Polyarchy in England and France
Living in a world that is putting an ever increasing emphasis on the value of Democracy, it becomes important from the political scientist’s perspective that we have a formula we can use to determine exactly how democratic a country is. By setting out criteria that a country must meet in order to be seen as moving toward Democracy, Robert Dahl has developed just such a formula. The focus of this study will then be to examine Dahl’s formula by looking at how The United Kingdom of Great Britain and France measure up to his criteria. We will begin by first taking a look at the mechanics of Dahl’s formula, then proceed by looking at the governmental structures of These countries, putting them up against Dahl’s litmus test to see both the democratic and not so democratic aspects of their respective governments.
Since most would agree that Great Britain and France are at the very least reasonably democratic, questioning this notion will not only make clear Robert Dahl’s theory, but give us a fresh perspective on what Democracy is, hopefully opening our minds to the idea that even the most seemingly democratic countries will inevitably fall short of the democratic ideal some ways. Dahl, in fact, makes the case that there really is no best form of Democracy for every country, and furthermore, that no country throughout history has ever achieved a perfect Democracy. Because of this, he reserves the term “Democracy” to mean an Ideal and perfect Democracy, while using the term “polyarchy” to describe regimes that have strong democratic tendencies.
What then are Dahl’s basic requirements of polyarchy? When considering
this, it is important to think along the lines of a continuum, with all the regimes of the world falling somewhere inbetween perfect Democracy and an authoritarian system of governance. With this is mind, we can begin to look at some of the basic requirements that must be met if the country is to pass Dahl’s litmus test.
First of all, the most basic criteria that Dahl lays out states that in order to be a polyarchy, the system must allow for participation in government by the citizens, and contestation of the government by the citizens. While these two basic rules form a good foundation by themselves, the are far too vague to generate a good model of a county’s government. How then can we make these two concepts of participation and contestation more concrete? To deal with this question, Dahl lays out three “unimpaired opportunities that all full citizens must retain.” First, he remarks that the people must have the right to formulate preferences. Secondly, they must “have the right to signify those preferences to their fellow citizens and the government by individual and collective action.” And finally, they must “have the right to have their preferences weighed without discrimination by the government because of the content or source of the preference.” (Dahl p.2). He then goes on to enumerate eight guarantees that a government must grant its citizens if these three opportunities are to be met.
In order for citizens to have the opportunity to formulate preferences, Dahl claims that citizens must have the “the freedom to form and join organizations, the freedom of expression, the right to vote, the right of political leaders to compete for support, and the right to alternative sources of information”. For the opportunity to signify those preferences, citizens must have all the five previously mentioned freedoms as well as two more: “eligibility for public office and free, fair elections.” Finally, if citizens are to have their preferences weighed equally in conduct of government, they must have all seven of the above mentioned rights and freedoms, plus, “the institutions that constitute the government must depend on the votes and other expressions of preferences by the citizens.”
Dahl’s criteria for polyarchy then can be summarized as requiring a government that is brought to power in free and fair elections by as large a percentage of the population it will govern as possible. It must be subordinate to a citizenry that has access to non censored information and is free to speak out against the government it elected. With this in mind, let us now continue our study by shifting out focus to the governmental structures of Great Britain and France to see how well they meet this criteria.
Perhaps the most notable thing abut the government of Great Britain is that while it is officially a constitutional monarchy, it has no written Constitution. While it may seem that this would make for a regime that could be oppressive, it has worked fairly well for The United Kingdom. In fact, it has actually made the British system of government more adaptable that it may have been if its constitution was specifically spelled out (Goodgov). The British election system is a single member district plurality with the Conservative and Labor parties being the most influential (Concise Columbia Encyclopedia: Great Britain). The governmental structure is a bit strange in that the Monarchy has been retained in the form of the Royal Family and House of Lords. The Royal Family has retained only a symbolic role in government, and while the House of Lords, consisting of 1185 members still acts as an ultimate court of appeals and may delay and examine legislation, generally speaking, the monarchy has largely been striped of political influence.
Instead, the real driving force behind British government resides in the House of Commons. This parliamentary body consists of the Prime Minister who is elected by a popular vote, a Cabinet, or who is selected by the Prime Minister, and the members of the House of Commons who are elected from their respective districts in “winner take all” elections.
