Friday, March 17, 2006
There Really Is a Culture of Republican Corruption.
by Rob Kall
OpEdnews - 3/17/06
Republicans think the world is corrupt and they act accordingly. Here's proof. Our OpEdNews / Zogby People's poll found one interesting thing about voters' attitudes towards corruption. Republicans think everyone is corrupt. While only about 5% of them think just republicans are corrupt,and 20% think Democrats are currupt, 70% think everyone is corrupt, which adds up to a total of 75% of them thinking Republicans are corrupt. Under 2% of Democrats think Democrats are corrupt, and 83% of Democrats think Republicans are corrupt. But only about 16 percent of Democrats think a combination of democrats and everyone is corrupt.
This tells ME that Republicans have a much more jaded view of the world. They cynically think that that the whole world is corrupt. There's one group that varies from this-- the very conservative respondents. They didn't feel that Republicans are corrupt at all, and 69% of them thought that Democrats are corrupt, with 30% of them saying both are corrupt. These ultra-koolaid drinkers are in a very sorry state of denial. AFter the very conservative, the people who think Democrats are more corrupt are NASCAR fans, at 28%, Republicans overall, at 21%, then Born agains and weekly church-goers, at 20%. Note that outside of the very conservatives, no group comes close to rating the Democrats as corrupt as the Republicans.
Here are some of the stats on groups that think the Republicans are more corrupt:
It gets more interesting. Half of the moderates think Republicans and Democrats are both equally corrupt. But 48% think Republicans are corrupt compared to 1.4% who think that Democrats are corrupt. That's similar to the view of Independents. 48% think both parties are corrupt, but 46% think Republicans are corrupt compared to 7.5% who think Democrats are corrupt. 84% of Libertarians think both parties are corrupt.
89% of progressives think Republicans are corrupt, 1% think Democrats are corrupt, and 10% think both are.
94% of liberals think Republicans are corrupt, none think Democrats are corrupt and 5.7% think both are equally corrupt. Different Koolaid?
The most extreme on either side hold the other side in most contempt. Born agains and NASCAR fans are most likely to find Republicans less corrupt. These same born agains are most likely to reject taking away tax exempt status from churches that violate rules about keeping politics out of the church. How does a party which sees the world as corrupt function? It's clear from the DATA, from the facts, that the lobbyists invest more dirty money in Republicans. People invest money where they expect to get results.
It's sad that the people who are most blind to the corruption of the Republicans. No, cancel sad. Make it pathetic and disgusting. These are the people who are distorting and betraying the teachings of Jesus to break the law, to support a lying administration all so they can support their one twisted issue-- their anti-abortion issue. And that's not really a bible issue. It's an issue for the weak, insecure men.
Let's look at the emographic against demographic "Crosstabs" stats on this, doing statistics comparing one demographic against another.
9% of men describe themselves as very conservative compared to 3% of women.
21.5% of Born agains are very conservative. But 79% of those who describe themselves as very conservative are born agains. Interestingly, 12% of liberals and progressives describe themselves as Born-agains. We have some wonderful bornagains writing for us here at OpEdNews. But they are lonely folks, in their churches.
By Gender, Men outnumber women in the bornagain category-- 53% to 47%.
When we look at the demographics by gender, we find some interesting ratios:
On ideology:
I've written about this before. The most conservative men base their politics on issues that take away women's rights. I call them victims of "little dick" syndrome. They need to feel they are dominating and in control, superior. It's disgusting-- neanderthal, if that wasn't an insult to neanderthals. We don't know that they were so weak and backwards.
As I've reported before, 64% of the members of the democratic party in this poll are women. Sixty percent of the men are republicans. It's Michael Moore's book title at work.
One interesting stat-- while 58% of Protestants are female, our poll found that 53% of bornagains are males. Since we only asked the question of protestants, this means that there are a lot more females who are NOT born agains who are protestant. When we look at the cross tabs for religion against ideology, we find that 74% of those who describe themselves as very conservative are Protestants, compared to 25% for Catholics and Zero percent for Jews.
It looks like born again men, tending to be rural and small town, make up the biggest group of very conservative voters who see the world as corrupt and justification in supporting corrupt politicians.
These are some of the "stupid white men" that Michael Moore's book referred to. Ironically, these same men are the ones who are most hurting themselves. They help the wealthy to get huge tax cuts, transnational corporations to get massive corporate welfare, regulatory concessions and special privleges. They support politicians who keep the poor impoverished, keep the 45+million without health care uncared for. All this to keep their Paternalistic, dominating and controlling needs over women met. These are the guys who run the megachurches, who run the little churches-- weak, needy men who don't have the spine to respect women as equals. They need to treat women as lower, people who don't have the right to use contraceptives or abortion to control their bodies.
Don't get me wrong. There are women who are just as corrupt. But they are the minority. We on the left need to get a handle on WHY these people have fallen prey to the toxic mindset they hold. Until we do, the US will be prey to corrupt politicians who will do ANYTHING to steal elections, grab power and hold onto it. Honest practices on one side are not enough. It will take tough, principled action on the part of the left to beat back-- yes BEAT BACK-- the dishonest, crooked practices and processes, the crooked judges, policies, regulations and laws, appointees and employees who have been put in place by these corrupt right wingers.
And let's be honest. There are dishonest Democrats and left wingers too. But they are far fewer, and the mentality that drives them may be different. As we attempt to clean up our politics, our laws, regulations, election and judicial systems, we should try to create laws and rules that keep them as clean as possible so neither side can corruptly influence them.
This task of cleaning up American corruption may dwarf Hercule's task of clean King Augeas' stables. He just had to divert a river. We have to turn a huge tide that is already at tsunami height.
Rob Kall is editor of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology.
*************************************************************************
by Rob Kall
OpEdnews - 3/17/06
Republicans think the world is corrupt and they act accordingly. Here's proof. Our OpEdNews / Zogby People's poll found one interesting thing about voters' attitudes towards corruption. Republicans think everyone is corrupt. While only about 5% of them think just republicans are corrupt,and 20% think Democrats are currupt, 70% think everyone is corrupt, which adds up to a total of 75% of them thinking Republicans are corrupt. Under 2% of Democrats think Democrats are corrupt, and 83% of Democrats think Republicans are corrupt. But only about 16 percent of Democrats think a combination of democrats and everyone is corrupt.
This tells ME that Republicans have a much more jaded view of the world. They cynically think that that the whole world is corrupt. There's one group that varies from this-- the very conservative respondents. They didn't feel that Republicans are corrupt at all, and 69% of them thought that Democrats are corrupt, with 30% of them saying both are corrupt. These ultra-koolaid drinkers are in a very sorry state of denial. AFter the very conservative, the people who think Democrats are more corrupt are NASCAR fans, at 28%, Republicans overall, at 21%, then Born agains and weekly church-goers, at 20%. Note that outside of the very conservatives, no group comes close to rating the Democrats as corrupt as the Republicans.
Here are some of the stats on groups that think the Republicans are more corrupt:
- Gender: Women 60% vs. men 36%
- Age: 18-24 year olds 66%, 55-69 year olds 41%, 70+ year olds 69.3%
- Locale: Rural 36%, suburbs 40%, small city 58%, Large city 67%
- Marital status: Married 40%, single 50%, DWS (divorced, widowed, separated) 66%, Civil union 70%
- Religion: Catholic 32%, Protestant 39%, Jewish 71%, Born Again 10%
It gets more interesting. Half of the moderates think Republicans and Democrats are both equally corrupt. But 48% think Republicans are corrupt compared to 1.4% who think that Democrats are corrupt. That's similar to the view of Independents. 48% think both parties are corrupt, but 46% think Republicans are corrupt compared to 7.5% who think Democrats are corrupt. 84% of Libertarians think both parties are corrupt.
89% of progressives think Republicans are corrupt, 1% think Democrats are corrupt, and 10% think both are.
94% of liberals think Republicans are corrupt, none think Democrats are corrupt and 5.7% think both are equally corrupt. Different Koolaid?
The most extreme on either side hold the other side in most contempt. Born agains and NASCAR fans are most likely to find Republicans less corrupt. These same born agains are most likely to reject taking away tax exempt status from churches that violate rules about keeping politics out of the church. How does a party which sees the world as corrupt function? It's clear from the DATA, from the facts, that the lobbyists invest more dirty money in Republicans. People invest money where they expect to get results.
It's sad that the people who are most blind to the corruption of the Republicans. No, cancel sad. Make it pathetic and disgusting. These are the people who are distorting and betraying the teachings of Jesus to break the law, to support a lying administration all so they can support their one twisted issue-- their anti-abortion issue. And that's not really a bible issue. It's an issue for the weak, insecure men.
Let's look at the emographic against demographic "Crosstabs" stats on this, doing statistics comparing one demographic against another.
9% of men describe themselves as very conservative compared to 3% of women.
21.5% of Born agains are very conservative. But 79% of those who describe themselves as very conservative are born agains. Interestingly, 12% of liberals and progressives describe themselves as Born-agains. We have some wonderful bornagains writing for us here at OpEdNews. But they are lonely folks, in their churches.
By Gender, Men outnumber women in the bornagain category-- 53% to 47%.
When we look at the demographics by gender, we find some interesting ratios:
On ideology:
- progressive male 44%, female 56%
- liberal male 30%, female 70%
- moderate male 42%, female 58%
- conservative male 61%, female 39%
- very conservative male 75%, female 25%
- libertarian male 68%, female 32%
I've written about this before. The most conservative men base their politics on issues that take away women's rights. I call them victims of "little dick" syndrome. They need to feel they are dominating and in control, superior. It's disgusting-- neanderthal, if that wasn't an insult to neanderthals. We don't know that they were so weak and backwards.
As I've reported before, 64% of the members of the democratic party in this poll are women. Sixty percent of the men are republicans. It's Michael Moore's book title at work.
One interesting stat-- while 58% of Protestants are female, our poll found that 53% of bornagains are males. Since we only asked the question of protestants, this means that there are a lot more females who are NOT born agains who are protestant. When we look at the cross tabs for religion against ideology, we find that 74% of those who describe themselves as very conservative are Protestants, compared to 25% for Catholics and Zero percent for Jews.
It looks like born again men, tending to be rural and small town, make up the biggest group of very conservative voters who see the world as corrupt and justification in supporting corrupt politicians.
These are some of the "stupid white men" that Michael Moore's book referred to. Ironically, these same men are the ones who are most hurting themselves. They help the wealthy to get huge tax cuts, transnational corporations to get massive corporate welfare, regulatory concessions and special privleges. They support politicians who keep the poor impoverished, keep the 45+million without health care uncared for. All this to keep their Paternalistic, dominating and controlling needs over women met. These are the guys who run the megachurches, who run the little churches-- weak, needy men who don't have the spine to respect women as equals. They need to treat women as lower, people who don't have the right to use contraceptives or abortion to control their bodies.
Don't get me wrong. There are women who are just as corrupt. But they are the minority. We on the left need to get a handle on WHY these people have fallen prey to the toxic mindset they hold. Until we do, the US will be prey to corrupt politicians who will do ANYTHING to steal elections, grab power and hold onto it. Honest practices on one side are not enough. It will take tough, principled action on the part of the left to beat back-- yes BEAT BACK-- the dishonest, crooked practices and processes, the crooked judges, policies, regulations and laws, appointees and employees who have been put in place by these corrupt right wingers.
And let's be honest. There are dishonest Democrats and left wingers too. But they are far fewer, and the mentality that drives them may be different. As we attempt to clean up our politics, our laws, regulations, election and judicial systems, we should try to create laws and rules that keep them as clean as possible so neither side can corruptly influence them.
This task of cleaning up American corruption may dwarf Hercule's task of clean King Augeas' stables. He just had to divert a river. We have to turn a huge tide that is already at tsunami height.
Rob Kall is editor of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology.
*************************************************************************
Vargas Omitted Unanimous Dem "NO" Vote on Increasing National Debt Limit
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603170009
On the March 16 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas reported that "Congress voted to raise the national debt limit to nearly $9 trillion," but omitted the fact that all Senate Democrats voted against the increase, along with three Republicans. The Senate's March 16 vote was 52-48.
By contrast, on the March 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams reported both the vote and Senate Democrats' unanimous opposition:
WILLIAMS: And one more note on all this from Capitol Hill in Washington tonight where the Senate agreed to let the federal government borrow another $781 billion, and the House then promptly passed $91 billion in new spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for hurricane relief. The 52-to-48 vote in the Senate on that debt was along party lines, with three Republicans joining all the Democrats in opposing the bill that raised the ceiling on our national debt to nearly $9 trillion. That level, by the way, that level of debt, represents $30,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
The bill raising the debt limit had previously passed the House on April 28, 2005, under an automatic House budget rule (page 48) triggered by the passage of the fiscal year 2006 congressional budget -- which sets the parameters for the coming year's budget. The 2006 budget also passed the House without any Democratic support.
From the March 16 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:
VARGAS: And on Capitol Hill, Congress voted to raise the national debt limit to nearly $9 trillion, or $30,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. President Bush is expected to approve the increase, which will allow the government to pay for the war in Iraq and other federal programs without raising taxes. The debt has increased by $3 trillion since President Bush took office.
*************************************************************************
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603170009
On the March 16 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas reported that "Congress voted to raise the national debt limit to nearly $9 trillion," but omitted the fact that all Senate Democrats voted against the increase, along with three Republicans. The Senate's March 16 vote was 52-48.
By contrast, on the March 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams reported both the vote and Senate Democrats' unanimous opposition:
WILLIAMS: And one more note on all this from Capitol Hill in Washington tonight where the Senate agreed to let the federal government borrow another $781 billion, and the House then promptly passed $91 billion in new spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for hurricane relief. The 52-to-48 vote in the Senate on that debt was along party lines, with three Republicans joining all the Democrats in opposing the bill that raised the ceiling on our national debt to nearly $9 trillion. That level, by the way, that level of debt, represents $30,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
The bill raising the debt limit had previously passed the House on April 28, 2005, under an automatic House budget rule (page 48) triggered by the passage of the fiscal year 2006 congressional budget -- which sets the parameters for the coming year's budget. The 2006 budget also passed the House without any Democratic support.
From the March 16 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:
VARGAS: And on Capitol Hill, Congress voted to raise the national debt limit to nearly $9 trillion, or $30,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. President Bush is expected to approve the increase, which will allow the government to pay for the war in Iraq and other federal programs without raising taxes. The debt has increased by $3 trillion since President Bush took office.
*************************************************************************
SCHOLARS AFFIRM CHENEY COMPLICITY IN 9/11
flybynightnews.com
Experts conclude Vice President possessed foreknowledge and suggest Moussaoui trial a "distraction".
(I-Newswire) - Duluth, MN: March 13, 2006 -- A society of experts and scholars contends that the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui-- for willfully concealing advance knowledge of the events of 9/11 - has the status of a Soviet-style "show trial" and functions as a diversion from the real culprits. The nonpartisan group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, asserts that the evidence implicating Vice President Dick Cheney of that very offense is more obvious and compelling. If they are even remotely correct, then the alleged terrorists appear to have been cast in the role of "patsies."
The experts base their conclusion on testimony presented to the 9/11 Commission by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta on May 23, 2003, which was omitted from its final report, and on related events at the Pentagon. Members of the society will present their findings during a press conference to be held at 1 PM on Tuesday at the United States Courthouse in Alexandria, VA, the location of a hearing to determine whether Moussaoui, who is called "the 20th hijacker", should serve a life term or receive the death sentence.
"Mineta's testimony is devastating," observed James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota. Fetzer is the founder and co-chair of the scholars' society, which recently joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents, films and videos, and physical evidence withheld from the public by the administration. "It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit."
According to Secretary Mineta's testimony, which is in the public domain, when he ( Mineta ) arrived at an underground bunker at the White House ( known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center ), the Vice President was in charge. "During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon", he stated, "there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane is 50 miles out.' 'The plane is 30 miles out.'
"And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,'" Mineta continued, "the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'"
"The only reasonable interpretation of the orders," Fetzer observed, "is that the incoming aircraft should not be shot down".
Philip J. Berg, Esq., Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, added, "Those who made it happen were obviously in the position to know that it was going to happen and therefore could have sounded a warning alarm. The case against Cheney is more powerful than the case against Moussaoui. No one is more culpable than the perpetrators. If Moussaoui deserves the death penalty, what does our Vice President deserve?"
Other members of the society include Robert Bowman, head of the "Star Wars" program in both Democratic and Republican administrations; Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the Bush administration; Andreas von Buelow, former assistant defense minister of Germany; Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics from Brigham Young University and the society's co-chair; and Griffin, a noted theologian and author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.
Documentary support for the conclusions reported here may be found at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site at www.st911.org.
*************************************************************************
flybynightnews.com
Experts conclude Vice President possessed foreknowledge and suggest Moussaoui trial a "distraction".
