Republicans Whine Over Buffet Donation

I happened upon this post at Clara Magram BC ‘06’s 'libertarian' blog . I just had to write her a comment or two; Short comment turned into an hour of research and writing. National Review writer Mona Charen BC'79 proves there is no such thing as fair reporting; every written article is meant to be some kind of throat slitting dagger at the opposition. Let's begin.

"The liberals are forever hyperventilating about “corporate money” and “corporate America” — the font of all evil to judge by some of the rhetoric. Yet when corporate America donates billions of dollars to charity, who benefits? Liberal and left wing causes. The Gates Foundation is a generous supporter, reports the Washington Times, of the Planned Parenthood Federation, the National Council of La Raza, and the Clinton Presidential Foundation." - Mona Charen [National Review]

The “liberals are forever hyperventilating” over corporate America? Is that meant to be ridiculous or was that a joke?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything about people of the liberal persuasion not liking money. For me, and I would say for most liberals, a label that seems to have been turned by people on the right and on occasion Clara into the Boogieman, the problem is not money, the problem is lack of progress for closing the wealth disparity gap. Sure, the reality is some people make a lot of money and a lot of people don’t; this is caused by numerous factors stretching from personal motivation, luck, education, what family you’re born into, etc. There’s nothing wrong with money, we simply need to help to make sure that there is some minimal amount of support so that you are even able to make an effort, to have some potential to make decent money. This is a tangent, but I believe it is our responsibility as a society to provide basic education and healthcare for every citizen. If you want to argue about it and come from a libertarian point of view, I will argue with you till my face is blue.

Corporations exist to provide a service and to be paid for that service. Are they evil for that reason? Of course not. Corporations are given a bad name by the culture that is permeated by their chain of command. When Rick Wagoner took over as CEO of GM he had a modest salary. After presiding over GM, the layoff of tens of thousands, poor performance, general employee discontent, he upped his salary to around $10 million + stock options. Could that extra $9 million have gone towards other measures to improve GM, of course. To his credit, he cut his own salary in half this year because of even crappier performance as of late.

Corporate America is not looked down upon by liberals, I think most people in general know that the company is not looking out for their interests; it’s looking out for its own. That’s positively why there is no such thing as employee loyalty anymore.

Warren Buffet I would say is pretty liberal for that matter. He opposes the estate tax (says that he doesn’t believe in people being born into privileged positions) for one. I like to think when corporate America donates money, everyone benefits. It is silly in my opinion to pigeon hole the Gates Foundation, or imply that it is solely a supporter of liberal and left wing causes. Look at what the Gates foundation gives money to, Washington Assoc of Churches, Libraries, Medicine, Education, Community organizations, Developing Nations.

Is that liberal or is that just philanthropy? I can’t figure out why you are trying to turn one man’s philanthropy into a conversation on partisan politics. Who exactly is supposed to benefit from philanthropy? Right wing causes? Churches are well served by philanthropy, so is economic independence programs (promotion of small businesses and econ. info). Perhaps Mona Charen needs to cease with the pessimistic “I’m sure the gate’s foundation has done some good in the world” attitude and realize her research is decidedly one-sided.

The Gates foundation funds numerous Christian and Catholic schools as well as the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is infamous for spearheading the anti-evolution campaign. Left, right? What the Gates Foundation funds is what they consider noble causes, they provide grants for global health, education, libraries, environmentally ravaged pacific, and other needs in that scope. Every grant needs to be looked at in context. Sure the Discovery Institute gets money, but it’s for transportation and ecological projects.

In the same light, Planned Parenthood does a lot of work concerning education and protection against sexually transmitted diseases. Many of their grants involve the reduction of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Money for the National Council of La Raza predominantly goes towards education for Latinos. Money for the Clinton Presidential Foundation goes towards bringing together world leaders to discuss pressing global issues (although the funding of their operating costs is to me an area where you could argue). Regardless if you are against abortion, rights for illegal immigrants, or Clinton, it is hard to look at the projects that these grants fund and disapprove (well at least to me).

Interestingly enough Planned Parenthood still gets money from Title X from the federal government. Alternatively, abstinence education programs have been funded by the government disproportionately at $400 million (Clinton’s funding for it was about $100 million). THE GOVERNMENT! Ironically enough, Title X and Planned Parenthood’s funding was set up by George H.W. Bush. Just so you know $50 million is given to programs through Title X. ARE WE NOT SUPRISED YET?

Is the liberal witch hunt over yet? It’s getting old and tired.

why waste time?

