Unfortunately, carbon sequestration might not be the answer. While it is being held out as a hope (or a stop gap), it is hardly a proven approach and there are serious questions about the potential ramifications.Various studies are underway on different methods of capturing CO2 and "storing" it somewhere. Tests of using iron in the oceans to help certain phytoplankton capture and retain CO2, raise questions of iron balance, throwing off the balance of lowest level food sources, and eco-system interaction. Similar issues arise with various ideas for trapping and storing in soil and terrestrial plants. Plans to capture CO2 and pump it into the deep ocean bed or into caverns on land, also have unknown impacts and effectiveness.

In other words, the pressure is to move full speed ahead and hope that the short and long term ramifications are not too great. But it seems that they could be great indeed.

What is suspected at this point is that CO2 is part of a complex formula of climatic change and response. The mechanisms are unknown, but what is known is that current models cannot explain past global warming events. What research does show is the super sensitivity of the planet to CO2 changes. This has (or should have) raised alarms with the news that carbon levels have soared in the last two years. While the article attempts to downplay the findings, I can't help but believe that concern is moving to panic as everything accelerates and models can't account for the changes.

Most of the carbon sequestration plans focus on capturing CO2 primarily from electric generation, though other fixed sources might offer capture opportunities. Power generation accounts for about 1/3 of US carbon emission. Other US sources are industrial (21%), transportation (32%), and other (4%). Coal fired power generation accounts for about 80% of CO2 from power generation. Since many of the fixed sources of CO2 are not close to the ocean, and certainly far away from deep ocean, one has to wonder about the feasibility of ocean sequestration. Can you imagine the infrastructure needed to trap CO2 from coal-fired plants in the center of the US liquefying it under pressure, and then somehow transporting it from say Kansas to at least 20 miles off the east or west coasts? Further, those deep waters are (globally) mostly in international waters. Might this require some sort of cooperation with other nations? That is not a US strong point.

But carbon sequestration is not the real issue. Generation of CO2 is the issue. In other words, what needs to be addressed is not simply persistent CO2 in the atmosphere, but the use of fossil fuels creating it. It seems to me that there is very little movement to significantly reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Indeed, across the world, use is projected to increase - dramatically. Further, it is increasing in the face of the collapse of fossil fuels.

As the US, China, Europe, and other nations focus and maneuver to extract more, there is less to work with. The remaining sources of coal, natural gas, methane, and oil, are increasingly limited and inefficient to extract. Given the growth in use of fossil fuels, they also meet the demand for shorter time spans. For example the move is on to strip the oil and gas reserves of Alaska one way or another ( Tentative Alaska Land Swap Raises Drilling Fears, Under the Radar.

A case in point is the plan to run a 3500 mile gas pipeline from Alaska's north slope to the lower 48 states. It is estimated that there are 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas there, but US annual consumption is 22 trillion cubic feet (Energy firms benefit in US tax bill signed by Bush). Part of the $136 billion Bush corporate bonanza allows major energy firms a rapid depreciation rate on the costs of such a pipeline. And given the assumed reserve versus consumption, even with accelerated depreciation the gas could run out before the pipeline is fully depreciated.

Underlying the issues of CO2 problems, fossil fuel depletion, increasing consumption, and a plethora of linked issues is a troubling cultural tendency - if you can't see it, it is not there. There are endless examples large and small of this predilection:
- putting junk yards and dumps behind walls to obscure their presence;
- leaving a screening of trees between roadways and clearcuts
- loading nuclear waste onto missiles and shooting them into the sun (we haven't pulled this one off yet);
- or entombing nuclear waste in underground caverns (still working on this one).
- the US shipping its garbage around the planet for disposal in someone else's back yard.

Now we need to do something with the massive amounts of CO2 the burning of a diminishing supply of fossil fuels are creating. HIDE it, shift it, put the problem (and its cause) off until later. Have we reduced the production of nuclear waste? No. Have we reduced the amount of toxic pollutants? Questionable. Have we reduced the amount of plain waste? Not hardly. Have we decreased energy use - even in terms of electrical needs? No. It is growing.

Is this cultural blindness a function of belief in science and technology? Put the problem off and we'll "invent" our way out of it? Or is it a cultural tendency to not want to face the consequences of action? It is certainly more than an issue that people "don't know." My guess is that the overwhelming majority of folks in the US do know. They can easily play into the denial and rosy pictures put forward by government, corporations, and the media, but they DO know. They are just willing to not think about it. Certainly not thinking about the issues makes it much much easier to not address them - or force elected officials to do anything. Or maybe it is pure self-centered interests. With luck, none of the shit will hit the fan before I die.

But a lot of those "I s" are parents. I guess that they just put their faith in science and technology. No parent could want to see their children live through the total obliteration of life as we know it. It is just too terrible to think about it. So it is easier to not think, and easier to pretend that what we know is going to happen won't. It makes believing the propaganda (or edited spin) much, much easier. Of course, one can always hope for the "rapture" or its equivalent to sweep one away before one has to deal with the consequences of following a very short path to destruction.

So let's sequester carbon dioxide, and if there are environmental impacts of that little ploy, hopefully by the time they hit we will have figured out something else - like teleportation to distant planets that have not been exhausted by another foolhardy bunch of folks.

Sources & Resources
Carbon Dioxide Sources

Ocean Carbon Sequestration Abstracts, Office of Science, Dept. of Energy

Carbon Sequestration R&D, Office of Fossil Energy, Dept. of Energy.

10/31/04 Carrell, Independent/UK, UK to pump greenhouse gas under sea

10/29/04 Leahy, Wired News, Earth Reveals Its Sensitive Side

10/11/04 Browne, Guardian/UK, Climate fear as carbon levels soar

10/28/04 Justin Scheck, Mother Jones, Under the Radar

10/21/04 Yereth Rosen, Reuters, Tentative Alaska Land Swap Raises Drilling Fears

10/22/04 Reuters, Energy firms benefit in US tax bill signed by Bush

"Anything" that makes people afraid. "Anything" that raises the issue of terrorism. How about Cheney running around claiming their will be a nuclear attack on the US?

"ANYTHING"?

How far would some go to insure the Presidency remains in neo-con hands?

Text of Bin Laden Tape From Reuters 10/29/04:

UBAI, Oct 30 - Following are excerpts from a speech by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden addressing the American people in a video tape, parts of which were aired by Al Jazeera television on Saturday, as translated by Reuters.

"O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.

"Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.

"It is known that those who hate freedom do not possess proud souls like those of the 19, may God rest their souls. We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander yours.
"I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet.

"In those difficult moments many emotions came over me which are hard to describe, but which produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

"As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

"He (Bush) adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism.....

"We had agreed with the (the Sept. 11) overall commander Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God...

"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.

See tape as boost for Prez (DeFrank, NY Daily News 10/30/04 - thanks to Chepooka for the heads up on this)

With his typical flair for drama, Osama Bin Laden inserted himself directly into the presidential election yesterday, and both parties believed it would boost President Bush's reelection hopes.

Bin Laden popping up like a malignant jack-in-the-box four days before the balloting may bolster John Kerry's argument that Bush should have finished wiping out Al Qaeda before turning his attention to Iraq.

But it also refocused the nation on terrorism, which polls show helps Bush. And it reminds voters of their horror on Sept. 11 and Bush's well-received response, as well as obliterating the recent flood of bad news for Bush.

"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."

He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.

In the closing weeks of the campaign, Kerry has accused Bush of "letting Bin Laden escape" when he was cornered at Tora Bora by "outsourcing" the job to unreliable Afghan warlords instead of using U.S. troops. And he has mocked Bush for never mentioning the Al Qaeda leader after pledging to get Bin Laden "dead or alive."

But the new tape - which is so nakedly political that it should end with the words "I'm Osama Bin Laden and I approved this message" - makes it difficult for Kerry to keep hammering Bush on the subject without appearing to be capitalizing on terror. Kerry eliminated those lines from his speeches yesterday evening.

"If Kerry had been making this a bigger issue, as he should have been, it would definitely translate to his benefit," said a Democratic strategist with ties to the Kerry camp.

Kerry's staff looked somber.

"It's very important for us to move forward. We're going ahead and doing our events as we would," said spokesman Mike McCurry.

I understand that the existence of a radio device has not been proved, but it takes a much greater stretch of the imagination than a radio device to explain the strange shape photographed on the President's back, and science always favors simple, clear explanations. Some of his legions of loyal followers in trailer parks across the nation likely favor the idea of a device grafted to his back by aliens - this is a possibility I suppose - but reason casts some doubt.

How easy it would have been for Bush to dispel the radio-device idea. He just needed to call a brief press meeting with the hump in place, removing his jacket to reveal how a wrinkled shirt could create the distinctive three-dimensional shape. It would have been a very effective demonstration, but I think we all know why he didn't try it.

I hesitate to suggest a drug-pumping device similar to that worn by dying cancer patients, but the damning revelation by Kitty Kelly that Bush was still doing cocaine during his father's term as President leaves one wondering. Genuinely-recovered addicts are not that common, and here was a man, a weak man, addicted to two drugs, alcohol and cocaine. I know the Good Lord can work miracles, but most experience suggests He lets humans clear up their own messes.

Perhaps Bush is on some kind of experimental methadone-like treatment. Yes, I know Kitty Kelly is not a serious biographer, but she is a tough investigative reporter against whom legal challenges generally fail. The public recanting by Bush's sister-in-law, the source of the story, means nothing because Kelly went over her notes with an editor after the original interview. She called the sister-in-law in the editor's presence and reviewed the points of her story, having them all confirmed as accurate.

The disappearance of a huge stock of high explosives in Iraq following the invasion - enough apparently to fill about forty semi-trailers - was to say the least a rather unfavorable revelation. Please note there can be no doubt that Bush was aware of this cache which had been under close guard of UN officials, yet he took no measures to secure its safety during the invasion, any more than he did for Iraq's priceless cultural artifacts looted from museums at the time. Note also that analysis of the explosions that have been killing American troops surely reveals the stolen stock has been used, it being a distinctive and unusual explosive. Note, finally, that we did not learn of this dangerous event from Bush, but from that horrid organization, the UN.

Then we had the matter of a study in the Lancet from scientists at America's own Johns Hopkins University concluding that civilian deaths due to the invasion of Iraq were at least 100,000, half women and children. Lancet is Britain's best-known medical journal, and it does not publish rumors. It is peer-reviewed and highly regarded.

Of course, we have had no counts from the Pentagon of civilian deaths. An American woman's non-government organization made an effort to count deaths and came up with more than 10,000, the number most widely cited. Not long ago, an Iraqi group, people in a much better position to communicate and be accepted throughout Iraq, came up with the number 37,000, a number generally ignored in the American press. Now, we have a statistical study showing, at minimum, 100,000 civilian deaths.

So much for claims of pin-point bombing accuracy, although we should have all been conditioned to the utter falseness of such claims after the first Gulf War. I wish American journalists would in future insist that any Pentagon official making such claims publicly demonstrate them by having planes bomb dummy homes near one he or she is in on some military proving ground. We know this will never happen.

The fact remains that aerial bombardment is a crude weapon that always kills many more civilians than soldiers. The Pentagon favors it because pilots do not see the details of the terrible things they do and because many more ground troops would themselves be killed if it weren't for death from the skies. Clearly the Hitler idea of a terror weapon remains in the thinking of those who talk of "shock and awe." It has many home-town supporters, too, who enjoy full-color explosions and flames over dinner without the details of broken, mangled human beings. Oh, it's like being there, where real history is happening, only in complete safety from the couch.

Now, suddenly, just days before the election, we have Osama's Jesus-like face again appearing on every front page in the world. Who benefits from Osama's re-appearance? At first, you might say Kerry because the face is such a vivid reminder of Bush's utter failure. He didn't get the guy responsible for 9/11 (and from this tape we receive, for the first time, genuine evidence of Osama's involvement), but Bush sure managed to kill a lot of innocent people.

Almost certainly, the re-appearance serves Bush's interests, who for some unknown reason manages to hold a strong rating in polls narrowed to the specific issue of security. I know it's a mind-numbing puzzle, but the man who shirked duty in Vietnam, the man who went AWOL from the National Guard, the man who spent years frying his brain with alcohol and cocaine, the man who continued reading about goats after being informed of the strike against the WTC, the man who has created armies of America-haters with his insane war in Iraq is regarded as strong on security by Americans.

The only rational explanation for this phenomenon is that Americans sense Bush's psychopathic qualities and are re-assured by them at a time of absurdly-exaggerated fear. After all, I had Americans writing me seriously, after 9/11, that Afghanistan should be reduced to a chunk of radioactive glass. American fundamentalists' much-beloved Old Testament and Book of Revelations, not to mention the entire history of Christianity, overflow with such bloodshed and ravings. Were a poll taken in America about the idea of "just killing them all," I think the results might be painfully revealing.

Osama and the boys chose a critical moment to endorse Bush because they know four more years of his violent, incompetent arrogance does more damage to western interests than any attack they could hope to mount.

Under the US system of law and justice, people are captured, brought to trial, judged and sentenced. Even those who are guilty of the most heinous crimes get their day in court. I am not arguing that the US "justice" system doesn't have major problems, but it is one that guarantees us certain rights under the law.

One of the major complaints about the Bush administration's approach to the "threat" we are under has been to abridge those rights over and over again. From the USA PATRIOT Act, to enemy combatants, to detentions at Guantanamo and other facilities around the world, to the invasion of Iraq, the cry has been the violation of both US and international law. In other words, the right to justice.

It seems that various lines have gotten very fuzzy. There are identifiable individuals labeled as involved in terrorism (or as threats to the US). They have names and faces. There is an active search for them. The plan is not to capture them but to kill them.

Let's take a specific case - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Most seem to accept as fact that al-Zarqawi is behind attacks in Iraq, and that he is affiliated with al Qaeda. But remember, that almost 50% of the US population still believes that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda and even a hand in planning the attacks on 9/11/01. The Bush administration has made the claim that "the link" is al-Zarqawi - after all he was in Iraq when Hussein was in power. While this is true, what is also true is that he was in northern Iraq which was controlled by the US "no fly zone." Hussein had no access and control of the region al-Zarqawi was in - the Kurds did ... and the US did.

But those little details aside, there are questions about the role of al-Zarqawi ... and his guilt.

Doubt over Zarqawi's role as ringleader (Information Clearing House 10/02/04)

Al-Zarqawi may not be behind Iraq attacks (Argus Online via PrisonPlanet 10/08/04)

Zarqawi is Not in Fallujah, Nor Has He Ever Been There (Information Clearing House 10/14/04)

Is al-Zarqawi a US Agent Provocateur? (PrisonPlanet, but also under Psycho-Wars: The Role of US Agents Provocateurs in Iraq at Centre of Globalisation Research 10/27/04).

This is why we have a justice system rather than a track them down and kill them system. What if we are wrong ... or deliberately lied to?

Even if a criminal confesses to a crime, we don't just lock them away or kill them - we give them a trial. In the US we have numerous examples of people who confess (either for personal reasons or under coercion) to crimes they did not commit.

As the acceptability of killing "terrorists" grows, we might look back to Bush's detention as merciful. Think about all those "terrorists" rounded up and locked away at Guantanamo. Most of them are now being released because there were no charges against them, and they had been placed outside the rule of law. How much more "expeditious" it would have been to just line them up and kill them. Who cares if you kill a "few" innocent people along the way? (Like the 100,000 Iraqi civilians who are dead.)

The reasons for capturing people and bringing them to justice are numerous. Not the least is that they might offer information and insight. Don't you want to hear what Hussein has to say in court? I do. And I would love to hear what bin Laden has to say in court as well. But perhaps that is why the movement is to just "hunt down and kill" the terrorists. No uncomfortable information comes out that way. And, no understanding of the motivation behind such actions (assuming they are guilty).

So why the appeal to revenge and blood lust? Why the rush to exterminate the "terrorist" "enemies"?

One would think that people would be just a bit suspicious by now of wild claims and the argument to throw out law and the Constitution. One would think that those who have so painstakingly discussed the lies, propaganda, manipulation and disinformation of the Bush administration would be just a bit more cautious. I am not seeing caution. I am not seeing reasonable skepticism. I am not hearing people talk about Kerry's increasing use of the word "kill."

The definition of things have become very ambiguous. The word "terrorism" is being defined so broadly, that a labor strike is terrorism because it impedes capitalist activity (remember California?). A toy brings down Homeland Security agents to protect "intellectual property rights". Environmentalists are labeled terrorists. Those who speak out against the policies and actions of Bush are "terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers and supporters.

We are at a very fragile point in the existence of democracy in the US. We are at a very fragile point in the role and action of the US in the world. Empire is so seductive. "Certainty" is so seductive. Revenge is so seductive. It is time to be very careful of the paths down which we are being led, because we are being led. I have no doubt about that.

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.

An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.

Mass challenges

They may then only vote "provisionally" after signing an affidavit attesting to their legal voting status.

Mass challenges have never occurred in Florida. Indeed, says Mr Sancho, not one challenge has been made to a voter "in the 16 years I've been supervisor of elections."

"Quite frankly, this process can be used to slow down the voting process and cause chaos on election day; and discourage voters from voting."

Sancho calls it "intimidation." And it may be illegal.

In Washington, well-known civil rights attorney, Ralph Neas, noted that US federal law prohibits targeting challenges to voters, even if there is a basis for the challenge, if race is a factor in targeting the voters.

The list of Jacksonville voters covers an area with a majority of black residents.

When asked by Newsnight for an explanation of the list, Republican spokespersons claim the list merely records returned mail from either fundraising solicitations or returned letters sent to newly registered voters to verify their addresses for purposes of mailing campaign literature.

Republican state campaign spokeswoman Mindy Tucker Fletcher stated the list was not put together "in order to create" a challenge list, but refused to say it would not be used in that manner.

Rather, she did acknowledge that the party's poll workers will be instructed to challenge voters, "Where it's stated in the law."

There was no explanation as to why such clerical matters would be sent to top officials of the Bush campaign in Florida and Washington.

Private detective

In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were using the lists or other means of intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" - the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows.

The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services.

On the scene, Democratic Congresswoman Corinne Brown said the surveillance operation was part of a campaign of intimidation tactics used by the Republican Party to intimate and scare off African American voters, almost all of whom are registered Democrats.

Greg Palast reporting. The film will be broadcast by Newsnight tonight, Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 at 2230 BST (5:30pm New York time).

The argument is that there were inadequate numbers of US troops to deal with the facilities. That goes to the issue of planning - purportedly a weakness of Bush & Co. - but what if it is something else.

I had assumed that the military might have contracted out guarding these facilities. What if they chose to leave them available for looting?

