In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the State Department and the Pentagon had a massive power struggle, and the State Department (Powell) lost to the Pentagon (Rumsfeld). This ultimately resulted in the US pushing Chalabi and the INC (Iraqi National Congress) as the new power broker in Iraq. That plan has failed - so far. But that struggle was, at least in part, a power struggle between the neo-conservatives (who are now well entrenched in the Pentagon and linked to the Whitehouse through Libby and Cheney), and the conservative Republicans represented by Colin Powell.

With an imminent shake up in the covert ops arena, the in fighting might well have started. The power struggle started at least four months ago (at least according to when the CIA supposedly launched its investigation of Franklin). That would have placed the start somewhere in April and May - before the public release of various investigations and reports, but not before insiders had access to them. If the Franklin case is a shot across the bow in the power struggle, then it is most likely not meant to be a lethal blow.

Meanwhile, the pending acceptance of Porter Goss as head of the CIA, is thrown into a new light and importance. Goss has "experience" in CIA covert ops, but also long term links to the Bush's. It seems clear, he would do "as ordered," as he has multiply proved himself as a "good soldier." I believe, that Goss leans more towards the conservative rather than the neo-con side (as does Daddy Bush).

If this scenario has any credibility, it is likely that the tug of war for power will continue. So far, the neocons have won most of the battles, but have yet to win the ultimate prize - total control of the governmental and military apparatus.

One of the people interviewed about the alleged spying voices my skepticism:

"The whole thing makes no sense to me," said Dennis Ross, special envoy on the Arab-Israeli peace process in the first Bush administration and the Clinton presidency. "The Israelis have access to all sorts of people. They have access in Congress and in the administration. They have people who talk about these things," said Ross, now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. (Analyst Who Is Target of Probe Went to Israel)

As noted in An Israeli Spy in the Pentagon? Are You Kidding Me?, the neo-cons are thick in the Bush administration, and particularly in the Pentagon. Feith, in particular has recently been linked to the chain of destruction in the Iraq torture cases. Common Dreams takes a timely flashback to Pentagon's Feith Again at Center of Disaster from 5/20/04. The detailing of Feith's activities in that article ore interesting.

- his office was responsible for feeding the 12 year old data on Hussein and Iraq's capabilities to Cheney;

- his office pushed for Chalabi's entrance and influence in Iraq;

- Stephen Cambone works in Feith's office and was behind transferring Miller from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib to "gitmoize" interrogations there.

Now we have Franklin, a specialist on Iran, who worked in the DIA and transferred to the Pentagon to work under Feith, who is pegged as a "spy."

Now, the policy focus is less towards Iraq and more towards Iran. I am not the only one questioning whether Iran is next on "the list" for both the US and Israel (An 'October Surprise'? Neocons have Iran in their Sights, Target Iran). Having someone in Feith's office acting as a liaison (read errand boy) does not seem at all surprising to me. Franklin seems a natural choice, not only because of his Iran specialist credentials, but he was a colonel in the Israeli Air Force Reserve. Therefore it seems likely that he has natural networks and friends who are Israeli.

It is being noised about that Franklin was not in a decision making position. He is an analyst. Whether his analyses did, or could, shape policy is a matter of how much you want to dismiss the influence of information and analysis in the decision process. While not the intent of the statement, the quote below points to the same issue:

The work done in the Pentagon's policy offices often involves regional strategic planning like deliberations on what stance the government should take in dealing with other countries. A little more than a year ago, one policy pushed from within the Pentagon would have relied on covert support for Iranian resistance groups to destabilize Iran's powerful clergy. In internal deliberations, some even raised the possibility of a military strike against an Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz. The ideas, reported in the news media at the time, came up in the context of developing a draft directive outlining the administration's overall policy toward the regime in Tehran. (F.B.I. Said to Reach Official Suspected of Passing Secrets)

So round and round we go. But the question begs to be asked of who started this ball rolling. Given the looming Republican Convention and the run up to the election, Bush hardly needs a "spy" on his watch - particularly one supposedly working for an ally, and not one woven into the neo-con block.

Article Links
FBI Probes Pentagon Spy Case, 8/28/04 CBS

Pentagon's Feith Again at Center of Disaster, 5/20/04, Lobe, IPS

Pentagon official investigated for leaking classified material on US policy to Israel, 8/29/04 Anderson & Silver, Independent/UK

F.B.I. Said to Reach Official Suspected of Passing Secrets, 8/29/04, Risen, NYT

Analyst Who Is Target of Probe Went to Israel, 8/29/04 Ricks & Wright, Wa. Post

An Israeli Spy in the Pentagon? Are You Kidding Me?, 8/28/04, Wolf, UTJ

Sure enough, as I read through the various articles, I found that the "trusted analyst" and suspected "spy," works for Douglas Feith (Under Secretary for Defense for Policy), and has links to the infamous Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense and assistant to Dick Cheney. Both Feith and Wolfowitz are neo-conservatives of the highest order, and Feith is a protege of Richard Perle. [For info in the neo-conservatives check out Who Are the Neo-Cons?] These particular neo-conservatives have essentially been directing our international focus through the Defense Policy Board. The neo-conservatives are beyond pro-Israeli. Given the strong relationship of this group to Israel, the idea of "spying" in the typical sense is ludicrous. More likely, the analyst was told to run the information over to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) - the most powerful Israeli lobby in the U.S.

The "analyst" is suspected of passing on information about Iran to AIPAIC. He (I assume it is a he) is accused of being an Israeli intelligence "mole." While this may or may not be the case, the Israeli government response as reported through DebkaFiles is interesting:

Israeli officials stressed Saturday that no Israeli intelligence-gathering resources had been activated in Washington for many years. The Israeli embassy immediately denied the allegations categorically as "completely false and outrageous." AIPAC also described information as "baseless and false." (CBS Reports FBI Suspects Israel has Spy in Pentagon 8/28/04 DEBKAFiles,

This seems to indicate that Israel does have "intelligence-gathering resources" (spies) in the U.S., but haven't "activated" any for a while. Maybe they were freely being given access and information so there was no need to do so. It is hard to imagine, given the current political configuration, that they would need to do so at this time.

Debka states that the analyst may work for William J. Luti who is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs, and "who oversaw the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans," which conducted some early policy work for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. " Luti, is linked (according to Namebase.org) to the American Enterprise Institute which is another neo-conservative think tank which is also tied to the Project for a New American Century. Both organizations are locked to the Bush administration through a binding web of multi-level connections through the Cheney's, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, Gingritch, ad nauseum.

The claim that the alleged information was regarding Iran, and given the swelling perception of open conflict between Israel and Iran (with the U.S. willingly jumping in), such "sharing" seems likely. If this incident "proves out," then it will be interesting to see if it goes the way of the prisoner torture investigations. Namely, a "rogue" analyst operating independently, with no one above him/her responsible.

Additional Articles
8/28/04 Anderson, CHB, Pentagon Official May Have Spied for Israel

8/28/04 CNN, FBI looks at Pentagon worker in Israel spy probe

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon opposes independent abuse probe. And while there is blame to go around, few are being held accountable. However, if the public won't accept no leadership accountability, Lt. General Sanchez is being floated as a fall guy. The CIA came up as a culprit in the various investigations - Agency Is Faulted On Practices in Iraq, Secrecy Amid Probe, but it is a secret agency remember, so whatever is found out we aren't likely to hear about.

One of the irritating things about all this is that it seems the administration, and the press, is largely trying to confine abuse and torture to Abu Ghraib, and if that fails, to Iraq. The problems is that it is not localized, but systemic. While they may sacrifice Sanchez for torture in Iraq, what about, Afghanistan? What about Guantanamo? Will we start at the beginning again with a "few bad apples?" Surely I'm not the only one looking askance at this.

Of course, the GAO is going to get on somebody's xxxxlist with the their new report that the government spent $6.5 billion to keep the public in the dark in 2003. But wait, that doesn't count the CIA because even their budget is secret. We may never know how much we are paying to not know what the CIA is up to.

I'm sure you were not too surprised by the news that that there were more people in poverty and uninsured in 2003. Yep, for the third straight year the numbers grew and the gap between the top and the rest of the population grew. The official poverty rate was up to 12.5% last year, while those who are uninsured grew to 16%. Of course, both numbers are significant under counts.

In yet more switch and bait techniques, since the CAPPS II datamining and security program has come under fire, we are now going to get a program called "Secure Flight". The new program will compare airline passengers identity against government databases to generate the "no fly lists." Hmm. As I understood the CAPPSII program, the government created a list and supplied it to the airlines so when a customer came to check in they would be run against "the list." Now when someone checks in it will be run against the government database. I'm sure there is something I'm missing here, because it seems hauntingly the same thing to me.

And boy do the databases grow like kudzu these days. MATRIX, the interlinked police/FBI/DOJ database is growing rapidly - Mining the Matrix: Government Still Salivates Over Big Brother Database Created by a Cocaine Smuggler, and the question is being raised whether the Pentagon is keeping tabs on political websites (not a doubt in my mind). And with political decisions on who and what is sane or represents a "threat," we can all look forward to Compulsory Mental Health Screening For Adults and Children Preschool and Up. I'm sure that I probably won't pass that screening (along with many others) and Glaxo-Kline will laugh all the way to the bank.

We won't even go to the NY City Parks Department decision that demonstrators can't gather in Central Park. Why? It might damage the grass. Now I am a big supporter of green spaces in urban environments, but this seems a bit of a false excuses to me. Now I might have banned the entire protest on public health grounds. After all, where are the estimated 250,000 demonstrators going to relieve themselves hmm? Oh, I get it, maybe that is the concern about Central Park's grass.

And one last thing, just because it irks me. As costs for college have sky rocketed, and the availability of financial aid has decreased, it really irks me that the private companies are raking in about $1 billion a year in government interest rate guarantees. Yes fellow student loan holders and student loan receivers, a "loophole" is allowing private student loan lenders to charge the government the difference between current loan rates and a 9.5% interest guarantee. I was ticked when the student loan program was privatized, but this is truly galling. You just have to wonder who crafted the legislation loophole. I don't know, but my guess is it was the banking lobby.

Please feel free to share your news leads. I know that I missed a bunch.

The late nod in the direction of reality is well behind the times. John Schellnhuber of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (an informative site by the way) presented a briefing on "tipping points." As this was reported by Alex Kirby at the BBC, Schellnhuber presented the finding of 12 critical regions where changes critically affect climate. Changes in these regions influence unstable weather conditions. The regions included the North Atlantic current, West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Sahara, the Amazon basin, and the Asian monsoon system. Schellnhuber argued that increasing changes in "hot spot" areas could trigger instabilities that have both regional and global climate effects.

While the idea of tipping points (balances in climate and environment that collapse or go wildly unstable) is not new. Schellnhuber's call for more focused research on how hot spots interact and change is. Schellnhuber was speaking at a forum of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (site has nice environmental tracking and modeling information).

While some parts of the Bush administration may be waking up to the realities of global warming, it is not a harbinger of understanding of either science or environmental destruction issues. Throughout his administration, Bush has relaxed industrial pollution standards. Some of the impacts of those changes are coming to roost. This is clear in a report by the EPA (8/25/04) that mercury is tainting fish across the US Since mercury is a heavy metal that is linked to numerous health problems (particularly for pregnant women and children), its spread in the environment reflects backsliding on the efforts to remove it.

Oh well, maybe if George gets another term, he will wake up on other issues as well.

The report does acknowledge that the abuse of detainees and prisoners extends well beyond Abu Ghraib:

Abuses of varying severity occurred at differing locations under differing circumstances and context. ... There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities. ... There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels. (page 5)

(page 6) However, the panel did not have full access to information involving the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention operations; ...

The report goes on to note the Presidential Memorandum of February 2002 stating the neither Taliban nor Al Qaeda prisoners are covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not "prisoners of war." It also includes Rumsfeld's directive that Category III interrogation techniques are permissible, but must be approved by him. Category III techniques largely fall outside both the Geneva Convention and the International Torture Conventions. I am totally confused as to what constitutes "policy" in the eyes of the panel. Apparently, such memorandum and directives promulgated and "environment." In essence, the panel says to the Bush Administration "Shame on you."

Despite pulling its punches on the "policy" issue, as I read the report, it is roundly critical of the Bush Administration's war on terrorism in general, and the Iraq plan in particular. It lays blame in understaffing both in military and staff positions, which ties directly to increased pressures and lack of oversight by military brass (namely Sanchez). This goes to the heart of both pre-invasion and post-invasion critiques that Rumsfeld's idea of a strike force type of staff didn't work and contributed significantly to the abuses.

In the press briefing I saw, Schlesinger (the chair of the panel) said that Rumsfeld's resignation would be a loss to the effort. However, that over 300 cases of abuse by U.S. personnel were under investigation. The report states that 23 of those cases resulted in the death of detainees from the abuse they received. While finding the leadership faulty, the recommendation was to not prosecute either military or civilian command. Once again I guess I am missing something because "death from abuse" is murder. Or maybe I don't understand what murder is.

The report is interesting, and in many ways damning. It is also protective of the current administration. In that sense, it is indeed "whitewashing." Reading the report and the use of terms such as "environment" and "ethical responsibility" leave me thinking of Clinton's claim of not having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. While perhaps true in some legal sense (fellatio is not "intercourse'), it certainly isn't true in the way sexual activity is understood by everyone else. Likewise, memorandum and directives that establish that state clearly what the "boss" wants seems like policy to me - not just creating and perpetuating an "environment."

