Uncommon Thought Journal

Earnings up, deficit up, slow growth, no jobs

There is great news! The economy has continued its growth in the 4th quarter of 2003. Corporate earnings have increased (for some dramatically - DuPont Posts 82 Percent Profit). Wall street has been on a general upward trend. It's all good according to the White House.

But...

Unemployment in the US is not improving. US jobs are not growing - 1000 (one thousand) in the whole nation for December 2003. The deficit will reach the Moon before the US plants its boots there again.

President Bush's Medicare plan just added $140 to the estimated drug benefit cost, which jumps the 2004 projected deficit to $540 Billion. Yep half way to a trillion dollars for a one year deficit - White House Defends Medicare Law Despite Higher Price Tag, Pear, NYT, 1/30/04.

But the US is not alone in the average person's experience of this "recovery" ( Global unemployment at record high - more than 185 million, Al Jazeera, 1/25/04). Please keep in mind that the undercount globally is likely much worse than in the US count.

I have commented before that one can't call something a recovery if the people aren't experiencing it. If the economy improves and unemployment doesn't decrease, then we are certainly looking at a false recovery. What I suspect is happening in the US is that the economic improvement reflects people purchasing on credit. The Fed has (so far) kept interest rates incredibly low. This has been reflected in generally lower consumer interest rates which has encouraged many to buy. Consumption has been the driving force behind the so called recovery. However, now folks are getting nervous. Job losses continue. Well paying jobs are being "outsourced" to other nations. US job creation isn't happening at anywhere near the rate to absorb those 3 million plus who have lost jobs. In fact, at the current rate, it could take half a century to create the jobs to replace the ones lost. There are also the warnings that the Feds may raise interest rates, and for the US consumer at this point that could be almost the worst possible news. People are over-extended. People are living on credit (groceries, housing, etc).

The low Fed interest rate is also meant to spur business. It doesn't just allow consumers, but business, access to money at a lower rate. "Cheap" money to add inventory, expand operations, add jobs, etc. It also gives them "cheap" money to engage in mergers and buy-outs, and expand operations outside the US. How much of the growth in the economy is due to corporations consolidating their debt at a lower rate, thereby decreasing their debt to earnings ratio? I have no idea, but my guess is it is part of what is going on.

Real economic improvement occurs across the population. An economy that tries to raise all boats by funneling money into the hands of the richest simply doesn't work. It didn't work under Reagan's "vodoo economics" and it won't work under Bush. So called "trickle down" economics are at best just that - a trickle. What is this the "leak theory" of economic growth? When the amount of wealth accumulated at the top overflows the bath tub and starts seeping through the floor to those below? It doesn't help that there is no running water in the lower floors.

When you add the structuring of the leak theory to the deficit (which Bush sees as not a problem at all), you have the folks in the lower floors collecting what leaks down in buckets and hauling it back up to the top floors - for generations. This is not just happening in the US. The global unemployment figure shows that this is a much larger phenomenon. Not only is unemployment high, but outsourcing will drive wages down globally, just as the global workforce competition has driven manufacturing and agricultural wages down. This is not part of some "natural" economic process. It is one that is structured through "free trade," spurred on by economic policies (such as those in the US) and overseen by a belief that privatization and democracy are synonomous. This is a process that is amazingly good for a very few, but it does not ease the suffering of those on the lower floors - and it is not meant to do so.

DHS cyber security project

There are a lot of internet viruses out there, and new ones being developed all the time. It is important to have good anti-virus protection and your firewall enabled on your computer. The Department of Homeland Security is advertising their new site to keep internet users informed about these "attacks" and to provide information about protecting your computer from them - U.S. Department of Homeland Security Improves America's Cyber Security Preparedness--Unveils National Cyber Alert System (DHS site). I will not be registering at the Homeland Security site. They are actively engaged in establishing extensive databases and data mining operations. Certainly they wouldn't use the information on those who register in any of these, but my faith was shaken when the Census Bureau turned over census files to NASA for profiling data mining (See This breach of privacy must be addressed Uncommon Thought 1/20/04).

So if you want to check out the DHS service, and/or sign up, go to the DHS link above.

Halliburton not on Iraq Oil Ministry List?

