The Daily Bailout

Another Reason to Love Chess: Bobby Fischer

2005-03-25T08:10:00.000-05:00

He was America's intellectual and creative answer to the Soviet mental powerhouses who were bulky with logical and systematic thinking skills. Fischer had started playing chess as a kid, risen to the heights of American grandmasters in his teens, then soared internationally as he entered adulthood with characteristic brilliant combinations--characterizing, however, the match ambience with long delays in play and questions about every detail in the room and about the board and pieces. But he was every geek's hero, every thinking American's prince, winning the world chess title in 1972 by beating Boris Spassky.

And then he allegedly went off the deep end, at least that was the rumor. He disappeared, although whispers abounded that he was testing computer chess software. He was said to have turned anti-semitic, even fundamentalist (I'll let you decide which is worse). It was hard to imagine. And reviewing the chronicle so far, I don't believe it. Fischer is just good old American individualism rolled up in such genius it is difficult to always understand.

Then he had a re-match back in the 1992 in Sveti Stefan, a resort off the coast of Montenegro, 110 km from the civil war in Bosnia, 200 km from besieged Sarajevo. There Fischer and Spassky defied the United Nations sanctions against Yugoslavia. The United States Treasury Department threatened him with severe penalties for playing.

But it was hard to prevent Fischer, always the free thinker, when the prize fund was $5 million. In a hard-fought match Fischer earned a 9-9 tie, allowing him to keep his title as "undefeated champion of the world." Unfortunately, the match was sponsored by Jezdimir Vasiljevic, President of Jugoskandic Bank, and a crony of Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.

No shrinking violet, at a 1992 press conference (first for him in 20 years), Fischer took out the U.S. Treasury warning and spat on it. Then he accused the current world champion players of pretense in their games.

It's classic Fischer. And classic Fischer arrived yesterday in Iceland, a nation with enough balls to embrace him after a fugitive status since 1992, a kidnapping of him by Japanese, and Bush Co.'s attempt to nab him.

Yesterday after arriving in Iceland, Fischer said something that foretells the coming problems for our country yet to be worked through: ""I grew up with the concept of freedom of speech. I'm too old. It's too late for me to adjust to the new world, the new world order."

Schiavo Dead Like Cordelia in Lear's Arms

2005-03-22T05:33:00.000-05:00

If you have not seen my column on Schiavo in the Chattanooga Pulse, then you should click HERE. You don't really need to read the column to understand my argument, but reading it would help.

In a nutshell, here's my point: If King Lear were living today, he would be doing exactly what the Republicans are doing--namely, keeping alive through feeding tubes the corpse of his daughter Cordelia while letting wars prosper by the shedding of blood and destroying of lives over the world.

Lear's madness is rooted in regret. Republicans regret something right now, in an unconscious way of course. But it's regret hidden in arrogance. Just listen to Rumsfeld's regrets: One of which is Let's blame Turkey. Look at Rice kissing asses of the world. Delay has delayed his trial to allow for a purification week, hoping for the resurrection not only of Schiavo, but also his career. And finally Bush, the wagging and awkward tongue in the free world, seems as willing as any to admit that life is precious. These are strange turns of events. But are they real or evolutionary?

Probably, excuse me, definitely NOT. And mainly because the Schiavo case demonstrates the utter downsliding vulgarity that this bunch is capable of, of claiming life as mere symbol while ignoring the dead and wounded of war. Fighting for life in reality requires much more than feeding tubes and nurses around the clock for a "vegetative" human. It requires people caring about people, real people who are very alive and suffering or struggling or thinking. Not just people touched by wealth, but also people haunted by war and poverty.

Senate Inches Out Support for Drilling Alaska

2005-03-17T07:24:00.000-05:00

It is like a drug. Oil.