Knowing the basic format of the British system of governance, we can now begin to put it up against Dahl’s criteria for polyarchy. We will start by asking if British citizens are free to “formulate their own preferences.” Generally, it would seem that the answer to this question is yes, but let us look at this question using the five qualifiers that Dahl lays out. (1) Do the people have the right to form and join organizations? While The United Kingdom is officially a two party system, the existence of small parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the fact that people are free to join unions shows us that British citizens are relatively free to form and join organizations. (2) Is there freedom of expression? While British citizens typically choose not to partake in demonstration, they do enjoy, for the most part the freedom of expression. Even in the event of a riot such as in 1911 where two rioters were killed, the British government tends to be careful about protecting this freedom (The People’s Chronology: Human Rights and social Justice. 1911). (3) Do the people have the right to vote? While there are always many factors affecting the issue of suffrage, I think it can be said that generally The United kingdom has been fairly inclusive about who is able to vote. Historically, there has been problems such as an immigration act in 1968 that excluded thousands of Asians in Kenya from official citizenship, but with the downfall of British colonialism, these problems have largely gone away, leaving for the most part, universal suffrage (The People’s Chronology: Population, 1968). (4) Are political leaders free to compete for support? Parties in the United Kingdom are fairly strong, and it is usually them who decides who will run for public office in a certain district. This does not look good from Dahl’s perspective. Technically, the citizenry is free to run for office, but without party backing, it becomes almost impossible to win. However, while the British system does fall short in this area, it is important to remember that we are not holding The United Kingdom to the Democratic ideal, but rather to the expectations of polyarchy which automatically assumes the system will be at the very least slightly undemocratic in some ways. And finally, (5) are the people free to alternative sources of information? The answer to this, I think can best be illustrated by the recent events surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Clearly, if censorship was a problem, the news and tabloids would not have had nearly as much publishing freedom as they did during this traumatic time. Therefore, I believe it is safe to say that British citizens are very free to alternative sources of information.
This brings us to the question of weather or not British citizens “have the right to signify those preferences to their fellow citizens by individual and collective action (Dahl p. 2).” As mentioned above, for a citizenry to have this right, they must have all five of the above mentioned qualifiers in addition to two more. (6) Is the common citizen eligible to run for public office? Again, we run into the same problem with this question as we ran into with question four. The political parties have become such a force in Great Britain that it is virtually impossible to win without their support. Technically, however, the average citizen is eligible to run for office, albeit, if they wish to win, they must follow tradition by climbing up the party ladder. And (7), are there free and fair elections? Largely, the answer to this question is yes. There really is no problem with the government tampering with election results, and except for the trouble with the parties controlling who runs for office, the elections are free.
Lastly, the question remains if these preferences are “weighed equally in the conduct of government with no discrimination because of the content or source of the preference. ” Again, for this to be the case, all seven of the above mentioned qualifiers must be present, plus the policy making institutions must depend on “votes and other expressions of preference (Dahl p. 3).” In large part, this is the case. Both the Prime Minister and the members of the House of Commons are popularly elected in free, fair elections, and as a check on the Prime Minister’s powers, the members of the House of Commons may call for a vote of censure, and if the Prime Minister doesn’t get a majority, he must resign. There is, however a significant hindrance to this qualifier. While the citizens of Northern Ireland must live under British rule, they don’t feel that they are represented, and in large part do not participate in the governmental system. Because of this, the elected officials aren’t really accountable to the people in Northern Ireland This does Present a problem from the standpoint of representation.
By looking at Great Britain from the perspective of Dahl’s three requirements and their eight respective qualifiers, we see that indeed, this country definitely does not meet the criteria for a pure Democracy. It falls short most notably in the areas of who may run for office with a reasonable chance of winning, and in the fact that the people living in Northern Ireland are not well represented. Another strike against the United kingdom is the fact that the Prime Minister may declare a state of emergency, suspending human rights. It is, however clear that The United Kingdom does meet most of the criteria by a fairly large margin, and falls well inside the confines of polyarchy
To put this into perspective, let us now look at France’ s government using the same formula. Unlike The United kingdom, France has been relatively unstable throughout history. Because it was so bloody and no real defined Democracy emerged, the French Revolution is thought of by many to be “incomplete.” On average, France has had a new government implemented every eighteen years, and it wasn’t until 1958 that the current government (the Fifth Republic) emerged (Hollifield and Ross p. 43).