After losing the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore began touring the world giving speeches on Global Warming. I hope it's not too late; I do not want to be trudging around in the snow like Jake Gylenhaal in The Day After Tomorrow.

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary … to be good stewards of the environment, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil…".- George W. Bush

President Bush is absolutely correct; we need to get beyond the debate over global warming and begin to implement methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to begin now. Bush also had this to say in 2000:
"I think it's an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions. I tell you one thing I'm not going to do is I'm not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air."-George W. Bush

That quote was made in 2000 and to be frank, not much in terms of policy has been done. If something has been done, I haven't heard about it. What I have heard about is the Bush administration's terrible environmental record. Even Field and Stream magazine was pulling out their hair about their environmental policy.




This is a graph created by Robert A. Rohde that shows our carbon emissions. I think it's pretty obvious that this is not normal and has a lot to do with humans (cows did not burp that into the atmosphere). Carbon emissions are at record levels and the last decade has been the hottest years experienced to date. How many more Katrinas must we experience, how many more hurricane seasons when we run out of letters and have to use the greek alphabet must we go through before we acknowledge that there is a problem?

As I have pointed out many times in the past, Bush runs the country the only way he knows how, like an MBA student (and not a very good one, look how Arbusto and Spectrum 7 turned out). For climate change, we cannot rely on companies to self-regulate themselves, hope market conditions give incentive to be cleaner, to loosen environmental regulations so that companies make more money and can retroactively be cleaner. Competition is not going to reduce energy consumption or cause a switch to alternative energy; what is needed is sound political policy and public pressure.

Bush is wrong on many points, we know what is causing global warming, it is not a natural phenomena. It is ridiculous that global warming was raised in the 2000 election by Bush and has been ignored to date. To deal with global warming we need to wake up and accept that global industry is responsible, with a large part of the blame lying with the US. We need to move forward with any and all technology that we have at our disposal.

While I was studying at Columbia University I went to university wide lecture given by Klaus Lackner as he described the research he has been doing on carbon sequestration, which involves collecting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and putting it somewhere else; this is a method often touted by Bush but there is more to it. Bush has been primarily focusing on the technological aspect, and it’s particularly hard to admit as an engineer, technology will only take us so far and we require sound policy changes to make technology effective in the long run.

Carbon sequestration is a quick fix (an expensive one). Global warming is not a one-time phenomenon that we can fix by readjusting CO2 levels to previous averages. Carbon emissions will continue to increase at an exponential rate as the United States continues to skirt sound environmental policies and increase energy consumption; at the same time, industrializing countries like China will require huge amounts of energy. Digging a whole and putting the carbon into it isn’t going to work well if we have to put more and more carbon into the atmosphere every year, the earth can only absorb so much carbon. We are not solving a problem, we are ameliorating the symptoms. We can use carbon sequestering, but in conjunction with demanding increased fuel efficiency from car manufacturers, planting more trees, and implementing a plan to reduce emissions through the next decade.

As the most powerful country is the world it is our responsibility to take the lead on global warming. Kyoto was a flawed step in the right direction, but although we did not join we can still lead the way. Bush declared that he would not make the United States carry the burden of climate change, but we have to. It doesn’t matter that we are the largest contributor to the problem; we must take on the problem because we have the means to do so. For six years we have had no legitimate plan for approaching global warming; in the process of stagnation, oil companies have reached record profit and the atmosphere has not improved. There is no debate over the origin of global warming, we need to begin action now.

the nerve

That's just great. My laptop got stolen; not from a Starbucks, not from a library, from my own freaking house.

If you sit on your cards, you can't play

One of my professors reminded our class that when we graduate from college and move on to become industry professionals, we must retain our integrity and moral compass. Our product designs, if flawed from being rushed our other pressures could result in any number of deleterious effects on the company and the general public. The reminder was that greed and pride should not stand in the way of being the whistleblower when ethical misdeeds happen right in front of our face.

In our nation's highest office, the question that often arises is who will police the police? Perhaps the most publicized account from our parents' generation was Mark Felt's (Deep Throat) leading Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to lead the media's uncovering of scandals and misdeeds of the Nixon administration. In the 1970s presidential administrations had not yet learned how to strong arm the mass media, it was a time when investigative journalism was championed by a nation plagued by a credibility gap in its nation's highest ranks. Could Nixon have given himself immunity by citing extensive Presidential powers?

Actually he did.

Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal... Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position. - Richard Nixon

However, the media was not afraid. The overreaching of the Nixon administration did not go unnoticed or unpursued; Mark Felt's information led Nixon to become the first President of the United States to ever resign from office.