In other ways the report reminds me of the 9/11 Commission report (which also "pulled its punches'). The Commission essentially stated that every system failed at every level. In other words, 9/11 happened because of total systems failure. Likewise, the Schlesinger report argues a total failure of systems as the ultimate cause of the widespread abuse. Personally, I can't swallow that for either investigation. In essence, the DoD panel says that no one is truly to blame for the abuse of detainees in every theater of the "war on terrorism." Not the grunts on trial; not the brass; not Rumsfeld and crew; not the NSC; and definitely not George W. Bush.

The main problem with these "conclusions" of both reports, is that in both cases there were credible, knowlegable advisors who were pointing out specific problems and issues. There was a willful disregard, and sometimes silencing, of those who did not support the policies (excuse me, "environment") or actions being taken. So the 9/11 Commission sites "lack of imagination" and catastrophic institutional failure based in a dysfunctional intelligence system, and the DoD panel sites "confusion" on the policy, and institutional failure. If that is to be believed in either case, then what it spells is INCOMPETENCE, and I think that is reason enough for all of them to step down.

Here is one summation of the key points of the report.

According to a news release on 8/24/04 at From the Wilderness, Over a Million Barrels of Oil a Day Are Lost to Depletion. The article summarizes an analysis done by the Petroleum Review and argues a clear indication that we are clearly past "peak oil." When those fields and nations with the capability to increase supply are considered against those whose supply id decreasing, a 7.5% increase in production only raised global production by 3.7%. This would indicate that the overall resources are down.

This comes to no surprise to those of us who have been keeping an eye on peak oil - including the faithful readers of Uncommon Thought. It has been clear that oil is an increasingly scarce resource and increased consumption - particularly in China (almost 40% this year), India, and the U.S. - isn't helping the situation one whit.

It is interesting to look at the issue of oil in the ideology of capitalism where the belief (and dogma) is that increased demand drives increased production, drives decreased cost. This is clearly not the case where the product is a non-renewable resource. What is ironic, is that virtually all "production" is based on exhausting resources. Further, much of that production is linked to oil either in terms of energy or as an ingredient in the "recipe." A prime example of this would be plastics which wouldn't exist without petroleum. The truth to the lie of demand drives cost, is that it may work in an "open" environment (unlimited resources) but not in a "closed" environment" (limited or diminishing resources).

Of course, successful capitalists already know this and use both sides of the equation. If you want to keep prices high, you limit production and competitors. If you want to keep prices low, you increase supply, decrease resources, and increase competition. The high prices side is used for product, and the low prices side is frequently used for labor - flood the labor market and drive down labor costs. The strategy of flooding the labor market is a major goal of globalization.

While the deceivers argue that "insecurity" such as the oil pipelines in Iraq are causing the cost run-up, the real "insecurity" is that global availability is drying up. I am not into the stock or commodities markets, but if I were invested in oil, I would damn sure keep any eye on peak oil and related issues. Wouldn't you? The Petroleum Review report is not the first credible analysis of the global oil supply. It is one in a string of such reports, and personally, I haven't seen any reports arguing that oil is a secure, long lasting resource. Is it any wonder that there are long waiting times for the hybrid cars now available? It is not just american car buyers concerned about the current cost of gas. I believe that more and more people are responding to the knowledge that oil is disappearing and that costs will continue to rise. Folks may say and think they are making "simple" economic decisions and be in denial about the resource issue, but if pushed my guess is they know.

If we are truly past peak oil, and demand continues to surge, then trouble is coming at us faster than most are willing to admit. Maybe pushing Bush and Kerry on energy policies might be a good idea. If the centerpiece of that policy is to expand drilling for new oil then there is a major problem. New oil sources are stop-gap and not a solution. From all that I have read, such untapped (or "under-tapped") sources are very small. They add only modestly to supply. That means we (humans) need to be looking seriously at other energy strategies. The "average" person is increasingly aware of this. Isn't it time that our decision-makers are as well?

Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Institute have genetically modified mice that run twice as far twice as fast as the average mouse. On top of that, they don't get fat no matter what you feed them. SO what exactly did the researchers manipulate?

To perform the genetic enhancement on the mice, researchers injected a human version of a protein called PPAR-delta attached to a short DNA sequence. The injection permanently incorporated enhanced PPAR-delta production into the mice' genomes. The change is transgenic, meaning the mice will pass down the trait to future generations.

Of course, considerations of the Olympics immediately come to mind, and it did for Karen Philipkoski as well who wrote the article. It seems like the IOC is just getting on top of doping. Are the testers of the next Olympics going to need to test for genetic "tweaks" as well?

Anyway, does it make anyone else nervous that they are making genetic alterations that can be passed generation to generation? While I realize that gene correction for some genetic disorders one might want that capability, it does seem fraught with unknowns. First, what happens over multiple generations to the manipulated gene as it interacts with other genes. Second, how those designer genes interact with other designer genes.

What happens if the mice who have been tampered with to make them work like crazy mate with mice that are twice as strong and twice as fast? The images of what such "super" mice might do if they got out makes me a bit nervous. Will they have to create super cats to control the super mice? Who could live with such a cat?

Daniel Keyes book Flowers for Algernon comes to mind. In the book, scientist created a technique that took a normal mouse and turned it into a genius mouse. A developmentally disabled janitor - Charley - worked at the lab, and had quite a relationship with Algernon. In fact, as Algernon improved, he began beating Charley at mazes. Scientists didn't have to look too far to find a human test subject and picked Charley. To make a long story short and to not ruin it for those who have never read this book, it ended badly for both Algernon and Charley.

Back to the non-fiction creation of super mice. Obviously the goal is not to create super mice, but super "men." Given that the changes make a permanent and transmissible change to that individual's gene, it also makes a permanent change to the human gene pool. Are we back to eugenics and creating "uber human"? Actually, that is a poor question as I'm not sure that the "West" has ever stopped the quest for "improving" the human race (or at least part of it).

The social implications and expressions of technology are rarely considered. We may indeed be looking at a time in the near future when those who can afford to can genetically transform themselves (and their children) beyond the capabilities of the average (or even exceptional) human. It raises the ante on competition and survivability and impacts every aspect of society. Those who have access to such technology are likely to be those who already have power. The schism of a two class society is likely to evolve into a genetic caste system.

Pandora's box comes in many disguises.

In the land where capitalism is idealized and assumed to be synonymous with democracy and freedom, the rhetoric and socialization into "the system" blurs the lines of reality and sanity. The mantra is that capitalism is good. It provides the necessary "motivation" to keep things moving "forward." If the competition of capital didn't exist, then "everybody would just sit around." This is capitalism on the individual level, and while I strongly disagree with the assumptions, it is from this base that the blurring begins.

The socialization into competitive capitalism extends to a larger social organizing principle. People frame social institutions within the context of individual effort. Individual effort, business organization, and corporations merge in an unholy stew of deception. The belief is that corporations are simply individuals who worked hard, succeeded in capitalist terms (provided a product in demand at a good price thereby surpassing their competitors). Multi-billion dollar globalized corporations are simply an outcome of the american work ethic. But it just isn't so. The multi-billionaire with wealth in excess of most nations is not simply the hard working person next door. His life is not the "common" life, and it is a life that is not accessible to most americans - much less most of the world.

It is a campaign year, and we are hearing a lot about unpatriotic companies who are taking good (living wage) U.S. jobs and heading for the cheapest labor source. Coming from the lower and working classes, I can't help but feel fire in my spine over the lament. The rhetoric that the exportation of positions requiring a college degree is something special irks me. It is based upon the propaganda that nothing important was lost by letting all those manufacturing jobs slip out of the country. You know, those "dirty," low paying," "nobody wants to do them" jobs. Those "nothing lost" jobs were the backbone of the middle class in the U.S. They were the jobs that dramatically expanded middle class wages and comfort to the "working class." There is an irony in the devaluation and characteristics of such labor at the same time that the propaganda of immigrants runs that "they are taking good american's jobs. You know, like back breaking agricultural work, lawn services, and "menial" jobs like housekeeping and Wal-Mart. But I digress.

We didn't call it "of-shoring" or "out-sourcing" when it was happening to living wage manufacturing jobs. Then it was progress. It was good for the american consumer. It gave us good products for an unbelievably good price. Now people say we are losing good jobs, and we are being told by the pro-corporate lobby that the loss to white collar jobs is good for the american consumer and the american economy. It wasn't true with blue collar jobs and it's not true with white collar jobs.

Lou Dobbs has launched a zealous campaign against off shoring. He was on Bill Moyer's NOW on 8/21/04 decrying how this type of corporate policy is unpatriotic. Kerry has made off-shoring one of the cornerstones of his run for the presidency. There is a bitter irony in the perception that off-shoring is unpatriotic. When unions made this claim in the fight against NAFTA, and the mantra of "buy american" neither legislators nor most of the middle class paid any mind. But the true irony is that these off-shoring corporations are not "american" corporations. They are multi-national entities owing not allegiance to any nation. Their allegiance, if they have one, is to accumulation of capital and the grasping after the power to acquire unlimited profits no matter the cost to people, nations, or the earth.

The whole process of the transfer of power from people to corporation has been facilitated by the propaganda of both corporations and legislators. It has drawn on the belief (or catechism) that corporations are simply individuals who succeeded in the capitalist system. Any attack on the corporation is blurred into an attack on small business, and then on the "freedom" of the individual as framed under "free market" capitalism. But it is not the same thing. Ask almost any small business owner about his or her ability to compete against multi-national corporations, and you will likely get an ear full. Ask small business owners about legislative protections, voice and opportunities, and you are likely to hear a litany of complaints.

Corporations "rule," not because they do so much for us, but because to the power to shape their own environment. In the land where the belief is "bigger is better," tax payers foot the bill for local and state inducements to attract big business. We are told this is to "stimulate the economy" and to produce needed jobs. The reality is that is propaganda. Small business, and independent workers, generate the most jobs and the most local economic benefits. The following quote points this out clearly.

According to recent Census data, for the period March 2000 and March 2001, firms with 20 or fewer employees created a net 1,111,183 jobs (from new firms and growth of firms in the category). Firms employing 500 or more workers lost a net 150,905 jobs during the same period. Firms employing between 20 and 499 workers created a net 39,692 jobs. Small businesses generated jobs in every major industry category except manufacturing, with top performance in the relative high paying professional, scientific and technical services (289,480 net jobs), health care and social services (278,196 net jobs) and administrative support, waste management and remediation services (201,810 net jobs).

William Dunkelberg, chief economist for NFIB said small firms benefit the economy on a larger scale than big businesses. "Clearly, the heavy lifting in the job creation process during this period continues to be done by firms with fewer than 20 employees," said Dunkelberg. "Millions of workers are employed in jobs and at firms that didn't exist 20 years ago. Most of those new jobs came from small businesses, many of which will become large firms over the years. This is job creation American style." Small Businesses Lead the Charge in Job Creation, 3/24/04)

The (animated) accusation that corporations are being "unpatriotic" because they are taking tax paying americans money to take their jobs and send them out of the country is hyperbole. Our legislators intitutionalised corporate-crafted legislation and law to allow them to do just that. Setting up "dummy" corporations, or purchasing corporations outside the country, as a tax free way of expanding corporate reach and capital is not illegal. We have been told that corporations need these supports in order to be "competitive." The assumption being that we (the individual trying to survive in a capitalist society) are dependent on them being competitive. While there is a grain of truth there, it is highly overblown.

These are corporations that no longer owe allegiance to any nation. They have been freed from those restrictions. They are now global players on a global stage operating for their own interests. Globalization has increasingly been structured around the ideas of removing "boundaries" to goods and capital, and we are reaping the whirlwind - or left in the path of destruction. The mantra is "free trade." The propaganda is that this is a path that will lift all boats. As white collar jobs join blue in the exodus, it is not based on a strategy of lifting the economies of "poorer" nations such as India, or those in Eastern Europe. Those workers will find themselves in the same bidding wars as even poorer countries who are competing for manufacturing jobs. The corporation truly doesn't care, if a million workers in the Philippines are left high and dry because peasant workers in China will work for 30% less. The corporation truly has no commitment to educated workers in India who are getting the opportunity to apply their skills. The system is set up to remove boundaries and pit nations and workers in a global bidding war and race to the bottom. This is not for the advantage of workers or nations. It is for the advantage of a handful to control ... everything.

"Free trade" does not just apply to goods and products. Read the international trade agreements and you will see over and over "goods and services." Read the arguments, underpinnings, and analyses, and you will see "free movement of capital." Freeing up globalized corporations by removing the "barriers" to trade and capital is not for us, it is for those who control the capital. The purpose is not to improve our lives (or workers lives around the world), but to improve the position of those who hold the reins to capital. The purpose is not to "lift boats" and increase global standards of living and "freedom," but to maximize profit and influence. To build and justify all of this on a belief in capitalism as a cornerstone of opportunity and freedom is a cruel parody.

We have all heard the phrase "the interests of capital" as if it were some disembodied entity with concerns that follow ours. It is not disembodied, and it is not some principle aimed at uplifting us. The interests of "capital" are more accurately the interests of "capitalists." Not all capitalists (say everyone in the US), but the interests of those who control capital. We have deliberately and systematically freed these "interests" from most national bonds or allegiances. To now decry that they are exploiting the situation and the US worker/tax payer just furthers the deception.