And in a move that may just renew the environmental movement, most of the Republican Senators endorsed oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on Wednesday, March 16, by a 51-49 vote. But the vote, ironically enough, came up on an amendment by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, to remove wording in the budget resolution for 2006 that asserts drilling will deliver some $2.5 billion. Politically, this was not a bad way to out those supporters who are trying to sneak in ANWR exploitation. But Bush and Co. won this battle.

Still, they are not in the wilderness just yet. The Senate has to pass a measure that explicitly authorizes opening the wildlife refuge for drilling--a measure that has been prohibited until now. This will be a bitter battle focused on almost 1.5 million acres of coastal plain within a 19-million-acre refuge. Oil execs say they only need 2,000 acres.

As you might expect, Tennessee's wildlife man Alexander and state-of-the-art doctor Frist voted with the majority to keep the budget provision positing that ANWR will deliver lots of cash. Oil = Cash. But isn't oil production past its peak?

So much for future-oriented thinking. For an interesting essay on new energy sources, see Wade Swicord's "A Consideration of Energy--Part I" at the Daily Bailout.

Harold Ford Rides Alone

2005-03-11T06:04:00.000-05:00

Yesterday USAToday provided a guide to six key figures shaping the success or failure of Bush's Social Security overhaul. It highlighted their motives, ideas and organization. Most importantly, it made it clear to me that these are all men enamored of the oldest myth in America: ANYBODY CAN GET RICH. The six are Stanford professor John Cogan, AARP public relations legend Bill Novelli, House Ways and Means chairman Bill Thomas, Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, Derrick Max of Wall Street, and Tennessee congressman Harold Ford.

Cogan met with then Gov. Bush in 1998 "over tea and cookies." I wish I had a photo of that. And AARP's Novelli is so intent on opposing the Bush overhaul: It's the members, stupid! In 2003 AARP members were burning their cards in protest of the Bush Medicare drug-benefit plan. We're they right? Of course they were. The cost of the prescription plan has already doubled in one year, as many expected. An interesting point: Since 2003 Nancy Pelosi has yet to speak to Novelli. Explains why Novelli says that the Bush plan "just crashes and burns."

Bill Thomas. Shall we say more? He is essentially the one Republican who can make or break the Bush plan. Thomas doesn't sit for photos or interviews, won't talk with reporters or the president. Talk about the epitome of rugged individualist. Thomas believes that the Bush proposal does not go far enough, nor toward the right revenue solution, namely a value-added tax (a levy on consumption rather than on wages).

Lindsey Graham might be better known right now for quipping on President's Day, "We don't do Lincoln Day dinners in South Carolina. It's nothing personal, but it takes awhile to get over things," rankling Democrats and some Republicans. But Graham's "folksy manner and a compelling personal story" about how a survivor benefit check helped him may overcome such silliness. He's the driving force behind bipartisan deal making.

And then there's Wall Street's Derrick Max who runs the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security and the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). The telling details of these organizations is that the AFL-CIO have picketed their member companies, accusing them of having Wall Street lobby for individual accounts in hopes of gaining a windfall. Oh, no, that can't be true. Wall Street really wants what's best for the widow and the poor.

And finally our dear Tennessee boy--Harold Ford. He is the blue dog of the party, and I always feel he's never had enough life experience to be my representative. The article sketches Ford as the Democrat to win in support of Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security. Mentions Ford's Congressional Savings and Ownership Caucus that he formed last month and his introduction of a bill to open savings accounts for every newborn with a government stake of $500 and incentives for savings. There's no doubt that we have a savings problem in our country. But $500! I don't get it. Does Ford really think he can turn poor Tennesseans (for whom he says he's working) into millionnaires with this plan? Why can't Ford see that the Bush idea of an "ownership society" is not about helping average Americans? It's about taking care of the top five percent of the country's wealthy, not the poor. "Ownership" is a clever euphemism for the wealthiest to own the rest of America, including the people mentioned in the Constitution.

Real politik sees the entire Bush scheme as smoke and mirrors, and Ford's willingness to play in the funhouse as perversely foolish for his constituents.

