Uncommon Thought Journal

Desperate Measures – suicide or terrorism?

The world, and particularly the people of the United States, are told that we are involved in a global “war on terrorism.” We are led to believe that this war is focused in ideological differences and envy. In the US in particular, we are told that terrorism is driven by hatred of “of our way of life.” What is left out is any statement of what that “way of life” is. We are left to believe that it is our “freedom,” our “democracy,” or even the “Christian” basis of US social society. I don’t believe that is the case. I believe that the US is seen, and promotes itself as the “world leader” economically, politically, and socially. Our foreign policy for decades (perhaps since the beginning) has centered on maximizing the interests of the US at the expense of all other competing groups. We are the leaders of a globalization based on exploitation of peoples, expropriation of natural resources, and structuring the global stage to tilt in our favor. To this end, we have paid little attention to the weight of our foot on other peoples of the world. In fact, we have frequently contributed to tyrannic governments and massive hardship and death of populations to maximize US benefit and control. While virtually all inside the US have benefited to some extent with a purported higher standard of living, the true beneficiaries have been corporations and monied interests.

This approach of US government policy and action has contributed to unimaginable desperation in many areas of the world. These areas are also the source of desperate measures. There are two extreme responses which I believe are responses to the same forces. On the one hand there is “terrorist” activity – particularly represented in suicide attacks. On the other is people committing suicide. I believe that these are different responses to the same desperation that is being created by the forces of globalization and “rich nation” hegemony. It is clear that the US government at least knows full well that current policies are driving increasing inequality and desperation. It is clear that they realize that natural resources are growing increasingly limited and that the US will control these by whatever means and whatever cost necessary. This is clear in the US openly declared policy of the use of banned weapons (nuclear, biological, and chemical) and in the preemptive use of those weapons. It is made abundantly clear in the The United States Space Command Vision for 2020. In this document it clearly states that “The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between “haves” and “have-nots.” For this reason the US is pushing for space-based weaponry that can launch pinpoint strikes anywhere in the world.

Suicide versus Terrorism
I want to look at two separate areas of suicide in response to desperation created by hegemonic capitalism. The first is the suicides of farmers in India and the second is the suicides of Guarani children in Brazil.

The farmers of India are committing suicide at an incredible rate. According to Vandana Shiva in a Democracy Now presentation, at least 20,000 farmers have committed suicide in the last year alone. Dr. Shiva has spoken on this topic frequently, but it has made the news as well. There are a number of articles included at the end of this article on the forces driving these suicides but there is general consensus.

Indian farmers have been under a variety of global economic assaults that range from being forced to grow export crops, to stealing of rights to those crops and products made from them through “intellectual property” agreements under the WTO (World Trade Organization - the agreement is TRIPS); to being forced to grow genetically modified crops (Round-Up Ready seeds) and then dumping massive amounts of chemicals on those crops. Monsanto has been a major culprit in the events in India.

All of these features have made the cost of farming (particularly the cost of seed) much higher, while making farmers very vulnerable to global price fluctuations. The biotech seeds and heavy use of Monsanto’s chemicals have also eliminated export to the European market. The consequence, massive amounts of debt among farmers who cannot sell their crops. According to Vandana Shiva these resulted in a loss of $25 billion in economic losses to farmers last year (Democracy Now speech).

The consequence of this loss? Farmers committing suicide, most by drinking the very chemicals they had to purchase from Monsanto. According to Shiva, there were 735 farmer suicides in October 2003 in one district. If you note the date on the articles at the bottom of this article, you will see that this has been going on for some time.

There is no question whatsoever what is driving these suicides. There is a clear chain of cause and effect. And it is clear that the forces of globalization want to accelerate the current course rather than stray from it. We see this happening with the pressures for starving African nations to switch to biotech crops which will be equally undesirable on the international market. And who is strong-arming this move – the US government.

The Loss of the Children of Guarani
The Guarani of Brazil have been under assault for decades. The government refuses to protect any tribal lands, and in fact has followed a program of expropriating the lands of the tribe. First to exploit the rubber trees, more recently for Brazilian ranchers. The path that Brazil has followed in relationship to the Guarani has been virtually identical to the genocidal policies followed against Native American tribes inside the US. Even to removing the children of the tribe to boarding schools.

The response to the constant pressures, cultural genocide, and economic vulnerability has led to increasing numbers of suicide among the children. These suicides are happening among children as young as 9 years old. The following quote from Suicide thinning ranks of displaced tribe:

"What is there live for?" said Goncalo Moraes. "For years, we've been crying out for help but nobody listens."

The Guarani and Kaiowa used to be separate, nomadic tribes with lots of land, some of the best farm land in Brazil. When white settlers moved in, the tribes were pushed off their land, lumped together and isolated on a small reserve. Now, they can barely feed themselves.
In the past, young boys have left temporarily to earn money cutting sugar cane. This year, a drought has taken many of those jobs away.
Anastacio Peralta is the tribal leader. He says that there have been suicides before, but now suicides are on the rise. "There's more depression. Our young people are ashamed to be Indians. They have no sense of purpose," Peralta said.
And there is no hope for the future, either. They're surrounded by poverty, their culture is disintegrating. "This is a culture crisis," says historian Antonio Brandi. "These Indians are losing their identity, and many see no alternative but death."

The “Terrorists”
While the response of the farmers of India and the children of the Guarani is suicide, another response is to strike back. This striking back takes the form of what is being labeled as “terrorism.” We have seen this in the suicide attacks of the Palestinians, and in the use of airplanes as bombs in the United States. We see it in numerous suicide attacks both inside and outside Iraq.
Harold Gould in an article for CounterPunch (11/28/03) has an excellent article Suicide as Weapon of Mass Destruction?. In it he discusses Emile Durkheim’s discussion of “altruistic suicide.” Altruistic suicide is essentially killing oneself for the benefit of others. It is clear that this is the driving motivation of the “suicide” attacks. People young and not so young are making bombs of themselves (or driving bombs) at an enemy they see as destroying them. The forces driving these actions are no different than the suicides of Indian farmers or Guarani children. This is not a tactic of choice, but of last resort.

In US movies, the classic presentation of heroism is the soldier racing into the guns of the enemies to kill them before they kill the rest of the troops. It is a suicide move. In the US it is often referred to as the “ultimate sacrifice.” It is seen as an act of courage, loyalty and patriotism. However, when the equally futile attacks of people pushed beyond the edge of desperation are depicted, it is as “terrorists” intent on destroying “our way of life.”

Life and Death
What is happening around the globe is that people are being pushed to the edge and beyond of survival – both physical and cultural. The deaths due to starvation and disease increase. The US in particular gives little to reverse the trend (and works to extend the processes driving it). There is lots of talk of “failed states” as if it was some internal failure. The reality is that the internal failure is largely driven by external forces over which neither the people or their nations have any control. The argument is that “failed states” are unstable and breeding grounds for “terrorism.” Therefore, they become targets in the “war on terrorism.”

Certainly desperation breeds loss of faith in the governments of nations, and in the a sense of futility to do anything about the forces grinding people into oblivion. People are more open to “fundamentalism” because fundamental religion of any stripe is simple. There is clear distinction and explicit rules. There is forced adherence to a clear system of authority. There is sacred legitimation of action. In fact, forces similar to those driving the growth of “Islamic” fundamentalism, are similar to the ones driving “Christian” fundamentalism in the US. Fundamentalism provides a clear course of action to combat the forces that otherwise seem unconquerable. And if one dies in the fight, then one dies with a place in “heaven” assured. The next world is better than this one.
We are told we are in a global “war against terrorism.” This is not an accurate depiction of the situation, nor of the forces driving it. We would do better to wage a “war on desperation.” That at least is aimed at life rather than death. We need to stop the exploitation and expropriation. We need to drop the idea of getting to eat the rest of the pie by ourselves. We really need to take a different course that looks clearly at where we have been and where we truly want to go.

Resources
Stone, Anthropology News, May 2002, Biotechnology and Suicide in India
The Hindu, 12/12/02, 'Suicide by farmers due to high interest loans'
Karp, Wall Street Journal, 2/18/98, Deadly Crop: Difficult Times Drive India's Cotton Farmers To Desperate Actions
Tully, CNN, 4/9/01 Hunger drives India's farmers to edge

Lamb, International Institute for Holistic Studies, Rising suicides cut a swath through Amazon's children
Mirabella, CNN, 11/18/1995, Suicide thinning ranks of displaced tribe
Brazilian Indians in London to Launch Survival Report and Reveal Scandal of Child Suicides

Death of students and climate of hate

The US is not alone when it comes to white supremecist groups and acts of deadly hate violence. Like the US, parts of Europe have experienced dramatic shifts to anti-immigrant sentiment. This sentiment is raising its head in Russia with threats and attacks on immigrants and foreign college students. This last week a fire occurred Moscow Russia where an arson fire in a university dorm killed at least 38 students (Moscow Talking of Arson as Fire Toll Climbs to 36, Kishkovsky, NY Times, 11/25/03 see also Hostel's 'horrible nightmare' BBC, 11/24/03).

The fire occured in a dorm filled with African and Asian students at the People's Friendship University. The stories of the cause were all over the place to start with. From faulty electrical wiring, to three African women students starting the fire. There were 36 students dead, 170 hospitalized with ten in critical condition. Since then, two more students have dies bringing the death toll to 38.

Even in the original resport there was mention of foreign students in Moscow being the targets of skinhead attacks, including a bomb threat to another dorm. However, there was official silence and police claims that they had no records of threats.

Today's news reports another skinhead attack on a group of foreign students has left several hospitalized with serious injuries. (Skinhead attack on Moscow campus, BBC 11/30/03)

Students at the University are from nations formerly supported by the Soviet Union in Africa, Asia, and Latin AMerica. Many are war refugees.

A picture emerges from the various reports of students fearful of attacks both on campus and in daily activities around the city. The police apparently respond to reports weakly if at all. The night of the fire, it took an hour for the fire department to respond, and they only brought one ambulence. Meanwhile night clothed students were holding mattresses for those leaping from the burning building, while others attempted to put out the fire themselves. Many of the students suffered frostbite in the below zero temperature.

The picture that is painted in the reports shows a general climate of prejudice with officials "looking the other way" when hate activity occurs. This too has happened over and over again in the US. Most recently with those perceived to be Arab or Muslim. In the US, hate activities against these groups have escalated while the government provides the lead by abridging the rights of immigrants and visitors. When governments turn a blind eye to hate, or even actively engage in supporting it, it represents broad societal forces at work. In Russia, my guess is that anti-immigrant sentiment is generally high among the Russian population. Just as in the US there is more than an under current of prejudice against Arabs/Muslims. This provides a climate of active danger for targeted groups which then plays out in institutional responses. It is an climate that only the people can change by recognizingand fighting against fear mongering and scapegoating rather than giving into it.

Silence is repression - ignorance is bliss

My emotional responses to the current US regime run from laughter to rage. The shut up disent, coerce through economics, and suppress through force approaches are the standard tool box of the times. The US corporate media generally complies by looking the other way and by spinning away what they have to report. In the Uncommon Thought piece Bush "I love Democracy" I talked about the president's recent trip to the UK where he asks the protests be banned and canceled his speech to Parliament. These are only the tip of the iceberg.

In Iraq, Al-Arabiya has been shut down, pro-Hussein demonstrations are outlawed, and protesters have been fired on randomly killing many. But, some might say, "Iraq is in a state of chaos and extreme actions are needed." Well, that is Iraq at this point and time, but I don't think that these are good demonstrations of what "democracy" looks like. And, the silencing continues well outside Iraq. For example, Save the Children/UK came under intense pressure to maintain silence on US activities in Iraq, or risk the organization losing US overnment funds.

What is the point of these various strategies to silence "unpleasant" voices? Is it simply all PR? In other words, the less news that gets out that contradicts one's version of the story, the more people are going to believe the story one has to tell? Is it as simple as repression and control? We can shut you up and we will? Or is it an active avoidance on the part of the Bush regime to not acknowledge or be exposed to anything that conflicts with their world view? Perhaps it is all of these, and perhaps it is more.

Let's look at the US, "land of the free, home of the brave;" the land of the most "advanced" democracy in the world (or so we are told). A telling example of how people engaging in peaceful demonstration are now to be dealt with is the recent events in Miami. Now all of you know that the FTAA Ministerial met in Miami and that there were protests going on. But my guess is that most folks don't realize there were protests, or else they think it was another "unruly" mob requiring police repression. That's the official story.

The real story? Well we know that $8.5 million was tacked onto the $87 billion in addional funds for Iraq simply for "security" for the Ministerial meeting in Miami. We know that despite previous agreements that Miami police broke their promises to let 25 busloads of senior citizens into the area. As Naomi Klein notes in The War on Dissent

"Our goal was to drown you out," one Miami-Dade police officer explained to me, and that's exactly what they did. Small, peaceful demonstrations were attacked with extreme force; organizations were infiltrated by undercover officers who then used stun guns on activists; busses filled with union members were prevented from joining permitted marches; dozens of young faces were smashed into concrete and beaten bloody with batons; human rights activists had guns pointed at their heads at military-style checkpoints."

But perhaps the most frightening analysis of the events in Miami are in a piece by Jeremy Scahill (ZNet 11/25/03) The Miami Model. In the article, Scahill points to various aspects of the police control of protesters. They include: embedding "reports" with the police; embedding undercover police among the protesters; the use of paramilitary and military tactics against protesters; firing indiscriminately into crowds. Most frightening though is that some cities sent law enforcement observers to see how Miami handled the protests - they are now calling it the "Miami Model." Scahill notes "Miami Mayor Manny Diaz called the police actions last week a model for homeland security. FTAA officials called it extraordinary."

It seems the message is clear, and that the end of control is not in sight. While concerns have risen over the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, and Ashcroft went on tour to hype its wonders, the concerns seem to have had little effect as a Patriot Act Expansion Moves Through Congress. The word is carefully leaked from the top that the F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies. A protester at Fort Bennings "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" (previously known ad the "School of the Americas," is
Hogtied and Abused.

But it's not just wanting to silence dissent of US actions in Iraq that is at stake here. John Ashcroft has declared war on GreenPeace to stop it from bring interational corporate abuse cases to be tried under US law. People are scooped up as "terrorists" and "collaborators" with much public attention. Take for example the Muslim Chaplain stationed at Guantanomo Bay who was arrested for passing secret communications to the prisoners. Well, apparently not as the NY Times notes (11/26/03) Chaplain Held in Espionage Case Is Freed.

Well, he was freed one might say. He was, the the message is clear. If you are "suspected" you are guilty. Disruption to your life, imprisonment, deportation and torture are the clear possibilities of even a hint of what might seem to be "impropriety." Web sites are monitored and tracked. Heck, this website is monitored. Whenever I post something, the "appropriate" government agencies show up looking at the site. (It is too consistent to be coincidence). I think it is an intentional message - "We are watching."

I watched the "Velvet Revolution" in the former Soviet state of Georgia this last week. The people coming out en masse to oust their President. Not one shot fired, no tear gas, no billy clubs. Marchers even invaded the Georgian Parliament - no one hurt. I watched this and I watched a Democracy Now! broadcast of the protests in Miami. The differences couldn't have been more stark. I thought with some horror that if people in the US did what the people of Georgia did there would be blood and death. I had no doubt that troops or "police" would fire live rounds into a crowd. I had no doubt that in "the land of the free" many would end up dead. I thought these things, and I thought of how many times I have heard ordinary people talk about "freeing Iraq" and fighting for "democracy." I thought these things and I wondered "Just what does democracy mean to the citizens of the United States?" The answer that emerged was not comforting.

Other Resources
Iraqi bound and gagged for protest
Raid On Arab TV Network Hardly A Democratic Move
Iraqi leaders ban Arab TV network
How British Charity was Silenced on Iraq
America's Enemy Within

The Doomsday Machine

THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE

By guest author John Chuckman
[John's pieces appear in Counterpunch, Online Journal, Yellow Times, Media Monitors, Scoop, and many other sites. This was sent as a guest submission to Uncommon Thought. John Chuckman can be reached at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].]

It occurred to me to write a satire about Osama and the boys sitting around in the mountains somewhere holding a conference about the worst possible damage they could inflict on the United States and deciding that it would be whatever act got Bush re-elected.

But retired American General Tommy Franks came along and spoiled the fun. General Franks has followed the advice of the fictional Doctor Strangelove by announcing to the world what he believes will happen if the United States is attacked by terrorists using strategic weapons: he says Americans will scrap the Constitution and set up a military government.

If you recall the bitter and hilarious Cold War film, Dr. Strangelove, there is a scene where the Soviet ambassador puts down the phone to Moscow, groaning about "The fools, oh, the mad fools," and then informs the American President and Pentagon brass for the first time of the Doomsday Machine. The Doomsday Machine, he explains to those gathered in a desperate effort to stop an unauthorized attack launched by a lunatic American wing commander, is an automated device that, once set, cannot be prevented from responding to any attack by releasing an earth-straddling cloud of deadly radiation.

Doctor Strangelove, a character based on captured scientists and others from Nazi Germany who rose to high places in the American government during the Cold War, shrieks from his wheelchair, struggling to control the tendency of his right arm to rise in the Hitler salute, what is the good of such a deterrent if no one is told about it?

Indeed, so General Franks has warned us. Considering the wholesale insanity we've witnessed since 9/11, there is little reason to doubt the general's judgment.

Many Americans would not be frightened by the idea of military government. After all, they receive a steady diet of sappy stuff about "our boyz." But if you look at what the boys have been doing lately in Iraq and recall the atrocities of Vietnam, any warm, cozy expectation of being ruled by the likes of Jimmy Stewart in khakis vanishes.

For many reasons, democracy always has had a tenuous hold in America. Its history as a democracy where almost everyone can vote only goes back several decades, and as we saw in Florida during the last presidential election, that basic principle is not yet firmly entrenched. The adolescent nature of much of American culture - exhibited in a thousand ways from endless movies about muscle-bound superheroes to the flag-waving spectacles made of football games - reveals an attraction to fascism, fascism being merely an adult form of adolescent fantasies about power.

It is not difficult at all to imagine democracy's hold being quickly snapped, especially where dark, exaggerated fears are involved, such fears also being a prominent feature of American culture. Consider the millions of Christian fundamentalists who fervently embrace the notion that earth faces imminent destruction in an Armageddon. Just a few years ago, as the calendar turned to the year 2000, millions of secular crackpots, the militia/survivalist types, stocked ammunition and freeze-dried rations in a modern-day repeat of the fallout shelter lunacy of the 1950s. There have been countless gatherings on mountaintops to await the "end of time" and many bizarre mass suicides. America, reflecting its unpleasant Puritan heritage, almost certainly leads the advanced world in holding to voodoo-like fears.

The impact of an American military government on the world would be incalculable. Treaties, agreements, diplomatic conventions all might effectively be suspended since it is the Constitution that gives foreign treaties their primacy in law within the United States. International borders effectively could be erased since few are in a position to prevent the American military's taking whatever arbitrary measure it pleases. The United Nations might well be dismissed as an unnecessary expense and a security risk.

Huge, destabilizing uncertainties would be introduced into world markets. The flow of international capital would be affected. A world depression could easily be induced. After all, it was poorly-considered American law, the Smoots-Hawley Tariff, that helped create the Great Depression.

The military-service draft would certainly be re-introduced.

The prospect for a quick end to military rule would not be good because such a government's central purpose would be fighting terror, yet all applicable history tells us that conventional military action is ineffective against terror - ineffective, that is, unless you are prepared literally to crush great masses of people. Of course, America does have its advocates for this last, like the upstanding young man from Texas who e-mailed me, after reading something of mine, that Afghanistan should have been reduced to a lump of radioactive glass.

Bush's response to 9/11 has widely dispersed the adherents of terror and strengthened terror's appeal to new recruits. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other important countries display genuine signs of instability. Every thoughtful statesman warned Bush of this before he invaded Iraq, but he chose to ignore them all. This clearly is not all the work of the mysterious al-Qaeda Bush loves to blame but of many aggrieved individuals. Iraq itself has been turned into a suppurating wound of grievances. The Arab world, a very large place indeed, deeply resents America's humiliating occupation of a major Arabic capital and its continued generous support for Israel's occupation and abuse of Palestinians.

You might think that Americans - a people deeply attached to guns and slogans like "Live free or die" and "Don't tread on me" - of all people in the world would understand the anger and resentment of Iraqis. Yet the polls still show substantial support for a President who utters nonsense each time he speaks on the subject. I can only explain this fact by out-of-proportion tendencies to fear and indifference to the lives of others. Liberal Internet sites headlining every slight downward tick in Bush's polls have about them a eerie feeling of desperate fantasy.

George Bush represents the culmination of America's long-term arrogant and uninformed policies towards a good deal of the world, the kind of policies that were indisputably the root cause of 9/11. A man whose capacities and imagination do not exceed those of a dozy Southern county sheriff has been thrust upon the world as a leader because many Americans just can't be bothered to consider how the actions of their government affect so many others.

Bush has managed to convert a one-off, sensational terrorist attack, which could and should have been dealt with by methods several European states had long used against terror, into a tangle of nearly insoluble world-scale problems. The invasion of Iraq particularly was an irrational act.

Americans are not taught a sense of responsibility concerning their great power in the world, and they often are unaware of the impact they have on the others. After all, many Americans are raised to behave exactly that way towards their own society, a predatory, often chaotic place where having fun or getting ahead at the expense of others is widely regarded as youthful exuberance or entrepreneurial skill.

There is little doubt in the minds of thoughtful people removed from America's unforgiving, brutish national politics that Bush's actions as President have been destructive beyond calculation. They have hurled America along a path from which it may not recover, for, regardless of the upcoming election, the nation's political institutions may not be adequate to the job.

First, there is no easy way out for American forces in Iraq. A sudden withdrawal now would be irresponsible and disastrous. And yet the longer troops stay under existing circumstances, the more hatred and resentment they engender. This seems an almost impossible paradox. Turning over administration to the United Nations is the logical step, but that would not likely mean the departure of all American troops.

Suppose a Democrat wins the next election - miracles do sometimes happen - the new President would face exactly the same choices. Bush's rash act has effectively bound the hands of any successor. Despite the pathetic appeals on some liberal Internet sites to bring home the troops, this cannot quickly be done. In any event, the Republicans would stand ready to harshly criticize every mistake and every American soldier killed as a reflection of failed new policy.

Of course, that assumes the Democrats manage to elect someone whose views greatly differ from those of the gang feeding Bush his lines. The Democratic party has some people running who really disagree very little with Bush except on the issue of who should be in the White House doling out patronage.

The Republicans are expert at vicious, well-financed attacks, and Americans are not immune to these. They are a people who thrive on a great deal of momentary sensation and vitriol. Shows with conflict and meaningless verbal attack do well on American television. So Republicans maintain a large kennel of pet attack-commentators used to reduce all discussion to confused, snarling noise, a technique perfected in Germany during the 1920s and '30s.

As we can see through events since 9/11, Democrats possess no comparable weapons. First, Democrats may not have the financial resources for the job. Second, one suspects that twisted nastiness is part of the right's genetic endowment. It's what enables them to sneer or laugh at the miseries and concerns of others. It's what gives Lynne Cheney's smile all the infectious appeal of a cracked hard-boiled egg.

There's a role for stupidity, too. A good many Republicans embrace stupidity so long as the ideology is right. The examples are numberless. There was the late Sen. Hruska's immortal comment on one of Nixon's worst attempted appointments to the Supreme Court that mediocrity also needed to be represented on the court. There was Sen. Smith's lunatic muttering about the federal government running a concentration camp where they kept the poor Cuban boy, Elian, after finally rescuing him from his tormenters in Florida. There was Sen. Jesse Helms' poisonous, almost treasonous, suggestions on how military personnel should treat President Clinton. There was Tom DeLay's racism-laced remarks on Clinton's highly successful trip to Africa. And there was the colossal, multi-million dollar spectacle of impeaching a President over a stain on a dress.

Much of America's post-World War policy reflects exactly the impact of such viciously-selfish political activity. George Wallace, the late, hateful Governor of Georgia, nicely summed up the forces at work when he once swore after a failed election that "nobody was gonna out-nigger me ag'in." Applied to foreign affairs, Wallace's statement becomes a template for much of American policy. America was dragged into the Korean War by haunting fears of accusations like "loosing China" - never mind that you can't loose what was never yours - despite the Pentagon's assessment that South Korea was not a place of major strategic importance. Truman instituted all kinds of dark measures such as loyalty oaths as he felt the hot breath of vicious fanatics down his neck. Lyndon Johnson launched the deadly crusade in Vietnam in large part through fear of being "out-commied" by a political predator such as Richard Nixon.

