Folks,
I sent a link (http://www.rightingtheleft.com/) to David in Europe (vis-a-vis his upcoming advice to the DNC) and got the following in reply, which he asked me to send along to the list.
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: November 24, 2004 1:57:14 AM PST To: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Righting the Left
Dave,
I don't have the brin-l address with me here in europe and certainly don't need a 'brin:' email storm.� but you might pass on the following for me.
----------
Here in Europe, public opinion is STRONGER than I had even imagined.� Everyone seems quite convinced that america has gone out of its �&%#&/ mind.� I'll append-clip a couple of items.
What I find amazing is the efforst of OReilly and crown to ridicule the vote fraud scandal by saying 'it's already been disproved.'� A big lie worthy of Goebbels.� When some probush precincts counted far more votes than were evenm REGISTERED for that precinct, who but a partisan maniac would not see that something was rotten going on?
1/� You can dress him up, but you can't take him out.� His arrogance is unbelievable.� Even when meeting with the leaders of China, Japan, Russia and the other Asia-Pacific countries, Bush considers himself a law onto himself.
At the closing dinner of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) summit in Santiago on Sunday, Chilean security personnel
prevented Bush's Secret Service detail from entering with him
(no other leader of any of the 21 APEC countries was allowed to
bring his own security detail in to the private state�dinner).�
The Secret Service agents insisted on accompanying Bush and a
full-on physical scuffle ensued.� Bush left his host, the
Chilean president, went back and entered the fray to personally
reach in and extract one of his guards.� As the Washington Post
reported it, Bush "looked enormously pleased with himself. He
was wearing the expression that some critics call a smirk, and
his eyebrows shot up as if to wink at bystanders."� The incident
was played constantly on Chilean (and world)�TV.� "Chilean
journalists were critical of Bush's actions. Marcelo Romero, a
reporter with Santiago's newspaper La Cuarta, said: "All of us
journalists agree that President Bush looked like a cowboy. It
was total breach of protocol."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2550-2004Nov21.html
Tensions between the Chilean and US security personnel had been
building throughout the event, as the US insisted on its own
security.� The Chileans had already "disinvited" most of the VIP
guests to the big state dinner because of US insistence that
everyone pass through a metal detector.� As the NY Times
reported, "Can you imagine someone like the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court having to submit to an inspection by gringo
security agents in order to get into our own seat of
government?" asked one of the disinvited Chileans, who spoke on
condition that he not be identified. "That's an affront no
Chilean was going to tolerate, and [Chilean president] Lagos had
no choice but to act the way he did."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/international/americas/22prexy.html? oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=
So much for Bush improving foreign relations in his second term --
reassuring the world we are�not an arrogant bully who insists on "my
way or the highway."
What a jerk.� (Red America probably eats this stuff up.� Dubya flipping off the rest of the world.� And then gloating about it.)
But at least he now has a "mandate."
2/� Rarely do I find myself impressed with a NY Times editorial (as
opposed to�frequent outstanding op-ed pieces).� But this one today
(almost) nails it:� http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/opinion/23tue1.html.
The compromise intelligence reform bill that had virtually unanimous
support in the Senate and a solid majority in the House (including
most Democrats and and perhaps a majority of Republicans) never came
to a vote and will die in this Congress because the radical
Republican leadership in the House would rather have no bill than
one with solid Democratic support.� [As the Washington Post
reported:� "Hastert tried in vain to find enough votes to pass the
bill without relying mainly on Democrats, a scenario too
embarrassing for Republicans to endure."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A381-2004Nov20? language=printer]
They just couldn't bear the idea of true bipartisanship --
everything, especially the "war on terror" and "homeland security",
has to be a "wedge" issue that divides us rather than unites us.�
Otherwise, what's the point, right?� It is all about power.� Nothing
else.� (Fiscal responsibility, states rights, opposition to reckless
exercises in nation building, and basic ethical standards have all
been sacrificed for raw power.� Why should national security stand
in the way?)
[Am I the only one detecting a really hostile edge creeping into my commentaries these days?]
3/� By now I'm sure you have all read about how SOME Republican in
the House sneaked a provision into the omnibus spending bill that
would have allowed the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees to see the tax return of any taxpayer they
please without regard to any privacy provisions.� This was buried in
the 3000 page, $388 billion spending bill that no one is expected to
actually READ before approving.� It saw the light of day only
because a staffer for Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North
Dakota spotted it and sounded the alarm. �(Dorgan -- a great guy --
is one of the top targets for defeat by the Republicans in 2006.�
Like Daschle to the south this time around, he is highly
vulnerable.)� Strangely, while this came to light on Sunday, NO ONE
is claiming knowledge of where this provision came from, who drafted
the language, and who had it inserted into the bill.� ["I have no
earthly idea how it got in there," Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist,
R-Tenn., said on Fox News Sunday.� Is he lying, or does the guy who
runs the Senate really have "no earthly idea" what he is voting on?�
Which is worse?]� In the�manner that is becoming characteristic of
our new one-party system, no one, it�appears, is actually
RESPONSIBLE for anything. �Despite no claims of responsibility, we
are being told it was all just an innocent mistake and no one's
privacy was ever actually threatened.
For the record, here is the actual language:
Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.
4/� That monstrosity referred to as the omnibus spending bill
contains all manner of mischief in its 3000 pages.� One of my
favorite items tucked away in there is $2 million to re-purchase the
Presidential Yacht, Sequoia, that President Carter sold back in the
'70's because he viewed it as a manifestation of an Imperial
Presidency.� (The Imperial Presidency is back!)� And, no, this is
not just business as usual.� The pork in this bill is so
quantitatively different from anything in the past that it crosses
the line into a qualitative breakthrough.� A look at the fine print
in the legislation reveals more than 11,000 "earmarks" (i.e., money
set aside for special projects) that add up to about $15.8 billion,
or about 4% of the overall spending.� As the Boston Globe noted
(BEFORE the 11,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill):
Congressional conference committees, charged with reconciling
differences between House- and Senate-passed versions of the
same legislation, [from which the Republican leadership has been
excluding Democrats altogether] have become dramatically more
powerful in shaping bills. The panels, made up of a small group
of lawmakers appointed by leaders in both parties, added a
record 3,407 "pork barrel" projects to appropriations bills for
this year's federal budget, items that were never debated or
voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose
congressional patrons are kept secret. This compares to just 47
projects added in conference committee in 1994, the last year of
Democratic control.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/ back_room_dealing_a_capitol_trend?pg=full
So if I am doing my math right, the Republicans are sneaking in to their spending bills�more than�200 TIMES as many pork barrel items as the Democrats were at the peak of their power.� No wonder spending and the deficit are out of control.
As Sen. John McCain said on Meet the Press this past Sunday: "This process is broken."
That's what happens with one-party rule.� Absolute power corrupts absolutely.� (Of course, you can just change your ethics rules.)
5/� In light of the foregoing, I would diversify at least somewhat from dollar-denominated investments.� It would be an understatement to say that Morgan Stanley's chief economist, Stephan Roach, is a bit bearish:
His prediction: America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic ``armageddon.''
Press were not allowed into the meetings. But the Herald has obtained a copy of Roach's presentation. A stunned source who was at one meeting said, ``it struck me how extreme he was - much more, it seemed to me, than in public.''
Roach sees a 30 percent chance of a slump soon and a 60 percent chance that ``we'll muddle through for a while and delay the eventual armageddon.''
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