To my Democratic friends who just can't get enough of Bredesen

2005-03-09T22:22:00.000-05:00

Dear Tennessee Democrats,

I have listened to you whine about Bush and rave about Bredesen. But what's the difference?

Of course, Bredesen is older and was a successful businessman. Oh yeah, and there's the bit that he's a Democrat. Oh, come on! We're in the South.

What's really different? Okay, Bredesen is probably more interested in education than Bush--truly interested. Until today. What did Phil Baby say today to indicate he's willing to sacrifice education? He said something that politicians who are "up the creek" (of their own making) have to say: Pit education cuts against health care costs.

Now if you don't figure out anything about politics, figure this ONE out. PLEASE. Whenever you have to pit two social programs against each other, and you're a Democrat, you're up the creek without a paddle.

So what did Bredesen actually say today? He said that the state will have to cut $191 million if TennCare doesn't get reformed. Reformed means this: If we don't kick 323,000 people out of one of the world's best health care program to date (which btw costs less than private insurance to operate, and if you want info on that I can send it to you), then we are going to have to stick it to the kids (who are getting the shaft anyway in Bush's 2006 budget for No Child Left Behind)--for the entire story, click Governor predicts school cuts.

Proof enough? Maybe. But here's more. Why is Bredesen in this mess to begin with?

He's trying to appear tough on budgets, of course, and at the same time avoid raising taxes. And Phil Baby is being crunched by the very people who can literally crush him. The two handles of that nut cracker are Bush and Frist. Yes, the big two! The Republican in the White House & the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate. And believe me, they could save Tennessee its embarrassment in seconds. They have the power, the influence, and the money. But are they moving to assist us one iota? NO. And why? Because they already have the state in their grasp--except for two residences, the state house (which might as well be Republican) and, of course, the governor's office.

Now, you know that we have been told that Bush and Frist can't do anything to help Tennessee, right? Gordon Bonnyman laughed at this suggestion. Why? Other southern states have been bailed out by Bush and Frist, states in health care crisis. And believe me, they could bail out ours. So, I ask again, why not? Simply put, they want the governor's mansion. And they may just get it. And that will be my prediction if Bredesen doesn't start leading.

By leaving Bredesen to choose between cutting school funding and butchering health care, and still avoid raising taxes, is Rovian to a degree that is a diabolical. This is incredible, folks. And it's despicable! Especially watching Frist (supposedly a physician) do nothing to save--much less talk about--TennCare. However, Frist is not really a caring person, is he? Frist has two different goals that are pure and nasty about rising in power--(1) recruit a Republican to win the 2006 gubernatorial race and (2) run for U.S. president. If you don't believe he's using the crisis in the state budget to get a Republican, then read how active Frist is in getting a candidate to beat Bredesen--click on Frist scouting out Bredesen opposition for 2006.

Okay, so you still want to believe in Bredesen. You have that right, but let's look a little closer.

I'll paint the best picture for you. Even if we give Bredesen his due--he's a fiscal hawk fishing in troubled waters, but even then we have to say he's being shortsighted right now--a strategy based on giving up on tax reform and pushing for health care cuts only hurts the families of those very children Bredesen says he wants to help.

So let's consider this: If Bredesen actually gets what he wants (health care cuts), he will have given children a chance at school but blown their chances at home. That is, these very children--who live in poverty or hunger and with abuse of one kind or another--these very children will have an extra teacher at school or more curricular materials, but these very children won't have a chance in the long run. And why? Because it's families, stupid! It's families more than anything else in the first five years that influence a child's nutrition and psychological development, and thus his or her chances for a better future. Pre-K schooling would help, sure. But not like family, home, parents can do.

Hell, this is pretty pessimistic, I know. But somebody's got to say it.

