Daniel Yergen and I are well aware that we have an oil based economy, a failed oil man as a failed president, a nation whose leading corp. is Exxon and a political elite that has recognized for 50 years that control over mid east oil is a strategic imperative.
It's rather naive for folks to respond to say that we are not 'taking' the oil. It is not about taking or plunder, it's about control over a resource rich region, regardless of where the barrels go. The elite is using 20 year old Spcs from Iowa and S Carolina to ensure that Iraq's resources are controlled and controllable. It is a conspiracy theory to deny this.
Paul O'Neil, the appointed and ousted Treasury secretary spoke of administration folks poring over Iraqi oilfield maps in 2002, shortly before the Iraq-WMD charade was literally "rolled out." Noam Chomsky wryly observed that were Iraq's primary export to be pickles we would not be there. A key benchmark for Iraq's so called government is the carving up of oil revenues for picking off by Western companies. In so much as most of Congress exists to serve these companies, few have signed on to Kucinich's attempts to block this provision.
According to striking Iraqi oil workers ( i.e. the only people whose opinions count on this) who visited the US, this hands over Iraq's only resource to the same neo Colonial machine for exploitation. Of course, the eeeevil liberal media has covered their visit in copious detail in an attempt to embarrass Bush, right???? Ultra liberal Harry Reid has invited them to Congress, right? No, this is another failure of the media and so called liberal democrats, where any discussion of oil has been careful relegated to random columns six years too late.
One can also comment on the local interpretation of these events. What is really pathetic and tragic is that 1420 WMAR apologists, concerned with only seeming tougher than the liberal straw men they fantasize about continue to allude to Saddam-UBL links, to "finding" WMDs and, when all else fails, to asserting in meandering theological arguments that killing Arabs and invading their nations is really a plus in a titanic "clash of civilizations."
One should conclude that, as Paul O'Neill and so many others have written, the conquest of Iraq was a choice, not a necessity. The reasons are obvious and have nothing to do with terrorism. That is merely an inconvenience to be borne by citizens.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Bush succeeds on immigration
Bush and the Republican party have oft been criticized by the right wing punditocracy for their "inaction" on immigration. In truth, they have pursued a clear and obvious policy. They have shepherded and accelerated a bipartisan policy of hemispheric economic integration that shortchanges workers everywhere ( leading to low wages and immigration) and favors corporations ( high profits for elites).
Failing to address this and rallying ill informed hate is the purview of talk radio. Here, showing sympathy to victims of this economic dislocation is treason. The notion that US workers should show solidarity with other American workers and get together to fix the system is suppressed by the perpetual outrage that some illegals commit crimes (shock!!!). Treating this issue as cheaply and sensationally as any other is a sure fire way to advance in the realm of White Male Angst Radio .
While they are hardly guilt free in this, at least opponents of NAFTA and CAFTA have a home in the Democratic party. At least a wing exists that seeks to prioritize working families over unearned income generation.
This is the message that Ron Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel want to send. In a political race where large corporations effectively select the candidates and disseminate tabloid like propaganda to local outrage radio like WMAR 1420, this is difficult to achieve.
Failing to address this and rallying ill informed hate is the purview of talk radio. Here, showing sympathy to victims of this economic dislocation is treason. The notion that US workers should show solidarity with other American workers and get together to fix the system is suppressed by the perpetual outrage that some illegals commit crimes (shock!!!). Treating this issue as cheaply and sensationally as any other is a sure fire way to advance in the realm of White Male Angst Radio .
While they are hardly guilt free in this, at least opponents of NAFTA and CAFTA have a home in the Democratic party. At least a wing exists that seeks to prioritize working families over unearned income generation.
This is the message that Ron Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel want to send. In a political race where large corporations effectively select the candidates and disseminate tabloid like propaganda to local outrage radio like WMAR 1420, this is difficult to achieve.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Pittman vs Unger
In an off-election year nationally, now that the folly of the Iraq war has been ascertained, gay marriage resolved and immigration exhausted, south coast pundit watchers and armchair wags can bask in the clash of two local media figures.
For my own part, I think the gulf in quality between print and broadcast media has long been apparent. This gap is amplified on the southcoast where an autonomous, professional, news product generator like the Standard Times can be compared with the local broadcaster whose afternoon commentary exhibits no apparent standards, etiquette or discipline in the manufacture of little more than hot air.