ABC News has "broken" a story on those who were allegedly "bought off" by the Saddam Hussein between 1997 and the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (1/29/04 Ross, ABCNews.com, Saddam’s Gifts - Supporters Received Lucrative Oil Contracts). The list was apparently discovered in the Iraq Oil Ministry, ans somehow "obtained" by ABC. There is a glaring omission from that list - Kellogg, Root, and Brown (KBR is a wholey owned subsidiary of Halliburton). See list of articles about KBR and Halliburton doing business with Iraq while UN sanctions were in place, and with others on the CIA's terrorism list, at the end of this article). The implication is that UN members who did not support the US invasion of Iraq were bribed by Hussein. While this may or may not be the case, two critical issues arise. First, every argument (except that Hussein was dangerous) for the invasion of Iraq has been proven false. Second, it overlooks the US bribery and corruption in both trying to get Security Council support for a preemptive invasion, and in obtaining a "coalition of the willing."

The preemptive invasion of Iraq was based on inaccurate, spun, or fabricated information. Citizens of the US and the UK in particular were led to believe that Hussein has massive caches of highly lethal weapons and could deploy them on a moments notice. We were told that he had the capacity and capability to strike the US and the UK directly. We were told that the next warning might be a "mushroom cloud," and we were told these things over and over again. All of this has proven to be false. Is there a slight chance that Security Council members felt that the "proof" was not strong enough to support an invasion of Iraq?

It is well documented that the US used every means at its disposal to garner the support of UN Security Council nations, and to get a "coalition of the willing." A report from the Istitute for Policy Studies (2/26/03) examines the levers of power the US has with the coalition- Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?. The use of US economic policy to coerce support for war with Iraq was also detailed in a 5/11/03 San Francisco Chronicle article by David Armstrong (US Pays Back Nations That Supported War)

Experts say modern U.S. trade policy has been tightly intertwined with this country's political objectives since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Washington increasingly employs free trade agreements -- which lower tariffs and quotas -- as a reward to other countries, and threatens trade sanctions, including higher tariffs and quotas, as a punishment for nations that haven't sided with the United States. "The administration is very sympathetic and appreciative of countries that helped out, and very, very disappointed with certain countries, especially those who opposed it publicly," said Michael Nacht, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. "This is an administration that uses trade carrots for friends and sticks for foes," Nacht said.

So the "Coalition of the Willing" essentially reflects the best friends that money and threats can buy.

One has to ask how ABC News could trumpet the coup of obtaining this document and overlook KBR/Halliburton. Or if KBR was not on the list, why ABC wouldn't question it. The involvement of KBR and Iraq is well known and well documented. Was the "document" edited before being turned over to ABC, or did ABC edit the list before releasing it?

The timing of the release of this list seems beyond coincidence as well. THe Bush administration is scrambling to shift the focus of previous statements on the justifications to invade Iraq as the "evidence" crumbles. To release a list of nations "bought off" by Hussein at this point is a distraction. To release a clearly edited list that leaves important US coprporations and individuals unmentioned is certainly "massaging" reality. Is ABC actively participating in this, or are they just following the Bush administration's lead. Perhaps, this is just evidence of ongoing "embedding" of certain reporters?

As far as I am concerned, ABC has further undermined whatever credibility they may have had by broadcasting what is clearly a massaged report.

Articles Documenting KBR/Halliburton Involvment with Iraq
Shady Background of Dick Cheney's Halliburton, chosen by Pentagon to extinguish Iraqi Oil Well Fires, Leopold, CRG, 4/16/03

Iraq Contracts Shrouded in Secrecy, OMB Watch, 9/10/03

Tricky Dick II, Blakeslee, The Nation, 2/18/02

Pentagon Iraq Contractor Has History Of Supporting Terrorist Regimes, Leopold, GlobalPolicy, 4/16/03

Windfalls of War - Kellogg, Root & Brown (Halliburton), Center for Public Integrity, 1/30/04

The Halliburton Connection , The Dossiers

The Candidate from Brown and Root, Texas Observer, 10/06/00

Halliburton Plc. CorpWatch, 7/2003

Information of the Nations Comprising the "Coalition of the Willing"
Who's Who in the U.S.-Led Coalition Against Iraq?, Ridgeway, Village Voice, 3/26/03

A Coalition of Weakness, Leaver & Johnson, FPIF, 4/03

The Coalition of The Willing: Facts & Figures, AReporter.com

US Arm-Twisting Global Policy.org article collection.

I blew it!

If some of your comments have disappeared, you have NOT been censored, I just really messed up. I have been having problems with my backup site and need to start from scratch on that site. SO what did I delete? You got it, Uncommon Thought Journal. Just a slight slip of the eye, one little click and there it went. I had relatively recent backups, but for some reason about the last 20 articles did not / would not import so I had to reconstruct them manually. I tried to get the comments back in, but I may have missed a few. If you find anything else that isn't working properly, please email me and let me know. Sorry if something you contributed got blown away. It truly wasn't intentional.