France is a mix between a Parliamentary and Presidential system. This is because historically, the legislature had been to powerful and it was thought that if a President was brought into the system and made the dominant government official, it would serve as a check to the power of the legislature. The President serves terms of seven years and can be re-elected. He is the only popularly elected official and is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister and the “government”, or Council of Ministers. His powers include being able to devolve the National Assembly and Council of Ministers, propose referendums, and force Parliament to re-consider legislation. Unofficially, he also may use his party ties to control Parliament and get them to dismiss Cabinet Ministers. The Parliament is a legislative, bicameral body that has the power to debate legislation, as well as to use a vote of censure, ousting the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
How well then does France measure up to these three requirements? Are French citizens free to formulate preferences? Again, let us determine this by looking at the five qualifiers that Dahl lays out. (1) Are French citizens free to “form and join organizations”? Well, like The United Kingdom, France has a number of minor parties, and unions. Also, French citizens may join interest groups. This demonstrates that indeed, they are free to form and join organizations. (2) Do the French have freedom of expression? The answer to this question is a resounding yes! In fact, it is not uncommon to see them partaking in political street demonstrations. (3) Do they have the right to vote? While much of the government is appointed by the President, the executive himself and the members of Parliament are in fact elected, so the answer to this question is yes as well. However, historically, France has passed laws such as the one in 1850 which discriminated against radical workers who “tended to be migratory,” by requiring that people live in one place for three years in order to vote (The People’s Chronology: Human Rights and Social Justice, 1850). (4) Do political leaders have the right to compete for support? Yes. In fact, because France uses an electoral system of proportional representation, small parties have more opportunity to compete with the larger parties than in Great Britain. (And finally (5) do the French have access to alternate sources of information? While there are certainly areas where the French government holds information back from the citizens (all governments do to a certain extent), the French tend to be fairly liberal, and thus put a high priority on being open to alternative sources of information. There is also a wide range of political ideals in France which shows us that the French government has, in general, been fairly good about not censoring information.
It seems that France has done fairly well with Dahl’s first requirement; let us now see if French citizens are free to signify those preferences. As before, if this next requirement is to be met, the first five qualifiers must be true along with (6) eligibility for public office and (7) free, fair elections. Eligibility for public office does poses a bit of a problem for polyarchy. In France, it is decided at an early age if a child is to go to college or not, and without a college education, a person can not be prepared for a career in public office. If the opportunity for an education is taken away from a person, that person is, for all intensive purposes, not allowed to run for public office. France does, however, do better with question seven, and elections are, for the most part free and fair.
Finally, this leaves us with the last of Dahl’s three requirements: Are the citizen’s preferences “weighed equally in the conduct of the government, without discrimination because of the content or source of the preference?” This leaves us with the eighth and final qualifier: Do the governmental institutions responsible for making policy depend on votes and other expression of preference? Again, the answer to this question leaves us in the gray area. The President, most definitely is directly accountable to the people as he is publicly elected, but the Cabinet and Council of Ministers also play in important role in government and they are merely appointed by the President. Furthermore, while the Parliament is an elected body, the fact that France uses proportional representation means that the members who run for office are chosen by their respective parties, and thus are more subordinate to those parties than the people who elected them.
Like the United Kingdom, France is far from a perfect Democracy. In fact, it seems to me that the areas where France falls short are a great deal more important to polyarchy than those where the United Kingdom is lacking. Most importantly is the fact that a large percentage of the French population may not so much as hope to run for public office. While it may do wonders for their educational system to allow only those who prove themselves at an early age to attend college, it is, without a doubt a remarkably important undemocratic feature of their social system, and frankly it worries me. Nonetheless, in large part, France does meet most of the criteria that Dahl lays out, and while in my opinion it is less of a polyarchy than Great Britain, it still seems to fall within the confines of polyarchy.
In this study, we have looked at Dahl’s criteria for polyarchy, and applied this criteria to both The United Kingdom and France, comparing the results to see the areas where they hold with Dahl’s formula for polyarchy as well as those where they break from it. Finally, I have briefly described why I have concluded that France is further from complete polyarchy on our continuum than Great Britain. Hopefully, this study has succeeded in taking the abstract ideas of Robert Dahl, and by applying them to two familiar countries, made them seem a little more concrete.
Works Cited
Dahl, Robert. Polyarchy; Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1995
Hollifield, James and Ross, George. Searching for the new France. New York:
Routledge, 1991
Publishing Staff. “CD-ROM: Microsoft Bookshelf 1996. Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
Licensed by: Columbia University Press, 1885
Publishing Staff. “The current constitution of Great Britain” Goodgov on the web.
Plymouth State College Internet. 13 October. 1997. Available:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rrt1001/goodgov/node2.html
Publishing Staff. “CD-ROM: Microsoft Bookshelf 1996 The People’s Chronology.
Licensed by: Holt and Company, 1994
© Cliff R. Pearson
14, October 1997
All rights reserved
Defeating the Government’s Active Denial System
The US government, in its undying lust to find new and exciting ways to keep its citizens under wraps has developed the Active Denial System. This device works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. The waves excite water molecules in the epidermis to around 55 C (130 degrees Fahrenheit), causing an intensely painful burning sensation.
While the skin is not actually burned, the sensation is very painful, and can only be tolerated for a few seconds. The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of just under half a kilometer, or 500 yards, making it a great tool to use on nonviolent protesters or just about anyone who would speak out against the all-mighty government.