Yours in Democracy, John Bailes

Picking a Mayor: Chattanooga, Here's Your Chance to Pick Your First Female Mayor

2005-02-27T10:11:00.000-05:00

Chattanooga deserves to move forward, but hanging around like vultures have been numerous naysayers of Ann Coulter, strangely many of those from her own party, the very people who should be embracing her bid to become mayor. Their negativism at Coulter has been overwhelming, a fact that suggests her near-striking power. But it also suggests two underlying biases:

A sexist strain that runs deeply in this region.
A distrust of private-public endeavors.

Of the first bias, sexism, it is rarely addressed in the city, but it is palpable. If you live in the South for more than a year, you learn very quickly that sexism still runs in the blood. And in this case specifically, the critics of Coulter (mainly of the Littlefield camp) dismiss her openly by treating her gender and her person as some often do in southern politics. How could a woman, especially one who grew up in Chattanooga, ever rise to mayor? Ah, but these vultures don't openly say that, do they? Instead, they do worse. They dismiss her by attacking her former employer RiverCity Co. and Ken Hays, as well as others, treating Coulter as if she really has no power and has nothing to say - the poor girl.

A 20-page pamphlet has been the most egregious at piling on "power structure" attacks against Coulter, revealing nothing about the pamphleteer's own power base or his own political interests. And are we to believe that Littlefield or Johnson have no power base, no interests in power, themselves? But instead of attacking Coulter's campaign issues, smear tactics have been used, most notably the terrible AD HOMINEM attack: "carpetbagger," "handpicked," "atheist." This attack has got to be one of the worst because not only does it negate reasonable debate, but it also substitutes nasty epithets for someone deserving more understanding. But then, in the South, women are often belittled in this way by men. Surely, the polls suggest this point - with more women choosing Coulter than any other candidate.

Of the second bias, distrust of private-public development, the irony is greatest. For it was the Clinton Administration that best recognized that marriage and promoted its sharing of power, as a way of minimizing the size of government while respecting government's role. I'm so exhausted of hearing about this false dichotomy, of private and public, as if they were always opposed. What our recent pamphleteer and other critics of Coulter forget is worth mentioning. They forget that they themselves are the products of private/public money, whether that money has gone to colleges and law schools, welfare and development, or cities and counties.

For a very fine treatment of this dichotomy and its farce, see Harry Austin's editorial this Sunday morning in the Chattanooga Times Free Press. It ends with a section on "Titlillating conspiracy types," which challenges all Chattanoogans to be reasonable and realistic when voting for the next mayor.

We've got 20 years to get it together by most estimates

2005-02-22T07:07:00.000-05:00

Dr. Olin Ivey, Fellow of the Urban Century Institute in Chattanooga, Tennessee, wrote today:

By the year 2025, sustainability will have either become the new paradigm for the way in which society is structured and functions, or life as we know it will have ceased to be. That is the absolute outside date for this restructuring to take place. It has foolhartedly been resisted by individuals, communities, governmental officials, “religious right” leaders, small business owners, and corporate executives. But, it can be resisted no longer without placing ourselves in peril of our very existence. I am not trying to be alarmist, merely stating a commonly agreed upon dictum. At the moment it is not simply about “the terms and conditions of human survival” [David Orr] but about developing the finest society possible through the development of new, zero-emissions technologies, through a rediscovered sense of respectful oneness with our environment, and through a new appreciation of our oneness with and responsibility to all humanity, including those in our own town.

This is not good news for anyone--business people or politicians, professionals or laborers, city dwellers or farmers. Even if you add a few years, the problems don't go away!

You can see Ivey's entire essay on this subject at the Daily Bailout, or click here.

"Snake Eyes" Gonzales Should Not Be Confirmed: Write Your Senator NOW!

2005-01-26T01:20:00.000-05:00

If Democrats go along with confirming Alberto Gonzales as the next Attorney General of the U.S., the dice will come up snake eyes. And Democrats will have much to explain.