The Monsanto - Bush Administration Connection

Thanks to a friend (Gloria) for sending along this link to an absolutely tremendous expose on Monsanto - Monsanto and the Pelican Brief?. John Cohen, details the case of Monsanto's use of bovine growth hormone in milk that was approved in 1994. This hormone has been linked to a lot of problems - both for cows and consumers. For example, because the hormone causes cows to over-produce milk, they get lots of infections for which massive doses of antibiotics are used. These infections result in high levels of pus in the milk that consumers drink.

The article show the links between Monsanto and the Bush administration. Such as:

John Ascroft - Attorney General

Monsanto's chief lawyer (Clarence Thomas) appointed to the Supreme Court by Bush Sr. who then casts seciding vote that gave GW the 2000 election

Donald Rumsfeld - former president of Searle Pharmaceutical which is owned by Monsanto

Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceuticals, purchased by Monsanto.

And it goes on from there. Of course, these connections might be made to other companies as well what with interlocking directorates and the revolving door between the big corporations and government insiders. But it does make very interesting reading.

Example there - tests here

Last night I was watching John Stewart and who should be his guest of the night? Richard Perle. Stewart was interviewing him about his new book "The End of Evil." During the course of the interview Stewart asked Perle if one of the main reasons for going into Iraq was to make an example for the region. Perle's answer? "Absolutely"! While being stunned at the bluntness of the answer, I sat there open mouthed at what was coming out in this interview. Other "regimes" that better look out or they will face the same threat of preemptive US attack and "regime change?" Syria, Iran, Jordan, and (if they don't acquiesce to "suggestions" to change their ways) Saudia Arabia. When Perle was asked about this avoidance of confronting Saudia Arabia, Perle said
essentially that the Saudi's have friends in government and that seems to by them "more than fair treatment." This was an open break with Bush because that family DEFINITELY has long and stong connection to the Saudi royal family. Amazing interview to watch.

Meanwhile on the home front, the Army's "force protection antiterrorism unit" ran a surprise test at the Umatilla (Oregon) Chemical Depot. Four "strangers" showed up in town (Hermiston, OR) asking questions about the depot and security. Purchasing a police band radio at the local Radio Shack and asking about the Depot's bandwidth, asking folks about protected airspace over the Depot etc. Locals called the police to say there were strangers in town acting suspicious. According to the Army, security in Hermiston and Umatilla passed with good marks (Suspicious activity near Umatilla Chemical Depot tests community, security, Larabee, The Oregonian, 1/28/04).

My first thought was "Would potential terrorists advertise their interest so directly?" My second thought was that the people of Hermiston were on the ball to call the police. Then I continued reading the article, and saw the part below wedged towards the end (emphases mine):

Libby Bovent, who manages the Radio Shack store in Hermiston, called police to tell them about the pair of suspicious men asking questions about depot security -- after they tipped their hand.

One man bought a police scanner and asked about frequencies used by depot security forces.

"They walked out the door, and the one who bought the scanner came back in and handed me a note," said Bovent, 60.

"He said, 'Call this number and tell them there were a couple of suspicious guys in here asking about the depot.' Then I knew it was a test."

Well, there went the theory of the alertness of the citizens of Hermiston. Handed her a note and told her to call the police? If the test was, would the police respond to that kind of report from a citizen then I guess they passed. If it was would the police ever know and respond, then the test was a failure. Not only that, the police knew that a surpirse security test would be coming their way.
Therefore, they should have guessed it was a test when locals started calling in about "suspicious strangers" asking about security at the depot. I'm not sure that qualifies as a fair test either.

If this is the type of terrorism response testing that is going on around the country, then I don't feel particularly secure.

Is there debt counseling for Bush?

When President Bush was pushing his package of tax credits in 2000 and 2001, he said that they were a temporary measure to "stimulate the economy." With his initiation of the "war on terrorism" which included the creation of a new government department (Homeland Security), dramatically increased spending for the Pentagon, and funding a war in Afghanistan, he pushed still deeper tax cuts (to "stimulate the economy"). Then he started the war on Iraq, increased military spending again, asked for additional funds to reconstruct Iraq (roughly 3/4 of which was for military spending), and asked for more tax cuts.

These tax cuts were pushed as temporary. Many at the time argued that Bush's plan was to make those cuts, and the economic inequalities they reflected (over 45% of the cuts going to the top 1% of tax payers) permanent. With his January 2004 State of the Union Address, Bush stated his plan to make these "temporary" cuts permanent. Gone was the justification of "economic stimulus." His approach to dealing with the deficit - cut spending in other areas such as education.