Global spending on "defense" has now exceeded $1 trillion (Deen, Asia Times, 8/19/04). If you think that expense is in the interests of safety and freedom, then I'd think again. We would do well to ask about the "interests of capital(ists)"

Polls apparently show the large group of undecided voters already having second thoughts about Kerry. You can't elect a man Emperor who distorts the truth about things like that. Much better if he actually did them.

I only wish undecided voters had the same doubts about the other pathetic candidate, but that is expecting too much. Bush has demonstrated he could overcome a background of avoiding Vietnam for no reason other than to carry on his happy games as frat boy, stock fraud, and drug addict, eventually to rise to the Imperial Purple and lie his way into killing tens of thousands of people. If I'm not mistaken, those are precisely the qualities expected of a contemporary American Emperor.

If all the men sent to Vietnam behaved the way Kerry is said to have behaved, how would the mission have succeeded? How would you have managed the awesome task of killing about three million people? How would you have managed to leave their country looking, in the words of a contemporary witness, like craters on the moon? How would you have managed to saturate their soil and aquifers with toxic chemicals?

How would you ever have played that magnificent exit scene, as the last helicopters left the roof of the fortress embassy, with Vietnamese servants and supporters literally having their hands ripped from the landing skids, abandoned to those they had been told for ten years were their deadly enemies? Or the scene with a load of kidnapped Vietnamese babies killed in the crash of an American cargo plane, an event one editorial cartoonist depicted as a huge plane dropping babies instead of bombs?

Perhaps Americans should dismiss as frivolous charges that Kerry's three Purple Hearts were earned by such mundane events as bumping his head on the boat's dashboard and focus on the big issues like whether he deserved a Silver Star for shooting someone in the back. He does seem the kind of man who bumps his head a lot on dashboards, whether going out to shoot people in the Mekong Delta or to wake-board off Cape Cod. Still, I know from old veterans of World War II, including one awarded a Purple Heart, that the medals sometimes were dished out with the K-rations. I guess that's why some states actually have special license plates with "Purple Heart Winner" emblazoned on them. There's that many of them around laying claim to their fifteen minutes of fame.

When Kerry isn't photographed earnestly saluting or jabbing his finger in a bad parody of John Kennedy during the Cold War, he's photographed being thoughtful next to some symbol of war. Clearly, Americans just can't get enough of this kind of thing. A picture appeared in some newspapers recently of Kerry contemplating some state or local Vietnam memorial, one with a Vietnam-era helicopter atop a pillar. This particular memorial had no bronze casts of Vietnamese hands being yanked off the helicopter's skids, nor did it have a statue of desperate Vietnamese prisoners being hurled from its door. There's just a desolate-looking helicopter over some plaques commemorating some of the people who might have died helping do those things.

There should be at least one memorial somewhere in the country with a statue of that cargo plane dropping babies. It might provide Americans a bit more to think about. Considering the Iraqi babies mangled by cluster bombs, Americans clearly haven't thought enough about Vietnam, at least not about the lessons that matter. That certainly includes Kerry, who voted to support the low-key suburban psychopath who now prances around in Imperial Purple.

The news is not front page (in the US), but there is a dull rumble that could become a roar:

Iran threatens to strike Dimona reactor if Israel attacks it, Arabic News, 8/19/04

Gen. Muhammad Baqer Zu al-Qader said in press statements that " should Israel launch one missile against Bushaher, then it has to forget for ever Dimona reactor where it produces and stockpiles atomic weapons." He stressed that " Israel will be responsible for the catastrophic consequences of such acts.

Is Israel planning to attack Iran?, van Creveld, IHT, 8/20/04

JERUSALEM Ariel Sharon may be on the warpath again and the target is Iran. In the past, the Israeli prime minister has focused attention on Iran by claiming that it presents the greatest threat to Israel. More than once, defense officials in Jerusalem have said that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities. In response, Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, warned that should Israel do so, his country would wipe out Israel.
.
Now Israel, claiming to prepare against a possible "hit on its nuclear reactor," has started distributing antiradiation pills to civilians in townships surrounding it. In a country that has always sought to keep its nuclear activities out of the spotlight, that is a highly unusual step.

Iran Says It May Pre-empt Attack Against Its Nuclear Facilities, Fathi, NYT, 8/20/04.

Iran's defense minister, Vice Adm. Ali Shamkhani, has warned that Iran may resort to pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

Admiral Shamkhani made his comments in an interview on Al Jazeera television on Wednesday in response to a question about the possibility of an American or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear projects.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said. "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."

Israel and the U.S. are locked together in a variety of ways. Certainly the threatening of Iran over its nuclear capability is one of those. The ties, however go to Israeli presence inside Iraq in two very different ways. One action is the presence of Israeli agents operating in northern Iraq training the Kurds (Hersh, 7/22/04). The Other has to do with Israel training U.S. assassination squads (12/09/03), and training U.S. soldiers in urban warfare techniques (8/19/04).

The Bush administration has also been threatening unspecified action against Iran because of its lack of full cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Somehow I doubt this is unrelated to the interests - or actions - of Israel.

So now we have three nations following the US lead of embracing preemptive attack - North Korea, Iran, and Israel. As preemptive war is now the official policy of the U.S. there is little moral ground to stand on to deescalate the situation.

We are frighteningly close to what many in the world had hoped was behind us with the ending of the Cold War - preemptive nuclear war. The nightmare images played up in movies of maps with tracers of thousands of nuclear warheads arching across the globe. Who else might be pulled into such a conflict? If the US did launch nuclear weapons, would North Korea fear that the US would take the opportunity to launch at them? Or might they launch opportunistically at South Korea or even Japan?

They are all playing with fire next to the biggest box of fireworks the world has ever seen.

The SEC suit is a result of the scandal that first hit the news in November 2003, and which I wrote about in the article Freddie Mac scandal (11/22/04). Freddie Mac is the largest mortgage guarantor in the nation, and as mentioned above is a GSE. For those unfamiliar with Government Sponsored Enterprises (or should that be prizes):

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. Investopedia.com

The short version of a long explanation is that the U.S. government stands as the guarantor for GSEs, and what that means is that the U.S. taxpayer promises to meet the financial obligations and debts of GSEs. And what this means in the current SEC action is that the U.S. taxpayer is not only liable for the $5 billion that Freddie Mac "manipulated," but whatever penalties the SEC decides to assess.

What a racket.

For more information on GSEs check out Back to Government Sponsored Enterprizes, Wolf 11/23/04.

For some information on how this scandal and the GSEs relate to the economic crisis see Economic Recovery, or Heading for Another Crash?, Wolf, 5/30/04

Petition the Navy to stop testing and using mid-frequency sonar which is leading to the beaching and death of whales and other sea life.

Send letter to the Secretary of the Navy

The NRDC has links to a number of critical enviromental action items at the Earth Action Center.

The arrests came two or three days later than predicted, and there was no avoiding this development for too long. John Kerry’s approval rating was rising during the convention and since he put up a better show than expected, remedial measures had to be taken.

The terror web spun by these detainees, the interchangeability of their roles and identities, their interwoven memberships at several terror organizations – all of which come in literal shibboleths - reflect the overload of plots, sub plots, hypothesis and conspiracy theories over 9/11. It will surely put off many who’d prefer a more simplified version spun by the mega media. Some reports were truly labyrinthine. Upon reading them, one would assume that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and a few others are playing musical chairs to claim the mastermind role for 9/11.

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani, was nabbed in a July 13 raid in Lahore. This Al Qaeda computer expert became turncoat by emailing many of his compatriots, leading to their capture, most notably that of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian with a $25 million bounty on his head for his role in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in East Africa. Ask yourself whether others, who were captured earlier, didn’t use any email for communications, and why they weren’t tracked down in a similar fashion.

The top gun himself, predictably, as the story goes, had stopped using electronic communications long back. He prefers to send and receive missives through human couriers. If that is the case, there must a standby Pony Express to tip him off, and a horse faster than the Lone Ranger’s Silver for him to ride into the sunset. With so many Al Qaeda operatives detained, this man still manages to avoid capture and agonizingly prolong the War on Terror. Logically, the hunter should move from the periphery to the center of the web. That’s where the spider is. It gets easier when many of those captured long back were not really from the periphery.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf called the arrests “unprecedented” and “90 pc successful.” In one report, this was taken to mean that an astounding 90pc of Al Qaeda militants had been captured (Reuters, Aug 10).

If true, that leaves out you know who, whose time must have been up. With the game nearing its glorious culmination, Khan’s name was leaked to the public, exposing his role as a double agent. It scuppered a golden opportunity to end this charade. Are we tempted to sense an end soon?

The “structurally defective” National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had to weave another spin. The White House had to balance between the known knowns of public disclosure and the unknown unknowns of its repercussions. It finally decided that alerting bin Laden to the identity of this mole wasn’t a bad idea. The public will understand if he evades capture yet again, after this disclosure. The Pakistanis were furious, giving the impression that they were close to the quarry, if not for the leak.

With some bad guys on the lam, Bush and Co were justified in raising another big-time terror alert. By now, it is difficult to enumerate all of them, though fluctuating poll ratings would give historians a correlative clue 100 years from now. The alleged targets this time were the mega symbols of capitalism - the Citigroup Center, New York Stock Exchange, Prudential, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank buildings in Newark, New Jersey and Washington DC. The show of force around these landmarks may have melted a few capitalist hearts to heft in contributions into Bush electoral war chest, something even multiple threats against nuclear power plants can’t do. (That can come later, when the chest is filled to the brim, a few days before elections). Think of the visual effect of this spectacle on common citizens. Hawk-eyed heavily armed guards ringing these buildings are indeed reassuring, especially at a time of depressing economic news.

According to an op-ed by William F. Buckley Jr, the arrests in Pakistan “delivered the plotters” and “saved the day”. The terrorists were targeting prime aortas of global capitalism. The US, according to Buckley, have already won one war in Afghanistan and are on the way of winning another in Iraq. He may be right. The leaders of these two sovereign states prefer US bodyguards to local ones, after those resounding shock and awe shows. He adds, “perhaps the day after tomorrow, we will locate Osama bin Laden and fire a fine retributory bullet to take him to his dream world.” Bin Laden is not the only dreamer. George W. Bush keeps raving about his divine mission. In between there are those like Buckley who somnambulate through the alleys of high journalism.

Here is another puzzling statement by Buckley: “Tehran is a threatening power center, and we need to face its gestating nuclear armory with strategic vision. But Iran does not want a showdown with the United States hanging on a bomb going off at Prudential headquarters in New Jersey.”

You can call this “pre-emptive spin.” The next time a bomb goes off, at an appropriate time, US soldiers will be battling their way to Teheran. Wasn’t Saddam blamed for 9/11?

Surging oil prices and a deteriorating US economy provided the other part of this drama.

Iraq, the hurricanes off the Gulf of Mexico, continuing instability in oil rich West Africa, the Yukos crisis in Russia, China’s unquenchable thirst for oil and even an explosion at the Whiting, Indiana refinery – the third largest in the US - were threatening to send oil into the $50 dollar level within no time. Truce negotiations were initiated with rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, while his Mehdi Army was battling US troops in the Najaf cemetery and the Imam Ali mosque. It was a fine power play. While the cannon fodders fight, their leaders negotiate. Al-Sadr can be liquidated, or captured, after a little stability returns to the global oil supply.

There was a little surprise as well. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez became an unlikely savior when he won the recent referendum. Chavez announced, quite correctly, that his government was “the only one that guarantees oil stability.” Oil prices eased from its threat of breaching $47 per barrel on Monday.

Chavez, if he sticks to his social plans, is living on borrowed time. He has raised the elite’s wrath by redistributing land to Venezuela’s impoverished masses, and is attempting to create an economic model that balances equitability, profitability, mobility and freedom. Brute control is easier in stratified societies. To make things worse, Chavez wants to raise Venezuela’s share of its oil sales to 30 per cent instead of the current 16 percent to fund his social programs. (Oil giants get the lion’s share).

The transformation of Col Muammar Qadhafi from a terrorist Bedouin to a peaceable statesman now makes solid sense in retrospect. Libya sits on 35 billion barrels of oil reserves. It is of a variety that can be cheaply converted into gasoline and, due to its geography, shipping will come easy. The Americans are returning with a vengeance, with their drilling tools poised to bore into the Libyan soil, instead of the bombs of an unenlightened era.

Runaway oil prices and a slew of bad financial news can pave way for an economic model our transnational thieves would approve. If things get worse, the elite can negotiate a new social contract, extirpating many of the rights workers had fought for decades. After 9/11 there was a global erosion of freedom, embodied by the US Patriot Acts. While terror can be mentally consigned to the distant lands, and distant repercussions, ravaged peritoneal cells can make anyone think with his stomach, and making comprises a necessity.

With fuel prices and the cost of commodities going up, it makes sense to get wired, to create a more service oriented economy. People who drive to the bank may find it more convenient and cost effective to conduct transactions online. Wired societies, with their broadband infrastructures already in place, are better poised to save costs in the days to come as opposed to manufacture-reliant societies. Getting wired, though, comes with a hidden cost. We get sucked into the Panopticon, ceding our privacy on top of our other social capitulations.

The dangers facing our world are getting more complex. US Treasury bills are being voraciously snapped up by Asian central banks, led by Beijing and Tokyo. These are causing concern ahead of the presidential elections. If these governments dump T-bills at once, the effect can be catastrophic. Alan Greenspan isn’t very worried. It is for eventualities like this that US army bases are moving out of Germany into Eastern Europe, closer to future theatre of operations.