(I-Newswire) - Duluth, MN: March 13, 2006 -- A society of experts and scholars contends that the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui-- for willfully concealing advance knowledge of the events of 9/11 - has the status of a Soviet-style "show trial" and functions as a diversion from the real culprits. The nonpartisan group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, asserts that the evidence implicating Vice President Dick Cheney of that very offense is more obvious and compelling. If they are even remotely correct, then the alleged terrorists appear to have been cast in the role of "patsies."
The experts base their conclusion on testimony presented to the 9/11 Commission by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta on May 23, 2003, which was omitted from its final report, and on related events at the Pentagon. Members of the society will present their findings during a press conference to be held at 1 PM on Tuesday at the United States Courthouse in Alexandria, VA, the location of a hearing to determine whether Moussaoui, who is called "the 20th hijacker", should serve a life term or receive the death sentence.
"Mineta's testimony is devastating," observed James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota. Fetzer is the founder and co-chair of the scholars' society, which recently joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents, films and videos, and physical evidence withheld from the public by the administration. "It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit."
According to Secretary Mineta's testimony, which is in the public domain, when he ( Mineta ) arrived at an underground bunker at the White House ( known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center ), the Vice President was in charge. "During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon", he stated, "there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane is 50 miles out.' 'The plane is 30 miles out.'
"And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,'" Mineta continued, "the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'"
"The only reasonable interpretation of the orders," Fetzer observed, "is that the incoming aircraft should not be shot down".
Philip J. Berg, Esq., Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, added, "Those who made it happen were obviously in the position to know that it was going to happen and therefore could have sounded a warning alarm. The case against Cheney is more powerful than the case against Moussaoui. No one is more culpable than the perpetrators. If Moussaoui deserves the death penalty, what does our Vice President deserve?"
Other members of the society include Robert Bowman, head of the "Star Wars" program in both Democratic and Republican administrations; Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the Bush administration; Andreas von Buelow, former assistant defense minister of Germany; Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics from Brigham Young University and the society's co-chair; and Griffin, a noted theologian and author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.
Documentary support for the conclusions reported here may be found at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site at www.st911.org.
*************************************************************************
Graduation Madness Fact Sheet
http://thinkprogress.org/grad-mad-fact-sheet/
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=83210
Percentage of the 4,000+ students who play Division 1 men’s basketball who will go on to professional sports careers: 0.8
Percentage of NCAA men’s basketball players who entered college in 1997 and had graduated by 2003: 44
Number of the teams in last year’s March Madness, out of 65, that would not have qualified to play for the national championship if a 50-percent graduation rate was required for players: 43
Approximate number of colleges that last year “asked the NCAA for leniency” when it began handing out penalties to teams that had not met the Academic Progress Rate standards: 400
Average salary of a worker with a bachelor’s degree in 2004, according the U.S. Census Bureau: $51,206, versus $27,915 for a high school graduate
Average revenues for a Division 1-A athletic program in 2003: $29.4 million, up 17.2 percent from 2001
Number of the NCAA Division I men’s basketball teams that did not graduate a single African-American college athlete from 1999-2004: 45, out of 328
Percentage of Division I men’s basketball players who are African-American: 58
Number of NCAA Division I women’s basketball teams that did not graduate a single African-American college athlete from 1999-2004: 27
Number of Final Four teams in last year’s tournament sponsored by Nike: 4
Tell Nike, Adidas and Reebok to Get Off the Academic Sidelines! Thirty of the sixty-five teams that qualified for the Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament do not meet the minimal academic requirements defined by the NCAA. Graduation Madness is an effort to encourage corporate sponsors — who make millions by adorning these athletes with their company logos — to improve the academic success of collegiate basketball players using market forces.
*************************************************************************
http://thinkprogress.org/grad-mad-fact-sheet/
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=83210
Percentage of the 4,000+ students who play Division 1 men’s basketball who will go on to professional sports careers: 0.8
Percentage of NCAA men’s basketball players who entered college in 1997 and had graduated by 2003: 44
Number of the teams in last year’s March Madness, out of 65, that would not have qualified to play for the national championship if a 50-percent graduation rate was required for players: 43
Approximate number of colleges that last year “asked the NCAA for leniency” when it began handing out penalties to teams that had not met the Academic Progress Rate standards: 400
Average salary of a worker with a bachelor’s degree in 2004, according the U.S. Census Bureau: $51,206, versus $27,915 for a high school graduate
Average revenues for a Division 1-A athletic program in 2003: $29.4 million, up 17.2 percent from 2001
Number of the NCAA Division I men’s basketball teams that did not graduate a single African-American college athlete from 1999-2004: 45, out of 328
Percentage of Division I men’s basketball players who are African-American: 58
Number of NCAA Division I women’s basketball teams that did not graduate a single African-American college athlete from 1999-2004: 27
Number of Final Four teams in last year’s tournament sponsored by Nike: 4
Tell Nike, Adidas and Reebok to Get Off the Academic Sidelines! Thirty of the sixty-five teams that qualified for the Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament do not meet the minimal academic requirements defined by the NCAA. Graduation Madness is an effort to encourage corporate sponsors — who make millions by adorning these athletes with their company logos — to improve the academic success of collegiate basketball players using market forces.
*************************************************************************
Climate Change 'Irreversible' as Arctic Sea Ice Fails to Re-Form
by Steve Connor, Science Editor http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article351135.ece
3/14/06
Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.
Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers.
*************************************************************************
by Steve Connor, Science Editor http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article351135.ece
3/14/06
Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.
Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers.
*************************************************************************
Melting Antarctic Raising Sea Levels
by Steve Connor, Science Editor
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article348910.ece
3/3/06
More evidence has emerged indicating the Antarctic ice sheet is melting so fast it is contributing to a rise in global sea levels.
The first satellite study of the continent's ice inventory has revealed that Antarctica is releasing around 35 cubic miles of water into the sea each year.
*************************************************************************
by Steve Connor, Science Editor
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article348910.ece
3/3/06
More evidence has emerged indicating the Antarctic ice sheet is melting so fast it is contributing to a rise in global sea levels.
The first satellite study of the continent's ice inventory has revealed that Antarctica is releasing around 35 cubic miles of water into the sea each year.
*************************************************************************
Torture Inc. America's Brutal Prisons
by Deborah Davies
Information Clearing House
Savaged by dogs, Electrocuted With Cattle Prods, Burned By Toxic Chemicals, Does such barbaric abuse inside U.S. jails explain the horrors that were committed in Iraq?
They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for BBC Channel 4 . It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.
The prison guards stand over their captives with electric cattle prods, stun guns, and dogs. Many of the prisoners have been ordered to strip naked. The guards are yelling abuse at them, ordering them to lie on the ground and crawl. ‘Crawl, motherf*****s, crawl.’
If a prisoner doesn’t drop to the ground fast enough, a guard kicks him or stamps on his back. There’s a high-pitched scream from one man as a dog clamps its teeth onto his lower leg.
Another prisoner has a broken ankle. He can’t crawl fast enough so a guard jabs a stun gun onto his buttocks. The jolt of electricity zaps through his naked flesh and genitals. For hours afterwards his whole body shakes.
Lines of men are now slithering across the floor of the cellblock while the guards stand over them shouting, prodding and kicking.
Second by second, their humiliation is captured on a video camera by one of the guards.
The images of abuse and brutality he records are horrifyingly familiar. These were exactly the kind of pictures from inside Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad that shocked the world this time last year.
And they are similar, too, to the images of brutality against Iraqi prisoners that this week led to the conviction of three British soldiers.
But there is a difference. These prisoners are not caught up in a war zone. They are Americans, and the video comes from inside a prison in Texas.
They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for Channel 4 that will be broadcast next week.
Our findings were not based on rumour or suspicion. They were based on solid evidence, chiefly videotapes that we collected from all over the U.S.
In many American states, prison regulations demand that any ‘use of force operation’, such as searching cells for drugs, must be filmed by a guard.
The theory is that the tapes will show proper procedure was followed and that no excessive force was used. In fact, many of them record the exact opposite.
Each tape provides a shocking insight into the reality of life inside the U.S. prison system – a reality that sits very uncomfortably with President Bush’s commitment to the battle for freedom and democracy against the forces of tyranny and oppression.
In fact, the Texas episode outlined above dates from 1996, when Bush was state Governor.
Frank Carlson was one of the lawyers who fought a compensation battle on behalf of the victims. I asked him about his reaction when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke last year and U.S. politicians rushed to express their astonishment and disgust that such abuses could happen at the hands of American guards.
‘I thought: “What hypocrisy,” Carlson told me. ‘Because they know we do it here every day.’
All the lawyers I spoke to during our investigations shared Carlson’s belief that Abu Ghraib, far from being the work of a few rogue individuals, was simply the export of the worst practices that take place in the domestic prison system all the time. They pointed to the mountain of files stacked on their desks, on the floor, in their office corridors – endless stories of appalling, sadistic treatment inside America’s own prisons.
Many of the tapes we’ve collected are several years old. That’s because they only surface when determined lawyers prise them out of reluctant state prison departments during protracted lawsuits.
But for every ‘historical’ tape we collected, we also found a more recent story. What you see on the tape is still happening daily.
It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.
In one horrific scene, a naked man, passive and vacant, is seen being led out of his cell by prison guards. They strap him into a medieval-looking device called a ‘restraint chair’. His hands and feet are shackled, there’s a strap across his chest, his head lolls forward. He looks dead. He’s not. Not yet.
The chair is his punishment because guards saw him in his cell with a pillowcase on his head and he refused to take it off. The man has a long history of severe schizophrenia. Sixteen hours later, they release him from the chair. And two hours after that, he dies from a blood clot resulting from his barbaric treatment.
The tape comes from Utah – but there are others from Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Arizona and probably many more. We found more than 20 cases of prisoners who’ve died in the past few years after being held in a restraint chair.
Two of the deaths we investigated were in the same county jail in Phoenix, Arizona, which is run by a man who revels in the title of ‘America’s Toughest Sheriff.’
His name is Joe Arpaio. He positively welcomes TV crews and we were promised ‘unfettered access.’ It was a reassuring turn of phrase – you don’t want to be fettered in one of Sheriff Joe’s jails.
We uncovered two videotapes from surveillance cameras showing how his tough stance can end in tragedy.
The first tape, from 2001, shows a man named Charles Agster dragged in by police, handcuffed at the wrists and ankles. Agster is mentally disturbed and a drug user. He was arrested for causing a disturbance in a late-night grocery store. The police handed him over to the Sheriff’s deputies in the jail. Agster is a tiny man, weighing no more than nine stone, but he’s struggling.
The tape shows nine deputies manhandling him into the restraint chair. One of them kneels on Agster’s stomach, pushing his head forward on to his knees and pulling his arms back to strap his wrists into the chair.
Bending someone double for any length of time is dangerous – the manuals on the use of the 'restraint chair’ warn of the dangers of ‘positional asphyxia.’
Fifteen minutes later, a nurse notices Agster is unconscious. The cameras show frantic efforts to resuscitate him, but he’s already brain dead. He died three days later in hospital. Agster's family is currently suing Arizona County.
His mother, Carol, cried as she told me: ‘If that’s not torture, I don’t know what is.’ Charles’s father, Chuck, listened in silence as we filmed the interview, but every so often he padded out of the room to cry quietly in the kitchen.
The second tape, from five years earlier, shows Scott Norberg dying a similar death in the same jail. He was also a drug user arrested for causing a nuisance. Norberg was severely beaten by the guards, stunned up to 19 times with a Taser gun and forced into the chair where – like Charles Agster – he suffocated.
The county’s insurers paid Norberg’s family more than £4 millions in an out-of-court settlement, but the sheriff was furious with the deal. ‘My officers were clear,’ he said. ‘The insurance firm was afraid to go before a jury.’
Now he’s determined to fight the Agster case all the way through the courts. Yet tonight, in Sheriff Joe’s jail, there’ll probably be someone else strapped into the chair.
Not all the tapes we uncovered were filmed by the guards themselves. Linda Evans smuggled a video camera into a hospital to record her son, Brian. You can barely see his face through all the tubes and all you can hear is the rhythmic sucking of the ventilator.
He was another of Sheriff Joe’s inmates. After an argument with guards, he told a prison doctor they’d beaten him up. Six days later, he was found unconscious of the floor of his cell with a broken neck, broken toes and internal injuries. After a month in a coma, he died from septicaemia.
‘Mr Arpaio is responsible.’ Linda Evans told me, struggling to speak through her tears. ‘He seems to thrive on this cruelty and this mentality that these men are nothing.’
In some of the tapes it’s not just the images, it’s also the sounds that are so unbearable. There’s one tape from Florida which I’ve seen dozens of times but it still catches me in the stomach.
It’s an authorised ‘use of force operation’ – so a guard is videoing what happens. They’re going to Taser a prisoner for refusing orders.
The tape shows a prisoner lying on an examination table in the prison hospital. The guards are instructing him to climb down into a wheelchair. ‘I can’t, I can’t!’ he shouts with increasing desperation. ‘It hurts!’
One guard then jabs him on both hips with a Taser. The man jerks as the electricity hits him and shrieks, but still won’t get into the wheelchair.
The guards grab him and drop him into the chair. As they try to bend his legs up on to the footrest, he screams in pain. The man’s lawyer told me he has a very limited mental capacity. He says he has a back injury and can’t walk or bend his legs without intense pain.
The tape becomes even more harrowing. The guards try to make the prisoner stand up and hold a walking frame. He falls on the floor, crying in agony. They Taser him again. He runs out of the energy and breath to cry and just lies there moaning.
One of the most recent video tapes was filmed in January last year. A surveillance camera in a youth institution in California records an argument between staff members and two ‘wards’ – they’re not called prisoners.
One of the youths hits a staff member in the face. He knocks the ward to the floor then sits astride him punching him over and over again in the head.
Watching the tape you can almost feel each blow. The second youth is also punched and kicked in the head – even after he’s been handcuffed. Other staff just stand around and watch.
We also collected some truly horrific photographs.
A few years ago, in Florida, the new warden of the high security state prison ordered an end to the videoing of ‘use of force operations.’ So we have no tapes to show how prison guards use pepper spray to punish prisoners.
But we do have the lawsuit describing how men were doused in pepper spray and then left to cook in the burning fog of chemicals. Photographs taken by their lawyers show one man has a huge patch of raw skin over his hip. Another is covered in an angry rash across his neck, back and arms. A third has deep burns on his buttocks.
‘They usually use fire extinguishers size canisters of pepper spray,’ lawyer Christopher Jones explained. ‘We have had prisoners who have had second degree burns all over their bodies.
‘The tell-tale sign is they turn off the ventilation fans in the unit. Prisoners report that cardboard is shoved in the crack of the door to make sure it’s really air-tight.’
And why were they sprayed? According to the official prison reports, their infringements included banging on the cell door and refusing medication. From the same Florida prison we also have photographs of Frank Valdes – autopsy pictures. Realistically, he had little chance of ever getting out of prison alive. He was on Death Row for killing a prison officer. He had time to reconcile himself to the Electric Chair – he didn’t expect to be beaten to death.
Valdes started writing to local Florida newspapers to expose the corruption and brutality of prison officers. So a gang of guards stormed into his cell to shut him up. They broke almost every one of his ribs, punctured his lung, smashed his spleen and left him to die.
Several of the guards were later charged with murder, but the trial was held in their own small hometown where almost everyone works for, or has connection with, the five prisons which ring the town. The foreman of the jury was former prison officer. The guards were all acquitted.
Meanwhile, the warden who was in charge of the prison at the time of the killing – the same man who changed the policy on videoing – has been promoted. He’s now the man in charge of all the Florida prisons.
How could anyone excuse – still less condone – such behaviour? The few prison guards who would talk to us have a siege mentality. They see themselves outnumbered, surrounded by dangerous, violent criminals, so they back each other up, no matter what.
I asked one serving officer what happened if colleagues beat up an inmate. ‘We cover up. Because we’re the good guys.’
No one should doubt that the vast majority of U.S. prison officers are decent individuals doing their best in difficult circumstances. But when horrific abuse by the few goes unreported and uninvestigated, it solidifies into a general climate of acceptance among the many.
At the same time the overall hardening of attitudes in modern-day America has meant the notion of rehabilitation has been almost lost. The focus is entirely on punishment – even loss of liberty is not seen as punishment enough. Being on the restraint devices and the chemical sprays.
Since we finished filming for the programme in January, I’ve stayed in contact with various prisoners’ rights groups and the families of many of the victims. Every single day come more e-mails full of fresh horror stories. In the past weeks, two more prisoners have died, in Alabama and Ohio. One man was pepper sprayed, the other tasered.
Then, three weeks ago, reports emerged of 20 hours of video material from Guantanamo Bay showing prisoners being stripped, beaten and pepper sprayed. One of those affected is Omar Deghayes, one of the seven British residents still being held there.