There are dramatic issues at stake here. This year, the deficit is expected to exceed $477 Billion, and this is without the anticipated additional request of $50 Billion after the elections (President Bush Expected to Seek Additional $50 Billion for Iraq, Lovece, News Stand, 1/27/04). If Bush is successful in making his "temporary cuts" permanent, the CBO Projects Record Deficit exceeding $3.5 trillion over the next ten years (Weisman, Wa. Post, 1/26/04). I might mention that this figure does not include the increasing cost of Social Security as our aging population retires.

The whole scenario is a prime example of the continuing lies of the Bush administration. I clearly remember the trite response to the size of the original tax cuts. Bush said that "they aren't too big, and they aren't too small. They are just right." Not only that they were "temporary" to get the economy moving again. I thought that Chrisitans, particularly born again ones, weren't suppose to lie. Bush must have missed that particular lesson.

Out of sight and out of the language

It should be common knowledge by now that the Bush administration has decided to shield Americans from the troubling site of dead soldiers being returned home from Afghanistan and Iraq. TV coverage is banned. George Bush, while offering platitudes to families, has not had the courtesy to go to the funerals. He did show up at Arlington last year for Memorial Day as I recall - yet another photo opportunity. That is bad enough, but there is another change to hide the reality of the costs of war - the language.

Dead US soldiers are shipped home in "body bags." They have been "body bags" for as long as I know. I would agree that the term lacks respect for the dead. During the Gulf War, "body bags" was replaced by the term "human remains pouches." Well somewhat more respectful, though I don't think that the term caught on in common usage. In March however, the "correct" terminology changed yet again to "transfer tubes." (DisInfopedia - Transfer tubes)

"Transfer tubes"?!?!

This euphemism obviously hides what the objects are and what they contain. It seems somewhat ominous to me that the name change came in March of 2003 with the incasion of Iraq. It seems completely obvious that there was an expectation of large numbers of fatalities and a plan in place to keep those fatalities out of the public eye as much as possible. One might also wonder if the Pentagon was concerned that someone might be keeping an eye on Pentagon ordering. Large numbers of body bags or human remains pouches might attract attention, but "transfer tubes" seems innocuous enough to escape notice.

Both the government and the Pentagon have some interesting bureaucracy-speak in the best of times. The one that stands out in my mind is calling bombs that do not explode "incompetent ordnance," like it was the bomb that was stupid. However that is not even on the scale with "transfer tubes."

There is a very interesting article at ihavenopinion.org that discusses "transfer tubes along with other interesting bits of information like the "Dover test" which is a way of determining American tolerance for seeing dead soldiers returned home (Pentagon Now Hiding Dead in "Transfer Tubes".

Sanitized is hardly the word for the crafting of opinion and information by the Bush administration. Orwell had nothing on these folks.

Thanks to Kelly for bringing this to my attention.

Who is and isn't backing Iraq WMD

While Cheney and Bush continue to push the Iraq WMD story, or a highly transformed version of it, Powell is backing away, as is the recently retired chief inspector. Citizens Not Spectators has a nice post on the issuethat I encourage you to take a look at - Breaking News: David Kay Says Iraq WMD Stockpiles Didn't Exist. I especially like this excerpt:

We already know that Bush doesn't read the papers, preferring the "objective" sources within his own administration. In light of the discrepancy between Kay's comments and the assertions made in the past week by the President/Vice-President, one wonders yet again whether those objective sources at the White House teven bother to read the reports of the administration's own appointees (anybody remember Joseph Wilson and last year's infamous "16 words?").

Citizens Not Spectators is a solid site with good discussion of current issues. You can link to them from my site, or put them in your own bookmarks. I count them as part of my community. When my site "went down" in November, they helped spread the word when I got it functioning again. That's what "community" is about. I read them regularly, and appreciate their voice.

Disposing of BSE infected cows may prove difficult

While the topic seems to have moved to the background, the "mad cow"
investigation is spreading – “Herds in three states quarantined amid mad cow probe” (Sherman, Boston Globe, 1/24/04). The approach being taken is to slaughter the suspect animals. According to the Sherman article, over 600 cows have been destroyed so far. This is supposed to make us feel better. The government is finding the cows that might carry BSE and taking them out of the food chain. New feed rules are being imposed, and "downer" cows can no longer be processed for human consumption. Therefore, we are well on our way to controlling this outbreak and preventing others. But are we?