I, in my undying lust to find new and exciting ways prevent the police state from exercising its Orwellian control over the public, find myself delighted to tell you how to defeat this system. As anyone who has taken a physics class can tell you, electromagnetic radiation can not penetrate a conductor. This is how a microwave works… Inside your nukerator is all kinds of EM radiation, but the little metal mesh on the front of the door keeps it inside and prevents you from cooking yourself.
Knowing this, we can come up with a host of ways to defeat the Active Denial System. You could create a wire-mesh shield, and bring it with you to your protest. This would work fine, but the mesh would have to be VERY tight, as the ADS delivers a much higher frequency wavelength at 95GHz than the measly 2450 MHz (a wavelength of 12.24 cm) that your microwave uses. You could line your jacket and pants with tin foil - remembering of course that you must also protect your face and neck.
You get the idea, simply put a mesh or sheet of conductive material between yourself and the ADS, and you win… Have fun storming the castle!
How To Burn The Swedish Goat?
Derek writes me today to tell me about a 43ft straw goat sitting dead-center in the Swedish town of Gävle. Now a huge straw goat just sitting right out there in the open is obviously a target for sabotage, but the Swedes have won a special place in my heart by making a tradition out of burning these things to the ground. Apparently in the 40 years they’ve been putting them up, 66 goats have been built and 35 of them have been destroyed. Despite the government’s unending attempts to protect them by surrounding the straw target with a huge fence fewer than half of these festive goats have survived.
Derek Writes:
It has been destroyed almost every year by some creative individual. Many times it has been burned down. One time it was ripped apart. Another time I guy ran his car through the fence and into the goat, tipping it over. A few years ago an American got caught, put in jail, and fined a lot of money. Last year some other guy was a bit smarter, hitting it with a flaming arrow from a bow, and he wasn’t caught. It went up in flames!
There is even a webcam trained on the goat 24/7! The discussion boards have had some excitement as the occasional fire truck rolls by, but the goat still stands, defying us.
I have to say that this is one Christmas tradition that I can really get behind! Aparently I’m not alone either, as some have gone so far as to setup discussion boards to try to figure out how to take this thing down.
It would seem that the government is not messing around this year though. There is the webcam of course, but they have also hired a British firm to drench the entire goat in Noflan Flammestopp which is a Complex of Alkyl-Phosphonates designed to keep just about anything from burning. The company has thrown down the gauntlet by guraenteeing that the “goat will not burn this year”.
That sounds like taunting to me.
Many ideas on how to destroy this goat have been tossed around, but it all comes down to a few possible end results.
- Burn it
- Blow it up
- Decapitate it
- Split it in half so it falls over
- Cut off a leg to tip it over
- Make it yummy so animals eat it
- Make it disappear (I wonder if Roderick is up for this one?)
- Transform it into something else
Some things to think about and important facts about the goats location:
- Disguise would be needed because of the webcams.
- The fire department is about 3 streets away and can respond quickly.
Some ideas that have been tossed around about how to destroy to goat are:
- Could there be a chemical that you mix with the flame retardant, and the two react and the result is combustible or corrosive?
- Blow something up nearby to cause a diversion.
- Span a hot-wire (like the kind used to cut styrofoam) across its back under tension, and in several hours it would burn through the hay, chop it in half, and then you could pull it apart so both halves tip over).
- Tie chains around the legs and tie them to cars - when the cars pull away they might rip apart the legs.
- Put it on rollers and if it’s on a slant it could go rolling down the hill.
- Put a mirror on the ground and a focusing frensel lens on a building… focus the sun onto the mirror, then the focused light hits the underbelly of the goat (where maybe people won’t notice it) and it can heat up and cut through the belly until it spontaneously ignites.
- Put acid on the thing so that it dissolves.
- Span ropes from building to building above it and work from above, but it would be easy to catch us. We would need a diversion.
- Frame someone else.
- Fake it at one moment or day, and then follow up hours or a day later when people are breathing a sigh of relief.
- We could dress like city workers and act like we are picking up trash around the thing.
- Turn it into something else, like a Christmas tree - somehow.
- Make it grow fur or paint it or put clothes on it.
Since tradition would have us burn it down, it is my feeling that this is the best option. There has been some talk that enough water would wash away the Alkyl-Phosphonates enough for the goat to be set ablaze, but that leaves the problem of getting it dry in time. It seems that the most promising route would be to neutralize the flame retardant enough to get it to catch fire… Any chemistry heads out there? There is plenty of news coverage for the person who manages it.
UPDATE: The Gävle Goat has survived an attack from arsonists on the 15 December. Somebody tried to set one of the legs on fire, but the fire was immediately stopped by the flame retardant chemicals. Some straw was bruned, but they have replaced now, says Anna Ostman, spokeswoman of the Goat Committee.