For now, one example will suffice: In his latest entry on his website* Ken Pittman attempts to paint Bob Unger as, of all things, "a leftist". Bob's biases are apparently clear because, in one example, his paper labeled an anti immigration protester "a heckler" and labeled anti marriage amendment folks as "counter demonstrators." **
However, a closer look at two disparate events and two very different types of protester reveals the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least not manufactured of malice and bias. The anti marriage rally was held in public, near City Hall, with police yawning, college kids snapping photos, each side bringing their dogs along for the outing and each side sticking to their side of a street with little malice shown as groups stood a disciplined 8 feet apart.
When immigrant advocates assembled indoors at NBVT HS the sole protestor ( apart from a local KKK type group) repeatedly and specifically yelled at each speaker until she was asked to leave the building by organizers and NBPD - (TV coverage later showed her, sign in hand, chest to chest with NBPD officers, screaming "Where's ICE" in response to their hands-raised request for her to calm down!!!!)***. The Standard times printed her concerns, her status as a Navy Vet, and her pointed criticisms of the Standard Times itself.
While your position on each of the two hot button issues will mean you lend sympathy to one protest over the other, the differences are apparent. Indeed, Pittman's outrage is curious indeed, as he has previously:
+ Expressed indignation when Columbia students ran onstage to disrupt a Minuteman/Jim Gilchrist event.
+ Curiously never asked Gilchirst on air why one of his "security" kicked an off stage student in the temple.
+ Had warned that any "counter protesters" would face arrest at his own anti -immigrant rally****
+ Extensively and fawningly interviewed Ms. Blaha and gay marriage foe Larry Cirignano ( Cirignano himself accused of assaulting a woman at a rally).
Indeed, if there are biases here that warp coverage, it is pretty clear on which media organ this occurs.
__________________________________
*This latest "column" has been heavily edited since the first version was uploaded Sunday. Most interesting is the completely revised description of Pittman's conversation with Unger outside NECN studios.
**In each case however, it is worth noting that complete coverage of both events allowed any reader to make up his or her own mind (google it). Is this the case with WBSM coverage??
*** One wonders what law and order "conservatives" think of such behavior.
**** This WALL rally received extensive before and after coverage by Unger's STimes.
For my own part, I think the gulf in quality between print and broadcast media has long been apparent. This gap is amplified on the southcoast where an autonomous, professional, news product generator like the Standard Times can be compared with the local broadcaster whose afternoon commentary exhibits no apparent standards, etiquette or discipline in the manufacture of little more than hot air.
For now, one example will suffice: In his latest entry on his website* Ken Pittman attempts to paint Bob Unger as, of all things, "a leftist". Bob's biases are apparently clear because, in one example, his paper labeled an anti immigration protester "a heckler" and labeled anti marriage amendment folks as "counter demonstrators." **
However, a closer look at two disparate events and two very different types of protester reveals the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least not manufactured of malice and bias. The anti marriage rally was held in public, near City Hall, with police yawning, college kids snapping photos, each side bringing their dogs along for the outing and each side sticking to their side of a street with little malice shown as groups stood a disciplined 8 feet apart.
When immigrant advocates assembled indoors at NBVT HS the sole protestor ( apart from a local KKK type group) repeatedly and specifically yelled at each speaker until she was asked to leave the building by organizers and NBPD - (TV coverage later showed her, sign in hand, chest to chest with NBPD officers, screaming "Where's ICE" in response to their hands-raised request for her to calm down!!!!)***. The Standard times printed her concerns, her status as a Navy Vet, and her pointed criticisms of the Standard Times itself.
While your position on each of the two hot button issues will mean you lend sympathy to one protest over the other, the differences are apparent. Indeed, Pittman's outrage is curious indeed, as he has previously:
+ Expressed indignation when Columbia students ran onstage to disrupt a Minuteman/Jim Gilchrist event.
+ Curiously never asked Gilchirst on air why one of his "security" kicked an off stage student in the temple.
+ Had warned that any "counter protesters" would face arrest at his own anti -immigrant rally****
+ Extensively and fawningly interviewed Ms. Blaha and gay marriage foe Larry Cirignano ( Cirignano himself accused of assaulting a woman at a rally).
Indeed, if there are biases here that warp coverage, it is pretty clear on which media organ this occurs.
__________________________________
*This latest "column" has been heavily edited since the first version was uploaded Sunday. Most interesting is the completely revised description of Pittman's conversation with Unger outside NECN studios.
**In each case however, it is worth noting that complete coverage of both events allowed any reader to make up his or her own mind (google it). Is this the case with WBSM coverage??
