John Fife's interview on Democracy Now a couple of weeks ago got to the crux of the criminality and inhumanity of the Bush administration. It's a simple reflection of the criminality and inhumanity of the Reagan administration. Reagan was Commander-in-Chief for eight years and is now largely celebrated, while being reviled only by a few of us. If Reagan could get away with it and be so honored, Bush figured he should be able to do the same. It is really at the heart of why I'm so saddened and perplexed at what is accepted behavior by our leaders in this country which celebrates values of liberty and opportunity for all.
The ideologues and thugs from the Reagan era are just being recycled by Bush. Fife brings up the prime examples of John Negroponte and Elliott Abrams. When will we ever learn.
Fife's interview was preceded by a report on the arrests and charges being brought against members of the humanitarian aid group, No More Deaths. I highly recommend both the report and the interview.
Showing posts with label White House criminality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White House criminality. Show all posts
Friday, 4 May 2007
Friday, 13 April 2007
EPA Action: Tardy, not Premature
If the Bush administration were honest, they would have renamed the Environment Protection Agency as the Corporation Protection Agency. Last week the Supreme Court sided with Massachussetts and other states in declaring that the EPA may regulate greenhouse gases. Yesterday EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said the agency was looking at options, but it was premature to talk about it.
Premature indeed! When it comes to protecting our environment, this administration has always been a day late and a dollar short. It's a shame too. Even now the EPA is loaded with good people committed to protecting our environment, but often when scientists are ready to issue reports contrary to wishes of corporate big wigs in bed with the administration, those scientists are muzzled. When enforcement threatens the profits of companies too cozy with the Republican establishment, enforcement is defunded. And when regulating greenhouse gas emissions might cost Detroit too much, well the EPA Administrators assigned to rein in the environmental "excesses" of the rank and file declare that EPA lacks the authority to do so.
The Bush administration seems to have no problem exceeding its authority when it comes to abbrogating individuals' civil liberties in the so-called war against terror, but exercises illogical restraint on its authority when curbing corporate behavior that may risk our collective future.
The Supreme Court dealt a rebuke to that logic last week, when it instructed the EPA that it did have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and would be required to defend lack of such regulations on a scientific basis.
With all due respect to Linda Greenhouse, coastal dwellers in future generations will be far less concerned about John Roberts' trepidation about the legal doctrine of 'standing' than they will about excess corporate control of government if that is not reined in before their communities are inundated.
Premature indeed! When it comes to protecting our environment, this administration has always been a day late and a dollar short. It's a shame too. Even now the EPA is loaded with good people committed to protecting our environment, but often when scientists are ready to issue reports contrary to wishes of corporate big wigs in bed with the administration, those scientists are muzzled. When enforcement threatens the profits of companies too cozy with the Republican establishment, enforcement is defunded. And when regulating greenhouse gas emissions might cost Detroit too much, well the EPA Administrators assigned to rein in the environmental "excesses" of the rank and file declare that EPA lacks the authority to do so.
The Bush administration seems to have no problem exceeding its authority when it comes to abbrogating individuals' civil liberties in the so-called war against terror, but exercises illogical restraint on its authority when curbing corporate behavior that may risk our collective future.
The Supreme Court dealt a rebuke to that logic last week, when it instructed the EPA that it did have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and would be required to defend lack of such regulations on a scientific basis.
With all due respect to Linda Greenhouse, coastal dwellers in future generations will be far less concerned about John Roberts' trepidation about the legal doctrine of 'standing' than they will about excess corporate control of government if that is not reined in before their communities are inundated.
Saturday, 12 February 2005
Naiveté
I grew up surrounded by the notion that liberality was well intended but beset by a proclivity for naiveté. The criminal can't be trusted, therefore the law must be harsh. The rogue state has no honor, hence all negotiation must be done while carrying a big stick. Any soft-heartedness will be taken advantage of; welfare only fosters dependency; and it's every man for himself in this dog eat dog world.
I've been happy to acknowledge considerable truth in all of those statements. Yet I hold steadfastly to the belief that giving oneself over to hard-heartedness amounts to capitulation to the darkness within, and must be resisted else we become as undesirable as that about which we are avoiding being naive. What good is it to avoid being fooled by evil, if in the process we become evil. By all means, let's avoid being fooled, but let us also act with compassion.
Why, that sounds like compassionate conservatism! (I know that real compassionate conservatives exist, but in government they are rare, and perhaps never proclaim the mantle.)
But naiveté is not exclusively a liberal tendency. In fact the whole equation in terms of who is getting duped, and who is arguing for realistic analysis has been turned completely on its head in the last several years. It often comes down to who one thinks is deserving of trust. Ideology is a terrible barometer for such a measurement.
The untrustworthy among us are only too happy to adopt whatever ideology is most likely to advance them personally. As our country has increasingly swung to the right that face of convenience has become increasingly a "conservative" one. Not that the "liberal" face is not still used by duplicitous frauds where that is the one that works. Frauds deserve to be unmasked regardless of their putative political stands.
Checks and balances remain our constant friend in the struggle to have truth prevail, and anyone should be wary of those who see them as a nuisance. Exposing the truth is job one, deciding on how to respond to it requires thoughtful deliberation. It is far better for a group of interests who disagree over methods to hammer out a compromise with the aim for a shared vision, than for those who agree about a method to ram through their agenda when they have not agreed on what vision they are serving.