There is little basis for optimism if Bush remains in office and not a great deal more promised in the circumstances and leading personalities of the Democratic party. Were a new administration to manage the patient and demanding steps to appropriately extricate the U.S., American voters would begin showing impatience long before the end. And what administration ever is going to adequately pressure Israel to give us peace with an end to its occupation and land-grabs, shutting down that inexhaustible source of Arab anger, humiliation and desire for revenge?

In any case, who does not fear that some additional devastating attack on the United States is just a matter of time? Even a succession of them? Bush could hardly have done a better job of creating gangs of new and bitter enemies, and bitter people carrying their grievances to the United States reflect only the same inevitable forces of globalization that have introduced countless other changes to American life. Then General Franks' Doomsday Machine might well roar into operation, launching us all into a new dark age.

UN World Hunger and AIDS Reports: Monopoly Capitalism at Work

The UN has released statements on its latest findings on the global AIDS crisis (HIV/AIDS deaths and new infections highest in 2003, says UNAIDS UN News Centre 11/26/03), and hunger (Hunger increasing around the world after earlier decline - UN food agency UN News Center 11/26/03). The bottom line? AIDS infections and deaths are up, and efforts to dramatically reduce world hunger are failing. While they try to look at the positive side -- the gains made -- the reality is that these statistics are a direct consequence of political decisions and globalization.

The UN has released statements on its latest findings on the global AIDS crisis (HIV/AIDS deaths and new infections highest in 2003, says UNAIDS UN News Centre 11/26/03), and hunger (Hunger increasing around the world after earlier decline - UN food agency UN News Center 11/26/03). The bottom line? AIDS infections and deaths are up, and efforts to dramatically reduce world hunger are failing. While they try to look at the positive side -- the gains made -- the reality is that these statistics are a direct consequence of political decisions and globalization.
Paul Vallely of The Independent/UK (11/26/03) does an excellent job of getting at the heart of the issue of global hunger with his article How the world is getting hungrier each year.

Article Excerpt:

The report tries to put on a brave face. "First some good news," it begins, reporting that the number of chronically hungry people has declined by 80 million in 19 countries, including Brazil, Chad, Guinea, Namibia and Sri Lanka.

So why is the picture so grim everywhere else? The number of those going hungry in India has risen by 19 million since 1995-97, and yet China has reduced its figure by 58 million since 1990-92. "We must ask ourselves why this has happened," says the FAO director-general, Jacques Diouf, in his introduction.

Those who have bucked the trend share five characteristics, he concludes - faster economic growth, rapid expansion in the agricultural sector, slower population growth, lower rates of HIV infection and far fewer natural emergencies.

"The role of capital is decisive," said Hartwig de Haen, assistant director of the FAO's economic and social department in Washington. "Investment in agriculture is a precondition for growth in incomes of the poor and the food supply," he said.
Yet such investment has been declining. Rich countries must put more cash into the agriculture sectors of poor countries. It must, he said, "go back to the level where it was in the early Nineties".

If only it were so simple. The truth is that the 19 nations who have bucked the trend have not been the authors of their own good fortune.

They have been lucky not to have experienced the high levels of droughts and natural disasters that have increasingly afflicted the Third World over the past decade.

Nor have domestic politics had much influence over rates of population growth, which tend to be determined fairly directly by levels of poverty - the worse things are, the more children you need to look after you in your old age.

Nor have many poor nations been able to manage their Aids epidemics in the way the rich world has with its new drug regimes. It is easy for us in the First World to forget the scale of the ravages of Aids - which has killed some 25 million people in the poor world. In this decade it will claim more lives than all the world's wars and disasters of the past half- century. Aids takes a terrible economic toll; it kills off farmers in their prime and leaves behind young orphans and aged parents - mouths with no one to feed them.

Neither is it a coincidence that those countries most dependent on agriculture are those with the most hunger. Increasing the amounts of flowers and strawberries grown for export near Third World airports may help the balance of payments, but it does little for pastoral and subsistence agriculture in remoter rural areas. The economics of globalisation are that the very poorest get poorer still. There are some places to which wealth just never trickles down."

There is gloomy evidence of this in the report. "At least half the higher prices received for exports went not to farmers but traders," it notes, "and there was no increase in production in response to the higher prices". Worst still, it adds, "prices are expected to rise more steeply for food products that developing countries import than for the commodities they export.

"Overall," it predicts, "the lion's share of benefits from trade liberalisation is expected to go to developed countries."

It is critical that there be a much broader awareness of the relative wealth of the so-called "developed world." The reality is that wealth is based on the lack experienced in most of the world. Poorer nations realise this and the last two "trade liberalization" meetings (Cancun and Miami) show that the poorer nations are fighting for their lives. There is increasing global resistance (note the organization and protests at each of these events) to the path of greater corporatization. It is noteworthy that both of these talks (NAFTA and FTAA) broke down. While that is an excellent sign, it has not stopped or reversed the deadly progress monopolistic capitalism - a process that is dramatically increasing the gap between the rich and the poor; the few and the many; the exploiters and the exploited.

In the US (and perhaps in other "western" nations) free trade, trade liberalization, and privatization are promoted as great and positive courses for the US and for the world. It is certainly true that these upside down policies have provided temporary enhancements for the "average" person in the US. However, that is rapidly and dramatically changing as the bulk of the US population begins to experience similar forces as the exploited nations of the world. Namely, increasing costs, decreasing pay, union banning and busting, deteriorating environment, and fewer and fewer opportunities. I believe that it was Michael Parenti who first said that the ultimate consequence of these hegemonic capitalistic forces would be to turn the US into a third world country. The signs are certainly there.

Right now there is a major Grocery Workers Strike in California (see resources at end of this post). It is being driven by the labor practices of global exploiter Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has created more than price "competition." Its labor practices of low wages, temporary staffing, and lousy benefits is a forceful factor in deteriorating compensation for workers outside of Wal-Mart. That competition does not just exist in the grocery sector, but in hardware, electronics suppliers, automobile parts and repairs, etc. Recognizing the threat, the Teamsters in Florida have joined the striking grocery workers.

What is both frustrating and telling is that the grocery chains are fighting their workers rather than fighting Wal-Mart. The grocery chain’s efforts to erode unionization and pay may lower their costs in the short term, but competing against Wal-Mart in this manner is a downward spiral. The problem is Wal-Mart and the grocery chains and others should get on board against them rather than trying to follow their same practices. Perhaps they share the same blind mentality of socialization into the "middle class" in the US which encourages the majority to see the very rich as a group to be protected, and the poor as the group "destroying society." In other words, the "public" doesn't want to hamper the rich because they might be rich some day, and the grocery chains don't want to come out against Wal-Mart because they take Wal-Mart's place some day.

If you think I have drifted off course here, I have not. Wal-Mart is a multi-national corporation engaged in exploiting a global labor force - not just its US labor force. It is certainly not the only one doing so. However, the free trade, trade liberalization, and global exploitation processes at work in the world are tied directly to these very same corporate entities. People must make that connection. People in the US must see that the sometimes impossibly cheap prices are tied to the increasing poverty of much of the world, and to the deteriorating conditions inside the US. These events are not separate things, they are the same thing.

Wal-Mart has made its reputation on destroying communities and the small business in them. These are called "Wal-Mart Towns." Now they are threatening to drive out of business not just small businesses, but other major corporations - Safeway is no small fish. They contributed to the eradication of Montgomery Wards, and to the closing of Levi's as a US-based manufacturers. Both of these businesses American Icons, and both huge businesses.

The path we are on is not good for children, workers, nations, or any other living thing on the earth (including those who are "profiting" from it). It is way past time for people in the "wealthy" nations, and the US in particular, to realize that global poverty is not just "out there," and easing their consciences with donations to the global hunger programs. Send money, but also stand up and be counted, and (as best we can) stop participating in the processes that are oppressing all of us.

It is clear that our so-called "leaders" know exactly the path the world is on. Further, they are prepared to make sure that it stays on that path. Note the following quote from The United States Space Command Vision for 2020:

The medium of space is the fourth medium of warfare-- along with land, sea, and air. Space power (systems, capabilities, and forces) will be increasingly leveraged to close the ever-widening gap between diminishing resources and increasing military commitments.

Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between “haves” and “have-nots.” Accelerating rates of technological development will be increasingly driven by the commercial sector -- not the military. Increased weapons lethality and precision will lead to new operational doctrine. Information-intensive military force structures will lead to a highly dynamic operations tempo.

In other words, our "leaders" know that the current path will lead to increasing desperation, and the possibility of people acting out of desperation (read that as "fighting for their lives"). And what are we going to do? Well, we are going to use highly accurate space-based munitions, and high tech weapons systems, to wipe them out as necessary. President Bush launched the endless "war on terrorism." Of course no mention is made that this is a war to keep the dying from posing a "threat" to the plan. The US and some other nations seem to be willing to spend endless amounts of money to suppress people but very little to create a world where the desperation of poverty and the dead end of environmental destruction might be stopped.

Resources
O'Sullivan, VOA, 11/25/03, California Grocery Workers Strike Widens

Holland, NCTimes, 11/26/03, The truth about the strike

Daily Nexus, 11/26/03, Teamster Union Refuses to Deliver the Goods in Strike

Uncommon Thought Journal 7/06/03, If there was ever any doubt

10 Preliminary Actions to Defeat Bush in 2004

By Michael Dobbins, author of the book ‘Stop Bush in 2004: How Every Citizen Can Help’

[Thanks to Emily at for sending this along.

The Saudis, the Bushs, and the investigations into September 11, 2001

There was an interesting piece on the relationships between the Bush family and the Saudis (particularly the bin Ladens) done by CBC News (Canadian Broadcast Company - Coincidence or Conspiracy - first aired 10/29/03.

It traces a rather intricate series of relationships from 1968 to September 11, 2001. It then goes into a number of various explanations and interpretations, and then into additional events which have happened since. If you are interested in the topics and depths of the relationships of the Bush family to the Saudis, and how that plays out in 9/11/01 and beyond, this is certainly a credible piece of investigation.

Someone Noticed

I'd like to send a special thank you to Mark Woods of ::wood s lot:: for noticing that this month is the one year anniversary of Uncommon Thought. If you haven't spent any time over at his site, I recommend it without reservation. ::wood s lot:: is a site that both informs and touches the reader. Mark brings a lot of creativity to his site as well as a good heart and mind.

Child Abuse Study

There is an interesting report out but the Massachusetts Family Institute on child abuse in different family configurations (11/24/03 Mass. Family Institute, Issues in Focus, Child Abuse Report)

Having lived through an abusive childhood, I am interested in such reports. This is especially true given the idea that "intact" families are considered both safer and healthier for children. If the study is accurate then there is perhaps some margin of "safety" for children in intact, biological families which have never been separated.

A study conducted by the Family Education Trust in Great Britain meticulously explored the relationship between particular types of family structure and abuse, accumulating clear data on family configuration in cases of abuse from 1982 to 1988 (Robert Whelan, "Broken Homes and Battered Children," Family Education Trust, Oxford). The results of this study shed light on a pattern that is highly correlated with child abuse today in both England and the United States: the absence of marriage and the presence of cohabitation. The evidence from Great Britain indicates:

* The safest environment for a child - that is, the family environment with the lowest risk ratio for physical abuse - is one in which the biological parents are married and the family has always been intact.
* The rate of abuse is six times higher in the second-safest environment: the blended family in which the divorced mother has remarried.
* The rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child is living with a biological mother who lives alone.
* The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with a biological father who lives alone.
* The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with biological parents who are not married but are cohabiting.
* The rate of abuse is 33 times higher if the child is living with a mother who is cohabiting with another man.

I had hoped that they would have included the rates of abuse for foster children, but alas, they did not. What seems to be indicated with these findings is something I have thought for some time. That is that the socialization around parents and children focuses within blood ties -- and apparently within legal ties as well. In other words, as the degrees of separation between parent figure(s) and child increases, so does the liklihood of abuse. What is somewhat strange to me about the above findings is the risk factor for children in familes with both biological parents who are not married. It seems that rate should be closer to the biological married parents rate. However, maybe there is less social and familial support for this family form.

My guess is that the child abuse rates for foster children is significantly higher as there is no blood family bond at all.

Regardless, one has to ask why there is so much child abuse. Is it because "western" nations see children as property? Is it a normal outcome of increasing societal stress being vented at defensless family members? Or has it always been there and we just don't want to talk about it very much. Personally, I think that a society that abuses its children has significant problems. The US seems to consistently puts children last while trumpeting "family values." What a joke. Just think how different US society would look if we really cared about children.

Redeploying US Global Military Force

Two different reports today point to massive US troop redeployments:
11/26/03 ChannelNewAsia - US to move troops from South Korea to Iraq, Afghanistan
11/26/03 Bender, Boston GLobe -Shift Begins For Military Overseas Large-Scale Redeployment Around World

This is not exactly new news (see Uncommon Thought article Expanding US Military Reach 7/5/03). It does sound like the moves might start soon however. The NewChannelAsia article states that the troops from South Korea are likely to end up in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Global Security article points to placements globally - including East Asia, and various parts of Africa.

The redeployment reflects the National Security Strategy plans, as well as the desire to move to a highly mobile, highly technical global deployment called for in the DoD's Quadrennial Review. In the most recent articles, the redeployment is to address the needs of the "war on terrorism" and control "rogue states."

Rumsfeld has pushed for smaller forces deployed rapidly, and has been criticized for this with troop strength issues in Iraq. What is bizarre, in my opinion, in moving ahead with staging US troops literally all over the world, is that high tech "blow 'em up" does not account for the chaos left behind (witness both Afghanistan and Iraq). It seems patently obvious that this type of strategy does not lead to global stability, but instability. The strategy of redeployment also requires acquiring basing in places where bases do not exist currently. Much as part of the speculated reason for invading Iraq was to permanently station US forces strategically in the Middle East, but get out of Saudia Arabia. Does this indicate that we will need to change a number of "regimes" and occupy a number of nations in order to accomplish the grand vision of the DoD? I sure hope not.

Another Action Figure

Well folks, there is another action figure to join George and Arnold. Who is it? Ann Coulter. Yes that darling pundit of the right has her own little business suited action figure. She even talks. Ann has recorded a number of messages for the "children" on your holiday gift list:

# "Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."

# "At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."

# "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."

# "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"

And there is more.
Best of all, this neocon brain in "beautiful" package "incredibly lifelike" action figure is yours for only $29.95 from the Conservative Book Service. (who claim this as a "collectable)

US paying damages in Iraq

One has to wonder why this is being kept quiet in the US press - US pays up for fatal Iraq blunders, McCarthy, Guardian/UK, 11/26/03). According to the report, the US military has paid 10,402 claims to Iraqi's who have lost family members, been seriously injured, or lost property in non-combat related incidents. These settlements are not for damages during combat, but in the pursuit of other activities.

The military is not giving out figures on how many claims have been filed, nor how many of those filed have been accepted. According to the military, payments are only made "for non-combat related activities and instances where soldiers have acted negligently or wrongfully."

Iraqi's are not getting rich on these settlements as they average only a "few hundred dollars," and "in some cases families have been asked to sign forms waiving their right to press for further compensation."

Iraqi courts are forbidden to hear cases against AMerican or other foreign troops. This leaves families little recourse except to file claims with the US military. It also allows US troops to act with relative impunity in Iraq. This appears to be increasing the negative feelings towards the US troops occupying the country. According to the article, "In some cases relatives have spoken of their plans to join the growing guerrilla resistance movement to avenge the deaths of their relatives. "

USWA Calls for Congressional Investigation into Police-State Assaults in Miami

Thanks to Jeremy at Biohabit for sending this notice along.

USWA Calls for Congressional Investigation into Police-State Assaults in Miami

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 24, 2003

Union condemns use of federal Iraq reconstruction funds to subsidize "homeland repression" at FTAA meetings

PITTSBURGH The United Steelworkers of America (USWA) is calling for a Congressional investigation into "a massive police state," created in part with federal funds, to intimidate union members and others critical of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and limit their rights during FTAA meetings in Miami last week.

"Last week, the fundamental rights of thousands of Americans were blatantly violated, sometimes violently, by the Miami police, who systematically repressed our Constitutional right to free assembly with massive force, riot gear and armaments," said Leo W. Gerard, USWA international president, in a letter to Congressional leaders.

"It is condemnable enough that a massive police state was created to prevent American citizens from directly petitioning FTAA negotiators for redress of their grievances," Gerard said in the letter.

"It is doubly condemnable," he added, "that $9 million of federal funds designated for the reconstruction of Iraq were used toward this despicable purpose. How can we hope to build democracy in Iraq while using massive force to dismantle it here at home?"

Citing "countless instances of humiliating repression in which the Miami police force disgraced itself," Gerard said that Miami police chief John Timoney should be fired, all charges against peaceful demonstrators should be dropped, and a Congressional investigation into the Miami police department's systematic repression should immediately be launched.

"To do less would be to endorse homeland repression in the guise of homeland security," Gerard's letter concluded.

Confusion over death of soldiers

On SUnday, two soldiers were attacked and killed in Mosul. THe original reports were that they had been traveling in private transport and were shot, dragged from their vehicle, and beaten by a crowd of folks. While this is still the story (as of Monday night) being reported by Canadain Broadcasting, it is interesting that the Army is revising their report of events (Filkins, NY Times, 11/25/03). According to the revised reports, the two soldiers were shot and robbed., but they were not "mutilated."

Certainly there are good reasons for not wanting the reports of mutilation of troops by folks on the streets of Iraq. THat would show a level of public opposition to the US occupation that would not play well in the US.

Even without the alleged "mutilation" of the soldiers' bodies, the incident is worrisome. This was not "terrorist" attack. By all accounts, those who killed and robbed the soldiers were just folks on the street. This was obviously a spontaneous act of opportunity. It is alarming that the soldiers were robbed - not just killed. THis means something very different to me than just the fact they were killed. While difficult to determine exactly what the message is, none of the possibilities are positive. Among the explanation that I see are
- anger and frustration with US presence;
- extreme lack of basic necessities among at least some of those in Mosul;
- lack of respect for dead Americans (I've heard nothing about such things occuring to dead Iraqi's though it may not have made the news);
- blaming of random troops for the conditions people are experiencing.

This also indicates an increasing level of risk to US troops in Iraq. While the General may minimize the attacks that are happening by saying they are "increasingly militarily insignificant," I doubt that US soldiers on the streets see it the same way. If it is so "militarily insignificant" why are we back to a massive bombing campaign? More double-talk, and not any closer to a resolution - in my opinion.

Freedom?

We hear the word "freedom" a lot. In the US it (or a variant of it) it used many times a day. It is used so frequently, that I think we have lost any understanding of the concept. We are even told we have "freed" the people of Iraq, and the people of Afghanistan. "Freed" in what sense?

I think that most humans on this planet lost their "freedom" some time ago. Marxists are fond of the concept of exploiting workers of the proceeds of their labor, but there is more than labor, and there is more than wages. I am going to make the argument that there are levels of the loss of freedom and the first is probably the concept of private ownership of the land. Private land ownership has allowed for people to become separated from the basic means for survival - harvesting, hunting, growing, and living. Once the land is privately owned, then non-owners become dependent on owners for survival.

The second step is the invention of currency. As currency becomes a medium of exchange, then people are forced to buy their survival. They are paid -- well or poorly -- for their efforts and products. That pay is then used to buy the means of survival.

As we advance into the modern capitalist economy, the issues of exploitation of laborers, and exploitation of the earth, becomes the norm. In the US, the idea of operating without money, or in a mode other than capitalism, is inconceivable by most. Everything has a dollar value attached to it -- including human lives.

I was trying to think what would happen in the US if money disappeared tomorrow. People would live wherever they are living, and we could move those without homes (or with inadequate homes) into decent residences. Everyone would keep working at whatever they are working on. Farmers would produce food, processing plants would package it, delivery companies would deliver it. Folks would go to the store and pick it up. It is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work for long. The US, like most of the wworld no longer has the local means to survive. That has been the long term implication of globalization and capitalization. Much of the world has moved from local sustainability to global import/export economies driven (increasingly) by oil. All of this transformation has made virtual slaves of the overwhelming majority of the global population. People must work to survive, and the must buy what they need to survive. At the top of this global catastrophe are very few. Even in the US which supposedly has the highest "quality" of life on the planet, most people are in exactly the same trap. Living without money (or very little of it) is virtually impossible. The way out of the trap? To earn more than you could ever hope to "spend." But that "excess" that allows luxuraint conditions to those few is a consequence of the exploitation of the rest of the world. The accumulation of excess captial (through inadequate wages to laborers), and excess ownership (of land, resources, and the means of production). My scenario of everyone just going along minus the money wouldn't work because oil would not flow, natural resources would not flow, and products would not flow, on the lubricated paths created by private ownership and control of capital. Alternative mechanisms and self-survival have been made illegal -- literally.

I was trying to think what would happen in the US if money disappeared tomorrow. People would live wherever they are living, and we could move those without homes (or with inadequate homes) into decent residences. Everyone would keep working at whatever they are working on. Farmers would produce food, processing plants would package it, delivery companies would deliver it. Folks would go to the store and pick it up. It is an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work for long. The US, like most of the wworld no longer has the local means to survive. That has been the long term implication of globalization and capitalization. Much of the world has moved from local sustainability to global import/export economies driven (increasingly) by oil. All of this transformation has made virtual slaves of the overwhelming majority of the global population. People must work to survive, and the must buy what they need to survive. At the top of this global catastrophe are very few. Even in the US which supposedly has the highest "quality" of life on the planet, most people are in exactly the same trap. Living without money (or very little of it) is virtually impossible. The way out of the trap? To earn more than you could ever hope to "spend." But that "excess" that allows luxuraint conditions to those few is a consequence of the exploitation of the rest of the world. The accumulation of excess captial (through inadequate wages to laborers), and excess ownership (of land, resources, and the means of production). My scenario of everyone just going along minus the money wouldn't work because oil would not flow, natural resources would not flow, and products would not flow, on the lubricated paths created by private ownership and control of capital. Alternative mechanisms and self-survival have been made illegal -- literally.

I believe we are entering the final stage of this expropriation of life and freedom. We have blatantly re-entered the era of Empire. THe line between corporate capitalism and government is eroding rapidly, and in the US has virtually disappeared. Moves are on to claim the last and most vital of life resources - water. In this final stage of the death of freedom, will the people rise up? As we look around the globe there seems to be evidence of that. Unfortunately, it is hard to see a way to reclaim true freedom without massive hardship and death - not through war, but through the collapse and or destruction of the existing system. Claiming "democracy" while fighting to survive in this exploitative environment is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I believe that we may be able to back away from the brink of virtual slavery and global collapse in pieces. First pulling power back from monopolistic capitalist resources and rebuilding local "economies" and support strategies. Removing from monetary exchange as much as we can. Building new ways of international exchange that are constructive rather than exploitative. Certainly, one of the largest problems is the lack of role models in this arena for mass society, and the long erosion of true freedom to the point where conceptualizing another way becomes a struggle.

Freedom is not an economic transaction - it is living wholely and independently. This does not mean that it is "each person for her/himself." Rather, that within the construction of communities we participate for the benefit of all (the earth included).

Democracy in action? Regime change in the Republic of Georgia.

If you have watched the news - paricularly the international news - then you could not have missed the drama of the forced resignation of President Eduard A. Shevardnadze of Georgia. (Georgian Leader Agrees to Resign, Ending Standoff Mydans, NY Times, 11/24/03) Thus far, this has been a peaceful ousting. After claims that the most recent elections were rigged, tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets demanding that Shevardnadze step down. Police and miltary stepped aside to allow the protestors to act peacefully. It is virtually impossible to imagine a similar scene in the United States ("Democratic leader of the "free" world") where virtually every major protest has been marred by the presence of Darth Vader gardbed riot police wielding pepper mace, guns, and batons.

Shevardnadze had been in power for 12 years. He was considered a "darling" to the US because of his role in ending the "cold war" between the US and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, Georgia has had a continued downward slide under his leadership. His tenure as President was marked by corruption and economic catastrophe. The crowning blow was the last election which left Shevardnadze in power. That was the last insult that the people of Georgia would accept.

But there is more going on here than meets the eye - or apparently the press. The question is whether Georgia was/is still a pawn in the power struggle between the US and Russia. There is an interesting analysis in the Indian paper Siffy.com with the arresting headline US, Russia slug it out over Georgia.

The article notes that Georgia is of strategic significance because it lies between Russia and Turkey. Once again oil raises its ugly head. WHile Georgia has no oil, it is a likely and desirable pipleline route (much like Afghanistan). As noted in the Sify article:

"Georgia is strategically important because that is where NATO, in the shape of Turkey, meets Russia," said Zeyno Baran, Director for International Security and Energy at the Nixon Centre in Washington and a specialist on Georgian affairs.

Another factor is oil. Georgia has none itself but it is on a transit route for the export of crude from the nearby Caspian Sea, where Western oil companies are hungrily developing new fields.