His lawyer says Deghayes is now permanently blind in one eye. American military investigators have reviewed the tapes and apparently found ‘no evidence of systematic abuse.’
But then, as one of the prison reformers we met on our journey across the U.S. told me: ‘We’ve become immune to the abuse. The brutality has become customary.’
So far, the U.S. government is refusing to release these Guantanamo tapes. If they are ever made public – or leaked – I suspect the images will be very familiar.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo – or even Texas. The prisoners and all guards may vary, but the abuse is still too familiar. And much is it is taking place in America’s own backyard.
Deborah Davies is a reporter for Channel 4 Dispatches. Her investigation, Torture: America’s Brutal Prisons, was shown on Wednesday, March 2, at 11.05pm.
*************************************************************************
by Deborah Davies
Information Clearing House
Savaged by dogs, Electrocuted With Cattle Prods, Burned By Toxic Chemicals, Does such barbaric abuse inside U.S. jails explain the horrors that were committed in Iraq?
They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for BBC Channel 4 . It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.
The prison guards stand over their captives with electric cattle prods, stun guns, and dogs. Many of the prisoners have been ordered to strip naked. The guards are yelling abuse at them, ordering them to lie on the ground and crawl. ‘Crawl, motherf*****s, crawl.’
If a prisoner doesn’t drop to the ground fast enough, a guard kicks him or stamps on his back. There’s a high-pitched scream from one man as a dog clamps its teeth onto his lower leg.
Another prisoner has a broken ankle. He can’t crawl fast enough so a guard jabs a stun gun onto his buttocks. The jolt of electricity zaps through his naked flesh and genitals. For hours afterwards his whole body shakes.
Lines of men are now slithering across the floor of the cellblock while the guards stand over them shouting, prodding and kicking.
Second by second, their humiliation is captured on a video camera by one of the guards.
The images of abuse and brutality he records are horrifyingly familiar. These were exactly the kind of pictures from inside Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad that shocked the world this time last year.
And they are similar, too, to the images of brutality against Iraqi prisoners that this week led to the conviction of three British soldiers.
But there is a difference. These prisoners are not caught up in a war zone. They are Americans, and the video comes from inside a prison in Texas.
They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for Channel 4 that will be broadcast next week.
Our findings were not based on rumour or suspicion. They were based on solid evidence, chiefly videotapes that we collected from all over the U.S.
In many American states, prison regulations demand that any ‘use of force operation’, such as searching cells for drugs, must be filmed by a guard.
The theory is that the tapes will show proper procedure was followed and that no excessive force was used. In fact, many of them record the exact opposite.
Each tape provides a shocking insight into the reality of life inside the U.S. prison system – a reality that sits very uncomfortably with President Bush’s commitment to the battle for freedom and democracy against the forces of tyranny and oppression.
In fact, the Texas episode outlined above dates from 1996, when Bush was state Governor.
Frank Carlson was one of the lawyers who fought a compensation battle on behalf of the victims. I asked him about his reaction when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke last year and U.S. politicians rushed to express their astonishment and disgust that such abuses could happen at the hands of American guards.
‘I thought: “What hypocrisy,” Carlson told me. ‘Because they know we do it here every day.’
All the lawyers I spoke to during our investigations shared Carlson’s belief that Abu Ghraib, far from being the work of a few rogue individuals, was simply the export of the worst practices that take place in the domestic prison system all the time. They pointed to the mountain of files stacked on their desks, on the floor, in their office corridors – endless stories of appalling, sadistic treatment inside America’s own prisons.
Many of the tapes we’ve collected are several years old. That’s because they only surface when determined lawyers prise them out of reluctant state prison departments during protracted lawsuits.
But for every ‘historical’ tape we collected, we also found a more recent story. What you see on the tape is still happening daily.
It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.
In one horrific scene, a naked man, passive and vacant, is seen being led out of his cell by prison guards. They strap him into a medieval-looking device called a ‘restraint chair’. His hands and feet are shackled, there’s a strap across his chest, his head lolls forward. He looks dead. He’s not. Not yet.
The chair is his punishment because guards saw him in his cell with a pillowcase on his head and he refused to take it off. The man has a long history of severe schizophrenia. Sixteen hours later, they release him from the chair. And two hours after that, he dies from a blood clot resulting from his barbaric treatment.
The tape comes from Utah – but there are others from Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Arizona and probably many more. We found more than 20 cases of prisoners who’ve died in the past few years after being held in a restraint chair.
Two of the deaths we investigated were in the same county jail in Phoenix, Arizona, which is run by a man who revels in the title of ‘America’s Toughest Sheriff.’
His name is Joe Arpaio. He positively welcomes TV crews and we were promised ‘unfettered access.’ It was a reassuring turn of phrase – you don’t want to be fettered in one of Sheriff Joe’s jails.
We uncovered two videotapes from surveillance cameras showing how his tough stance can end in tragedy.
The first tape, from 2001, shows a man named Charles Agster dragged in by police, handcuffed at the wrists and ankles. Agster is mentally disturbed and a drug user. He was arrested for causing a disturbance in a late-night grocery store. The police handed him over to the Sheriff’s deputies in the jail. Agster is a tiny man, weighing no more than nine stone, but he’s struggling.
The tape shows nine deputies manhandling him into the restraint chair. One of them kneels on Agster’s stomach, pushing his head forward on to his knees and pulling his arms back to strap his wrists into the chair.
Bending someone double for any length of time is dangerous – the manuals on the use of the 'restraint chair’ warn of the dangers of ‘positional asphyxia.’
Fifteen minutes later, a nurse notices Agster is unconscious. The cameras show frantic efforts to resuscitate him, but he’s already brain dead. He died three days later in hospital. Agster's family is currently suing Arizona County.
His mother, Carol, cried as she told me: ‘If that’s not torture, I don’t know what is.’ Charles’s father, Chuck, listened in silence as we filmed the interview, but every so often he padded out of the room to cry quietly in the kitchen.
The second tape, from five years earlier, shows Scott Norberg dying a similar death in the same jail. He was also a drug user arrested for causing a nuisance. Norberg was severely beaten by the guards, stunned up to 19 times with a Taser gun and forced into the chair where – like Charles Agster – he suffocated.
The county’s insurers paid Norberg’s family more than £4 millions in an out-of-court settlement, but the sheriff was furious with the deal. ‘My officers were clear,’ he said. ‘The insurance firm was afraid to go before a jury.’
Now he’s determined to fight the Agster case all the way through the courts. Yet tonight, in Sheriff Joe’s jail, there’ll probably be someone else strapped into the chair.
Not all the tapes we uncovered were filmed by the guards themselves. Linda Evans smuggled a video camera into a hospital to record her son, Brian. You can barely see his face through all the tubes and all you can hear is the rhythmic sucking of the ventilator.
He was another of Sheriff Joe’s inmates. After an argument with guards, he told a prison doctor they’d beaten him up. Six days later, he was found unconscious of the floor of his cell with a broken neck, broken toes and internal injuries. After a month in a coma, he died from septicaemia.
‘Mr Arpaio is responsible.’ Linda Evans told me, struggling to speak through her tears. ‘He seems to thrive on this cruelty and this mentality that these men are nothing.’
In some of the tapes it’s not just the images, it’s also the sounds that are so unbearable. There’s one tape from Florida which I’ve seen dozens of times but it still catches me in the stomach.
It’s an authorised ‘use of force operation’ – so a guard is videoing what happens. They’re going to Taser a prisoner for refusing orders.
The tape shows a prisoner lying on an examination table in the prison hospital. The guards are instructing him to climb down into a wheelchair. ‘I can’t, I can’t!’ he shouts with increasing desperation. ‘It hurts!’
One guard then jabs him on both hips with a Taser. The man jerks as the electricity hits him and shrieks, but still won’t get into the wheelchair.
The guards grab him and drop him into the chair. As they try to bend his legs up on to the footrest, he screams in pain. The man’s lawyer told me he has a very limited mental capacity. He says he has a back injury and can’t walk or bend his legs without intense pain.
The tape becomes even more harrowing. The guards try to make the prisoner stand up and hold a walking frame. He falls on the floor, crying in agony. They Taser him again. He runs out of the energy and breath to cry and just lies there moaning.
One of the most recent video tapes was filmed in January last year. A surveillance camera in a youth institution in California records an argument between staff members and two ‘wards’ – they’re not called prisoners.
One of the youths hits a staff member in the face. He knocks the ward to the floor then sits astride him punching him over and over again in the head.
Watching the tape you can almost feel each blow. The second youth is also punched and kicked in the head – even after he’s been handcuffed. Other staff just stand around and watch.
We also collected some truly horrific photographs.
A few years ago, in Florida, the new warden of the high security state prison ordered an end to the videoing of ‘use of force operations.’ So we have no tapes to show how prison guards use pepper spray to punish prisoners.
But we do have the lawsuit describing how men were doused in pepper spray and then left to cook in the burning fog of chemicals. Photographs taken by their lawyers show one man has a huge patch of raw skin over his hip. Another is covered in an angry rash across his neck, back and arms. A third has deep burns on his buttocks.
‘They usually use fire extinguishers size canisters of pepper spray,’ lawyer Christopher Jones explained. ‘We have had prisoners who have had second degree burns all over their bodies.
‘The tell-tale sign is they turn off the ventilation fans in the unit. Prisoners report that cardboard is shoved in the crack of the door to make sure it’s really air-tight.’
And why were they sprayed? According to the official prison reports, their infringements included banging on the cell door and refusing medication. From the same Florida prison we also have photographs of Frank Valdes – autopsy pictures. Realistically, he had little chance of ever getting out of prison alive. He was on Death Row for killing a prison officer. He had time to reconcile himself to the Electric Chair – he didn’t expect to be beaten to death.
Valdes started writing to local Florida newspapers to expose the corruption and brutality of prison officers. So a gang of guards stormed into his cell to shut him up. They broke almost every one of his ribs, punctured his lung, smashed his spleen and left him to die.
Several of the guards were later charged with murder, but the trial was held in their own small hometown where almost everyone works for, or has connection with, the five prisons which ring the town. The foreman of the jury was former prison officer. The guards were all acquitted.
Meanwhile, the warden who was in charge of the prison at the time of the killing – the same man who changed the policy on videoing – has been promoted. He’s now the man in charge of all the Florida prisons.
How could anyone excuse – still less condone – such behaviour? The few prison guards who would talk to us have a siege mentality. They see themselves outnumbered, surrounded by dangerous, violent criminals, so they back each other up, no matter what.
I asked one serving officer what happened if colleagues beat up an inmate. ‘We cover up. Because we’re the good guys.’
No one should doubt that the vast majority of U.S. prison officers are decent individuals doing their best in difficult circumstances. But when horrific abuse by the few goes unreported and uninvestigated, it solidifies into a general climate of acceptance among the many.
At the same time the overall hardening of attitudes in modern-day America has meant the notion of rehabilitation has been almost lost. The focus is entirely on punishment – even loss of liberty is not seen as punishment enough. Being on the restraint devices and the chemical sprays.
Since we finished filming for the programme in January, I’ve stayed in contact with various prisoners’ rights groups and the families of many of the victims. Every single day come more e-mails full of fresh horror stories. In the past weeks, two more prisoners have died, in Alabama and Ohio. One man was pepper sprayed, the other tasered.
Then, three weeks ago, reports emerged of 20 hours of video material from Guantanamo Bay showing prisoners being stripped, beaten and pepper sprayed. One of those affected is Omar Deghayes, one of the seven British residents still being held there.
His lawyer says Deghayes is now permanently blind in one eye. American military investigators have reviewed the tapes and apparently found ‘no evidence of systematic abuse.’
But then, as one of the prison reformers we met on our journey across the U.S. told me: ‘We’ve become immune to the abuse. The brutality has become customary.’
So far, the U.S. government is refusing to release these Guantanamo tapes. If they are ever made public – or leaked – I suspect the images will be very familiar.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo – or even Texas. The prisoners and all guards may vary, but the abuse is still too familiar. And much is it is taking place in America’s own backyard.
Deborah Davies is a reporter for Channel 4 Dispatches. Her investigation, Torture: America’s Brutal Prisons, was shown on Wednesday, March 2, at 11.05pm.
*************************************************************************
Thursday, March 16, 2006
POOREST NATIONS HIT HARDEST BY WTO AGENDA
by Emad Mekay
The European Edition of IPS Daily Journal
3/16/06
Developing nations are likely to end up being net losers under the current global trade agenda because they do not have the agricultural or industrial capability to compete with the United States, Japan, Europe or even China, the expected winners, a new study says.
According to "Winners and Losers" by Sandra Polaski, a researcher with the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the so-called Doha Development Round, which launched the current trade World Trade Organisation talks, will not actually generate development benefits for poor nations as initially promised.
"There are both net winners and net losers under different scenarios, and the poorest countries are among the net losers under all likely Doha scenarios," says the study.
While critics of the 149-member World Trade Organisation (WTO) have long argued the same point, the findings of the report bolster their position even as the world's richest nations aggressively pursue new markets.
The 116-page study is based on unemployment models in developing countries that separate agricultural labour markets from urban unskilled labour markets.
Polaski, a former State Department trade official, worked with a team headed by Zhi Wang, a renowned statistical modeler who also previously worked for the U.S. government. She discussed their conclusions in Washington on Wednesday.
Polaski's main finding is that free trade will produce only modest gains at the global level, on the order of a one-time rise in world income of between 40 to 60 billion dollars, or an increase of less than 0.2 percent of current global gross domestic product (GDP).
The report says that the adjustment costs to which countries expose themselves when they commit to the free trade policies promoted by the industrialised nations could in fact be greater than the benefits.
The Doha Round, so named for a meeting in the capital of Qatar in 2001, has stalled over a number of trade issues, and several meetings since have failed to jumpstart it.
Last December's WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong made little progress in many contentious areas. The European Union and Japan have refused to offer significant new market access for agricultural goods, while the United States made its approval for further opening its markets conditional on that of the EU and Japan and of major developing countries, like India and Brazil.
Washington has also resisted reducing trade-distorting domestic agricultural subsidies, a crucial demand for poor nations.
India and Brazil, two key nations in the talks, say they will not be able to unlock trade in manufactured goods and services without concessions from rich nations on agriculture, among other demands.
A mini-ministerial meeting held in Davos, Switzerland in late January and another meeting in London earlier this month both failed to change these negotiating dynamics.
The Carnegie Endowment report says that one of the reasons developing nations are likely to suffer under the proposals currently on the table is that that many of the most economically powerful countries will continue to insist that any agreement must accommodate their interests.
"As a result, the Doha Round will probably achieve only modest changes in any sector," says the study.
It says that at the country level, maximum gains or losses are about one percent of GDP for the most affected economies.
It predicts the biggest winner to be China, with gains ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 percent of GDP under different scenarios.
The biggest losers are many Sub-Saharan African countries, already among the world's poorest, which could actually see a loss in income in the region of one percent.
On the all-important question of agricultural goods, the study finds that because many poor nations are net food importers and rely on low-productivity, small-scale subsistence farming, which is generally not competitive in global markets, the benefits of agricultural trade liberalisation will flow overwhelmingly to rich countries.
Developing countries will also lose relative advantages that now exist under preferential trade deals, the study says.
A few countries could gain in the agricultural arena, notably Brazil, Argentina, and Thailand, but more will suffer small losses from agricultural liberalisation.
The losers include many of the poorest countries in the world, such as Bangladesh and the countries of East Africa. Middle Eastern and North African countries, Vietnam, Mexico and China would also experience losses.
"It is important not to overstate the possible gains from the Doha Round, as has been done by many political leaders, commentators, and activists," recommended the study.
The report, which clearly states that trade is not a panacea for poverty alleviation or for development, says that for the Doha Round to be less destructive, a number of changes should take place.
These include additional measures for the least development countries. In Hong Kong, developed countries agreed to extend duty-free and quota-free market access for most exports of LDCs. But their most competitive products can still be excluded.
The study also suggests that developing countries should require very long phase-in periods and a careful sequencing of sectoral liberalisation measures, to allow for the effect of new trade rules on their less diversified economies.
U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman responded to the report in a statement saying it leaves out the effect of trade on economic growth.
"One reason welfare benefits are not larger is that gains from trade liberalisation in services are not measured in this study," he said.
"Also, the use of a static rather than dynamic model in this study limits the measurement of net welfare gains because it does not include estimates of the economic growth effects of trade liberalisation."
*************************************************************************
by Emad Mekay
The European Edition of IPS Daily Journal
3/16/06
Developing nations are likely to end up being net losers under the current global trade agenda because they do not have the agricultural or industrial capability to compete with the United States, Japan, Europe or even China, the expected winners, a new study says.