It is difficult to believe that any competent military officer would leave massive stockpiles of munitions behind them where they could be used against one's own troops. The military may be callous (some would call it sacrificing for the bigger goal), but stupidity is not a common characteristic. This definitely falls in the category of massively STUPID to me. Somebody upper echelon had to send the orders down to leave up to 900 storage sites unprotected (or undestroyed). Even if troop strength was low, missiles did not seem to be in short supply. Why not blow them up?

Was there some potential use for these stockpiles? Would there be a thought that such munitions might fuel an ongoing conflict? Would there be a hope that those munitions might fall into other hands?

Why? That is the question that keeps cycling my brain. Why, would "about 900 sensitive weapons sites" fall to the bottom of the list? Is it a simple "oversight"? A glitch in the plan?

It isn't as if they "forgot" or "over looked" for a week or a month or even two. They ignored at least the largest of the sites for over a year! Meanwhile, they run a program of paying folks to bring in their rifles - mostly old and battered. Maybe some enterprising Iraqis will sell the munitions back to the US one pound at a time.

Now am I the only one who thinks it is a stretch for Homeland Security agents to be dispatched to a toy store in a small town to (wrongly) enforce the intellectual property rights of a corporation? How many other toy stores got told to remove toys from their shelves?

My guess is that when most of us think about Homeland Security, we think about some sort of very threatening events - things like bombers, or smuggling chemical weapons into the country, or plots to blow up nuclear plants. We might even think of hackers attempting to bring down the banking system. But intellectual property rights?

Ah those insidious terrorists are going to bring crash the US economy by selling knock offs of children's toys.

Well, they wrongly had Cox remove the toys as there are no intellectual property rights to enforce in this case. You might think they would have checked that before making the trip. You have to ask how many other stores across the country are selling Rubik's type cubes (hundreds? thousands?) and whether Homeland Security agents went to each one and demanded their removal. (Does Wal-Mart carry a Rubik's Cube type toy? Would HS dare tell them to remove it?) How many folks were harassed and removed products that they had paid for but cannot sell?

If this is Homeland Security's idea of "protecting" us then there is a priority problem somewhere.

To read the whole story, check out Feds create puzzle not found on toy shelf or this link if the Oregonian article is inaccessible.

I am requesting that you look to see what you can find about either contracts for Al Qaqaa, or in that area. Or who was supposed to be guarding that facility (private contract or not). Conversely, if you have the sources, have there been large sales of explosive materials?

Since I may be wrong, and it may be war profiteering that the NIPR folks are interested in, find what you can on these contracts and profits thereof.

Let me place this in context for you. First, What is NIPR.mil?

NIPRNET The "NIPRNET," the Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network (formerly called the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router Net), is a network of Internet protocol routers owned by the Department of Defense (DOD). Created by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), NIPRNET is used to exchange unclassified but sensitive information between "internal" users. It can thus be distinguished from the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET), which is used by the DOD to exchange classified information in a totally secure environment. NIPRNET is also increasingly used by the DOD to allow its personnel to gain access the Internet without leaving their own computers open to "reverse entry" by hackers, foreign militaries, terrorists, etc etc.

There is a lot of speculation about the actual function of NIPR, but it is suspected that it is a firewalled site through which the DoD monitors internet activity it finds "interesting."

NIPR.mil Nipr.mil, as Francisco suspected, is not a single domain a but a hush-hush web proxy that acts as a gateway for hundreds of U.S. military domains in order to hide their identities. It was established by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) in response to a memorandum (CM-5 1099, INFOCOM) issued in March 1999 by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calling for "actions to be taken to increase the readiness posture for Information Warfare." "Uncontrolled Internet connections," the document says, "pose a significant and unacceptable threat to all Department of Defense information systems and operations."

This is not the first time (nor I assume the last) that UTJ has attracted the attention of NIPR and the DoD (including a number of little known associated sites). I generally interpret it as I've have hit close to something - the question is what. Shortly before UTJ got trashed a little over a year ago, there was a dramatic increase in military and governmental agency hits. I hope we don't have to go through that again. It is unusual for UTJ to get three hits in one day from NIPR, but I doubt it is a fluke.

I am hoping that by passing this information along "they" will not interrupt the site again. I am also wanting to figure out what has attracted the increased interest. You are all savvy folks with good skills. I'd be very interested in seeing what you find.

Why would the Iraqi controllers even be considering such a move? Well, my guess is that it is part of a Structural Adjustment Program with the WOrld Bank and IMF:

Unveiling a three-year economic plan, compiled in cooperation with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Mahdi al-Hafidh pledged "a progressive programme to suppress subsidies [which] constitute a significant burden on public finances".

Decreasing spending on social programs is a typical requirement of receiving WB and IMF loans, and is frequently catastrophic for the nation involved. (See Who Shot Argentina? for a case in point)

According to the Al Jazeera article, Iraq spends about $8 billion a year on oil subsidies. Oil is sold to local refineries at 20 cents a barrel (gasp) which makes the cost of gasoline about 1 - 3 cents a liter. In 2005, oil revenue is expected to be roughly 93% of revenue (roughly $18 billion).

With anticipated outside aid, income is expected to be about $23.7 billion, but the projected budget is about $30 billion. Hence a shortfall. If you look at the above figures, the only way to balance that difference is the $8 billion in oil subsidies). Doesn't that work out nicely?

But how can there only be a $30 Billion budget? President Bush is requesting an additional $70 to $75 Billion for Iraq right now.

If you take a zip over to the UN Office of Iraq Programme Oil-for-Food site it is an interesting read.

The Oil-forFood programme transfered a total of $8.1 billion to Iraq between March 2003 and April 2004. However, between March 1997 and Novemeber 2003 they only transferred a total of $31 billion (slightly over $6 B a year). Given the program scandal, obviously there was much more than this floating around somewhere. However of that total transferred between 97 and 03: 72% went to humanitarian needs, and 28% to Gulf War Reparations (read Kuwait). In other words, About $3.72 B a year went to foos and related, and $1.44 B to Kuwait. That comes to a total of (roughly) $22.29 B for Iraq and $8.68 B for Kuwait over those six years. Anyway, that means that the transfer to Iraq under US control was a 64% increase over what the program was providing under Hussein. Is it any wonder there was a well established illegal oil export through Turkey?

Ok back to numbers that don't add up.

Back in April 2003, the Project on Defense ALternatives (PDA) issued a briefing on the costs to "reconstruct" Iraq. Their estimate was $50 billion. (Yeah, certainly an under-estimate). Here is their estimate of expenses:

Repairing the residual damage to and accumulated disrepair of key infrastructure, industry, and services that resulted from 12-years of sanctions and the 1990-1991 Gulf war would probably cost $30- 35 billion. The recent war has probably added between $15 billion and $20 billion to the bill. In addition, it has created a humanitarian crisis; managing it may require another $3 billion over the next 18-24 months. Thus, $18-23 billion should be sufficient to return Iraq to the status quo of 2002. Going further: a total investment of $50 billion should be sufficient to return Iraq to a semblance of its condition circa 1989. (This estimate assumes some overlap between the repair costs of sanctions and the two Gulf Wars.) As explored below, there are a variety of possible sources for these funds. Nonetheless, new outside assistance on the order of $16.5 billion to $20.5 billion probably will be needed over the next six years.

During the first Gulf War allied air power systematically destroyed much of Iraq's infrastructure and industry, including 92 percent of electric power generating capacity, 80 percent of oil refinery capacity, eight major dams, four of seven major water pumping stations, 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities, numerous water purification plants, and dozens of factories producing goods ranging from tires and electrical cable to medical supplies, fertilizer, textiles, aluminum, cement, and paint.1 Most airports were rendered useless. Hundreds of train locomotives and boxcars were destroyed as well as more than a hundred bridges and many miles of train track and roadway. Numerous warehouses and the goods they stored were also destroyed as were 9,000 thousand homes. The Arab Monetary Fund estimated total material losses at $190 billion (or approximately $250 billion today), although this figure seems a bit high. A 1991 UN study estimated that restoring just the key infrastructure sectors -- power, health, food, oil, water, and sanitation -- would require $22 billion (or approximately $29 billion in 2003 USD).2 This need actually increased during the 1990s, principally as a result of economic sanctions.

And Iraq is going to rebuild itself on a $30 B budget?

Now remember the Bush Administration estimates going into the war that there would be virtually no funding from the US needed to rebuild Iraq because they could do it from their oil revenues. WOnder of wonders - a war that pays for itself. NOT. That certainly hasn't proven to be true as the cost of Iraq has exceeded their oil revenues by around 300%.

So given the situation, is it any surprise that Iraq Says 'Come and Get Us' to Western Oil Companies (Hirst, Global Policy Forum, 10/17/04)? No, it is no surprise given that was part of the original Bush plan, and it is likely a requirement of the World Bank / IMF loan agreement. Yet another consistent part of such agreements is to open the country to "international" investment - that's doublespeak for corpoatization of resources (including labor). So the neocon dream of creating a totally capitalist utopia may be well under way. However, it doesn't look like it will be utopian for the folks of Iraq - perhaps more like Samuel Butler's Erewhon, which read "nowhere" spelled backwards.

[Note: Erewhon is an interesting read, which predates Orwell's 1984 by a couple of hundred years. Samuel Butler lived from 1612-1680]

Other Enlightening Resources
4/23/03 Robert Reich, TAP, Whose Oil?

4/11/04 Radio Netherlands, Who gets the oil?

7/11/03 Michael Renner, Asia Times, Iraq's other looting

While not doing quite as well as Boeing, Northrop Grumman's Third-Quarter Profit Surges 51 Percent:

Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp.'s third-quarter earnings rose 51 percent due to strength from its mission systems, integrated systems and ships and space technology segments.

Certainly, Northrop's gain would have noting to do with the October 1st announcement they "won" the military contract to build the BMC2:

Air Force Officials awarded a contract last month estimated at $408 million to Northrop Grumman Corp. to build the Battle Management Command and Control (BMC2) system.

How much incentive do you think there is to get out of Iraq and end the "war on terrorism?"

The problems we are currently in will not evaporate on November 3, 2004 with the election of John Kerry. (Yeah, you already know that I think we are not going to know on 11/03).

We have a debt that is beyond my capacity to imagine - $7.4 TRILLION plus. That will not go away - perhaps for decades.

We have over-extended US forces and the replacement crisis won't truly hit until Spring 2005. (Though it may hit earlier if the Bush administration dramatically i9ncreases US forces in Iraq in preparation for the January "elections.")

We have all the makings of a global oil crisis that will (and is) hitting not just the US, but most of Europe as well. Here are ominous signs of a global economic crash.

Unemployment and job loss in the US is already projected to increase next year.

We won't even get into the issue of global warming.

Anyway, I don't see very many ways to turn this around on a dime. Actually, I could probably make a good attempt, but I am darned sure that Kerry is unlikely to take that radical an action.

That leaves us with a whole lot of folks who seem to think we will toss out the current crappy novel we are stuck in and open the pages of a fresh story. Even Randi Rhodes is saying that we can go back to monitoring the sex lives of our elected officials if Kerry is elected.

Maybe, I am just over-reacting, but I'd like to know what your sense of things are.

Do you think that the expectations are unrealistic? If so, is that anything to be concerned about?

Then in a report from today's CNN.com - Tons of Iraq explosives missing, we have the following (emphases mine):

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said President Bush wants to determine what went wrong.

McClellan, talking to reporters on Air Force One, said the storage site was the responsibility of the interim Iraqi government, not the United States, as of the June 28 transfer of power.

McClellan said the Iraqi government reported the missing weaponry to the IAEA in a letter dated October 10, and the IAEA informed the U.S. mission in Vienna on October 15. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice was told a few days later, then informed the president.

The Iraqi letter said the material disappeared "due to lack of security" of government installations during the looting that followed the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003.

Or how about this BBC Report from today (emphases mine):

Meanwhile, some US media reports have queried if the theft happened before US troops arrived at the base at al-Qaqaa.

NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.

However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.

What I can glean from all of this without an "investigation, is that the explosives were present at Al Qaqaa when the US invaded, and they checked the site and found them there. For some reason, the US did not consider the facility worthy of their attention, and walked off an left it. After all, it just held "conventional" munitions and high grade explosives - not nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

Before it was the responsibility of the current interim government, the site was the responsibility of the "Coalition Provisional Authority," and before that it was the responsibility of the US military. If truth be told, it was the responsibility of the US from the invasion forward - even after June 28th as the US is the "security" force inside Iraq. Or maybe, it was one of those jobs that was "contracted out" by the US to a "private security force." What do you want to bet on that one? I'd say the odds are high.

This means that the spin and distraction may be motivated not just to lay the blame someplace else (and an "investigation" will surely last well past 11/02), but it would also provide cover for the possible "contractor" and links to high places.

Of course, there is always the possibility that a "contractor" was in charge, and saw the economic value of the explosives. But now I am off into pure speculation.

Or counter scenario... Knowing the potential danger of such a cache, and enterprising enlisted personnel decided to move the material to a safer place. Surely the US military could come up with 380 tons of high explosive in storage somewhere.

Explosives Missing

10/25/04 AP, A Glance at the Conventional Explosives the International Atomic Energy Agency Says Are Missing in Iraq (partial copy)

HMX: High melting explosives, as they are scientifically known, are among the most powerful in use by the world's militaries today. HMX, also known as octogen, is made from hexamine, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid and acetic acid. Because it detonates at high temperatures, it is used in various kinds of explosives, rocket fuels and burster chargers.

---

RDX: Also referred to as cyclonite or hexogen, RDX is a white crystalline solid usually used in mixtures with other explosives, oils or waxes. Rarely used alone, it has a high degree of stability in storage and is considered the most powerful of the high explosives used by militaries.

---

PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES: Experts say both HMX and RDX are key ingredients in plastic explosives such as Semtex and C-4, puttylike military substances that easily can be shaped. Libyan terrorists used just 1 pound of Semtex in 1988 to down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.

Jennifer could be your daughter; your sister; your fiance; your wife; your neighbor. A degree in Political Science, working for a career in law enforcement and serving her country in uniform, she is without a doubt, the "all-American girl" so to speak. All of that has been turned up-side down because of an animal posing as a man, 1st LT Michael Hall, stands accused of her rape. Jennifer is as much a casualty of war as anyone can be - only she was wounded by what was supposed to be one of her own, someone wearing the same uniform.

After reporting the rape the Army took Jennifer to a civilian Hospital emergency room for treatment, after which she was held in seclusion by the Army for three days. During this time military CID agent Eric Barreras informed Jennifer of her Miranda rights and then proceeded to threaten her with criminal prosecution for filing a false report. Further victimize the victim, that's the Army way. And this nation has the audacity to talk about the "rule of law."

The Army took her to the Hospital and now the Hospital is billing her for the charges as the Army has refused to pay the bill according to Jennifer in a previous conversation. Additionally, the Army told Jennifer she was to take a lie detector test which she agreed to readily. When Michael Hall refused to take the same lie detector test, the Army told Jennifer her test would not be necessary, but, I'm getting ahead of myself.

It wasn't until Jennifer's fiance, Edward, who is a New Jersey police officer, arrived at Camp Shelby on August 13th and took her off base was she finally able to get some semblance of counseling and additionally medical treatment. The Army had given her none and had not set any appointments for her even with the base medical people. And it's a good thing Edward did get her some additional medical care - it turns out that her accused rapist, Michael Hall, is Herpes Type 2 positive, and unfortunately, now, too, is Jennifer.

Under pressure, the Army gave Jennifer two weeks leave to go home and "get over it." In a phone conversation with Edward a couple of weeks ago, he told me how when Jennifer called Camp Shelby to request an extension of her leave, so she would be able to continue with the counseling and medical treatment she is now receiving, Lt Col. Powell, the base psychiatrist, she told Jennifer that "two weeks was a generous amount of time for leave" and that "it was enough time for the victim of such a crime to be recovered and returned to duty."

Right now Jennifer is listed AWOL. Her attorney, Fredrick Klepp, klepplaw@aol.com, is being stonewalled by the Army about Jennifer. The Army has demanded Jennifer return to Camp Shelby, the place where she was not only raped but where her accused rapist, Michael Hall, is still running around as if nothing ever happened. There is something terribly wrong with this picture!

Everyone involved with her care all say the same thing, it would be an un-mitigated disaster for her to have to return to Camp Shelby. A compassionate transfer request by Jennifer was denied by the command of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, to which Jennifer is still attached. Anyone in their right mind and with just a modicum of compassion would understand that a transfer out of the 278th is warranted.

She should not be in this position in the first place as she had resigned her commission in October of 2003. But due to a failure on the Army's part, her paperwork had not been completely processed and she was called back to active status in March of 2004.

What compounds this situation Jennifer now finds herself confronted with is the "Feres Doctrine" which VERPA - the Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy, Inc. - has been fighting for over ten years. This has turned all military personnel into second class citizens as it prevents those in uniform, and veterans, from bringing action against the military for harm done - you may find detailed information on the Feres Doctrine at VERPA's web site http://www.verpa.org/

According to Byron Holcomb, an Oregon attorney, it was his case - Buckmiller v. U.S. - "in 1983 that first brought to the attention of the public the problem of rape in the military. The Army relied on [the] Feres [Doctrine] saying that rape was one of those incidents of military service. Until congress repeals Feres and particularly this abomination, rape will continue to be a significant problem of our military." He goes on to say, "this will change when congress changes the laws and every congressman should be made aware of this." I am in total agreement with Mr. Holcomb on this.

In the meantime we need to give our support to this young woman, we must become the "cavalry to the rescue." We can help her by making calls and sending letters - actually as many as needed for as long as needed. What has happened to Jennifer is an outrage, what the Army is now doing to her is a complete act of betrayal. Something is terribly wrong when citizens have to try and force the military to treat a victim of a crime, rape, with the respect, compassion, and just treatment she deserves.

When considering this, ask yourself this, what if this were your wife, your sister, your fiance, your daughter - what would you do to help her, to protect her, and then take it from there.

Below are some of the numbers that should be called. If and when calling be sure to be as polite and courteous as possible, but be firm in expressing your opinion at the treatment Jennifer is receiving. This is an opportunity to truly support the troops by rallying to Jennifer.

Also, as this is on-going, there will be updates made public on a continuous basis until this is resolved. Jennifer's full statement may read at the following link http://oldamericancentury.org/jennifer.htm All available information will be located there as well as my own web site www.ommp.org

I would start with Capt Price that is who Mr. Klepp has talked with to no avail. Col. Powell's number is listed also. At the end of the list of names and numbers, is Jennifer's statement about what happened and this whole sorry chain of events.

Capt Price, Staff Judge Advocate Office
Camp Shelby, MS
601-467-1990

I gathered as many numbers as I could. If I am able to get any more, I will send them to you.

Thanks for your time and efforts, I hope this is helpful.