The beastie known as a "prion" that is involved in mad cow (BSE) is damnably hard to kill. In fact, it seems to be one of the hardier "bugs" in that it survives being "steamed, frozen, disinfected, zapped with ultraviolet light or bombarded with X-rays, tissue from sick animals can still spread the illness." (Grady, NY Times, 1/06/04 With Diseased Animals, Disposal Isn't Simple ). This sad bit of news is confirmed by the Final Opinion of the EU Scientific Steering Committee (link below) released on April 11, 2003. According to the SSC, BSE and TSE material needs to be treated at a high temperature (at least 300 F) and under pressure in an alkaline solution for at least six hours for reasonable safety. The treated material should then be encapsulated and stored at a protected facility. What that means is that even after the sterilization the
material needs to be treated as toxic waste.

The process that was analyzed by the SSC, and is the one preferred by the US Department of Agriculture, is patented by a company by the name of Waste Reduction by Waste Reduction (or WR2). WR2's process treats contaminated tissue at a temperature of 300 degrees (F) for 3 hours, though WR2's documentation notes that "(In emergency situations this time can be reduced substantially)." This obviously would not be indicated if one were to follow the recommendations of the SSC (minimum of six hours).

WR2's process seems to offer the most efficient and effective way of dealing with BSE contaminated material, but how is it to be used and what happens to the waste? WR2 states that the remains could be safely diluted and placed in sewage systems, powdered and used as fertilizer, or used as "biomass fuel." It is unclear whether the Department of Agriculture would follow these suggestions or those of the EU SSC. According to the Grady article: “The company sells equipment that it says will destroy prions and liquefy a 1,500-pound cow in six to eight
hours." (It could take 150-300 days to process the 600 cows already destroyed.)

There are several problems here. First, large digestors would need to be built. Second, it is unclear exactly what conditions under which the cattle would be treated. Third, it is unclear how the resulting waste will be dealt with.

Which leads me to the question of what are they doing with the 600 cows they have already killed? What have they done with the original cow that was found to be infected? I certainly have some concern if the treated tissue is being released into our environment in any way - sewage, biomass, or fertilizer. Some might claim that the SSC is being overly cautious, but Britain had to kill over a million cattle. Their cattle industry needed to start effectively from scratch, and we may
ultimately face a similar problem in the US. There is also the concern of transmission to humans where safe would be better than sorry.

I am surprised that the press has not followed up on this in a more systematic way. One could argue that they don't want to be "alarmist," but this is a critical public safety issue and the public deserves the best and most complete information available.

Sources

Herds in three states quarantined amid mad cow probe
(Sherman, Boston Globe, 1/24/04)

With Diseased Animals, Disposal Isn't Simple , Grady, NYT, 1/06/04

Final Opinion Report on A Treatment of Animal Waste by Means of High temperature (150°C, 3 HOURS) and High Pressure Alkaline Hydrolysis, EU SSC, 4/11/03.

The WR2™ Process on the WR2 web site

Republican staffers steal private democratic correspondences

This is big and serious news that , thus far is not getting a lot of corporate media play. The story was broken by Charles Savage at the Boston Globe, and he was interviewed yesterday on Democracy Now!. Republican staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee somehow got access to confidential Democrat files and communications. For at least a year, they have been access confidential information and leaking it to the press, and one has to presume the Senators for whom they work and the Republican party.

Ok folks, the Senate Judiciary Committee? Of all the committees, wouldn't you expect this one to be most cognizant of the law, and of ethics?

According to the decription posted on the Senate's web site:

(The Judiciary Committee is) One of the Senate's original standing committees, the Committee on the Judiciary was first authorized on December 10, 1816. The Committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions in the Senate, ranging from criminal justice to antitrust and intellectual property law.

The current Chair is Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the former Chair was Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). From the spring of 2002 until at least April of 2003 Republican staff members accessed secure files of Democrats where they accessed strategy documents, meeting records (even informal ones), correspondence, and talking points. Some of these were leaked to the press - mostly in the person of Robert Novak. Yes the same one that was so accommodating to some Whitehouse source who wanted to out Valerie Plame as an under cover CIA agent.

An investigation is underway by the office of the Senate's Sargeant of Arms. Roughly 120 people have been interviewed so far, and a number of computers have been seized - four servers for the Judiciary Committee, and one from Bill Frist (Senate Majority Leader). Apparently one of the staffers involved in the covert access moved to Frist's staff.

Hatch claims he had no knowledge of the illegal accessing of the Democrat's server, and has cooperated in the investigation.

Here is my understanding of what happeneded. Somehow Republican staff members were able to access one (or more) of the network servers for the Democrats. Somehow they avoided or overcame the password protection of that server. There are some mentions of a "glitch" or loophole" in the network security system. While I am no expert, I have been a network administrator in one of my many career incarnations. It is possible that there was a "loophole" in that security for the files may not have been set correctly (by human error or intention). It is possible that someone just "happened" upon this little problem, thought that seems less likely to me. As far as I know, there are several
possibilities here. 1) A password directory error by the network administrator (or someone with administrative clearance). 2. An intentional granting of clearnace to someone who shouldn't have had it. 3. Somebody hacked the system.