According to "Winners and Losers" by Sandra Polaski, a researcher with the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the so-called Doha Development Round, which launched the current trade World Trade Organisation talks, will not actually generate development benefits for poor nations as initially promised.
"There are both net winners and net losers under different scenarios, and the poorest countries are among the net losers under all likely Doha scenarios," says the study.
While critics of the 149-member World Trade Organisation (WTO) have long argued the same point, the findings of the report bolster their position even as the world's richest nations aggressively pursue new markets.
The 116-page study is based on unemployment models in developing countries that separate agricultural labour markets from urban unskilled labour markets.
Polaski, a former State Department trade official, worked with a team headed by Zhi Wang, a renowned statistical modeler who also previously worked for the U.S. government. She discussed their conclusions in Washington on Wednesday.
Polaski's main finding is that free trade will produce only modest gains at the global level, on the order of a one-time rise in world income of between 40 to 60 billion dollars, or an increase of less than 0.2 percent of current global gross domestic product (GDP).
The report says that the adjustment costs to which countries expose themselves when they commit to the free trade policies promoted by the industrialised nations could in fact be greater than the benefits.
The Doha Round, so named for a meeting in the capital of Qatar in 2001, has stalled over a number of trade issues, and several meetings since have failed to jumpstart it.
Last December's WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong made little progress in many contentious areas. The European Union and Japan have refused to offer significant new market access for agricultural goods, while the United States made its approval for further opening its markets conditional on that of the EU and Japan and of major developing countries, like India and Brazil.
Washington has also resisted reducing trade-distorting domestic agricultural subsidies, a crucial demand for poor nations.
India and Brazil, two key nations in the talks, say they will not be able to unlock trade in manufactured goods and services without concessions from rich nations on agriculture, among other demands.
A mini-ministerial meeting held in Davos, Switzerland in late January and another meeting in London earlier this month both failed to change these negotiating dynamics.
The Carnegie Endowment report says that one of the reasons developing nations are likely to suffer under the proposals currently on the table is that that many of the most economically powerful countries will continue to insist that any agreement must accommodate their interests.
"As a result, the Doha Round will probably achieve only modest changes in any sector," says the study.
It says that at the country level, maximum gains or losses are about one percent of GDP for the most affected economies.
It predicts the biggest winner to be China, with gains ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 percent of GDP under different scenarios.
The biggest losers are many Sub-Saharan African countries, already among the world's poorest, which could actually see a loss in income in the region of one percent.
On the all-important question of agricultural goods, the study finds that because many poor nations are net food importers and rely on low-productivity, small-scale subsistence farming, which is generally not competitive in global markets, the benefits of agricultural trade liberalisation will flow overwhelmingly to rich countries.
Developing countries will also lose relative advantages that now exist under preferential trade deals, the study says.
A few countries could gain in the agricultural arena, notably Brazil, Argentina, and Thailand, but more will suffer small losses from agricultural liberalisation.
The losers include many of the poorest countries in the world, such as Bangladesh and the countries of East Africa. Middle Eastern and North African countries, Vietnam, Mexico and China would also experience losses.
"It is important not to overstate the possible gains from the Doha Round, as has been done by many political leaders, commentators, and activists," recommended the study.
The report, which clearly states that trade is not a panacea for poverty alleviation or for development, says that for the Doha Round to be less destructive, a number of changes should take place.
These include additional measures for the least development countries. In Hong Kong, developed countries agreed to extend duty-free and quota-free market access for most exports of LDCs. But their most competitive products can still be excluded.
The study also suggests that developing countries should require very long phase-in periods and a careful sequencing of sectoral liberalisation measures, to allow for the effect of new trade rules on their less diversified economies.
U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman responded to the report in a statement saying it leaves out the effect of trade on economic growth.
"One reason welfare benefits are not larger is that gains from trade liberalisation in services are not measured in this study," he said.
"Also, the use of a static rather than dynamic model in this study limits the measurement of net welfare gains because it does not include estimates of the economic growth effects of trade liberalisation."
*************************************************************************
Sunday, March 12, 2006
The Numbers Behind the Lies
By Bill Fleckenstein from his Contrarian Chronicles - 3/6/06
Fleckensteincapital.com
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P146055.asp
Fun with Numbers
Economist John Williams says ‘real’ unemployment and inflation numbers -- figured the old-fashioned way -- may be two or three times what the government admits. Here’s why, and what it means for Social Security.
Corporate America likes to play that game, the better to boost stock prices. Folks might be surprised to learn that "Governmental" America also plays the game in its compilation of macroeconomic data. Beneath the surface are undesirable, sobering consequences for us all.
The always-terrific Kate Welling published an interview with an economist named John Williams. This article is the first one that I have seen in which all the flaws in the government data, pertaining to the Consumer Price Index, unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, etc., are disclosed in one piece by someone who's been following the data for a long time.
I have been aware of nearly all the statistical tricks used by the government since they were implemented. Nonetheless, seeing them collectively described in one article is incredibly sobering. Having said that, there is a bit more "black helicopter" insinuation and fewer data points than I would like to see in an article such as this. However, the main points are the math that most folks need to know, but likely do not.
Once you read it, think about it and understand it, you will see why so many thoughtful people -- like Jim Grant, Warren Buffett, Marc Faber, Bill Gross, Fred Hickey and Paul Volcker -- have grave concerns about the future of the dollar (due to the macro imbalances that exist today).
In fact, reading this article, you will conclude that there's no way out, short of running the printing presses. The problem with that end game: At some point, foreigners will revolt. One can only hope that, somehow, there will be a way out. But without an understanding of the issues, folks will have no way to react as events unfold, and adjust their assets as we get more clues as to how all this will play out.
Thus, I would encourage everyone to print out the article and read it as many times as necessary, in order to gain a full understanding of the issues. Since we don't know at what rate some of these problems will start to impact the markets, all we can do is be prepared -- by having our insurance policies (in the form of the metals and foreign currencies), and then being alert to signs that the beginning of a chain reaction may be under way. Meanwhile, to pique folks' interest in the article, I'm going to take the time to provide some "Cliffs Notes" here.
Jobs data don't count the down-and-out.
Williams starts by discussing the headline economic data: "Real unemployment right now -- figured the way that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression -- is running about 12%. Real CPI right now is running at about 8%. And the real GDP probably is in contraction." (By "real," he means calculating the data the way they used to be calculated, not as inflation-adjusted.)
He then explains how the employment data are compiled, noting that 5 million chronically unemployed people are not included in the statistics. In fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics. One called U-3 is the official one. The broadest one, U-6, currently shows unemployment as running around 8.4%. As he explains, the one that's the most historically consistent is running around 12%.
On the Potomac: Reverence for reverse-engineering
Williams differentiates between two data-manipulation practices. One is "systemic manipulations, where methodologies are changed." That's done in order to align the government's view of the world with the world, i.e., make things look better than they are. The second practice is out-and-out fudging of the data to produce whatever result is desired. Williams describes instances where various administrations have literally reverse-engineered the data to achieve that result (though politics is not the main purpose of the article).
For those not familiar with "substitution," he explains the practice's evolution in the CPI calculations. The concept of substitution was a concoction of Alan Greenspan and Michael Boskin, who basically argued that if one item were too expensive, consumers would substitute that with a cheaper one. Williams' response: "The problem is that if you allow substitutions, you aren't measuring a constant standard of living. You're measuring the cost of survival. You can keep substituting down and have people buy dog food instead of hamburger. It happens. But that's not the original concept behind the CPI."
That ticking sound? Social Security
Williams says that the government's motive in all of this, if there is a motive (of the government collectively; don't picture a group of men cooking up something in a back room), is its desire to put a favorable spin on all the data.
Another motive? Transfer payments like Social Security are indexed to the CPI, and they would be far higher if the CPI were accurate. In fact, says Williams, if the "same CPI were used today as was used when Jimmy Carter was president, Social Security checks would be 70% higher." That's seven-zero.
Though Williams doesn't get much into hedonics, he does talk about the inflation-understating impact of geometric weighting versus arithmetic weighting in the CPI statistics: "Geometric weighting ... has the 'benefit' that if something goes up in price, it automatically gets a lower weight, and if it goes down in price, it automatically gets a higher weight."
Then for the ticking time bomb: Social Security. The proceeds from withholding do not go into a lockbox or trust fund. They are spent, thereby reducing the size of the stated deficit. More importantly, he notes that the government's accounting for the deficit doesn't include any accruals for Social Security or Medicare liability.
In fact, if that were done and the government used GAAP accounting, the deficits for 2003, 2004, and 2005 would each have been around $3.5 trillion. That's a trillion, not billion. In 2004 alone, the deficit on an accrual basis would have been $11.1 trillion, due to a huge one-time spike for setting up the Medicare drug benefits. In essence, as he points out, we're piling up additional liabilities in an amount roughly equivalent to our total GDP every three years.
Lots of these imbalances have existed for some time, and they haven't mattered. Such macro problems only matter when they matter. Once that point in time is reached, events have a way of swiftly getting completely out of control -- which is why one has to understand the nuances and be alert for potential signs of chain reaction, as I mentioned earlier.
Charge that Maybach to my imputed income
Returning to the subject of GDP, Williams illuminates a wrinkle that I had not known about, called "imputations": They are "an outgrowth of the theoretical structure of the national income accounts. Any benefit a person receives has an imputed income component. If you're a homeowner, the government assumes that you pay yourself rent on your house, so that's rental income. ... Imputed interest income, for instance, accounted for 21% of all personal interest income in 2002, and was growing at an annual rate of over 8%. Meanwhile, fully 62% of total rental income that year was the imputed variety."
He goes on to point out that folks really aren't doing that well, which is why their incomes aren't growing, which is why they've borrowed money. And that's why understanding the housing ATM is so important -- because as that sputters to a halt, folks will be stuck in the same place they were before (which precipitated the borrowing, i.e., not enough income growth). Only now, they're going to be stuck with incremental debt of their own creation.
What festers underneath the data
Next, he strings together the stock-market and housing bubble, for a summation of where we are: "When that (stock) bubble burst (in 2000), without a foundation of strong income growth, or a financially sound consumer, it triggered a recession that was a lot longer and deeper than the government would have you believe.
"In fact, I contend that what we are in now is a protracted structural change that goes back to the beginning of that 2000 recession, which eventually may be recognized as a double-dip downturn. We did have some recovery in 2003, but in 2005, you started to see signs of a downturn in a variety of leading indicators that I use."
That's not so far off from what I believe. In other words, if you really looked at the data and understood them, you'd see that what appears in the headline numbers is nowhere near what the real supporting data show. Our financial condition is a ticking time bomb. What none of us knows is when it implodes.
*************************************************************************
By Bill Fleckenstein from his Contrarian Chronicles - 3/6/06
Fleckensteincapital.com
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P146055.asp
Fun with Numbers
Economist John Williams says ‘real’ unemployment and inflation numbers -- figured the old-fashioned way -- may be two or three times what the government admits. Here’s why, and what it means for Social Security.
Corporate America likes to play that game, the better to boost stock prices. Folks might be surprised to learn that "Governmental" America also plays the game in its compilation of macroeconomic data. Beneath the surface are undesirable, sobering consequences for us all.
The always-terrific Kate Welling published an interview with an economist named John Williams. This article is the first one that I have seen in which all the flaws in the government data, pertaining to the Consumer Price Index, unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, etc., are disclosed in one piece by someone who's been following the data for a long time.
I have been aware of nearly all the statistical tricks used by the government since they were implemented. Nonetheless, seeing them collectively described in one article is incredibly sobering. Having said that, there is a bit more "black helicopter" insinuation and fewer data points than I would like to see in an article such as this. However, the main points are the math that most folks need to know, but likely do not.
Once you read it, think about it and understand it, you will see why so many thoughtful people -- like Jim Grant, Warren Buffett, Marc Faber, Bill Gross, Fred Hickey and Paul Volcker -- have grave concerns about the future of the dollar (due to the macro imbalances that exist today).
In fact, reading this article, you will conclude that there's no way out, short of running the printing presses. The problem with that end game: At some point, foreigners will revolt. One can only hope that, somehow, there will be a way out. But without an understanding of the issues, folks will have no way to react as events unfold, and adjust their assets as we get more clues as to how all this will play out.
Thus, I would encourage everyone to print out the article and read it as many times as necessary, in order to gain a full understanding of the issues. Since we don't know at what rate some of these problems will start to impact the markets, all we can do is be prepared -- by having our insurance policies (in the form of the metals and foreign currencies), and then being alert to signs that the beginning of a chain reaction may be under way. Meanwhile, to pique folks' interest in the article, I'm going to take the time to provide some "Cliffs Notes" here.
Jobs data don't count the down-and-out.
Williams starts by discussing the headline economic data: "Real unemployment right now -- figured the way that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression -- is running about 12%. Real CPI right now is running at about 8%. And the real GDP probably is in contraction." (By "real," he means calculating the data the way they used to be calculated, not as inflation-adjusted.)
He then explains how the employment data are compiled, noting that 5 million chronically unemployed people are not included in the statistics. In fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics. One called U-3 is the official one. The broadest one, U-6, currently shows unemployment as running around 8.4%. As he explains, the one that's the most historically consistent is running around 12%.
On the Potomac: Reverence for reverse-engineering
Williams differentiates between two data-manipulation practices. One is "systemic manipulations, where methodologies are changed." That's done in order to align the government's view of the world with the world, i.e., make things look better than they are. The second practice is out-and-out fudging of the data to produce whatever result is desired. Williams describes instances where various administrations have literally reverse-engineered the data to achieve that result (though politics is not the main purpose of the article).
For those not familiar with "substitution," he explains the practice's evolution in the CPI calculations. The concept of substitution was a concoction of Alan Greenspan and Michael Boskin, who basically argued that if one item were too expensive, consumers would substitute that with a cheaper one. Williams' response: "The problem is that if you allow substitutions, you aren't measuring a constant standard of living. You're measuring the cost of survival. You can keep substituting down and have people buy dog food instead of hamburger. It happens. But that's not the original concept behind the CPI."
That ticking sound? Social Security
Williams says that the government's motive in all of this, if there is a motive (of the government collectively; don't picture a group of men cooking up something in a back room), is its desire to put a favorable spin on all the data.
Another motive? Transfer payments like Social Security are indexed to the CPI, and they would be far higher if the CPI were accurate. In fact, says Williams, if the "same CPI were used today as was used when Jimmy Carter was president, Social Security checks would be 70% higher." That's seven-zero.
Though Williams doesn't get much into hedonics, he does talk about the inflation-understating impact of geometric weighting versus arithmetic weighting in the CPI statistics: "Geometric weighting ... has the 'benefit' that if something goes up in price, it automatically gets a lower weight, and if it goes down in price, it automatically gets a higher weight."
Then for the ticking time bomb: Social Security. The proceeds from withholding do not go into a lockbox or trust fund. They are spent, thereby reducing the size of the stated deficit. More importantly, he notes that the government's accounting for the deficit doesn't include any accruals for Social Security or Medicare liability.
In fact, if that were done and the government used GAAP accounting, the deficits for 2003, 2004, and 2005 would each have been around $3.5 trillion. That's a trillion, not billion. In 2004 alone, the deficit on an accrual basis would have been $11.1 trillion, due to a huge one-time spike for setting up the Medicare drug benefits. In essence, as he points out, we're piling up additional liabilities in an amount roughly equivalent to our total GDP every three years.
Lots of these imbalances have existed for some time, and they haven't mattered. Such macro problems only matter when they matter. Once that point in time is reached, events have a way of swiftly getting completely out of control -- which is why one has to understand the nuances and be alert for potential signs of chain reaction, as I mentioned earlier.
Charge that Maybach to my imputed income
Returning to the subject of GDP, Williams illuminates a wrinkle that I had not known about, called "imputations": They are "an outgrowth of the theoretical structure of the national income accounts. Any benefit a person receives has an imputed income component. If you're a homeowner, the government assumes that you pay yourself rent on your house, so that's rental income. ... Imputed interest income, for instance, accounted for 21% of all personal interest income in 2002, and was growing at an annual rate of over 8%. Meanwhile, fully 62% of total rental income that year was the imputed variety."
He goes on to point out that folks really aren't doing that well, which is why their incomes aren't growing, which is why they've borrowed money. And that's why understanding the housing ATM is so important -- because as that sputters to a halt, folks will be stuck in the same place they were before (which precipitated the borrowing, i.e., not enough income growth). Only now, they're going to be stuck with incremental debt of their own creation.
What festers underneath the data
Next, he strings together the stock-market and housing bubble, for a summation of where we are: "When that (stock) bubble burst (in 2000), without a foundation of strong income growth, or a financially sound consumer, it triggered a recession that was a lot longer and deeper than the government would have you believe.
"In fact, I contend that what we are in now is a protracted structural change that goes back to the beginning of that 2000 recession, which eventually may be recognized as a double-dip downturn. We did have some recovery in 2003, but in 2005, you started to see signs of a downturn in a variety of leading indicators that I use."