The power plays never cease.

Escalating violence in Iraq gives Bush a grand excuse to pin his troops there. To assuage an increasingly skeptical electorate, he will need to produce a few more HVTs, and possibly bin Laden himself, presumably a dead one, if he is not assured of victory. The known unknown is a terror strike on the scale of 9/11 that might help Bush at hustings. Better yet, a foiled terror attempt of such magnitude. The public will be glad if no lives are lost this time due to another “structural defect.”

In November, Americans will be reminded of the pre-election Madrid bombings. There will be armed soldiers guarding installations, police manning checkpoints and fighters jets – that were missing on 9/11 - blazing through the skies. How convenient for the incumbent, even if they are necessary.

If Bush goes, we will still be the end losers. He can enjoy the comfortable confines of his dream world at Crawford Ranch; bequeathing others the mess he will be leaving behind. There will be future wars, lingering hatreds and greater instability due to the actions of this man. There will be many who will still believe in his lies.

It happens all the time. Captains of the industry, when they know the game is up, deliver morale-boosting speeches before announcing their exit, flush with the expectations of prosperity elsewhere. They leave behind a battle of morsels among faces they will never remember.

Leaders are known to inspire a fight even when the game is up, even after have gone. I am reminded of Field Marshall Walther Model who realized the Third Reich’s devil pact a little too late. Faced with a possible court martial, subjugation by invading armies that were going to liberate Germany of its tyrants and gas chambers, and rape its womenfolk, he put a bullet into his head. But not before urging his soldiers to fight on. Some who did were the 12-year-old “Werewolves”.

Mein Ehre heisst Treue!

There is something about power. In its many manifestations, it’s a common human denominator that determines friendship, love, camaraderie, religion and ideology. When power shifts, so do values, convictions and morality. That’s the curse of the masses. You can throw them out, trample on them, restore them, and repeat this charade. Saddam knew this truth about Power and clung to it at all costs. He was rewarded with ostentatious shows of mass loyalty; there were smiles aplenty. You will find this prostitution of the soul everywhere, from a plush editorial to a decrepit office.

A long time back, in the same place where Iraqis and GIs are battling now, a king far greater than all our petty modern upstarts threw three men into a furnace for refusing to bow before his image. Everyone else did.

The three remained defiant, preferring death to compromise. And you know how the story of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel’s friends ended, don’t you? Ever noticed those who impacted mankind’s course were history’s most defiant, right through danger and ridicule?

August 18, 2004

Kuala Lumpur

Also available at Panoptic World Power Plays

Copyright 2004 @ Mathew Maavak

Founder, Panoptic World
Tracking Trends in Our Evolving Society
www.maavak.net

As an educator, the state of public education is of central concern. As the image of failing schools, schools with "agendas," schools with a union system purportedly leading to "bad" teaching, has taken over the American consciousness, the alternatives have been increasingly pushed - home schooling, charter schools, contracting public education to private corporations, religious schools, and private schools. The funding for many of these various initiatives have come straight out of the public education funding, while simultaneously cutting funding for public education. Other intitiatives aim to cut more - such as voucher programs. Bush has pushed for, and is funding sectarian education and charter schools (many of which are run by private corporations).

The argument is that public education slipped into a malaise because there was no "competition" - yet another ideological underpinning of the belief in corporations and capitalism. So from both sides of the political isle we got measures to increase competition and improve accountability. The latest continuation of this has been G.W.'s "No Child Left Behind," and his boisetrous support for charter schools, vouchers, and religious schools.

I am not intending to be a public education apologist, there are real issues with public ed in the U.S. and have been since the beginning. The biggest problem, is the underpinning of the industrial model of education. In this model, students are raw material that are placed at one end of the process and they come out finished products at the other end. When the student body population was smaller, this was less of an issue. However, in the craze of "bigger is better" and "bigger is more efficient," many urban schools across the nation became "education plants" with thousands of students. I am a pedagological believer that when it comes to education "smaller is better" (within limits). Charter schools are advertised as better for just this reason.

However, there has been another consistent issue with education, and that is the idea of a political agenda. This is a more complicated issue. As a social institution, public education has always had a social agenda - it conveys in both overt and covert ways social values and norms. It has also had various political agendas in that it was intended early on to forge a national identity out of a disparate population. There is another issue here though that has led to the claims of a political agenda, and that is the American expectation of schools as a way to solve social problems. Public education in the US has been tasked with solving social ills from out of wedlock births (sex education), poverty, racism, drug use, and environmental destruction (to name a few). Each of these have come under fire as the presence of an "ideology" in public education. What is neglected is that teaching a specific morality, teaching and sponsoring a specific religion, and remaining focused on a blatantly ethnocentric message, is also a "political agenda."

Let's jsut say that a number of forces have undermined public education and led to the current situation.

Desegregation originally started the "white flight" from the schools and this was spurred on by the federal sponsoring of the creation of the suburbs. Whites (who could afford to) fled the cities for the utopia of a "clean and safe" suburbia with excellent schools. A similar exodous occurred more recently as various other concerns arose (crime, violence, poor teaching, political/religious concerns, etc.) Those who could afford to (primarily white upper middle class and above) once more began a flight from the schools and into private schools.

The schools have been in a downward spiral against increasing demands. The effects of the various flights, and the deteriorating image perpetrated about public education led to consistently decreasing the funding for education, which has left schools with fewer and fewer resources to work with. The "flights" have also left a concentrated population of high need students with a variety of barriers in the system. These barriers include the expanding number of children with physical and mental disabilities, non-english speaking students, and those without the economic resources for other options. It takes more resources to meet these challenges, but the funding continues to decrease. Add on to this the expense of a technological era and the financial woes are overwhelming.

In order to meet the increasing economic burden, public schools have turned to corporations. Strategies include everything from sponsorship, to advertising, to exclusive product contracts. Corporations have also been using the opportunity to place corporate produced educational materials and programs in the schools - an example is the environmental curriculm produced by Exxon which is given free to the grade schools. So public schools are on a corporatized path, but still under assault.

Enter the "alternatives." Charter schools are being pushed across the political spectrum. They are seen as being in the control of parents (rather than the nasty bureaucracy of school boards). They are smaller and therefore must be better than public schools. They appeal to people on both the "I hate government level" and the "the schools are failing level." The charter school movemnt has further drained the public education budgets. Charter schools are funded directly from the public school budget, but they (in most cases) have little accountability and oversight from local and state educational authorities. They are in essence, private schools run on the public school budget. In fact, many of them are operated by private corporations.

All of this brings us to the just released report by the American Federation of Teachers - Charter School Achievement on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (in pdf). The AFT took the data of the federal NEA reports and analysed charter school performance. It is a relatively short report, and I would encourage you to read it. The short version of the findings - that is cropping up in news reports - is that public schools out-perform charter schools. A stunning finding to be sure, and one that calls into question the Bush administration's vocal support of charters. However, there is a much more nuanced aspect to the AFT's analysis.

Let me start by saying that the report does a good job of comparing "apples to apples" contrary to what the report critics are saying. Much of the report focuses on comparing low income students from both charter and public schools. They use the same indicator that the feds use - free or reduced lunch program participation. They also compare urban areas to urban areas, central city areas to central city areas, and rural areas to rural areas. The analysis clearly makes every effort to use valid comparison considerations.

The basic finding is that on average, charter school students are a half a year behind public school students in reading and math. The real findings are much more illuminating. Some of them are highlighted in the report, but others are not.

The basic structure in most states for charter schools is their autonomy from local and state oversight (even thogh they are funded directly out of the education budget of the districts in which they reside). The big-bad bureaucracy belief is that parents (and corporations) have higher standards. What the report found was that the more autonomy charters had, the worse they performed relative to public schools.

� In Arizona and the District of Columbia, both of which have very autonomous charter schools, charter schools underperformed regular public schools, but not at statistically significant levels. In the two other states with very autonomous charter schools, Michigan and Texas, charter schools performed significantly lower than regular public schools. In math, the difference in both states was equivalent to about a year of schooling. In reading, Michigan�s charter schools underperformed regular public schools by the equivalent of about two years of schooling, and in Texas, it was about one and a half years.

� In the two states with the least autonomous charter schools, California and Colorado, charter schools and regular public schools scored about the same.

Contrary to the stereotype of charter schools as the alternative of choice for middle class white parents, the data seem to reflect a high concentration in poorer, central city areas, with higher percentages of children of color attending charter schools. The table below is extracted from data from the AFT report. Only one area covered Grade 8 levels, and the authors state that adequate data did not exist for other comparisons.

While the differences in income are present in the Grade 4 analysis, they increase dramatically for Grade 8. In the Grade 4 analysis, roughly 53% of charter school students are eliblible for free or reduced lunch programs compared to roughly 45% of those attending other public schools. However, when we look at Grade 8, those percentages have jumped to 81 for charter and decreased to 38% for other public schools. My guess is that high school level charter schools are more likely to be found in poorer central cities than elsewhere, and given the demographics of central cities and of poverty, that they are likely overwhelmingly non-white. These charter schools may be specialized for certain types of barrieres and problems, though this is speculation on my part.

What the data seems to suggest, though the AFT does not discuss it, is that charter schools may be the lower income families choice of alternative to other public schools. This creates a very different picture of the consequences of the woes of standard public education. One picture, the prevailing one, is of low income families, and special barrier children "left behind" in a crumbling public education system. As that system is continually forced into more dire straits, a privatized version funded with public dollars - the charter schools - are offered as an better placement. But what the study shows is that these charter schools are not doing a better job, but a worse one. In states such as Texas where there is virtually no oversight, students are averaging up to 2 years behind their standard public school peers. This is huge, and it is frightening.

The one general exception to the gap between charter and other public schools is in rural areas. For whatever reason, and not enough information is given to speculate, charter schools in rural areas out perform other public schools.

So back to my conspiracy theory of destroying public education. There are multiple hands in the pie on this. The first layer of conspiracy ties to following the money. If one follows the money, private education corporations are booming under the various policies and forces. Likewise, in standard public schools the power of corporations has grown tremendously. Schools and school districts find themsleves with little bargaining power against the sustaining economics of corporations which have a captive audience for both product and advertising. The schools desparately need those funding sources - regardless of the social and health costs to students.

Health? you ask. Yes, one of the biggest industries for corporations is snack food and soft drink contracts in schools. Schools are required to place vending machines for constant availabilty. This is considered by many to be a major factor in the increasing problems of both childhood obesity and diabetes. Also, in a case in Portland, Oregon, a school lost its water supply, but neither parents nor the school could distributre bottled water to students because it violated their soft drink corporate contract.

The other part of the conspiracy is to create a population that does not have the educational or critical thinking skills to challenge the elite. It is a basic undermining of an educated citizenry. It is similar to the structural adjustment programs of the IMF and World Bank that require nations to drastically reduce costs of social programs (particularly education). This approach is dramatically undermining literacy (and opportunity) in many nations with loans from the IMF or World Bank. Nations such as Nicaraugua have seen dramatic decreases in educational access and school attendance. Parents simply cannot afford to pay the extra money to send their children to school.

Sources and Resources
AFT, 8/17/04, Charter School Achievement on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (in pdf)
8/17/04 AFT, Report Summary and Press Release

8/17/04 Schemo, NYT, Nation's Charter Schools Lagging Behind, U.S. Test Scores Reveal

6/27/04 Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Bill Bennett Boondoggle?: Former Ed. Secy. Hits Funding Jackpot

8/18/04 Schemo, NYT, Education Secretary Defends Charter Schools

8/18/04 Editorial, NYT, Bad News on the Charter Front

In the 8/17/04 NY Times article New York Vs. the Protesters, authors Powell and Garcia point out:

Tension is already evident. Marches will proceed under the eyes of a massive police, FBI and Secret Service presence, as more than 10,000 local officers will patrol the barricaded streets around the convention. Undercover police have infiltrated meetings of anarchist groups, and prosecutors are ready to process as many as 1,000 arrests per day.

The FBI acknowledged Monday -- after a report in the New York Times -- that agents have interviewed potential demonstrators across the nation. In some cases, protesters say they were asked about their political views. FBI officials insisted their agents conducted interviews only after learning of people planning disruptions at the conventions.

Needless to say, such actions might have the effect of "chilling dissent."

Eric Lichtblau actually gave a more detailed report on the actions of the F.B.I. - F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers. According to Lichtblau, the aggressive tactics being used by the F.B.I. were approved by a previously undisclosed Department of Justice legal opinion which said it was legal for "local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and anti-war demonstrations to counterterrorism squads."

I increasingly feel like I have gone back in time to the pre-1970s curbing of the powers of the F.B.I. and police forces because of abuses of power. Here we have infiltration of "suspicious" groups, tagging of those who dissent and keeping records on them, and direct harassment by federal agents. And who is suspicious? Anti-war demonstrators and political dissenters that's who. Apparently those who agree with Bush policy are not "suspicious" at all. Apparently the supremacist groups (which have been linked to other notable "incidents" including the Oklahoma City bombings, the bombing of the Atlanta Olympics, to name two) and rabid "right to lifers" who have bombed abortion clinics and targeted doctors, are not "suspicious" at all. I guess that is why if Bush (or one of his proxies) is passing through a town near you, you get a front row seat if you wear a Bush/Cheney 2004 button, but not if you wear a peace button. One makes you a "patriot" and the other a potential criminal or "terrorist."