Regardless of the actual method of gaining access (which may be a criminal violation in itself), someone decided to exploit that access. Further, it seems that it was not just "someone" but a number of GOP Judiciary staffers who for over a year illicitly accessed and used this information. I am sure that the Senators and others will deny having any knowledge of this activity. Plausible deniability is a big deal in politics. However, your staff don't keep handing you information from
private meetings, strategy documents, etc, and you don't know that something fishy is going on. It is the political version of "don't ask - don't tell."

This is being billed as the New Watergate where the Republicans broke into Democratic Party offices to steal information. It was a crime then and a crime now. Here we have the party who apparently thinks they are the party of "morality" and "American values," under an administration who thinks it rules by the favor of God and with an express mission from said "God," engaging in an ever growing list of lies, deceptions, and outright criminal activities. I would think that this might lcause those in the Christian Right who form an important
political base for this administration to ask a few questions.

Articles of Interest

1/23/04 Democracy Now, A New Watergate? GOP Members of Senate Judiciary Break Into Democrats Computer System

1/23/04 Savage, Boston Globe, GOP downplays reading of memos

1/22/04 Savage, Boston Globe, Infiltration of files seen as extensive

Cheney says he had nothing to do with Haliburton contracts

Haliburton has been all over the news as it is investigated by the Pentagon's auditors for over billing. While they are being investigated for over billing th US $61 million, they fessed up to $6.3 million in kickbacks (Halliburton admits $6m kickbacks, BBC, 1/23/04). In response, Haliburton wrote a check to the Pentagon for the kickbacks.

This seems to resolve the issue for some, but what about the other $55 million in overcharges? This seems to be of no concern as Kellogg Brown & Root (the main Haliburton subsidiary) just received another $1 Billion no-bid contract in Iraq (Subsidiary of Haliburton Wins New Contract Amid Probe by Criminal Investigators, Johnson, US Foreign Aid Watch, 1/24/04). See also, Halliburton wins Iraq deal despite price gouging, FT, 1/23/04.

There have been ongoing concerns and allegations about Cheney's involvement or influence on the Halliburton contracts. Of course Cheney faults 'desperate' attacks on Halliburton (CNN, 1/23/04). Cheney sees the claims against Haliburton and himself as blatant political attacks. On some news program last night I heard him say that he had not been involved in the contracting, and would know how to rig the process. Oh please. He doesn't have to be involved or issue an order. He doesn't have to know how to subvert the bidding process for others to do so in his (and Haliburton's) interest. Though I find it hard to believe that a man who
is currently VP and has served both on other presidentatial cabinets and as a US senator, doesn't "know how" to get things done off the books.

Cheney has deferred his compensation from Haliburton while he serves as VP. That doesn't mean that it is not ringing up while he is in office. It just means he can't collect until he is out of office. The claims that he has nothing further to do with Haliburton, and nothing to gain are pure hogwash as far as I can tell.

There is an interesting article at Al Jazeera - Investigation Reveals 'Reconstruction Racket' in Iraq (1/23/04) that looks at the issue beyond KBR. Here are some of the highlights:

... Bechtel has been given over a billion dollars to repair Iraq’s schools. Yet many haven’t been touched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One “repaired” school was overflowing with unflushed sewage ...

Inflated overhead costs and a byzantine maze of sub-contracts have left little money for the everyday workers carrying out projects. In one contract for police operations, Iraqi guards received only 10 % of the money allotted for their salaries; Indian cooks for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root reported making just three dollars a day.

... of Halliburton’s $2. 2billion in contracts, only about10 % has gone to meeting community needs – the rest being spent on servicing U.S. troops and rebuilding oil pipelines.

Does it seem strange to anyone else, that a corporation can be under criminal investigation by the US government and still get new contracts?

There are concerns about Haliburton's business dealings when Cheney was their CEO. Cheney is currently part of a French Courts investigation in Haliburton fraud in Nigeria - Cheney to be Prosecuted? Nigeria's $180 Million Fraud Question (Reublicons, 1/10/04). Of course, KBR was also doing business with Iraq (inspite of sanctions) all through the 1990s - part of which was also under Cheney's watch. It seems that the company's practices have not changed, whether Cheney was incharge or not. This leads me to assume that such corruption is "business as usual." It is apparently a non-issue for the OBM or Pentagon, as they continue to award contracts to Haliburton and others. It is apparently a non-issue for Cheney who was intimately involved in the corruption. I guess that is supposed to be a non-issue for the US taxpayers who are footing the bill.