That's not so far off from what I believe. In other words, if you really looked at the data and understood them, you'd see that what appears in the headline numbers is nowhere near what the real supporting data show. Our financial condition is a ticking time bomb. What none of us knows is when it implodes.
*************************************************************************
Saturday, March 11, 2006
The 48 Hour Media-blitz for War with Iran
Cheney, Rummy, Rice & GW On the War Path
by Mike Whitney
OpEdnews.com - 3/11/06
In the last 48 hours all the major players in the Bush administration have issued statements warning of the impending danger of Iran.
Cheney blasted the Islamic regime saying there would be “meaningful consequences” if it refuses to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear program.
Condoleezza Rice said, “We face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran… This is a country that seems determined, it seems, to develop a nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community that is determined that they should not get one.”
Donald Rumsfeld warned at a press conference on Wednesday, “I will say this about Iran. They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. We know it, and it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment.”
Bush chimed in too, “Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and in the world is for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
And then there was Bolton, the most vehement of all, saying that the Security Council should issue a “vigorous response” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the United States might have to consider other steps.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said, “It’s going to be incumbent on our allies around the world to show that they are willing to act.”
Congress also added their support led by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) “Iran’s quest for nuclear arms requires us to do two things: squeeze Iran’s economy as much as possible and do so without delay.” Lantos claims that more than 300 lawmakers will support sanctions.
Israel’s Defense Minister joined the chorus as well,” If the UN Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.”
Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Rumsfeld, Burns, Congress, and Israel.
Whoa! That’s quite a line-up.
All in the last 48 hours!
Was it spontaneous or a calculated public-relations campaign?
Beyond the political speechmaking are literally hundreds of articles, full of the same predictable fictions and demagoguery which have mischaracterized Iran’s nuclear program from the get-go; fueling the hysteria for another preemptive war.
Did Iran become nuclear superpower overnight?
Apparently, so. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s remember that according to the IAEA there is “no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or any diversion of nuclear material.”
That is the judgment of the Nobel Prize-wining chief of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammad ElBaradei. ElBaradei warned that there were no nuclear weapons programs in Iraq and he has drawn the very same conclusion in Iran.
“No evidence” still means “no evidence” except in Washington, DC, where it is a mere stumbling block for a massive media-blitz to manipulate public perceptions and whip the masses into war-fever.
It’s hard not to be impressed by the sudden ratcheting-up of inflammatory statements and spurious claims that blast from every media-soapbox across the country. Who could have imagined 4 years ago how utterly corrupted our media really is?
Try this: do a Google search through the 2,400 articles on Iran right now on and see what you find.
You’ll find that all 2,400 articles reiterate the same bland deceptions and wearisome lies as all the others. You’ll see that the forth estate provides neither facts, nor context, nor analysis, just the endless, repetitive fear-mongering of administration officials.
That’s it; just manipulation through state-sponsored demagoguery 24-7.
You won’t find anything about the IAEA inspection team that rummaged through Iran’s nuclear sites for the passed two years in the most thorough examination of any country in the history of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) You won’t hear anything about the “go anywhere, see anything” inspections that allowed officials from the IAEA to investigate any location or facility they felt was suspicious. You won’t hear that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) predicted that it would take 10 years for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. (If, in fact, that is even their intention) You won’t hear that Iran temporarily sacrificed its legal right to enrich uranium and accepted “additional protocols” because it trusted the EU-3 (Germany, France and England) who, it turns out, were simply acting as Washington’s agents. You won’t find one single article that clarifies the most fundamental issue of the entire confrontation; that Iran has an “inalienable right” to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes unless it can factually established that it has not complied with the terms of its agreement.
It has complied. There is no violation. That is why there will be no “punitive action”.
Instead, the United States is hoping for a “presidential statement”; a bogus “slap on the wrist” from the Security Council because the individual members can’t muster the courage to do their duty and defy the US.
Perhaps, the Security Council could offer a “supplemental presidential statement” at the same time, condemning the Bush administration, for developing a new regime of low-yield, bunker-busting “usable” nukes, and for its involvement in poisoning the groundwater and great swaths of the Iraqi countryside with Depleted Uranium; ensuring environmental devastation, cancer and birth defects will continue into perpetuity.
Will the Security Council have time to reprimand the real nuclear terrorist or will it limit itself to the imaginary villain who refuses to prostrate itself to Washington?
Iran has weathered this farce with great dignity. They understand the gravity of the situation when the media begins swarm to their victim. They know that there are Carrier groups in the Gulf and AC-130s in bases in Iraq. They know that Israeli commandoes have infiltrated the countryside and are scoping out potential targets. They know that satellites and unmanned drones have mapped out every square inch of territory from Iraq to Pakistan and the B-52s are tucked away close by where they can “liberate” another 100,000 or so Iranians.
How do they know?
Because it is the same lame script that was used in the lead up to the war in Iraq.
The Iran Bourse
On March 20 the Iran Bourse will formally open and allow countries to break to US monopoly on oil purchases in petrodollars. The central banks across Europe and Asia will trade in part of their stockpiles of greenbacks for euros, and dollars will come flooding back to the homeland. $3 trillion of American cash and securities are owned by people or institutions outside of the United States. If just a small portion of them pour back into the US, Depression will follow.
Is the impending war with Iraq merely an effort to shore up the debt-ridden greenback? (which is now underwritten by $8.2 trillion in debt)
If not, then how do we explain the Federal Reserve’s surprise announcement that it would stop releasing the M-3 in late March, 2006 coinciding with the opening of the bourse? (The M-3 provides the aggregate statistics on US dollars around the world)
Don’t you think the American people would like to know when the central banks begin tossing their stockpiles of greenbacks overboard?
And won’t this “weakening of the dollar” curtail Washington’s ability to print unlimited amounts of money to fund a powerful standing army and provide lavish tax cuts to the wealthy?
The Iran bourse is a direct threat to the present economic system of extorting labor and resources from the developing world for worthless paper.
The Bush administration will do everything in its power to defend that system.
Berkshire-Hathaway chief, Warren Buffet recently noted, “Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them. In my view, it will create political turmoil at some point. …Pretty soon, I think there will be a big adjustment.”
“Political turmoil”?"big adjustment”?…”Pretty soon, I think”?
‘nuff said.
*************************************************************************
Cheney, Rummy, Rice & GW On the War Path
by Mike Whitney
OpEdnews.com - 3/11/06
In the last 48 hours all the major players in the Bush administration have issued statements warning of the impending danger of Iran.
Cheney blasted the Islamic regime saying there would be “meaningful consequences” if it refuses to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear program.
Condoleezza Rice said, “We face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran… This is a country that seems determined, it seems, to develop a nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community that is determined that they should not get one.”
Donald Rumsfeld warned at a press conference on Wednesday, “I will say this about Iran. They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. We know it, and it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment.”
Bush chimed in too, “Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and in the world is for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
And then there was Bolton, the most vehement of all, saying that the Security Council should issue a “vigorous response” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the United States might have to consider other steps.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said, “It’s going to be incumbent on our allies around the world to show that they are willing to act.”
Congress also added their support led by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) “Iran’s quest for nuclear arms requires us to do two things: squeeze Iran’s economy as much as possible and do so without delay.” Lantos claims that more than 300 lawmakers will support sanctions.
Israel’s Defense Minister joined the chorus as well,” If the UN Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.”
Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Rumsfeld, Burns, Congress, and Israel.
Whoa! That’s quite a line-up.
All in the last 48 hours!
Was it spontaneous or a calculated public-relations campaign?
Beyond the political speechmaking are literally hundreds of articles, full of the same predictable fictions and demagoguery which have mischaracterized Iran’s nuclear program from the get-go; fueling the hysteria for another preemptive war.
Did Iran become nuclear superpower overnight?
Apparently, so. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s remember that according to the IAEA there is “no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or any diversion of nuclear material.”
That is the judgment of the Nobel Prize-wining chief of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammad ElBaradei. ElBaradei warned that there were no nuclear weapons programs in Iraq and he has drawn the very same conclusion in Iran.
“No evidence” still means “no evidence” except in Washington, DC, where it is a mere stumbling block for a massive media-blitz to manipulate public perceptions and whip the masses into war-fever.
It’s hard not to be impressed by the sudden ratcheting-up of inflammatory statements and spurious claims that blast from every media-soapbox across the country. Who could have imagined 4 years ago how utterly corrupted our media really is?
Try this: do a Google search through the 2,400 articles on Iran right now on and see what you find.
You’ll find that all 2,400 articles reiterate the same bland deceptions and wearisome lies as all the others. You’ll see that the forth estate provides neither facts, nor context, nor analysis, just the endless, repetitive fear-mongering of administration officials.
That’s it; just manipulation through state-sponsored demagoguery 24-7.
You won’t find anything about the IAEA inspection team that rummaged through Iran’s nuclear sites for the passed two years in the most thorough examination of any country in the history of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) You won’t hear anything about the “go anywhere, see anything” inspections that allowed officials from the IAEA to investigate any location or facility they felt was suspicious. You won’t hear that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) predicted that it would take 10 years for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. (If, in fact, that is even their intention) You won’t hear that Iran temporarily sacrificed its legal right to enrich uranium and accepted “additional protocols” because it trusted the EU-3 (Germany, France and England) who, it turns out, were simply acting as Washington’s agents. You won’t find one single article that clarifies the most fundamental issue of the entire confrontation; that Iran has an “inalienable right” to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes unless it can factually established that it has not complied with the terms of its agreement.
It has complied. There is no violation. That is why there will be no “punitive action”.
Instead, the United States is hoping for a “presidential statement”; a bogus “slap on the wrist” from the Security Council because the individual members can’t muster the courage to do their duty and defy the US.
Perhaps, the Security Council could offer a “supplemental presidential statement” at the same time, condemning the Bush administration, for developing a new regime of low-yield, bunker-busting “usable” nukes, and for its involvement in poisoning the groundwater and great swaths of the Iraqi countryside with Depleted Uranium; ensuring environmental devastation, cancer and birth defects will continue into perpetuity.
Will the Security Council have time to reprimand the real nuclear terrorist or will it limit itself to the imaginary villain who refuses to prostrate itself to Washington?
Iran has weathered this farce with great dignity. They understand the gravity of the situation when the media begins swarm to their victim. They know that there are Carrier groups in the Gulf and AC-130s in bases in Iraq. They know that Israeli commandoes have infiltrated the countryside and are scoping out potential targets. They know that satellites and unmanned drones have mapped out every square inch of territory from Iraq to Pakistan and the B-52s are tucked away close by where they can “liberate” another 100,000 or so Iranians.
How do they know?
Because it is the same lame script that was used in the lead up to the war in Iraq.
The Iran Bourse
On March 20 the Iran Bourse will formally open and allow countries to break to US monopoly on oil purchases in petrodollars. The central banks across Europe and Asia will trade in part of their stockpiles of greenbacks for euros, and dollars will come flooding back to the homeland. $3 trillion of American cash and securities are owned by people or institutions outside of the United States. If just a small portion of them pour back into the US, Depression will follow.
Is the impending war with Iraq merely an effort to shore up the debt-ridden greenback? (which is now underwritten by $8.2 trillion in debt)
If not, then how do we explain the Federal Reserve’s surprise announcement that it would stop releasing the M-3 in late March, 2006 coinciding with the opening of the bourse? (The M-3 provides the aggregate statistics on US dollars around the world)
Don’t you think the American people would like to know when the central banks begin tossing their stockpiles of greenbacks overboard?
And won’t this “weakening of the dollar” curtail Washington’s ability to print unlimited amounts of money to fund a powerful standing army and provide lavish tax cuts to the wealthy?
The Iran bourse is a direct threat to the present economic system of extorting labor and resources from the developing world for worthless paper.
The Bush administration will do everything in its power to defend that system.
Berkshire-Hathaway chief, Warren Buffet recently noted, “Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them. In my view, it will create political turmoil at some point. …Pretty soon, I think there will be a big adjustment.”
“Political turmoil”?"big adjustment”?…”Pretty soon, I think”?
‘nuff said.
*************************************************************************
Friday, March 10, 2006
Military Lunacy: How About a Bit of Common Sense?
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
In a crazy place, even the most modest steps toward sanity can seem radical.
Thus, in Washington, the Common Sense Budget Act, introduced this week by Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, seems like a far-reaching move.
In fact, it might be better titled the "How About Just a Bit of Common Sense Act."
The legislation would divert $60 billion from the Pentagon budget, and allocate it to social investment, renewable energy and humanitarian aid. Fifteen other members of the Progressive Caucus, of which Woolsey is co-chair, are co-sponsoring the bill.
Sixty billion dollars obviously goes a long way when it comes to people's needs, and the legislation promises to do a lot. Among the programs that would benefit:
Yes, $60 billion is a tremendous amount of money.
But not for the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is seeking $463 billion for the next fiscal year. That figure excludes the amount Rumsfeld and friends will request to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and anywhere else they might start fights). For war-fighting, the administration is expected to seek an additional $115 billion in 2006. So we're approaching $600 billion a year in defense/war spending.
The proposed cuts for the Pentagon follows recommendations from Reagan Assistant Defense Secretary Lawrence J. Korb. In a report issued in conjunction with the introduction of the Common Sense Budget Act, Korb writes that, "without diminishing America's ability to fight extremists, America can save $60 billion mostly by eliminating Cold War-era weapons systems designed to thwart the former Soviet Union -- weapons and programs that are not useful in defending our country from extremists or the other threats we now face." Most of the proposed savings come from reducing the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, cutting most spending for the missile defense program, and scaling back or eliminating support for weapons designed to fight perceived threats from the Soviet Union.
In other words, these are no-brainer cost savings. They aim to stop spending on Cold War weaponry, but don't threaten the prevailing war-fighting ideology at the Pentagon. The proposed cuts would upset particular defense contractors and agencies, to be sure, but they don't pose a fundamental challenge to the Pentagon's vice grip over the federal budget and inside-the-beltway politics and culture.
By way of perspective, consider this: global military expenditures soared past the $1 trillion mark in 2004, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and published in the Institute's 2005 Yearbook. In inflation-adjusted terms, military spending is now rivaling the record total achieved during the peak of Cold War expenditures in 1988-1989, according to SIPRI.
Since 1998, government military spending has jumped almost 6 percent annually in real terms. "The major determinant of the world trend in military expenditure is the change in the USA, which makes up 47 percent of the world total," according to SIPRI's 2005 Yearbook.
By 2007, U.S. spending is expected to constitute more than half the total global military expenditure.
There are roughly 300 million people living in the United States. There are about 6.5 billion people on the planet, meaning the U.S. population is about 4.6 percent of the global total.
One half the world's military spending. Under 5 percent of the world's population.
Crazy.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter... Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor.
*************************************************************************
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
In a crazy place, even the most modest steps toward sanity can seem radical.
Thus, in Washington, the Common Sense Budget Act, introduced this week by Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, seems like a far-reaching move.
In fact, it might be better titled the "How About Just a Bit of Common Sense Act."
The legislation would divert $60 billion from the Pentagon budget, and allocate it to social investment, renewable energy and humanitarian aid. Fifteen other members of the Progressive Caucus, of which Woolsey is co-chair, are co-sponsoring the bill.
Sixty billion dollars obviously goes a long way when it comes to people's needs, and the legislation promises to do a lot. Among the programs that would benefit:
- $10 billion annually would go to provide health care coverage for
millions of uninsured children.
- $10 billion a year would be spent on modernizing schools.
- $10 billion would be invested annually in renewable energy.
- $13 billion would be spent every year on humanitarian foreign aid.
Yes, $60 billion is a tremendous amount of money.
But not for the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is seeking $463 billion for the next fiscal year. That figure excludes the amount Rumsfeld and friends will request to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and anywhere else they might start fights). For war-fighting, the administration is expected to seek an additional $115 billion in 2006. So we're approaching $600 billion a year in defense/war spending.
The proposed cuts for the Pentagon follows recommendations from Reagan Assistant Defense Secretary Lawrence J. Korb. In a report issued in conjunction with the introduction of the Common Sense Budget Act, Korb writes that, "without diminishing America's ability to fight extremists, America can save $60 billion mostly by eliminating Cold War-era weapons systems designed to thwart the former Soviet Union -- weapons and programs that are not useful in defending our country from extremists or the other threats we now face." Most of the proposed savings come from reducing the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, cutting most spending for the missile defense program, and scaling back or eliminating support for weapons designed to fight perceived threats from the Soviet Union.
In other words, these are no-brainer cost savings. They aim to stop spending on Cold War weaponry, but don't threaten the prevailing war-fighting ideology at the Pentagon. The proposed cuts would upset particular defense contractors and agencies, to be sure, but they don't pose a fundamental challenge to the Pentagon's vice grip over the federal budget and inside-the-beltway politics and culture.