Of course, the move towards a totalitarian United States could get even more extreme - and likely will. The nomination of Goss to head the CIA smacks of just such a move. Goss (presciently) introduced an "intelligence reform" bill in June that would free up the CIA to operate within the US. It also dramatically increases the scope of power of the Director of the CIA - and the President.

In effect, one former top U.S. intelligence community official told NEWSWEEK, the language in the Goss bill would enable the president to issue secret findings allowing the CIA to conduct covert operations inside the United States--without even any notification to Congress. Goss's Wish List

With the pressure apparently on to "fix" our intelligence structure and operation, the movement towards agencies and activities that are without any Congressional oversight should make folks nervous. If the public is nervous, it is certainly not coming through in the corporate media. Perhaps it is a reflection of the politics of fear, and the false belief that such erosions of rights and concentration of power only apply to "bad guys." Gads, how naive can people be?

The vision of the military future is one of "war fighters" who are highly skilled, perhaps genetically modified, perhaps wired into their high tech equipment, backed up by "precision" long range weaponry (likely from space-based platforms). At least that is what I have come to believe from extensive perusal of DARPA projects, and various military "vision" documents. Rumsfeld's dream of the military was the current tech version of this with "shock and awe" followed by a swiftly advancing (relatively) small force with both high tech gear and massive tech backup. The troops were in Iraq, but the direction of moment to moment movements was happening in ... Florida. Hmm.

The other part of the new military plan is to create numerous smaller bases around the world with these highly equipped units to deploy on short notice - in short - the "lily pad."

Some pundits are concerned that the redeployment plan weakens alliances in Europe, largely withdraws US forces from NATO for peacekeeping and protection, and launches the US on a deployment strategy that is unilateral rather than multi-national. Others are concerned that withdrawing troops from South Korea is a "bad idea" and sends the "wrong signal" to North Korea who is still waving their nuclear threat. A few are arguing that this is a necessary move given the "new realities" the world faces.

I lean towards "this is not a good idea" side. Not because I am a military strategist, but because the overall thrust of the Bush (neo-con) military strategy is one of unilateral US military action based on preemptive strikes and grounded in the ideology of total US dominance. It is a strategy based on the idea that the US has no dependable allies, or conversely that our traditional allies are likely to become rivals who must be put in their place. Therefore, "lily pads" and rapid deployment strike forces are steps towards the larger goal.

Given the current events and response in Iraq, one has to wonder if "lily pads," high tech strike forces, or remote controlled weapons systems are up to the threat. Not for the first time, folks are wondering if we are heading towards World War III. Some have argued that the actions in Iraq are inflame the Arab world thereby increasing stratospherically the possibility of terrorist strikes against the US which would then erode the average American's ambivalence about Iraq and the "war on terrorism." This perspective is reinforced by Gary Leupp's analysis of the importance of the Imam Ali Shrine. According to Leupp, the shrine is among the most important holy sites, not only to Shiites, but to all Muslims. It is worth noting that there is an overlap in the three religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (the religions of the Book), and that lies in the old testament and comes together at Najaf. Belief has Adam (yes that Adam) as well as the son of Noah (yes that Noah) who refused to get on the Arc entombed under the shrine. Further, the cemetery attached to the shrine is reputably part of the Valley of Peace that was purchased by Abraham and his son Isaac. Leupp summarizes the shrine's importance with the comment:

In short, Najaf is a hub of mythology, tradition, and historical memories of injustice, resistance and martyrdom that inevitably affect its significance as a military target. Especially when Shiite resistance fighters take refuge there, and use it as a base of operations against unwelcome infidel troops.

From a slightly different perspective, an article on the Al-Bawaba's web site - Inventing the Enemy by David Stratman, argues that "political Islam" is the perfect foil for the neo-con strategy:

Political Islam perfectly suits the needs of America's rulers for an enemy. The lands of the Middle East and Central Asia occupied by Muslims are the most strategically important regions of the world, sitting astride the world's largest reserves of oil and gas; the US could never justify attacking these nations without first convincing Americans that Muslims need either to be attacked-because they are "dangerous terrorists"-or "liberated." Seeing Islam as the enemy also supports Israel's role as an outpost of Western colonialism in the Middle East; according to this script, Christians and Jews supposedly share a common "Judaeo-Christian" heritage which is meant to exclude Muslims, and we are encouraged to support a Jewish state based on savage ethnic cleansing against "Islamic fanatics."

Or if you are not immediately turned off by the mention of "Illuminati", Henry Makow argues in Countdown To World War Three, that the whole debacle from Iraq, to bin Laden, to Iran and beyond are part of a highly choreographed Illuminati plot.

I am not steeped in the Illuminati, but it is clear that there are power elites who are manipulating things for their own advantage. The apparent religious zeal of Bush (and some of his cabinet and advisers), combined with the neo-conservative guidance of US international and domestic policy, create a confluence of forces that are leading the world "to the brink." From the language that is used ("evil vs good", "clash of cultures", Bush finding his "mission," etc.) to the actions taken without regard to law or consequence, it is clear that the cloistered few see the present as their best opportunity for world domination (and whatever else they have in mind). They are joined in collusion by a Congress that is afraid to take a stand, a court that seems to largely support what is going on, a media that seems basically happy to fiddle while the world explodes, and a US public that doesn't seem to get riled up by being lied to, deceived, or directly harmed by the actions and policies imposed.

So are we heading towards WWIII? Possibly. Certainly we are well down the path towards a forcible domination of the planet by the US. Does Bush and Company want to hasten "the end times?" I don't know, but they seem to act in such a way as to light the fuse. It is a twisted logic that doesn't make sense to people who live in a world where one assumes that there is a sanity based in peace and survival. Plans and actions - whether political, religious, or corporate - that seem to lead inevitably to conflagration and/or destruction "don't make sense." On that level, they don't make sense to me either. In trying to understand the actions and directions, I have had to move away from common sense and into the apparent internal logic of the path we are on. It is just that shift which labels one a "conspiracy theorist."

Sources and Resources
8/13/04 Another Day in the Empire, Destruction of the Imam Ali Shrine: Part of the Bushcon Plan for Total War

8/16/04 Leupp, CounterPunch, The Ultimate Stupidity - The Attack on Najaf

U.S. to Cut Forces in Europe, Asia

Shake-up for US troops overseas

US redeploying for quicker action

I have written a number of related pieces over the last couple of years. Here are links to the most pertinent:

What are global military priorities? 12/22/03

The Empire Frame of Mind 3/24/03

Expanding US Military Reach 7/05/03

Collapse

The attempted ouster of Chavez started in 2002 with a U.S. sponsored coup that was reversed by the people in the streets 48 hours. The heavily used tool has been the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The NED was created under Ronald Reagan and run by CIA Director William Casey as a covert arm to destabilize governments - particularly in Latin America - but is now also in play in Iraq. Of course the US has repeatedly denied any involvement. The US even tried getting the heavily funded Columbians to send bogus voters into Venezuela.

Aside: NED funds other groups such as the Democratic Platform, the International Republican Institute, and the international arm of the Republican Party. These three groups were integral in the recent overthrow of Aristide in Haiti. (Disinfopedia)

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil producer in the world, and Chavez is known to have the support of the poor of Venezuela because of his efforts to improve their lot. This of course makes him Loathed by the rich. A good summary of Chavez efforts can be found in this article:

The second attempt at his overthrow - the prolonged work stoppage in December 2002 which extended to a lockout at the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, nationalised since 1975 - also played into the hands of the president. When the walkout (with its echoes of the CIA-backed Chilean lorry owners' strike against Salvador Allende's government in the early 1970s) failed, Chávez was able to sack the most pampered sections of a privileged workforce. The company's huge surplus oil revenues were redirected into imaginative new social programmes. Innumerable projects, or "missions", were established throughout the country, recalling the atmosphere of the early years of the Cuban revolution. They combat illiteracy, provide further education for school dropouts, promote employment, supply cheap food, and extend a free medical service in the poor areas of the cities and the countryside, with the help of 10,000 Cuban doctors. Redundant oil company buildings have been commandeered to serve as the headquarters of a new university for the poor, and oil money has been diverted to set up Vive, an innovative cultural television channel that is already breaking the traditional US mould of the Latin American media.

Chavez is a democratically elected leftist leader and stands in the way of the FTAA as well as corporate exploitation of Venezuela's oil. There is probably justifiable concern about him serving as a role model across Latin America for governments supported by those "left behind" - the poor. The internationalizing policies and outright exploitation of the nations of the southern hemisphere have left a swathe of poverty in its wake. Chavez represents a sign that "business as usual" now faces a formidable foe.

In 2003, Bush even went so far as to attempt to link Chavez to Al Qaeda. Given the instability of both Iraqi and Middle East oil, Russia flexing its oil muscles, and oil speculation heading for $50 a gallon, it seems unlikely that the US is going to leave Chavez and Venezuela alone.

UPDATE 8/16/04 20:24
8/16/04 Palast, Palast, Dick Cheney, Hugo Chavez and Bill Clinton's Band. Why Venezuela has Voted Again for Their 'Negro e Indio' President (Thanks Christopher)

8/16/04 DemocracyNow!, Venezuela's President Chavez Survives Recall Vote Rejected by Opponents

Martin Sanchez Venezuelan Revolution Site - Asamblea Popular Revolucionaria

Sources and Resources

4/28/02 Dissent Voice News, The US and the Coup in Venezuela

6/2002 Broderick, ISR, Venezuela: Coup and countercoup

7/17/04 Wolf, UTJ, What is the National Endowment for Democracy?

Blum, Third World Traveler, Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy

Disinfopedia, National Endowment for Democracy

6/26/04 Cockburn, CounterPunchVenezuela: the Gang's All Here. Replay of Chile and Nicaragua?

11/23/04 Toothaker, AP, US Ambassador to Venezuela Denies CIA Is Plotting to Overthrow President Hugo Chavez

11/30/03 BBC, Venezuela closes Colombia border

5/27/04 Jones, GNN, Target Chavez

12/03/03 Palast, GNN, Chavez vs. the Free Trade Zombies of the Americas

8/07/04 Gott, Guardian/UK, Loathed by the rich

5/28/04 BBC, Chavez bristles amid fresh attack

1/09/03 Wolf, UTJ, Chavez & Al Qaeda?

It makes no difference whether the topic is the environment where we get such selections as:

Heat Waves to Worsen Across America, Europe - Study - the heat is on, we have a chance to change it, but we keep generating more global warming gases;

to Pollutants cause huge rise in brain diseases - yes Charlie Brown we really are destroying ourselves with the better life through chemicals approach;

to Al Gore's review of Glebspan's new book "Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis--And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster" - in which Gore forgets to even mention the title of the book. Gore tells us that Glebspan argues there is a conspiracy among the fossil fuel giants (and their pawns) to keep the public dumb and the world on a climate collision course. Boy that's new news.

Or how about those investigations into the torture of prisoners? On one hand we have a U.S. court ordering the government Give Rights Groups Torture Papers - and of course the papers are not appearing;

meanwhile the British court admits evidence gained by torture - let's legitimate the use of torture shall we?

And guess what, only 30 years behind, but three Vietnamese citizens are suing US firms over damage caused by Agent Orange - maybe the U.S. government should join the suit. It might smooth relations with Vietnam.

Forgive my downbeat reporting. I can't seem to get beyond "Duh" this morning.

One of my original (and ongoing) concerns about the implementation of the "free speech zones" has been that they shield Bush and his representatives from any acknowledgement that there may be a question regarding administration policies. Further, since the corporate media largely follows the big name, the images that show up on TV are of unilateral public support for those policies. Some have argued that the "free speech zones" make sense as a security measure. However, speech is not free if it can be condoned off and placed under a heavy guard. That becomes "managed" and "controlled" speech.

The zone was also used at the FTAA (Free Trade Act of the Americas) meeting in Florida. Demonstrators were kept far away from the delegates and the meeting. This not only allowed unimpeded access for delegates, but slanted the information of the proposed FTAA. If people don't see others raising issues, the assumption is that few have a problem with them. The implementation of the zone subtly shapes public opinion and also allows Bush to make outrageous comments that fly in the face of reality.

I was outraged that the Democrats didn't make a big deal about the zone at the Convention. They went right along with its use. If I had been a speaker at the convention, I would have given my speech from the "free speech zone." But, the DNC, like Bush, chose to let this affront to our rights go (largely) unchallenged. The truly odd thing in the case of the Democrat's playing along was that most of the demonstrators were pro-Democrat and pro-Kerry. They were pushing for broader and harsher acknowledgement of issues and actions than the Dem leaders thought was palatable for the "swing" vote.

In a day when the "average" American gets her/his information from the corporate media, out of sight truly is out of mind. If dissent is invisible and muzzled, then the assumption is that dissent is limited and without merit. This is not what democracy looks like.

Thanks to MaxSpeak, I learned of an interesting analysis of a national sales tax possibility - A Note on the Required Tax Rate in a National Retail Sales Tax: Preliminary Estimates for 2005-2014 by William Gale, an economist for the Brookings Institution. According to Gale's analysis, it would take a 26% sales tax to replace income tax revenue, and a 60% tax to replace all tax revenue. Well that sounds like a winning proposal. If you bought a $2.00 loaf of bread, it would cost you $3.20 with tax. All that, and we still wouldn't have a national health plan.

The impact of the current Bush initiatives have had their intended consequences of making life easier for those at the top of the economic spectrum. According to a Congressional Budget Office Report,

Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families...