*** One wonders what law and order "conservatives" think of such behavior.
**** This WALL rally received extensive before and after coverage by Unger's STimes.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Pittman: Dont Dare Disagree
1420 WMAR's host and webmaster of his self named website is perpetually heard espousing the virtues of an open and vibrant exchange of ideas. However, reality is a little different, where a radio studio is stacked with several ideological partisans for every caller, the frames of every national news debate are set by verbal cut and pastes from News Max or other far right web sites, and ( even when the terminate button is held in check) the last word or wrap up always goes the triumvirate of spin.
One would expect that the first and last of these tactics would be held in check online. Indeed, I have participated in several discussions on our esteemed host's website; invariably having factual arguments met with usual insults ( anti-America, terrorist etc. etc.)
A nadir was finally reached with the culmination of a discussion with host blogger Bob Grant. In my refuting his claim that "victory" against the gargantuan Muslim enemy can ignore sufferings that motivate many of our enemies and damage our reputation, it turns out that Mr. Grant or the esteemed webmaster himself were compelled to edit and rework my posts in a manner befitting a middle schooler.
Insult was recently added to injury when Mr Grant went on to respond to my post that he himself had reworked!!! If your ears can not tell you what this enterprise is all about, go see it with your own eyes ( the site could use the traffic).
One would expect that the first and last of these tactics would be held in check online. Indeed, I have participated in several discussions on our esteemed host's website; invariably having factual arguments met with usual insults ( anti-America, terrorist etc. etc.)
A nadir was finally reached with the culmination of a discussion with host blogger Bob Grant. In my refuting his claim that "victory" against the gargantuan Muslim enemy can ignore sufferings that motivate many of our enemies and damage our reputation, it turns out that Mr. Grant or the esteemed webmaster himself were compelled to edit and rework my posts in a manner befitting a middle schooler.
Insult was recently added to injury when Mr Grant went on to respond to my post that he himself had reworked!!! If your ears can not tell you what this enterprise is all about, go see it with your own eyes ( the site could use the traffic).
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Lying about immigrants (and Dems)
Fresh from the whole French Liberty inscription debacle , at 2.35pm or so today comes this zinger:
"Listen! It is a Democratic legislation** that does not allow employers to ask about legal status."
Ruh huh eally??? What evil Dem law was that which banned formerly compulsory I-9 Forms ?
If you care, the rest of the show was made up of anecdotal and non factual linkages between American citizen hardship and illegal Alien largese.
** Ken insists on calling the legislature the legislation :grin:
"Listen! It is a Democratic legislation** that does not allow employers to ask about legal status."
Ruh huh eally??? What evil Dem law was that which banned formerly compulsory I-9 Forms ?
If you care, the rest of the show was made up of anecdotal and non factual linkages between American citizen hardship and illegal Alien largese.
** Ken insists on calling the legislature the legislation :grin:
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Pittman: Lying about Al Sharpton
IN the blogosphere and on air WBSM host Ken Pittman has propagated a core lie about Al Sharpton and the Don Imus controversy. Pittman's column and comments claim that Sharpton disingenuously sought an apology from Don Imus and , after duping Imus into appearing on the Sharpton radio show, responded to Imus's apology by calling for his ouster from CBS/MSNBC.
However, like a stage managed trip to the Shawmut diner by a Globe reporter, it's all complete nonsense. From the break of the Imus story, Al Sharpton has been nothing if not consistent and unswerving in his call for Imus to be fired.
On March 7th, Sharpton pledged to picket if Imus wasn't fired. On March 9th, before the above mentioned radio broadcast ( where, Pittman tells us, Imus had to actually pass black students in the hallways) Sharpton confirmed that he wanted Imus fired. ON that very morning Sharpton described how Imus came to appear on the Sharpton show:
He said, “Come on my show.” I said, “I would never try to get listeners to your show.” He said, “I’ll come to yours.”
According to the Pittman version, Sharpton had "asked for the apology" and Imus went to perform that very act. Where is this Sharpton request? I can't find it. If this call for contrition does exist, does it negate his easy to find call for Imus to be fired from day one?
We should also note that the fact that some eeevil liberal website recorded and repeated the Imus comments is also considered deeply unfair ( this from a guy who claims conservative talk radio succeeds through its dynamic and uninterrupted exchange of ideas). Imus and McGuirk have committed to boosting their ratings through racist and misogynistic "humor" for years but it is political correctness to be offended by this? This from a person who gets offended when a store clerk doesn't say the right combination of merry and xmas at a certain point in the year ( see more on that here ) ; from a radio station that stirs up Saturday morning callers's defense of American's values by claiming that Tiverton school district banned Easter ( it didn't, of course).