By way of perspective, consider this: global military expenditures soared past the $1 trillion mark in 2004, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and published in the Institute's 2005 Yearbook. In inflation-adjusted terms, military spending is now rivaling the record total achieved during the peak of Cold War expenditures in 1988-1989, according to SIPRI.
Since 1998, government military spending has jumped almost 6 percent annually in real terms. "The major determinant of the world trend in military expenditure is the change in the USA, which makes up 47 percent of the world total," according to SIPRI's 2005 Yearbook.
By 2007, U.S. spending is expected to constitute more than half the total global military expenditure.
There are roughly 300 million people living in the United States. There are about 6.5 billion people on the planet, meaning the U.S. population is about 4.6 percent of the global total.
One half the world's military spending. Under 5 percent of the world's population.
Crazy.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter... Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor.
*************************************************************************
A Deaf Man Spouting
by Sidney Blumenthal
the Guardian / UK - 3-9-06
A videotape of Bush's briefing before Hurricane Katrina exposes him as out of touch with reality.
On the eve of George Bush's presidential campaign in 2000, the neoconservative Kenneth Adelman cast him as Prince Hal, who "puts the indiscretions of his youth behind him" and "redeems his father's reign." After September 11, Bush was wreathed with regal laurels as Henry V by a clerisy of pundits. From Ground Zero to the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln ("Mission Accomplished") the president struck bold poses, but his choreographed gestures have especially illuminated his hollow crown in the darkened breach of New Orleans.
For the first time, last week, the public has seen the spontaneous Bush behind closed doors, in a leaked videotape that recorded his briefing the day before Hurricane Katrina struck. Teleconferenced in from his Crawford ranch, Texas, Bush listens to disaster officials inform him that the storm will be unprecedented in its severity and consequences. "This is, to put it mildly, the big one," says Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, warns: "This hurricane is much larger than Hurricane Andrew ever was." Bush asks not a single question, says, "We are fully prepared," and departs.
The Katrina videotape is defining for Bush's presidency. It exposes a deaf man spouting talking points. After the hurricane hit, he stayed on vacation, went to a birthday party, strummed a guitar with a country and western singer, and on September 1 said: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." On his flight back to Washington, four days after landfall, his aides gave him a DVD of television news reports of the hurricane's impact about which he had done nothing to learn on his own.
As the catastrophe of the foreshadowed aftermath unfolded, he clapped Brown on the back: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." But soon the administration settled on Brownie as the scapegoat, prevented him from defending himself and forced him to resign. He was expected to fall on his sword.
Suddenly, last week, the sacrificial Brown stormed back, the betrayed turning on his betrayers. He proclaimed on every media outlet that he would no longer play the fall guy, detailed the warnings he had given, and named malefactors running up the chain of command.
In New Orleans, a sad Mardi Gras has come and gone, while crews from the morgue continue searching for bodies - still finding them. The city has lost more than half its population, most of the refugees are African-Americans, and their neighborhoods remain scenes of devastation. Having rejected a plan for rebuilding, Bush travelled to New Orleans for another photo-opportunity this week to announce a program that would supposedly give money to the homeless but absurdly will not permit destroyed housing to be replaced by new. Not one penny so far has been spent on new homes. Six months after the tempest, New Orleans, one of the glories of American life and culture, lies in ruins, and Bush visits to pose as visionary.
In a recently published hagiography on the theme of Bush-as-Prince-Hal, Rebel-in-Chief, written by the rightwing pundit Fred Barnes, Bush explained to him that his job is to "stay out of minutiae, keep the big picture in mind." To illustrate his self-conception, he "called my attention to the rug" in the Oval Office. Bush said that he wanted the rug to express that an "optimistic person comes here." He delegated the task to his wife, Laura, who designed a rug featuring bright yellow rays of the sun. In his Oval Office, Prince Hal imagines himself grown into a Sun King.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of "The Clinton Wars." Email to: sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com.
*************************************************************************
by Sidney Blumenthal
the Guardian / UK - 3-9-06
A videotape of Bush's briefing before Hurricane Katrina exposes him as out of touch with reality.
On the eve of George Bush's presidential campaign in 2000, the neoconservative Kenneth Adelman cast him as Prince Hal, who "puts the indiscretions of his youth behind him" and "redeems his father's reign." After September 11, Bush was wreathed with regal laurels as Henry V by a clerisy of pundits. From Ground Zero to the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln ("Mission Accomplished") the president struck bold poses, but his choreographed gestures have especially illuminated his hollow crown in the darkened breach of New Orleans.
For the first time, last week, the public has seen the spontaneous Bush behind closed doors, in a leaked videotape that recorded his briefing the day before Hurricane Katrina struck. Teleconferenced in from his Crawford ranch, Texas, Bush listens to disaster officials inform him that the storm will be unprecedented in its severity and consequences. "This is, to put it mildly, the big one," says Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, warns: "This hurricane is much larger than Hurricane Andrew ever was." Bush asks not a single question, says, "We are fully prepared," and departs.
The Katrina videotape is defining for Bush's presidency. It exposes a deaf man spouting talking points. After the hurricane hit, he stayed on vacation, went to a birthday party, strummed a guitar with a country and western singer, and on September 1 said: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." On his flight back to Washington, four days after landfall, his aides gave him a DVD of television news reports of the hurricane's impact about which he had done nothing to learn on his own.
As the catastrophe of the foreshadowed aftermath unfolded, he clapped Brown on the back: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." But soon the administration settled on Brownie as the scapegoat, prevented him from defending himself and forced him to resign. He was expected to fall on his sword.
Suddenly, last week, the sacrificial Brown stormed back, the betrayed turning on his betrayers. He proclaimed on every media outlet that he would no longer play the fall guy, detailed the warnings he had given, and named malefactors running up the chain of command.
In New Orleans, a sad Mardi Gras has come and gone, while crews from the morgue continue searching for bodies - still finding them. The city has lost more than half its population, most of the refugees are African-Americans, and their neighborhoods remain scenes of devastation. Having rejected a plan for rebuilding, Bush travelled to New Orleans for another photo-opportunity this week to announce a program that would supposedly give money to the homeless but absurdly will not permit destroyed housing to be replaced by new. Not one penny so far has been spent on new homes. Six months after the tempest, New Orleans, one of the glories of American life and culture, lies in ruins, and Bush visits to pose as visionary.
In a recently published hagiography on the theme of Bush-as-Prince-Hal, Rebel-in-Chief, written by the rightwing pundit Fred Barnes, Bush explained to him that his job is to "stay out of minutiae, keep the big picture in mind." To illustrate his self-conception, he "called my attention to the rug" in the Oval Office. Bush said that he wanted the rug to express that an "optimistic person comes here." He delegated the task to his wife, Laura, who designed a rug featuring bright yellow rays of the sun. In his Oval Office, Prince Hal imagines himself grown into a Sun King.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of "The Clinton Wars." Email to: sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com.
*************************************************************************
Thursday, March 09, 2006
At Last, the Warmongers Are Prepared to Face the Facts and Admit They Were Wrong.
by Rupert Cornwell
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350104.ece
3-9-06
It has taken more than three years, tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and $200bn of treasure - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But, finally, the neo-conservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words. We were wrong.
The second thoughts have spread across the conservative spectrum, from William Buckley, venerable editor of The National Review to Andrew Sullivan, once editor of the New Republic, now an influential commentator and blogmeister. The patrician conservative columnist George Will was gently sceptical from the outset. He now glumly concludes that all three members of the original "axis of evil" - not only Iran and North Korea but also Iraq - "are more dangerous than when that term was coined in 2002".
Neither Mr. Buckley nor Mr. Sullivan concedes that the decision to topple Saddam was intrinsically wrong. But "the challenge required more than [President Bush's] deployable resources," the former sadly recognises. "The American objective in Iraq has failed and false assumptions, born of arrogance and naïveté. But, he too asserts, in a column in Time magazine this week, that all may not be lost.
Of all the critiques however, the most profound is that of Francis Fukuyama, in his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads. Its subtitle is "Democracy, Power and the Neo-Conservative Legacy" - and that legacy, Mr. Fukuyama argues, is fatally poisoned. This is no ordinary thesis, but apostasy on a grand scale.
Mr. Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century", the founding manifesto of neo-conservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neo-conservative movement. The PNAC aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defence spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to US interests, and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values".
The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's WMD, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neo-cons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else that stood in Washington's way?
All that, Mr. Fukuyama now acknowledges, has been a tragic conceit. Like the Leninists of old, he writes, the neo-conservatives reckoned they could drive history forward with the right mixture of power and will. However, "Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States."
But, was it not Mr. Fukuyama who claimed in his most celebrated work, The End of History and the Last Man, that the whole world was locked on a glide-path to liberal, free-market democracy? Yes indeed. But, that book, he points out, argued that the process was gradual, and must unfold at its own pace. But, not only were the neo-cons too impatient, a second error was to believe that an all-powerful America would be trusted to exercise a "benevolent hegemony". A third was the gross overstatement of the post 9/11 threat posed by radical Islam, in order to justify the dubious doctrine of preventive war.
Finally, there was the blatant contradiction between the neo-cons' aversion to government meddling at home and their childlike faith in their ability to impose massive social engineering in foreign and utterly unfamiliar countries like Iraq. Thence, sprang the mistakes of the occupation period.
*************************************************************************
by Rupert Cornwell
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350104.ece
3-9-06
It has taken more than three years, tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and $200bn of treasure - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But, finally, the neo-conservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words. We were wrong.
The second thoughts have spread across the conservative spectrum, from William Buckley, venerable editor of The National Review to Andrew Sullivan, once editor of the New Republic, now an influential commentator and blogmeister. The patrician conservative columnist George Will was gently sceptical from the outset. He now glumly concludes that all three members of the original "axis of evil" - not only Iran and North Korea but also Iraq - "are more dangerous than when that term was coined in 2002".
Neither Mr. Buckley nor Mr. Sullivan concedes that the decision to topple Saddam was intrinsically wrong. But "the challenge required more than [President Bush's] deployable resources," the former sadly recognises. "The American objective in Iraq has failed and false assumptions, born of arrogance and naïveté. But, he too asserts, in a column in Time magazine this week, that all may not be lost.
Of all the critiques however, the most profound is that of Francis Fukuyama, in his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads. Its subtitle is "Democracy, Power and the Neo-Conservative Legacy" - and that legacy, Mr. Fukuyama argues, is fatally poisoned. This is no ordinary thesis, but apostasy on a grand scale.
Mr. Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century", the founding manifesto of neo-conservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neo-conservative movement. The PNAC aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defence spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to US interests, and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values".
The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's WMD, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neo-cons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else that stood in Washington's way?
All that, Mr. Fukuyama now acknowledges, has been a tragic conceit. Like the Leninists of old, he writes, the neo-conservatives reckoned they could drive history forward with the right mixture of power and will. However, "Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States."
But, was it not Mr. Fukuyama who claimed in his most celebrated work, The End of History and the Last Man, that the whole world was locked on a glide-path to liberal, free-market democracy? Yes indeed. But, that book, he points out, argued that the process was gradual, and must unfold at its own pace. But, not only were the neo-cons too impatient, a second error was to believe that an all-powerful America would be trusted to exercise a "benevolent hegemony". A third was the gross overstatement of the post 9/11 threat posed by radical Islam, in order to justify the dubious doctrine of preventive war.
Finally, there was the blatant contradiction between the neo-cons' aversion to government meddling at home and their childlike faith in their ability to impose massive social engineering in foreign and utterly unfamiliar countries like Iraq. Thence, sprang the mistakes of the occupation period.
*************************************************************************
Pressing Another Free Trade Deal, White House Ignores Worker Oppression
by David Siorta
workingforchange.com - 3-8-06
On the heels of the Bush administration's push for a free trade deal with Communist Vietnam, The Wall Street Journal reports that the Bush administration "and Malaysia announced they will begin negotiations for a bilateral free-trade agreement." The piece quotes a salivating Bush trade representative Rob Portman, the former congressman from Ohio - the state that has lost thousands of jobs thanks to free trade deals with oppressive low wage dictatorships. Portman doesn't seem to care about his home state, instead moving to whitewash Malaysia's atrocious record. "Malaysia has been at the forefront of the economic dynamism transforming Asia in recent years," he said, calling the country a supposedly "moderate leader." Apparently, he either doesn't know or doesn't care about Malaysia's extremist policies when it comes to treatment of workers.
That's right, according to Agence France Press, Malaysia does "not have a minimum wage." The country's official government policy is open hostility to proposals to create an minimum wage whatsoever. Check out this excerpt from Malaysia General News in 2004:
"The [Malaysian] government will not adopt the minimum wage policy but instead allow market forces determine the salary level, Human Resources Minister Datuk Wira Dr Fong Chan Onn said today. Malaysia's free-market economy did not believe in minimum wage policy and the wage structure should be established by supply and demand, he added. 'That is the government's basic philosophy. The economy is much more flexible without minimum wage,' he told reporters."
Sounds like talking points from one of America's many extremist right-wing think tanks - and certainly not "moderate." But then, in the eyes of the corrupt Bush administration and its Big Money backers, that extremism makes Malaysia an ideal partner for yet another destructive free trade deal that has no wage/labor protections. To our corrupt government that has dollar signs in its eyes, Malaysia's awful treatment of its workers means it is the perfect pool of oppressed labor to exploit for profit, the perfect low-wage force to exert more downward pressure on American wages, and the perfect place which to ship more good-paying U.S. jobs.
*************************************************************************
by David Siorta
workingforchange.com - 3-8-06
On the heels of the Bush administration's push for a free trade deal with Communist Vietnam, The Wall Street Journal reports that the Bush administration "and Malaysia announced they will begin negotiations for a bilateral free-trade agreement." The piece quotes a salivating Bush trade representative Rob Portman, the former congressman from Ohio - the state that has lost thousands of jobs thanks to free trade deals with oppressive low wage dictatorships. Portman doesn't seem to care about his home state, instead moving to whitewash Malaysia's atrocious record. "Malaysia has been at the forefront of the economic dynamism transforming Asia in recent years," he said, calling the country a supposedly "moderate leader." Apparently, he either doesn't know or doesn't care about Malaysia's extremist policies when it comes to treatment of workers.
That's right, according to Agence France Press, Malaysia does "not have a minimum wage." The country's official government policy is open hostility to proposals to create an minimum wage whatsoever. Check out this excerpt from Malaysia General News in 2004:
"The [Malaysian] government will not adopt the minimum wage policy but instead allow market forces determine the salary level, Human Resources Minister Datuk Wira Dr Fong Chan Onn said today. Malaysia's free-market economy did not believe in minimum wage policy and the wage structure should be established by supply and demand, he added. 'That is the government's basic philosophy. The economy is much more flexible without minimum wage,' he told reporters."
Sounds like talking points from one of America's many extremist right-wing think tanks - and certainly not "moderate." But then, in the eyes of the corrupt Bush administration and its Big Money backers, that extremism makes Malaysia an ideal partner for yet another destructive free trade deal that has no wage/labor protections. To our corrupt government that has dollar signs in its eyes, Malaysia's awful treatment of its workers means it is the perfect pool of oppressed labor to exploit for profit, the perfect low-wage force to exert more downward pressure on American wages, and the perfect place which to ship more good-paying U.S. jobs.
*************************************************************************
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED AGAINST DIEBOLD IN FLORIDA!
The Brad Blog - 3-8-06
Leon County Election Supervisor Alleges 'Breach of Contract' After Security Test Revealed Hackable Elections Possible on Diebold Optical-Scan Systems! The E-Voting Monolith and 'Competitors' All Refuse to do Business with County Unless the Elected Ion Sancho is 'Removed from Office'.
Ion Sancho, the Election Supervisor of Leon County, Florida who exposed a number of security flaws in Electronic Voting Machines made by the Diebold corporation of North Canton, Ohio, has today launched legal "breach of contract" proceedings against the company. The action has been filed on behalf of the Leon County Supervisor of Elections office.
"According to our contract with Diebold," Sancho explained, "we have to give them 30 days notice. And so we are requiring them to answer by March 21, as to how they intend to repair the breach."
The most infamous of the security evaluations held last year by Sancho was a "hack test" in December of Diebold's optical scan voting system. That mock election test revealed that election results could be completely flipped on Diebold's optical-scan system without a trace of the hack being left behind.
Sancho had exposed a flaw in the Electronic Voting Machine Company giant that has had earthquake-like repercussions across the entire electoral system in the United States.
After the startling December 2005 "hack test", Sancho vowed he would would never use Diebold equipment in another Leon County election. The state's capitol, Tallahassee, happens to be in Leon County.
But, Sancho's attempts to contract with another vendor have now all failed. Of the three vendors certified to sell election equipment in Florida -- Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia -- all three have now refused to do business with him.