Of course, states and cities have been feeling the crunch as well so it should be no surprise that Many Local Officials Now Make Inmates Pay Their Own Way.

To help cover the costs of incarceration, corrections officers and politicians are more frequently billing inmates for their room and board, an idea popular with voters.

Here in suburban Macomb County, 25 miles north of Detroit, Sheriff Mark Hackel has one of the most successful of these programs in the nation. Last year, the sheriff's department collected nearly $1.5 million in what are being called "pay to stay" fees from many of the 22,000 people who spent time in the county jail.

Inmates are billed for room and board on a sliding scale of $8 to $56 a day, depending on ability to pay. When they are released, the sheriff's office will go to court to collect the unpaid bills, seizing cars or putting some inmates back in jail. The wife of one inmate, a Chrysler truck factory worker who is serving half a year for drunk driving, dropped off a check for $7,212 this week to cover part of his bill, the largest single amount ever collected by the sheriff.

Given the effectiveness of the Bush team's economic policies, perhaps a national sales tax will be pitched - not to replace other income and revenue taxes, but to supplement it. In keeping with the favoritism to what Bush refers to as "his base," luxury items would certainly be kept off the tax rolls, just as the gift of decreasing capital gains taxes has padded a few pockets.

Yep, things are definitely looking up.

Other Articles of Interest
7/30/04 Henderson, Wa. Post, Economic Growth Weaker Than Expected

7/31/04 Milbank, Wa. Post, White House Predicts 2004 Deficit Of $445 Billion -- the Biggest Ever

8/06/04 Henderson, Wa. Post, Payroll Growth Slows Dramatically in July

The focus of Border Patrol deportation will purportedly not be either Mexicans or Canadians, and will apply to any undocumented person caught within 100 miles of either border within 14 days of crossing. The hardening of the southern border has already driven undocumented immigrants far into the desert and resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of deaths.

There is a certain irony here as the controls on the border with Mexico were originally put in place to keep Chinese contract workers from reentering the US in the late 1800s. Mexicans could, and did, freely cross the border.

However, the implementation of another policy does directly effect a broader group of immigrants. The federal government has set up a $1 billion fund to reimburse hospitals for care received by undocumented immigrants. This was originally hailed as a great step forward by hospitals, human rights groups, and organizations that work with immigrants. The devil is in the details, and to receive the grants hospitals need to provide immigrant status information. It is feared that this stipulation will keep undocumented immigrants from seeking needed medical attention.

Some people would argue that undocumented patients should have to provide information as to their illegal presence in the US. The problem is that this is not just a money issue, but a public health issue. People may have contagious diseases that pose a significant public health threat, but not seek treatment for themselves or their loved ones for fear of deportation. This scenario is actually more likely among undocumented immigrants due to the poverty that generally drives them into the US in the first place. That poverty significantly lowers the likelihood that they will have had common vaccines or treatment for existing conditions. (Of course, lack of access to medical care raises similar problems for both citizens and non-citizens of the US who do not have access to medical care, but the government has not been motivated to address that health care crisis).

The deepening abridgements of due process and common protections for immigrants is troubling. Certainly all nations have the right to control their borders, but doing so in a way that is consistent with our established laws and values is part of being the nation the US sees itself as being. Various aspects of Homeland Security legislation and laws, and portions of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, challenge that at the deepest levels. The implications of the multitude of policy changes go beyond the ideals of who we see ourselves to be, to posing real threats to national health and security.

The granting of power to border patrol officers that belonged to the courts, makes those officers judge and jury, and opens the door to abuse, and to potential arbitrary implementation. The screening of patients raises dramatic public health issues, as well as humanitarian ones. Both of these policies raise another issue - proving your status. If I were stopped and asked to prove my status, I would have a very difficult time doing so. I don't have a passport, and I do not carry my birth certificate in my pocket. I don't even have a legal (certified) copy of my birth certificate. My guess is that most citizens in the US are in the same boat.

The "get tough" policy is effecting many people. I had a student last year who came to the US with his parents (who had legitimate visas) when he as 3. He had no idea that his status was in question until he was told that immigration was going to deport him if he did not provide his visa. Both his parents were dead and he had no idea of whether those records even existed. Others, who have become naturalized citizens (frequently as children) are also under scrutiny and being asked to provide documentation which they may not have, nor even know that they needed.

Such problems may, and do, effect even documented immigrants to (and citizens in) the US. People may not seek needed medical care, or services, or legal requirements, because of the fear of being deported if they can't provide necessary proof. Their children will suffer the same problems. This in turn, can effect everybody dramatically.

New Strains and New Rules for Agents Along Mexican Border, Blumenthal, 8/12/04 NYT

U.S. to Give Border Patrol Agents the Power to Deport Illegal Aliens, Swarns, NYT, 8/11/04

U.S. Is Linking Immigrant Patients' Status to Hospital Aid, Pear, NYT, 8/10/04

The Department of Health and Human Services wants hospitals seeking reimbursement to ask patients these questions, among others:

"Are you a United States citizen?''

"Are you a lawful permanent resident, an alien with a valid current employment authorization card or other qualified alien?''

"Are you in the United States on a nonimmigrant visa'' of the type issued to students, tourists and business travelers?

"Are you a foreign citizen who has been admitted to the United States with a 72-hour border crossing card?''

Major conflict has been ongoing in Najaf since last Thursday, and last week it was reported that over 300 militia were killed in the cemetery. The Najaf cemetery is also considered a holy site, and the battle there haunts some soldiers. Some Iraqi's are calling for international intervention to stop the blood bath. However, the US is determined to put down the rebellion and claims it has a tight rein on the militia in Najaf.

Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that the assault on Najaf was a "crime against humanity".

Solemn-faced U.S. Marines and soldiers prepared for what appeared to be a decisive battle for Najaf, the holiest city in Iraq, while the supreme leader of neighboring Iran warned that U.S. combat operations in Najaf constitute "one of the darkest crimes of humanity."

"The United States is slaughtering the people of one of the holiest Islamic cities and the Muslim world and the Iraqi nation will not stand by,"

Last night, began bombing Najaf and telling civilians to evacuate. However, one has to ask "who would be considered a civilian?"

The picture emerging of the current state of Iraq is not one of a nation headed towards peace and democracy. Instead it is looking more and more like open warfare. Pictures and descriptions from Iraq are starting to look hauntingly like Afghanistan. Iraq was one of the most modern and developed nations in the Middle East. Now it looks like one of the least. Some will say that is just because of the war, or the poor management and recalcitrance of Hussein. It is true, that 11 years of sanctions greatly diminished Iraq. It is true that there has been further degradation under the occupation, but the US and its "coalition" are failing in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. The people of Iraq are suffering and dying, not in the cause of freedom, but in because of the failure to create stability.

I remember someone saying in one of my classes during the invasion of Afghanistan, that "We should bomb them back to the stone age." That does seem to be the motif of the Bush/Rumsfeld policy of "regime change." As the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan go on, one has to shiver a bit about the threats being made towards Iran. Will it to be a target for forced "regime change?" And if so, when?

The US currently has 160,000 troops in Iraq. More than at any point from the invasion forward. How many more will it take to "win" Iraq, and how many more would be needed for a heavily armed Iran?

As the battles in Najaf rage, I wonder just how poorly the Muslim and Iraqi response will be to the bombing of one of the holiest cities in Iraq.

Who the heck is Porter Goss, and what's the big deal? Well, Goss is most notably a Republican Representative from Florida (where else) who is the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee (excuse me, co-chair). On the Democrat side we have Bob Graham (also of Florida) and who has also been up to his neck in so illegal escapades with Goss (and the Bushs). Almost every piece you read in the corporate press about Goss includes the tidbit that he is a former CIA secial agent (an important piece of information but rarely followed up). Further, he got into a "dispute" with Cheney over the Congressional 9/11 Investigation. (Is the DIA position a plum or a gift?)

So what started the wheels of my brain churning? Well, Postel reports a falling out among the reps, while Bush Co. appoints Goss to head the CIA. The two articles Chris forwarded both pointed to Goss long term associations with Bushs (Cheney Cat's Paw, Porter Goss, as CIA Director? (McGOvern) and Bush-Cheney Cabal Names Porter Goss CIA Chief (Dowbenko)). What is clear from reading these two articles is that the appointment of Goss is yet another f-u from the administration. Further, it had to be approved by exactly the same folks that Postel argues are thinking about clearing out the neo-con power elite. Bit of a contradiction wouldn't you say?

Dowbenko states:

In 1983, Goss was involved in Iran-Contra profiteering with Jeb and Neil Bush and he was exposed, Martin notes, in "his involvement in Neil Bush's Destin Country Club development fraud - a fraud out of which he made about $3 million illegally. He then became involved with Carlos Cardoen and Swissco Management, and the fraud that Swissco Management committed, not only in Florida, but throughout the United States, in those so-called illicit 'tax-swap deals,' which Senator Bob Graham of Florida also profited in.

Goss came to the defense of the Whitehouse over the "leaking" of Valerie Plame's name and identity. Now that he is the boss, will that have any effect on the investigation of the Bush Administration? Who knows?

For those of us who think that the Bush Administration might have had some foreknowledge of the events of 9/11, Goss comes up yet again. At the time of the attacks, he was meeting with the head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad. Ahmad, is reported to have wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta (yes that one). The meeting also included Bob Graham and "other members of the Intelligence Committee" (Bush to name Porter Goss (ISI-link) as CIA chief, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration, The Secrets of September 11).

Going back a bit in time, Goss was also intimately involved in the Congressional investigations into Iran-Contra, and with the expose by Gary Webb of the Mecury that indicated CIA knowledge of the drug importation into LA. This connection came to light again when Brian Downing Quig, and investigative journalist) uncovered large scale deals involving Goss in the varoius laundering scandals surrounding Iran-Contra (The Death of Brian Downing Quig. Quig was murdered June 16, 2003.)

Our except special op, now top spy, seems to be on the edges (and sometimes in the middle) of a number of critical events - Iran-Contra, 9/11, and Valerie Plame. Is he just an "old friend?" Or is he like John Negroponte, "uniquely suited" for his post? However I read the appointment of Goss, I end up with more questions than answers, and none of them are comfortable questions.

Articles
Cheney Cat's Paw, Porter Goss, as CIA Director? , McGovern, TruthOut, 7/03/04

Bush-Cheney Cabal Names Porter Goss CIA Chief , Dowbenko, Conspiracy Planet

Goss says CIA leak not worthy of committee action, Reiss, Herald Tribune/FL, 10/03/2003

Bush to name Porter Goss (ISI-link) as CIA chief, International Citizens Inquiry into 9/11, 6/24/2004

THE BUSH FAMILY, FLORIDA, and the AMERICAN CIA Part One , Skolnick's Report, 11/05/2000

THE SECRET NESTS: Flushing out some deep undercover birds!, The Catbird Seat, 11/31/2003

Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration, Chossudovsky, CRG, 3/15/2003

There is evidence of dubious links involving members of the US Congress, including , chairmen of the Senate and House committees on Intelligence.. Colin Powell and Richard Armitage had high level talks with the former ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad in the immediate wake of 9/11. Now it just so happens that according to the FBI and Indian intelligence, General Mahmoud, the head of Pakistan's military intelligence and the alleged "money-man" behind the 9/11 attacks, had transferred funds to 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta. There is also extensive evidence of business links between the Bush and bin Laden families (See George W. Bush Financial Scams: CRG selection of articles ).

THE DEATH OF BRIAN DOWNING QUIG Webb, 7/21/2003

ANALYSIS: THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO THE (GARY) WEBB ALLEGATIONS, From the Wilderness, 2000

Timeline of 9/11 - Pakistan ISI and/or drug connections, Thompson, Unanswered Questions, 5/31/04

The Secrets of September 11, Isikoff & Hosenball, Newsweek, 4/30/04

Reposted from Thick as Thieves?. Rowan Wolf, 7/05/04

I encourage you to access the interactive map of the Newsweek article. As you click through the potential targets, it is chilling, but also somewhat confusing. Click on the Newsweek map of potential nuclear targets. Now in another browser window click on the Nuclear Regulatory Agency's nuclear reactor locations. You will see something striking in your side-by-side comparison - the two maps are virtually identical. In other words, Khan's computer had every major reactor in the US as a "potential target," Or he had the NRC map on his computer.

The other four categories of targets are more difficult to translate. The defense targets seem to highlight major bases and weapons labs. The infra-structure map has few specific targets. Many of the dots are to industries (pharmaceutical, oil, and steel), but for some reason the targets specified in the alert are not listed (stock exchange, IMF, World Bank, etc). The landmark map seems to focus on sites where there would likely be a number of tourists or workers with the exception of Mt. Rushmore.

In and of itself, neither the Newsweek map nor the report, tell us anything new in terms of targets. There is no released information at this point to tell us the actual priorities or significance of the information we are looking at.

The article reinforces the Bush administration's concerns that there will be a terrorist attack sometime before the elections. The White House is not responding yet to the Newsweek report, but are expanding on the August 1st alert. the capitol, and five (unspecified) legislators are now on the list. (see also Bush team defends raising terror alert)

What is being reiterated by intelligence officials and by White House spokespeople is that the information they have is "detailed and chilling."

Given the maps in the Newsweek report, one has to ask if Khan's computer contained these "detailed plans," or if that information is coming from elsewhere.