The Bush administration has been extraordinarily clever in this regard; the media has been reduced to a cowering group of journalists desperately hoping that the White House does not completely shut them out. Their response to investigative efforts by the new Woodward and Bernstein, the tag team of the traditional mass media and internet bloggers, has been to become increasingly insulated.

You can't hold someone accountable if nobody knows about it. However the only reasons why the Bush Administration would need to keep secrets is if disclosure of information was a vital matter of national security or if they were doing something wrong. To be fair, I want to believe that withholding information is a matter of national security; BUT why then has the administration disregarded following the legal means to perform such actions? The question as to why they would ignore the FISA courts which was specifically set up to authorize, even retroactively, such secret policies has been beaten to death by everyone who cares without informative answer. I think the more important question is if the domestic spying, financial spying, secret torture camps, etc. are so important, why have so many internal entities leaked information about them to the press?

If we are all able to agree that these policies are vital to our security, why have internal employees found it so desperately necessary to make sure that the public knows what is happening? Obviously more than one person is having an ethical dilemma; a dilemma so strong that they are in a way sacrificing national security.

"You actually deprive the decision makers and the president of the ability to get the full range of advice because - if the president has to worry that talking to people who have important things to say is going to result in something getting out - he's not going to have that conversation. And that's going to drive exactly the kind of insularity that the press claims they don't like"- Michael Chertoff

What Chertoff doesn't acknowledge is that the administration is already secretive and insulated. Most news organizations have been driven to the point where they are afraid that they will get blacklisted and forever cut off. Simply doing their job endangers their livelihood. So much for depending on the media to function as an independent check on the branches of government. Perhaps the White House would be wiser to observe that its pre-existing lack of transparency (and explanation for that matter) and ethically questionable behavior is the root cause of increased governmental leaks, investigation by the media, and public distrust. I don't know how long they can keep playing this game until the American public loses all patience.

new york city

Hi! I'll be taking a break from writing for a week or so; I am taking a break from tiresome news and bookreading to take a trip back to New York City to visit my friends. There are so many things to write about that I wish I had time to sit down and compile it all together; We have Haditha, Ann Coulter, Guantanamo suicides, and middle east violence following both the death of Zarqawi and the mutual attacks between Israel and Palestine. What a time we live in, it's overwhelming to think about how many things are not going right with the world. But as we have no shortage of interesting news, I will return on the 20th.

If you are in the city, please give me a ring and we can meet up. Hugs and Kisses.

The Bush Syndicate

In the realm of politics, Republicans know how to win and they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the 'noble' cause of getting their candidate elected. In a lot of ways, Bush campaign financers remind me of the cast of the Sopranos. When the organization is going to take a hit, there is always someone willing to go down with the ship and do prison time; they never reveal anything about Tony Soprano or other members and they are rewarded when they finish their time behind bars. Keeping 'the family' safe is just as well as lucrative.

During George W. Bush's 2004 run for re-election for President of the United States, Bush and his supporters raised upwards of $360 million (according to www.opensecrets.org) and spent $306 million for his campaign. This was an unprecedented amount of donations and Bush had his "Pioneer ($100,000)" and "Ranger ($200,000)" fund-raisers to thank. Among the ranks of those that had attained Pioneer and Ranger status were Jack Abramoff and Tom Noe. These fund-raisers are especially important as it is almost a given that the candidate with the most money will win; it is difficult for even the most charismatic and well-intentioned candidate to compete with an onslaught of heavily researched and spun TV and radio spot ads turning the smallest nick into a glaring weakness.

The final outcome is important. Bush raised $360 million and he won. He has enjoyed almost six years of plush White House living and has shaped American politics into a form that will leave a significant mark in history textbooks for our children to read about. Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials and Noe has been found guilty of conspiracy to violate federal campaign laws and violating them.

Jack Abramoff will spend a few years in jail. Tom Noe faces 24-30 months in jail. Bush however is President, mission accomplished. It is almost inconsequential and of little celebratory value that the guilty have been brought to justice as they have already realized the fruits of their actions and the Bush administration can wipe its hands clean of any involvement. These men are and will continue to be heroes in the eyes of the GOP; they did their jobs and after some jail time will continue to be awarded.