Please note that Imus had and continues to have free speech. MSNBC and CBS have determined that this brand of "humor" is not quite marketable right now. However, his fellow travelers in WMAR ( white male angst radio) have decided that it is African Americans who are far too loud and uppity in practicing their right to free speech ( like Emmet Till , I guess). How dare Rutgers hold a press conference and complain says Limbaugh. No host or caller to WMAR/WBSM whines about anything, right? How dare Sharpton use free speech to express his position and stick to it. In WMAR world, this is hypocrisy.
However, like a stage managed trip to the Shawmut diner by a Globe reporter, it's all complete nonsense. From the break of the Imus story, Al Sharpton has been nothing if not consistent and unswerving in his call for Imus to be fired.
On March 7th, Sharpton pledged to picket if Imus wasn't fired. On March 9th, before the above mentioned radio broadcast ( where, Pittman tells us, Imus had to actually pass black students in the hallways) Sharpton confirmed that he wanted Imus fired. ON that very morning Sharpton described how Imus came to appear on the Sharpton show:
He said, “Come on my show.” I said, “I would never try to get listeners to your show.” He said, “I’ll come to yours.”
According to the Pittman version, Sharpton had "asked for the apology" and Imus went to perform that very act. Where is this Sharpton request? I can't find it. If this call for contrition does exist, does it negate his easy to find call for Imus to be fired from day one?
We should also note that the fact that some eeevil liberal website recorded and repeated the Imus comments is also considered deeply unfair ( this from a guy who claims conservative talk radio succeeds through its dynamic and uninterrupted exchange of ideas). Imus and McGuirk have committed to boosting their ratings through racist and misogynistic "humor" for years but it is political correctness to be offended by this? This from a person who gets offended when a store clerk doesn't say the right combination of merry and xmas at a certain point in the year ( see more on that here ) ; from a radio station that stirs up Saturday morning callers's defense of American's values by claiming that Tiverton school district banned Easter ( it didn't, of course).
Please note that Imus had and continues to have free speech. MSNBC and CBS have determined that this brand of "humor" is not quite marketable right now. However, his fellow travelers in WMAR ( white male angst radio) have decided that it is African Americans who are far too loud and uppity in practicing their right to free speech ( like Emmet Till , I guess). How dare Rutgers hold a press conference and complain says Limbaugh. No host or caller to WMAR/WBSM whines about anything, right? How dare Sharpton use free speech to express his position and stick to it. In WMAR world, this is hypocrisy.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Lying About Target
WBSM and Citadel broadcasting call for Target boycott
During today’s 3-4pm broadcast , WBSM’s host launched a broadside against retailer Target and recommended that shoppers not frequent the chain’s stores as it “refuses to honor” Christmas.
Apparently, the absence of the Salvation Army’s bell ringing kettle collectors – a long time xmas tradition- is clear evidence that Target is a part of the War on Christmas inc. – a dastardly campaign by so called Seculars to abolish the holiday and all its traditions. The host promised the WBSM listeners that he would continue to “let people know” who was and was not part of this heinous plot against “American values.”
In truth, concerned with prohibiting all solicitation at its stores while permitting kettle collections, Target had worked with the Salvation army to find a suitable replacement. A trip to Target.com or the Salvation army’s web site reveals the result: a Salvation army sponsored campaign to raise one million dollars via Target’s stores and web site – including the sale of sterling silver angel jewelry – a strange position for a Secular fanatic chain to take .
Those of us outside of the right-talk radio echo chamber are well aware of crazy email campaigns - particularly those against Target which have claimed that the chain does not support veterans or Christian charities. In truth, Target is ranked by Forbes as probably the largest charitable contributor in the retail industry – in particular in education and veteran support- and has this year lent its philanthropic expertise to a Salvation army campaign that will likely exceed all kettle collections by other chains.
It’s just a shame that a local broadcaster wants to boycott this effort.
During today’s 3-4pm broadcast , WBSM’s host launched a broadside against retailer Target and recommended that shoppers not frequent the chain’s stores as it “refuses to honor” Christmas.
Apparently, the absence of the Salvation Army’s bell ringing kettle collectors – a long time xmas tradition- is clear evidence that Target is a part of the War on Christmas inc. – a dastardly campaign by so called Seculars to abolish the holiday and all its traditions. The host promised the WBSM listeners that he would continue to “let people know” who was and was not part of this heinous plot against “American values.”