Jen

278th Regimental Command:
Regimental Commander:
Colonel Adams

(Unable to get a direct extension, but can be contacted via administrative staff)
(601)558-4196

Regimental Executive Officer:
Lieutenant Colonel Honeycutt
(601)588-2782

278th Regimental Headquarters Headquarters Company:
Company Commander:
Captain Ray
(601)558-4501

Camp Shelby Medical Facility:
Psychiatrist:
Colonel Sara Powell
(601)467-1107
(601)558-2547

Medical Deployment Officer:
Major Sullivan
(601)297-4229

Senator John H. Adler, Democrat
District Office: 1916 Route 70 East, Suite 3, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 (856)-489-3442

And here is a listing of New Jersey newspapers if you would care to write or call them as well.

The Star Ledger
1 Star Ledger Plaza
Newark, N.J. 07102
1-888-782-7533
This is the paper of record in New Jersey

The Courier Post
301 Cuthbert Boulevard
Cherry Hill, N.J. 08002
(856)663-6000

The Burlington County Times
4284 North U.S. Highway 130
Willingboro, N.J. 08046
(609) 871-8000

The Gloucester County Times
309 South Broad Street
Woodbury, N.J. 08096
(856) 845-3300

Philadelphia Inquirer
53 Haddonfield Road
Cherry Hill, N.J. 08002
(856) 779-3840
New Jersey Office

The Press of Atlantic City
11 Devins Lane
Pleasantvill, N.J. 08232
(609) 292-4935

Christopher Bollyn has written a startling article on the use of depleted uranium in commercial aircraft. This is a critical article and a critical piece of information.

The release of up to 6,600 pounds of oxidized depleted uranium in the middle of NY City is BIG news. While it has been reported that most of the thousands of workers at "Ground Zero" were sick (and well they might from inhaling toxic chemicals), many are still sick. How far did those clouds of dust and ash go? How would such a dispersion of DU affect a broader population? Is anybody monitoring the overall health of New Yorkers? Probably not since funds for tracking those at ground zero are virtually non-existent.

Cheney keeps running around talking about "dirty bombs" in population centers. Well, isn't 3,330 pounds of depleted uranium exploded on impact a form of "dirty bomb?" We already know the longer term effects of the DU arsenal - cancer and birth defects due to ongoing exposure to radiation. True, the Pentagon refuses to admit the danger of depleted uranium which it uses extensively.

The Bollyn article could easily slip totally unnoticed. I encourage you to read it, and pass it on.

"Ho" said I, is this an "American" company? No indeed, Aventis' corporate headquarters are in Strasbourg, France. Further, Aventis is a relatively new company formed from the "merger" of Hoechst and Rhône-Poulenc, on December 15, 1999.

Hoechst has kept its former website as a digital archive, and there we learn that they focused on pharmaceuticals, agricultural and animal health. Don't be surprised to learn that the ag and animal side was focused on genetic modification research and products.

Rhone-Poulenc, is in France. According to a case study at Harvard Online:

Rhone-Poulenc, France's largest chemical firm, with revenues of more than $7 billion in 1985, seeks to dramatically expand its presence in the United States. From 1986 to 1990, Rhone-Poulenc undertakes 18 separate acquisitions, ranging from small entrepreneurial firms to large divisions of Union Carbide, Monsanto, and Stauffer Chemicals. Once having made these acquisitions, however, the French firm is faced with challenges of integrating these many disparate operations into a coherent American affiliate. The problem is complicated by differences in the nature of competition (global agrichemicals versus domestic basic chemicals), differences in the attitudes of the acquired employees, and an initial lack of confidence on the part of the acquiring firm. By the end of the case, Rhone-Poulenc management faces a specific choice regarding the best way to integrate several recent acquisitions in the field of specialty chemicals.

Like it's US industry compatriots, Rhone-Poulec is in environmental trouble ... in the US. According to the EPA:

The former Rhone-Poulenc site is being cleaned up because toxic wastes from the site are moving with the groundwater into the Lower Duwamish Waterway. Site contaminants include toluene and metals, mainly copper. These chemicals are a threat to chinook salmon and bull trout, which are endangered species found in the waterway. High copper levels make fish unable to balance chemicals in their bodies and can cause fish to die. High toluene levels disturb breathing and heart rate in fish and can also cause their death.

And where is the "Lower Duwamish Waterway"? It is south of Elliott Bay outside of Seattle, Washington.

Given the two companies merged and bought out to create Aventis in 1999, Aventis is the largest force for pushing GM products in Britain (CorporateWatch, 2000).

[If you are interested in this side of the story, you can tap Bayer/Aventis/AgrEvo News, which keeps an archive on their involvement in GM foods]

So we have Chiron based in Englewood, California making flu vaccine for the US in Britain, and we have Aventis (a corporation based in France) making vaccine in Pennsylvania. What a perfect example of globalization. Of course, that isn't going to help those who need, but can't get a flu vaccine.

Aventis also appears to be a striking example of "diversification." You buy out two companies - one in biotech focussed on agriculture, and one in the chemical industry with an ag focus - and magic happens. You get a pharmaceutical company with the contract to make half of the US flu vaccine supply. It should come as no surprise that there is a close link between pharmaceuticals and agriculture. But it does help explain why genetic modification in agriculture slipped so easily into "genetic therapies." I can hardly wait for the vaccines of the future.

(ps) The Aventis Swiftwater plant also has the contract to develop a vaccine for the avian flu.

From most of the news reports on this bill, you would think that it is the only corporate give away in the last three years. It's not. And if Bush is elected (or selected) it probably won't be the last.

Before looking back, let's look at the bill Bush just signed. In typical Orwellian fashion, the "sweeping rewrite" of corporate tax law is called "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" (HR4520). The introduction reads: "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology."

While purportedly, this little treasure (or king's ransom) benefits business large and small, some benefit more than others. According to CNN Money, the bill allows for tax credit for small oil and gas extractors, and a rapid depreciation schedule for large corps with pipelines (Conoco, BP and Exxon) in Alaska. Earlier this month Congress approved legislation that will provide up to $18 billion in federal loan guarantees to those same companies (80% of the expected cost). As noted in the article: "This should make it easier and cheaper for private energy companies to get financing for the pipeline, because if the companies cannot repay the loans the government will do so." And I imagine the government (we tax payers) will do so.

According to an AP report (Bush Signs $136B Corporate Tax Cut Bill), the bill replaces a $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in new tax breaks. While energy companies get a pretty penny, tobacco farmers get $10 billion (somebody has to pay for all those people stopping smoking), and military contractors General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman get a piece of the action, as do some "Houston companies that have reincorporated in foreign tax havens."

As I mentioned above, this "jobs" bill is not the first corporate handout on Bush's watch. I recommend an interesting report by Citizens for Tax Justice titled Bush Policies Drive Surge in Corporate Tax Freeloading - 82 Big U.S. Corporations Paid No Tax in One or More Bush Years. The report looked at 275 of the Fortune 500 companies and found that in the last three years 82 of them had paid no income taxes in at least one of the three years of the Bush reign. Not only that, 46 of those actually got breaks that put them in the negative tax bracket and the government gave them money. The effective tax rate for the 275 companies dropped from 21.4% in 2001 to 17.2% in 2002 and 2003 (the corporate rate is purportedly 35%). According to the report, GE topped the list with $9.5 billion in tax breaks from 2001-2003. In 2002 and 2003 these same 275 companies were able to shelter more than half of their profits which gave them a three year tax break of $175.2 billion.

Please keep in mind that our current National Debt is in excess of $7.4 TRILLION, and Bush's most recent budget adds a minimum of $513 billion in deficit spending.

No matter who gets the Presidency, we have big problems ahead. Unfortunately Bush will not make that deficit disappear when he leaves office. Floyd Norris over at the NY Times asks Is It Time to Stem Asia Deficits With a Weak Dollar?. Oh what a dilemma since Japan and China hold the lion's share of our debt.

Such a ''weak dollar'' policy would raise the cost of imported goods, and thus hurt consumers. But the alternative is to see more and more American economic stimulus drain overseas as the trade deficit grows ever greater, making the eventual resolution that much more painful.

The problem is that a "weak" dollar means that US workers earn less and pay more. It also means that the interest on our debt to Asia (and elsewhere) would be "less." Unfortunately, a weak dollar also weakens the US credit credibility and makes international lenders (much less the IMF) very nervous about the United States' ability to repay its debt. There are not good economic times ahead. Few are talking about this issue (and certainly not Kerry and Bush), but David Broder over at the Washington Post politely states that fiscal ruin is on the horizon.

It's not true that people in Washington can't agree about anything. Across the policy spectrum, there's a clear recognition that the present path of budget-making is unsustainable -- in fact, ruinous.

The Concord Coalition, whose leadership includes prominent Republicans, says that with realistic assumptions but no change in policy, the federal debt will swell by a staggering $5 trillion in the next 10 years. The liberal Economic Policy Institute says that a "budget train wreck" lies ahead. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that it looks as if "substantial reductions in the projected growth of spending or a sizable increase in taxes -- or both -- will probably be necessary" to avoid fiscal disaster.

What lies ahead is not a picture of a growing economy with lots of living wage jobs and tax cuts for all. No siree Bob - the reverse I'd say, but the corporations will obviously do well (at least for a while).

Sources and Resources
10/22/04 AP, Bush Signs $136B Corporate Tax Cut Bill

10/22/04 Reuters, Bush tax bill helps energy firms

10/22/04 CNN Money, Bush tax bill helps energy firms

The Bush Tax

McIntyre, 9/22/04, Bush Policies Drive Surge in Corporate Tax Freeloading - 82 Big U.S. Corporations Paid No Tax in One or More Bush Years

After spending a couple of years successfully peddling columns attacking Bush for repeating the bloody stupidity of Vietnam, Pat has come to the conclusion that Bush isn't so bad after all. He says that while Bush is wrong on the war, he is right on just about everything else.

I suppose Pat's list of things that are right with Bush includes Jehovah's receiving a seat on the National Security Council, some of the Patriot Act's finer points on human rights, sending individuals secretly to places like Syria or Egypt to be tortured, insulting and alienating friends and allies, squandering a hundred billion dollars without managing so much as a patch-up of Iraq's smashed infrastructure, and laughing off world environmental threats far more deadly than anything dreamed of by terrorists.

Pat perfectly represents America's noisy, pointless "culture of complaint," something which mimics the effects of a bad gene pool, endowing America with ridiculous trash like Crossfire or Rush Limbaugh or whole networks like CNN or, indeed, the grotesque practices of its national elections.

Recall Emerson's advice, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Certainly, no one can accuse Pat of consistency, foolish or otherwise. When war served his career, his rise to White House speechwriter, war was a very good thing. He defended it, or should I say he defended others being sent to it, fists flailing and lips flapping. Later, as failed presidential candidate for the re-born Know Nothing Party, being against another war provided some limited scope for still being listened to by some of the party he had opportunistically turned against.

Pat, not being an evangelical in religion, is very much one in politics. Much like Bush, but with far more showmanship, he always displays an evangelist's sputteringly obnoxious and insistent tone of certainty about what he is selling: if you don't listen to me, you're doomed to a horrible fate. The evangelical tone is common in America's politics and contributes to the massive sound and fury of its political campaigns. The same dead certainty and implicit threat are, after all, the underlying message of so much of the television advertising in which Americans are immersed day and night: use our product or risk the torments of social hell.

Pat is typical of so much of America in his efforts to claw his way to the top, embracing a bizarre distortion of William James's philosophy of pragmatism. Whatever works for our own momentary self-interest, we do, a practice which makes the moral relativism falsely-ascribed to liberals look deep by comparison. Likely, the near-absence of genuine morals now common in the commercial and political life of America is partly responsible for the resurgence of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism offers certainty where there is none and the sense of always being able to start fresh. The Puritan brand also is long associated with notions of those chosen and those not chosen, a satisfying private reflection for those who are less successful in clawing for the top.

How many Americans reflect on the stupid, needless death and destruction inflicted on Iraqis (families hiding in smashed apartments without clean water, electricity, or jobs) while driving their air-conditioned SUVs, listening to the stereo, on the way to a sale at the Crate and Barrel? Were they concerned with such things, the bloody, destructive invasion could not have happened, but, then, neither could there have been ten years of organized murder in Vietnam.

Returning to Pat's pick for president, my first thoughts on the Bush "bulge" controversy (see the wonderfully informative site, http://homepage.mac.com/c.shaw/BushBulges/PhotoAlbum15.html ) went to Shakespeare's hump-backed embodiment of evil, Richard III, but Shakespeare's character is fascinating, and of course the historical Richard, so far as we know, was a genuinely heroic figure. Bush is simply a dull man with a shrill voice. The next comparison that came to mind was a marionette, only an updated version with radio controls and servomotors instead of strings and hinges.

Whatever the best analogy, the fact that the American president wears a radio device of some kind during important meetings and national debates has been sufficiently established for people of a critical turn of mind. The revelation seems almost an over-the-top parody of what we already knew of Bush's capacities, an absurd editorial cartoon about an inadequate man walking through responsibilities he doesn't understand, leaving in his wake terrible damage to decent government and peace. Where do the voices in his ear piece come from? Lynne Cheney? The Boston Strangler? Franklin Graham? Jesus? The Wizard of Oz? All of the above?

America, you elected this plodding creature, and it appears you are about to do so again. Never mind the narrow focus on stolen votes in Florida, nasty stuff that it is. Stolen votes are an enduring part of the great chaotic noise you call national elections. Stolen votes in Texas got Lyndon Johnson's political career going, and stolen votes in Texas and Illinois put Kennedy into office. We usually do not hear much about stolen votes in America because the two parties are satisfied with the calculation that the damage inflicted is roughly equal.

Are stolen votes more contemptible than the absolutely corrupt practices of powerful politicians like Tom DeLay? Are stolen votes more contemptible than an election campaign in which the genuine issues of the day, matters of life and death, do not receive a sensible airing? Since those same great issues are ignored by most Americans between national elections, just when are they considered? The truth is that there is no national debate in America on almost anything of genuine importance. The most narrow self-interest continues relentlessly under all the superficial noise and cheap tricks that pass for politics, and, so long as that remains the case, America will continue to kill and maim and overthrow whenever it serves the needs of clawing for more and the heat of evangelical fervor.

Only empty slogans are heard, a billion dollars worth of slogans on television, a billion dollars obtained from the people who actually do run the country.

Our state forests are in deep trouble. There is a 54% increase in clear-cutting over the next 2 years, no areas set-aside for fish and wildlife habitat or recreation, and pathetic 25-ft no-cut buffer zones on streams. This level of protection is even less than what Washington and California have on private forestlands, even though the DEQ has designated all salmon-bearing streams in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forest as too-warm for the successful spawning and rearing of wild salmon!

Worse yet, state officials are subverting the public process and negotiating logging levels in backroom deals with the timber industry.

The Tillamook is OUR state forest, it was planted by Oregonians 50 years ago, and now it is our turn to protect it. The Tillamook is one of the last unprotected coastal rainforests in the lower 48 states. With Measure 34, we have a phenomenal opportunity to set-things right for state forest management in Oregon and deliver what Oregonians can agree upon—balanced forest management. Under Measure 34, 50% of the forest will be dedicated to protecting clean water resources (1/10 Oregon families depend on water from the Tillamook), fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. The other 50% will managed under the existing department of forestry plan with purpose of generating sustainable timber and revenue production for the state and local counties. Current local school funding levels are guaranteed and 34 will require that 5% of state forest revenue will be deposited in the common school fund which helps all of Oregon’s schools.

History has shown that marginal changes in harvest levels on these state forests have little if any impact on overall timber/wood products employment and science shows that forests managed for recreational use are less likely to catch on fire (not to mention the Tillamook is a coastal rainforest—natural fires are rare. The Tillamook Burn fires were sparked by logging accidents). The truth is that Measure 34 helps prevent forest fires and ensures sustainable, long-term jobs in the timber industry, creates new jobs in restoration forestry, and strengthens our struggling—yet vital—sport and commercial fishing industry. It’s a win-win for Oregon.

This is a huge step in the right direction for state forest management, and I strongly urge you to deliver just 2 hours of volunteer time in the next 10 days. The Yes on 34 campaign needs your help sign-waiving and distributing literature in the Portland Area. Please contact Jeremy Rogers @ jeremy.rogers@tillamook5050.org or 503-484-8678 if you can help. We will be sign waiving from 7-9am and 4-6pm every weekday and weekend afternoons between 11-4. If you are interested, we’ll even let you wear the salmon suit! You can also stop by the office, 816 NW Hoyt St, Portland, OR 97209, at any time and the campaign staffers will give you literature and a map to distribute literature or put you to work at the office. At the very least, please copy and paste from this email and let your friends know that "Yes" on 34 will help protect Oregon’s state forests while maintaining school funding and jobs.

Honestly, with so many people undecided on the measure, just 2 hours of time between now and the election can make a huge difference for the future of Oregon’s coastal forests!

Thanks!

Jeremy Rogers

Field Director and Volunteer Coordinator—Yes on 34
target="_blank">www.tillamook5050.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NWPC website: www.nwpcnews..org
Discussion forum: www.nwpcnews.org/phpBB2/

If you wish to unsubscribe from the Northwest Progressive Community listserv
send an email message to nwpc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net or go to http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/nwpc

Was Kerry suggesting more foreign casualties in place of Americans in any illegal future invasions, and for them to bear the costs as well? George W. Bush retorted this was “denigrating” those cannon fodders provided by Tony Blair – who promised more - and Poland’s Alexander Kwasniewski. He didn’t mention the others who pulled out. He didn’t mention that Aussie guy and neither did Kerry.

Touching on his many “miscalculations,” forgetting that it was exactly that, and much more that made him president, Bush says “ It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free.”

Cutting of hands? Execution? Tyranny? Is he talking about Iraq or the great allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? The prez learns poor rhetoric from Coach Rove.

“…the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or wife.”

This was the man who was caught in harm’s way in Texas (or Bama) when Kerry was playing platoon for three purple hearts in Vietnam, something that generated a smear campaign from his Republican ex-comrades. And how many funerals of dead GIs has Bush attended? Photos of their returning bodies was a morale issue.

Oh, he met a Missy Johnson from North Carolina where they cried over her husband who died in Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden was last seen, and whom every American and foreigner would like to garrote for very good reasons). The teary recollection meandered to the threat from Saddam Hussein.

“Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood.”

That’s what many misunderstood, but Bush had plenty of political support from his allies the world over. Thousands of controlled second rate dailies repeated the official 9/11 legend, in a brilliant attempt to silence local dissidents, all disguised under the War on Terror. Some of the best counterpoints, as usual, came from within the United States, in books, online journals and the docudramas of Michael Moore. When the Iraq war began, it was too late. No leader anywhere could make a U-Turn. Saddam’s oil vouchers was a masterstroke.

There were fantastic claims from Bush. Did you know that 75 per cent of the Al Qaeda leadership have been “brought to justice”. The ones missing happen to be a certain Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. No big deal. Mullah Mohammad Omar has fallen into a memory hole.