Control the export route for the oil, say analysts, and you control the oil itself. Some observers compare it to the so-called "Great Game" of the 19th century, when Britain, then the world's superpower, was jostling with Russia for control of routes to India. "

In this power struggle, both Russia and the US supported Shevardnadze's government to win concessions. Now, both nations seem to want to stay with the staus quo, but Russia is hedging its bets by meeting with the opposition. On one side we have Russia who controls most of the energy needs of Russia. On the other, we have the US which has tried to prop up Shevardnadze government through aid and US marine Corps trainers for Georgia's military.

In short, are the people of Georgia going to be pulled back and forth between Russia and the US like two dogs with a bone? At this point, the people of Georgia have accomplished a revolution without bloodshed. It remains to be seen whether the US and Russia can not get in the way of a peaceful transition.

Back to Government Sponsored Enterprizes

I thought it might be of some interest to follow up a bit on GSEs - Government Sponsored Enter"prizes." It is amazingly difficult to find current information on exactly what "enterprises" we are discussing, and the latest relatively complete report that I could locate was from 1995. Some folks may be wondering why this is a big deal. I believe it is a big deal for several reasons.
1. GSEs touch our daily and national life in a multitude of ways.
2. They are private corporations guaranteed by the federal government, therefore, they are backed by our tax dollars.
3. The implications of failure, scandal, and bankruptcy are enough to sink the economy of the United States.

So who are these GSEs? According to the report Government Sponsored Enterprises - 1995, they include the following businesses:

—The Student Loan Marketing Association is a for-profit financial corporation chartered by Congress in 1972 under the Higher Education Act (HEA) to help increase the availability of student loans. Sallie Mae carries out secondary market and other functions.
—The College Construction Loan Insurance Association is organized as a private, for-profit insurance corporation to guarantee and insure bonds and loans made for construction and renovation of college and university facilities. The Corporation was established by, but was not chartered by, the Federal Government.
—The Federal National Mortgage Association provides supplementary assistance to the secondary market for home mortgages. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides a secondary market for mortgage lenders. Both are supervised by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for their roles in helping to finance low- and moderate-income housing; both are regulated for financial safety and soundness by the newly established Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
—The Banks for Cooperatives, Agricultural Credit Bank, and Farm Credit Banks provide financial assistance to agriculture. They are supervised by the Farm Credit Administration.
—The Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, under the supervision of the Farm Credit Administration, provides a secondary mortgage market for agricultural real estate and certain rural housing loans as well as for farm and business loans guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
—The Federal Home Loan Banks assist thrift institutions, banks, and credit unions and are supervised by the Federal Housing Finance Board.
—The Financing Corporation functions as a financing vehicle for the FSLIC Resolution Fund. It operates under the supervision and control of the Federal Housing Finance Board.
—The Resolution Funding Corporation provides financing for the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and is subject to the general oversight and direction of the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board.

When you look at the scope of the list it becomes clear that GSEs are at the heart of the US economy from banking and finance to housing. They are also at the heart of higher education. On one hand, many students could not attend college without federally assured loans (which by and large run through Sallie Mae) and the colleges could not expand and improve facilites (buildings and resources) without the CCLIA. Meanwhile farmers (and not just corporate agriculture) are dependent on Banks for Cooperatives, Agricultural Credit Bank, and Farm Credit Banks, and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.

Robert Reich notes in his recent piece at TomPaine - Risking Your Future:

But Fannie and Freddie also present a larger worry here. Unlike most corporations, if Fannie or Freddie ever went belly up, American taxpayers would foot the bill. These two giants are just too big to fail. Since 1995, the two have tripled their combined debt to more than $2 trillion. At this rate, they’ll soon exceed the debt of the entire federal government. And because financial markets assume that the federal government guarantees their debts, Fannie and Freddie can borrow money at a discount and use the cash pretty much as they want.

GSEs reflect government sponsored corporatization in my opinion. They are part of the massive privatization movement that has been going on in the US. Maybe some of you remember the old government programs that were involved in assisting citizens like the Student Loan Programs, the FHA and VHA. Interestingly, they still exist. You get your government subsidized student or housing loan, and in short order it is transferred to one of the GSEs.

I got caught up in this change of lenders with my student loans. I had received student loans to sponsor my education. All the sudden I found I was dealing with Sallie Mae. I had no idea who Sallie Mae was, but I certainly didn't like the way she did business. I had loans from the 1980s that I owed to private banks who gave the money under the loan repayment guarantee of the federal government. I had mostly repaid these before returning to college for my doctorate. The loans were in the 3% interest range.

When I went back to school, the loan process seemed similar. I got some money from local banks who started selling my loan from one lender to the next until ultimately I ended up with Saliie. I had problems working with Sallie. First, my interest rates went up dramatically. At their high, they were 12.5%. Then there was the crazy statements that they sent me. As long as I was in school, I didn't have to make payments (though interest accrued on the unpaid balance). Previously, when I was in school interest was not accruing. Secondly, every time I contacted Sallie Mae with a question, it generated a "capitalization" of the interest. They "capitalized" the interest every 3 months whether I called them or not. I had no idea what that meant, so I called them to ask and they told me that "capitalizing the interest" meant taking the accrued interest and adding it to the prinicpal amount due on the loan. Then they "capitalized" the interest for me calling. If you are having trouble following this, let's say that you had a $10,000 principal balance and a $200 interest balance. WHen the interest is capitalized, your new principal balance is $10,200 and the interest begins accruing on the new amount - not the original $10,000. I wanted to argue with them further, but was disuaded because I knew it would force another capitalization.

The purpose of the story is that Sallie Mae is a GSE (who now offers credit cards if the latest adverts I've been getting mean anything). Millions of students are tied up in the program. If Sallie is an example of how GSes work, it is indeed frightening. THey have a "captive" clientele; hold billions in credit; guaranteed by the Federal government yet they can charge private rates for the loans they hold. They can market other products to their "clients" while having full access to your private information (where you live, work, what your financial situation is, your SSN, your parent's income, debt, and housing info and their SSN, etc). All backed by the federal government, and therefore our tax dollars. Howq could you lose?

Well, one way to lose is that these private companies have private share holders and are apparently as creative in their accounting as any of the corporations that are in "trouble." The outstanding debt on GSEs far exceeds the entire federal budget and reserves, and we -- tax payers -- are holding the surety on that debt.

Essentially, the heart of the US economy has been placed in the hands of private corporations who are underwritten by us. To make the matter worse, I think that most people think that these are government agencies -- not private corporations. I believe that distinction has largely been kept from the public. If there is any wonder about the power and influence of corporations on government policy and operation, GSEs are a prime example.

Freddie Mac scandal

It is a sad statement on the intertwining of business and government when one of the largest Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) - Freddie Mac - is on the front pages as understating their earnings by $5 billion (Glater, NY Times, 11/22/03). Apparently, " Former executives apparently manipulated Freddie Mac's earnings in an effort to meet investors' expectations." Interestingly, Glater offers to explain away all of the corporate accounting scandals by stating:

The details of the accounting at Freddie Mac offer a glimpse into the difficult issues facing executives confronted with complex reporting requirements and pressed to meet goals of smooth earnings growth. The restated financial statements show that the company did not simply understate net income consistently; it fluctuated sharply from quarter to quarter.

Some may be wondering just what the heck GSEs are. According to Investopedia.com (a sub-site of the Wall Street Journal) GSEs are:

Privately held corporations with public purposes created by the U.S. Congress to reduce the cost of capital for certain borrowing sectors of the economy. Members of these sectors include students, farmers, and homeowners.

GSEs carry the implicit backing of the U.S. Government, but they are not direct obligations of the U.S. Government. For this reason, these securities will offer a yield premium over Treasuries. Some consider GSEs to be stealth recipients of corporate welfare.

Examples of GSEs include: Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Federal Farm Credit Bank, Resolution Funding Corporation, and The Student Loan Marketing Association.

The overstatement by Freddie Mac of its earnings is significant because GSEs are assumed to be "the most creditworthy fixed income investments available today. GSEs traditionally offer a yield advantage over Treasuries and CDs, while the association with the U.S. government makes them attractive to investors who value quality." (a href="http://personal.fidelity.com/products/fixedincome/poagency.shtml" target="_blank">Agency/Government Sponsored Enterprises from personal.fidelity.com. They go on to state:

The implied guarantee
• Government Sponsored Enterprises carry an implicit guarantee. This means that the federal government acknowledges an interest in the issuing organization and thus implies an interest in the securities it issues. This differs from the explicit guarantee for U.S. Treasury securities, which states that the securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. While an implied guarantee is not considered as safe as an explicit guarantee, the government historically has taken action if the financial status of a GSE appears threatened.
• The government also grants special privileges to GSEs, designed to help ensure the organizations' financial strength. This includes access to large credit lines from the Treasury, typically between $1.0 billion and $4.0 billion, and important exemptions from tax and securities laws.
• The government has the power to regulate GSEs in various ways, including, in some cases, the power to appoint directors to an organization's board.

Cautious investors look at GSEs as not only safe because such business are overseen by the Frderal GOvernment, but because they are backed by the federal government. To have a GSE involved in the same type of activity as Enron, Global Crossing, and Merill Lynch (to name a few) is beyond startling. Is this symptomatic of the revolving door between government and industry where industry agents are placed in regulatory and leadership positions within government, and when they leave government return to the same industries they regulated? Most likely. Is this symptomatic of big money influence on government legislation and funding? Almost assuredly. Fannie and Freddie are the spawn of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (the GSE Act). According to the HUD website

The legislation divided the Federal government's regulatory responsibilities over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between the Secretary of HUD and the Director of OFHEO. Under the GSE Act, the Secretary of HUD is charged with general regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in all areas other than the GSEs' financial safety and soundness which is the responsibility of the Director of OFHEO.

Specifically, the Secretary's authority includes setting and enforcing three affordable housing goals, monitoring compliance with fair lending principles, collecting loan-level data from the GSEs on their loan purchase activities, creating and distributing a public use data base of non-proprietary GSE purchase data, and providing oversight for new program approval.

The overstatement by Freddie Mac is BIG news as well because Fannie and Freddie have provided the back bone of much of the housing financing over the past decade.

Welcome to privtization (corporatization) of the government.

Are we back to "shock & awe?"

With the renewed bombing of "suspected" terrorist areas in Iraq, one has to wonder if we have returned to the "shock and awe" approach. It worked so well the first time that the assumption seems to be that it will effective this time as well. Over the last week the US has started two aggressive bombing campaigns in Iraq. Operation Ivy Cyclone, and Operation Iron Hammer. Ivy Cylcone is taking place in north central Iraq (around Tikrit) and Iron Hammer in and around Baghdad. [By the way, Iron Hammer was a code name first used by the Nazis for an operation to destroy Soviet electric plants.(Nazi code name used by US military, NZ Herald, 11/20/03)] The US military is using 500-2000 pound bombs, guided missles, and other munitions in the largest offensive since the last bombing campaign of the "war" ended. It is somewhat questionalble whether such a tactic will be effective against "terrorists."

Taking a page from the Israeli book of how to get folks really ticked off at you, the US military has also started destroying the homes of suspected "terrorists" and their families.U.S. destroys suspected guerrillas' homes, Wilkinson, Philly.com, 11/17/03).

It really should be noted that in every account, the military is going after "suspected" terrorists, "suspected" guerillas, "suspected" training camps. In other words, there is no arrest, no trial, no chance to defend oneself. If you are "suspected," you are dead or your home is destroyed, or your refugee camp is bombed. That is the "democracy" that the US has brought to -- and is practicing in -- Iraq.

When the US first invaded Iraq with its much heralded "shock & awe" campaign of massive and continuing bombing, it met virtually no resistance or counter fire. That campaign was purportedly against armed and organized troops, and the choice of "military targets" including farmers fields, villages, and restaurants, was "effective" in the "regime change." Now however, the targets are not organized, they are not concentrated, and they are even less verified than during the intial invasion. It is somewhat frightening that there is virtually no reports of either the "effectiveness" nor the civilian casualty numbers of the most recent offensives. It looks like retaliation from where I sit.

US jets pound targets in central Baghdad
US fires guided missile at Iraqi 'rebel training camp'
US troops kill (6 suspected) 'Saddam loyalists'
US turns heat on Iraq insurgents

Amazingly little on Miami

There is amazingly little that is coming over the corporate media on the protests in Miami. What I have seen on the international channels is frightening. It looks as if the $8 million in extra dollars sent to Miami for "security" for the FTAA talks is being "well spent." I have seen numerous protesters sprayed and beaten by phalanxes of police in the now customary Darth Vader get up. Apparently arrest numbers are high as well. The best up-to-date- source for news on the Miami protests is FTAA Indy Media. The site has both written and streaming audio reports.

A BIG Thanks to all those in Miami who are risking life and limb to stop global inequality through such vehicles as FTAA.

Yes Nov 19th disappeared

You may have tried to access the two entries from 11/19 (Gay Marriage? and Are we back to "Shock & Awe?") and can't find them. My host lost their hard drive and Uncommon Thought lost November 19th. I will be rewriting those two entries, as well as redoing Uncommon Thought News for yesterday. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Perle admits invasion of Iraq was illegal

For those of you who have been reading Uncommon Thought awhile, you may remember a great discussion we had last March about whether the US invasion of Iraq violated international law (Why do we believe 3/28/03). Well yesterday Richard Perle was speaking at an event in London and stated: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." Somewhat later he stated: "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone" ( War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal, Burkeman & Borger, Guardian/UK, 11/20/03).

This means that even at the time, the Administration knew it was violating International Law and proceeded anyway - rebuking those nations that refused to break the law with them.

This admission by Perle, a member of the US Defense Policy Board and advisor to Dick Rumsfeld, sheds light on a totally different issue - the Administratration pushing repeatedly for immunity from prosecution under international war criminal laws. In fact, compliance with granting this immunity has become the basis of access to US international aid.

It is clear that the Administration knows that it is on the wrong side of international law, wants immunity from prosecution under that law, and therefore the invisibility contributes to the perception of the US acting "morally and legally" against Iraq.

This pretty much confirms (if there was any doubt before) that the US is a rogue nation. It is interesting that the US legitimated "regime change" in Iraq for the very reason that they were a "rogue nation." Therefore, the calls for US "regime change" take on more than political appeal - it might be the only thing that saves us from the rest of the world "eliminating the threat" that we pose.

Gay Marriage?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling is all over the news. The court stated "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts constitution." (Court Affirms Dignity and Equality of All Individuals in the Commonwealth US Newswire, 11/18/03)

At the crux of this issue is that in the United States "marriage" can be two different things. On one hand, it is a civil recognition for which all who want to be "legally married" must have a marriage license. On the other hand is a religious recognition of the joining of two people. As this second part happens under the auspices of religion, it sanctifies the marriage. However, a religious ceremony alone does not make a marriage legal. This is why most ministers, priests, rabbis, etc. are also "Justices of the Peace." Holding this government certification allows for the performance of one ceremony rather than one government and one religious.

In an interestingly different take on same sex relationships, the New Hampshire Supreme Court Says Gay Sex Not Adultery (Saunders, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/18/03). The article states that "in New Hampshire is that adultery is not defined in the state's divorce laws. So the court looked up ``adultery'' in Webster's dictionary and found that it mentions intercourse. And it found an 1878 case that referred to adultery as ``intercourse from which spurious issue may arise.'"

"Spurious issue" is a child outside of wedlock. In other words, sexual activity which cannot lead to children doesn't count as adultery. (Hey, Clinton told the truth - at least under NH law.) Under this definition of adultery, sexual activity that involves one or more individuals who are not fertile, or engaged in acts which cannot lead to conception, would also not count as adultery.

It is important to look at these two cases side by side because they point to core issues in the debate about same sex marriage, and about marriage in particular.The argument against same sex marriage is that it goes against the "sanctity" of marriage. In Christianity this ties to the issue of procreation - most likely the biblical edict to "be fruitful and multiply." This is why "consumation" of the marriage has (in Western traditions) been such a big deal. The consumation is to ensure offspring. The concern with marriage in this sense is tied to patriarchal ownership issues. It is to confirm the ownership of wife and children and to restrict sole sexual access to a given female. After all, the concern here is with paternity as all generally know who the mother is. The argument that it also sexually constrains the husband is belied by the fact that sexual liaison outside the marriage bed for men has rarely drawn much penalty until recently.

The Massachusetts court has correctly made the distinction between church and state by recognizing that under state laws the Consititution and equal treatment prevails. This places no burden on religion to "sanctify" marriages.

Those who have leaped to say that they will push for laws to protect the sanctity of marriage (a man and a woman) are merging the two different forms of marriage. They are overriding the constitution with religion, and thereby violating the basic tenet of separation of church and state. It is frightening that the Governor of Massachusetts, many in Congress, and the President of the United States, are so eager to void the state-church separation.

If it is procreation that is at the heart of the "sanctity of marriage" argument, then those pushing this agenda also need to not allow marriage to those who are unable or unwilling to bear children. Those who are involved in same sex relationships are not infertile. Many of these couples have children through previous heterosexual relationships and marriages, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, and adoption. The other part of the argument against same sex marriage seems to revolve around questions of morality. However, I know of no test done by church or state on morality as a precondition of marriage.

In my opinion, the conceptions of marriage and family need to be broadened rather than narrowed. If we are going to talk about the "tradition" of marriage and the family, then we have to acknowledge that tradition has been one of extended and expanded kin groups. This was even the norm in the United States until the 1950s. The pressures of aggressive capitalism and the push to a consumer society has dramatically shrunk and weakened the family. We have arrived at a dyad (husband and wife) plus child/children. Dyads are the most unstable and vulnerable of relationship forms, and children do best in an environment where they have lots of support and role models. This was (is) the strength of the extended kin group. However, the US has pushed for high worker mobility and high consumption. The shrinking family fits those requirements quite well. Smaller family units are more geographicly mobile than extended, and the more households there are the more consumption is necessary - each household needs its own appliances, supplies, lightbulbs,cars, etc. To that end, the US has an increasing trend of individuals living alone. Certainly the individual is the most mobile and consumptive unit.

For our democracy to survive, it is imperative that the separation of church and state be maintained, and as such same sex marriages should have the same legal standing as mixed sex marriages. The various religions and denominations can choose to "sanctify" such unions or not. If we are going to do anything with civil marriage laws, they should be broadened to strengthen families and support for children, rather than place more children in vulnerable positions by saying that their families are worth less and unprotected by the laws of the nation.

Different Glimpses, Different Worlds - Part 2

The Interrogation
By Mathew Maavak
Mr. Maavak can be reached at [email protected]
(This part deals with my ordeal at the Forth Worth/Dallas airport. The racial profiling continues. This time, things weren’t funny. My reaction wasn’t either).

As I boarded my America Airlines flight to Dallas, I had a premonition that something will go wrong. Maybe, it was the story of a Muslim woman, and many others like her, who were strip-searched at US airports. It didn’t raise the same indignation as the pre-terror era detention of an ethnic Chinese tycoon, who turned up on national TV mocking all that ‘freedom’ in the US. The unverified story was - and such things couldn’t be officially verified then - that he kicked a guard at the US airport before a diplomatic offensive secured his release. He is now a corporate criminal on the lam, and all enquiries in the Malaysian parliament were stonewalled until everyone lost interest. Now, we are keeping all our finger and toes crossed, regarding our brand new leader with cautious optimism.

The AA flight was a thorough disappointment for one used to hearing about the consumers’ paradise yonder. The interior and flight service was as good as the legendary Aeroflot. Yup! Come to think of it, the premonition must have been sparked by the old battle-axes on board, who, with the exception of a tall Japanese American and a Southern belle on the wrong aisle, seemed impatient for Halloween. It’s easy to peal your eyes away in such situations and find a 1,000-page book more seductive throughout a 12-hour journey.

When the plane landed, I was not in a very good shape. A sleepless 24 hours, a biological clock gone berserk and a trans-Pacific nicotine withdrawal will frazzle any journeyman, particularly at a US airport. I kept looking left and right for a smoking room, and as the terrain was sensed as ‘unfriendly’, a quick checkout became priority. The immigration counter wasn’t that long. An interpreter was ready to help out first-time Japanese visitors. The ambience was unnerving; I found eyes peering into my direction. Long before landing here, I theorized that blacks never had it so good in the post-Sept 11 days of racial profiling. Malaysian Chinese, once treated with extra suspicion at US embassies and airports for their sweatshop and snakehead stereotyping, stand a better chance of getting 10-year US visas while the rest of Malaysia thinks the embassy has stopped issuing them.

My ‘golden brown’ complexion, a trick of lighting conditions, was now uncool. I was right. Black passengers breezed through customs. They were cocky and happy. I wanted to paint myself with that military night camouflage. Or even something white. The airport was staffed by lots of ‘minorities’. Has Santa Anna made a comeback? The officer who checked my passport was pleasant enough, but found my name strange. I could have told him that it was probably the last vestiges of a nearly extinct Semitic tradition (Luke 1:61). I also wanted to tell him that my clan had that surname for more than two millennia, going back to a time when a certain Matityahu could have been similarly waiting at the gates of Rome, and like then, any screw up spelt trouble. Try telling a Texan that, mate! A well-known activist would echo that later.

Something flashed on his screen and he became uncertain. He wanted to waive me through, dithered momentarily, and enquired of an Oriental officer who replied, “don’t take any chances”. I wanted to re-arrange his face, make the eyes rounder, nose sharper and the hair blonde. If you read Part 1, he might secretly like the end result. ‘Terrorists’, if they were out there, would have taken note. Plenty of potential East Asian recruits available with the right names and features to fool any Texan, and it doesn’t take much to do that. Still, nothing has happened. The ‘bad guys’ are either not smart (Sept 11?) or not out there as universally depicted (Sept 11?).

A man obsessed with back-up plans comes prepared. I told the officer I was a journalist and “was expecting this.” He was startled. “You were expecting this?” Yup!

The word ‘journalist’ sent up some alarm. I could hear it bandied about. Mr L. Raymond, a senior white officer came by and maybe it was visual relativism, but he sure looked Germanic to me. I was advised politely, to stay “calm” as otherwise things could get problematic. The blinding rage must have been evident, the air of defiance and indignation a contrast. Two Slavic women inside were in state of trepidation. The others were from “Third World” countries, preponderantly neither black nor white, something in between. Most had been herded in like frightened cattle. One exception was a man my age who had a passport marked with a distinguishing cross. His features were Teutonic but had dark hair and a pallor. Or were Swiss banks acting difficult, again? Our man was bemused, and had the kind of look where you are transplanted from a place wealthier and better in every respect to a barbarian land rich only in lethal munitions. Maybe that’s why he was also politely cautious, as the moron handling his case could have innocently mistaken Switzerland for Swaziland. (That’s pretty much how the world regards America, its foreign policy and Texas, though there was a huge map on a wall to correct this misperception). The Swiss will know what Stucke meant. I wanted to hail him over in a German or two, but decided to spare the 30 something guy nimble-witted questions like “Have you once been a member of the Nazi party?” (US Visa application forms traditionally came with some reference to that, even in Kuala Lumpur). German-educated Mohammed Atta must have written Nein! with a clear conscience. Such ‘routine enquiries’ does net a terrorist now and then.

At one side was a mockery called the Consulado de Mexico. A primary school classroom in Chennai might be better furnished.

I slouched down to sit in my usual, irreverent position. Someone caught my attention He was enjoying a modicum of power, snapping ‘amigo’ to his own kind. Either Freud or Jung might tell you that those descended from the countless rapes of conquistadors will one day sublimate similar passions to other weaklings. Those with a glorious past they can call their own, have the hubris or ability to battle many odds. Not always, but they stand a better chance, as vicissitudes are better understood, its memories and myths kept alive. Such people might reflect that they could be born say, on either side of the Green Line, that their lineage can be traced to a famous king and a woman from Jericho. Toss in some Good Samaritan aid from Muslims and it finally sinks in. Tribalism sucks, and observation, not taking emotional sides, is a form of bliss. If you think this is a boast, take a hard, honest look around you. Does this show there is something called ‘racial superiority’? The answer is ‘when you treat people like criminals, or take advantage of their defenselessness, they sooner or later become one’

So, Sigmund Matt, sit back and enjoy this menagerie. It might help you score a point or two in a future thesis. Now let’s see, you can start off with the debate over affirmative action. Or would you prefer ‘psychic retardations in the evolutionary process’…?

There are times when you do snap up; when you feel betrayed by the ‘poor, downtrodden minority’ you regularly sympathized with. American ‘intellectuals’, who boast of their activist past, but always had an escape hatch, will not quite talk about this. With the right turn of fate, they could have been spewing venom of another kind in Tel Aviv, instead of anti-Zionism in New York. Try checking out someone named Vladimir Edelstein. Find out his attempt at aliyah, the name he goes under right now, and what he became famous for. Intellectuals can confidently state, with hindsight, that the man was an ass anyway…

I snapped up coz Mr Amigo noticed me. He swaggered up in true Texan fashion, and tried to spook me with a little of what he must have faced after crossing that barbed wire fence into the promised land, barefooted, instead of a round the world flight in Californian shoes.