In truth, concerned with prohibiting all solicitation at its stores while permitting kettle collections, Target had worked with the Salvation army to find a suitable replacement. A trip to Target.com or the Salvation army’s web site reveals the result: a Salvation army sponsored campaign to raise one million dollars via Target’s stores and web site – including the sale of sterling silver angel jewelry – a strange position for a Secular fanatic chain to take .
Those of us outside of the right-talk radio echo chamber are well aware of crazy email campaigns - particularly those against Target which have claimed that the chain does not support veterans or Christian charities. In truth, Target is ranked by Forbes as probably the largest charitable contributor in the retail industry – in particular in education and veteran support- and has this year lent its philanthropic expertise to a Salvation army campaign that will likely exceed all kettle collections by other chains.
It’s just a shame that a local broadcaster wants to boycott this effort.
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Host Lying about Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
A recent assertion on local radio has been that the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations's wide ranging support for Saddam Hussein is irrelevant given FDR's alleged support for a monster like Joe Stalin in WW2.
While one could dismiss this as an unsurprising ignorance of WW2, the insult to the veterans of that war should not be ignored.
In WW2, the US and UK undertook to send 30 months of Arctic convoys to a USSR suffering starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage at the hands of the Wermacht. How this act of heroism by the thousands of sailors who risked treacherous conditions, losing thousands of colleagues, is called support for the brutal reign and actions of Josef Stalin is hard to discern.
In contrast, the support of Reagan and Bush for the brutal reign and actions of Saddam Hussein came at the height of his crimes. Reagan and Bush offered this vital support not when Saddam was defending his people from invasion , but while he was pursuing policies of starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage against Iranians.
Please review the facts below to determine if it is appropriate to insult the vets of WW2 to cover up Reagan and Bush's support for Saddam:
The Reagan administration pursued a deliberate policy aimed at ensuring an Iraqi victory after their invasion of Iran. In February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism despite the fact that Iraq support for Lebanese groups like Hezbollah only increased from this period.
It is recognized that US support was vital in prolonging the Iranian invasion through extensive and unusually generous loans and credits.
At the same time as Saddam ordered the murder of 150 Shiites from the city of Dujail in 1982 ( the sole crime for which he has been prosecuted,)Reagan issued various National security directives to begin an explicit policy of military and intelligence support. Released documents reveal extensive US knowledge of daily Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the invasion of Iran and battles against northern Kurdish insurgents. However, when the State department commented on this, Donald Rumsfled was quickly dispatched to Baghdad specifically to reassure the Iraq leader of US support. Indeed, Rumsfeld went so far as to offer Israeli assistance which was rejected. Also, despite formal prohibitions on the sale of military equipment before 1984, the administration repeatedly turned a blind eye to the sale of military helicopters and other vehicles. By 1984, this policy of support was advanced to the point that even support for Saddam's nuclear program was touted.
Around this period, when Iran tried to raise the chemical warfare issue at the UN, the US lead the charge in smothering the motion. Similarly, in the years following the killing of over 200 marines by Hezbollah, when the US House passed a bill to place Iraq back on the list of terror sponsors, the administration intervened.
By 1988, with the almost unprecedented use of chemical weapons by Iraq, the Iran invasion stalemated and wound down. Saddam Hussein's biggest concern was Kurdish rebellion in the north where Kurds had joined with Iranian forces. on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq attacked Halabja with 36 straight hours of poison gas shelling of VX, sarin, mustard gas, and other toxins ( reportedly also using the same helicopters mentioned above).
The initial Administration response was to blame the attack on the Iranians. Nonetheless, the US Senate passed, in September 1988 , a resolution condemning Iraq and cutting off vital financial support. Again, the Reagan administration intervenes and the bill dies.
By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. In order to assure Saddam that this support would continue despite rising domestic and international disgust for Saddam, Bob Dole visited Iraq with a senatorial group in April 1990, months before the Kuwait invasion. As was the case throughout the 1980s, international sanctions on dual use technology and domestic protocols to prevent the export of sensitive materials relative to national security were to be continually overlooked or surmounted in the case of Saddam Hussein.
While one could dismiss this as an unsurprising ignorance of WW2, the insult to the veterans of that war should not be ignored.