Kerry counters that bin Laden, who should have been given priority over Iraq, escaped from Tora Bora because the White House “outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.”

If true, why would Bush do that? The Iraq fiasco cost 10,000 lives and $200 billion. Factor in maimed US soldiers and Iraqis and the figure shoots up. Was bin Laden really there in the first place? Unlike Bush, very few American soldiers will keep up this pantomime upon personally witnessing nothing more than a rag tag bunch of militants.

For $2 billion, you could have had Bin Laden in no time.

Kerry reminded the audience that post-Taliban Afghanistan produced 75 per cent of the world’s opium and it is virtually the country’s only export. Hamid Karzai’s election, while he has his US bodyguards, is pretty much an opiate for our souls. Now, ain’t it nice to corner a top opium exporter, and channel funds to wage war in an oil-rich region? Turbaned warlords would find it cumbersome to launder billions through their hawala network. No Karachi whorehouse can handle that sum. There are better channels for this and I wonder where Oliver North is right now.

“Outsourcing” is a buzzword for Kerry and he doesn’t restrict it to anti-terror operations. Bush shied away from the topic. You know why?

US prisoners are now providing stiff competition to those offshore Indians. Prisoners now “produce an estimated $1.5 billion in goods and services.” True to their crimes, they are also stealing jobs from Indian call centers and have ventured into making “car parts, circuit boards, furniture, limousines, waterbeds and even lingerie.” Times of India (July 14)

The US prison industry is discovering the rewards of having the world’s highest incarceration rate. A large number of the estimated two million prisoners can work for a pittance, producing goods and services that even Chinese prison labor can’t match. In California, you can end up doing this under the Three Strikes law. That includes petty crimes like shoplifting. It makes sound economic sense. We have heard of Keynesian economics, Malthusian economics, but how about Jailhouse Rock economics? It’s humane and cheap. Those too dangerous can be executed. As the number of prisoners rise, they will inevitably choke the income of law-abiding Americans. There is another advantage to this economic model. Prisons have no use for unions. Extra hours of sunshine will do.

Both of them avoided this issue.

Predictably, Bush tried to make the WMD-Saddam-terrorist connection. He was, in retrospect, preventing Saddam from providing a “safe havens for terrorists.” There are real terrorists there now, one of whom is described as Bush’s man for the season – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi is doing a marvelous re-election job for Bush. How many times has an “Al Qaeda” terrorist swaggered in at the right time to justify Bush’s pledge of bringing freedom to the Iraqis? See the parallel to Vietnam here, where another nationalist movement fought relentlessly against the same liberators? They gave up on democracy as soon the Americans invaded. When you harden a society, they prefer social order to chaos, and sacrifice personal freedom.

Al-Zarqawi’s outfit now has recently pledged allegiance to bin Laden, again from a Web site regularly used by militant groups. Knock your heads on the walls and ask yourselves why the Patriot Act is not used to track down terrorists like al-Zarqawi. The United States is now empowered to track any threat anywhere through cyberspace. Citibank does better in tracking credit card activities and there are millions of those plastics around. If you still can’t figure it out, then keep knocking that head harder as al-Zarqawi supposedly beheaded Nick Berg until that little issue of his missing limb was pointed out.

“Al-Zarqawi's declaration appeared two days after the U.S. government formally declared his Tawhid and Jihad a terrorist organization, and two weeks before the US elections. Convenient! The listing imposes several restrictions on the group, including a ban on travel to the United States (?) and a freeze on the group's assets in U.S. banks.” (AP, Oct 17). Executed at lightning speed, after all those beheadings spanning months and after their bank accounts were identified. A letter from al-Zarqawi to the al-Qaida leadership was intercepted in January, but the trail was lost.

Now, if you still haven’t figured it out, you have lost your head, a blessed state in this insane world. Besides, this man is taking the limelight from Bin Laden at a time when Bush should get hammered for not producing him. With the release of those Madrid videos a few days back, the elections are going to be tight as predicted. As army deaths mount, Bush wants to bleed them till 2007, just before he steps down, and I am wondering who the Republican nominee will be then. The date makes sense if either Dick Cheney or Jeb Bush decides to run. US soldiers succumb to ambushes regularly because too many of them are guarding Iraqi oil installations and pipelines, and cannot engage insurgents in an offensive capacity. Recruiting Iraqis for this task runs the risk of $100 per barrel. Those pipelines run thousands of kilometers and an oil infrastructure includes ports, installations, and transportation hubs. The number of Americans guarding all these can be staggering. Are they the ones getting the better amour and protective gear? The casualties in this frontline seem to be lower.

Families of soldiers are sending protective gear to their embattled ones in Iraq. Soldiers could be committing a crime if they got them from ebay. The “government is trying to track down more than 150 people suspected of selling hundreds of pieces of stolen military body armor on the Internet… outer tactical vests, or OTVs, and protective inserts…were stolen from the military and sold on eBay for $200 to $1,000 apiece.” (AP, April 8, 2004) Kerry pointed out damning snafus during the first wave of the invasion.

Iraqi nuclear facilities were left unguarded as American troops were tasked to protect the oil ministry and installations. Even ammo dumps were not secured, and now their contents are being used against US soldiers.

Bravo. Good point.

In future, if some loose fissile material turns up in a convenient place and time, imagine which country or “terrorist outfit” will get the blame. Non-weaponized items from such plants still command a premium. Soldiers are ordered to guard whatever their commanders deem fit. Letting off nuke facilities and ammo dumps are unpardonable. Either you have knuckleheaded generals, or smart ones who are enthusiastic about the end result of this bloodfest. The challenger still supports the war, but the “problem is that they didn't think these things through properly.”

Didn’t “think through properly” over nuke-related items and ammo?

Kerry couldn’t attack his fellow Skull and Bonehead beyond a point. That’s a lifelong bond as Bush obliquely testifies:

“I won't hold it against him that he went to Yale. There's nothing wrong with that.”

Bush sneered at his rival’s proposal to join the International Criminal Court “where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.” True.

Were the US Supreme Court judges accountable for electing Bush fraudulently during the last elections? The result was the loss of thousands of lives and the infliction of untold miseries, many of which have yet to transpire. Sand dusts are mixing with depleted uranium. In the meantime, Private Lynddie England has just given birth to a baby boy after toying with those genitals at Abu Ghraib.

Unlike what he did in Iraq, Bush wants the IAEA protocols enforced on Iran, and insists on “six-party talks” over North Korea, with the Chinese acting as the main mediator.

“I'll never turn over America's national security needs to leaders of other countries, as we continue to build those alliances.”

Do you see a disconnect here?

Bush doesn’t. He had spent $30 billion on homeland security, and if this amount is correct, it came from the pockets of America’s middle class, who got their few hundreds in tax cuts while the top one percent got $87 billion, according to Kerrry. How is this regime filling up its war chest? By scaling back the funding of schools, veteran care, healthcare and welfare for the weakest in society, something called “compassionate conservatism.?”

Or from the opium fields of Afghanistan, a la the Contra route?

Part of that $30 billion was spent on extra border patrols on the south, an expensive 1,000 of them.

Bush triumph’s about the Patriot Act. This pan-global anti-terrorism program is working well enough to increase American deaths in Iraq. Sept 11 enabled Bush and Co to pass laws that will pave way for the coming world order, a long awaited promise etched on US Green Bills. See it for yourselves. You can’t mix dissent with order, and probably that’s the only logic taught at the Skull and Bones. The Justice Department lists down the names of potential troublemakers all over the world, readying them as Bush goes “on the offence”.

The people like it, and freedom proliferates, when this cowboy goes “on the offence.”

He claims the Iraqis want them there. He was given this assurance by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a “brave, brave man,” who had shot prisoners in cold blood at a prison complex in Al-Amariyah.

The way this man spins his canard is unbelievable.

Some grisly deaths are known to occur in this locality. During Gulf War 1, a US bomb had incinerated women, children and old folks huddled in a bunker here, a famous episode that landed Saddam a propaganda coup, and made its entry into our TV and history books.

According to Bush a “free Iraq will help secure Israel.” That’s priority number one. Kerry agrees that the perils faced by Americans are “important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world.” Correct order of merit don’t you think? Those select Ashkenazi lobbies alluded in Part 1 know the game. Told you they’d come back to the church gates, after weakening it on home terrain.

The self-incriminating contradictions were aplenty. “It's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Osama bin Laden…If you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. Does this apply to Pakistan with their Kashmiri terrorists and the A.Q. Khan network that was caught selling nuke secrets to North Korea, and possibly Iran? If this Bush claims the Saudis harbor none with a straight eye, he must be suffering from post-moonshine messianic delusions, and the damning 1,000 page report by chief US weapons inspector Charles Duelfer can be spun away with ease.

As for the generals privy to the war plan, Kerry singled out a few who dissented, including ex-Army Chief of Staff Gen Eric K. Shinseki, later retired for going easy with the holster.

Bush saw something else. “I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, "Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?" And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President."

I wonder if Franks can remain calm and collected and confirm that assertion with a straight eye. Top American military officials are planning “an all-out confrontation with militants in Fallujah,” and “they expect victory over a nationwide insurgency that they describe as fragmented, weakened, and losing popular support.” (Boston Globe, Oct 18). Ground reality is starkly different. The number of Americans killed have been steadily rising over the months, and if this is an electoral stunt for Bush, lives are going to be sacrificed under extreme conditions to boost this cowardly war-dodgers chances of re-election.

How are you going to promise a final stand? Gee, there is that Mother of all Bombs (MOAB – a serendipitously sinister acronym) waiting to pulverize Iraqi cities. The use of new weapons, as hinted by President Bush, in the debates, cannot be discounted. Shock and awe is fine for the ballots, but the backlash is going to be ferocious, leaving John Kerry’s “plans” for Iraq – if elected - a bloodied, tangled mess. In that case, the same show will go on.

Kerry, who perched himself on the high ground of international alliances, UN procedures and multinational solidarity on security issues has this to say about Iran.

“I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions….it is a threat, it's a huge threat.

Great. Bush takes on Iraq; he couldn’t trust the UN, while his fellow bonehead takes on Iran. Kerry promises to get tough with Iran.

Both has a plan to win the current war. Kerry wants it done differently. Having drunk from the same skull, he ever mentions “oil” as the casus belli. The senator complains of the colossal sums spent on Iraqi security while there are massive cutbacks for the COPS program, firehouses, security for nuclear and chemical plants, education, healthcare etc.

The US army will remain pinned in Iraq for the foreseeable future. To sustain the current campaign alone will be difficult. The US army is overextended, under-funded and under-equipped. High oil prices and a weakening global economy has transformed the American army into “global oil-protection service.” They are serving in places as far-flung as Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea routes to deliver oil to the United States and its allies. (Michael T Klare, Asia Times, Oct 9). Read the full article here.

They all guised under the war on terror. The missing bin Laden should have a stake in this oil booty for Bush’s cronies. Can’t send your troops to die for oil, can you, but terror, which can be replayed right before your eyes, tints the death toll with a different complexion altogether.

The high price of oil is already destabilizing the world economy. Sustained high production alongside sustained high prices would inflate the cost of commodities, inflicting an adverse impact on consumer spending and, in return, the demand for oil. Most of the oil consumed now has already been hedged, so we are still living in a world economy thriving on 40-odd dollars per barrel. Possibly a significant less depending on the oil basket used. Highly industrialized societies will not escape this coming scourge. Even the IMF admits that “tight oil supplies could leave the global economy worryingly vulnerable for years to come.” The “demand for oil” is “not very sensitive to price increases in the short term.” (Reuters, Oct 7).

In a global economic meltdown, nations will be economically, politically and militarily weakened. The US army coincidentally has barbed-wired most of the oil region and is well poised to dominate the world. With that kind of leverage, it may not matter if the White House has stretched its budget deficits, and its armies, across the Equator and back.

The Russians may do a major rethink on how they are going to use that Yukos oil. Russia’s largest oil company has been slapped with a $1.34 billion in fines for tax evasion. Not much, but there is more to come. How about an oil for fines barter that gets piped right through to the Russian Army. That recent butchery in Beslan isn’t going to be forgiven too easily. Yukos wants a bankruptcy-avoiding compromise, and here is one great solution. This development didn’t happen overnight. The US army was in the region, alongside Israel long before Sept 11. “New oil finds are proving elusive. Oil companies found an average 6.8 billion barrels of new oil a year in 2001-2003, compared to 11.4 billion barrels a year in the previous five years. It can take three to 10 years from discovery to production…Hedge funds have made big bets that oil prices will continue to rise because of the supply/demand/stocks imbalance and continuing political uncertainty in the Middle East. It takes a tanker six weeks, in the absence of a hurricane, “to reach a US refineries.” (Forbes.com, 08/09/04).

At this rate, we are not talking about breaching another psychological barrier at $60 per barrel but pandemonium.

The Bush Administration has been building up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve since November 2001, that’s just after Sept 11, and the timing couldn’t be more perfect. You’d call that priority after those unfortunate souls perished with the Twin Towers. This administration has been stockpiling oil, and remember they have a Kissinger-era pledge to supply Israel as well. This man wants the wars he personally never had the joy or guts to fight.

Kerry barely raised these issues, in any forum. Short of equipment, Bush is banking on more men and women to volunteer for the army. You should believe the oil stooge.

“Now, forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I am the president.”

Read my lips. 2007…

There are ways to add numbers into the army. A real bad economy can promise that. There is already a quasi draft in place with “stop loss policies”. Since the US army has subordinated its interests to oil and other private concerns, one can throw in thousands of mercenaries as well. They can come cheap from the southern bother with hopes of holding a US passport one day. Who needs international tribunals now? Private armies are not accountable.

In between, there was a macabre attempt at public blackmail. When asked if Kerry’s election would make the United States vulnerable to another 9/11 attack, Bush says:

“No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead.” What if he doesn’t win? Pass the bone to Kerry for his own wars?

On cheaper drugs, Bush wasn’t oblique of what he thought of Canadians.

“When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you. I've got an obligation to make sure our government does everything we can to protect you.” After all, the drugs might come from a Third World.”

Bravo!

Many “Canadian” drugs are manufactured by US-based companies that sell them for a lot less there. You can’t have a insurance-based healthcare system in any other Developed Nation. It would invite political suicide. The quality of life index perennially shows a gulf between Western Europe and America. For a little sense, Bush should keep popping some Brahmi from Third World India (60 tabs for $1. Cheap!) When the prez takes that, he will really understand stuff like “sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury,” pollutants which he pledges to cut by 70 percent. Nitrogen and Oxygen can mix to form laughing gas, something badly needed in this presidential travesty.

If you think there isn’t a social system that sticks out and yet pretty much works, try the example of the Third World India’s state of Kerala.

It has close to 100 per cent literacy, and a highly educated populace that are mobile, able to adapt and ready to migrate if necessary. All this was achieved at a minimal cost. A bus conductor with Masters degree has a better chance of working as a senior clerk or a bank officer in Dubai than his American counterpart who has nothing. That’s what the first elected communist government in the world, headed by E.M.S. Namboodiripad, started achieving from the 50s onwards. They were no doubt helped by a populace attuned to the changing world and the information that came with it. The social revolution in this state, which the West (namely the Portuguese) used as a springboard for its Eastern conquests, brought in immense wealth and knowledge. It leapfrogged the industrial phase because there was never an industry worth its name, till today. Not quite possible in an irrepressible and educated society that discarded its once rigid social strata. New wealth had to be generated from knowledge. How many bus conductors anywhere with an MA are ready to jump at new opportunities across the oceans while they bid their time peeling tickets?

The CIA panicks when they see developments like this. Ho Chi Minh’s model was choked and so was Fidel Castro’s. Hugo Chavez is living on borrowed time.

It is fitting that John Kerry wanted John McCain as his running mate earlier. The Cains of this world are their brothers keepers. They watch out for each other. Otherwise, Kerry would have demolished Bush’s distortions within the first debate. This is story of the United States, and the nations of this world.

Evil is at your doorstep.

Enough of this crap for the time being. Off to Kerala where I learnt the merits of knowledge, dialecticism and mobility. So what if I have to wave that offer from the London School of Economics again? I’ll be in familiar terrain, among people with similar vicissitudes. Doors can be opened, shut and wrenched open. That’s the world I live in.

Mathew Maavak

Bombay, Oct 22

@Mathew Maavak 2004

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

Humans used 121% of the planet's resources in 2001 (yep three years ago and just at the beginning of the China-India development boom). My guess is that it has jumped dramatically since then. The 121% means that we are using all of the renewable resources being produced plus the stored reserve (such as fossil fuels). In fact, since 1961 when we were using 59%, the level of fossil fuel consumption jumped over 700% - all of that the ancient stored wealth of the planet. At this point it would take about 2.5 planets to support the current population of the earth at existing (disparate) standards.

There are various measures of resource usage and exhaustion, but one measure is the global "footprint." According to the AP article, the footprint is "measured by a calculation of land use, pollution, energy consumption, and the level of carbon dioxide emissions." There is a link out to the Global Footprint Network, and they have a link to an interesting test to see what your individual footprint is - Your Footprint.

I'd encourage folks to take the test, and then play around with it a bit. The average person in the US comes out with a score of 24. This means that if all 6.1 billion folks on the planet lived like the average person in the US, we would need about 6.8 planets worth of resources. The lowest score I could come up with in the US was 2 (equivalent to 1 planet) The responses I put to get there?
- I was in the US in a town under 1,000 with a climate like Seattle
- Vegan
- Never eat processed food
- Didn't generate much waste
- Live with 7 or more people in a 500 square foot house with no running water or electricity
- Never use any kind of fossil fuel based transportation.

That would need to be the absolute to margin for the planet's population with the US infrastructure.

The AP article lists "Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Tajikistan and Bangladesh" as having the smallest footprint -a frightening thought as none of those places are environmentally "pristine." When I read Afghanistan, the first thing that jumped to mind was comments I heard during the US invasion about "bombing them back to the stone age." Which in at least two renditions was responded to with something to the effect that they already were in the stone age.

The Living Planet Reports covers a variety of ecological and species issues and the trends are dramatically negative - even more negative than you might think. The Global Footprint stuff is beyond depressing, but pretty darned enlightening. Given the discussions about surviving the exhaustion of oil we have had, these sources are critical. And by the way, oil is over $55 a barrel today.

The prevailing theory for over 25 years was that the number of genes was linked to the number of proteins that a species produces. If you identified 40,000 proteins, then you went looking for 40,000 genes. It was also assumed that "complexity" was linked to genes. Since it was assumed that humans were the most "complex " species, then humans should have the most genes.

Let's look at the hints in the article I've linked to.

The 30,000 figure was itself a surprising downgrade from the 100,000 human genes commonly said to exist as recently as five years ago, before the exact sequence of DNA units in the genome was decoded.