UPDATE: The Natural Science Club goat has burned, but the larger Southern Merchants Association goat still stands in defiance.
Bush Has Record Low I.Q.
Everyone knows that George W. Bush is a blithering idiot, but now we finally have some data, albeit fake, to back it up.
Apparently the Lovenstein Institute (does not actually exist) has been tracking presidential I.Q. for some time and George W. Bush is right where he belongs at the bottom of the barrel. Coming in at 91, he’s just slightly dumber than his father who managed to come out some seven points ahead of him at 98.
It turns out that this is a hoax, but it makes for a pretty funny story anyhow…
Via the Original source:
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous “IQ” report among others. There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:
In order by presidential term
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)In IQ order
182 William J. Clinton (D)
175 James E. Carter (D)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George Bush (R)
091 George W. Bush (R)The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President G.W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176 (rated as 175 by the Lovenstein Institute).
Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis. “All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with
President Bush,” Dr. Lovenstein said. “He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking.”
Republicans Love to Rewrite History
Sure you say… We all know how much Republicans love to rewrite history. The Bush administration has been little but a series of lies and coverups since 2000, but I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Erich’s assessment over at pigeffer.com.
The long and short of Erich’s article is that Bush and Dick Cheney are angry about their approval ratings going down the toilet. They are so fed up by all the recent congressional critisisim over their pet war in Iraq that they are lashing out against Democrats and accusing them of “rewriting history”.
Erich, of course, asks the obvious question: What about the volumes of history the Bush administration has rewritten? The few members of his administration who can write, that is. This administration has been not only incredibly secretive, they have changed their reasoning for taking America to war three times, and attempted to bring the time-honored tradition of torture back to international affairs…
Hey, torture! Great family values people!
Here are some of the highlights from Erich’s article:
The latest Newsweek poll is showing that Bush’s approval ratings are below 36%, so in an effort to appear to be presidential, Bush is swinging back at his critics by accusing them of “rewriting history”. This is perhaps the most laughable and ironic accusation the president could have offered, considering that he has altered his reasons for going to war with Iraq three times.
At the time, he justified this action by claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and was trying to acquire more. Unsurprisingly, Bush came this conclusion only a month after the attacks in New York City on 9/11. Desperately wanting to pin the attacks on Hussein to use a driver for invasion, he was unsuccessful as all evidence pointed clearly at bin Laden.
Keeping in mind that WMD’s were not found in Iraq, and the people of the United States felt they were lied to, Bush changed his message. Instead of focusing on the weapons of mass destruction, Bush was able to successfully redirect the peoples’ attention to the fact that “Saddam is a bad guy”.
Not long after the Iraqi congress was formed, our reasons for the war changed once again. Now, we were “promoting democracy”, and apparently we still are.
Erich wraps it all up by suggesting what we should be doing with our military presence in Iraq:
The best thing we can do for our troops is to pull them out of all cities, towns, and villages in Iraq and move them to the borders. From there, we can completely secure Iraq and protect the Iraqi people from foreign terrorists, such as the hundreds that are streaming in from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
I can’t say that I completely agree with this approach, but I do agree that the long-term hopes for a settled Middle East are bleak at best.
Of course, the second we leave, no matter how far into the future, Iraq is going to revert back to what it’s always been: a nation of tribes warring with each other over religious differences. Maybe we shouldn’t delay the inevitable…
Well said Erich. I hope you’re wrong, but you certainly do have history on your side.
Corporate Lobbyists Sell Meetings With Bush
Apparently the Bush administration loves corporate lobbyists so much that they’ve started letting them sell meetings with the president.
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - The lobbyist Jack Abramoff asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of a West African nation to arrange a meeting with President Bush and directed his fees to a Maryland company now under federal scrutiny, according to newly disclosed documents.
We’ve always known that Bush values the interest of multinational corporations above all else, but come on Mr. President, isn’t this a bit much? Allowing your corporate buddies to sell meetings with you for a whopping 9 million dollars! Hopefully you are at least living up to your record of corruption and demanding a cut.
I’ll ignore the bitter shiver of disenfranchised Americanism I just got, and move on to laugh (or is it cry) at the thought of what happens when someone calls the White House to try to get a meeting with W…
White House: Hello, White House.
Caller: Hi, I would like to meet with the President.
White House: Oh… We’ll have to direct you to his Enron office for that.
Caller: Enron office?
White House: That’s right, Enron is handling the President’s schedule now. In collaboration with members of the carlyl group of course.
White House: Bye now.
I know I should stop being amazed at how demonic and corrupt this administration is, but every time they sink to a new low it still makes me sick.