The US press is largely playing up the number of suspects being swept up in the wake of information from Pakistan. However, little is being said about how the release of Khan's identity has undermined the uncovering of Al Qaeda networks and plans, and perhaps information that would give clues as to current primary targets - versus what appears to be research on possible targets. There is some acknowledgement though from CNN - U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting'

With the heightened focus on what is being implied as a significant and imminent terrorist attack on US soil, we are seeing a large scale mobilization of "hardening" certain targets. Even given what appears to be massive mobilization in the U.S, other issues have not left the field. U.S. troops are engaged in active combat in Iraq. As Sadr vows to fight to 'last drop of blood', over 300 "militia" have been killed in attacks. And Rice is making ominous noises about Iran's nuclear program - >Rice: US To Crack Down On Iran's Nuclear Program .

So things are continuing to accelerate, but that has not increased the trust level of the electorate in the sanctity of the US elections as an International team plans to monitor presidential election.

We are definitely living in interesting times. I expect that things will get more chaotic rather than less so.

Here's the story. In July, Pakistan had arrested Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan who was an inside member of Al Qaeda. Khan had proven to be a tremendously valuable source of information as he was willing to send and receive coded Al Qaeda messages. He was the primary source of new information that led to the most recent US alert, and to the UK's operation to identify Al Qaeda members in Britain. Johnston states in an 8/08/04 NY times article:

It is not clear whether Mr. Khan represents the second channel of intelligence that officials have alluded to in recent days that, they say, convinced them that the reconnaissance of financial institutions was related to current threats.

But he is emerging as a central figure in an expanding web of connections that, the authorities say, indicates that they may have penetrated an operational Qaeda group whose intentions were previously unknown.

Reading the various reports, there is a constant theme of horror at the stupidity of the US releasing the man's name. Typical of the expert response is this quote from Capitol Hill Blues:

Security experts contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.

"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?

"It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"

A source such as Khan -- cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents -- would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.

"Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."

In revealing the name of this source, the US has undermined counter-terrorist activities in at least three countries - Pakistan, Britain, and the US.

It would seem to me, that this type of source from within Pakistan's Al Qaeda operation is particularly important as Pakistan is part of a critical Al Qaeda channel (Road to Al Qaeda runs through Pakistan>. However, the Bush administration has shown previous lack of care about the identity of critical undercover information sources. Remember Valerie Plame and the investigation that is still going on to discover just who in the Whitehouse outed her?

Pakistani and British authorities are as mad as hell at the US over this "slip." The US public should be mad as well. Al Qaeda has been damnably difficult to penetrate, so a cooperative source inside the organization is invaluable. You would have thought that the lesson would have been learned with the Plame debacle. To not be conspiratorial, I'll attribute this to stupidity rather than suggesting that Khan was deliberately revealed.

Sources and Resources
8/06/04 Reteurs, Pakistan Source Under Cover When U.S. Confirmed Name

8/06/04 Bencivenga, CSM, Road to Al Qaeda runs through Pakistan

8/07/04 MSNBC, Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation

8/07/04 Graff, CHB, U.S. Screwed Pooch By Outing Its Own al Qaeda Mole

8/07/04 Max Blumenthal, The Pakistani Valerie Plame?

8/07/04 Cole, Informed Comment, Did the Bush Administration Burn a Key al-Qaeda Double Agent?

8/08/04 Elliott et al, Independent/UK, The sting and the spin: will a small house in Willesden unlock the secrets of al-Qa'ida?

8/08/04 Daily Kos, Experts Horrified at US Outing of Qaeda mole

8/08/04 Johnston, NYT, U.S. Says Man Had Ties to Plot to Disrupt Vote

The United States has the distinction of being the only nation to have used a nuclear bomb. The bombing of Hiroshima happened, even though the Japanese had put forward a peace proposal (Chronology on Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The constantly told story was that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved American lives, and was therefore necessary. As we have moved further from that fateful decision it seems less likely that was the case. Nor was the targeting random. Hiroshima and Nagasaki hid largely been spared conventional bombing so that the effects of the bombs on established population centers could be measured (Chronology, Hiroshima Peace Site). The actual decision to drop "the bomb" was issued on July 25, 1945 after the "successful" test on 7/16/45; however, the Target Committee had selected Hiroshima (among other cities) at their first meeting on 4/27/45.

There are haunting similarities between the war with Japan and the "war on terrorism." In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, the comparisons to Pearl Harbor were everywhere. The decision to invade Iraq, like the decision to bomb Hiroshima, were made far in advance of the events, and attack was chosen over diplomacy. Roosevelt and Truman were both concerned about the expansion of the Japanese empire, as Bush argued to be concerned about the expansionist goals of Iraq. In 1945, the US had a bomb they wanted to test. In 2003, the US had a new deployment strategy, and lots of new weapons to test.

What is perhaps more interesting is the similarity to recent relations with North Korea. In 1941, Roosevelt decide to start tightening an embargo on Japan - particularly an oil embargo (Japan on the Offensive). Some argue that it was actually the US embargo (the US had been a primary resource provider for Japan) that drove Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. Likewise, one of the primary issues offered by North Korea in their nuclear ploy has been the US embargo of oil.

But all of that aside, hundreds of thousands of people were directly affected by the bombing of Hiroshima. Even though it will likely not make much of a blip on the US news, I feel it is important to acknowledge and remember. It is not called a "day that will live in infamy" for nothing. The dropping of the atomic bomb truly changed the world.

Sources and Reference Links
Yale Avalon Project

Chronology on Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nuclearfiles.org

Hiroshima Archive, Lewis & Clarke College

Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?

Atomic Bomb Decision, Source Documents

Rare film documents devastation at Hiroshima, CNN, 1996

Why the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (Hiroshima Peace Site)

Japan on the Offensive)

Review of Akira Iriye's The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and in the Pacific (New York: Longman, 1987)

Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies

Lobe states in his review:

''We (the authors) set out to demystify the neo-conservatives'', the authors write at the outset of the book, and over the following 369 pages, including some 1,300 footnotes, they largely succeed. Their motivation is clear from the outset: while consistently measured and reasoned in their tone, Halper and Clarke are clearly outraged that the neo-conservative foreign policy pursued by this administration has put Washington's greatest strategic asset -- its ''moral authority'' -- at risk.

The book includes well-told, if somewhat familiar, accounts of how the neo-conservatives used their many institutional bases, such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board (DPB), their formidable political savvy in Congress; their bureaucratic skills within the administration; their ties to the mainstream media, particularly those outlets -- such as Rupert Murdoch's media empire led by Fox News and the 'Weekly Standard', right-wing radio talk shows, and the 'Wall Street Journal' editorial page -- that eagerly recycled their ideas; and their longstanding alliance with the Christian Right to create an ''echo chamber'' that succeeded in moving public debate after the 9/11 attacks toward the threats allegedly posed by Iraq and the necessity of war against it.

Where the book breaks new ground, however, is in its efforts to describe the origins of the neo-conservative movement, its ups and downs over the course of the past 40 years, its core beliefs and why it poses serious threats to both U.S. interests as traditionally defined by conservatives and to the health of U.S. democracy itself.

This one is going on my reading list.

I believe that most in the US believe that another major terrorist action is only a matter of time. This is a serious, life and death issue. However, the administration has undermined the credibility of not just of the warning system, but the competence of the decisionmakers, and the intelligence system.

I would agree with Tom Ridge's defense of using "old information." It is possible, even likely that old intelligence on scoping out targets helps identify potential targets and plans which may be put into place at a later time. However, there is obviously a lot of old information. One would expect that there is new, credible information to trigger a response for specific targets. It seems, that time after time that the "new information" is not credible. This is emerging as a pattern and it may be symptomatic of a policy problem.

If we are generous, we can say that the intelligence community is "nervous" and even questionable leads are being over-rated in their reliability. Or, even that decisionmakers are more likely to jump the gun on alerts because they don't want to get caught by an attack that they did not warn of. Both of these are fatal mistakes, because they misuse resources, and people just quit paying attention to the alerts.

However, there could be a problem in the way that intelligence is being gathered. We could be seeing the quality of information that arises with the use of abusive interrogation techniques. Other than human rights issues, and decreasing the international protections for our own agents, embassy staffs, and troops, experts warn extreme coercion leads to highly unreliable intelligence. Why, because the person interrogated will fabricate what they think the interrogators want to hear. They will admit association, involvement, and knowledge that they do not have. You are then left with sorting out what is real from what is not. The argument is that you confirm the information from the interrogation of other sources. This is problematic because since they are being asked similar questions they may fabricate similar stories. There are numerous examples of this happening under police interrogation.

So which is it? Is it politicians utilizing terrorist attack fears for political gain, over reacting analysts and decisionmakers, or utilization of interrogation techniques that provide misinformation? My guess is that it is all of the above, and probably other issues as well (a primary one being that the data net has been thrown so wide and unspecifically that there is too much spurious and bad information to work with). Regardless, it presents a huge threat to national security.

UPDATE:
8/05/04 CHB, Suspect in New Terror Alerts Fed U.S. False Info in 2002

An imprisoned terror suspect that the Bush administration says provided "vital" information that led to increased alerts in Washington, New York and New Jersey is the same suspect who provided false information that led to false alerts in 2002, angry intelligence officials say.

Since the release of the Bush plan to address the coordination and oversight of the US intelligence community, I have seen Commission members both interviewed and testifying before various Congressional committees. It is clear that the Bush Plan does not vest enough authority and control in the hands of the proposed "National Intelligence Director" according to 9/11 Commission members and chairs. They are pushing for an executive office position with autonomy and power, Bush is proposing a non-executive, non-cabinet-level position (a czar). See the NY Times comparison of suggestions (UTJ permalink).

As the plans for addressing intelligence community coordination problems are aired, one has to ask two questions. First, would such a reorganization actually resolve the systemic and structural issues? Second, was this the problem that led to the "intelligence failure" of 9.11/01?

Would the proposed reorganization actually resolve the systemic and structural issues?
It seems that everyone in the know believes that there are systemic and structural problems with and between the 15 federal security agencies. The agencies have different foci, full organizational structures, and independence. They also are characterized by inter-agency rivalry, which breaks down cooperation and coordination. They also compete budgetarily, which I am sure only enhances the competition. In and of itself, this does not seem to be a good idea. All the plans being put forward add another agency (the National Counterterrorism Center) and a new office - the National Intelligence Director. More bureaucracy to address an inherently bureaucratic problem.

It would seem to me that a different type of reorganization is needed entirely. While Commission members discuss the importance of "competitive" intelligence, it seems to me that what is really needed is different perspectives, voices, and skill/source sets. Competition, in my opinion, seems to be a major part of the bureaucratic problem. On one hand we seem to have the problem of competition, and on the other, the problem of group think. There are ways to address both of these without adding more layers of filter. One way would be to create inter-agency agent and analyst teams. Start the coordination lower in the organizational structure rather than only at the top. We already have (supposedly) coordination at the top both through the National Security Council, directors reporting to the President, etc. It is not working, and it is not addressing the problems.

There are already (at least) two executive-level coordination functions that are supposed to remedy the inherent problems of intelligence. One is the

The other is the National Security Advisor

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, serves as the chief advisor to the President of the United States on national security issues. He or she serves on the National Security Council within the Executive Office of the President.

The National Security Advisor is appointed by the President without confirmation by the Senate. As such he or she is not connected to the bureaucratic politics of the Departments of State and Defense and therefore is able to offer independent advice. The power and role of the National Security Advisor varies from administration to administration.

Obviously, failures lower down and inherent in the intelligence bureaucracy are not overcome by executive level coordination. However, to be fair, the actual power of both the NSC and the National Security Advisor are limited.

There is also the National Security Agency which is also supposed to serve and integrated communication analysis function. Apparently, it doesn't work either.

Was coordination the problem that led to the "intelligence failure" of 9.11/01?
If the testimony and reports are to be believed, 9/11 happened because of massive system failures. Failures of "putting the pieces together;" failure of established systems to respond; and failure of communication during the event. The proposals for reorganization seem unlikely to resolve any of these, and are really only focused on the first. The major problem here is that some people did, or were well on their way, to putting the pieces together. However, they were blocked or shut down. We didn't need more or different information. We needed to act on the information we had. (One glaring example is John O'Neill who was the expert on Al Qaida for the FBI, and was forced to leave the agency. He went on to become the head of security at the World Trade Center and died on September 11th.)

Conclusion
I am concerned that the present urgency to "fix the system" will generate more problems than it solves. Look at the rushed actions of the past three years for examples of the effects and ramifications of acting in haste: The U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the creation of the Office of Homeland Security, the changes at the FTA, and the authorization of the President to engage in unilateral preemptive war. All of these panic (or political panic) responses have either not been effective, or have raised numerous other serious issues.

I am all for "fixing the system;" however, I am not interested in a dog and pony show to soothe my "fears" and make it look like our representatives are "doing something."

One of the problems raised in the 9/11 Commission Report was the "failure of imagination." It seems to me that the current flurry of activity suffers from the same failure.

Collapse

The US has roughly 140,000 troops in Iraq, another 20,000 plus in Afghanistan, an unknown number at Guantanamo, and an unknown number posted at other detention facilities. They are operating in an environment where torture seems to be approved, or at least everyone looks the other way. Torture and brutality require disengaging the normal empathetic response and the ability to see others as human. Yes, I know, that is a basic part of military training so that soldiers can kill - which is their "job." [There is a good discussion of this by former Marine Chris White Double Think: The Bedrock of Marine Corps Indoctrination] However, it is one thing to fire at someone who is firing at you, and another to torture someone who is defenseless before you.