Attempting to explain the discrepancy:

One such feature is alternative splicing, the mechanism through which a single gene can generate several kinds of protein by selecting different combinations of the same set of building blocks. More alternative splicing occurs in human cells than in those of lower animals like flies and worms, Dr. Crollius said.

At the time of its first report, the consortium that decoded the human genome had failed to close 147,821 gaps in the DNA sequence of the 24 pairs of human chromosomes. These gaps, stretches of DNA resistant to the usual sequencing methods, have now been reduced to just 341. The total size of the human genome is 3.08 billion units of DNA, the consortium now estimates. Besides the 341 gaps, a special structural DNA at the center and tips of each chromosome continues to defy current sequencing.

Why is this a big deal? Well, it's big because the dominant theory of genetics has been the protein theory. That was the basis for virtually all genetic research (and experimentation. That (faulty) paradigm is the basis of genetic manipulation and tailoring that is now hitting the market. It is somewhat similar to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe with everything else orbiting it, and the proof that this was not at all the case. Though I must say that since we are mucking with the stuff of life (and those experiments have the ability to contaminate all life on the planet) that the implications of the faulty paradigm might be a bit bigger.

Knowing this, Dr. Axel's comment below seems particularly disingenuous to me.

The lower number of human genes "doesn't disturb me in a conceptual way at all," Dr. Richard Axel, a biologist at Columbia, said.

“The video, taken at Madrid's Atocha station and aired by Telecinco, is believed to be the first public broadcast of images from the bombings that killed 191 people.” (AP, Oct 19) Telecinco also broadcasted two other videos of “Islamic militant(s) claiming responsibility” for the bombings on behalf of al-Qaida and the promise of more to come.

What wonderful timing from a Spain that was opposed to the war against Iraq. But their leaders and an elitist media see things differently, and behind that façade of volatile disagreements, there is a collusion that transcends civilizational and religious antipathy. That’s what brothers’ keepers mean. Now, Americans have to see through this farce. They have to see through all the “terrorist threats”, footages, and blackmail they get from the media. They have to re-evaluate what the future, the distant future, holds for them and the world.

For this election, they don’t have much of a choice.

During the presidential debates, the hot issues that were supposed to be there, just weren’t. A triumphant Senator John Kerry will represent a more benign face of time-honoured US policies. The polls indicate a tight race and Bush might as well lose the controversial Ohio votes as long as Diebold machines crank up favourable counts elsewhere.

Watch out for more terror surprises such as the release of 9/11 footages, or something dramatic, like the capture or killing of a high value target.

All three debates were bland and replete with repetitions. The questions posed were extremely safe, and all the controversies and documented lies were scrupulously avoided. Both candidates and their moderators seemed comfortable with this arrangement, and watched out for each other in a manner redolent of the candidates fraternal ties at Yale University a long time back.

Bush and Kerry were doing everything possible to woo the Christian votes. They can’t avoid it. And now we can’t avoid it too. The release of those Madrid footages shows how deep a certain nexus exists between our power centres.

According to an “August poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, about 85 percent of Americans said religion” was “important in their lives and…72 percent of registered voters said "it is important to them that a president have strong religious beliefs." (Chicago Tribune, Oct 7).

Now, the religious factor in this race is important. You might be surprised that about “4 million evangelical Christians” were “estimated to have stayed away from the polls in 2000 because of uncertainty about Bush.” (Chicago Tribune, Oct 7). And they were right about him but didn’t vote for vice president Al Gore as there still lingers a long-running cockeyed tendency to shove secularism deep down people’s souls.

Many paid the price for Bush’s fraudulent election. Many died coz people were sick of being attacked for their beliefs and didn’t bother to vote. The right-wing zealots did though.

The issue of the Christian faith and belief are straightforward ones that have been constitutionally contorted into a complex set of arguments. Here is what Jesus Christ would probably say to both contestants.

"Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:14)

Yet the debate rages over gay marriages, abortion, and all the non-intrusive manifestation of faith. Neither candidates emphasised that the church has every right to stick to its beliefs, and exclude views considered heretical. Is this undemocratic?

Then try joining the Skull and Bones brotherhood at Yale. Bush and Kerry were both members and their object of worship still remain unanswered. No one threw that question at them during this latest Ben and Jerry promo. That’s what a massive aggregation of power can do in a society that cherishes its religious values. You can call this exclusivity and both candidates, like the ones before them, are ready to intrude forcibly into the lives of Americans and people elsewhere, religious or secular. And many die from such actions. Thousands already did during Bush’s reign.

Take a look at the questions they had to answer and you’ll see that it is easier to attack the church for its non-intrusive beliefs than say certain Ashkenazi lobbies that want the church out of the American public while cheering on the religious right in Israel, where marrying a non-Jew is illegal. You can forget gay marriages there. These lobbies later return to the church coz the Chosen Ones from the Khanate of Khazar need help in their war against Muslims fanatics.

This systems works when there are too many bloodstained Cains vouching for each other. You see examples of this each day.

Take the UN oil-for-food scam for example. Top US arms inspector claim “the United Nations looked the other way while Saddam Hussein's government skimmed billions of dollars and offered kickbacks to European and Arab cronies. The $60 billion oil-for-food program involved the allocation of vouchers, a venal process that illegally enriched Saddam Hussein's government, prominent foreigners, and influenced Security Council members. The United States virtually controls the Security Council. It looked the other way, and made a U-Turn to ride roughshod over the UN when it was time to invade Iraq. Unlike the impressions given to the public, the backdoor acquiescence to this charade must have been facile.

A large amount of proceeds from this pan-global voucher scam was used to “import illegal goods, including parts for missile systems.” The vouchers "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions." (AP, Oct 7)

How convenient for the US and supposedly hostile nations to subvert the UN, enrich their elites and allow Saddam to import “missiles systems”. Missile systems? The invasion was readied long back, with plenty of contingency excuses should the missing WMDs keep appearing on our media radar.

The US Congress wants full accountability for this massive fraud and Kofi Annan picked former Fed chairman Paul Volcker to investigate the matter. Volcker refuses to divulge details of his report to the US Congress before mid-2005, around the time when a confluence of factors will burn brightly with oil.

Thousands of Iraqi children, not to mention emaciated women and the elderly, died from malnutrition and lack of basic medication. Nobody wanted to forcefully break the sanctions completely by delivering food and medication right to the Iraqis, though channels like the Red Cross. Even in tolerant Muslim societies like Malaysia, major dailies were revved up to splash heart-wrenching photos of this holocaust of the unborn, born, weak, and the dying while Saddam was building his palaces with the oil proceeds. It was a heaven-sent visual propaganda for politicians all over, and for a select few, a heaven-sent loot mercilessly pried from the dying.

“The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt” profited from this “illicit oil trade with Iraq — more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003.” (AP, Oct 7). “French, Malaysian, Chinese, Syrians, Egyptians, Swiss, Jordanians, Turks, Italians, Yugoslavians, and agents of the United Arab Emirates…figured prominently on the list.” Saddam’s Cronies Grew Rich on Cash Meant for the Starving (Daily Telegraph)

This report was filed on April 22 by David Rennie, and only now is it being given closer scrutiny. So much for media excellence.

This mass starvation happened right under then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s nose while he was splitting weary ears over his Western Imperialisms and Zionist Conspiracies. I remember reporters and volunteers being dispatched to record those horrific scenes in Iraq. Mahathir had visual proof of this unspeakable cruelty, one that can only happen when consecrated, halal and kosher hands clinch deals to rule and, when necessary, despoil the ruled. While this went on, this self-styled champion of the Islamic civilization and “Asian Values” was hell-bent on breaking the spine of his deputy Anwar Ibrahim on charges of homosexuality. (Anwar was recently rolled out of prison in a wheelchair, after the courts declared him innocent of sodomy). Somehow he was sure of Anwar’s guilt; not the existence of an ongoing genocide in a place he exhorted mass wailing from his countrymen.

From those dead Iraqis, a few got rich. Mahathir never exposed this voucher scam, which involved his own nation, in ways he would have surely known. He could allow a little Monica, where instead of a blue dress, an entire mattress was lugged into the courtroom to prove Anwar’s guilt. One of the buildings where Anwar supposedly had his trysts didn’t exist at the time stated by the prosecution.

Still, Malaysian courts, famous for its intelligence-numbing interpretations that regularly favored Mahathir’s interests, allowed the trial and sentencing to proceed.

Why? Coz he didn’t want a “homosexual” to lead a Muslim nation. While he played up his morality, Iraqi children paid the price with their mortality.

When you have a power struggle, the religious dimension, for or against, can take a ludicrous turn.

Mahathir’s pedagogy — you are either for or against him — is pretty much similar to Bush repetitious rationales like "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." (Chicago Tribune, Oct 7).

Hitler was more eloquent about this pseudo-religious farce. “Force without spiritual foundation are doomed to failure.”

“Religion” is regularly used to attack others and win power struggles. It can turn a blind eye to mass murders.

Intrusive religion and secularism both suck, and future leaders ought to take note. Attacking beliefs, backed by powerful forces, or using force to enforce beliefs equally backfire, with bullets and mayhem going off in all directions.

Bush wouldn’t be around for his “re-election” if voters who cherished their faith weren’t ticked off. Now, he is unleashing his fake religious convictions to “destroy more life”.

There are too many politicians like Bush and Mahathir who would like to see our world polarised along pseudo-religious lines. And there are too many like Iraq’s Prime Minister Ayad Allawi who will play ball with the oppressors. George Bush Sr was once Saddam’s keeper when he consented to the use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds.

And you see, Saddam is still alive, and is presumably fed well. Bin Laden is still missing.

Do we give in to political lies? If Kerry wins, he should be held closely accountable for all his future actions. That’s the least we can do for now.

Mathew Maavak

Bombay, Oct 20 2004 @Mathew Maavak, 2004

Presidential debate 1

Presidential debate 2

Presidential Debate 3

Part 2 (Next): The fun part. What was debated, and what is reality. Besides the usual clichéd political sound bites, some interesting details stick out.

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

The article announces that Ford has posted $266 million in profits for the third quarter. That piece is accurate, what is woven in is where those profits came from, and how they are categorized.

Ford is purportedly an automotive company, and the basic assumption is that sales of automobiles accounted for the profit - guess again. While their 3rd quarter revenue increased by $2.3 Billion, it was due to the financial side of Ford - not to auto sales:

"Our results show continued strong performance in financial services and continuing improvement in North American revenue, even though the market remains difficult,'' Leclair said.

Actually, Ford LOST $609 million on auto sales. This means that the "financial services" not only covered the loss but earned Ford a significant profit (that would be a minimum of $875 million in one quarter alone). This figure excluded another $64 million in special items. Ford's earnings for the first 9 months $3.38 billion.

The other convolution is that Ford's financial area is an automotive earnings:

Don Leclair, Ford's chief financial officer, said the company remained on track to deliver a 2004 milestone of $1 billion in automotive pretax profits, excluding special items.

In other words, they are counting their financial services into their pretax auto sales earnings.

Ford is not alone in what is floating their boat ("financial services):

last week for General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, where financial services accounted for the bulk of its $440 million third-quarter profit.

Lest one think that the financial services are tied to car sales, please recall that car sales are down and dropping. These are "other" credit operations that are being counted on the "automotive" side of the ledger. I am no account, but this looks like creative bookkeeping to me. And if GM and Ford are doing, my guess is they all are so it is the industry standard.

So what's the big deal one might ask? The big deal is that people read the headlines and think the economy must be doing great because Ford (and GM) are posting big profits. In fact Ford is shooting for $1 billion in profits this year. This is clearly NOT what the profits reflect. Further, one would think that the auto dealers are doing great and stimulating the economy (hiring lots of folks to grow their production). Also NOT true.

Credit is profit for those lending it but represents cash deficits for those receiving it. Obviously people are needing and using credit more because they don't have cash. Therefore, great earnings for the corps do not reflect a rosy economic up turn for the population. For example, GM's $440 million is not helping workers at all as they cut 12,000 jobs in Europe.

Nor is the report that US is set to Lose More Than 400,000 Jobs This Year.

Let's look at this shall we?

Here we have fuel being transported which was rejected at one base. The unit is ordered to take it to another base even further away with deadlined vehicles and no support. Why would such an order even be given? Why would a unit be commanded to take (apparently) unusable fuel to another base without standard protection and with deadlined vehicles? Was the delivery of contaminated fuel potentially worth the life of 19 US soldiers?

If the substance of the story is correct, then the wrong people are up for courts martial.

But then the US military is frequently much more concerned about its own issues than those confronting troops. The admission (finally) that Gulf War Syndrome exists and that troops were sickened by chemicals from the 1991 Gulf War, has not come flowing off the lips of the Pentagon. After almost 13 years of pressure by Gulf War vets and their families, finally, and being met by constant denials and rebuffs, now the truth comes out (or at least part of it). Whose interests were being protected by the Pentagon's denials? Not the ill and dying veterans that's for sure. Not their families - some of who also fell sick.

My guess is that at least part of the denial is based around an even bigger lie - depleted uranium is safe. As reported by Juan Gonzalez, soldiers exposure to DU may be causing birth defects. If it is causing birth defects, then think about what this round of "Gulf War Syndrome" is going to be like. And think about the Iraqis (and Afghans) who will live the rest of their lives in a uranium contaminated environment. ANd yes, the Pentagon is still arguing that DU is "safe." Gads! So is Gulf War Syndrome due to "chemicals" or to the military's own weaponry. My guess is it is the latter, but "chemicals" fits better with the tale of Saddam's WMD.

The issue of th US use of mercenaries is not news at this point, though it should be. It came to global attention last spring with the deaths and mutilation of four "contractors" in Falluja. Those "contractors" were employees of Blackwater and part of a security detail (When Hate Strikes). That event brought (briefly) to light the widespread use of private security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even at military bases inside the US. There is no arguement that the US is supplementing its fighting forces with "private contractors." This also became clear in the Abu Ghraib torture debacle where "private consultants" were involved in the "interrogation" of detainees.

I can find no recent figures on the number of mercenaries in Iraq under contract to the US at this time. As of last spring, it was estimated that there were at least 15,000 - 20,000 and that they constituted as much as 1/3rd of the US forces. That figure does not include the Iraqi recruits.

US troops have complained at the pay differential between themselves and the "contractors" who can make over $1,000 a day. In fact, the US military is losing soldiers to military contractors. However, even US troop pay is a king's ransom compared to what the US is paying Iraqi recruits - $50 - $180 a month.

The langage being widely used masks the fact that forces are mercenaries. Calling the "private contractors," "private security," or "Iraqi police and security forces," does not change what they really are - soldiers and replacements for US forces. In my book, that sounds like the definition of "mercenary." Some might argue that it is stretching the definition to apply it to Iraqis. I fell it is not. These people are being recruited, trained, and paid by the US military. They are largely under the command of the US military. They are "supplements" to the US forces - as were Paul Bremer's privately contracted security, and the outsourcing of communication and tactical operations to "private contractors."

Aside from the fact that hiring mercenaries to fill in for low US troop numbers, there is the question of the legality of doing so. The US is a signatory to the 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. However, under the definitions layed out in the agreement, Iraqi recruits do not count as mercenaries. (Note:The arming and training of fighters in Afghanistan in the 1990s - who became Al Qaeda - likely does fall under the convention)

GlobalSecurity.org has a list of Private Military (Mercenary) Companies Providing Services to the US. There are 61 companies on that list. These private military companies are largely based in the US, UK, and South Africa. To be fair, the UK is probably more directly linked to the South African companies (The Dogs of War: Her Majesty's Irregular Forces, African 'Peace Parks': the new Colonialism)

I have to wonder how people in the US would feel about utilizing a mercenary force in the "war on terrorism." And beyond that, how they feel about paying for this strategy. It certainly opens up a whole new area of profit in the miltary-industrial complex, but it should also raise concerns. Shouldn't we be concerned that these corporations work largely outside of national and international law, but their actions directly linked to US responsibility and authority? How do they feel about their tax dollars being used to train troops for mercenary corporations, who are then paid handsomely for their "services" replacing US troops?

Sources and Resources
10/14/04 Hoskin, Cape Times, Bodyguard died in Iraq 'as he lived, living life to the fullest'

Pretoria: A South African is killed every month in Iraq, yet US dollar payments continue to lure thousands of locals who flock to the country to help restore "peace and order".

The drawcard is the $1 000 that more than 4 000 South Africans are paid every day while working on security contracts throughout the war-torn country.

This week two more South Africans were killed outside Baghdad while escorting a convoy of US construction engineers to a building site.

...

ORS West African and Middle East managing director, Cobus de Kock, declined to say how many South Africans the company had in Iraq.

"All I can say is that we have plenty on the ground - in fact, more than enough," he said.

He also declined to say how much their employees in Iraq were paid, but confirmed that they were paid in US dollars.

GlobalSecurity.org, Mercenary / Private Military Companies (PMCs)

Estimates of the number of private international security personnel range from 15,000 to 20,000. That is as much as 15 percent of the total US presence of about 130,000 soldiers. These private contractors -- who most often work for corporations, diplomats, or journalists -- have no accountability to the US military. These private security contractors can earn up to $1,000 a day. NATO forces have used private soldiers for security in the Balkans. But the proportion of private security personnel to regular military soldiers was no greater than 10 percent.

Private Military (Mercenary) Companies Providing Services to the US Global Security.org - 61 companies with links

Lind, Defense and Security, On War #86 - The Grand Illusion

May 2003, Yeoman, MoJo, Soldiers of Good Fortune

Disinfopedia, Private Military Corporations

3/31/04 Kathryn Cramer, Iraq: The Secret Policeman's Other Ball (excellent article)

4/1/04 Ridgeway, Village Voice, U.S. Turns to Mercenaries

4/26/04 Gvosdev, History News, Should We Be Alarmed by the Wide Use of Mercenaries?

4/02/04 Arun, BBC, Outsourcing the war

12/12/03 McCarthy, Guardian/UK, Iraqi Army Walkout Over Pay

8/22/1997, Scott Thompson, The Executive Intelligence Review, The Dogs of War: Her Majesty's Irregular Forces

10/10/1997 Roger Moore, Executive Intelligence Review African 'Peace Parks': the new Colonialism

Scientists reported that carbon levels almost doubled in 2002 and 2003. The reasons are not yet pinned down as it can't be pinned on "el nino." I'm sure that the dramatic increase in the use of fossil fuels has nothing to do with it.

Though somewhat muted, the connection to the uncertainty of global warming is clearly there, and the issues and concerns are mounting. Global warming is proceeding much more rapidly than many had predicted. We can see this in reports such as reports that the highest ice fields will not last 100 years, or that the Antarctic is accelerating its melt, to that more "super" storms are likely.