Mishap with a Truck Full of Missiles
A truck full of missiles exploded in a South Korean tunnel Wednesday, but luckily nobody was harmed. Officials have been trying to downplay the explosion, but despite their efforts, it has become international news, resulting in widespread criticism of the South Korean government.
Apparently, the truck was one of the four cargo vehicles carrying warheads and boosters for Nike-Hercules missiles from an air base in Sunchon, South Cholla Province, to another base in Taegu.
The incident seems to be worrying citizens about the lack of security and safety measures in South Korean society. They point to a series of disasters such as the subway fires in Taegu which killed hundreds of people.
From The Korea Times:
The incident also enhances public concerns about the status of military discipline and order, which has been seriously eroded because of the outbreak of serious accidents. In addition, it is expected to prompt the government to replace the obsolete Nike-Hercules missiles with second-hand Patriot missiles as quickly as possible, because they are prone to accidents. Korea is the only country that still operates the Nike-Hercules missiles, which were developed in the 1950s. At present, some 200 are deployed in the country.
Downing Street Memo picks up traction
Not to revisit recent topics, but I must say that I really am amazed that the mainstream press has finally started talking about the Downing Street Memo. More than two months after the memo was leaked, the so-called “liberal” media has finally gotten around to covering it, albeit not with much enthusiasm.
Not that they came to it on their own, mind you. Bloggers have bee covering it since it came out and congress has taken note with many House and Senate Republicans demanding an explanation from the White House. Democracy For America even has a petition with more than a half a million signatures calling for an independent investigation, yet somehow, up to now, the major news sources have fallen silent.
When bloggers, and the United States Congress cover a political scandal like the Downing Street Memo long before the major news sources we are supposed to be trusting for independent, objective reporting, we have to start asking ourselves about the integrity of our Nation’s media. We are living in a time when multinational conglomerates control both our politicians and our news sources. They used their money to finance the campaigns of their pocketed politicians, and their news channels to ensure the public maintains a favorable opinion of them. While voters maintain an illusion of the electoral final say, the truth is a disturbing flourish of Orwellian smoke and mirrors.
Sign the petition! >
Read the Memo! >
Howard Dean Speaks for me!
I’m getting a little sick and tired of hearing supposed Democrats wine and complain about how howard Dean in not speaking for them. Dean mentions that Republicans are mostly a “White, Christian” party; a statement that is entirely backed up by scientific data, and these cowards get scared and start knifing him in the back again.
Maybe it’s true. These fair weather Democrats have clearly bought into the Republican lies and rhetoric, and are now feeling guilty about their own political party and convictions. In that case, Howard Dean, a person who is willing to stand up for his beliefs and the values of his party, is most certainly not speaking for them, or anyone else who lacks the backbone to speak out against those in power.
I have a message for these wavering politicians. Howard Dean speaks for me, and he speaks for a lot of other people that would still be cynical and uninterested in government had it not been for his empowering message! Not only is he the first politician I have ever campaigned for, he is also the first political candidate to whom I’ve made a campaign contribution. If the Democratic party is to form a cohesive unit with a single, powerful message, we need Howard Dean at the helm.
So join me in demanding that these “Democrats” stop knifing the leader of our party in the back. By doing this, they are not only weakening their own credibility, they are destroying our chances of taking our country back from the Neo-Conservitive radicals in power.
Sign the “Howard Dean Speaks for me petition >
Cheney’s runs his mouth again >
The Downing Street Memo
A secret British document revealed last month — the Downing Street Memo — all but confirms a sickening truth. Obsessed with Saddam no matter what the cost, President Bush and his aides dragged the nation to war with fixed evidence and false claims about non-existent Iraqi WMD’s.
The Downing Street Memo makes clear that Bush wanted intelligence that justified a war, no matter how the facts had to be bent to get it.
The memo consists of the minutes of a meeting where the British intelligence chief, just back from the White House, told Prime Minister Tony Blair that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts,” the Downing Street Memo continues, “were being fixed around the policy. The [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
Today, American soldiers and their families deal with the aftermath of a war hastily planned and poorly executed by an ideologically obsessed White House that finds money for corporate welfare, but not for armor for our troops.
The American people deserve an explanation — but it’s clear that even with Blair in Washington this week, the press won’t do the job on its own. So we will have to take the memo directly to the people. Here it is.
As originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
[Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide]
The Howard BEAN: A Cafe For America Begins International Campaign for New Owner
The Howard BEAN: A Cafe For America has begun an international campaign for a new owner, its current owner announced today. The Montpelier, Vt., cafe opened on election day 2004 and was named (tongue-in-cheek) after a certain former Vermont Governor who is the chair of the Democratic National Committee. The cafe is also home to the monthly meetup of the Central Vermont Democracy for America.