Write your Senators today! Click here for their emails. Do not hesitate. Do not, I repeat, hesitate. For as I type, Reuters has reported that the U.S. is making no bones about it: the Bush administration insists it has the right to torture detainees abroad. The lead of this article is the following:

The Bush administration contends that no law prevents the Central Intelligence Agency from engaging in inhumane treatment of detainees abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. In responses to U.S. Senate inquiries, White House Counsel and Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales claimed that the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment-enshrined in a treaty the United States ratified in 1994-does not apply to U.S. personnel in the treatment of non-citizens abroad. While asserting that torture by all U.S. personnel was unlawful, Gonzales indicated that no law would prohibit the CIA from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment when it interrogates non-Americans outside the United States. The interpretation would permit the CIA to commit in secret detention facilities abroad many of the shocking forms of abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib.

Iraqi Insurgents Taunt American GIs with Video

2005-01-12T23:58:00.000-05:00

Hard to believe, but the video is in perfect English and even tries to recruit our soldiers. One of the key messages is to tell the Americans that the Iraqis are not responsible for 9/11. Imagine that! Correcting Fox News! But then I guess that's not hard to do.

The story was reported by Reuters on video taunting. Here's an excerpt from the article:

The video, narrated in fluent English by what sounded like an Iraqi educated in the United States or Britain, also mocked the U.S. president's challenge to rebels in the early days of the insurgency to "bring it on." George W. Bush; you have asked us to 'bring it on'. And so help me, (we will) like you never expected. Do you have another challenge?," asked the narrator before the video showed explosions around a U.S. military Humvee vehicle.

This kind of communication is a step up in both political and psychological techniques. To me, it spells deeper problems in Iraq than I had even suspected. And I wonder what groups are behind the insurgents. It is easy to assume that much of Europe, as well as Russia and China, have benefited because of our miring in a war of great expense to life and to purse. The euro rises and the dollar declines. But could there be more to these other nations' involvement?

Disputing the Ohio Election in the Senate & House

2005-01-07T06:19:00.000-05:00

It reminded me of the first part of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 in which African-American members of the House of Representatives objected to the Florida electors, except that not one Senator signed on. But this time a U.S. Senator did sign on - Democrat Barbara Boxer of California, winning a place in the history of courage and protest.

But Boxer wanted to sign on four years ago, wanted to object to the Florida electors but, as she says, Al Gore told her not to. What does it mean that Gore asked her not to follow her conscience? What politics was afoot?

This time Boxer got her way, along with Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), and brought the House and the Senate to a 2-hour stand-still yesterday. The House and Senate debated. The House voted 267-31 for the Ohio electors. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D-Ill) of course voted against the validity of the electors. I would say it was a good day for Democracy.

Yet surprisingly, another Democrat from Illinois, Senator Barack Obama, cast his first vote in a less than courageous way--voting with the other 73 yeas. Jackson said Obama deserved some slack because it was Obama's first vote. Although some Senators were absent, Boxer's was the lone voice and vote against Ohio at the end of the day in the U.S. Senate, as some Senators were absent.

Despite the courage of Boxer and Tubbs Jones, it is apparent that our political system seems out of the reach of average voters who question our voting system. Still we must take yesterday's congressional action as a lesson: Given the opportunity to seriously challenge the voting system, Congress will side with the special interests and the establishment. Short of a Ukraine kind of revolution, we will trudge on in the mire of apathy and bitterness. Why should we be witnesses to power when we can possess power?

Theocracy: Religious Right Grows Powerful in Wash D.C.

2004-12-30T07:29:00.000-05:00

"America was founded as a Christian nation." How many times have you heard this mantra? In Chattanooga, if you're listening, you will hear it all the time. I hear it from students, from people at coffee shops and restaurants, even from (God forbid) Episcopalians. But what does it mean? Why is it said if in fact the first 13 United States were founded on principles other than Christianity?