“Where are you from?” I told him.
“Can you sit up straight, so that I can hear you!” I thought I had that mild hearing problem. He wanted to know everything, the people I was visiting, how they were related to me etc. Without wasting time, I told him I was a journalist and knew US diplomats well back home (not really true. I met the winsome former US ambassador once. As for the rest, I have only heard of fascinating Christmas parties, where Venus not Christ was celebrated).

I deduced, correctly, that he would now back off, after my business card tallied with my old passport’s entry for ‘occupation’. His battle instincts and social graces must have been formed at the scenic Nezahualcoyotl. My first contact with the minority in the American South was not pleasant but as stated earlier, I already had a theory. The bubbas would come later. Henceforth, everyone in that room was a Cro-Magnon, semi-evolved cretins who only understood force, not reason. This was not the first time I was getting crap from the ‘poor, dispossessed minority’ and Mr Amigo was burning one of the last straws. It’s one thing to be pained by their torturous existence; it might be another experience to live under their mercy. When I leave Texas, there will be no more ethnic empathies. Every man will be judged for what he is worth and I wouldn’t want to hear any neo-colon garbage anymore.

For the time being, my colon was more important and the only probiotic strain that worked was thousands of miles away in a Kuala Lumpur fridge. So, I had to use the loo, for which two officers, one armed, the other a woman, were assigned to tail me to the gents below. I think I invited one of them inside to allay any fears, which could not possibly have helped matters much. Inside, I lit up my cigarette, and felt the soothing relief of nicotine for which I must thank the conquistadors. Plumes of white haze may blur your vision, for a moment, but they do wonders for the clarity of thought. Rage would now turn into perspective, future postures set. There is no better track to adopt than telling the truth. Or more of it rather, thanks to the culturally-challenged apes outside. Texans may call this bluff, as they think of the world in terms of poker. You only need to raise the stakes. Bestial minds can only be tamed by a hunter’s arrow, though the aim and timing should be right. In the US though, the arrow symbolizes defeat, of racial supremacy, not genocide. And brute force can never understand people who can invert concepts like intimidation, threat, shame, etc. Those are meant for others, like them.

Opprobrium counts, but that’s too big a word for the likes of George W. Bush and Karl Rowe, even after committing high treason around that time. Ain’t that a crime carrying the death penalty? ‘But this is Texas!’ were the resigned words, I would hear later, that would ring in my mind. Here you have one destructive, worthless lot wasting away their equally worthless underlings. Perfect! This must have been inspired during ‘prayer’ time as Texans still place their faith in Bush. Gahd knows, many know, that Langley is seldom after ‘bad guys’, just ‘good money’. There will never be a shortage of ‘bad guys’ but ‘good money’ can be an ephemera, the lickspittles tasked even so…

My washroom reveries were interrupted by a brusque command. “No smoking in the loo!” Seasoned smokers should take this in their stride as someone in the next cubicle could have already contracted asthma, and sensing opportunity, could sue the airport authorities for untold physical and psychological trauma, winning $30 million and the 2004 Stella award. This was the America we joked about everywhere.

When I came out, I apologized. “Sorry, just puffed a fag in a jiffy.” It sounded British, and fake. The nonplussed lady mumbled something incoherent in a Hispanic accent. I was escorted back to the corral, but the Stucke in line before and after me had left. The only ones there were armed anthropoids; the prettiest one twitching her holster but never making eye contact with me. I took it this wasn’t a deliberately intimidating habit. There must be plenty of B-grade Latin American versions of Playboy around. I reflexively jingle coins when I think of money; others might fiddle guns.

Raymond was quite an exception. I could hear the growing perplexity and muffled words that escaped his cubicle. “It’s all in here,” his hands gestured irritably at the screen. I take it that my visa was strangely in order and there was no record of any ‘terrorist act’ or war crime. Guantanamo would have to wait. Armed officers would poke in; I saw heads turning in my direction, the word ‘journalist’ escaping their lips. There may be real concern now, after two hours of cross checking records from various sources (the windows appearing on the screen seemed like they were from different systems).

It then came down to that interview. Raymond disappeared, after mollifying me with an Apa Khabar? and a few other Malay phrases. A black officer was placed in charge. He took down my details, and the names, phone numbers and addresses of all the people I am meeting and where. My credit card numbers were taken down – easy for tracking but I don’t think that quite works with me. A few details of my parents were required. When my mother’s age was asked, I replied, “She has been 55 for the past 12 years or so.” The officer burst out. It was an original but not a joke. For the next few minutes, both interrogator and suspect would pool their resources in approximating an old lady’s year of birth. I think we did fine, considering that I was a late child, the amount of gray on my mother’s head and so on. The officer was disarming. It could be that I like Chris Tucker.

In between the questions, he kept saying, “Hey, I know how you feel man.” The flights kept coming in, I presume, as it was only past 4pm. I was still the only one in that room. My fingerprints were taken, my eyes scanned and I was asked to take an oath, with my right hand raised, declaring my benign affections to the US government (I could have just signed a statement declaring my answers were truthful but like I said earlier, my government of that day must have tolerated these things). The rage was now masked by a ping-pong volley of jokes. I casually asked the origin of this enquiry. ‘Oh, it came from the Justice Department.’ Between the laughter, this was repeated at least twice. Interesting! But that can be denied later, forever.

The numbers I had furnished were checked, but no one picked up the phones. My friend Nathan, who was waiting patiently at the airport, had unknowingly switched on the silent alert. “Sorry, man.” I saw the writing on the wall; indefinite detention and another trip to the loo, the one inside the sanctum sanctorum not meant for unauthorized personnel, unless your gut is going to fall out or wrenched out. Every defiant look I got was doubled and returned, my eyes slowly swept over the set-up inside as I sauntered to the washroom. This time, there were no injunctions over smoking and I took my time to light up a few sticks. You don’t impose such restrictions on a detainee who had a ‘date of departure’ stamp on his passport, the same one as his date of arrival, quite near a stamp spelt “NSEER”. The date of departure was clumsily cancelled later. But if you are Japanese, there is a less likelihood of ever getting this seal of approval.

When I returned, Nathan answered my distress call. “I am suspected of being an Al Qaeda terrorist!” The officer chuckled, took over, and assured, “nothing man, everything is all right.” There would be no instant deportation. I genuinely liked this guy. I was asked to report to the immigration office in Seattle – my last port of call – within 30 days and was told I could go. But not without my pounds of flesh, and I wanted a tiny morsel, now! An explanation was demanded of the senior officer. Raymond turned up. He was apologetic, his tone firm, shrugging “this was routine.” My voice raised a trifle, despite never having seen so many idle guns at one time in my life. I showed him a list of countries on the wall, the citizens of which were required to endure these bellyaches, not dancing. The states were Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran and Iraq. I came from an ally in this global ‘war against terror.’ Logistically, there was no way this shambolic SS Unit could handle first-time arrivals from a Riyadh flight alone. You can’t even hold 10 men (how many passengers are there in an average long-distance Boeing?) for four hours in this cow pen. He didn’t lose poise. There was “an enquiry indeed’ but he brushed aside any reference to the Justice Department. “We are never told who orders” these enquiries. He seemed like a reasonable man doing his duty, and probably kept a lid on some of the lunatics under him. Historically, this is not new. A fair-haired SS combat officer will be intelligent and calculative. There is a method to his violence. The non-Deutsche SS brute him below generally preferred the easy way out, cudgeling his way through other’s brains. In Texas, this analogy is alive, a beauty of bilingualism - not really of racial superiority - we shall explore in a coming piece.

I took leave, went down, collected my main luggage and rolled the trolley towards the departure gate. The men in uniform stared, nodding knowingly at each other, all quite Hollywood. Just when I was about to check out, another one put up his kitsch cowboy bravado. Anthropologically, I’d place this specimen closer to hominoids, having a likeness to fossilized remains found anywhere between the Yucatan peninsula and Kansas. Another straw burnt here. He drawled off a demand to surrender some agricultural declaration form. It is of national security interest to prevent anyone from bringing exotic orchids into the country, all after being suspected of things much less malign.

I finally met Nathan outside. He kept assuring me that these things happened, especially when you are visiting the states for the first time. Reasons were explored to which I gave him one poser. “My hand luggage was never checked. I could have been carrying anything inside there.”

And he would keep saying, “that was indeed strange” for the next few days. “And why would the Justice Department be interested?” Others would think the same way...

I was rattled. The next three days would be spent telephonically sulking over my ordeal. My American friends sighed, saying “But that/this is Texas”. This sounded like a self-explanatory age-old adage that should be preceded with the words, “You idiot!”

I will also meet exceptional Texans. Jung is vindicated here.

Next piece: How an outsider feels in the American South.

Nov 16, 2003

Copyright © Mathew Maavak, 2003

Bush "I love democracy"

President Bush is once again trumpeting his love of democracy - this time on his trip to the UK. When asked about protesters, Bush consistently replies that he is happy that there is democracy. During the protests in Washington, DC prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush was asked how he felt about the protests. He replied that he was glad there was democracy, then added that lots of people had protested in Washington since he came into office and that he didn't let any of them influence him.

Now he heads to Britain and he supports democracy there too. He supports democracy and freedom so much that he wanted to ban protests in London while he was there (Sengupta, Mirror/UK, 11/12/03). He supports free speech and democracy so much that he is willing to ban it. The Brits, figuring that such suppression might result in violence is planning to field roughly 14000 police to make sure that things stay under control.

Bush supports democracy so much that he has pulled out of his scheduled speech to Parliament because of concerns that some in the Commons might walk out or give him a negative response. Bush's itinerary is carefully crafted to avoid any possible contact with protestors.

The US President supports democracy so much that he will only meet with British families who have lost family members in Iraq if they support the war (Yates & Blackman, Mirror/UK, 11/18/03).

Yes indeed President Bush supports free speech and "democracy" as long as it agrees with him. If people don't agree with him then he will, avoid them, ignore them, or silence them. Now that's how the purported "leader of the free world" stands up for "democracy." Save us from someone who doesn't support the right to free speech and is hostile to democracy.

Bio-tech and the "arms race"

In my perusal of my usual sites hunting down the events of the day, I came across The Sunshine Project (thanks to Center for Globalization Research for the lead). It is not what you might expect - namely some uplifting program, or even a solar energy site. Nope, the Sunshine Project is a bioweapons research expose site. One of their publications is Emerging Technologies: Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons. In reading through the report, I was immediately cast back to the US National Security Strategy (2002) and the Pentagon's Quadrennial Review and like documents that brought out the Bush Regime's plan of preemption and use of weapons of mass destruction.

First, the Sunshine Report.

Techniques to translate genetic sequence into a weapons effect The development of ethnic weapons with very specific effects would be easiest with techniques that use a genomic marker as a trigger for an activity that is unrelated to the location of the marker, i.e. the effect would be triggered even if the sequence is in a non-coding or non-translated region of the genome. As far as we are aware, this kind of technology does not yet exist.

There are, however, techniques available that can inhibit genes with a specific sequence. They target mRNA, the molecule that transmits information from the DNA to the place of protein synthesis within a cell. One of these techniques, called RNA interference (RNAi), uses a mechanism by which a specific RNA sequence is degraded by the cell if an externally applied RNA molecule of the same sequence is entering the cell (for review, see Cerutti 2003). A similar approach called antisense technology inhibits further mRNA processing by binding endogenously produced mRNA to an externally applied DNA molecule with the corresponding sequence. The latter technology is currently under development by the US company Ibis Therapeutics. [39]

Both technologies lead to the inhibition of a specific target gene with a specific sequence. If the sequence of the target gene varies from one population to another, this can be used to interrupt the gene in one population and not in the other. Military abuse of this technology would require the identification of population specific sequences in genes that are active and vital for the body function.

...

A systematic search in two databases revealed that genetic sequences that fulfill these specifications not only exist, but they do so in unexpectedly high numbers. Our analysis focussed on so called single nucleotide polymorphisms – SNPs – that are by far the most common source of genetic variation. SNPs are basically single-letter variations in the human DNA sequence. In the past years, several million SNPs have been identified by private and public entities. The SNP Consortium (TSC), representing a group of large pharmaceutical companies and not-for-profit organisations, keeps a public database on a many SNPs. Another SNP database, the SNP500 Cancer database, is maintained by the Cancer Genome Anatomy Project of the US National Institutes of Health. [42]

Both databases provide data on allelic frequencies in different populations. We analysed a total of nearly 300 SNPs, all in coding regions or genes,[43] from both databases. An unexpectedly high number of these SNPs are indeed population specific: 6.7% of the SNPs in one database (see table 1 below) and 1.6% of the SNPs in the other include one allele that is not present at all in one population while it has a frequency of more than 20% in another population.

You can bet that the US military is on top of the development of bioweapons - including genetically engineered bugs, and ethnic targeting of such weapons. In the National Security Strategy of the US 2002, are the following statements (page 49) emphases are mine:

Dissuading Future Military Competition. Through its strategy and actions, the United States influences the nature of future military competitions, channels threats in certain directions, and complicates military planning for potential adversaries in the future. Well targeted strategy and policy can therefore dissuade other countries from initiating future military competitions. The United States can exert such influence through the conduct of its research, development, test, and demonstration programs. It can do so by maintaining or enhancing advantages in key areas of military capability. Given the availability of advanced technology and systems to potential adversaries, dissuasion will also require the United States to experiment with revolutionary operational concepts, capabilities, and organizational arrangements and to encourage the development of a culture within the military that embraces innovation and risk-taking. To have a dissuasive effect, this combination of technical, experimental, and operational activity has to have a clear strategic focus. New processes and organizations are needed within the defense establishment to provide this focus. ...

During the Cold War, U.S. government programs were a primary impetus for research into new technologies, particularly in areas such as computers and materials. Today and well into the foreseeable future, however, DoD will rely on the private sector to provide much of the leadership in developing new technologies. Thus, the Department has embarked on an effort (a) to turn to private enterprise for new ways to move ideas from the laboratory to the operating forces, (b) to tap the results of innovations developed in the private sector, and (c) to blend government and private research where appropriate. This "quiet revolution" will take advantage of science and technology and continue to provide U.S. forces with technological superiority

So not only will we work on these emerging technologies, but we will demonstrate them to show their deterent effect.

GlobalSecurity.org has a link to a chapter from a book called "Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare." It is MEDICAL CHALLENGES IN CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY. From the pdf version page 4 comes the following:

For the military, knowledge of man’s specific genetic defects or vulnerabilities (or ways to create such defects) and the ability to modify microorganisms or toxins that would increase pathogenicity take on added concern. Biotechnology theoretically provides opportunities for adversaries to modify existing organisms with specific characteristics, such as increased virulence, infectivity, or stability. Modern advances also allow for the inexpensive production of large quantities of replicating microorganisms for weaponization through recombinant methodologies, and the possibility to create “new” agents for future warfare that bypass current preventive or therapeutic interventions. These could be accomplished through secretive research programs that are superimposed on open biomedical research efforts in pharmaceutical firms or government laboratories. Ironically, while such possibilities continue to generate fear, the same technological advances can and do contribute to the development of new medical countermeasures, such as new vaccines, drugs, and diagnostic tests.

Splicing genes for virulence, infectivity, stability, or other factors into the genome of an existing organism is one possibility for manipulating potential biological warfare agents.

The chapter goes on to note, that due to the ethnic mixing in the US, that such targeted genetic weapons would probably not be a threat. If that is the case, then the development of these weapons by the US would be for offensive purposes only, and not for supposed "deterent" purposes.

The Sunshine Project report makes some recommendations that are certainly sane, but also highlight already existing capabilities emphases mine:

All projects that violate the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions must be immediately abandoned. In the United States, such projects include the development of material degrading microbes, development of so-called “non-lethal” (bio)chemical weapons (including delivery devices), and continued development of biological agents to eradicate narcotic crops. Other countries that are engaged in similar projects – such as Russia, which maintains stockpiles of incapacitating chemical weapons and, likely, an R & D program on them – must also halt such research. These agents undermine the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, are lowering the political threshold for use of biological weapons, and are likely to have tremendous environmental and health impacts. Pursuit of these agents as weapons would be a step down a slippery slope, that, following the same logic, could easily lead to the use of other biochemical and biological warfare agents in conflict. Failure to stop these projects will encourage other countries to follow suit with R & D projects on biotechnological weapons, leading to an unravelling of key disarmament treaties.

There is an urgent need to ensure that governments restrict themselves and ensure maximum transparency in their biodefense programs, to prevent a race for offensive capabilities under cover of defense. We call on all governments to adopt the ‘Government Undertaking on Biodefense Program’, which has recently been brought forward by the Sunshine Project. It contains, among others, a provision that “biodefense programs will not, for any purpose, utilize or construct, including single-gene changes, novel biological agents with an enhanced offensive potential” such as treatment resistance, environmental stability, or enhanced pathogenicity.

Research restrictions are necessary in certain situations, for example, in cases where a military abuse appears to be imminent, where no effective multilateral arms control or non-proliferation efforts are presently feasible, and where other technical avenues to reach the same scientific goal are (potentially) available. These criteria apply specifically to the production of bioactive compounds (pharmaceuticals, vaccines) in edible crops, but may also be relevant for some aspects of pharmacogenetics, were the generation of huge amounts of ethnic specific genetic data may be avoided by choosing other techniques that serve the same research purpose. The current ‘bioterrorism’ discussion in the scientific community focuses entirely on restricting the publication of certain research results. This is shortsighted, and may easily be abused to conceal illicit research, particularly since it may be better not to generate dangerous information in the first place. Full transparency in all aspects of biomedical research and development should be guaranteed.

The documents from the Pentagon, the White House, and even a cursory look at the kinds of work DARPA is sponsoring make it clear that the US strategy at this point is to go to the most dedly extremes possible in the pursuit of "preparedness" and "deterence." They have no ethical controls that I can determine. In fact, they have a whole suite of projects on using biotechnology to enhance the fighting forces (please note that the use of the term "warfighters" is DARPA's terminology) for example:

Continuous Assisted Performance (CAP) Allow "warfighters" to for up to 24 hours a day for 7 contiuous days.

Metabolic Engineering for Cellular Stasis Increase cellular repair and regeneration rate of winjured "warfighters."

Unconventional Pathogen Countermeasures Stopping contamination of soldiers through use of bioengineering.

Persistence in Combat (PIC) Allows soldiers to "self-repair" injuries and acute pain responses.

Brain Machine Interfaces Aimed at "augmenting human performance" by direct brain to machine interface - particularly for remote controlled activities.

The question that begs asking here is who the test subjects and "warfighters" will be. Will it be the children of Congress, or the White House, or the corporate moguls, or the richest 1%? Somehow I doubt it. Will the test subjects be taken from the millions the US places in prison, or those we ferret away for the duration of the unending "war on terrorism?" Will they be easily "disappeared" people in remote locations around the globe? Will they be the same composition of those serving and being recruited today - the poor and working class, the African, Latin, and Native Americans? Will the "army of one" truly be an army of one?

Does anybody remember the sci-fi movie "Universal Soldier?" I think that is what it was called. Runsfeld want's smaller strike forces for rapid insertion and response. Certainly a few batallions of "modified" troops would fit the bill. They won't need to sleep, they can interface directly with other devices (or perhaps the generals will interface with the modified troops), they self heal and don't feel pain. What more could you ask of a super grunt?

It is important to note, that the Pentagon's plan is to move outside the walls of usual military development and into the private sector. It is much more difficult to monitor and control things out there in private business - especially if you don't set up significant control systems. This approach makes the weapons race on in a big way. Not just on across national boundaries, but on in corporations to get those lucrative DoD contracts.

The Sunshine Project recommends "transparency." We have seen how "transparent" the government is under the best of times, but we are in an environment where the White House won't even release the list of who was consulted on the "energy" plan. What is the liklihood of transparency in biotech and high tech weapons development? My guess is not too likely.

Purportedly, the DoD is in this rush to lethality as a deterent measure. They claim that this demonstration of US might will not lead to an arms race. However, if we look at say the anthrax attacks in the US, that anthrax came from DoD labs. If we look at Hussein's bio-chem weapons (before they were apparently destroyed) they too came from the US (primarily). It seems logical that if we create it (even if no one else does) it will "get out." Certainly by utilizing competitive business strategies, the US will not be the only "buyer." This is a classic case of the snake swallowing its own tail. No one else even needs to be in the race - we will be racing against ourselves.

Pandering, Profiteering, or Prostitution?

November 17, 2003 is the 10th anniversary of the introduction of NAFTA. This agreement, along with its siblings (GATT, CAFTA, FTAA, etc), are symbolic of a process that has evolved to epic proportions - not just in the US, but globally. They are symbolic of growing corporate power, and they are symbolic of greed. While the dollars (or their national equivalent) flow copiously from peoples and nations into the grabbing hands of a few, the other piece is about power and control. We see this in terms of the privatize (meaning corporatize) everything mentality. We see it in the battles over Indian farmers' intellectual property rights, and cities and nations sovreignity rights. We see it in South American and African corporatization of fresh water supplies, and we see it in the corporatization of the criminal justice (sic) system in the US. Watch the news for contract awards in Iraq. Watch the news for the "energy" bill. Watch the news for the latest corporate/financial scandal. It is coming to light in the US and elsewhere, and we get apologist reports like Laxity of SEC, staff shortage led to the chaos from the Times of India - 11/17/03.

Perhaps particularly in the US, the linkage between politics and media has been the most obvious and the least challenged by the public. From the 1950s onward were the warnings of the Military-Industrial Complex. Smack in the middle, and in from the 1980s onward, was our elected representatives who have become increasingly dependent on corporate aid and have paid off at the expense of both the people and nation they represent. Laws have been loosened or eliminated, organizations meant to guard and protect (such as the EPA and SEC) have been underfunded, short staffed, or just blocked from pursuing their mandates. Under the Bush regime, the blatant placement of people who are vehemently against the very missions of the departments they head have been placed in power with a wink and a nod. The goal seems to be to get rid of the "impediments" to corporate rule.

Definitions:
Pandering a) catering to the lower tastes and instincts of others (Your Dictionary.com)
b) someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others (Merriam Webster) Synonym - pimp

Profiteering
"making what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency" (Merriam Webster)

Prostitution
"The act or an instance of offering or devoting one's talent to an unworthy use or cause." (yourdictionary.com) especially for money (Merriam Webster).

It is hard to pick the appropriate word for what has been going on. Have corporations and their minions pandered to the base personal interests of elected officials? Or have elected officials pandered to corporations with "take me" offers backed by ongoing legislative support? Is the corruption in contracting and legislation of the current US administration "good buddies" helping each other out, or is it performance for services already paid for, or is it simply profiteering?

The 11/14/03 show NOW, discussed the current Iraq procurement scandal. At its center is Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith - a highly connected "fixer" now in charge of all US contract awards for Iraq. In a related article by Jim Lobe, Crisis Of Feith (TomPaine, 11/17/03), the connections of Feith to Perle, Rumsfeld, and others, as well as an extended discussion of his role in Iraq. Meanwhile, Richard Perle was cleared of any wrong doing in his being on (much less the Chair) of the Defense Policy Board, while simulateneously consulting for the very companies seeking Defense contracts. I guess it had to work out this way or the house cleaning on "conflict of interest" would empty the halls of government - including the White House. (Maybe that is a good idea. If we could get a law through where those with a conflict of interest could not hold office - or be appointed to one.)

Household Names on the wrong side of the law (only a partial list)
Enron
Arthur Andersen
Global Crossing
Citibank
Merrill Lynch
Tyco
BCCI
NASDAQ
NYSE
WorldCom
Credit Suisse First Boston

Good Resources
Defense and the National Interest Chuck Spiney's site
Corporate Fraud from The News Trove
Corporate Watch
Financial Scandals from Roy Davies at the University of Exeter outstanding research and information site!!!

Forty Years of Lies

By: John Chuckman
[John's pieces appear in Counterpunch, Online Journal, Yellow Times, Media Monitors, Scoop, and many other sites. This was sent as a guest submission to Uncommon Thought. John Chuckman can be reached at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].]

Bertrand Russell's penetrating question, one of sixteen he asked at the time of the Warren Commission Report, remains unanswered after forty years. That should trouble Americans, but then again there are many things around national secrecy today that should trouble Americans.

The most timely lesson to be taken from the fortieth anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination concerns secrecy and the meaning of democracy in the world's most powerful nation. Perhaps no event better demonstrates the existence of two governments in the United States, the one people elect and another, often far more influential, as capable of imposing false history about large events as the fabled Ministry of Truth.

Since the time of the Warren Commission we have had the investigation of the House Select Committee and, in the last decade, the release of truckloads of previously-secret documents.

These documents were suppressed originally in the name of national security, but the fact is, despite their release, much of their content is heavily blacked out, and dedicated researchers know many documents remain unreleased, particularly documents from the CIA and military intelligence. Would any reasonable person conclude anything other than that those documents are likely the most informative and sensational?