As our cafe continues to gain a national following, we want to be certain that the person who takes over is truly the ideal candidate and will continue to serve a no-frills, affordable cup of coffee. None of that $4-a-cup, whoop-de-do, latte-boca-cucaracha-grande nonsense, says owner Patrick Mullikin. The Howard BEAN is, after all, a cafe for America.
The cafe is located at Riverwalk Records and Psychedelic Poster Gallery, which hosts the annual Green Mountain Bob Dylan Wanna-Be Contest, featured on Vermont Public Radio. Riverwalk Records was instrumental in resurrecting the again-vibrant live music scene in Montpelier and hosts in-store concerts featuring local artists.
For further information, e-mail: info@riverwalkrecords.com, or call (802) 223-3334 or (802) 229-9905.
Bush Audio tapes Leaked
The quotes below are taken from a New York TImes article from Feb 19, 2005. Doug Wead is a personal friend of George Bush. During the course of writing a book about then future president he secretly recorded some private conversations.
NOTE: We are currently trying to acquire the entire transcripts of these tapes, as well as the audio files themselves. Check back regularly for updates.
>>Variously earnest, confident or prickly in those conversations, Bush weighs the political risks and benefits of his religious faith, discusses campaign strategy and comments on rivals. John McCain “will wear thin,” he predicted. John Ashcroft, he confided, would be a “very good Supreme Court pick” or a “fabulous” vice president. And in exchanges about his handling of questions from the news media about his past, Bush appears to have acknowledged trying marijuana.
>>Preparing to meet Christian leaders in September 1998, Bush told Mr. Wead, “As you said, there are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways.” He added, “I am going to say that I’ve accepted Christ into my life. And that’s a true statement.”
>>But Bush also repeatedly worried that prominent evangelical Christians would not like his refusal “to kick gays.” At the same time, he was wary of unnerving secular voters by meeting publicly with evangelical leaders. When he thought his aides had agreed to such a meeting, Bush complained to Karl Rove, his political strategist, “What the hell is this about?”
>>Bush, who has acknowledged a drinking problem years ago, told Mr. Wead on the tapes that he could withstand scrutiny of his past. He said it involved nothing more than “just, you know, wild behavior.” He worried, though, that allegations of cocaine use would surface in the campaign, and he blamed his opponents for stirring rumors. “If nobody shows up, there’s no story,” he told Mr. Wead, “and if somebody shows up, it is going to be made up.” But when Mr. Wead said that Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, “I haven’t denied anything.”
>>He refused to answer reporters’ questions about his past behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his approach, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.”
>>He mocked Vice President Al Gore for acknowledging marijuana use. “Baby boomers have got to grow up and say, yeah, I may have done drugs, but instead of admitting it, say to kids, don’t do them,” he said.
>>Bush threatened that if his rival Steve Forbes attacked him too hard during the campaign and won, both Bush, then the Texas governor, and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, would withhold their support. “He can forget Texas. And he can forget Florida. And I will sit on my hands,” Bush said.
>>Bush also regularly gripes about the barbs of the press and his rivals. And he is cocky at times. “It’s me versus the world,” he told Mr. Wead. “The good news is, the world is on my side. Or more than half of it.”
>>”I believe tomorrow is going to change Texas politics forever,” he told Mr. Wead. “The top three offices right below me will be the first time there has been a Republican in that slot since the Civil War. Isn’t that amazing? And I hate to be a braggart, but they are going to win for one reason: me.”
>>When Mr. Wead warned him that “power corrupts,” for example, Bush told him not to worry: “I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check.”
>>Preparing to meet with influential Christian conservatives, Bush tested his lines with Mr. Wead. “I’m going to tell them the five turning points in my life,” he said. “Accepting Christ. Marrying my wife. Having children. Running for governor. And listening to my mother.”
>>…apparently ruling out potential vice presidents including Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania and Gen. Colin L. Powell, who favored abortion rights. Picking any of them could turn conservative Christians away from the ticket, Bush
>>…”Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I’m not going to kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?”
>>…convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: “This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.”
>>”This is an issue I have been trying to downplay,” Bush said. “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”
>> “No, what I said was, I wouldn’t fire gays.”
>>Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. “Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that,” Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.
>>”Sovereignty. The issue is huge. The mere mention of Kofi Annan in the U.N. caused the crowd to go into a veritable fit. The coalition wants America strong and wants the American flag flying overseas, not the pale blue of the U.N
>>”I don’t like it either,” Bush said of the Clinton investigations. “But on the other hand, I think he has disgraced the nation.”
>>When Mr. Wead warned that he had heard reporters talking about Bush’s “immature” past, Bush said, “That’s part of my schtick, which is, look, we have all made mistakes.”