Now the Republicans in Florida, all the way up to Governor Jeb Bush's office, have taken notice of the situation and instead of lauding Sancho for his actions, have decided to bring political pressure down on the elected Sancho.
The attacks from the state have come even while the state of Florida itself sent a late-night "Technical Advisory" to every Election Supervisor in Florida warning them to take make "security enhancements" to avoid the type of election fraud revealed possible by Sancho's tests.
"As an elected official of the voters of Leon County, I have the constitutional responsibility to do everything in my power to make sure the equipement is accurate and reliable," Sancho said. "In fact I'd be negligent if I didn't do everything I could to establish their reliability," he said, especially in light of Diebold's "on-the-record admissions" of attempting to circumvent law and lie about facts in California and elsewhere around the country.
*************************************************************************
The Brad Blog - 3-8-06
Leon County Election Supervisor Alleges 'Breach of Contract' After Security Test Revealed Hackable Elections Possible on Diebold Optical-Scan Systems! The E-Voting Monolith and 'Competitors' All Refuse to do Business with County Unless the Elected Ion Sancho is 'Removed from Office'.
Ion Sancho, the Election Supervisor of Leon County, Florida who exposed a number of security flaws in Electronic Voting Machines made by the Diebold corporation of North Canton, Ohio, has today launched legal "breach of contract" proceedings against the company. The action has been filed on behalf of the Leon County Supervisor of Elections office.
"According to our contract with Diebold," Sancho explained, "we have to give them 30 days notice. And so we are requiring them to answer by March 21, as to how they intend to repair the breach."
The most infamous of the security evaluations held last year by Sancho was a "hack test" in December of Diebold's optical scan voting system. That mock election test revealed that election results could be completely flipped on Diebold's optical-scan system without a trace of the hack being left behind.
Sancho had exposed a flaw in the Electronic Voting Machine Company giant that has had earthquake-like repercussions across the entire electoral system in the United States.
After the startling December 2005 "hack test", Sancho vowed he would would never use Diebold equipment in another Leon County election. The state's capitol, Tallahassee, happens to be in Leon County.
But, Sancho's attempts to contract with another vendor have now all failed. Of the three vendors certified to sell election equipment in Florida -- Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia -- all three have now refused to do business with him.
Now the Republicans in Florida, all the way up to Governor Jeb Bush's office, have taken notice of the situation and instead of lauding Sancho for his actions, have decided to bring political pressure down on the elected Sancho.
The attacks from the state have come even while the state of Florida itself sent a late-night "Technical Advisory" to every Election Supervisor in Florida warning them to take make "security enhancements" to avoid the type of election fraud revealed possible by Sancho's tests.
"As an elected official of the voters of Leon County, I have the constitutional responsibility to do everything in my power to make sure the equipement is accurate and reliable," Sancho said. "In fact I'd be negligent if I didn't do everything I could to establish their reliability," he said, especially in light of Diebold's "on-the-record admissions" of attempting to circumvent law and lie about facts in California and elsewhere around the country.
*************************************************************************
See Dick Loot
by Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective - 3-8-06
Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) have been making hay in the burning Iraqi sun for years now. It is, of course, no coincidence that the man sitting as vice president played a key role with his influence in obtaining the lion's share of contracts in Iraq for the company he was CEO of prior to his self-appointed position. Yet none of this is news.
What is news, however, is that the ties that bind Cheney to Halliburton also link him to groups with even broader interests in the Middle East, which are causing civilians on the ground there, as well as in the US, to pay the price.
Cheney had much more at stake than pure altruism in making sure Halliburton/KBR obtained so many no-bid contracts in occupied Iraq. Despite his claims of not having any financial ties to Halliburton, the fact is that in both 2001 and 2002 he earned twice as much from a deferred salary from his "old" company as when he was CEO.
But that wasn't the beginning. When Cheney was US Secretary of Defense in the early 1990's under Big Bush, Halliburton was awarded the job of studying, then implementing, the privatization of routine army functions such as cleaning and cooking meals.
Following this study, when Cheney was finished with his job at the Pentagon, he scored the job as CEO of Halliburton, which he held until nominating himself for the position of Little Bush's running mate in 2000. Remember, it was Cheney who was given the task of finding a running mate for Bush. After searching far and wide across the US, Cheney ended up generously offering his own services for the job.
As if Cheney didn't already have enough conflicts of interest, it is important to note that he assisted in founding the neo-conservative think tank, the "Project for the New American Century (PNAC)", whose goal is to "promote American global leadership," which entails acquiring Iraqi oil.
************************************************************************
by Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective - 3-8-06
Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) have been making hay in the burning Iraqi sun for years now. It is, of course, no coincidence that the man sitting as vice president played a key role with his influence in obtaining the lion's share of contracts in Iraq for the company he was CEO of prior to his self-appointed position. Yet none of this is news.
What is news, however, is that the ties that bind Cheney to Halliburton also link him to groups with even broader interests in the Middle East, which are causing civilians on the ground there, as well as in the US, to pay the price.
Cheney had much more at stake than pure altruism in making sure Halliburton/KBR obtained so many no-bid contracts in occupied Iraq. Despite his claims of not having any financial ties to Halliburton, the fact is that in both 2001 and 2002 he earned twice as much from a deferred salary from his "old" company as when he was CEO.
But that wasn't the beginning. When Cheney was US Secretary of Defense in the early 1990's under Big Bush, Halliburton was awarded the job of studying, then implementing, the privatization of routine army functions such as cleaning and cooking meals.
Following this study, when Cheney was finished with his job at the Pentagon, he scored the job as CEO of Halliburton, which he held until nominating himself for the position of Little Bush's running mate in 2000. Remember, it was Cheney who was given the task of finding a running mate for Bush. After searching far and wide across the US, Cheney ended up generously offering his own services for the job.
As if Cheney didn't already have enough conflicts of interest, it is important to note that he assisted in founding the neo-conservative think tank, the "Project for the New American Century (PNAC)", whose goal is to "promote American global leadership," which entails acquiring Iraqi oil.
************************************************************************
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Email Humor Making the Rounds
By greenboy - 3-3-06
NEWS FLASH: In an attempt to thwart the spread of bird flu, George W. Bush has bombed the Canary Islands.
DICTIONARY OF REPUBLICANISMS:
* Update * Got some funny additions from various sources:
*Update 3/7 - got a few more!! *
*************************************************************************
By greenboy - 3-3-06
NEWS FLASH: In an attempt to thwart the spread of bird flu, George W. Bush has bombed the Canary Islands.
DICTIONARY OF REPUBLICANISMS:
- habeas corpus n. archaic (Lat.) Legal term no longer in use (See Patriot Act).
- healthy forest n. A forest clearing; grassland.
- honesty n. Lies told in simple declarative sentences--e.g. "Freedom is on the march."
- House of Representatives n. Exclusive club; entry fee $1 million to $5 million.
- laziness n. When the poor are not working.
- leisure time n. When the wealthy are not working.
- liberal(s) n. 1) enemy, nemesis; 2) Followers of the Antichrist.
- neoconservatives n. Chickenhawk nerds with Napoleonic complexes.
- 9/11 n. Tragedy used to justify any administrative policy.
- No Child Left Behind interj. slang. "Are there no prisons? Are there no orphanages?".
- ownership society n. A civilization where 1 percent of the population controls 90 percent of the wealth.
- Patriot Act n. The pre-emptive strike on American freedoms to prevent the terrorists from destroying them first.
- pro-life adj. Valuing human life until birth.
- Senate n. Exclusive club; entry fee $10 million to$30 million.
- simplify v. To cut the taxes of Republican donors.
- staying the course interj. slang. Saying and doing the same stupid thing over and over, regardless of the result.
- shit happens interj. slang. Donald Rumsfeld as master historian.
- voter fraud n. A significant minority turnout.
- Wal-Mart n. The nation-state, future tense.
- water n. Arsenic storage device.
- woman n. 1. Person who can be trusted to bear a child but can't be trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have the child.
- woman n. 2. Person who must have all decisions regarding her reproductive functions made by men.
* Update * Got some funny additions from various sources:
- Bush: n. an incompetent bungler or ignorant buffoon, as in: "If this Bush were President, the whole country would go to hell."
- deficits: n. (a) something that doesn't matter. (b) an inability to do simple arithemetic; also learning disabilities with math in general.
- heckuva job: slang, ironic pejorative: piece of crap.
- Prescription Drug Plan: idiomatic, anything hopelessly confusing; syn. see: cruel hoax, elder abuse.
- compassionate conservative: n. someone who does not like to see others suffer and so ignores them.
- theory: n. a wild guess
- science: n. a bunch of theories
- Social Security reform: n. program which proposes to privatize the "social" and introduce risk into the "security".
- death tax: n. attempt by the rich to really take it with them.
- Patriot Act n. 2. Destroying the village to save it.
- ocean n. Mercury storage device. Once contained life.
*Update 3/7 - got a few more!! *
- immorality: The sexual behavior of others and their responsibility to conform to the expectations of others
- faith-based: Based on a wild guess and the say so of others repeatedly exposed as charlatans and criminals, with an almost proud contempt for evidence and reason. Cf: evidence based
- freedom: We literally cannot define the word or identify it, but we love to talk about its high price (for Americans only; it's free in Holland and Canada where they also have more of it). Currently being traded by the American people for Bush's magic beans.
- democracy: The loathsome process by which the people of a nation such as France agree that the Americans are making a big mistake and then have the unmitigated Gaul (sic) not to make it with them and then witness their graceless national snit in response.
- medical benefits: Pfizer's reward for greasing the Medicare drug benefit boondoggle through the Congress.
- national security: Anything embarrassing to the administration such as wire tapping its citizens without warrants. If Al Qaeda suspects that their communications are under surveillance, they might.. uh.. er.. attack us! Or stop plotting to attack us using their phones, faxes and computers. Lives hang in the balance!!!
- treason: Disagreeing with or opposing the will of the of George "Uncle Sam - Big Brother" Bush
- less government: Less oversight by governmennt of corporate excesses while micromanaging ordinary citizens with regard to medical marijuana, assisted suicide, data mining, abortions, airport travel, etc., etc., etc., etc.
- lower taxes: But only the wealthy (estates, capital gains) and their corporations (capital gains, FICA) with the difference being absorbed as losses to the lower and middle class's safety net (Medicaid, unemployment benefits, college grants, etc., etc., etc., etc.
- compassionate conservative Dick "F---- you" Cheney and his cold, black, mechanical heart.
- "I'm a uniter not a divider" - here comes another civil war: red vs blue.
- "I'm not a nation builder" - here comes yet another civil war: Shiite vs Sunni vs Kurd.
- "You're doing a heckuva job Brownie" - how about a white New Orleans. Could have resulted in racial war.
- "social security needs fixing" - war on the elderly
- "government doesn't work - anymore (thanks Brownie)
*************************************************************************
Support the Troops? Start by Listening to Them
by John Nichols
The Nation - 3/1/06
According to the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, a new poll shows that 72 percent of U.S. troops serving in Iraq favor complete withdrawal from that country within a year.
Despite the claims of the armchair strategists in the White House and its amen corner in the media, who suggest that calls for withdrawal represent a failure to "support the troops," the troops themselves are ready to come home.
Only 23 percent of the soldiers surveyed in January and February for the Zogby International/Le Moyne College poll echoed the administration line that the U.S. presence in Iraq should be maintained for "as long as needed."
According to the pollster's analysis, there is remarkably broad support among the troops for immediate withdrawal.
"Of the 72 percent (who support withdrawal), 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw 'immediately.' Twenty-one percent said the US military presence should end within a year," according to Zogby's review of the results of the survey, which was conducted before the recent explosive of sectarian violence in Iraq.
Around the country this spring, opponents of the war are promoting local resolutions and referendums -- particularly in Wisconsin, where more than two dozen measures will be on April 4 local election ballots in cities, villages and towns around the state -- that are intended to give citizens an opportunity to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Critics of these initiatives suggest that it is unpatriotic and anti-military to talk about bringing the troops home. They don't like the idea of letting citizens play a role in establishing foreign policy priorities.
There are plenty of appropriate responses to this anti-democratic tendency on the part of those who are more loyal to George Bush and Dick Cheney than they are to their country's Constitution and its best political traditions -- beginning with: "When we fought that revolution back in 1776, your position lost."
But the best response of all might well be to say: If you really want to support the troops -- as opposed to the Bush-Cheney administration's warped policies -- why not listen to the troops? Indeed, why not let them vote in an advisory referendum of their own on whether they think the occupation of Iraq should continue?
Of course, the administration's apologists -- along with many more pragmatic players -- would respond to such a proposal with all the reasons why it is dangerous and unwise to treat the military as a democracy.
But if citizens are not supposed to advocate for withdrawal because doing so represents a failure to "support the troops," and if the troops who want to withdraw are not allowed to weigh in for all the practical reasons that might be cited, then what are we left with? No debate. No democracy. And no chance to set right what this administration and its neoconservative gurus have put wrong.
Ultimately, that's a fine scenario for George Bush and Dick Cheney, but its the wrong one for citizens at home and troops abroad. The right one is to recognize that, when citizens advocate, petition and vote for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq they are supporting the troops.
*************************************************************************
by John Nichols
The Nation - 3/1/06
According to the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, a new poll shows that 72 percent of U.S. troops serving in Iraq favor complete withdrawal from that country within a year.
Despite the claims of the armchair strategists in the White House and its amen corner in the media, who suggest that calls for withdrawal represent a failure to "support the troops," the troops themselves are ready to come home.
Only 23 percent of the soldiers surveyed in January and February for the Zogby International/Le Moyne College poll echoed the administration line that the U.S. presence in Iraq should be maintained for "as long as needed."
According to the pollster's analysis, there is remarkably broad support among the troops for immediate withdrawal.
"Of the 72 percent (who support withdrawal), 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw 'immediately.' Twenty-one percent said the US military presence should end within a year," according to Zogby's review of the results of the survey, which was conducted before the recent explosive of sectarian violence in Iraq.
Around the country this spring, opponents of the war are promoting local resolutions and referendums -- particularly in Wisconsin, where more than two dozen measures will be on April 4 local election ballots in cities, villages and towns around the state -- that are intended to give citizens an opportunity to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Critics of these initiatives suggest that it is unpatriotic and anti-military to talk about bringing the troops home. They don't like the idea of letting citizens play a role in establishing foreign policy priorities.
There are plenty of appropriate responses to this anti-democratic tendency on the part of those who are more loyal to George Bush and Dick Cheney than they are to their country's Constitution and its best political traditions -- beginning with: "When we fought that revolution back in 1776, your position lost."
But the best response of all might well be to say: If you really want to support the troops -- as opposed to the Bush-Cheney administration's warped policies -- why not listen to the troops? Indeed, why not let them vote in an advisory referendum of their own on whether they think the occupation of Iraq should continue?
Of course, the administration's apologists -- along with many more pragmatic players -- would respond to such a proposal with all the reasons why it is dangerous and unwise to treat the military as a democracy.
But if citizens are not supposed to advocate for withdrawal because doing so represents a failure to "support the troops," and if the troops who want to withdraw are not allowed to weigh in for all the practical reasons that might be cited, then what are we left with? No debate. No democracy. And no chance to set right what this administration and its neoconservative gurus have put wrong.
Ultimately, that's a fine scenario for George Bush and Dick Cheney, but its the wrong one for citizens at home and troops abroad. The right one is to recognize that, when citizens advocate, petition and vote for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq they are supporting the troops.
*************************************************************************
MODERATE CHRISTIANS APPEAR TO HAVE AWAKENED
by Thomas L. Walsh - OpEdnews.com
For several years now I’ve been wondering when moderate Christians would crank up the nerve to stand up against the Bush propaganda machine. There have been few cracks in the massive wall of conservative Christianity that the Bush machine has erected, hand-molded and hammered into a formidable political machine, primarily in the red states, and more specifically the south.
Since its’ inception, this administration has molded and re-defined Christianity in the United States to revolve around two basic premises; dislike, if not actual hatred of gay people, and elimination of women’s reproductive choices. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Franklin Grahams and James Dobsons have hijacked religion in this country, hand-fitting it to achieve their sometimes-anything-but-Christian political ambitions, with the implicit help of the Bush administration, primarily through the machinations of Karl Rove.
I sense things are a-changin,’ and it’s way past time that they did.
At the end of February, 55 Catholic Democratic members of the House of Representatives finally had enough. In a Statement of Principles, signed by all of these members, they stated:
"We are committed to making real the basic principals that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most venerable amongst us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country…(which) includes reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking serious the decision to go to war.”
Back in 1960, while running for the presidency in a sea of anti-Catholic bigotry, John F. Kennedy told a group of protestant ministers in Houston, “I do not speak for my church on public matters---and the church does not speak for me.” Kennedy kept his word, and kept separation of church and state as a basic tenet of his foreshortened life.