Was it ever reasonable to believe that material of that nature would be included in document releases? Just a few years ago, records of some of the CIA's early Cold War activities, due for mandated release, were suddenly said to have "disappeared," and that declaration was pretty much the end of the story for a press regularly puffing itself as the fourth estate of American society. You do not have to believe in wild plots to recognize here the key to the Warren Commission's shabby job of investigation. As it was, several members of the Commission expressed private doubts about the main finding of Oswald as lone assassin.

There is a sense in these matters of being treated as a child sent to his or her room for not eating the spinach served. This is not so different to the way the American government treats its citizens about Cuba: it restricts them from spending money there so they cannot freely go and judge for themselves what is and isn't.

As it happens, the two things, Cuba and the assassination, are intimately related. Almost no one who studies the assassination critically can help but conclude it had a great deal to do with Cuba. No, I don't mean the pathetic story about Castro being somehow responsible. That idea is an insult to intelligence.

No matter what opinions you may hold of Castro, he is too clever and was in those days certainly too dedicated to the purpose of helping his people, according to his lights, ever to take such a chance. Even the slightest evidence pointing to Castro would have given the American establishment, fuming over communism like Puritan Fathers confronting what they regarded as demon possession, the excuse for an invasion.

There never has been credible evidence in that direction. Yet, there has been a number of fraudulent pieces of evidence, particularly the testimony of unsavory characters, claims so threadbare they have come and gone after failing to catch any hold, remaining as forgotten as last year's fizzled advertising campaign for some laundry detergent.

The notion that Castro had anything to do with the assassination is like an old corpse that's been floating around, slowly decomposing, periodically releasing gases for decades. And it is still doing so, Gus Russo's Live by the Sword of not many years ago being one of the most detailed efforts to tart-up the corpse and make it presentable for showing.

Any superficial plausibility to the notion of Castro as assassin derives from the poisonous atmosphere maintained towards him as official American policy. Researchers in science know that bias on a researcher's part, not scrupulously checked by an experiment's protocols, can seriously influence the outcome of an otherwise rigorous statistical study. How much more so in studies of history on subjects loaded with ideology and politics?

When you consider with what flimsy, and even utterly false, evidence the United States has invaded Iraq, it is remarkable that an invasion of Cuba did not proceed forty years ago. But in some ways the U.S. was less certain of itself then, it had a formidable opponent in the Soviet Union, and there was an agreement with the Soviets concerning Cuba's integrity negotiated to end the Cuban missile crisis, an agreement which deeply offended the small army of Cuban exiles, CIA men, and low-life hangers-on who enjoyed steady employment, lots of perquisites, and violent fun terrorizing Cuba.

Considering America's current crusade over the evils of terrorism, you'd have to conclude from the existence of that well-financed, murderous mob in the early 1960s that there was a rather different view of terror then. Perhaps there is good terror and bad terror, depending on just who does the wrecking and killing?

If you were a serious, aspiring assassin, associated with Castro and living in the United States during the early 1960s, you would not advertise your sympathies months in advance as Oswald did. You would not call any attention to yourself. It is hard for many today to have an adequate feel for the period, a time when declaring yourself sympathetic to Castro or communism could earn you a beating in the street, quite apart from making you the target of intense FBI interest. Oswald was physically assaulted for his (stagy) pro-Castro efforts in New Orleans, and he did receive a lengthy visit from the FBI while held briefly in jail, but this was not new interest from the agency since he was already well known to them.

Whatever else you may think of Castro, he is one of the cleverest and most able politicians of the second half of the twentieth century. He survived invasion, endless acts of terror and sabotage from the CIA and Cuban exiles, and numerous attempts at assassination, and he still retains a good deal of loyal support in Cuba. A man of this extraordinary talent does not use someone like Oswald to assassinate an American president. And if Castro had made such a mistake, he quickly would have corrected the error when Oswald made a (deliberate) fool of himself, over and over, in New Orleans well before the assassination, his actions there looking remarkably like the kind of provocateur-stuff a security service might use to elicit responses and identify the sympathies of others.

Oswald's (purported) visit to Mexico and clownish behavior in New Orleans laid the groundwork for the myth of Castro's involvement, and that almost certainly was one of the purposes of the activity, laying the groundwork for an invasion of Cuba. The motive for the assassination is likely found there. It is just silly to believe Castro risked handing the U.S. government a new "Remember the Maine."

In recent years, we've had Patrick Kennedy say he believes Castro was responsible, but his views on this matter are more like built-in reflexes than informed judgment. Besides broadcasting a tone agreeable to America's political establishment, his statement comes steeped in de' Medici-like conviction that Castro's success stained the honor of his ferociously ambitious family. Cross that family's path, and you earn a lifetime grudge. That's the way the family fortune's founder always behaved.

Robert Kennedy hated Castro (just as he hated other powerful competitors including Lyndon Johnson), and he took personal oversight of efforts to assassinate him. Robert also hated certain elements of the Mafia, who, after supporting his brother with money and influence in the election, felt betrayed by Robert's legal actions against them. The killing of Castro would have made all these people much happier, Havana having been one of the Mafia's gold mines before Castro. Interestingly enough, it appears that the FBI, under pressure from Robert, was at the same time making efforts to crackdown on the excesses of the Cuban refugees. Their excesses , including insane acts like shooting up Russian ships and killing Russian sailors in Cuban ports, threatened relations with the Soviet Union.

One of the centers of the FBI's crackdown effort was New Orleans, and that is where it appears clearest that Oswald worked for them. His defector background made him a logical candidate for provocative activities like handing out leaflets about Castro. At the same time he was offering his services as an ex-Marine to at least one of the refugee groups.

Oswald almost certainly had a minor role in American intelligence, an assumption that explains many mysterious episodes in his life. We know the Warren Commission discussed this in closed session. We also know Texas authorities believed they had discovered such a connection. And we know the FBI in Dallas destroyed important evidence.

If you're looking for Cuban assassins, why not some of those nasty refugee militia groups, armed to the teeth by the CIA and trained to terrorize Castro's government? They also terrorized their critics in Florida. The extensive preparations necessary for assassinating the President might have raised little suspicion from the CIA or FBI at a time when these groups, subsidized and protected by the CIA, were carrying out all kinds of violent, lunatic acts. There are strong parallels here with the suicide-bombers of 9/11, who undoubtedly eluded suspicion because the CIA had been regularly bringing into the country many shady characters from the Middle East to train for its dark purposes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Cuban extremists in Florida were furious over the Bay of Pigs and felt betrayed by Kennedy's terms for settling the missile crisis. You couldn't find a better explanation for the CIA's unhelpful behavior over the years since. Imagine the impact on the CIA, already badly damaged by the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy's great anger over it, of news that some of its subsidized anti-Castro thugs had killed the President?

I don't say that is what happened, only that there is at least one conjecture with far more force and substance than the official one. Assassination-theorizing is not one of my hobbies, but I have contempt for the official explanation, and it seems rather naive to believe that the American security establishment would have been satisfied with the insipid conclusions of the Warren Commission.

Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that the vast resources of American security and justice employed at the time - that is, those not concerned with kicking up dust into the public's eyes - were not able to identify the assassins and their purpose. Documents covering a surreptitious, parallel investigation almost certainly exist because what we know includes suggestions of two investigations intersecting at times. Perhaps, the best example of this is around the autopsy (discussed below).

Kicking-up dust around the assassination is an activity that continues intermittently to this day. In a piece a few years ago in the Washington Post about new Moscow documents on the assassination, a reporter wrote, "Oswald...defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 and renounced his American citizenship."

Oswald never renounced his citizenship, although he made a public show of wanting to do so. This was one of many theater-of-the-absurd scenes in the Oswald saga. We now know that on one of his visits to the American embassy in Moscow, Oswald was taken to an area reserved for sensitive matters, not the kind of business he was there to conduct.

The Soviets let him stay, never granting him citizenship, always treating him as an extraordinary outsider under constant scrutiny.

The Washington Post reporter also wrote, "Historians have expressed hope that the documents could shed light on whether Oswald schemed to kill Kennedy when he lived in the Soviet Union...." That begs the genuine question of whether Oswald killed Kennedy and kicks-up more dust. No historian of critical ability could think that way. The Soviets went out of their way at the time of the assassination to reassure the U.S. government that they had no connection with it. Any credible evidence they could produce, we may be absolutely sure, was produced. The stakes were immensely high.

The testimony of many Soviet citizens who knew Oswald agreed that he was a man temperamentally incapable of killing anyone. An exception was his (estranged) wife, Marina, who found herself, after the assassination, a Soviet citizen in a hostile country, able to speak little English, the mother of two young children with absolutely no resources, and hostage to American agents who could determine her destiny.

Even so accomplished and discerning a journalist as Daniel Schorr has assisted in kicking-up dust, writing some years ago at the release of more than a thousand boxes of memos and investigative reports from the national archives that there wasn't much there. Somehow, Schorr had managed to digest and summarize that monstrous amount of information in a very short time. Then again, in view of all the blacked-out information, maybe Schorr's assertion owed less to incredible skills at reading and digesting information than to serene confidence in the methods of the establishment.

Schorr went from the merely silly to the ridiculous with his assertion, "There remains no serious reason to question the Warren Commission's conclusion that the death of the president was the work of Oswald alone." How re-assuring, but, if you think about that for a moment, it is the equivalent of saying what never was proved has not now been disproved, so we'll regard it as proved - absurd, yet characteristic of so many things written about the assassination.

Schorr went on to praise Gerald Posner's new book, Case Closed, as "remov[ing] any lingering doubt." We'll come back to Posner's book, but Schorr also saw fit to trot out the then obligatory disparaging reference to Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Why would a piece of popular entertainment be mentioned in the same context as genuine historical documents? Only to associate the movie with Schorr's claim that the documents had little to say.

Every handsomely-paid columnist and pop news-celebrity in America stretched to find new words of contempt for the Stone movie, miraculously, many of them well before its release. The wide-scale, simultaneous attack was astonishing. You had to wonder whether they had a source sending them film scraps from the editing room or purloined pages from the script. When Stone's movie did appear - proving highly unsatisfactory, almost silly, in its explanation of the assassination - you had to wonder what all the fuss had been about.

I was never an admirer of President Kennedy - still, the most important, unsolved murder of the 20th century, apart from the lessons it offers, is a fascinating mystery for those who've studied it.

The President's head movement at the impact of the fatal shot, clearly backward on the Zapruder film, a fact lamely rationalized by the Warren Commission, is not the only evidence for shots from the front. In the famous picture of Mrs. Kennedy reaching over the back of the car, she was, by her own testimony, reaching for a piece of the President's skull. Equally striking is the testimony of a police outrider, to the rear of the President's car, that he was struck forcefully with blood and brain tissue.

The doctors who worked to save the President at Parkland Hospital in Dallas said that the major visible damage to the President was a gaping wound near the rear of the skull, the kind of wound that typically reflects the exit of a bullet with the shock wave generated by its passing through layers of human tissue. We've all seen a plate glass window struck by a B-B where a tiny entrance puncture results in a large funnel-shaped chunk of cracked or missing glass on the opposite side.

The President's head wound, as described in Dallas, is not present in published autopsy photographs. Instead, there is a pencil-thin entrance-type wound in an unknown scalp. Although the Secret Service agent, Clint Hill, who climbed aboard the President's car after the shots, testified to seeing a large chunk of skull in the car and looking into the right rear of the President's head, seeing part of his brain gone, the autopsy photos show no such thing.

The wound at the front of the President's neck, just above his necktie, which was nicked by the bullet, was regarded by those first treating him in Dallas as an entrance wound since it had the form of a small puncture before a tracheotomy was done. But the throat wound in the published autopsy photos is large and messy.

The nature of the pathologists forcefully raises Russell's question. Why would you need military pathologists, people who must follow orders? Ones especially that were not very experienced in gunshot wounds, far less so than hospital pathologists in any large, violent American city? Why conduct the autopsy at a military hospital in Washington rather than a civilian one in Dallas? Why have the pathologists work with a room full of Pentagon brass looking on? The President's body was seized at gunpoint by federal agents at the hospital in Dallas where the law required autopsy of a murder victim. Why these suspicious actions and so many more, if the assassination, as the Warren Commission and its defenders hold, reduces to murder by one man for unknown motives?

The autopsy, as published, was neither complete nor careful, rendering its findings of little forensic value. There is some evidence, including testimony of a morgue worker and references contained in an FBI memo, pointing to autopsy work, particularly work to the President's head, done elsewhere before receipt of the body for the official autopsy, but no new documents expand on this. We do learn the relatively trivial fact that the expensive bronze casket, known to have been damaged at some point in bringing it to Bethesda, was disposed of by sinking in the ocean, but the morgue worker said the bronze casket arriving with Mrs. Kennedy was empty and that the body, separately delivered in a shipping casket, displayed obvious signs of work done to it. The FBI memo, written by two agents at the "earlier stages" of the official autopsy, states that the unwrapped body displayed "surgery of the head area." The same FBI agents also signed a receipt for a mysterious "missile removed" by one pathologist.

The official autopsy avoided some standard procedures. For example, the path of the so-called magic bullet through the President's neck was not sectioned. A mysterious back wound, whose placement varies dramatically from the hole in the President's jacket (a fact officially explained by an improbable bunching-up of the jacket), was probed but no entrance into the body cavity found. The preserved brain - what there was of it, and with its telltale scattering of metal fragments - later went missing. One of the pathologists admitted to burning his original draft before writing the report we now see.

The Warren Commission did no independent investigation (it did not even examine the autopsy photos and x-rays), adopting instead the FBI as its investigative arm at a time when the FBI had many serious matters to explain. The FBI had failed to have Oswald's name on its Watch List even though they were completely familiar with him, seeing him at intervals for unexplained reasons. His name even had appeared earlier in an odd internal FBI advisory memo signed by Director Hoover. The FBI also had failed to act appropriately on an explicit threat from a known source recorded well before Kennedy went to Dallas. And the agency destroyed crucial evidence.

With a lack of independent investigation and the absence of all proper court procedures including the cross-examination of witnesses, the Warren Report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief, and a sloppy one at that, with a finding of guilt in the absence of any judge or jury. The only time the skimpy evidence against Oswald was considered in a proper court setting, a mock trial by the American Bar Association in 1992, the jury was hung, 7 to 5.

Oswald's background is extraordinary. By the standards of the 1950s and early 1960s, aspects of his life simply make no sense if viewed from the official perspective. Here was a Marine, enlisted at 17, who mysteriously started learning Russian, receiving communist literature through the mail, and speaking openly to other Marines about communism - none of which in the least affected his posting or standing.

He became a defector to the Soviet Union, one who reportedly threatened to give the Soviets information about operations of the then top-secret U-2 spy plane. Some even assert he did provide such information, making it possible for a Soviet missile to down Gary Power's U-2 plane just before the Eisenhower-Khrushchev summit. Unlikely as that is, for Oswald would certainly have been treated harshly on his return to the United States were it true, he did know some important facts about the U-2's capabilities, because this Russian-studying, communist literature-reading Marine was posted at a secret U-2 base in Japan as a radar operator before his defection.

At a time when witch-hunting for communists was a fresh memory and still a career path for some American politicians, Oswald returned to the U.S. with a Russian wife, one whose uncle was a lieutenant colonel in the MVD, the Ministry of the Interior, but the CIA and other security agencies supposedly took little interest in him. Oswald's source of income in the U.S. at critical times remains a mystery. A mystery, too, surrounds the connections of this young man of humble means to some well-heeled, anti-Soviet Russian speakers in Dallas after his return from the Soviet Union. His later ability to get a passport for travel to Mexico in just 24 hours - with a personal history that must have ranked as one of the most bizarre in the United States - is attributed to "clerical error."

Oswald, so far as we know, was a patriotic individual when he joined the Marines. There is no evidence that he was ever actually a communist or member of any extremist organization. In fact, there is striking evidence suggesting he did work supporting the opposite interest after his return to the United States. Thus the address on some of the "Fair Play for Cuba" pamphlets he distributed in New Orleans was the office of Guy Bannister, a former senior FBI agent and violent anti-communist, still well-connected to the agency.

Oswald's connections with the FBI have never been satisfactorily examined. There are many circumstances suggesting his being a paid informant for the FBI, especially during his time in New Orleans. A letter Oswald wrote to a Dallas agent just before the assassination was deliberately and recklessly destroyed by order of the office's senior agent immediately after the assassination with no reasonable explanation.

One way or another, all the major police or intelligence agencies were compromised during the assassination or its investigation. The Secret Service performed abysmally, in both planning the motorcade and responding to gun fire. Some of the agents on duty had actually been out late drinking the night before, as it happens at a bar belonging to an associate of Jack Ruby, Oswald's own assassin. The performance of the Dallas police suggests terrible corruption. The FBI failed in vital respects before and after the assassination. The CIA failed to cooperate on many, many details of the investigation. These facts understandably encourage the more farfetched assassination theories.

The CIA has never released its most important information on Oswald, importantly including documentation of his supposed activities in Mexico City at the Cuban and Russian embassies where every visitor was routinely photographed and identified by the CIA. We may speculate what a thorough vetting of CIA files would show: likely that Oswald was a low-grade intelligence agent during his stint in the Soviet Union, perhaps working for military intelligence to collect information on day-to-day living conditions and attitudes there, one of several men sent for the purpose at that time; that he was trained at an American military school in basic Russian and encouraged to build a quickie communist identity by subscribing to literature and talking foolishly before defecting. We would also likely find that he was serving American security, probably the FBI, during the months before Dallas in the murky world of CIA/FBI/Cuban refugee/Mafia anti-Castro activities; and that in the course of that anti-Castro work, he was sucked without realizing it into an elaborate assassination plot, offering the plotters, with his odd background, a tailor-made patsy. The CIA assessment of Oswald would likely show, just as testimony from his time in the Soviet Union shows, that Oswald was not capable psychologically of acting as an assassin, lone or otherwise.

The case against Oswald is a flimsy tissue. It includes a poor autopsy of the victim offering no reliable evidence; a rifle whose ownership is not established; a rifle never definitively proved to have actually killed the President; a claim that jacketed bullets were used, a type of ammunition that could not possibly cause the kind of wounds to which many testify; the accused's record of mediocre marksmanship in the Marines; a parafin test which showed no residue on his cheek despite his supposedly firing three shots from a bolt-action rifle; a single palm print claimed to have been obtained from the rifle after earlier failed attempts; gimmicky, suggestive photographs of Oswald with a rifle declared montages by several experts; a completely unacceptable evidence chain for the shell casings from the site of Officer Tippit's shooting, those submitted as evidence being almost certainly not those found at the scene; a bizarre history for the bullets supposed to have killed Tippet; an illogical weighting of witnesses who told different stories about Tippit's shooting; plus many other strange and contradictory details.

Moreover, Oswald had no motive, having expressed admiration for Kennedy. And Oswald was promptly assassinated himself by Jack Ruby, a man associated with the murky world of anti-Castro violence, someone whose past included gun-running to Cuba and enforcer-violence in Chicago.

There is a kind of cheap industry in publishing assassination books, most of which are superficial or silly. This fact makes it easy to attack credible efforts to question the official story, but in this respect the subject is no different from others. Just look at the shelves of superficial or trashy books on psychology, business management, or self-help available in bookstores.

Russell's question echoes again and again down the decades as adjustments are made to the official story. Employing techniques one expects to be used for covering up long-term intelligence interests, various points raised by early independent researchers like Joachim Joesten or Mark Lane, have been conceded here or there along the way without altering the central finding. This is an effective method: concede details and appear open to new facts while always forcefully returning to the main point.

A significant writer along these lines is Jacob Epstein, an author whose other writing suggests intelligence connections. His first book on the assassination, Inquest, conceded numerous flaws in the Warren Report. Epstein went on in subsequent books, Counterplot and Legend to attack at length - and for the critical reader, quite unconvincingly - ideas of conspiracy, Oswald's intelligence connections, and his innocence.

The Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1979, was the grandest effort of this type. The Committee was used for selective leaks and plants, as for example the publication of some bootlegged autopsy photos, which ended by raising only more questions. Leads often were not followed-up, greatly frustrating some of the able investigators employed. The Committee squandered the last opportunity to pursue an independent, well-financed investigation - last, in the sense of never again being able to overcome the inertia against assembling the needed resources and authorities and in the sense that with passing time evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and witnesses die. Despite the Committee's attention-getting conclusion from technical analysis of an old Dictabelt recording that a shot probably was fired from the front, it also concluded that the shot missed, a truly bizarre finding that welds hints of conspiracy to yet another assertion that Oswald was the only killer.

Gerald Posner's Case Closed, 1993, was another of these. You couldn't help noticing this lamentable book being widely reviewed and praised. Why would that be? Because, without producing any new evidence and despite a number of errors, it freshly re-packaged the main speculations of the Warren Report, but no repackaging of the Report's jumble of partial facts, guesses, and accusations can strengthen its conclusions. You can't build a sound house with large sections of the foundation missing.

Priscilla Johnson's Marina and Lee,1980 , was another kind of book, one of several resembling the kind of quickie books churned out to discredit Anita Hill in the Judge Clarence Thomas confirmation. Ms. Johnson managed to interview Oswald in Russia - I wonder what connections might have made that possible? - and later used that fact to gain access to Oswald's widow, Marina. Impressing many who had heard her as a distracted and confused person, Marina was a woman who had been subjected to immense, frightening pressure from the FBI and other security services after the assassination. The book is an almost unreadable hatchet-job on Oswald's character, effectively diminishing the image that comes through many photographs and anecdotes of a rather naïve, brash, sometimes rude but not unlikable young man caught up in events he incompletely understood.

The official story of the assassination remains pretty much unchanged from just a few days after events of forty years ago: one man with an almost broken-down rifle, no expertise, no resources, and no motive killed the President, and he was himself killed by a man with the darkest background simply out of sympathy for the President's wife. Those with no vested interest and critical faculties intact can never accept such a fable explaining the brutal work of a well-planned conspiracy.

Now, the really horrifying possibility is that the security agencies never discovered the assassins despite vast efforts. That means officials hold tenaciously to the Oswald story to cover national nakedness. The FBI has a long and shabby record of blunders and going after the wrong people, and when you think of the CIA's many failures assessing the capabilities and approaching demise of the Soviet Union, the many failures in Vietnam, and its miserable failure around 9/11, that is not a farfetched possibility. The answer to Russell's question then becomes that national security indeed applies, if only in the unexpected form of hiding miserable failure.

But if you can write false history of an event so large as a Presidential assassination, what truly are the limits?

A "new" direction in Iraq

One might think that so many lies have been floated, that the regime might want to just keep it simple and tell the truth. Apparently not. All over the news is the big Iraq policy shift to accelerate the transfer of Iraq to the Iraqi's. Really? The CPA (hand picked by the US) is a being labeled a failure, so now the process will be somehow be sped up. It is not clear what that might look like at this point. However, a political transition speed up is not the only one in place. We have also sped up and then sped up again, the training of Iraqi's to take over police, border, and military efforts.

One can view these changes in a variety of lights, all of which might be somewhat accurate. We could say that this is showing the success of the anti-war groups pressure, reinforced by Democratic political campaigning which has resulted in a massive slip in the polls for Bush. One might say that the escalation of violence in Iraq with the consequence of increasing loss of US troops increases the urgency (even though Bush still shys away from acknowledging it). One could say that it is the fact that the "coalition" is falling apart and that the international community is not stepping in to save the bacon (so to speak). But waht is clear is that even in the face of all the bad news, the regime is continuing to down play the issues.

While the news breaks that the CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists (Pincus, Wa. Post, 11/16/03) and another invasion justification bites the dust, the US head of Central Command, General John Abizaid, claims that the force causing all the violence is only composed of 5000 Iraqi guerillas (Wilkinson, The Age, 11/15/03). Unfortunately, this is 90% fewer than the CIA estimates of 50,000 "insurgents" <'We could lose this situation' (Borger & McCarthy, Guardian, 11/13/03). Hmm.

So the "experts" don't agree and apparently didn't learn to count in the same place. We also have discrepancies coming from among military leaders who are in Iraq. We have General Swannack, in charge of the "Sunni triangle" saying that Hussein planned an insurgency all along - pointing to the massive weapons caches being found all over the place, and 'General Abizaid dismissed this analysis, saying: "I think Saddam Hussein is one of the most incompetent military leaders in the history of the world. To give him any credit, to think that somehow or other he planned this, is absolutely beyond my comprehension" (Wilkinson). Abizaid also has communication problems with the CIA claiming "It is clear that they all understand that they cannot militarily defeat the United States of America," he said. "Any CIA person I have spoken to, and I've spoken to all of them, they also know that we can't be defeated militarily." (Wilkinson) It is clear from the Borger and McCarty article above that CIA sources certainly <,b>do believe the US could lose militarily:

One military intelligence assessment now estimates the insurgents' strength at 50,000. Analysts cautioned that such a figure was speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe.