>>He said he learned “a couple of really good lines” from Mr. Robison, the Texas pastor: “What you need to say time and time again is not talk about the details of your transgressions but talk about what I have learned. I’ve sinned and I’ve learned.”
>>”I said, ‘James’ - he stopped - I said, ‘I did some things when I was young that were immature,’ ” Bush said. “He said, ‘But have you learned?’ I said, ‘James, that’s the difference between me and the president. I’ve learned. I am prepared to accept the responsibility of this office.’ “By the summer of 1999, Bush was telling Mr. Wead his approach to such prying questions had evolved. “I think it is time for somebody to just draw the line and look people in the eye and say, I am not going to participate in ugly rumors about me, and blame my opponents, and hold the line, and stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on.”
>>…used illegal drugs in the past …”I am just not going to answer those questions. And it might cost me the election,”
>>”It’s unbelievable,” Bush said, reciting various rumors about his past that his aides had picked up from reporters. “They just float sewer out there.”
>>”I like Ashcroft a lot,” he told Mr. Wead in November 1998. “He is a competent man. He would be a good Supreme Court pick. He would be a good attorney general. He would be a good vice president.”
>>When Mr. Wead predicted an uproar if Mr. Ashcroft were appointed to the court because of his conservative religious views, Bush replied, “Well, tough.”
>>”I want Ashcroft to stay in there, and I want him to be very strong,” Bush said. ” I would love it to be a Bush-Ashcroft race. Only because I respect him. He wouldn’t say ugly things about me. And I damn sure wouldn’t say ugly things about him.”
>>Evangelicals were not going to like him, Bush said. “He’s too preppy,” Bush said, calling Mr. Forbes “mean spirited.”
“Steve Forbes is going to hear this message from me. I will do nothing for him if he does to me what he did to Dole. Period. There is going to be a consequence. He is not dealing with the average, you know, ‘Oh gosh, let’s all get together after it’s over.’ I will promise you, I will not help him. I don’t care.”
>>When Mr. Wead suggested in June 2000 that Mr. McCain’s popularity with Democrats and moderate voters might make him a strong vice presidential candidate, Bush almost laughed. “Oh, come on!” He added, “I don’t know if he helps us win.”
>>Bush could hardly contain his disdain for Mr. Gore, his Democratic opponent, at one point calling him “pathologically a liar.” His confidence in the moral purpose of his campaign to usher in “a responsibility era” never wavered, but he acknowledged that winning might require hard jabs. “I may have to get a little rough for a while,” he told Mr. Wead, “but that is what the old man had to do with Dukakis, remember?”
More as we try to acquire the transcripts….
Howard Dean Victory Celebration
Last Sunday, DFA, and the Howard Bean Cafe in Montpelier, VT organized a victory celebration for Howard Dean’s election to the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. The local news media were there, along with dozens of DFA Members and Howard Dean supporters. Free coffee, cake, and a wonderful time was had by all
The overall feeling was that of relief. Many of those attending became excited by politics for the first time in their lives because of Howard Dean’s empowering message, and had been frustrated by how the former Democratic establishment had treated him. Most of those I talked with expressed a renewed hope for the party now that Dean is at the helm, and were excited and optimistic about the future.
Howard Dean truly is what our party needs. An honest, trustworthy person who tells America the truth and speaks from his heart. He more than anyone else at this point has the political understanding, and grassroots support to take the moral high ground back from the conservative radicals, and turn the red states blue!
 Congrats Howard! |
 The Howard Bean Cafe. |
 Isn’t technology great? |
Clarke’s al-Qaeda Threat Memo Leaked
Yeserday, the National Security Archive posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice.
The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration’s policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke’s memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack.
Despite Clarke’s request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001. The memo has been declassified for some time, but only became available yesterday.
Original Secirity Archives Memo Page 1 >
Original Secirity Archives Memo Page 2 >
Original Secirity Archives Memo Page 3 >
Howard Dean has the votes needed to take the DNC Chair!
On February 4, Donnie Fowler, the last viable opposition to Howard Dean, exited the race for DNC chair, and endorced Dean with the following words:
“The Republicans have adopted a cynical strategy in the last few years when it comes to pushing their radical agenda. First, they scare us - WMDs! Social security crisis! Then they take our money and tell us it’s good for us - $5 billion a month in Iraq; reduced benefits after paying into retirement funds. Finally, when the truth comes out, they change the story - WMDs? Not any more! Freedom!”
Fortunately, the Democratic National Committee will get the kind of change it needs. With Howard Dean as its next chair, the Party will have someone who not only understands change, but knows how to make it happen.
According to the “National Journal”, Howard Dean now has the public endorsements of 250 of the 447 members of the Democratic National Committee. Provided the broad range of support he has built continues through next weekend’s vote, Dean will become the next Democratic Party chairman.