Our current president has done anything but that, and has continually attempted to, and often succeeded in blurring this long-respected separation, certainly to the advantage of his political career, and in opposition to the opinions of a majority of constitutional experts.
Congresswoman Rose DeLauro of Connecticut, one of the signers of the new statement, was quoted as saying, “People…were angry that ideologues were using the church for their own purpose.”
In addition, the signees succinctly and clearly addressed the most difficult issue, by stating that:
“Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children’s healthcare and child care…”
Most significantly, Catholics from both side of the debate regarding choice signed the statement of principle. By doing so, they made a statement that they worry this one principle is crowding out all other principles of Catholic social teaching.
The importance of this statement cannot be overemphasized. These people are saying that, while they certainly respect the teaching of their own faith, they recognize that there must be, there has to be room for primacy of conscience, as well as the freedom to use their intellect in dealing with subjects such as this.
I could not agree more with their statement. While I happen to share their faith, I will always be unwilling to surrender my intellect to hard, inflexible dogma.
It is crucial for a group of reasonable, moderate Catholic politicians to offset the extremity of such organizations as the Family Research Council, who recently commented, through FRC Vice-President Tom McClusky that, “Issues such as helping the poor, the death penalty, views on war…aren’t tenets of the Catholic Church.”
McClusky’s comments were expressed in a Washington Post article on Ash Wednesday, March 1st. They seem particularly odd, in view of the fact that on the same day, Pope Benedict XVI, in his Lenten message, stated that:
“It is quite impossible to separate the response to people’s material and social needs from the fulfillment of the profound desires of their hearts. This has to be emphasized all the more in today’s rapidly changing world, in which our responsibility towards the poor emerges with ever greater clarity and urgency.”
Father Jim Hug, SJ, Director of the Center of Concern and a participant in the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good, said, “The Church’s present leadership has been unequivocal in its condemnation of the death penalty in the U.S., and has repeatedly expressed grave moral concerns over the Iraq war…It’s disappointing that Mr. McCluskey would use his position to suggest otherwise.”
Sister Simone Campbell, SSS, and national coordinator for the Catholic social justice organization NETWORK, added, “We believe Mr. McCluskey is wrong. He’s behind on 113 years of Catholic social teaching and 2000 years of gospel values.”
*************************************************************************
by Thomas L. Walsh - OpEdnews.com
For several years now I’ve been wondering when moderate Christians would crank up the nerve to stand up against the Bush propaganda machine. There have been few cracks in the massive wall of conservative Christianity that the Bush machine has erected, hand-molded and hammered into a formidable political machine, primarily in the red states, and more specifically the south.
Since its’ inception, this administration has molded and re-defined Christianity in the United States to revolve around two basic premises; dislike, if not actual hatred of gay people, and elimination of women’s reproductive choices. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Franklin Grahams and James Dobsons have hijacked religion in this country, hand-fitting it to achieve their sometimes-anything-but-Christian political ambitions, with the implicit help of the Bush administration, primarily through the machinations of Karl Rove.
I sense things are a-changin,’ and it’s way past time that they did.
At the end of February, 55 Catholic Democratic members of the House of Representatives finally had enough. In a Statement of Principles, signed by all of these members, they stated:
"We are committed to making real the basic principals that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most venerable amongst us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country…(which) includes reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking serious the decision to go to war.”
Back in 1960, while running for the presidency in a sea of anti-Catholic bigotry, John F. Kennedy told a group of protestant ministers in Houston, “I do not speak for my church on public matters---and the church does not speak for me.” Kennedy kept his word, and kept separation of church and state as a basic tenet of his foreshortened life.
Our current president has done anything but that, and has continually attempted to, and often succeeded in blurring this long-respected separation, certainly to the advantage of his political career, and in opposition to the opinions of a majority of constitutional experts.
Congresswoman Rose DeLauro of Connecticut, one of the signers of the new statement, was quoted as saying, “People…were angry that ideologues were using the church for their own purpose.”
In addition, the signees succinctly and clearly addressed the most difficult issue, by stating that:
“Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children’s healthcare and child care…”
Most significantly, Catholics from both side of the debate regarding choice signed the statement of principle. By doing so, they made a statement that they worry this one principle is crowding out all other principles of Catholic social teaching.
The importance of this statement cannot be overemphasized. These people are saying that, while they certainly respect the teaching of their own faith, they recognize that there must be, there has to be room for primacy of conscience, as well as the freedom to use their intellect in dealing with subjects such as this.
I could not agree more with their statement. While I happen to share their faith, I will always be unwilling to surrender my intellect to hard, inflexible dogma.
It is crucial for a group of reasonable, moderate Catholic politicians to offset the extremity of such organizations as the Family Research Council, who recently commented, through FRC Vice-President Tom McClusky that, “Issues such as helping the poor, the death penalty, views on war…aren’t tenets of the Catholic Church.”
McClusky’s comments were expressed in a Washington Post article on Ash Wednesday, March 1st. They seem particularly odd, in view of the fact that on the same day, Pope Benedict XVI, in his Lenten message, stated that:
“It is quite impossible to separate the response to people’s material and social needs from the fulfillment of the profound desires of their hearts. This has to be emphasized all the more in today’s rapidly changing world, in which our responsibility towards the poor emerges with ever greater clarity and urgency.”
Father Jim Hug, SJ, Director of the Center of Concern and a participant in the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good, said, “The Church’s present leadership has been unequivocal in its condemnation of the death penalty in the U.S., and has repeatedly expressed grave moral concerns over the Iraq war…It’s disappointing that Mr. McCluskey would use his position to suggest otherwise.”
Sister Simone Campbell, SSS, and national coordinator for the Catholic social justice organization NETWORK, added, “We believe Mr. McCluskey is wrong. He’s behind on 113 years of Catholic social teaching and 2000 years of gospel values.”
*************************************************************************
Tearing the Veneer Off the Great Education Myth
by David Siorta - workingforchange.com/blog
I recently wrote about the political Establishment's Great Education Myth - you know, the line of reasoning we hear from elitist pundits and politicians that says the economic problem facing Americans is not our corporate-written trade policy that sells our country out, but the fact that workers aren't better educated. Now, it's true - we do need to improve our education system. No one doubts that. But the idea that better educating workers - but not fixing our trade policy - will solve America's problems is at best uninformed, and more likely a deliberately dishonest storyline designed to distract us from the very trade policies the pundits and politicians have rammed down our throats. And you don't have to trust me on that - just go read the LA Times today.
Times' reporter Peter Gosselin - one of the best in the business - notes that President Bush in India repeated the Great Education Myth when addressing job outsourcing. "Let's make sure people are educated so they can fill the jobs of the 21st century," he said.
But as Gosselin notes, "the president's assertion that the answer to foreign outsourcing is education, a mantra embraced by Democrats as well as Republicans, is being challenged by a growing body of research and analysis from economists and other scholars." That's right, education "is no longer quite the economic cure-all it once was, nor the guarantee of financial security Americans have come to expect from college and graduate degrees." There's more:
"'One could be educationally competitive and easily lose out in the global economic marketplace because of significantly lower wages being paid elsewhere,' said Sheldon E. Steinbach, general counsel of the American Council on Education, an umbrella group that represents most of the nation's major colleges and universities. Some analysts think that something like what Steinbach described is already underway...Most studies suggest that beyond the manufacturing sector, the 'offshoring' of jobs has been comparatively modest. But some analysts say the ground has been laid for a substantial pickup. In a recent paper, [Princeton Professor Alan] Blinder offered a rough estimate that suggested that as many as 42 million jobs, or nearly one-third of the nation's total, were susceptible to offshoring. These analysts warn that more education alone will do little to stop the flow of jobs to other countries."
Anthony P. Carnevale of the National Center on Education and the Economy states the obvious: "What's missing here from both parties is a global economic strategy and a worker adjustment strategy." Put more bluntly - both parties, bought off by Big Money interests, have passed trade policies that sell out America, and undermine the benefits of a good education.
*************************************************************************
by David Siorta - workingforchange.com/blog
I recently wrote about the political Establishment's Great Education Myth - you know, the line of reasoning we hear from elitist pundits and politicians that says the economic problem facing Americans is not our corporate-written trade policy that sells our country out, but the fact that workers aren't better educated. Now, it's true - we do need to improve our education system. No one doubts that. But the idea that better educating workers - but not fixing our trade policy - will solve America's problems is at best uninformed, and more likely a deliberately dishonest storyline designed to distract us from the very trade policies the pundits and politicians have rammed down our throats. And you don't have to trust me on that - just go read the LA Times today.
Times' reporter Peter Gosselin - one of the best in the business - notes that President Bush in India repeated the Great Education Myth when addressing job outsourcing. "Let's make sure people are educated so they can fill the jobs of the 21st century," he said.
But as Gosselin notes, "the president's assertion that the answer to foreign outsourcing is education, a mantra embraced by Democrats as well as Republicans, is being challenged by a growing body of research and analysis from economists and other scholars." That's right, education "is no longer quite the economic cure-all it once was, nor the guarantee of financial security Americans have come to expect from college and graduate degrees." There's more:
"'One could be educationally competitive and easily lose out in the global economic marketplace because of significantly lower wages being paid elsewhere,' said Sheldon E. Steinbach, general counsel of the American Council on Education, an umbrella group that represents most of the nation's major colleges and universities. Some analysts think that something like what Steinbach described is already underway...Most studies suggest that beyond the manufacturing sector, the 'offshoring' of jobs has been comparatively modest. But some analysts say the ground has been laid for a substantial pickup. In a recent paper, [Princeton Professor Alan] Blinder offered a rough estimate that suggested that as many as 42 million jobs, or nearly one-third of the nation's total, were susceptible to offshoring. These analysts warn that more education alone will do little to stop the flow of jobs to other countries."
Anthony P. Carnevale of the National Center on Education and the Economy states the obvious: "What's missing here from both parties is a global economic strategy and a worker adjustment strategy." Put more bluntly - both parties, bought off by Big Money interests, have passed trade policies that sell out America, and undermine the benefits of a good education.
*************************************************************************
New U.S.-Vietnam Free Trade Push Raises a Taboo Question
by David Siorta - workingforchange.com/blog
The shills who have pushed America to eliminate all labor, wage, human rights, and environmental standards from our trade policy often smarmily tell us that they are really doing so because they want to help poor workers abroad. They call this "free" trade even though it is anything but. And at first, their happy logic seems sound - investment in underdeveloped countries will bring resources to those countries, and a rising tide lifts all boats. But even if you ignore wealth stratification statistics and actually believe that nonsense, one taboo question , inadvertently raised by a new Businessweek article, never gets answered:
What happens when companies find even cheaper labor markets than the original one?
Here's what I am talking about. NAFTA was supposed to help improve conditions for Mexicans. Ten years later, statistics show 19 million more Mexicans live in poverty. Meanwhile, economist Jeff Faux notes:
"Average real wages in Mexican manufacturing are actually lower than they were [since NAFTA]. Two and a half million farmers and their families have been driven out of their local markets and off their land by heavily subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness. For most Mexicans, half of whom live in poverty, basic food has gotten even more expensive: Today the Mexican minimum wage buys less than half the tortillas it bought in 1994."
This is, in part, due to the fact that soon after we inked NAFTA, we signed the China PNTR deal and brought China into the WTO, meaning both American and Mexican jobs got shipped off there. This is a trade policy that does justice not to workers, but to people like GE CEO Jack Welch who famously said, "ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge" - with the "free" trade policies allowing that barge to move operations to find lower and lower wages in more and more desperate countries.
Now, even as U.S. wages stagnate thanks to free trade deals undermining worker bargaining power, we see our government is publicly pushing for a new free trade deal with Vietnam. And as Businessweek indicates, that would logically help the "barges" exploit even worse conditions. In a story about Intel opening a factory there, the magazine notes:
"A big reason for the [new investment] is rock-bottom wages. As labor shortages in some regions of China drive up costs, factory hands in parts of the mainland can earn more than five times the $55 per month that Vietnamese workers in foreign-owned factories are paid. That differential is a big reason why Sparton Corp. (SPA ) of Jackson, Mich., chose Vietnam over China last year when it made its first investment outside North America... And Vietnam this year might wrap up negotiations for World Trade Organization membership. That would be a huge boon."
So there you have it. $225-per-month Chinese wages are simply too high - so the corporate elite join hands with the corrupt politicians to move forward another round of "free" trade deals - stripped of wage/labor/human rights/environmental protections - to open up even cheaper pools of exploitable, oppressed workers. The moment workers start making any economic gains at all - out comes another trade deal to open up another pool of oppressed labor so that the corporate barges can cut costs.
This, of course, begs a question that no one wants to answer: When does it all end? We inked a free trade deal with the wildly corrupt government of Mexico - a deal that eliminated environmental and wage protections. Then we inked a free trade deal with communist China - a deal that eliminated human rights standards. Recently, we began finalizing negotiations to sign a free trade deal with the United Arab Emirates - a deal that ignores all national security concerns. And now our government is pushing a free trade deal with Communist Vietnam - a deal that allows corporations to not only undermine American workers, but undermine workers in our trading partners who we promised would benefit from our trade policies in the first place.
So again, when does it all end? As I wrote in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, "Will we soon see a 'free' trade agreement with North Korea – a country whose dictator has quite literally enslaved his population? Forget about 'low-wage' labor – Big Business would have 'no-wage' labor America’s trade policy should encourage and reward?"
Seriously folks, when will this downward spiral end?
*************************************************************************
by David Siorta - workingforchange.com/blog
The shills who have pushed America to eliminate all labor, wage, human rights, and environmental standards from our trade policy often smarmily tell us that they are really doing so because they want to help poor workers abroad. They call this "free" trade even though it is anything but. And at first, their happy logic seems sound - investment in underdeveloped countries will bring resources to those countries, and a rising tide lifts all boats. But even if you ignore wealth stratification statistics and actually believe that nonsense, one taboo question , inadvertently raised by a new Businessweek article, never gets answered:
What happens when companies find even cheaper labor markets than the original one?
Here's what I am talking about. NAFTA was supposed to help improve conditions for Mexicans. Ten years later, statistics show 19 million more Mexicans live in poverty. Meanwhile, economist Jeff Faux notes:
"Average real wages in Mexican manufacturing are actually lower than they were [since NAFTA]. Two and a half million farmers and their families have been driven out of their local markets and off their land by heavily subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness. For most Mexicans, half of whom live in poverty, basic food has gotten even more expensive: Today the Mexican minimum wage buys less than half the tortillas it bought in 1994."
This is, in part, due to the fact that soon after we inked NAFTA, we signed the China PNTR deal and brought China into the WTO, meaning both American and Mexican jobs got shipped off there. This is a trade policy that does justice not to workers, but to people like GE CEO Jack Welch who famously said, "ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge" - with the "free" trade policies allowing that barge to move operations to find lower and lower wages in more and more desperate countries.
Now, even as U.S. wages stagnate thanks to free trade deals undermining worker bargaining power, we see our government is publicly pushing for a new free trade deal with Vietnam. And as Businessweek indicates, that would logically help the "barges" exploit even worse conditions. In a story about Intel opening a factory there, the magazine notes:
"A big reason for the [new investment] is rock-bottom wages. As labor shortages in some regions of China drive up costs, factory hands in parts of the mainland can earn more than five times the $55 per month that Vietnamese workers in foreign-owned factories are paid. That differential is a big reason why Sparton Corp. (SPA ) of Jackson, Mich., chose Vietnam over China last year when it made its first investment outside North America... And Vietnam this year might wrap up negotiations for World Trade Organization membership. That would be a huge boon."
So there you have it. $225-per-month Chinese wages are simply too high - so the corporate elite join hands with the corrupt politicians to move forward another round of "free" trade deals - stripped of wage/labor/human rights/environmental protections - to open up even cheaper pools of exploitable, oppressed workers. The moment workers start making any economic gains at all - out comes another trade deal to open up another pool of oppressed labor so that the corporate barges can cut costs.
This, of course, begs a question that no one wants to answer: When does it all end? We inked a free trade deal with the wildly corrupt government of Mexico - a deal that eliminated environmental and wage protections. Then we inked a free trade deal with communist China - a deal that eliminated human rights standards. Recently, we began finalizing negotiations to sign a free trade deal with the United Arab Emirates - a deal that ignores all national security concerns. And now our government is pushing a free trade deal with Communist Vietnam - a deal that allows corporations to not only undermine American workers, but undermine workers in our trading partners who we promised would benefit from our trade policies in the first place.
So again, when does it all end? As I wrote in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, "Will we soon see a 'free' trade agreement with North Korea – a country whose dictator has quite literally enslaved his population? Forget about 'low-wage' labor – Big Business would have 'no-wage' labor America’s trade policy should encourage and reward?"
Seriously folks, when will this downward spiral end?
*************************************************************************