An intelligence source in Washington familiar with the CIA report described it as a "bleak assessment that the resistance is broad, strong and getting stronger".

"It says we are going to lose the situation unless there is a rapid and dramatic change of course," the source said.

"There are thousands in the resistance - not just a core of Ba'athists. They are in the thousands, and growing every day. Not all those people are actually firing, but providing support, shelter and all that."

So the US forced a "regime change" to oust Hussein and now are being forced to have another "regime change" to remove the CPA. It seems unlikely that the next "government" in Iraq will be any less protective of US interests than the current one is. It is clear that the intent here is to have the US forces be ssen as helpful "guests" rather than an "occupation force," but I doubt that Iraqi's will be so easily persuaded. What if the "new" government in Iraq told the US to get out. Is there really any doubt as to what the response would be?

There is great danger for Iraqi's and the international aid groups and US forces in "putting the pedal to the metal" in Iraq. The thrusting of massive numbers of under-trained Iraqi police and troops into the fray could escalate the violence. It could also put large numbers of potential "insurgents" in the midst of US forces.

In an excellent article by Timonthy Phelps in News day (Dimming Hopes for Democracy Phelps, Newsday, 11/16/03), the following quote provides some interesting insights into the situation:

"Democracy by itself is almost a recipe for civil war" in Iraq, said Anthony Cordesman, a former U.S. intelligence official who just returned from a tour of Iraq.

After urgent meetings at the White House with Paul Bremer, who is effectively the U.S. governor of Iraq, the United States decided last week to put the chicken before the egg and transfer power to the Iraqis first, and ask them to write a constitution and hold new elections under the new rules.

The danger with that, says constitutional scholar Noah Feldman, is that the constitution might never get written and new elections might never be held.

"If a provisional government is brought to power by the U.S. without elections, that government would have no incentive to push through with the writing of a new constitution [that could] only constrain it and require an election" that might end up displacing it, said Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for Bremer in Iraq until the summer as an adviser on constitutional issues.

Note that what is suggested here is another US government selected government - much as with Afghanistan, where things have also not been going well. It is clear from the above analysis that the facade of Iraqi control is much more important than the actuality. The hopes for a democracy in Iraq seem very dim at this point. And a US exit strategy is also very dim.

Deb Reichman (Mercury News, 11/15/03) sums up the situation nicely:

In a remarkably short time, the United States has radically shifted its policy in Iraq, opting to hand power quickly to an interim government that it hopes can mend sharp ethnic divides, calm a growing insurgency and serve as a democratic model for a volatile region.

But the new policy still leaves unanswered key questions that have bedeviled American efforts in Iraq, including how to create a new elected body without worsening tensions simmering between the majority Shiite population and the Sunni minority, which includes Saddam Hussein - wherever he is. Not to mention how to end the U.S. occupation and eventually bring American soldiers home.

At first the Bush administration insisted on keeping a tight grip on power in Iraq, insisting that the Iraqi Governing Council write a constitution as a way to make sure that Iraqis put a truly democratic system in place. But the rising tide of violence - the U.S. death toll topped 400 on Saturday - and the fractured council's failure to get a constitution in the works, apparently forced the administration's hand. (Bush Policy Shift Opens New Iraq Chapter)

So what have we got? I would predict that there will be no true US "exit" from Iraq (under our current regime) unless there are powers in place that will clearly protect US "interests" in the region. Further, that like Afghanistan, Iraq could rapidly end up in the middle of a "civil war." This would certainly not "stabilize" the area for the extraction of resources nor the protection of US corporations raking in the millions in contracts. It would however, provide ongoing support for a continued heavy US presence in Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't think that was the initial Bush & Co. plan. I believe that they had hoped for a quick overthrow of power and control in Iraq with the privatization of oil resources in the hands of US companies. I believe that the plan was then to move rapidly and militarily through the region implanting US puppet governments in their wake. Getting "bogged down" in Iraq was definitely not part of "the plan."

It is clear from foreign policy a la Bush and Co. that US hegemony is on thei9r minds. I am sure that by the 2004 elections, that all of this nastiness would be a slam dunk and the issue of a second term to finish the job would not have been necessary - though it would be nice. Now, the situation -- both in Iraq and in the US -- is very different than the script. Certainly huge profits are being made by some, but the larger plan of empire is hitting a few bumps in the road. I don't believe that the regime wants things different (other than it would have been nice if Iraq just rolled over) as much as they want it to "look" different. Therefore, the spin machine is in full gear with "it's not a policy change, it's just and acceleration of the plan." Meanwhile, the conflicting reports and statements from within the regime become more and more obvious. Certainly those in the White House are all following a story line at this point - in fact they are essentially giving the same speech at every opportunity - those further removed are giving conflicting assessments and appraisals. We'll just have to wait and see whether the constant repetition of misinformation works again.

Pacifica Radio Benefit

Pacifica Radio is opening their archives in a fund raising effort. THey will broadcast from the archives messages courage, resistance, and vision. For the scheduled broadcasts, and to donate go to Pacifica Radio Benefit

No wonder the polls are weird

I just spent a couple of days in Grants Pass Oregon at a conference. While I was there I had the opportunity to try and find some news worth watching. What I found was truly unsettling.

The news that I saw, even from the cable news channels, was different from what I am used to seeing in Portland. Maybe it was a freak event, but what I saw (over and over) was 1) food, 2) sports, 3) Kobe Bryant trial, 4) Victoria's Secret fashion show, 5) combinations of the above. For example, on the local news their was a 10 minute piece on the football team's annual pig out (or something to that effect).

As I bemusedly flipped through the various channels available, I thought "surely something must be happening out there besides this stuff." Most of what I saw was fluff not substance. The "local" channel had a variety of purchased clips that are sold to all the channels (the recreated studies and "medical" information). There were lots of info-mercials.

After watching this stuff for a while, it became obvious why more folks in the US aren't in an uproar over what is happening in the world - they don't know it is happening. Or they may be numbed out by what is being passed off as "news." Maybe, it was just a fluke? I could hope so, but I know that there was really major stuff happening in the world. As far as the "news" went in southern Oregon, it was all quiet everywhere ... oh yeah those are some models they had for the Victoria's Secret fashion show.

Other Fears: The Naming of Our Disconnect

We live in frightening and unstable times. War with deadly weapons may start at any moment and spiral out of control. Plagues can emerge from nowhere and travel the globe in two or three days. The earth shudders on the verge of being unable to support its inhabitants.

Is this a natural consequence – a time that has run its course? Is it the action of a divine power that has decided to clean house? Is it a predictable consequence of patterns of thought and behavior? Or is it the result of manipulation by some with ulterior motives?

My guess is that it is in part a predictable consequence and in part a manipulation. At base is the seemingly human ability to disconnect ourselves from each other and from the world in which we live. Humans are capable of incredible levels of compassion and selflessness. We are also capable of unbelievable levels of brutality.

One might ask what triggers either the compassion or the brutality. I believe it has to do with our feelings of connection … and our fear. When our sense of connection weakens, or even breaks, then literally anything is possible – even if it potentially leads to our own destruction.

Fear can serve as a lever of connection or disconnection. Fear can cause us to embrace those with whom we normally feel little or no sense of connection. For example, strangers helping each other in a disaster. Or it can cause us to spurn those with whom we feel significant connection. For example, parents who reject a child for being gay, or rejecting a friend for a breach of faith.

This idea of connection or disconnection lies at the heart of the most basic “us versus them” mentality. It lies at the heart of what is sometimes called the creation of the “other.” It lies at the heart of objectification. Many societies and ideologies are built on the foundation of distinguishing “us” from “them.” The classic distinction of “man versus nature,” or “human versus animal,” lies at the base of so called “Western” societies. This was refined early in written history of the West with the further separation of “mind” from “body.”

Objectification is by definition removing something from the inherent wholeness of life, and placing it as distinct from the objectifier. This is an intellectual process that fundamentally separates the objectified from the objectifier. The process is not one of simply recognizing others, but of creating “others.” The “objects” created may be desirable or despicable; utilitarian or worthless. Regardless of the value assigned, the importance rests in the fact that we create them - or allow them to be created. Objectification, at its base, places objects relative to the objectifier. It is never a neutral process, but one which constructs the mental landscape which finds its reality in small and large choices and actions.

In US mainstream society the process of making “others” has a long history. The natural world is seen as an “other” to be controlled and utilized to “our” benefit. Non-“white” people are seen as “others” with an assumed relative position less than that of “whites.” Women are seen as “others” with an assumed value less than men. Non-Americans are seen as “others” who may be friends or enemies, but are always competitors relative to “our” interests, and perceived “rights.”

This otherness aspect of objectification removes the essence of the objectified and replaces it with a meaning and valuation that allows us to “rationally” disconnect from the object. The valuation places the objectified in the conceptual landscape relative to ourselves.

So the fact that we live in frightening times becomes a “predictable consequence” of our patterns of thought and behavior. But what of the manipulation? Manipulation of the meaning and positions of an objectified world is used by those who want to advance their interests. The manipulation can be through comission or omission - what is, or is not, told. It can be through active assigning of meaning. It frequently involves the naming of things. It combines all of these. For example, the chemical industry knew the health hazards of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) while 1) telling workers there was no problem, 2) keeping hazards secret from both government and the public, 3) extending the market for PVC, and 4) marketing the wonders of PVC. Omission, comission, decisions made.

Likewise, the Bush administration plays upon the mainstream ideological landscape. On one hand playing to the pride of US greatness, and on the other, playing to the fear of losing that place. This is reflected in such often repeated clichés of “either with us or against us,” or the naming of those deemed as a threat as “evil doers” and the “axis of evil.” Then making the historical and cultural link of naming the policy the “war on terrorism” and referring to it as a “crusade.” We are now accustomed to the construction of boogie men, and the absorption of whole peoples under their umbra. These objectified others (Afghans, Iraqi’s, Arabs, Muslims, and Islam itself) are threatening objects to be removed - “no matter what the cost .” The goals are purportedly “safety” and “democracy,” and the people killed and injured along the way are “collateral damage.”

This Administration has made a career out of creative naming and allusion. The US could not get support for a preemptive invasion of Iraq so we bought a “coalition of the willing” and defended ourselves through “regime change.” We have “smart bombs,” and not so smart but cutely named “daisy-cutter” bombs. We have the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act which sounds uplifting but stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” Or in a different vein, naming a policy that reduces clean air standards the “Clear Sky Initiative,” or one that ultimately reduces funding for public education the “Leave No Child Behind Act.” Or naming the new, tougher, version of welfare reform “P.R.I.D.E.” (Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone). And likewise, they have done an excellent job of garnering support for their policies through the politics of fear and disconnection.

This allows, indeed almost forces, a fundamental disconnect that allows atrocity and the unthinkable. It garners support for destruction of real peoples and the lands where they live, and a policy of preemption with nuclear (and other) weapons. It promotes these disconnections as both a justified position based on protecting ourselves, and a “right” due to our relative position to the (objectified) rest of the world. And the sound bite becomes, “the best offence is a good defense.” All of this creates a bizarre conceptual landscape where people can simultaneously pat themselves on the back for “liberating the people of Iraq” while supporting the destruction of those same people. Or we believe the war is wrong, but once the troops are in action we must support the war to “support the troops.” Or we drill into soldiers an objectification of the “enemy” so they can “do what is necessary,” then are horrified when those same troops engage in massacres and trophy taking, or come home and engage in “inappropriate behavior.”

If disconnection at many levels is creating this frightening time, then the solution becomes rebuilding connection. As objectification is an ongoing part of this process, we must first change the meanings and conceptual landscapes. This is fundamental to returning “objects” to themselves and in reconnecting to the whole. What is patently assumed, and therefore overlooked, in objectification is that the objectifier also becomes a disconnected object. This is not a process of actor and acted on, or verb and subject, or real versus constructed. All become subsumed - the objects as well as the objectifier. Therefore, another strategy is to expose the object we have become. Such exposure may shock us into reconnection to the essence from which we have disconnected.

Ranting - opinions and constructed opinions

Do you get tired of the comment "it's all a matter of opinion?" Sometimes it's an attitude and comes out differently. It has become such a pervasive response, the sociologist in me is intrigued. Is there something else underlying this attitude that nothing is real, it's only what we think about it that counts? And if it's only what we think about it that counts and everybody has "their own opinion" then the conversation becomes rather circular. Don't you think?

Is this a reflection of the blurring between reality and fiction that seems to have happened in the media? You know, where the news becomes entertainment and entertainment apes the news? Where "reality TV" seems focused on people vomiting, or reenactments of police raids? Where a movie is seen as truth (such as "Wag the Dog") and news is now an opinion (such as O'Reilly Factor)? I even heard a pundit say in response to CBS pulling the Reagan mini-series something to the effect that "today's youth are so media savvy that they know not to believe anything they see on tv." I wish I thought that were true, but my faith in the "savviness" of the population - young or old, rich or poor, with college degrees or without - is at an all time low. I think that people believe what they hear and what they see and that is why manipulation and misinformation is such a BIG DEAL.

Which brings us to a strange conumdrum. If people think that everything is a matter of opinion, but are still broadly convinced by the media about what is "real," then does what is "real" become a concensus of opinion? Or does it become a matter of belief? The sociologist would say that this is a process of the construction of reality and the basis of consensus that shapes societies. If we look at this phenomenon through that lens, then the issue of power becomes critical. In other words, whose presentation of reality has valence?

But there is another weird dynamic at play here. That is that people (lots of them) believe the massaged facts to be true. Anyone who shares that perception of "truth" then knows what is real, but anyone who doesn't share that "truth" either has an "opinion" or is simply "uninformed."

This plays out in the most amazing ways. Global warming (or republican speak "climate change") is a simple matter of opinion. Whether there should be stronger or weaker environmental standards and controls is a matter of opinion. Whether the public has a right to a "safety net" in terms of health, housing, or food, is a matter of opinion. In large part it is a bogus argument based upon the idea that these things affect "other people" not the ones being asked. In other words, "it's a matter of opinion" can also be a stance of privilege.

It someone thinks that the effects of toxins in the environment is a matter of opinion, then ask them if they want to rent out their back yard as a toxic waste site. If someone thinks that a minimum wage is a matter of opinion ask them how they would feel about trying to raise a family, or their children trying to survive independently, on the current minimum wage. If people argue that the poor being poor is "their own damn fault," then ask them what should be done about the children of the poor? They had no choice and they too are part of our collective future. If someone is against abortion in any situation, ask them how many children they are willing to adopt and support ?

Somehow, when it comes down to a lot of issues, it is rarely a "matter of opinion." It is often a matter of privilege and it is often a matter of "comfort." By "comfort " I mean that it takes less responsibility to go along, and demands less change from the individual.

Part of the problem with the current "construction of reality" is that is so obviously not based on what is real. It is a manufacturing of reality - not a process of social concensus. However, it is clear that the hope is that the concensus that emerges will fit the manufacturers' purposes.

To Bloggers - spam notice

THose of you who are bloggers may be using MT Blacklist to help protect your sites from being spammed (I am). Anyway, Jay Allen the creator of MT-Blacklist has put out a request for help with the Spam Clearing House. Below is the text of his message:

Hello MT-Blacklist users,

I am writing this email to ask for your help in publicizing the Comment Spam Clearinghouse (http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/).
It seems that since moving all of the MT-Blacklist and comment spam discussions off of my main blog and into it's new home, I have accidently lost people who were looking for updates in the old place.

Currently, I am seeing signs of comment spam picking up just in the last week and unfortunately, there are many spam URLs being plastered all over websites that are not currently on the master blacklist. As I have stated, while I maintain this central blacklist, I will not be reckless and add new domains without several
direct submissions from users.

Therein lies the problem as I have outlined on
http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/2003/11/submit_your_spam

Hence, I ask your help to publicize the Comment Spam Clearinghouse,
especially regarding these three points:

1) Submitting your spam strengthens the protection for everyone.
Spam submission can be done here:
http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/submit

2) There are RSS feeds that you can (and should) subscribe to that help you stay updated on changes. Alternatively, you could simply refresh your list periodically with the master blacklist entries.

3) The Comment spam clearinghouse is NOT Movable Type specific. Spam is a community-wide problem and the blacklist can be used by anyone on any platform. More will follow in the coming weeks regarding an effort to broaden the base of protection to other weblogging platforms.

Veterans Day 2003 and the Rancid Meat in the White House

The following article is posted on BuzzFlash today. I am posting the first part, and encourage you to follow the link to the article to finish it. It is written by a Vet disabled in the Persian Gulf War.

Veterans Day 2003 and the Rancid Meat in the White House
By: Sean Lewis
Contemporary observance of Veterans Day started as "Armistice Day," November 11, 1918, in celebration of the end of World War I, "the war to end all wars," as it was known at the time. After the second "war to end all wars," the U. S. Congress changed this annual recognition of World War I veterans, and tribute to the Peace they secured, to "Veterans Day." In its present form, Veterans Day is intended to honor and show respect for all American veterans, from all wars, as well as from times of peace, though we have seen too few of those. In short, it is a day of thanks. This Veterans Day, 2003, is to be a most solemn observance; perhaps the most solemn in the memories of many young people. Certainly for me it is the saddest Veterans Day since I was discharged from the Army in 1993.

As has been the tradition since the days of Harry S. Truman, the President is scheduled to visit Arlington National Cemetery to place a wreath at The Tomb of the Unknowns. Undoubtedly, he will make some remarks from a prepared statement, serving up platitudes to the country, to veterans, to those presently serving, and to the honored dead. the words "service," "sacrifice," and "patriotism" are sure to pepper his speech; seasoning for the palate of a nation at war and hungry for leadership. But for many, this seasoning shall be like too much salt on already rancid meat, unable to cover up the sour, acrid taste that lies beneath. Under this conjured spice of rhetoric and platitude, a personal and political history of contempt for this nation and her military belie the true taste of this putrid meal being served to the American People.

To sample this spoiled meat, dear reader, one need but continue on.

continue reading at BuzzFlash

Today is Veterans Day

Over 7500 soldiers have been wounded since April in Iraq is the well written story at TruthOut in a piece by Esther Shrader (NY Times, 11/09/03) on the wounded and their reception at US Military hospitals. The average age of the wounded is 23 years old. The death toll would be higher if not for the Kevlar protective vests, but burns and amputations are still a problem. The article is good, but it also made me angry. Not just angry because of the number of dead and wounded in our little attempt at colonization, but what was left out of the story.

Let's take that protective gear (and just general gear) One would think that the Military provides for active duty troops right? Wrong. Remember the story by Copp and Wherman at Rense.com - US Troops Dig Into Own Pockets To Pay For Gear (9/12/03)? Or Body Armor Rushed To Troops ( American Forces Press Service 11/1/03) which says the Army hopes to get body armor to all the troops who need them before December.

Or how about those wounded who are being treated so well at US Miltary institutions? Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor (Benjamin, UPI, 10/17/03). Or the follow-up on other bizarre things that are felling the forces such as Mystery blood clots felling U.S. troops (Benjamin, UPI, 10/08/03); or Army probes soldier suicides (Zoroya, USA Today, 10/13/03).; or the mystery pneumonia experienced by troops in Iraq (Waterhouse, Post-Tribune, 11/11/03)?

Of course this is not to mention the cuts in pay, the emergency tour extensions, the reductions in benefits, troops on leave having to pay their own air fare home, wounded having to pay for their own food while hospitalized, or upteen other indecenties that have taken place over the last 6 months. Many of the cuts in services effect those who have served in earlier conflicts. The cuts to the VA, the axing of education benefits, the cutting of counseling services and reintegration services. Oh Yeah, let's honor the troops.

My guess is that most Vets want more than a pat on the back ans a little US flag for the service they have performed for the nation. More than words and pretty displays are needed here. Some substance and respect from their former (or current) employer - the US Government - would be nice ... and the "right thing to do." But that is not what is happening.

I am not pro-military (as it is structured), and I am not pro-US policy that sends troops to kill and be killed for fat cats and corporations. But that is not what soldiers think they are doing. They believe they are fighting for us. They are certainly facing tremendous hardship and loss in our name. For that, they deserve to be compensated, and that compensation is a lifetime obligation - their lifetime and their families. They deserve a fair shake, not a raw deal. They are getting the latter, and current policy is making it a rawer deal than any have a right to expect.

The troops are not equipment to be thrown on the junk pile when they are broken or no longer needed. They are not "expendable" and they are not cheap "commodities" even if this Administration and Congress feel that they are. If you want to celebrate Veterans Day write your legislators and Bush (House Comm. on Veterans' Affairs Senate Comm. on Veterans' Affairs; be informed ; go to VETERANS FOR PEACE and give them your support. Or visit the numerous veterans sites such as Disabled American Veterans or Paralyzed Veterans of America be informed and be involved.

But most of all let's work for peace so that we do not continue to go down the centuries with broken bodies, broken souls, broken lives, and broken families (military and civilian).

Your voice needed on energy legislation

Let's talk energy shall we? Right now The Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R.6), is in committee. As might be expected it moves down the same path the US has been traveling for decades in terms of oil policy - namely making us increasingly more and more dependent on petroleum. It travels down an equally long path of transferring money, public lands, and control to oil companies. It travels down a more recent path of transferring power to corporations. True Majority has a fax campaign going for us to contact our legislators about the current bill. Fax your representatives on this issue.

There is tons of information available. Energy Bill comparison in pdf. format. Public Citizen also has links to about 15 different documents for more information - Learn More About the Energy Bill

The proposed bill, seems likely to include a number of features including:
Opening the ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) for drilling
Allowing massive mergers of energy companies (as we have seen with the media)
Decreases local authority of power issues - including building and ownership of transmission lines
Allows relatively uncontrolled rate increases on use of transmission lines
Inadequate, or absent, consumer protections
Puts money back into nuclear power generation
Big give-aways and breaks to oil, nuclear, and fossil fuel energy operators
Emission standard decreased
Auto pollution standards probably weakend.

Energy is an issue that impacts every level of our society and the world. It is a social issue that affects the quality of our lives. It is an environmental issue affecting the sustainability of our physical environment, climate issues, extinctions issues, pollution issues. It is a massive economic issue as our entire society is based on energy productions, and in particular oil, and that we have rooted a global economy in petroleum dependence as well. It is a war and peace issue as oil (and fossil fuels) are not infinite and are soon going to be very scarce. This makes controlling those resources (wherever they lie) as critical for continued societal operation.

Given the constraints and problems with our current energy base, one would think that energy policy would take some bold steps in a different direction. Instead, our energy policy is a classic example of vertical thinking - digging the same hole deeper and deeper in search of an answer. Given the problems with our current policies one might suggest an approach that:
Decreased energy use through increased energy efficiency - electric and transportation.
Switched from the current polluting and destructive path to cleaner sources
Switched to renewable and clean technologies.
Started infrastructure changes to survive the extinction of fossile fuels.

What do these broad guidelines look like in real life?
Well, fuel efficient transportation - including cargo carriers.
Mass transportation systems for both individual and cargo movement.
Encouragement of human powered transportation.
Alternative energy sources that are more localized such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
But also the producion of energy from human waste products (methane run electrical generation rather than mining for methane).
Phasing out use of plastics (which are made from petroleum)
More local independence and support - including allowing individuals to contribute power to the grid.

The current path is going to give us more of the same - higher costs, lowered security, more wars and death, more national and global inequality, less voice and choice, more environmental destruction, the loss of wild areas and wild life, the destruction of ocean ecosystems, more ill health.

I definitely think it is way past time for a massive change in direction. The cliff is directly in front of us. Do we really want to run full tilt over the edge? Aren't we just a bit smarter than that?

Ammunition for the condition of the economy argument

I have commented earlier (several times) on the questionable nature of the US economic "recovery." The Economic Policy Institute has a great analysis by Lee Price and Yulia Fungard, Understanding the severity of the current labor slump (11/07/03). It lays out all the stats of the current slump and compares the current situation all the way back to other slumps from the 1930's onward. It is an excellent piece of work.

The major finding, in my opinion, is the massive number of workers "missing" from the official figures - the growth in the working age population since March 2001 (roughly 2.3 million people). This jumps the job gap migures to close to 7 million short. The Conclusion of the report is in the extended entry.

Here is the Conclusion from the paper to give you an quick overview, but I recommend reading the whole piece.

Conclusion

The unemployment rate, the most widely used gauge of labor market distress, peaked at 6.4% following the most recent recession and now stands at 6.0%. This gauge alone would indicate a very mild recession and recovery period. Many commentators have also noted that real hourly pay has grown since the recession began. Unfortunately, neither the unemployment rate nor real hourly pay has proved to be a reliable measure of labor market distress in the recent period, and the labor market remains in a severe slump.