In WW2, the US and UK undertook to send 30 months of Arctic convoys to a USSR suffering starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage at the hands of the Wermacht. How this act of heroism by the thousands of sailors who risked treacherous conditions, losing thousands of colleagues, is called support for the brutal reign and actions of Josef Stalin is hard to discern.
In contrast, the support of Reagan and Bush for the brutal reign and actions of Saddam Hussein came at the height of his crimes. Reagan and Bush offered this vital support not when Saddam was defending his people from invasion , but while he was pursuing policies of starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage against Iranians.
Please review the facts below to determine if it is appropriate to insult the vets of WW2 to cover up Reagan and Bush's support for Saddam:
The Reagan administration pursued a deliberate policy aimed at ensuring an Iraqi victory after their invasion of Iran. In February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism despite the fact that Iraq support for Lebanese groups like Hezbollah only increased from this period.
It is recognized that US support was vital in prolonging the Iranian invasion through extensive and unusually generous loans and credits.
At the same time as Saddam ordered the murder of 150 Shiites from the city of Dujail in 1982 ( the sole crime for which he has been prosecuted,)Reagan issued various National security directives to begin an explicit policy of military and intelligence support. Released documents reveal extensive US knowledge of daily Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the invasion of Iran and battles against northern Kurdish insurgents. However, when the State department commented on this, Donald Rumsfled was quickly dispatched to Baghdad specifically to reassure the Iraq leader of US support. Indeed, Rumsfeld went so far as to offer Israeli assistance which was rejected. Also, despite formal prohibitions on the sale of military equipment before 1984, the administration repeatedly turned a blind eye to the sale of military helicopters and other vehicles. By 1984, this policy of support was advanced to the point that even support for Saddam's nuclear program was touted.
Around this period, when Iran tried to raise the chemical warfare issue at the UN, the US lead the charge in smothering the motion. Similarly, in the years following the killing of over 200 marines by Hezbollah, when the US House passed a bill to place Iraq back on the list of terror sponsors, the administration intervened.
By 1988, with the almost unprecedented use of chemical weapons by Iraq, the Iran invasion stalemated and wound down. Saddam Hussein's biggest concern was Kurdish rebellion in the north where Kurds had joined with Iranian forces. on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq attacked Halabja with 36 straight hours of poison gas shelling of VX, sarin, mustard gas, and other toxins ( reportedly also using the same helicopters mentioned above).
The initial Administration response was to blame the attack on the Iranians. Nonetheless, the US Senate passed, in September 1988 , a resolution condemning Iraq and cutting off vital financial support. Again, the Reagan administration intervenes and the bill dies.
By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. In order to assure Saddam that this support would continue despite rising domestic and international disgust for Saddam, Bob Dole visited Iraq with a senatorial group in April 1990, months before the Kuwait invasion. As was the case throughout the 1980s, international sanctions on dual use technology and domestic protocols to prevent the export of sensitive materials relative to national security were to be continually overlooked or surmounted in the case of Saddam Hussein.
Friday, November 3, 2006
Pittman lies to UMass kids about taxation
During a recent debate between Umass Dartmouth College Republicans and Democrats, our WBSM host asked the democratic students how they could justify a redistributive form of taxation when the sixteenth amendment "states that all taxes should be uniform." The students, obviously a little perplexed, responded that a progressive form of taxation is justified and worthwhile.
In effect, the host had forced the erroneous assumption ( lie?) that the constitution mandated a flat, uniform, tax and that the progressive form of taxation, where the tax burden increases with income, is unconstitutional.
In truth, the constitution asserts that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . Hence, in an era where state's rights were a highly sensitive topic, the burden of the public treasury would not fall more heavily on some states ( not individuals ..states!!!).
Then, at the turn of the 20th C, the actual 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution stated something approximating the oppositite of what the WBSM host asserted:Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, in truth the Sixteenth amendment laid the groundwork for a progressive form of taxation and does not undermine it.
Tell me again how talk radio is superior????
In effect, the host had forced the erroneous assumption ( lie?) that the constitution mandated a flat, uniform, tax and that the progressive form of taxation, where the tax burden increases with income, is unconstitutional.
In truth, the constitution asserts that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . Hence, in an era where state's rights were a highly sensitive topic, the burden of the public treasury would not fall more heavily on some states ( not individuals ..states!!!).
Then, at the turn of the 20th C, the actual 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution stated something approximating the oppositite of what the WBSM host asserted:Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, in truth the Sixteenth amendment laid the groundwork for a progressive form of taxation and does not undermine it.
Tell me again how talk radio is superior????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