There also reports about the extinction of one-third of the worlds amphibians. The cause seems to be primarily environmental damage and global warming. But some creatures are not dying, they are changing. Such is the case of male bass who are now producing eggs. The egg production is assumed to be linked to pollution in the river - most particularly the waste from poultry farms (which has high estrogen content) and human hormones ending up in the river (take the drugs, flush the toilet, it's in the rivers).

But the strangest story comes from where else? Texas. A very strange animal has turned up there. It (thus far) is of no known species, though it appears to be canid. The pictures below are from WOIA via the Lufkin Daily News.

These pictures are not of the decayed corpse of the creature. This animal was just killed before the pictures were taken. Another animal looking very much like this one was seen after this one was killed, and about a month ago, a rancher outside of San Antonio had killed one matching the description. The full story is available at WOIA - Another Texas Chupacabra?.

Is this some spontaneous interbreeding or mutation? Were they beasts bred and then tortured by someone? Or are they the victims of some bizarre genetic experiment? Nobody knows, but that this is a very different (and very ill) creature is clear. There is some concern that the skin disorder all of these creatures seem to have is communicable to other canids.

This does not appear to be another "jackalope" hoax.

link fo full transcript of the 10/13 Debate

Brief excerpt...

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.

I went to Washington to solve problems. And I saw a problem in the public education system in America. They were just shuffling too many kids through the system, year after year, grade after grade, without learning the basics.

And so we said: Let's raise the standards. We're spending more money, but let's raise the standards and measure early and solve problems now, before it's too late.

No, education is how to help the person who's lost a job. Education is how to make sure we've got a workforce that's productive and competitive.

Got four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell Grants to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.

And so the person you talked to, I say, here's some help, here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And that's what I would say to that person.

I have a follow-up question Mr. President. What are the jobs of the 21st Century that we are training for? I thought that things like technical support, engineering, accounting, medical transcriptionist, and computer analyst were the jobs of the 21st Century. That's what those blue collar workers who lost their jobs to NAFTA were training for (or held). Now those jobs are being "off-shored" in record numbers. What are the new jobs of the 21st Century Mr. President?

And another follow up question Mr. President. What is the "trade adjustment money, and how do I access it? My understanding was that Trade Adjustment Assistance offered the shortest training possible (extending up to 104 weeks) to get a worker displaced by trade agreements back in the workplace. Which 2 year (maximum) program do you recommend President Bush? What should a tax accountant with a 4-year degree take 2 years of training in? Or do you have any 2 year training suggestions for doctors who specialized in radiology?

Oh, Sorry. One more thing - what about the people who aren't displaced by globalization - they are just trying to enter the workplace at all?

Jobs
The economy needs roughly 1.6 million new jobs each year just to absorb increases in the workforce. While this last year's numbers (so far) are slightly ahead of that, over Bush's tenure the number of jobs has not kept up with this base figure. Not addressed by Krugman is the quality of the jobs created (many of which are replacements for jobs lost). This is noted in a variety of reports and articles, but you might check out Permanent Job Proves An Elusive Dream. There is a dramatic increase in the use of temporary versus permanent workers, declines in wages and in benefits. As is noted in the article:

Since January 2002, the nation added 369,000 temp positions, about half of the private-sector jobs created during that stretch. Temporary jobs accounted for one-third of the 96,000 jobs added to the economy in September. In 1982, there were 417,000 workers classified as temporary help. Today, there are more than 2.5 million, according to Labor Department data.

Unemployment
Krugman notes that while unemployment is down a fraction, that the percentage of those in the workforce has not increased, and the labor force participation rate (those either working or actively seeking work) has actually fallen significantly. With those things taken into consideration the unemployment rate has actually increased to 7.4% (estimate).

Fiscal Responsibility
The independent estimate of the costs of the Kerry plan is $2 trillion, and $3 trillion for the Bush plan.

The second case involves a Haitian who is a permanent legal resident of the US. He was convicted of a DUI, plead guilty and served his time. Now the government wants to deport him back to Haiti under the argument that a DUI that results in injury is a "violent crime." [This is truly a bizarre stance since both GW and Dick Cheney have DUI's on their records (Bush, Cheney). Luckily, neither of them hit anyone while under the influence.] The argument therefore is that a permanent resident of the US can be deported for a "violent" offense.

The final case seems to be of greatest concern from the standing of legal rights. It involves a Cuban who was part of the Mariel boat lift from Cuba. The Cubans involved in the Mariel boat lift were granted legal resident status in the US. The case involves a Cuban by the name of Benitez who was convicted of a crime in the US. The US stripped him of his resident status, and tried to deport him. However, Cuba will not accept anyone who left Cuba as part of the mass immigration. Therefore US authorities want to detain Benitez indefinitely. Essentially, what is being argued here is that even though Benitez has served his full term for his crime, the US wants to give him a life sentence.

It is definitely not a good time to be an immigrant who potentially runs afoul of the authorities. It makes no difference whether one is legal or illegal, or what one's resident status is. It looks to me as if the authorities are testing the limits of their power and moving towards some of the most questionable items on the PATRIOT II wish list - the ability to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship and deport them.

Each of these cases (and yes I know that the defendant in each has broken the law - and served their time) is now being denied protections which have been in place for decades. The cases challenge our basic ideas of what the US is about, and what it offers to the world as a model and a haven.

Articles
Battles Over Criminal Justice Policies Loom Large in 2004 Supreme Court Term; Early Docket Includes Cases on Sentencing Reform, Drug Policy and the Death Penalty, ACLU

High Court Considers Immigration Cases, FindLaw, 10/12/04

Here in the U.S. there is a deeply-held belief that no matter what this nations governing body does abroad, no matter how bad what it does may appear, no matter what horror may result, the American government means well. That the government has good intentions and means well. And, generally speaking, the American public wonders why the rest of the world can't see how "kind" and "generous" and "self-sacrificing" America is and has been. Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with "good intentions."

My questions to my fellow American citizens are this: What for you would be too much? What would this nation's government have to do in its foreign policy, or domestic policies, that would cause you to forsake your basic belief in and support for that governing body and its policies?

It is apparent to me at this point in time that invading a country that posed no real threat to this nation - Iraq for instance?is not enough, for many, to question that support for this current cabal. The distortions and outright lies concerning Medicare and liability lawsuits appears not to be enough to raise questions by those of you that continue your support for Bush. Grossly under-funding the Veterans Administration Health Care system does not seem to generate any significant level of concern either.

Again I ask, what for you would be too much?

The growing number of dead, ours and Iraq's, seems not to be enough to question that support. Why? 15 hours after being discharged from the Army, a young man that spent 12 months in Baghdad and another three months due to "stop loss" was in an auto accident. Two days later his arm was swelling and very painful. Turns out he had a blood clot in his arm from the IV the paramedics put in. This young man's father took him to the local V.A. just to be turned away being told he did not qualify for V.A. care. This is not an isolated incident and the list is growing daily.

Once again I ask, what for you would be too much for you to be able to continue your support of these policies and those that make them?

Never in my 60+ years have I been witness to the level of corruption as what is taking place today with this current governing body led by Bush and Cheney. The increasing levels of secrecy by Bush, the criminals running congress like Tom DeLay, the nexus between government and corporations as exemplified by Dick Cheney and Halliburton. The influence pedaling by an army of over 26,000 corporate lobbyists that "help" write the nations laws is at a level unseen in this nation's history.

In short the "Criminalization of the State" is what is taking place and still so many believe in and support this criminal enterprise known as the Bush administration.

What is it that would be too much for even you true believers in this administration to be able to continue your support for the single most disastrous administration to ever hold the reigns of power of our government?

References and Additional Readings:
The Criminalization of the State

William Blum. Common Courage Press. Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (book)

Corporations File 4 Times More Frivolous Lawsuits than Individuals

Conventional Facades: Why the Republicans Have to Hide their Agenda

William Blum. Common Courage Press. Rogue State (book)

George Lakoff. Chelsea Green Publishing. Don?t think of an Elephant (book)

In my family our historic love for the Yankees was like our religion, except we put more time into the Yankees. My father and my mother’s father, separated in our families by deep cultural divisions (both were Jews, but one was a Russian Jew, both were men, only one was educated, both loved my mother, one not enough for the other) were only able to communicate on one level—the championship level, occupied when the fan becomes the team in victory.

In 2000, Jackson and I were so engaged in the hope of victory for the New York Yankees. He asked, though he had school in the morning, to stay up and watch the Yankees play. He did. They won game one of the series against the I don’t remember now team. But on the night of the second game, Jackson could not stay awake. The Yankees lost game two and Jackson was convinced that it was his fault. Determined to do his part, Jackson stayed awake to watch the Yankees play to victory in game three. Then again in game four. But, as it happens to exhausted little boys, sleep claimed him for game five. I watched, though, and rooted and swore (as I had taught him to do when he roots for his team and as I taught his sister, Vanessa and his brother, James to do as well) and the Yankees won game five and in the year 2000, the last year it mattered to us in the same way, the Yankees were the World Series Champions. I ran up to Jackson’s room and woke him by lifting his head gently in my hands and saying, “Jackie, we won. The Yankees are the World Champions.”

As a family we all were filled with joy: My daughter, Vanessa, considered the victory an early birthday present. She was twenty-eight, newly married, gleeful! Her birthday is October 31st. She came home to Syracuse to celebrate and gave Jackson a framed, black and white picture of the stadium. Over her computer she had a framed, black and white photo of the stadium and another one, same size, same shape, of the World Trade Center. She gave me a Gore/Lieberman yarmulke and we laughed over the relationship between the gifts. We talked about Gore and the done deal of the election. Vanessa and I were certain Gore will would win. Certain. The conviction of the Yankee fan certain. This country would never elect a George W. Bush.

In November of 2000, Jackson was determined to stay up. I watched in absolute delight, waiting for the moment Gore was granted Florida. And it happened. We all shrieked with joy. I went up to check on Jackson. He was asleep. I woke him, cupping his head in my hands. I hadn’t realized until that moment how much I knew the import of this election, how much responsibility I would have to take if Gore hadn’t won. I had done nothing to see that Bush was defeated except to go the polls. But it was done. “Jackie, we got Florida. It’s over. Gore is going to be the next president.”

The next morning I was gone before my husband put Jackson on the school bus. I wasn’t looking forward to the conversation we had to have when he got off the bus in the afternoon. But I waited for him in the falling afternoon sun. When he got off the bus, I put my arm around him. “Jack, there is some bad news…”

“I know, I heard,” he said.

“It may not be over,” I said, hoping still and part lying (because I knew the Bushes, what they were capable of). “Gore may still have a chance.”

I waited for his response. To see, in part, how he processed all that his father and I had told him about the democratic process, to see how much of the ideas of the campaign and of the parties he had internalized. He looked up at me and asked a chilling question: “Are the Yankees still the World Champions?”

I was so disturbed by that response that that night I shared with my husband my fears about America: “we will be at war,” I told him. His reassuring words: “He’s just a Republican. He won’t just go to war.” But I knew different. Call it instinct. Or insight. Only don’t call it intuition because it’s not magic. I knew George W. Bush would find a way to play with every one of his daddy’s toys. And what could be a more compelling toy that United States military?

I am an expert in reading habits of mind. I always thought that this made me a good parent, a compelling teacher, a kind (most of the time in my actions) person.

Now, it has made me an activist.

George W. Bush used my daughter’s name to have his war, a war he was determined to create even as I thought I had the luxury of encouraging my kids to root for their team, to celebrate their birthdays as if they would have many more. He has made the United States into the pinstripes, used our best tendencies (the love for our homeland) and our worst habits of mind (racism and polarization of good and evil as if those concepts are immediately recognizable in a complex world) to kill and maim innocent civilians in Iraq along with our own soldiers. He has blocked attempts by the families of 9/11 to get to the bottom of what happened over and over again by refusing to back the commission to investigate 9/11, by refusing to testify under oath once that commission was established, by refusing to (as did the French, the Spanish, the Germans, etc.) aid the families in their lawsuit to bankrupt terrorism as it sits in the lap of luxury in Saudi Arabia.

He has supported the rich, waged a rhetorical war of hate in this country against gay persons, and has proven himself ready, willing and able to enact racist practice here and throughout the world, racist practice with the most dire of consequences.

During the Democratic National Convention, the Yankees played at Fenway Park, hosted by the Boston Red Sox. On the night before Kerry was to speak, he appeared at the Red Sox game. The Yankees were losing. Jackson and I were watching the game. Jackson is now eleven. His brother, James is now seventeen. Jackson fears that next year James will leave him to go off to college. Jackson won’t be calling Vanessa this year after the season to root, to howl or for any other reason. Because Vanessa’s last Yankee victory was in the year 2000. I wonder, though I am frightened to raise this directly, if Jackson knows that college for James is not the frightening thought that I turn over each and every minute of my waking life. Jackson watched John Kerry cheering for the Red Sox and he got up and left the room. “Where are you going?” I asked him.

“I can’t stand to see it.”

“What?”

“I can’t watch him root for the Red Sox.”

“Jackson,” I told him, “then you stay and root for the Yankees. But you shouldn’t pray for them to win. Because if the Yankees win, they play tomorrow. If they lose, they play again tomorrow. Save your prayers for important things. Save your prayers for John Forbes Kerry.”

Habits of mind in all cultures are largely unconscious. That’s how language works. But democracy cannot function as long as our primary modes for making key choices are left to the habitual, to the slippery methods of taking sides perpetuated by the unconscious. I am afraid that those who know I am right are more afraid that Bush will lose (because there goes the team) than they are afraid for their own lives if he wins. Rooting and voting are different things. Never has it been so important for America to be engaged in conscious choice.

I am so certain of this: We must not think that this election is about taste, or feelings of nationalism or about our personal pride. We must not think this election is about whether or not we get to play again tomorrow. It is not about pinstripes or the flag.

This election is about whether or not we will survive and which human tendencies we will take, in full knowledge, into the future.

Intelligent Transportation Systems is a sub agency of the Dept of Transportation. They have been working for 13 years on a program to track every car on the roads of the US. The tracking plan takes on a totally new aspect with the ongoing passage of "security" bills. Just in case you decide to walk (and allowing tracking on an individual rather than a vehicle level), there are proposals being put forward to add RFID technology to drivers licenses. This technology would place a chip in drivers licenses that would send out biometric and unique iinformation about the license holder via radio transmission.

The legislation being hammered out in the wake of the 9/11 Commission report brings back in a slew of questionable changes. This includes resurrection the Total Information Awareness Program as part of the package. One of the many ironies here is that the Total Information Awareness program, was defunded after public protest, but refunded again as the Terrorist Information Awareness program. The proposed legislation essentially takes us back to the original project.

The "Intelligence" bill has been accused of going far beyond the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in some areas, and not meeting them in others. For example, the proposed bill does not give the level of authority or independence to the Director that the Commission thought necessary, but does add in a number of measures that are law enforcement and immigration provisions (House Approves Intelligence Bill). To me these additions look suspiciously similar to PATRIOT II.

For those of you following the Model State Health Powers Emergency (MSHEPA - for a collection of articles on this plan see 911review.org or In Our Best Interests?). There is a test of the plan in Kansas where ten counties will do a mass emergency inoculation test called Flu X. According to the Director of Kansas' Health Department, the exercise will "condition" local health staff in dealing with mass emergency inoculations, and the public to respond to the process for receiving them. Actual flu vaccines will be given.

Last, but not least, freedom of speech and community voice has again come under attack. The systems of IndyMedia have been disrupted (again) as the FBI confiscated their hard drives from RackSpace. Purportedly they were confiscated at the request of the governments of Italy and Switzerland. IndyMedia has had no response as to why the order was issued. You can read more about this as the IndyMedia Main Site.

Articles
10/07/04 WorldNet Daily, Feds plan to track every car

10/06/04 Wired, RFID Driver's Licenses Debated

9/30/04 PrisonPlanet, Return of Total Information Awareness Tied to 9/11 Commission Legislation

10/09/04 Shenon & Swarns, NYT, House Approves Intelligence Bill

9/30/04 Erwin, Flu-X: Conditioning Kansans to Give or Accept Mass inoculations on Cue

That there are bad people in the world goes without saying. That there are terrorists who see blowing up innocent people as a viable tactic, for whatever reason, also goes without saying. That there are within our own governing body those who are essentially of the same unyielding, absolutism, black-and-white beliefs as those they--Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, DeLay, Frist just to mention the "fab five"-label as "terrorists" becomes more clear with each passing day.

That the "laws" they keep passing in congress have little, if anything at all, to do with "securing the homeland" as much as they do with "securing the citizens" is also becoming more clear with each passing day, and each new "law."

There has not been one person whom I have talked with, or read-right-wing, left-wing, or center-who is not concerned with the safety of this nation, and us, its citizens, myself included.

What is being imposed upon us and the nation, however, is not the increased security of the nation's infrastructure-railroads, ports of entry, chemical plants and nuclear facilities, etc.-it is instead the creation of more criminal law and punishment, and redundant laws at that.

What BushCo and its extreme right compatriots in congress have bestowed upon
us, the people of this nation, under the guise of "homeland security," is a string of laws, starting with the so-called "Patriot Act," which have nothing to do with securing the homeland, and everything to do with "securing" the population.

What we have is "criminalization" over security.

It didn't take much time after the enactment of the "Patriot Act" for people and communities to recognize the inherent dangers in the "Act" and stand in open opposition to it. So when congress drafted "Patriot Act ll" the public's outcry was too great for even the right-wing nuts in congress to ignore-that was May 2003.

But, all was not well in the valley, no ho ho ho's, for just a few short months after Patriot ll was laid to rest, a draft of the "Victory Act" was leaked to the press, though it received little attention from "mainstream" media. This would have taken the Patriot Act to a new level, creating entirely new classes of terrorism in the guise of "narco-terrorism."

Additionally, the definition of terrorism has been expanded to include "domestic terrorist" the definition of which is so broad that anyone, anywhere, at anytime could be arrested for nothing more than peaceful public protest. Its application could be very arbitrary and capricious-criminalization over security complete with the tools to shut down political dissent. "Laws" have always been a resource for tyrants to use against its own people, this nation is no different.

Now, once again another member of the Bush Brigade, Sen. Ron Kyle, has a bill to build once again on the Patriot Act. These people just will not quit. This one has a total of 43 new crimes punishable by the death penalty.

Before going any further, here is a list of some of the redundant criminal laws posing as anti-terrorist laws, thanks to the work and research at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee http://www.bordc.org/index.html :

H.R. 2417-"Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004: This bill passed both houses of congress. Most of its details are secret including the bills estimated costs. By all accounts it will somewhere around $40 billion.

H.R. 3439-Joint Terrorism Task Force Enhancement Act of 2003: If passed it would promote the exchange of personnel between the federal and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

H.R. 3179-Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003: If passed it would provide for new penalties for violating non-disclosure provisions of so-called "national security" letters.

H.R. 3037-Anti-Terrorism Tools Enhancement Act: This will authorize the Bush
cabal to issue subpoenas without having to show probable cause.