There was a startling article by Nagem Salam in the UK Sunday Herald discussing the imprisonment and torture of children by US forces. According to the article, children as young as 10 are ending up in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. They are being interrogated and tortured. The report is based on a Unicef report released in June 2004. (Yes it looks like torture has not stopped while the military and Congress "investigate" the use of torture.)

It does not help the psychological state of US troops that they may be using drugs issued by the military to keep them alert. The Guardian/UK reports that British troops are being given stimulants to keep them awake for days at a time (7/29/04). Add sleep deprivation to the stressors soldiers are facing. Certainly, they are also aware that their benefits are eroding while they operate under and indefinite posting in Iraq (Injured Troops All Too Often Denied Disability Pay).

We know, some of us very personally, that being a soldier in a war can have lifelong negative effects. Some never recover from the psychological damage of the experience. However, to the best of my knowledge, have large numbers of US troops served in the conditions fostered by Bush's "war on terrorism." What happens when these troops come home? How do they reintegrate into civil society? How do they deal with the treatment of both combatants and non-combatants? What happens when they look at their child (or someone else's), and the images of Iraqi children being tortured by themselves or others flashes through their brains? Post Traumatic Stress? You can be assured it is going to be rampant.

One of the problems that has never been resolved is the PTSD of returning troops. Better efforts were made well after Vietnam by providing counseling and reintegration services, but those have been dramatically cut by the current administration.

I know that some of you are Veterans and have a much more personal connection to this discussion. But I think we are creating damage that cannot be healed for those serving under the flag of the United States. I believe that the effects of the rules of engagement (or lack thereof) are going to create a nightmare for many service people, and massive problems for US society. I don't see anything that is happening at a policy level that is going to mitigate those problems, nor help those soldiers. It will be what it has been from other wars - a hidden consequence.

It is difficult to paint the picture of people serving proudly and bravely, and at the same time admit that those people are being significantly damaged by the conduct of the war. The policies that permit and encourage torture are going to haunt us all for a very long time - particularly as we whipsaw between the "necessity" of the policy and the blaming it on "rogue" troops. There is no honesty and accountability in what is happening, and that is going to hurt returning forces even more. If the decision makers refuse to take responsibility for their actions, what is the likelihood that troops are going to be able to come to terms with what they have witnessed and done? How can they address what has happened when to even admit it is to paint oneself as a "rogue"?

There will need to be a massive reconciliation on the part of the administration for healing to be feasible, and even at that there will be major problems. One does not slip the bounds of humanity and come through unscathed or unscarred. Nor will the victims of the torture and their families come through unscathed or unscarred.

Note
If you are interested in the School of the Americas and the policies behind it, I highly recommend Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer's book School of Assassins: Guns, Greed, and Globalization.

Overview from the Kerry web site:

(All quote)
Overview

Restore America's Respect in the World and Make us Independent of Mideast Oil
Today, we face four great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq; Fourth, end our dependence on Mideast oil. To meet these challenges, Kerry and Edwards will:

Launch and Lead A New Era Of Alliances.
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike us. Kerry-Edwards will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its Allies.

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats.
Kerry-Edwards will ensure that our forces are fully prepared for the dangerous and vital missions they may face, and that America's military always remains second to none. We must extend our capabilities to better face new threats of terrorism, failed states and homeland defense.

Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal.
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. Kerry - Edwards will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil.
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment. Kerry-Edwards will create a new energy and conservation trust fund to accelerate the development of innovative technologies, such as more efficient cars and trucks, the development of biofuels, and creating clean, secure, hydrogen-based energy. Kerry-Edwards will also expand the supply of natural gas, assure 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, and make clean coal part of our energy solution.

Create New Jobs, Strengthen the Middle Class, and Ensure Educational Opportunity

Reward Companies that Create Jobs in America.
The Kerry-Edwards plan will end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas and use the savings to reduce the corporate tax rate by 5 percent, cutting taxes for 99 percent of corporations. The Kerry-Edwards plan also includes a New Jobs Tax Credit for new hiring in manufacturing, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses.

Strengthen the Middle Class.
As incomes decline and costs rise, families are having a hard time paying their bills, let alone saving for tomorrow. Health care costs are up by nearly 50 percent, college tuition has increased by 35 percent, and gas prices have skyrocketed. A Kerry-Edwards administration will provide relief to middle class families by cutting taxes and investing in health care and education.

Invest in the Jobs of the Future.
To keep America competitive for the future, a Kerry-Edwards administration will invest in research and technology and provide tax credits to unleash innovation in broadband, energy and small business. They will also provide a tax credit on up to $4,000 for each of four years of college tuition. And they will work for responsible immigration laws that honor America's promise and strengthen America's economy and security.

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington.
Kerry and Edwards have a record of fiscal discipline that is absent in this administration, and they have promised to live within the budget principles that helped lead this nation to balance the budget. Their plan will cut the deficit in half in four years, increasing economic confidence and keep interest rates from rising.

Provide High-Quality Health Care, Improve Education, and Strengthen Families

Up to $1,000 of Health Care Premium Relief
The Kerry-Edwards plan will provide relief for employers who offer their employees quality health coverage by helping out with certain high cost health cases - saving families up to $1,000 per year.

A Health Plan for Every Child
The Kerry-Edwards plan will pick up the full cost of the more than 20 million children enrolled in Medicaid. In exchange, states will expand eligibility for children's health coverage and low-income adults and enroll every child automatically.

Manage Skyrocketing Health Care Costs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will improve health outcomes while reducing health care costs by cutting administrative costs, waste, fraud, and abuse; enhancing disease management efforts; and reforming malpractice insurance.

World Class Education
The Kerry-Edwards plan will support more resources and more reform in our schools. The plan will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act so students have smaller classes and more textbooks. The plan will make reform work for our schools, supporting innovations in public schools like smaller schools, all-girls schools focused on math and science, and charter schools. And the plan will invest in afterschool programs so that 3.5 million children have a safe, quality place to go after school.

Every Classroom Has a Great Teacher
The Kerry-Edwards plan will raise teacher pay, especially in the schools and subjects where great teachers are in the shortest supply, and will improve teachers' professional development and training opportunities. At the same time, the plan will create rigorous new tests for new teachers; provide higher pay for teachers who have extra skills and excel in helping children learn; and ensure fast, fair procedures for improving or removing teachers who do not perform well on the job, while preserving protections from arbitrary dismissal.

Every Young Person Graduates
Today 3 in 10 young people do not finish high school, and half of Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans don't graduate. Kerry-Edwards will keep better track of graduation rates to hold schools accountable for raising them; will offer more tutoring and mentoring to at-risk youth; will make big high schools smaller when they are not working for their students; and will strengthen the high school curriculum so all students can graduate with a meaningful diploma.

3. Richard S Fuld Jr Lehman Bros Holdings $67.7 mil C
4. Henry R Silverman Cedant $60.0 mil D
5. Dwight C Schar NVR $58.1 mil C
6. Lawrence J Ellison Oracle $40.6 mil B
7. Richard M Kovacevich Wells Fargo $37.8 mil C
8. Howard Solomon Forest Labs $36.1 mil A
9. James E Cayne Bear Stearns $33.9 mil D
10 Todd S Nelson Apollo-Education $32.8 mil No grade

Total salary for the 2004 top ten --- $585.5 million

Here is the current status of the project. We have received over 50 submissions. All of them appear to be quality material. We are quite impressed with the response to A Call for Action. At this point, we will begin reading through the submissions, editing and polishing, and seeking final okays from the writers before the material is ready for use.

The project has changed somewhat since the article, A Call for Action, was sent out. We have had to abandon the idea of establishing a fund for education and issuing grants. It seems that there are no existing nonprofit organizations that would be willing to take this project under their wing. And, after talking with a lawyer and friends who do have experience running nonprofits, we have concluded that the expense and trouble of establishing and maintaining a nonprofit organization would be too great. So we have decided to set up this project in such a way that there will be absolutely no profits to deal with.

To this end, we will first bring online a website containing all of the contributions, freely available to anyone who is surfing the web. Doug Mealing, an experienced web designer, has offered to build and maintain the website. We visualize a site where readers can comment on the various articles, and even engage in dialog with the authors. We would also like to host forums which might help to formulate other ideas and strategies for surviving the end of the oil age, and which could be used as a communications tool in organizing local communities.

We still have not found a server to host the site. Of course, the cost is an issue here. It has been proposed that we could charge a small subscription fee for access to the site, and use the proceeds to pay for hosting the website. I would rather make this site freely available to everyone, as a subscription fee would hamper our ability to reach some of the very people we are trying to help--those with limited income. But this is still an option.

After the website has been up for a few months, we will cull the material and choose out the best submissions to be published in a printed anthology. The resulting book will be sold at costs, or for only enough profits to help pay for the website. Lulu.com will publish the book for costs only, or for a small percentage of royalties. So, by limiting royalties or doing away with them entirely, we can hold down the cost of the book. While we will shop for a more established publisher, Lulu.com provides us with a fallback option. Rob Wagner, who worked for Aldus Corporation--which was bought out by Adobe, has offered to help with the layout for the book.

On a final note, we are still brainstorming for a name. We would like a title that suggests that this is a grassroots effort to aid the transition to sustainable, quality lifestyles as world hydrocarbon supplies wane. Any ideas would be welcome.

We are very pleased with all your submissions and are looking forward to making your hard work and brilliant ideas available to everyone. I, personally, think that your submissions will be a vital aid in helping people deal with the coming changes.

Dale Allen Pfeiffer

Well that's the big picture on government spending, what's happening with the economy we live in?

According to David Cay Johnston (author of "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else") I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years (NYT, 7/29/04). Nell Henderson (Wa. Post, 7/30/04) reports that Economic Growth Weaker Than Expected. On July 29th, Henderson reported that the economy is Up and Down All at Once.

It seems that many act totally baffled by how the economy can be up and down at the same time. Truly, it is not complicated at all. On the whole, corporate profits are flying high but the labor market (and wages) are sinking. This is reinforced by Porter (NYT, 7/18/04) Hourly pay in U.S. not keeping pace with price rises.

The discrepancy here is not whimsical or confusing. It is about decisions and policies, and in some ways it is not new. Since the Reagan era, the shift has been to transfer wealth and power from the citizen to the "corporate citizen." The belief that "what's good for business is good for us" is not a truism, but pure propaganda. The process of transfer has dramatically accelerated under George W. Bush because he is the best friend that corporations have ever had in the US. That is clear from the drum beat of news about worker, environment, and safety policy changes that have come from his desk. It is clear from the military and Iraq war contract scandals coming to light. Take a look:

Iraq Funds Are Focus of 27 Criminal Inquiries (Miller, LA Times, 7/30/04)

Business Booming for Soldiers of Fortune (Stapp, IPS, 7/30/04)

CACI Defense Contracts Hazy on Civilian Authority (McCarthy, Wa. Post 7/29/04)

Advocates of War Now Profit From Iraq's Reconstruction (Roche & Silverstein, LA Times, 7/14/04)

The corporate handouts are epitomized by the $23.5 billion gift to Boeing to rent refueling planes for the military that don't meet specifications and won't work (Roche Opposed Review of Alternatives to Plane Deal (Smith, Wa. Post, 7/30/04)). Take a look at the following quote from Smith's article (emphases mine).

The Air Force's $23.5 billion plan to rent at least 100 Boeing 767 jets as tanker aircraft is the costliest government lease in U.S. history and was the subject of substantial debate in the Bush administration.

It was strongly opposed, at least initially, by the Office of Management and Budget. But top Air Force officials embraced the idea after a Boeing lobbying campaign that reached the White House and gained the support of key lawmakers.

Some will argue that giving a corporation big bucks for something that won't work will at least create jobs (the other side of the equation). You think so? Well, Boeing plans up to 30 hires later this year (Monroe, Florida Times, 7/29/04). This is part of the anticipated 28,000 jobs Boeing hopes to add. But don't get your hopes up about this return on our investment - Boeing outsourcing could mean layoffs (7/09/04).

Ah yes, "out sourcing," "off shoring," and those other deceptive terms. Take the money and run is more like it. Take the contracts, over bill for services, provide materials and services that don't meet the need ... and watch the profits rise. Expand operations, but not in the US. "Out Source" to sub-contractors who pay less or don't operate in the US. "Off shore" jobs under your own corporation for the cheapest labor you can find. Bill it all to the US tax payers while you downgrade pay and benefits or kick them out of a job. It's all a corporate wet dream.

Bush presents himself as a down home guy - Mr. "like us" American. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a man who has never had to balance a checkbook, and never had to pay for his fiscal mistakes (either personal or corporate). The money disappears? No problem, someone covers his debt, and gives him more money to boot. Now we (the US tax payer) are doing the same thing. He has a blank check and we'll get the tab (as will future generations). Certainly previous presidents (Dem and Rep), and several Congresses, have all facilitated this process.

So here we sit with corporations (and their major stockholders and owners) rolling in piles of green while workers are looking for change lost in the sofa. What gripes the hell out of me is that these two sides of the equation are either not discussed in relationship to each other, or we are given the impression of the "experts" (like Greenspan and crew) scratching their heads in bafflement. We are left to believe that understanding these complexities are beyond us because "the big boys" can't figure it out. It's all hyperbole and distraction while they suck the economy (and us) dry.