I don't know if the pols think that we are gullible or just stupid. Obviously there is a problem here. Obviously there are conflict of interests. Obviously there is favoritism going on when companies are award no-bid, profit guaranteed contracts - even when they are padding the costs. Hello? Maybe Cheney feels that if the people of the US don't care about being lied to about Iraq and don't scream about the death, destruction, and cost, then they won't care about blatant corporate corruption being subsidized out of our pockets as well.

Aside
There is an interesting piece of news in the Al Jazeera article. "Halliburton has also spent over $ 40million in the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction." What is Haliburton doing looking for wmd in Iraq? How is that part of "reconstruction?"

Resources of Value for this Topic (thanks Kelly)

Cheney's Oil Company in Shady Business Deals with Iraq, Lee, sfbg.com

Cheney and Scalia: Too Close for Impartiality?

TalkLeft, 1/17/04, on Scalia's conflict of interest on the release of Cheney's energy related documents.

Practice Makes Perfect According to General

Here it is, straight from General Shoomaker's mouth. War intills a "war ethos" in the troops (I'd love to know his definition for that concept). He goes on to say:

"There is a huge silver lining in this cloud," he said.

"War is a tremendous focus... Now we have this focusing opportunity, and we have the fact that [terrorists] have actually attacked our homeland, which gives it some oomph."

He said it was no use having an army that did nothing but train.

"There's got to be a certain appetite for what the hell we exist for," he said.

"I'm not warmongering, the fact is we're going to be called and really asked to do this stuff." (Wars 'useful', says US army chief, BBC, 1/22/04)

Well Chief of Staff General Shoomaker may get his opportunity to instill "war ethos." According to the CIA, there is an Iraqi civil war in the making (, Stobel and Landay, Kinght-Ridder, 1/22/04). Of course this contradicts GW's cheery outlook of the peaceful course to "democracy" in Iraq, and the word is the Kurds are being fractious partners Kurdish hopes threat to Iraq, Al Jazeera, 1/22/04,and Kurds turn against US after losing control over oil-rich land, Cockburn, Independent/UK, 1/21/04).

But then, the CIA apparently knows about wars - starting them and feeding them. George Tenet has been subpoenaed by a Peruvian Judge trying the case of Vladimiro Montesinos (former strong arm of Fujimoro) who stands accused of helping to smuggle arms to FARC. The call for George Tenet to testify came about because Montesinos' lawyer says that the CIA was involved in the arms deal. (Hmm, when has that happened before? Anybody remember Iran-Contra?)

Anyway according to the Al Jazeera article of 1/22/04 Peru judge wants CIA testimony,

Anti-corruption prosecutor Luis Vargas told Colombian radio network RCN there was information showing that CIA agents collaborated with Montesinos in the gun smuggling operation.

According to the charges, Montesinos, with the backing of Fujimori's government, formed a criminal organisation that bought at least 10,000 AKM machine guns in Jordan.

Peruvian army officers - or agents posing as army officers - completed the purchase. But instead of going to Peru, the guns were air dropped into FARC-controlled territory in southern Colombia in the first half of 1999.

Maybe one of the jobs of the CIA is to create the "opportunities" that General Shoomaker longs for. After all, what the heck is the largest military in the world for if not to go out and fight?

Martians shut down probes!

Ok, so I can't resist. The Brits send Beagle and it goes silent - they can't figure out what happened. The US sends Spirit which sends back a few pics and then starts sending gibberish - NASA Unable to Communicate with Mars Rover,Serjeant, Reuters, 1/22/04. According to NASA there is some "serious anomally." The rover is responding with bleeps to NASA attempts to communicate.

Maybe there are Martians in the rocks, or maybe they are the rocks (thanks Kelly), or maybe they have nanites to protect them from invasion of privacy (I'd support them on that and order some myself).

It would serve us right for assuming that there is no "intelligent" life on Mars. So much easier that way, No need to engage in Martian genocide to set up our war platforms and mining operations.

Seriously folks, this is totally tongue in cheek.

Flirting with Disaster - Releasing GM Organisms

Genetically modified organisms - the way to a better future or the death of the ecosystem? Are we playing "God," or are we just playing Stupid? I think it is the latter myself. There are real dangers to introducing genetic modifcations into the open environment. The first is that once they are "out" they are also "out of control." This 'oh duh' fact is reiterated in a report released by The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (a government commissioned report):

... while there are many techniques being developed to prevent genetically engineered organisms or their genes from escaping into the wild, most techniques are still in early development and none appear to be completely effective. ( No Foolproof Way Is Seen to Contain Altered Genes, Pollack, NYT, 1/21/04)

So what is the big deal? Well, there are a several:

- the spread of that specific modifcation through a non-modified
species;

- the potential elimination of diversity of a species;

- the unforseen mutation of the modification;

- the modification "jumping" species, or being transmitted through a food chain or ecosystem.