H.R. 3040-Pretrial Detention and Lifetime Supervision of Terrorists Act: This bill ignores the right of bail as granted by the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

H.R. 2671-CLEAR Act (Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal): If passed this bill would undermine community policing and ultimately would prevent immigrants from coming forward to report crimes.

S. 2679-Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004: This is a current bill in the Senate and was introduced by Sen. Ron Kyle. The provisions of this bill would do nothing but further the demolition of our civil liberties. It increases laws aimed at "criminals" and also ups the death penalty to include 43 new "categories" under which the death penalty may be imposed. Almost all other industrialized nations have dropped the death penalty and due to this, are reticent to extradite back to the U.S. those that may have the death penalty imposed on them. This bill will further alienate us from the rest of the civilized world.

S. 1906-Homeland Security Enhancement Act or 2003: This was introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions as a companion to the CLEAR Act.

The Victory Act-The Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act: Among other things, such as creating an entirely new category of "terrorists" such as "narco-terrorist, this bill would make even simple drug possession a "terrorist" offense.

These bills do nothing in terms of creating a more secure nation-they do, however, have everything to do with creating an environment that will enable this nation's governing body greater ease in squashing political debate and dissent.

Every one of these pieces of legislation will have the effect of allowing the techniques of espionage to be used on the entire American population. Along with all the "bills" over the past three years the Posse Comitatus Act has been modified so as to now allow our military to act as police; the CIA has been given the authority to now operate within the country. Does anyone else remember COINTELPRO from years ago? Domestic counter intelligence program-directed at U.S. citizens by the government with the purpose to shut down political discourse by citizens exercising their constitutional rights to redress their government.

What we have today is worse, much worse. Now laws are passed "legalizing" the destruction of our constitution and civil rights.

In short, these new laws we are being visited with, having imposed upon us, the citizens of this nation, have absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with securing this nations infrastructure, its rail system, ports of entry, air cargo and airlines, etc. They have, however, everything to do with increased invasion of privacy and the ability of government to spy on every aspect of everyone's life.

All of these bills, laws, etc. will do nothing less than create a society in which the government under the guise of fighting "terrorism" will be able to "investigate" everyone in the country so Ashcroft and company can "ferret" out all the "freedom hating terrorists." With the new and improved definition of terrorist so broad it could be applied to virtually anyone, anywhere, at any time.

We do not need a governing body, BushCo, creating new crimes and new punishments which will in no way improve the internal security of this nation. Instead of creating new crimes, BushCo and congress should be addressing some real security deficiencies.

There are enough criminal laws on the books now without piling one redundant criminal law upon another. What these new laws do provide however, is increased levels of secrecy under which Bush and company may operate. And that is a must for Bush who sees himself as some big macho, "protective father" figure who knows best and desires all of us to just sit down, shut up, do what we are told without complaint; trust and obey as "father knows best."

The Bush Brigade currently controls the executive branch, the legislative branch and is quickly gaining control of the judiciary through those Bush has placed on the federal courts. All of those that Bush has appointed to high government positions of authority have much in common with Bush, they are all of the same mindset and ideology; almost all have also come out of corporate America or were corporate lobbyists. These are the people forming this new body of law under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Tom DeLay, the chief thug and criminal in the House of Representatives, earlier this year stated in no uncertain of terms what we may look forward to: "With a republican majority in the house, 5 more seats in the senate and George W. Bush back in the White House, you ain't seen nothing yet."

Sources, references and additional information:
Bill of Rights Defense Committee Reports on Congressional Bills

Electronic Frontier Foundation-Patriot ll

Bob Barr Testimony on Patriot Act(s) and Civil Liberties

Chilling New Piece of Patriot ll Returns to the Senate

Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004

The Victory Act

Here is a link to an article I wrote last November about the Victory Act
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Coming_soon_the_111003.htm

The first issue is that The Chiron plant in Liverpool is owned by Chiron of Emeryville, California) While Chiron had reported the problems to the US in August, they said they had isolated the problem and it should not effect delivery.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, said in an interview that the drug agency had "relied on the company too much" for information rather than thoroughly inspecting the factory after the contamination was known. (Pollack, NYT, 10/09/04)

Look what modern corporatism has given us - only two manufacturers of flu vaccine for the entire population of the planet. That seems patently stupid to me, but I'm sure that makes production both "profitable" and "efficient." Further, that given the corporate track record on reporting critical problems that the government would take Chiron's word on the problem.

While the news of the supply problems are big news to us, British health officials reported the problem to US health officials on September 13th (Wa. Post, 10/09/04). MedImmune, the makers of FluMist have been approached to see if they can increase production of their product (NYT, 10/06/04). You may recall that last year there were significant concerns about FluMist. Those concerns focussed around the fact that FluMist is sprayed into the nose, and the first response of most is to start sneezing. This spreads the virus in an uncontrolled way to all in the vicinity, therefore increasing possible infection. Another concern was dosing across different age groups.

Immediate known risks aside, I woke up this morning with a strange confluence of reports streaming through my brain. Maybe this is just the remnants of my paranoid id, but upon reflection the basics are there. I'll lay this out and you can make you own determination of my dregs of sleep thought processes.

On October 2, 2004 I published Critical Health Alerts, in which I discussed concerns about an Avian Flu Pandemic and Mike Davis' article Monster At the Door. To summarize, there is a growing concern that Avian Flu will merge with influenza, and that Avian Flu (in merged or unmerged form) will move from bird-human contagion to human-human contagion. Since Avian Flu in its present state has near a 70% mortality rate, those possibilities are terrifying. Therefore, you can imagine my shock when I saw the headline Killer flu recreated in the lab (BBC, 10/07/04). The article reported that a US team had genetically modified the 1918 virus an injected it into mice, who started dying within days of symptom outbreak. They were trying to isolate the infectious genes combination, as mice were immune to the virus previously. My first thought was "Great. Now we are genetically modifying the killer flu."

Somehow, the news of the vaccine problems, combined with the Avian Flu concerns, and with the genetic experiments with the 1918 influenza virus and what leaped to mind was a story that has gone completely underground - the suspicious deaths of the world's leading microbiologists (FTW. 9/24/02). This was related to an analysis at FTW published in February of 2002 A Career In Microbiology Can Be Harmful To Your Health.

So what did my brain do? 1. We have a critical shortage of flu vaccine at
2. the same time that there are serious concerns about a deadly flu pandemic, following on 3. the suspicious deaths of at least 15 of the worlds leading microbiologists. All this within a rapidly shrinking natural resource environment that will likely only support less than one-third of the current population of the earth.

Maybe none of this is related. Maybe it is a simple collision of events, or events that may be on a collision course. But I can't shake that somehow these do tie together. Regardless, we are in a near crisis situation with the current events in this area.

Assuming no nefarious designs, the simple lack of vaccine is likely to prove highly socially disruptive. The death rate from the flu is likely to be higher (how high is unknown). The contagion rate is likely to be higher, which will take chunks of the workforce out of operation for a period of time. Schools (always a hotbed of spreading contagious disease) may be closed to control spread, and parents are going to have to deal with children usually engaged in school, but now sitting at home. The image of people lying to receive limited vaccines is certainly a possibility. This doesn't even take into consideration the whole issue of SARS and the ongoing threat of another massive outbreak.

As disruptive as lack of vaccine in the US might be, in Asia and elsewhere there isn't adequate vaccine for the population even in optimal times. That has been an ongoing concern with the Avian Flu and trying to figure out how to control it.

At the very least, this looks to be a very disruptive flu season. I would suggest the usual sanitary practices to limit contagion. Namely, keep your distance from folks who are coughing and sneezing. (If it is you, cover your nose and mouth when you sneeze or cough and try to not infect others.) Wash your hands - a lot. Get good rest, nutrition and lots of fluids to keep your immune system high.

Sources
10/06/04 Pollack, NYT, U.S. Will Miss Half Its Supply of Flu Vaccine

10/05/04 AP, Britain Blocks Drug Firm From Supplying Flu Vaccine

10/08/04 NPR, Congress to Probe Flu Vaccine Crisis

10/09/04 WREG/Memphis, Tn., Britain: U.S. Told Of Vaccine Shortage

10/06/04 Rosenwald, Wa. Post, MedImmune Tapped For More Flu Vaccine.

10/02/04 Wolf, UTJ, Critical Health Alerts

9/30/04 Davis, CommonDreams, Monster At the Door

10/07/04 BBC, Killer flu recreated in the lab

9/24/02 Taglieri & Ruppert, FTW, Biowarfare: CDC Issues Plan for Mass Smallpox Vaccinations. Questions Raised on MEHPA and Microbiologist Deaths

5/28/02 Davidson & Ruppert, A Career In Microbiology Can Be Harmful To Your Health ( Death Toll Mounting as Connections to DYNCORP, HADRON, PROMIS SOFTWARE and Disease Research Emerge)

I am concerned by the repetition of points in the debates by John Kerry. I suspect that there were fewer people watching the second debate than the first, and further that most of those watching the second also watched the first. These are people who are watching closely. They don't want to hear the same thing over and over. AND they don't want to hear the same distortions.

Break new ground. Address new issues. Kerry brought up the issue that malpractice cases represented less than 1% of the increase in insurance costs. That was a huge point. He could have explained. Explained why capping awards serves the interests of insurance companies and HMOs - not the interests of the public or of those damaged. Instead he went of on a tangent and a TREMENDOUS opportunity for him to show he cared (and to address the good that Edwards has done) slipped away.

Bush brought up the 9/11 Commission report. One of the biggest critiques in that report was a lack of imagination on the part of our leaders. That lack of imagination was not pie in the sky fantasy, but the ability to extrapolate from the information in their hands. From what was known, they should have foreseen an attack was probable, and using "planes as bombs" was a very likely scenario. That lack of imagination is both a character fault and an ideological blindness - it played out again in letting bin Laden run loose, and in the rush to invade Iraq (and the consequences of that).

The final debate will likely be a subset of folks who have already seen debates 1 and 2 (and likely the VP debate as well). Repeating the same rhetoric will not win anyone undecided, or show those already leaning towards Bush to think again.

I strongly urge not covering the exact same ground again. Leave that to Bush who can't think of anything else to say.

John Kerry is a smart man. So is Edwards. Let it show, but use straight language. Bush lives in a black and white world (even if he constantly swaps what is black and what is white). People (even the undecided) know that things are not going well. Add substance. For example, don't elaborate job loss numbers. Talk about net jobs lost. Talk about what the quality of the jobs are that are replacing those that are lost (part time for full time, temporary for permanent, lower wages and no benefits). If you lost a full time $40,000 a year job with benefits and it was replaced by a $22,000 temporary position without benefits, this is not a gain. People understand that. Even if there had been a net job GAIN, the replacement jobs are (on the whole) of much lower pay, stability, and benefits.

Make it real. The people watching can handle it. We are well past the point where you can just keep it simple and use rhetoric.

OK, I have been building up for a rant on this for a long time - this is the rant.

If I hear one more time that "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in Power" I do believe I will S C R E A M. That is a totally specious comment and totally off the issue. The world would be "better off" with a number of people "no longer in power." The US did not invade and remove them.

Let's visit a little history shall we? The Bush administration case to the world and to the US public was that Iraq was an imminent threat that could strike us directly or through terrorists at will. We were told the administration have undeniable proof of Hussein's possession of WMD - including the threat of nuclear attack ("the next smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud'). We were told that he had nuclear, chemical and biological warfare capability - this was part of the State of the Union address by Bush himself, and endlessly parroted by administration representatives. In other words, according to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz ad nauseum, the was not ONE doubt that Hussein had the capability and the means to strike the US. (While I never believed this line, many in the US did - enough that the administration could move ahead with their plans.)

Bush claims he acted with the will of the United Nations and the international community. He did not. The evidence presented by Colin Powell to the UN did not convince them that Hussein was an immediate threat. They did not see the evidence as conclusive. Rather than face a veto by the UN Security Council, the US withdrew the petition from the table and invaded without UN support.

The US was not given authority by the UN to enforce Resolution 1451 by invading Iraq. In fact, it was the consensus that Hussein was largely cooperating with weapons inspectors. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration was demeaning those same inspectors. When the US went into Iraq and could not go directly to these WMD that they knew the exact location of, we were told that the search would take time - time that the US was not willing to give the UN inspectors. In fact, when the chief US weapons inspector David Kaye gave his report to Congress in January 2004, the Bush administration downplayed the whole issue and said they needed "more time" to complete their search. (David Kaye resigned his post as head of the Iraq Survey Group, and said that he had found virtually nothing to support the administration's claims of Iraqi threat (Chief US inspector admits Iraq had no WMD stockpiles).

Well they have had "more time" and what has been shown is that there was no there there.

So now we hear that we have "liberated" the people of Iraq. Well, not exactly as they are under a US occupation which does not exactly make them "free."

We are told the Iraqi people are "better off" without Hussein in power. Possibly, but I imagine that depends on how you define "better off."

We are told that we (the US) are safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. That too is debatable since it is clear that he represented no threat to the US. Further, we have created a anti-US magnet in Iraq (much like Afghanistan), and the violence is spilling over all around (Egypt, Pakistan, India, Spain, Indonesia ...). And, as we are constantly reminded there are imminent threats to the US (or is that just fear tactics). In fact, today (10/07/04) the U.S. alerted schools and colleges of a possible terrorist threat.

It is a campaign season, and I have heard numerous times that if Kerry had been President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. This claim calls on a belief in all the other bull crap above. If Bush had not rushed into the war, and had let the UN inspectors do the job that he turned over to the Iraq Survey Group, they would have found the same thing without all the death and destruction.

In the last Presidential debate, Bush said that Kerry had seen the same reports that he had seen in deciding on the threat presented by Iraq. Well now there is a telling statement since it is already been made pretty clear that the intelligence was "spun" and "cherry picked" to support the case the administration wanted to make. All that such a comment implies is "Nanner, Nanner, Nanner! We fooled you!"

So let's get real shall we?
1. There was no evidence that was credible. The claims by the administration that they had incontrovertible proof of the threat Hussein posed was an outright lie. Like other things, they "believed," and this is an administration where the very word "belief" connotes religious belief - which needs no earthly evidence. So their "belief" required no further "evidence." It was just "fact."

2. There was no approval on any level from the UN for the action the US took. The US was not acting at the behest of the UN or the "global community." The "coalition" was never a power coalition. For example, Morocco's contribution was 2,000 monkeys to set lose in mine fields. Further, it has been evaporating. That coalition has been scattering since April with the withdrawal of Spain which took the powerhouse group of Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua with them. Britain is drawing down its forces, and arch ally Poland is pulling its troops home.

3. Iraq is not a nation at peace and gaining stability. The "insurgents" are increasingly Iraqi's citizens resisting what has become an increasingly deadly occupation and it is only now that the Pentagon Sets Steps to Retake Iraq Rebel Sites. Further, a national vote that excludes broad swaths of the population is not a democracy.

I truly wish that folks would wake up and realize that claims about "Hussein would still be in power" are based on a trembling foundation of misdirections, distortions, and shifting justifications. Unfortunately, people (and the corporate media) seem content to accept the validity of this claim.

Well, now I have ranted, and I wish I felt commensurately better for it.

Of course, the US wants to urge restraint and so what happens?

9/22/04 Lynch, Independent/UK, US offers 500 'bunker-busting' bombs to Israel

Germany, not to be outdone delivers 2 submarines (free of charge) to Israel capable of carrying nuke warheads ( 9/10/04 AFP).

But apparently, there have been other technology exchanges besides "bunker busters" between the US and Israel: An Ominous Drone in the Gaza Sky (10/08/04 Moore, Wa. Post).

Then we have the ongoing threats between Israel and Iran which should raise the concern level of all of us. A concern that is not mitigated by the perception that Israel is a greater nuclear threat than Iran: Israeli whistleblower Vanunu (10/07/04 SpaceWar).

OF course, there is a major new round of "you kill us we'll kill you" between Israel and Palestine. There is no sanity in that situation that I can see - only destruction, death, and increasing rage. The supposed voice of "sanity" is the US, which from all I can tell (from the above) is sending massively mixed messages - show restraint, but here are some shiny new weapons for you to use.

And if you think that this doesn't have any impact of the growing distrust of the US (and therefore direct impacts on "terrorist" recruiting) think again.

Due to under funding V.A. facilities are being closed (two in my own state of Oregon); wait time for appointments have increased to over 6 months in some cases; a back log of over 300,000 disability claims with decreasing numbers of those to process the claims ala Bush 2005 proposed budget; nearly 150,000 additional veterans are eligible for health care due to service in Afghanistan and Iraq to further strain an already over strained and under funded Veterans Administration.

These V.A. budget decisions are being made by those that when they had the chance to serve this nation in uniform refused to do so! They were willing to support a war (Vietnam) as long as others fought it. People like Cheney, who “had other priorities than military service”, and Tom DeLay, “there were so many minorities being called up there was no room for patriots like me” are the ones that are making policy decisions on veterans health care and disability payments. They are doing the same thing in terms of Iraq—some one else to fight their war then turn their collective backs on those that come back needing help.

In short, veterans that have given their all for this nation are being told there is no room at the Inn. Currently there have been over 26,000 veterans from the Bush/Cheney war of choice in Iraq that have applied for disability benefits and that number is growing daily.

“The system is already strained, and it’s going to get strained even worse,” says David Autry, with the Disabled American Veterans (DAV). “It’s not a rosy picture at all, and they can’t possibly hope to say they’re going to provide timely benefits to the new folks if they can’t provide timely care to the people already in the system.”

Why is it we veterans must continue to fight our own government merely to get it to live up to the promises made when we enlisted and then went to war? Why is it the Department of Veterans Affairs must vote to have a budget every year? Why is not the V.A. budget a mandatory budget line item?

Year after year, why must we veterans of wars we were sent to fight continue having to fight in an effort to force this government to keep its promises made to us?

I do know this; the V.A. is not ready, by any stretch of the imagination, for the influx of new veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq. Will they, as did so many of us that went to Vietnam, have to fight 20 and 30 years before this government admits the harm done them by this Bush/Cheney war of choice and gives them their just due?

Or will they have to fight 36 years as did I, going through 87 surgeries (with another next week) 22 diseases and extreme medical conditions (Agent Orange) before getting any semblance of justice? For their sake I hope and pray not. I fight for them now, as I do for any and all veterans that have been further victimized by a government system that for all appearances does not care.

Why do not a greater number of citizens of this nation care enough about how veterans have been and are being treated by this system; Why are not more standing along side of us veterans that want nothing more, or less, than for this nation to honor the agreement it made and help us—and now more than ever as even more war torn veterans will need help and assistance?