Let's presume for the moment that the vast majority of our current leaders are motivated primarily by a genuine desire to spread freedom, foster self-improvement among our citizens, and to serve justice with compassion. I know it's a stretch, but consider that if it's not a majority, there are certainly some for whom that is true. Now let's revisit the question of naiveté.
When one believes after a campaign of shock and awe which litters the land with ordnance laden with depleted uranium, that the citizens whose despotic leaders have thus been deposed will universally welcome the foreign victors as liberators, who is being naive?
When one believes that by lifting regulations which limit the full breadth of options for industry, free market forces will be sufficient to assure corporate responsibility in the stewardship of our environment, the fair treatment of its employees, and the safety of its customers, who is being naive?
When one believes that prosecutors and law enforcement, unburdened by rules which disqualify valid but misobtained evidence, or limit interrogation techniques, won't frequently abuse that new power, who is being naive?
It's not that we shouldn't work toward the removal of despots, and allow markets sufficient freedom to promote innovation, and give law enforcement reasonable tools to deal with unscrupulous criminals; it's that we can't give carte blanche to the despot removers, the free-marketeers, and the prosecutors and police merely because they've signed up to work in those professions. There's a balance to be struck, and to steal a phrase from George himself, "it's hard work" to reach it, and that work is never done.
Now that I've engaged this little fantasy that our administration is purely motivated, but simply too naive in its trust for what are presumed to be the forces for good in the world, let me say that I'm deeply skeptical. There are simply too many instances where before and after statements don't line up, and that which seems disingenuous at best, seems likelier to be outright deception. Sure there are good people within the administration, and there are many others who justify what they know or suspect to be falsehoods as necessary tools toward a greater end. But at the end of the day I can't reconcile the behavior I've seen reported with anything other than something being deeply rotten. But if I'm wrong and it's not rotten then it is disturbingly naive.
I've been happy to acknowledge considerable truth in all of those statements. Yet I hold steadfastly to the belief that giving oneself over to hard-heartedness amounts to capitulation to the darkness within, and must be resisted else we become as undesirable as that about which we are avoiding being naive. What good is it to avoid being fooled by evil, if in the process we become evil. By all means, let's avoid being fooled, but let us also act with compassion.
Why, that sounds like compassionate conservatism! (I know that real compassionate conservatives exist, but in government they are rare, and perhaps never proclaim the mantle.)
But naiveté is not exclusively a liberal tendency. In fact the whole equation in terms of who is getting duped, and who is arguing for realistic analysis has been turned completely on its head in the last several years. It often comes down to who one thinks is deserving of trust. Ideology is a terrible barometer for such a measurement.
The untrustworthy among us are only too happy to adopt whatever ideology is most likely to advance them personally. As our country has increasingly swung to the right that face of convenience has become increasingly a "conservative" one. Not that the "liberal" face is not still used by duplicitous frauds where that is the one that works. Frauds deserve to be unmasked regardless of their putative political stands.
Checks and balances remain our constant friend in the struggle to have truth prevail, and anyone should be wary of those who see them as a nuisance. Exposing the truth is job one, deciding on how to respond to it requires thoughtful deliberation. It is far better for a group of interests who disagree over methods to hammer out a compromise with the aim for a shared vision, than for those who agree about a method to ram through their agenda when they have not agreed on what vision they are serving.
Let's presume for the moment that the vast majority of our current leaders are motivated primarily by a genuine desire to spread freedom, foster self-improvement among our citizens, and to serve justice with compassion. I know it's a stretch, but consider that if it's not a majority, there are certainly some for whom that is true. Now let's revisit the question of naiveté.
When one believes after a campaign of shock and awe which litters the land with ordnance laden with depleted uranium, that the citizens whose despotic leaders have thus been deposed will universally welcome the foreign victors as liberators, who is being naive?
When one believes that by lifting regulations which limit the full breadth of options for industry, free market forces will be sufficient to assure corporate responsibility in the stewardship of our environment, the fair treatment of its employees, and the safety of its customers, who is being naive?
When one believes that prosecutors and law enforcement, unburdened by rules which disqualify valid but misobtained evidence, or limit interrogation techniques, won't frequently abuse that new power, who is being naive?
It's not that we shouldn't work toward the removal of despots, and allow markets sufficient freedom to promote innovation, and give law enforcement reasonable tools to deal with unscrupulous criminals; it's that we can't give carte blanche to the despot removers, the free-marketeers, and the prosecutors and police merely because they've signed up to work in those professions. There's a balance to be struck, and to steal a phrase from George himself, "it's hard work" to reach it, and that work is never done.
Now that I've engaged this little fantasy that our administration is purely motivated, but simply too naive in its trust for what are presumed to be the forces for good in the world, let me say that I'm deeply skeptical. There are simply too many instances where before and after statements don't line up, and that which seems disingenuous at best, seems likelier to be outright deception. Sure there are good people within the administration, and there are many others who justify what they know or suspect to be falsehoods as necessary tools toward a greater end. But at the end of the day I can't reconcile the behavior I've seen reported with anything other than something being deeply rotten. But if I'm wrong and it's not rotten then it is disturbingly naive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