One of the clues to its use is that it is so often associated with the rise of the Religious Right in politics. In this sense the RR employs the phrase to revise history so that it can promote its own agenda. If you have any doubts about the RR's rise in power today, click on THEOCRACY WATCH and read about the myriad examples of how Republicanism has become synonymous with the RR movement, including a list of seven powerful Senators (including Majority Leader Bill Frist from TN) espousing the formation of a Theocracy and the destruction of Democracy.

Now, when you live in the South, you take much of this kind of religious talk for granted. It is all around you, like kudzu. But it is also a serious issue, just as kudzu is a serious threat to native plants. That's why I've just completed an interview with Chuck Baldwin, who ran as vice presidential candidate for the Constitution Party this year.

I wanted to talk with Baldwin, a pastor of a large Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, because he has recently made an important break with the RR, calling them sell-outs. As a result, he has been rebuked from on high, by a national leader in the RR, a name you would easily recognize.

So why is Chuck Baldwin breaking with the RR? And calling George W. Bush a fraud? Mainly because he sees both the RR and Bush as polluting his faith; but he also sees Bush as endangering American civil liberties. And this second reason is the crack I want to explore - namely that the RR can be appealed to on the civil liberties issue. I want to remind them that the same Patriot Act can also focus on them as much as it can on Arab Americans or those suspected of almost any trumped-up terrorist connection.

For even more on this subject, take a look at FREDERICK CLARKSON's website dedicated to studying the RR. I highly recommend it.

Will Harold Ford Sell Out on Social Security?

2004-12-26T15:00:00.000-05:00

As safety nets break all around us (e.g. collapse of TennCare, lack of federal funding for No Child Left Behind, lack of homeland security funding, lack of armor for our troops) and as the gap between rich and poor widens, Republicans have still managed to build steam to end Social Security as we have known it since FDR. The euphemisms for transformation are "ownership society," "privatization," and "personal accounts."

Do not be fooled by these narcissistically-oriented phrases. These phrases are meant to turn a really big Republican raid on Social Security into a sweet-sounding enterprise. But as we know from Shakespeare, shit by any other name stinks just the same.

Just the same stuff in sweet words? Let's see: Just the same as the reality of Iraq was never presented to us except in terms of good vs. evil, and the war still isn't covered in its totality; and just as the reality of tax reform was never meant to help all of us (except for the richest Americans); and just as the bogus idea that the Patriot Acts I & II were to insure our freedoms, when the government was taking them away. These just a few examples of the oldest con game in the world: The Bait-and-Switch tactic, which has so often been used by Republicans.

But if Harold Ford is going to make a bait-and-switch move, he will risk not only his chances for the U.S. Senate but also his credibility as a Democrat. Let us not forget Zell Miller. So what about Ford's plans with Social Security? Does he deserve to be our candidate for U.S. Senate in Tennessee in 2006?

Making Local Politics Important

2004-12-18T15:03:00.000-05:00

Proof that all politics is local? Look at the way Chattanooga emerged into the spotlight worldwide over the question concerning hillbilly armor. What other local issues have national or international significance?

Does Congressman Harold Ford represent core Democrat principles?

2004-12-16T11:49:00.000-05:00

Congressman Harold Ford spoke to the Hamilton County Party in Chattanooga, TN, Tuesday evening. While Wed's Chattanooga Times Free Press covered the "friend-raising" event, the newspaper did not actually capture the spirit and tone of the event. Nor did television cameras. My raw version of the event at DailyKos that night is here .

The event went sour for many Democrats when Ford announced support of Bush's constitutional amendment to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. Then the sourness grew after Ford insulted both John Kerry and Al Gore. And sourness turned to bitterness after Ford opened the night to questions that he answered with cocksure defensiveness and scathing rebukes, especially his uninspiring denial that voting irregularities were important in the last election. "We lost," he said. "Get used to it."

My two questions to you are these: Should Harold Ford be our candidate to the U.S. Senate for the Democratic Party? And does he represent our core principles?