Or have people been numbed so much by “reality TV” and “video game warfare” they have lost touch with the fact that people, human beings, are being blown to hell and back, physically, mentally and emotionally and will need our help? Or is it that the citizens of this nation will do as Bush, Cheney and the rest of the republican chickenhawks in congress and just turn their collective backs on those they have sent to Iraq and Afghanistan?

I really do hope the citizens of this nation have more honor than that—time will tell.

Perhaps more revealing are his comments about the US offensive in Iraq:

Mr Rumsfeld said he did not see civil war as the main danger in Iraq.

Instead, "the risk is that the terrorists... and the people who are running around chopping off people's heads and killing innocent men, women and children will take over" Iraq.

Perhaps, among the reports that Rumsfeld has not read is that most of those opposing US forces in Iraq are Iraqi, or that the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq are not from "terrorists" or even "insurgents," but by US forces.

It's probably for the best that none of us (unlike the corporate media) look to Rumsfeld for accurate information.

Sources
10/04/04 BBC, Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden link

10/04/04 BBC, Sadr City 'targeted by US forces'

9/28/04 Mazzetti, LA Times, Insurgents Are Mostly Iraqis, U.S. Military Says

9/25/04 Youssef, Knight-Ridder, More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows

You cannot look to the prominent members of either major American political party for an honest assessment of how their candidate performed. Despite being regularly trotted out on America's political-discussion programs, these people leave the impression of old Soviet apparatchiks offering spontaneous views on Stalin's latest speech.

If you looked to the mainline press or the small group of people who hold lifetime sinecures on television, you would have concluded the morning after that the debate was a tie, an opinion generated by the same tireless machinery that churns out most of what Americans hear about Iraq. Only the so-called instant polls told you something else, and there was a clue from John McCain, a man desperate to cleanse his conscience of groveling for Bush, who briefly admitted that Kerry had his best night in a long stretch.

If you had read the words of former Vice President Al Gore just before the debate, you might have expected Bush to be a formidable opponent, consistently underestimated. But to credit Gore's judgment required you to ignore the fact that he is the man whose inept campaign in 2000 put Bush into office. Gore does not want to be remembered as the smart man, groomed for decades in politics at the highest level, who let one of the most sniveling and uninformed politicians in American history take the country's highest office, but that is precisely Gore's legacy.

With most of the usual sources of authority discounted, you were left to your own judgment, something with which Americans are not all that comfortable. American television's hazy, synthetic vision of the world, where everything from the best choice of toilet-bowl cleaner to what should be your view of the latest colonial slaughter is appealingly served up to be consumed as directed, makes independent judgment unfamiliar territory.

Still, once in a while, there's no shaking the effect of a stark fact. Any fool could see that Bush is a man who cannot think on his feet, that his responses are those of a toy doll whose same scratchy set of recordings play each time you squeeze him. Winning a debate with a man of his quality would not be an achievement anywhere, except in America. Gore should have landed a string of knock-out punches during the 2000 debates, but he utterly failed to do so. My private guess as to why he didn't is that he thought the audience might judge him harshly for assisting an incompetent to appear incompetent. It reflects the same political sensibility that had the razor-sharp mind of Mrs. Clinton focused on baking cookies. Kerry's wife, an outspoken woman of foreign birth, has only just been asked to make herself a little scarce. She doesn't go down well with the bowling-bag-and-Barbara-Bush set.

Before the debate, Kerry pretty much had followed Gore's script for campaign as light farce. On a few occasions, Kerry indulged an inexplicable taste for the Keystone Cops, making floundering, bizarrely-twisted statements about the war in Iraq. You almost expected to see his eyes crossed while his jaw worked at the words. His audience, not surprisingly, failed to see a Keystone Cop as someone to rescue them from a moron, and the polls marked Kerry down as someone the Political Angel of Death was not going to bypass in November. As for turning instead to a thoughtful, honest man like Ralph Nader, that simply is not on in an America that only buys brands with billion-dollar advertising budgets.

So, Kerry had little to lose in the debate. Still, he offered nothing heroic, nothing startling, only just managing a few pointed comments most of the world takes as common sense, but in politically-asthmatic America even that little wheeze is significant. Judging by Bush's reaction, which (broadcast on split-screen despite a previous understanding not to do so) resembled the movements of one of those old monkey-on-a-stick toys, even these few comments were deeply irritating. It may be that the broadcast of Bush's reactions was more telling than anything Kerry managed to say. Get ready for years of howling cries about a stab in the back from those who await the coming of a new Dr. Goebbels to save them from the sick fantasy of a liberal American press.

The ridiculous circumstance in America that tends to make an incompetent like Bush seem above scrutiny and criticism starts with the very nature of a Constitution making the President both head of state and head of government. Thus, when you criticize a President for doing something stupid, you are seen to be criticizing the symbol of the country itself, and not merely another politician, which is of course what Presidents are, first and foremost. In the case of war - even a totally illegal, bungled, and pointless war like the one in Iraq - you may be regarded as giving aid and comfort to some undefined enemy or as not supporting the "boyz in hawm's way," perhaps the most unforgivable transgression an American politician can commit.

Less-instant polls at this writing indicate the public-opinion impact of Bush's broadcast reactions may be substantial. If so, it is remarkable that it took Americans four years to see what a pathetic lump their President is, but it is equally remarkable that Kerry, who has said little of anything beyond the obvious, will benefit.

It's pretty much the same with the liability lawsuits against corporate America - along with innumerable criminal legal actions against them." Pollute and get sued. Cook the books, get caught, get sued and maybe go to jail. If corporate America would play by the "rules" it wants all of us to play by; was as concerned about the people of this nation--without whose purchasing dollars corporate America would not exist--as it is with the bottom line, its profits, maybe, just maybe, they would not get sued for doing harm, or have fines and penalties levied for illegal activities like violating labor laws for example.

Both of these issues, medical malpractice lawsuits and corporate liability lawsuits as such, are not the focus of this commentary. This in no way suggests they are not important issues, as they are very important issues. How else are we able to compel companies, Doctors, organizations to conduct their business and practices in a fair, just and professional manner but by, and through letting them all know if they violate our trust we will see them in court. If we are harmed, we will see them in court. If they poison our water, our air, our land, we will see them in court. These are issues that will be dealt with in another commentary.

That being said, at the core of Bush and the Republican Party wanting to "cap" or, if possible, eliminate liability lawsuits by individuals and especially class action lawsuits, is a much broader strategy to "de-fund" the Democratic Party. A substantial portion of the Democratic Party's funding is donations from trial lawyers and their associations. These are the lawyers that generally speaking are the ones that hold the practitioners of bad medicine and companies that violate the law accountable by representing those that have been harmed.

In short, eliminate the lawsuits, you eliminate a chief source of funds for lawyers and therefore their ability to donate to the Democratic Party. Lose enough funding sources and you might as well hang a sign on the door saying, "Gone fishin' don't know when, or if I'll be back."George Lakoff, professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkley has given this a name, "Strategic Initiatives."

According to Prof Lakoff a Strategic Initiative is defined as "a plan in which a change in one carefully chosen issue area has automatic effects over many, many, many other issues areas." It works like this for example: take the issue of tax cuts - seems easy enough and pretty straight forward, however, the tax cuts have reduced the funds in the treasury available for social spending so they, the social programs get reduced funds or are cut entirely - the result is what they are after in the end - "Starve the Beast" and eliminate all social safety net programs of the past 50 years.

Then there is the issue of liability lawsuits. Stifle the lawsuits; make it more difficult to get into court by switching from state courts to federal courts; end these lawsuits (which the Bush cabal refers to as Tort reform) and with one stroke of the pen they will have eliminated all the potential lawsuits that will be the basis of future environmental legislation and regulation.

If parties who are harmed cannot sue immoral or negligent corporations or professionals for significant sums, the companies are free to harm the public in unlimited ways in the course of making money. And lawyers, who take risks and make significant investments in such cases, will no longer make enough money to support the risk. And corporations will be free to ignore the public good. This is what is at the heart of the Bush cabals push to, at the very least, greatly curtail liability lawsuits under the guise of "Tort reform."

Bush and the Republican Party do not care primarily about the individual lawsuits in and of themselves; what they are actually after is not enumerated in their proposal. As what Bush and the Republican Party are after is the elimination across the board of environmental, consumer and worker/labor protections.

When looking at "strategic initiative" one must keep in mind what Bush and company have been doing to and with the federal courts in terms of those that have been given lifetime appointments as federal judges to sit on those courts. Those that Bush has had placed on the courts will be the ones making the decisions on the Bush and Republican Party's proposed liability lawsuits. Those that Bush has placed on the courts are like minded political ideologues - one only need look at the decisions being made by Bush appointed judges to discern this. The ultimate stacked deck!

It does not take a genius or rocket scientist to see and understand the direction this nation is being led under Bush and the Republican Party's "leadership" (and I use that term loosely) - a highly centralized government with them as its head. A Theocracy-Oligarchy combination, a one party system, an American "Taliban" of sorts in which individual freedoms, personal liberties, democracy will just evaporate as what we will be left with is a nation with the trappings of democracy without being a democracy in actual fact.

Four more years, or 40 more years? Your vote in November is not just a vote for President, but a new Supreme Court.

Suggested Readings:
George Lakoff. Moral Politics

George Lakoff. Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.

Tort Reform Reader

Tort Reform Myths

Starve the Beast

Independent Judiciary

Save Our Courts

Pending Bush Nominees

The Rockridge Institute: Prof. George Lakoff, Senior Fellow

The first report, and having the narrowest impact, that Merck is pulling Vioxx. For years, researchers have been concerned that the pain reliever Vioxx was tied to heart attacks and strokes. Merck, disputed the concerns, and waved away the results of their own studies. This is a testimony to the power of pharmaceutical companies over the FDA - in my not so humble opinion. The FDA approved the drug in 1999. Troubling questions were raised in 2000. In September of 2004, Vioxx was finally recalled.

The second report is even more troubling and indicative of a the impact of toxins in our environment. Northwest Environment released the results of a study on toxins in breast milk. They tested breast milk from 40 women in British Columbia, Oregon, Washington, and Montana. They found PBDEs in 100% of the samples. PBDEs are toxins commonly found in flame retardants. There are speculations about where the toxins are coming from and how they are being ingested. The two most likely hypothesis are dust from furniture (which is commonly treated with flame retarding chemicals), and from the food supply - particularly dairy products and meat. I hate to say it, but most cows aren't laying around on sofas, so how these toxins are getting into milk and meat suggests a broader environmental exposure (to me). Regardless, the article notes:

The study found levels ranging from 6 to 321 parts per billion, with half the samples measuring above 50 ppb and half below. Although these levels are about the same as those found in other studies in North America, they are 20 to 40 times higher than levels found in Sweden and Japan, Williams-Derry said. Sweden and Japan have already taken steps to phase out or ban PBDEs.

"The levels (in the United States) are high and rising rapidly," he said. "They have increased approximately 15-fold over the last two decades."

The last report is on an issue that I have discussed several times on Uncommon Thought - Avian Flu. There is an excellent article by Mike Davis of CommonDreams - The Monster at the Door discussing the deadly scenario that we are facing. The Avian flu, also known as "bird" flu has mostly been found in Asia, but there have been cases of concern in both the US and Canada. The fear of epidemiologists has been that the Avian Flu would merge with human flu. Originally, the avian flu has passed from birds (primarily chickens) to humans, and human to human transmission had not been proven. The fatality rate of the avian flu is very high - 70% this year. Yes, that means that 7 out of 10 people who contracted H5N1 (the current bird flu) this year died. That is a fatality rate that is closer to other dreaded viruses such as variants of ebola.

This issue gains more urgency in that there is now a suspected case of human to human transmission - a case of a mother catching H5N1 from her baby and dying. If H5N1 is making the transmission leap, the world is ill prepared to deal with it, and this is particularly true where the virus is most present - Asia. Even in Europe and the US vaccine is only being made for medical professionals (according to Davis). As Davis points out, pharmaceutical companies have not seen it as profitable to produce the necessary vaccines, and so they have not.

As I have discussed before, and Davis highlights in his article, this is a pandemic not just waiting to happen. It is a pandemic in which the ground has already been tilled. The bird flu has moved from confined bird populations such as chickens to the wild population (herons, gulls, etc). It has also moved from birds to pigs (a very bad sign). The report of a likely human to human transmission raises the specter of a global pandemic which could make the influenza pandemic of 1918 seem minimal. As Davis notes:

The precedent always invoked to illustrate how this might happen is the 1918-19 influenza pandemic: the single greatest mortality event in human history. In only 24 weeks, a deadly avian flu strain killed from 2 to 5 per cent of humanity (50 to 100 million people - including 675,000 Americans) from the Aleutians to Patagonia.

What is even more frustrating is that authorities are doing virtually NOTHING to address the situation. Davis notes that neither Bush nor Kerry are raising this as an issue - though Nader wrote a letter to Bush in August on the "looming threat."

This threat, like the threat of climate collapse, is just not an "issue." Certainly H5N1 is not the only possible deadly pandemic (SARS, West Nile, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and ebola come to mind - not to mention the damned genetically engineered bugs that too many are playing with). And climate collapse is not the only potential "natural catastrophe" headed our way - there is always the civilization killing possibility of the exhaustion of the Earth's oil reserves. But these global issues are not important enough to even make it to the campaign sound bite list - much less any movement to deal with them via policy or plan.

I know, I know, most of this is grim news, but I think important. The fact that these issues are largely "slipping under the radar" (a euphemism for being buried) of the corporate media is beyond a disservice - it is life threatening. Whose interests are being served by this crime of omission? Certainly not us. And why are the Presidential candidates largely ignoring these issues (Kerry has at least send the words "global warming." I heard him). That means it is up to us to spread the word and apply the pressure - a g a I n.

Being even marginally aware of this issue, it is not surprising that Bush highlighted the importance of China in relationship to North Korea in the first Presidential Debate (transcript). However, a marginal understanding of the complex relationship between China and the US makes certain headlines jump out in neon lights.

Let's start with the fact that China is holding a significant portion of the current massive US debt. According to a report by John Tanner published on the website of the House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer titled Foreign Countries buy U.S. debt, benefit from our fiscal irresponsibility (pdf):

According to the Treasury Department, major foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities total $1.38 trillion. Over the first seven months of 2003, Mainland China and Hong Kong have accumulated $177 billion of U.S. debt. Currently, China is the world's second largest buyer, exceeded only by Japan. Furthermore, China's purchases of U.S. government securities rose 20% over the first half of this year and have exploded by more than 105% since the beginning of 2001.

Knowing that China is holding a tremendous amount of US debt, and is also serving as a primary goods manufacturer for the US gives China significant leverage in US - China relations. China has pegged its currency to the US dollar. This means that the cost of goods from China to the US are less, and that the exports from the US to China bring less revenue to US exporters. It also means that the interest on the US debt being held by China is accruing at US dollar rates. Therefore the news that the I.M.F. is asking China to free its currency from the dollar does not come as a shock. Please do not think that the International Monetary Fund is acting magnanimously to "help out" the US in its time of need. The US holds more votes in the IMF than any other nation with 17.14% (see table at end of this article). In other words, what the US wants the US generally gets out of the IMF.

China is growing rapidly as an industrial nation. The US is a major importer of manufactured goods from China, and workers in China have replaced hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of US workers. One of the major areas of growth in China has been in oil consumption, and this has skyrocketed in the last two years. In fact, China is now second only to the US in oil consumption. According to John Makin at the American Enterprise Institute, China's oil imports have increased by 35% from 2003-2004 and that represents 40% of the total increase in oil consumption in the world during that same period. While most of China's jump in oil consumption is because of the dramatic increase in the number of cars (National Geographic, 6/28/04)), and a significant portion is tied directly to the plastics industry (Daily Times/Pakistan) which is critical in manufacturing.

Given these combining forces, it is therefore not too surprising that China has been invited to meet with the G7. Nor is it surprising that two of the major issues on the G7 table are China's currency issue and that the G7 is looking for an increase in OPEC oil production. (It should be noted that the G7 is supposedly now the G8 as Russia was added during the war in Kosovo.)

There are many implications of the change in China's status. There are policy implications which leaves the US government somewhere between beholden to and desirous of a positive relationship with China. There are local and global environmental implications of the rapid growth and resource consumption which is moving rapidly towards US levels. Though China's resource consumption and overall pollution impact rank far behind the US, at the current rate of increase it could pass the US in the next 10 to 15 years. (There is an excellent article on this - Forget the Threat of Terrorism.) Then, there are global resource competition issues and the US policy of taking any means necessary to control those resources. Hence, we have China (and Asia in general) intimately interested in Afghanistan and the hope of a natural gas pipeline from Russia to South Asia. We have China deeply interested in the events in Iraq and its potential oil production capabilities. US military engagement in both Afghanistan and Iraq show the competing interests and policies. On one hand the drive of profit to develop access these energy reserves, and on the other to make sure they are firmly in US control. The plan (at least in relationship to China in this area) is to make as much profit as possible feeding the burgeoning demand of China, but maintaining the leverage of the US controlling the spigot.

It remains to be seen if such a mixed policy will balance out the increasing economic leverage China has over the US.

Sources and Resources
8/2004 John Makin, AEI, Oil and Stagflation

6/28/04 Brian Handwerk, National Geographic, China's Car Boom Tests Safety, Pollution Practices

Daily Times of Pakistan, Local plastic usage among the lowest in the world

10/02/04 Paul Blustein, Wa. Post, China at G-7 Meeting for First Time

10/02/04 BBC, G7 seeks boost in oil production

Oil Consumption of the Top 100 Countries. Nationmaster Statistics Site.

7/25/04 Kenny Kemp, Sunday Herald/Scotland, Forget the Threat of Terrorism. China is about to flick the switch on a global energy crisis and a time bomb that will bring massive destruction worldwide

Percentage of Votes Held in the IMF by those Nations with More than 1% of Votes

Interestingly, I thought that the one point where Bush made his best showing was in the difference in opinion over whether bilateral talks with North Korea or the involvement of China, Japan, Russia, etc. offered the most leverage. While I disagree with the premise that it is an either/or situation, Bush pointed out the difference well.

Of course, the fact that we have gotten to the point we have has nothing to do with bilateral vs multilateral talks with North Korea. But that is like the argument about Iraq. We shouldn't be there but now we are.

Another thing that jumped out at me was also from Bush. He said something to the effect that a free Iraq would support Israel. That seemed totally out of the blue, and my first response was "a free Iraq, might very well not be pro-Israel." It was interesting that Kerry got Israel into a comment as well. Given what they were both responding to in terms of questions, they both had to stretch to get support of Israel into a response. I assume that was to send a message.

A UTJ reader sent me the following response:

Bush: "We have to stay on the offensive. Stay on the offensive. Stick to offense." Yeah, when fighting against people who welcome the possibility of mutual destruction, you really want to stay on the offensive. Gooood thinking.

I would agree with that opinion.

Anyone want to share your thoughts on the "debate?"