The Republican strategy is decisive, unethical, and it works. It will also work like a well oiled machine in 2008. We are already seeing signs of the transition that must be made for 2008 success, the abandonment of dead weight and political liability, George W. Bush. The economic floundering, War in Iraq, consumer dissatisfaction, squabble with Iran, failure to capture Osama Bin Laden, and general dissatisfaction will be squarely placed on Bush’s shoulders and his alone. FOX News has always seemed to have unwavering support for the President, though this morning as I was casually flipping channels I heard a FOX News morning show anchor ask her audience, "how many of you are tired of the Clintons and the Bushes?” The audience laughed and all raised their hands, the anchor laughed as well and went to commercial. One commentator chimed in "the first President Bush was unpopular and it is obvious that George W. Bush is losing popular favor, I don't think the country wants to see Jeb Bush run." (I don't have the transcript, but I think that is pretty accurate). Everyone has their job to do in the road to the win; some people raise money, those who do it illegally may get caught, but they have served their purpose. Now Bush's responsibility is to get out of the way and the Republicans will abandon him when the time comes. A win is a win. Isn't it?

Harry Reid. Stupid Stupid Stupid

How do Americans feel about politicians at the moment? Look at the Gallup… maybe the Pew poll? I’m willing to hazard that the answer is pretty obvious. In an era of political scandal, corruption, and dishonesty (who am I kidding, I meant scandal, corruption, and dishonesty that the public KNOWS about), our faith in government is low. Democrats have tried to paint their opposition, the Republicans, as the Repuglicans; a party that has weathered one disgrace after another, from Duke Cunningham to Jack Abramoff to Katherine Harris all the way to Ann Coulter. It was almost as if a miracle had dropped into the Democrats’ laps, saving them from the impending death that many had predicted as inevitable after the 2004 Bush re-election victory. All they have to do is take the open wound that is Republican scandal and wiggle their finger in it…. That and offer America an alternative path, a guiding light of leadership.

A good first step was the adamant push for reforming lobbying rules. The Republicans had offered soft reform; limiting gifts to be under a particular dollar amount. It was pretty clear to the American public, at least to those paying attention, that that was a half hearted attempt that put into perspective just how lucrative and how used to gifts and incentives that congressional representatives had gotten.

"Now we're going to say you can't have a meal for more than 20 bucks," said Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. "Where are you going, to McDonald's?"

Democrats offered a solid lobbying reform plan. Ban gifts of all types from lobbying groups. That sort of idea seems to make sense as it is my belief that we do not want our lawmakers unduly influenced by the green colored influence of large and small corporations and interests. It was clear that Jack Abramoff was guilty of bribing and taking bribes from Indian tribes. It was not so clear when right wing blogs and media outlets tried to paint Senator Harry Reid as part of that same scandal. Reid is the Senator from Nevada; his job is to work closely to balance Indian casinos with Las Vegas gambling interests. He is after all the author of the Indian Gaming Act which is opposed to off-reservation Indian Casinos, although it makes you wonder why Reid accepted money from Indian tribes.

The fact of the matter is that congressional votes and positions should not be able to be bought, nor should congressmen give the impression that they are being influenced. For Harry Reid to say that Jack Abramoff is a terrible person for taking money from the Indian tribes when Reid also accepted at least 30% of total donations is silly. Reid may not have been influenced by the tribes money, he does not even need to change his political position on off-reservation gaming, he took money and that gives the impression to everyone that Indian hands are in his pocket.

Reid is again in the midst of a holier than thou predicament. The AP reports that in 2004-2005, Reid accepted 3 ringside seats to professional boxing matches from the Nevada Athletic Commission. The NAC was trying to sway Reid away from creating a federal boxing commission, as they feared federal oversight would harm their ability to regulate fights. Again the issue is intention and appearance. Reid says he committed no ethics violation by accepting the tickets and did so to observe the sport that he is trying to sponsor legislation over. Reid says it was just research, I’m inclined to believe him, but intent is irrelevant. What is the point of lobbying reform if congressmen can justify themselves by saying that they were not influenced and meant no harm? Reform minded parties cannot justify their reception of gifts as acceptable because they have faith in the strength of their own character, it is blatantly hypocritical. Being a Democrat does not make it ok to be the exception to the lobbying reform rule, one should not be swayed by gifts nor should one give the impression of it by accepting gifts. How exactly are the Democrats going to convince America that they are the party to stand behind, that they are reform minded, ethical, and guided by the strength of their convictions if they are consistent with their own policies? Democrats need to keep their eyes open, they are in a prime position to take control of the Senate and the House, but all it will take for things to fall part is inaction and hypocrisy. If they have no plan, a Republican will enter the stage, denounce the Bush administration and its scandal ridden constituents, and poof! Nail in the coffin.