Jobs have not fallen for so long since the monthly payroll data series began in 1939. In each of the 10 recessions since 1945, the job total hit bottom within six to 17 months and had fully recovered within 10 to 31 months. In contrast, the lowest point thus far in the current slump came 28 months after the recession began and jobs remained down 1.8% in October 2003, 31 months after the start of the recession.

To fully gauge the slack in the current labor market, the 3.4% growth in the working age population since March 2001 must also be considered. Based on the payroll jobs numbers, there is an estimated shortfall of 6.9 million jobs. (Using numbers from the less reliable household survey of employment, a shortfall of 4.7 million is estimated.)

The labor market will return to the healthy job conditions prior to March 2001 only if jobs grow fast enough to eliminate the loss of jobs since the start of the recession, to catch up to the growth in labor supply since March 2001, and to keep up with the continued expansion of the labor supply. Treasury Secretary John Snow recently predicted that two million jobs would be added over the next year and suggested that such job growth would be a great accomplishment.9 However, to keep the jobs gap from widening further over the next year, employment in the household survey must expand by 1.85 million and payroll jobs by 1.78 million. While far better than further jobs loss, a gain of 2.0 million would only slightly exceed the number of jobs needed to employ the expanding working age population at the current rate and is not enough to make a serious dent in the shortfall that has developed. Consequently, the creation of two million jobs would narrow the 4.7 million gap in the CPS employment by only 0.15 million and lower the 6.9 million gap in payroll jobs by just 0.22 million. At that rate, it would take more than three decades to close either jobs gap.

When the "missing" labor force of 2.3 million is added both to the current labor force and to the number unemployed, the unemployment rate goes to 7.4%, an increase of 3.2 percentage points since March 2001. Only the slumps triggered by the recessions of 1953 and 1983 had larger increases, and their peaks occurred 12 and 19 months after the onset of those respective recessions.

Finally, the prolonged loss of jobs in this slump has brought the worst change in total wage and salary income between the start of the recession and 30 months later. Total real wage and salary income has fallen by 1.2% since March 2001. In contrast, total real wage and salary income had completely recovered within 30 months after every recession since 1959, with the exception of one slump with a 0.1% decline.

The depth and duration of the job decline since the start of the recession, along with the growth in the working age population, the fact that many people who have moved to the sidelines of the labor market are not included in unemployment measures, and the loss of wage and salary income, all indicate that the current labor market remains in severe and record-setting distress.

The (growing) Gap

We are living through a growing gap between those who (think they) rule and those who (think they are) ruled. According to data from The Economist made available through NOW Economic Issues the US leads by a factor of 10 other nations in the disparity between CEO pay and floor worker pay. The figures stand for the number of times more CEO pay is incomparison to worker pay for the following nations: Japan 11, Germany 12, France 15, Italy 20, Canada 20, S. Africa 21, Britain 22, Hong Kong 41, Mexico 47, US 475, Venezuela 50.

And from the same site, workers in the US put in more hours for our CEO's paycheck: Japan 1842, Germany 1467.1, France 1602, Italy 1606, Canada 1779.5, Britain 1711, Mexico 1863.1, US 1979.

As the news trumpets "economic recovery" and that there was a tremendous increase in "productivity" my guess is that CEOs rather than workers will see the benefits. The workers remaining are working harder to make up for those released from employment. This is commonly referred to as "taking up the slack." Unfortunately, it is not slack, but working for two that is occuring. I have watched this happen in higher education as "support personnel" are cut and faculty and administrators are expected to be "administratively self-contained." That means providing your own support. What this has meant for both faculty and lmid-level administrators is more work for the same pay (or sometimes frozen wages). What this has meant for the remaining "support" personnel is increased work load (frequently off the books) or replacement by "out-sourced" labor. The pace of work becomes faster and often grueling. Successfully handling the increased workload brings more your way, lack of success means out the door. Welcome to work more the masses in the 21st Century.

How bad is it really, some might ask? My guess is that many of you are facing this situation on a daily basis. Well it is worse, and more insecure, the lower in the workforce you go. Or worse yet, out of the workforce all together. It is so bad that at least one state - Kentucky - is charging for state sponsered health care. Deborah Yetter wrote in the Lousiville Courier-Journal on 10/29/03:

State officials have begun charging monthly premiums for some low-income children in a health-insurance plan that had been free — despite pleas from advocates who say it could undercut efforts to guarantee medical care for them.

About 19,500 of the 51,000 children in the program — those above 150percent of the federal poverty level for income — will be affected, and advocates and public health officials fear some parents who can't pay will drop out.
...
The first bills went out yesterday, and by Nov. 5 parents who are at 150percent to 200percent of the federal poverty level must pay $20 a month to get insurance for all their children, no matter how many are in the family.
...
"The cabinet sees it as a way to educate families about the value of health care and the cost of health care,''

The issue here is that the Kentucky low income health plane (much like the Oregon health plan) is 80% supported by federal funds. Whether the Kentucky legislature's aim is to "educate" poor families, or whether they want to use the state portion of funds elsewhere, cuts are cuts and many children will once more lack basic health care coverage.

CEOs get free health care (along with numerous other benefits). Why not have them pay for their own health care and give the additional money to their worker's health care plans. I think they could stand to be educated in "value" and "cost" of things as well.

When we look at the figures that CEOs are making an average of 475 times their workers' pay the immediate question for me is how much do we really support limitless accumulation of wealth? As a society, what level of inequality are we willing to tolerate before considering the gap too great? How long before the middle class realizes that they aren't? It amazes me how blind so many are in the US to this growing issue. It amazes me that while the ship is sinking how willing people are to say that those not in the boat should sink or swim on their own. Talk about con jobs.

Parallel Universes

I saw a Nova special the other night on string theory. It is another attempt to explain everything and essentially posits multiple universes wrapped around each other as "strings." I know nothing about either the physics or the mathematics of string theory, but it captued something that I've been thinking about for a while. So I am going to wax metaphysical for this post.

For years I have felt that we (humans) were facing a closing "window of opportunity" to turn things around. I watched the changes (and escalating pace of change) in the US consumer, individualistic, egocentric, poltically apathetic society. I watched the corporations gain power and then the passage of the first global corporatizations with NAFTA and GATT. I watched the pressures towards corporatization both in terms of privatizing public arenas (the commons) and in public institutions (education for example) taking on the corporate language, trappings and mind set. I felt things accellerating and heading in a destructive direction. I watched the eco-system failing, unbelievable increases in auto-immune disorders, new antibiotic resistant diseases, and old friends like e-choli turn deadly. We were definitely sliding cheerfully down some very slippery slope. Was I feeling a string convergence? Some corallary universe passing much to close to ours, effecting us with its energy like the flux lines of a powerful magnet? I don't know.

Then George W. Bush took the 2000 presidential election - took it not won it. The stories of vote manipulation (verifiable) were already starting to surface before the Supremes made their call. No response to speak of from a sluggish public. Strange I thought, and the window seemed to close a bit more.

George enters office and goes on vacation while Cheney plots behind closed doors with energy insiders to screw the world and make LOTS of money, overthrow environmental protection for corporate interests, and remove those bothersome environmental controls. Wolfowitz, Perle, and crew draft their plans for taking over the world, and Powell travels to Afghanistan to issue a threat to the Taliban - work with us or face a US invasion before the middle of October. Mind you this was before September 2001. Scary, but most of us were not aware of what was going on.

Then September 11, 2001. Like others, I was horrified, but I was also hopeful. It was a dramatic opportunity to change course (to move away from our oh so bothersome evil twin of a string). But by September 13th, I knew that the shift was not occuring. I felt an odd sense that we had shifted into an alternate universe. Everything felt slightly wrong. I still feel that and I wonder if two strings warped into each other. The universes merged or shifted.

According to the string theory special, this is possible. In fact, they argue that the presence of life on earth could have been the result of such a collision. They said that one thought was that "brains" collide with each other and the parallel universes combine in some way.

So is this some fanciful delusion on my part? Some desperate attempt to explain the world and current event? Maybe, but I do know that in this universe the polar ice caps are melting at a rate that was not predicted. In fact, they may very likely be gone within the next decade. In this universe, global warming is not a century's long process, but could happen in under a decade followed equally quickly by an ice age. In this universe, long time patron of nuclear sanity - France - has embraced a policy of preemptive nuclear usage.

Maybe the universes didn't swap, or we didn't crash into a parallel universe. Maybe, the energy of the strings colliding (or moving close to each other) sped up time. That also matches with a lot of folks perveived reality - everything (including life) seems to be moving faster and faster. No pun intended, but maybe we are now on a "short string."

So if our universe warped, time phased, or we transistioned to a parallel earth, what can we do about it? Probably not a whole heck of a lot. Inside myself a voice cries "I want to go home," but I doubt that is going to happen. It does mean that the efforts to save this earth are a whole lot more urgent and immediate. For what it is worth, the resistance efforts, and sense of fairness efforts also seem to be magnified here.

While all this may seem the stuff of science fiction, I have a sense that it is not. String theory seems to offer one possible explanation of a core deep shift that I feel. Of course, I could just be insane.

Different Worlds, Different Glimpses – Part 1

DIFFERENT WORLDS, DIFFERENT GLIMPSES – PART 1
Kuala Lumpur to Tokyo – The Asian Express
By Mathew Maavak
Mathew Maavak is a journalist from the Far East and can be contacted at [email protected]

(This is the first part of a series of commentaries based on the author’s recent travels. Since it’s commonplace to charge the West with all forms of imperialism, let’s see how the other side behaves, often)

Airports have always been a problem for me; the security checks unfailingly sparking an awareness of how hollow certain denunciations are in reality. I have been mistaken for a lot of things I am not. So inevitably, this commentary is about ethnic fallacies. Since Sept 11, we have been hearing about the Clash of Civilizations and how tectonic plates are sending shudders up the international Richter scale. If you look at a parochial newspaper in Asia – the same ones that condemn Huntington’s work - you’d discover his thesis well justified. If you find this ironic, you will have to understand Asian dichotomy – a phantasmagoria difficult for some to digest. I am Asian.

The first part of this journey went without a hitch. All new Malaysian passports can be electronically screened at the awesome Kuala Lumpur International Airport without a single hand or eye needing to examine them. It’s like punching in your card, and I am not aware of any other passport with this facility. Your identity, income tax and criminal records, are all checked within seconds. But before boarding my plane for Tokyo, I was, as usual, stopped for a closer scrutiny while Caucasian passengers were waived through. This time, I was probably mistaken for (a Muslim) from Aden or Dhaka. If I had a copy of any local daily that morning, I would, as usual, find some infantile rant about the latest, recycled Western conspiracy. This is where Asian ideals and practice find no confluence. A joke delivered in a good diction usually solves this problem, at least in Kuala Lumpur, and I was waived through for my flight to Japan.

I was looking forward to this 24-hour stop near Tokyo before boarding another plane to Forth Worth, Texas. I wanted to experience a little of Japan.

My first introduction while a tot was mixed. This was the Asian nation that could kick the backsides of the British, Americans and Russians in those famous wars of yore, and were now kicking them again with hi-tech products, consigning once-famous Western brand into oblivion. Admiration mingled with WWII horror stories. Like how Chinese babies were tossed into the air to be bayoneted when gravity exerted its fatal attraction. Of how Malay villagers made no mistake in plucking fresh coconuts for throats made hoarse by Banzai-shrieks, because, again, a gun-mounted bayonet was awaiting them below. And how Indians were duped into joining that farce called the Indian National Army, led by a Hitler ally named Subhash Chandra Bose. Many here were given a first class ticket on a Rangoon Express, infamously known as the Death Railway. Far more Asians died there than Allied PoWs. In such situations, treatment and rhetoric are rarely reconciled.

All these atrocities were done in the name of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. If anyone prospered it was Japan, our plundered Asian gold, our ravaged nations, later revving the engines of their economic growth. Yet, for some reason, we still blame all our ills on the West while Caucasians get the best of everything in the East, including express checkouts at airports. Asian victims of Japanese wartime atrocities need not be indemnified, hardly an Asian leader (minus those from China and the Koreas) clamor even for an apology. Jewish holocaust victims still get their cheques. Allied victims are at least remembered. A Martian might conclude that certain earthling lives are cheaper than others. Don’t blame the Martian.

The other early memory of Japan was the one parroted by the former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the one who made those famous anti-Semitic statements during the last throes of his formal rule. Since the 80s, the good doctor prescribed the “Look East Policy”, where we would cure the ills of our agrarian, backward societies with a robotochan-style revolution. But Japan kept looking west, glancing back for that cheap factory labor. Then came the reminder over our “superior” Asian Values (the 90s mantra). Former Singapore premier Lee Kuan Yew was its chief proponent. Japan is still our role model.

No one in my family suffered any cruelty at Japanese hands (we weren’t even in that region and If I am not mistaken, we let others do the fighting for us, whenever possible). So, I am not in a position to expatiate on the mechanics of reconciling horrific memories, extant scars, comfort women still alive and the genuflection of an Eastern lodestar that caused it all. Lets just say, money is a great emollient, power leads the herd, shapes its passions and manages its memory files until another polestar (China?) emerges to exhume memories for a generation quite removed. Nietzsche would have loved this Eastern drama.

Japan embodied the Asian Values of hard work, resilience, loyalty and family values. It was a bit of a lie. The Japanese, like other Asians, expend prodigious efforts at “putting up a good face” – a clue to what Asian Values really mean. The Japanese salaryman may turn up for work an hour early to demonstrate his “dedication” and may read the paper or some stupid comic the rest of the day. When the Japanese bubble burst, yet again, his productivity was revealed to be 38 percent less than his American counterpart (Time, Feb 16,1998). Other cracks in the system were also exposed. Chunks of concrete was falling on Japan’s shinkansen bullet trains– a one-time wonder of the world. We could never understand why the workaholic Japanese ‘refused to holiday,’ either. The people here still love to caricature Americans as ‘lazy and stupid’; all coz the smartest Yanks became Armani-clad shysters while the brilliant Japanese became engineers, the younger ones needing the supreme Oriental patience of tailgating duds all their work life. Now, that Nissan and other choice tech firms have been gobbled up by the Americans after the ingeniously-engineered 1997 East Asian Financial Crisis – showing where priorities lay even after Ramzi Yusef tinkered with fireworks - I wonder what the new slur is.

My flight was eventful, if you consider reading a barely known historical book, written by someone I had never heard of, to be one. One word – Stucke – would cleave to my mind –and reappear at those cynical moments throughout my travel. Others were reading as well, and if I couldn’t tell by their appearance, the printed paraphernalia were a definite give-away. They were cheap, ugly and of poor quality. There are lots of trashy novels and kinky stuff in Japan, with publications galore for every prurient taste.

These passengers didn’t talk to the gaijin on board. Most probably couldn’t.

On disembarking at Narita, I headed to find my hotel shuttle bus before a customs officer reminded me that many things worked the same way here. I was body searched while Americans swaggered through. Here are the sample questions asked by Ultraman :-

1) Are you carrying any illegal firearms? I chortled. “No”.
2) Are you carrying any illegal drugs? I could barely keep a straight face.
3) Can I examine your shoes? Sure!

The official tried his best to look stern while his hands came perilously close to regions deemed ‘private’. The same scrutiny was not reserved for my luggage. He kept asking stupid questions, not associated with linguistic limitations but more with worldly ignorance. (They didn’t sound like a legal formality either). He was irked by my frivolity. But it was the time to laugh and be merry. Yanks, who would have had a relative turkey shooting in the Marianas or Okinawa some time back, got the express checkout yet again while my Eastern role model was showing his bigoted true face again. Finally, an Alsatian ambled by, sniffed indifferently, and declared me safe to breathe Tokyo’s pristine air. Step outside and you will find Japan to be squeaky clean, a hyped, hi-tech culmination of the Meiji Restoration. There was no real restoration and the Japanese are still isolated, despite Mathew Perry’s epochal journey.

But try noticing the garbage collectors at Narita and you’d think otherwise. They are immaculate in work and attire. I have never seen such skill and efficiency in thrash collection. For once, forget the salaryman; the blue collar ethics here are impressive. Finding my bus was difficult; everyone pointed in different directions, a problem more of communications than anything else, I think. Back at the airport, I kept trying my luck at the information counter, until one lady, who spoke adequate English, helped out. The bus promptly picked me up and deposited me at a purported five star hotel. My room was neat, small and a rip-off. The Internet brochure was another lie. Too many lies swirling in Japan.

Their textbooks are still spinning ambiguous material on their military past. Conspiracy theorists should look at the role of language. English, if spoken, is poor. Pictorial images with price tags and instructions are important here; they clinch small transactions. No complicated explanations needed, just a pointed finger. How, they get the other side of every story is anybody’s guess. When your texts are mostly printed in kanji, butchery can be heroically described as ‘mobilization’. The Japanese elites are masters at filtration, right from 2,000 years of royal palace intrigues to what information is available to their people today. There are structural filters here that censor the unpalatable and translate the marketable. Obscure African motifs, the preternatural antics of Indian movie star Rajnikanth, and ideas, new and old, are all astutely borrowed for commercial gain. The filters and their masters effectively rule the society, more acutely than in the West. Linguistics barriers are effective for the elite, and in Asia this is smoothed by their generally ‘high context’ languages, where dichotomy can be buried inside heavy circumlocutions. Hints are very important. In one of W. Somerset Maugham’s stories, the author explains one way of unlocking the arcane French mindset. He recommended studying Rabelais, where a spade was called anything other than a ‘bloody shovel’. I am wondering whether this one favorite author of mine got to know any Asian language during his long travels here. He missed an emerging drama, later morphed into something called Asian Values. Here are some samples:

1) Always look good on the outside. Say the right things in public. Opinions should be zipped up.
Result: A huge chasm between the public and private spheres, especially over moods, opinion and actual practice. (I’ll recount one laughable but deniable example of this in another piece). Outbursts of rage, condemnation or moral rectitude are more likely stage-managed. Remember Hafiz al-Assad’s funeral and the mass pre-war show of support for Saddam Hussein? The other side, meaning the West, must see it. In geek parlance, this means, ‘what you see is not what you get’ (WYSINWYG).
1) Respect your elders (read more powerful). They are always right. No arguments.
Alternative: Lack of respect invites danger, often physical, sometimes mortal. Check Amnesty International’s website.
2) Honesty, truth, thrift and local customs are our prized values.
Clarification: Again, check Amnesty Online.
3) “We have all kinds of freedom, according to our cultural peculiarities.”
Meaning: It doesn’t mean anything. The “cultural” factor is the operative escape clause.
4) We have equality.
Ground reality: It is true but they are layered – one for the masses and the other for the elite. Bill Clinton’s brother and other presidential relatives would have no problems here, unless they are South Korean.
5) Hierarchy is important. Individual rights should be ‘sacrificed’ for the benefit of
society, meaning those who rule that society. Also called teamwork.
Result: Lack of genuine innovation, philosophical or technical, despite exposure to quality western education. Everything is decided for you. Even anti-Western polemics are cut-and-pasted from the writings of Western dissidents. And guess, what? Many of them have Jewish names.
6) Asian Values are inimical to the Manichean Western Values. The latter is
‘Corrupt, decadent, imperious, sleazy…’

Compare this with the decadent Western Values:
1) “You… SOB!”- Uttered by a Vietnam War veteran when draft dodger Clinton
went for a jog one day. “You Sick Bastard” – a banner alternating with draft dodger George W. Bush’s photo on dissidentsreport.com The editor Josh Kirby is still alive and kicking, I can see.
2) Clinton gets impeached (or something close to it). Blair is under siege and he is
aging by the day. Dubya is realizing he might not get re-elected. Even conmen feel the heat in winter.
Solution: Ahh, for those warm tropical paradises…
3) Dissident work still vigorous. Some tough it out, some live well. All write many
things through their outlets, their own perspectives, from their own homes. To find such people here, visit the jail.
Deduction: Freedom of speech relatively strong (as seen by Asians, in private)
4) Vile statements are allowed.
Corollary: Let the people decide.
5) Action important. More White Londoners, Romans and Americans physically
protested the current war in Iraq – an Arab/Muslim/Asian nation – than Southeast Asian citizens. Take away Indonesia, and Trafalgar Square alone dwarfs others. While this was going on, while our leaders thundered, and when CNN was televising the bombings, our multi-racial Kuala Lumpur youths were enjoying a lyrical blunderbuss at dance halls, rollicking away in front of the big screens. (I remember the laughter when a bewildered colleague recounted this scene the next day).
Conclusion: The West is decadent. Also, MTV is still best!
6) Western multinationals regularly clinch deals by greasing eager Asian palms.
They think hard before trying this stunt at home.
Inference: This is coca-colonialism (sometimes also called a Zionist conspiracy).
7) Individualism encouraged though under constant siege, especially in the US.
Result: Innovations aplenty, even from college dropouts. Rare to find techies like Bill Gates or Michael Dells in Asia. Israel, India, and Japan can be considered the major exceptions in this case.
8) Need I go on?

The contradictions, however, go on. In Japan, the amejo and kokujo consort GIs while protestors routinely chant “Yankee Go Home” outside US army bases. Widows of war heroes were once despised for being what they were – widows! The sexual antics of American soldiers arouse more passion than the statements of former defense vice minister Nishimura Shingo, who recently compared a potential homegrown nuclear deterrent to anti-rape laws. Here is the unromantic, psychopathic side of male-kind – “If there were no punishment for rape, we would all be rapists.” Or listen to the haiku of Seiichi Ota, a Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker and former Minister. “Gang rape shows the people who do it are still vigorous, and that is okay. I think that might make them close to normal” (BBC Online, June 27). The college students who did that must have felt relieved. Back in the 80s there were some lenitive ministerial words for rape victims who were told to consider themselves “flattered”, as the perpetrators found them “attractive”. Japanese women protested, Asian leaders kept quiet and there was no journalistic scoop on how Asian comfort women felt, at least not here. But mentioned the word ‘crusader’…

Plenty of rape references in Japan, but lets move on to the 1937 Rape of Nanking, where 300,000 Chinese were slaughtered. The xenophobic Governor of Tokyo Shintaro Ishihara claims the incident was fabricated by the Chinese. He regularly slights Asian residents with the slur sangokujin and championed the Great Asian Cause with Dr Mahathir in a book called The Voice of Asia: Two Leaders Discuss the Coming Century. (New Internationalist, Dec 2002). We have a glorious future to look forward to…

Despite the political and social mess, the Japanese society is still a beehive of complex, ingenious endeavors. Only here would you find a fishmonger who applies acupunctural techniques to mail ultra-fresh fish in tiny aquarium-boxes, giving some clue to the kind of information prioritized. Nothing technical escapes translation. And neither are aesthetic ones either. Challenge status quo and things change. Badmouthing the emperor might still get one shot. Some things haven’t changed in Japan.

Its hi-tech machine functions flawlessly. The pandemonium associated with international hubs like Heathrow, was missing at Narita. The local passengers had a new-wave jauntiness about them, a few were either the despised Ainu, or they more likely had their noses, eyes, and hair redone into something Caucasian, reminiscent of those hybridized characters in Japanese cartoons. So much for looking east, where the White Man’s features are prized, envied and if possible, copied.

Facial cleansers in Kuala Lumpur come with skin bleaching agents like licorice, largely sold by Western MNCs. A proud Asia prefers Eurasian (or Pan Asian) models for product promotion. I have yet to see a local ad featuring Iman or Naomi Campbell. Multinationals are smart enough to omit them in this region, though they are paid millions in the West. Bollywood, that mass generator of cinematic scatology, only parades stars with light-skinned, and some claim, Aryan, features (Some actresses rub down ghastly whiteners before shooting). Villains and extras traditionally come darker. These are the Indians who complain regularly over color discrimination everywhere, and were once known for raising all sorts of anti-Western cacophony at the UN and that fantasia called the Non-Aligned Movement. Here is where pride, innate forms of concupiscence, hypocrisy and self-righteousness can be reconciled without a hint of irony. For an added twist, talk to an African who studied in New Delhi and he might tell you what the word kalla means. Their tormentors once bitterly fumed of how Brits teased them with the same word, in English. Since they have stopped relieving themselves on British drains – a well-documented outrage once – their summer complaints have returned over kallas. Where does the neo-colonialism and imperialism crap come in? When a well-qualified Kuala Lumpur journalist shows you a picture of his daughter and unthinkingly bemoans that she is “dark”. Or another who used to condemn apartheid and, yet envy a colleague who is “so fair” (meant beautiful)? Someone from the American south, black or white, must be laughing his head off when reading this. If the KKK needs fodder to support their ideological dementia, here it is on a platter. That Indian White Dinesh D’ Souza knows this too well. You can find a lot like him from Tel Aviv to Tokyo. Racism sleeps easily with gutsy, neo-colon execrations.

