, how could it possibly be enough to protect international delegations in such an extremely high profile, extremely well-watched and attended event?

Nevermind that it's impossible to tell what state this nation will be in by 2012. With Bush's reelection, Americans have basically given our seal of approval to all Bush's international "Fuck You" policies. As many nations as there are who hate us right now, how many more will there be by 2012, after Bush has invaded Iran, Syria and North Korea as well? And installed big brother Jeb as the next dictator-in-chief (through the use of those Republican owned, private source, vote switching and stealing machines). How much international support will we have left? And how much bigger a bullseye will there be on New York in 2012 than there is now? Than there was on September 11, 2001?

When NYC advanced to the current level of consideration for the 2012 Olympic bid, I think we were basically getting a sympathy vote. Let's throw those New Yorkers something from the world to bolster them after everything they suffered on 9/11.

Well, now it's just not safe. We simply could not possibly afford to provide the assurances of safety necessary for competitors, spectators and NY residents that the Olympics would require. And look at how committed the administration is to helping NYers -- we get a fraction per capita of the Homeland Security money that most other states get. States with no ports, no major financial centers, no reason to even remotely justify the funding they receive, and sometimes without even ideas enough for how to spend it.

Bloomberg should quit wasting money on ads, money we don't have, money that could be much better spent on public programs like education and affordable housing, to name just two. The Olympic bid at this point is absurd, if not obscene, and the IOC should spare us the expense of pursuing it and just come straight out and say "Forget it. You re-elected Bush, and your country just isn't safe. America no longer reflects the spirit of international respect and cooperation that is the foundation, the very heart of the Olympic games."

Update 2/20/05... Seems I'm not far off the mark. According to this article in The Guardian Unlimited here, New York isn't even top three. Paris is in the lead, then London, then Madrid. Why is Bloomberg wasting New Yorkers' time and money on this? We have no chance. Period.

The Republican hysteria over Social Security is false and misleading.

Social Security is an extremely successful public safety net program that has functioned very well for 70 years. It needs small adjustments every once in a while, and it has gotten them, and it continues to protect millions of senior citizens, the disabled, and family members of workers who have died, from living their lives in abject destitution.

Social Security cannot go bankrupt because it has no creditors. The absolute worst-case scenario under the current system is that SS can only pay out benefits commensurate with payroll deductions that are coming in. That would mean lower benefits for all. But the Bush plan *guarantees* benefit cuts for all recipients. They're not even shy about this. And those people who choose to allow the privatization of some of their contributions will actually only be entitled to money that those stock-market vulnerable investments earn above and beyond what they would have been guaranteed if they hadn't agreed to privatization. *If* those contributions even do manage to earn more than the guaranteed benefit (which would be a reduced benefit already, remember?).

The neo-fascists' only endgame is to destroy Social Security, and throw a little money to their Wall Street campaign contributors in the meantime.

So please, ignore the hysterical Republicans' doomsday prognostications, and tell your Representatives to protect Social Security!

[cf the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blog, Stakeholder, at blog.dccc.org/mt/]

Just watched The Exonerated, taped for me by a colleague Thursday night (re-running Sat 1/29 and Sun 1/30 on CourtTV). The show is from a play that ran here in NYC about 6 innocent people who were convicted and sent to death row, and eventually exonerated. It's well done, well acted (cast includes Susan Sarandon, Aidan Quinn, Danny Glover, and others) and moving. Also gives one a lot to think about.

As one of the characters says, "the criminal justice system is FUCKED UP". That's about it, in a nutshell.

I have a few things to say on this issue (obviously, I'm here blogging it, aren't I?).

Our criminal justice system was *supposed* to be about rehabilitation. It's not. Not the way it's set up and run now. It's punishment, pure and simple.

But if we really believe that criminals should only be punished, then we should execute everyone who commits a crime. Any crime. You steal a pack of gum, BAM, you're dead. You kill 56 people, BAM, you're dead. You kill anyone for any crime, and you'd sure run out of criminals fast. And you'd save a heck of a lot of money that's currently being spent on the prison system.

But that's absurd, you might say. Of course it is. What if you wrongly convicted someone? And wouldn't it be applied disproportionately to minorities? What about the possibility of an overzealous prosecution? And what would other countries say about us? Can't we ask all of that of the current system?

So, short of killing every single criminal, we should kill none, and focus our system on rehabilitation. Most criminals will eventually serve out their time and be released. Doesn't it just make sense for the public good that those individuals be rehabilitated, well-adjusted and able to become contributing members of society? Doesn't it make sense to ensure that they don't end up back in the prison system, further draining the public coffers?

There are a few rehabilitation programs out there, notably Man Alive in San Francisco, and their Resolve to Stop the Violence Program (RSVP). The program actually treats inmates as human beings. The county jail operating that program has shown a marked reduction in jailhouse violence (almost non-existent in that program), and a significant reduction in recidivism. But one program in one county is not enough. The whole system needs an overhaul.

And part of that overhaul needs to address the issue of prison rape. The fact that it exists is unacceptable. The fact that it has become not only accepted, but expected and even joked about in popular culture is appalling. The popular and successful show Law & Order has incorporated the expectation that rape will occur in prison into many of their story lines. I'm sure the show's producers would argue that they are simply reflecting reality. But isn't that precisely the problem? Society as a whole has written off all prisoners as inhuman and not worthy of devoting resources to (though we funnel a LOT of money into the prison system - isn't it something like $50,000 per year per prisoner? That's more than I earn in a year!), and the global acceptance of rape as the status quo is just painfully clear evidence of that.

Rape is not rehabilitation, nor is it an appropriate form of punishment for any criminal. Punishment is for the courts to decide, not fellow inmates. Rape only serves to compound whatever emotional or psychologial issues a given felon may have, and make that person much more likely to re-offend when released, nevermind the often permanent physical and emotional trauma, even death, that occur. There is a group called Stop Prisoner Rape (www.spr.org) that deals with this issue, not just in the US prison system but around the world.

Further, the permitting and even encouraging of prison gangs, violence and rape, and it is most assuredly permitted and not prevented by prison officers, is a classist effort to encourage the poor (for most in prison are poor, and arguably there because they are poor) to kill themselves off. Lock them away and let them do away with themselves, so the rich can stay in their mansions and townhouses and go to the theatre in their limousines and not be bothered by those irksome lower socioeconomic classes.

This rant may be a bit less coherent than I might like, since it is about 1:30 in the morning right now, but I really wanted to write about this.

Watch The Exonerated, and start thinking about this, too.

This one really bugs me because I can't imagine how the Dem strategists completely missed it.

Much has been made of the exit poll question that asked voters what their Most Important Issue was. 22% said it was "Moral Values", and 80% of them voted for Bush. Well, the Republicans were all over that, saturating the media with it, to the point that it's now basically taken as gospel, so to speak, that the Dems lost because they're somehow out of touch with American values.

Well, I went back and looked at that exit poll data again (which is still available here: CNN Exit Poll Data ) and guess what I found? Only three questions after the Issues question, there was another 7-choice question asking what was the Most Important Quality in a candidate. Well, fully 24% (which is more than 22%) said that Will Bring Change was their Most Important Quality, and alsmost ALL of them (95%, which is more than 80%) voted for KERRY.

So, FAR MORE voters voted for Kerry to Bring Change than voted for Bush based on their Moral Values.

So why on earth are the Democratic strategists tripping over themselves to run to the right chasing after those Moral Values voters, when we already had far more voters in our base who wanted Kerry to Bring Change?

It's just bad strategy, and not at all based on facts, or actual constituent desires.