In Huntington’s book, an unnamed Arab intellectual termed the Europhilic sort as the “White Man’s Nigger!” Well, Prof Akeem , tell me a country where men kill their own female relatives for getting raped by someone else to expediently “blot out the family shame”, and I might show you an American lady sitting on the throne of your country or a brother nation. Even Japan’s Kobe cows have more rights. They are well fed, given regular beer, and are constantly massaged before slaughter. Treated to music too, as the speculation goes. And we have to pay for these things? It’s definitely a Zionist, Western, Imperialistic, and neo-colon… moooooooo plot!

No wonder many Asians flee their homeland – from the tortured to the qualified. The statistics are stark. Why are blacks still going there? An Eastern paradise awaits here. The Vietnamese boat people will tell you all about it. And so will Cambodian, Myanmarese and other refugees. If you think Sangatte and the Chunnel crossings were scandalous, type out “Irene Fernandez” in the search engine, preferably at Amnesty’s website. Melaninised Bangladeshi Muslims raised an outcry when they married local Muslim women here, but less tanned Pakistanis get Malaysian passports easily. The monumental act of self-abnegation was, however, the red carpet once rolled out for Bosnian Muslims, who conveniently used their fat allowances for booze and non-halal (prohibited) food before returning to a more exciting Sarajevo. And as we all know, they are white!

The Clash of Civilisations then depends on which part of the dichotomy is played up, which ethnic card is flashed, and when. It’s dynamic, complex and phantasmagoric. It cannot pass major tests.

Next stop Texas. Lots of things bovine here.

Copyright © Mathew Maavak, 2003

Bush the immoral

GW Bush and crew think that God put him in the Whitehouse. It is hard to imagine what "god" that might be, because the man's morality is in the toilet. It is ok to lie for your "cause." It is ok to kill for your "cause." The ends (whatever they are is a frightening guess at this point) justify any means for the "cause."

Bush signed an atrocious ban on "partial birth abortions" claiming a victory for "children." Thankfully two different federal courts have temporarily blocked the bill as unconstitutional. One might wonder exactly what country we are living in when the health of the mother is no consideration compared to the health of a fetus. Let's talk about so called "primitive" societies shall we? Are women simply brood mares of some champion stud? (Not that I support this perception for mares either) Mere wombs and cocoons for a more valuable life than their own? What is the value of a woman in Bush Land? Not much apparently. Of course, the bill did pass both the Senate and the House to get to Bush's desk, so he can't bear all the blame. However, his glee in signing the bill sickened me.

Ashcroft's "Justice" department (onward Christian (sic) soldiers) charged into the fray stating that they would fight the stays from the courts with their full resources. Does this really mean that the Justice Department is declaring (holy) war on the courts? It seems so. Does it seem a bizarre position for the Justice Department to take? It seems so. Who put the Justice Department in charge of ruling on the constitutionality of legislation? Is that part of P.A.T.R.I.O.T. One or Two? Or perhaps it is critical to Homeland Security.

In blatant displays of the value of women in Bush Land, the mythology of the Jessica Lynch "rescue" continues to be hyped with the announced release of her book and movie. How did she write a book anyway? I thought the story was "she didn't remember anything." Which was convenient as she is most likely under a gag order for the whole affair. Her compliance, and telling the right story, is certainly ensured by the intimidation of having four of the brave soldiers who participated in the rescue die in mysterious ways [Just a Coincidence? Four of Jessica Lynch's Rescuers Have Died Mysteriously]. Who is the ghost writer for her book (to be released on Veteran's Day no less)? I'm sure we'll never know.

So Bush rescues "damsels in distress" from "vicious" Iraqi doctors and nurses who treated her with courteousy and the best care they had. Meanwhile, apparently self centered women callously demanding late term abortion to protect their lives and health are less important that the fetuses they carry. Is there something strange in this thought process?

More education deception in Houston

Wouldn't you hate to have the job of being GW's official presidential historian? Unless that historian is also a premier fiction writer she or he is out of luck. Not only are the facts about everything since GW came into office constantly changing, but so are the ones from when he was Governor of Texas. It is widely known now that the Rod Paige (Secretary of Education) miracle in the Texas educatiion system was (literally) a paper tiger, but the deception goes on with new attempts to make Houston schools a model of "success." In today's NY Times, Sam Dillion has a piece - School Violence Data Under a Cloud in Houston. According to the article, there is a discrepancy of 2330 violent incidents between the Houston School District's reports and the Houston Police Department's reported school violence incidents. (Houston is not alone in its deception as the article notes that both the Roanoke, Va and Gwinnett County, Ga schools have gotten significant press for similar under-reporting.)

The Houston District is significant because it underpins GW's "No Child Left Behind Act." As noted by Dillard:

"Houston, however, has been held up as a pillar of the so-called Texas miracle in education, though it was battered earlier this year by disclosure of false school statistics: a state audit found that the authorities had failed to report properly thousands of school dropouts, giving the district an impressive-looking but fake dropout rate of just 1.5 percent."

Making school violence invisible is motivated by the same pressures as inflating standardized test scores, and "disappearing" dropouts - so-called school accountability. As also noted by Dillard:

"School violence reports have taken on new importance since President Bush made a national goal of holding schools accountable for test scores and campus crime. At his insistence, a new federal law requires states to use violence data to identify "persistently dangerous" schools, and Education Secretary Rod Paige, former schools superintendent here, is in charge of enforcing that law."

I pity the poor presidential historian that has to not only make all the "facts" match in a constantly shifting presentation of the past in federal matters, but also must make the "facts" match across broad fields of data (such a school violence reports). I wonder if there is some classified program running under DARPA that keeps track of all this stuff and throws flags whenever "inconsistencies" dictate a rewriting of history. Surely if they can monitor every moment and transaction of every person in the US, then they should be able to keep on top of a fabricated reality.

Are we headed toward renewed conflict with Russia?

Russia's name is popping up all too frequently for comfort - allied against the US. What have we got? Well, we have Russian made weapons in Iraq. We have Russia standing by Iran (and purportedly giving them nuclear advice). We have Russia voting against the US actions and plans in Iraq on the UN Security Council. And now we have this report by Richard Ehrlich US Selling High Tech Missiles To Thailand (Scoop, 11/06/03).

BANGKOK, Thailand -- The U.S. is supplying Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) to Thailand because of "an imminent threat" posed by Russian rockets offered to China and Malaysia, according to weapons monitors.

...

"The Bush administration told Congress earlier this year that Beijing's ability to relocate the missiles, and Russian offers to sell Adders to Malaysia, create an imminent threat justifying AMRAAM deliveries to Thailand and Singapore," Arms Control Today reported.

Under the new arrangement, Singapore could receive up to 100 AMRAAMs while Taiwan may receive 200 AMRAAMs, according to weapons monitors.

A Russia-Malaysia weapons deal, worth an estimated 900 million U.S. dollars, was clinched during Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit in August to Kuala Lumpur, the report said.

Mr. Putin agreed to supply 18 advanced combat aircraft, known as Su-30MKM jets, to Malaysia within the next few years, it said.

"An educated guess would be that Russia will sell AA-12s to Malaysia to arm the planes," Mr. Boese said.

So what is up? Is Russia lining up allies? Allies such as China - a long term adversary? China who is apparently allies now with Pakistan since they had joint naval exercises? Pakistan who allegedly exported nuclear weapons technology to North Korea and now Sudia Arabia? Or how about Iran- a long term region of contest between the US and Russia? And now that reach seems expanding rather rapidly.

Are we going back to Russia and the US fighting each other through intermediaries while waving nuclear annihilation under each other's noses? Of course what is now spreading across the globe between old enmies, new enemies and questionable allies is that same nuclear weapons capability. It makes me feel all warm inside knowing that the world is a "safer" place now that we have ar global war on terrorism, and everbody grabbing whatever weapons they can, and even France going both nuclear and preemptive. Yep, I feel a whole lot safer. It also makes all the conflict-based companies and those they support (you know, the military - industrial - congressional complex) feel like they are secure fore the foreseeable future as well.

What direction is Dean going

My guess is that like many of you, I have been supporting multiple candidates for the 2004 elections. One of those I have been supporting has been Howard Dean. I got an email yesterday that maybe some of you got as well. It has an invitation to a "VIP Reception" which will cost you $1000 or more. Or you can go the the "General Reception" for $100 ($$25 with student ID). This smacks of the same old process of "buying access and voice" to me. It seems like politics as we have come to detest it. I am sorely disappointed and have informed the campaign of that fact. The entire invitation is in the extended entry for your information, or if you have the bucks to buy access to the VIP reception.

Copied from the email:

Also, mark your calendars for next Tuesday, when Gov. Dean will be in Portland. the invitation is below.
Hoping to see you there,
Sue Hagmeier

The Honorable Barbara Roberts
The Honorable Bill Bradbury
The Honorable Serena Cruz

Terry Bean, Gabriela Goldfarb, Matt Hennessee, Ashley Henry,
Win McCormack, Linda Love & Mike Williams, Jenny Marx, Teri Mills,
Cheryl Perrin, Mac Pritchard, Mark Waller, Kelly Whitty

cordially invite you to join,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Democratic Candidate for President of the United States

Tuesday, November 11th
Montgomery Park
2701 NW Vaughn Street
Portland, Oregon

** Note: If you contributed for a Save the Date on November 13 - your Contribution and RSVP has been credited to this event on November 11. Email [email protected] with any questions. **

Special performances by local Portland musicians Jackstraw

7:00pm
$1000 (or max out)~ VIP Reception
Click here to CONTRIBUTE & RSVP for the VIP Reception.
7:30pm
$100~ General Reception
$25~ with Valid Student ID at the Door
Click here to CONTRIBUTE & RSVP for the General Recption.
$2,000 ~ Maximum Individual Contribution

Click here to forward this invitation to a friend.

For additional information on this event, please contact Emily Wurgaft email at [email protected]

For more information on Howard Dean, please visit http://www.deanforamerica.com

Paid for by Dean for America.
Contributions to Dean for America are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Special Iraqi Squads Formed

News is strating to get out on special squads that the US military is forming in Iraq. They are recruiting former Ba'athists to place into "hit-squads" to go after those who are attacking US forces and Iraqi's percieved as collaborating with the US (most frequent targets seem to be police and politicians). [10/27/03 Freedberg, GovExec, Iraqi security forces risky, but vital part of reconstruction]. Back in April 03, James Conachy at WSWS had a piece about this as well -

* Iraqi Civil Defense Corps. With the new army relegated to external defense, and the civilian police often overwhelmed, the U.S. is raising a kind of paramilitary superpolice, much like the French Gendarmerie Mobile or the Texas Rangers in America's Wild West of the 1880s. The Iraqi Civil Defense Corps is already 4,000 strong and is scheduled to triple to 15,000 in January. The corps, in addition, has an internal security mandate that could make it the most politically potent force in the new Iraq. Yet this new force is rife with ambivalence as well. In two of the few interviews with corps trainees to date (by the Chicago Tribune and by Fox News), one Iraqi recruit confessed that he "loves Saddam Hussein," while another said that U.S. bombing during the war had killed his girlfriend. Both men admitted bluntly that they had enlisted, first and foremost, for the money.

If things are so good, why are they so bad?

The Corporate Media and the Bush Administration are cooing and gooing over the (supposed) 7.2% growth rate for the last quarter. They point to it as a "sign" that the economy is not just in recovery, but a period of growth. Might I recommend a deep breath?

We have (supposedly) been in a "recovery" (jobless) for virtually the full time that Bush II has been in office. I have bemoaned to anyone who would listen that a "jobless" (and indeed job LOSS) recovery wasn't going to help out the overwhelming majority of the population. While the banners are flown for how well we are doing, somehow jobs are not among those good things. More people are in poverty. More people are hungry. This is a three year trend of growing job loss, poverty, and hunger. One must ask, "Who is recovering?"

It reminds me (sadly) of the news during "the boom" when "all boats were floating" at the same time that food banks were being overrun (please note that Clinton was guilty of erasing the poor as well).

Below are excerpts from two articles"

A Time of Need Is Upon Us (Editorial, NY Times, 11/02/03)

"As New York City teems once more with a boom-time population of eight million, its signature Dickensian dichotomy brims before our eyes: poverty and homelessness are on the rise even as the streets hum with ambitious newcomers and the average price of a Manhattan apartment rockets toward the million-dollar mark. The city's clashing mix of opulence and opportunity, hard labor and raw daily indigence has rarely been so palpable. Neither has the need for some down-home charity. For all its resilience after the Sept. 11 disaster, the city finds 18 of 100 residents impoverished."

More U.S. Families Hungry or Too Poor to Eat, Study Says NY TImes, 11/02/03.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 (AP) — Despite the nation's struggle with obesity, the Agriculture Department says, more and more American families are hungry or unsure whether they can afford to buy food.

About 12 million families last year worried that they did not have enough money for food, and 32 percent of them experienced someone's going hungry at one time or another, the agency said in a report released on Friday.

Nearly 3.8 million families were hungry last year to the point that someone in the household skipped meals because the family could not afford them. That is 8.6 percent more families than in 2001, when 3.5 million were hungry, and a 13 percent increase from 2000.

The report was based on a Census Bureau survey of 50,000 households. It was the third year in a row the department found an increase in the number of people who were hungry or uncertain whether they could afford their next meal.

...
Most poor families struggling with hunger tried to ensure that their children were fed, the report said. Nonetheless, one or more children in an estimated 265,000 families occasionally missed meals last year because the families either could not afford to eat or did not have enough food at home. The report estimated there were 567,000 hungry children in all.

What gets forgotten is that those with the least resources are the first to feel economic downturns and the last to feel the upturns. Politicians watch their own, and their owners, pockets swell and believe that to be the nation's reality (just trying to take a positive interpretation here). Viewing that, they seem to feel moral in "getting tough on the poor." So we get Welfare Reform during "the boom" and then we get tougher Welfare Reform for the current "recovery."

This "recovery" is happening in a globalized environment, just as the crash happened in a globalized environment. The economists keep shaking their heads, unable to predict or explain because the nation-based economic models don't work any more. How can we recover and lose jobs? How can productivity increase, but hours worked not increase? One hint might be workers' time being "off the clock," another might be selling from inventory. But anyway, living wage jobs are being "off-shored" at an increasing rate. That is going to further swell the ranks of the poor and the hungry even if the economy continues to improve. I don't understand why folks aren't realizing that the economic indicators increasingly do NOT reflect what is happening in the average person's life. I also don't get how as a nation we can continue to be so blind and arrogant to talk about "lazy freeloaders" and overlook 1) there are no jobs, and 2) that children are being dramatically, and negatively, impacted. This is a true example of "spin" if I ever saw one. To make the lives of almost 40% of the population just disappear.

New Recycling Intiative

Emily at Strangechord happened upon a new recyling initiative Freecycle. These are community based groups where if someone has something they no longer need then they post it, and if you need (or are looking for something) you post it. The aim is to increase the circulation of goods within the community reducing both waste and consumption. It is a great idea and there are a number of cities in the US involved (including several Oregon cities). So check it out, bookmark it, participate as you see fit, and share the site around.

p.s. When I checked the Portland, Oregon group there were over 1300 people signed up.

Want to watch government at work? Iraq CPA Website

Just thought folks might be interested. Here is the link to the Iraq Coalition Provisional AuthorityWebsite. Just out of curiousity I checked the site ownership and it is registered to Defense Technical Information Center at Fort Belvoir, VA. It also has its own name server in case anyone is interested. It is interesting that so little of the site is in Arabic. One might think that would be a natural assumption . Perhaps more interesting is that the Iraqi Busisness Center is also all in English. Hmmm

Why are these groups getting input?

Ok. I'll keep this brief. But why in the world is the Traditional Values Coalition prompting NIH to create a "hit list" of AIDS and HIV research projects (250 of them so far)? This is being interpretted as "scientific McCarthyism." Here, you take a look:

Inside Politics (Pierce, Wa. TImes, 10/28/03).

The Big Chill at the Lab (Herbert, NY Times, 11/03/03).

Is the Draft Coming Back?

Is the draft about to be reinstated? It certainly looks like it. Jeremy at Biohabit sent me a heads up on the latest draft news.

Back on Sept 10, 2003, I posted a piece Stretched Thin discussing some of the problems with our overstretched military. At that point, I speculated that reinstating the draft seemed to be a likely scenario. Well, it now looks more than "likely." On today's Salon.com, David Lindorff discusses whether the Pentagon is Oiling up the draft machine. He states that the Bush Administration has started the campaign already. Indeed, at the Defense Departments new site "Defend America," a recruitment posting Serve Your Community and the Nation - Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member. The notice states in part:

" If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines.

Positions are available in many communities across the Nation. If you believe you meet the standards for Selective Service Board Membership, and wish to be considered for appointment please visit our web site..."

One might argue that this would be an "opportune time" to restart the draft. Afterall, employment certainly isn't picking up dramatically. In fact, one of the sadest things that I've heard on the news lately were Reservists requesting to go to Iraq because they had lost their jobs.

I feel, that if our "leaders" can't show any better judgement and honesty than they've been showing, then why in the world would we let them reinstate the draft to continue the current policies? Troops are continuing to be sent out in growing numbers, while purportedly we are worried about "homeland security." If we strip the nation of all the troops, (and because many Reservists are police and medical personnel) how prepared are we to address an emergency on our own shores? Not just a terrorist attack, but a natural disaster? For crying out loud, the military is using Rent-A-Cops to guard US military bases - see the 10/22/03 Daily Mislead With U. S. Troops Still in the Mideast, Private Firms Must Guard Military Bases at Home. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they started hiring Rent-A-Soldiers as well. Or maybe Wackenhaut can get a policing contract for Iraq and Afghanistan. THat would fit the overall privatization plan.

Back to the topic at hand. Parents, friends, concerned citizens, and those of draft age (male and female), better start thinking about how to respond should the draft be reinstated. It is starting to look more likely every day.

9/11 Citizen's Watch Request

The editor of The 9/11 Citizen's Watch Newsletter has requested help in getting out the request below.

You can visit 9/11 Citizen's Watch for information and to subscribe to their newsletter.

Letter from the Editor (of 9/11 Citizen's Watch Newletter):

All business this glorious day after Halloween!

I Encourage all of you to forward this email or snippets of it to your friends, family and colleagues and to begin to call the White House to ask them to turn over requested documents and to call your Representatives to encourage them to put pressure on the White House and have hearings on the this issue (before voting to extend their deadline if requested) and others including:

1) de-classifying the 90-95% of the 28 redacted pages in the Joint Inquiry Report that Senator Shelby said could be revealed to the American people without compromising our National Security.

2) the lack of investigative rigor and 'issues' within the 9/11 Commission (ie. no testimony being taken under oath, the presense of minders during 'interviews', Dr. Zelikow's conflict of interest with the NSC he is investigating, the need to turn over non-classified evidence, hold more public hearings, issuing regular finding of fact, etc).

3) Asking what else is hidden from the American people regarding what happened on 9/11: in the immediate aftermath the Administration said there were no warnings. Now we know there were. Later the Administration said 'no one could have imagined planes being hijacked and crashed into buildings.' Now we know this was, at least in the case of the G-8 meeting in Genoa in the spring of 2001, something the Secret Service and the military actively prepared for. Later it was insinuated that Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Now, since President Bush's statement setting the record straight, we know differently. (though the VP continues to differ).

So, it begs the question, what other surprises might be lurking within and between the lines of the documents various government agencies are so reluctant to turn over to the Commission? And what might other government whistleblowers reveal if they followed in the footsteps of FBI field agents Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright (whose own book on his FBI HQ undermined investigation has been 100% redacted)? If the truth is to be told and the application of accountability in a government culture that denies it is to be effected then we bring sunlight to this investigation.

Kyle F. Hence
9/11 CitizensWatch

Dept. of Justice releases censored internal diversity study

Jeremy at Biohabit has a piece on the notorius Dept of Justice report that was released with half the pages blacked out. See Justice Department has significant diversity issues. Thanks to The Memory Hole for making the full document available to the public.

The first question that arises is why would so much of this document have been "redacted" (meaning blacked out for public release)? As far as I can tell from the full report, the DoJ is not any more racist or sexist than many organizations. In other words, they have the same discrepancies in climate, retention, and placement of women and racial/ethnic minorities as other predominantly "white" organizations. Those issues are that women and racial/ethnic minorities are more represented in lower grades; do not advance the same way in the organization as white males, perceive a more hostile climate than white males, and are more likely to leave the organization.

So was the report redacted (censored) to hide the realities of sexism and racism in the DoJ, or is this yet another example of the secretive nature of the current administration? Since entering office in 2001, the Bush administration has been more restricitve of releasing information than any administration in recent times. Their hallmark, even before the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, has been to withold information and documents. They have essentially re-written what "freedom of information" means - namely "we will give you what we want to give you." The reason given repeatedly for this withholding behavior is "national security." It is difficult to see how a workplace climate study qualifies under "national security."

If you look at the report you will see that the DoJ is not a model organization when it comes to diversity issues. That is no surprise, and hiring and retention outcomes are similar to the Federal government in general. In short, the federal government hires more women and racial/ethnic minorities than private industry does. While laudable, white males are still privileged in government employment. I am not trying to be damning of the government with this statement. While many (whites) would not like to admit it, we live in a racist and sexist society and that is reflected in every level of social organization - including federal and DOJ employment. The following quote from the report (and this is one of the many peices censored) reflects the underlying reasons for this.

Page 33 of document (39 in Adobe version) "These results give an inportant insight into how culture and diversity relate to one another. The more different a person is from the traditional group of power in an organization, the more likely that person is to experience cultural distance or separation from the dominant norms and ways of operating in that organization. White men, having essentially created the culture of the organization, are most comfortable working in it. The amount of discomfort experienced by people of other backgrounds will be greater when there is strong pressure for newcomers to conform (assimilate) to the existing dominant culture norms.

White males have dominated virtually all of what is often referred to as the "public sphere" of our society. In workplaces and organizations this means that white males find the most comfort and success, followed (generally) by white females (who most closely share the white culture) then men of color (who more closely share male culture), and most separated are women of color who share neither the white or male cultures that shape the organization or our society.

So what is the big deal about this report. Well the first big deal is that the DoJ saw fit to censor it significantly. Regardless of the findings of the study, it is NOT a confidential document, it was paid for by tax dollars, and is therefore part of the public domain. The censoring of such a common report is a direct violation of citizen's rights to oversee our government. I could find nothing in the report that identified any particular individual, nor any issue that would breach the security of any case, the department or the nation. If there were, then the censoring would be much more confined than blacking out half of the report.

What the censorship reflects, in my opinion, is a culture of secrecy and exclusion; a perception that the public has no right to know; and a blatant attempt by the DoJ of "impression managment." It is clear that this document ties in no way to the security of this nation. Therefore I see it as a glaring example of the mind set of the DoJ, and by extension, the Bush administration. It is afterall John Ashcroft who rules this department, and on a public level as most publicly fought transparency in government.

Analysis of Diversity in the Attorney General's Office June 2002, KPMG Consulting.

Bush pays his debts

Would it be worth it to go into major debt to contribute to GW's campaign? It sure looks like it might give returns much higher than most investments. According to a new report by The Center for Public Integrity, seventy companies and individuals who gave about $500,000 to the Bush campaign have received over $8 billion in contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan (10/30/03 CPI, Winning Contractors - U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Post-war Reconstruction). Further, the report states that:

"... nearly every one of the 10 largest contracts awarded for Iraq and Afghanistan went to companies employing former high-ranking government officials or individuals with close ties to those agencies or Congress.

In addition, those top 10 contractors were established political donors, contributing nearly $11 million to national political parties, candidates and political action committees since 1990, according to an analysis of campaign finance records. "

And more money, the $87 billion additional request is close to approval. Not only was the $10 billion loan turned back into a grant, but the amendment to outlaw war profiteering was deleted. It was replaced by a "watchdog" position(Spending Bill Nears Passage in the Senate, Firestone, NY Times, 11/01/03).

This should be no surprise as obviously "war profiteering" is being promoted for those in the "Corporations for Bush" consortium. THese companies have already been granted other protections from prosecution for their actions in Iraq, and have been allowed to charge pretty much what they want for their services (Like Halliburton charging $1.50 per gallon for gas for the military in Iraq. While they cite the expense of shipping the fuel into Iraq, it is the US military who seems to be doing the actual transportation - as US military fuel convoys seem to be a prime target).

If I were the Bush campaign, I would make a glossy marketing piece of the generousity of the President. Afterall, he is doing tons of fund raising for the 2004 election, and such a marketing tool could prove lucrative. It is certainly clear that "investing" in Bush is "investing" in huge government awards and protections. If such a catalogue does not exist, you betcha that it's in the "talking points" to pull in the bucks.

What I find difficult to grasp is how overt all these things are (including Cheney still being on Haliburton's payroll) and nothing happens to stop it? Is this type of activity really legal? I was sure that there were federal laws about "war profiteering." I thought there were federal laws about "conflict of interest." Do they just not apply here?

Further Notes:
From the CPI report, List of the 70 companies, amounts received, and for what projects