These are very real hazards, some of which have already been demonstrated. The biggest example of this being the contamination of Mexico's indigenous corn stock with US modified corn genes. (Particularly significant since Mexico banned the import of said GM corn and seeds.)

So we have seen pressure to release fast growing "super salmon" which are almost guaranteed to wipe out native salmon stocks. The very real concerns about GM grain and other crops that propagate through pollination. And now, perhaps even more frightening, the release of GM insects (Making Way for Designer Insects , Gillis, Wa. Post, 1/22/04).

The insect world could shortly undergo a genetic makeover in the laboratory. Scientists are at work developing silkworms that produce pharmaceuticals instead of silk, honeybees resilient enough to resist pesticides and even mosquitoes capable of delivering vaccines, instead of disease, with every bite.

Researchers are tinkering with insect genes to develop more than a dozen new varieties, offering potentially broad social benefits while posing complicated new health and environmental risks.

Underlying all of this, and hardly ever discussed, is the WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING! We don't truly understand how genes work. We don't understand the interaction of the modifications with different unmodified genes. We don't understand how the modifications will play out over generations of transmission. We don't understand (and can't control) how those modifications may mutate.

Beyond that, we don't know how the genes work - really. The foundation of genetic sciece is based on a theory that has proven to be WRONG. The predictions of the number of genes in the human genome for example was drasticlly revised because the theory was that each gene produced a specific protein. If you knew the number of proteins, then you knew the number of genes. That theory is wrong. However, the "science" continues as if there was never this little glitch.

That is why I say that we are playing stupid. We DO know that there are very real risks. We DO know that we DON'T know and can't control these little creations. However, there is BIG MONEY in making marketable products. Venture capitalists have underwritten much of the genetic research, and venture capitalists expect big money fast. These are high risk investments, but they rarely think of that. Failure to perform means loss of funding - period. This also skews results of testing.

The reality is that genetic science is still largely in the descriptive stage. In other words, scientists are outling what is. Even though that stage is not complete, GM organisms and therapies are being produced and released with controls that are totally inadequate.

Folks worry about the issue of cloning - particularly of humans. I agree that this is a huge social, ethical and moral issue that needs to be discussed. Meanwhile, I think that most folks (especially in the US) feel that "if it wasn't safe, they wouldn't let them put it on the market." Dream on. That is a fantasy world.

We are dealing with an environmental bomb waiting to go off. We are way late in putting this genie back in the bottle, but it is not too late to keep all of the genie's kin from roaming the Earth.

What is the world coming to?

I came across a news piece in the NY Times that just blew me away - Woman
Struck by 3 Hit and Runs, Police Say, (1/21/04). We live in frightening times or lies and death and destruction (now there's an up beat perspective), but this was just too much.

Here's the gist of the story. Natalie Guzman, age 18, was crossing the street near Roosevelt Ave. and 111th in NY City. Witnesses told police that the woman had been hit by two cars who then sped away from the accident. Police didn't believe the claim that two different drivers would hit the same woman and then leave the scene. Then during the course of the investigation they found that it was actually three different drivers who ran over Guzman and left the scene.

This was not a situation that three cars tailgating ran over the same woman. No, the first one struck and injured her, but she was alive - she actually got up off the road. The second car hit her about two minutes after the other, and unbelievably, she was still alive. Witnesses were attempting to help her when approximately four minutes after the second hit and run yet another car (an SUV without lights) ran over her again killing her. All vehicles were estimated to be
traveling in excess of 60 miles per hour.

As a human being and as a sociologist, the story stuns me. I would think it was an urban legend if not for the source. This is not just bad luck. It is callous disregard for the life of another. Perhaps in this time of devaluing of human life such incidents are to be expected. Perhaps in a society where folks are constantly told that they need to look out for #1 this might be expected.

We here regular reports of absolutely unfeeling disregard. For example, the woman who hit a man and drove home with him in her windshield where she parked and waited sixteen hours for him to die. Now that is sick. But we have a lot of sick people (and I think that it is increasing). But in the case of Ms. Guzman, three different individuals traveling on the same street, with disregard of others by driving a high speed to start with, strike the same woman and disappear. Three folks who all made the same callous decision to leave someone to possibly die rather than face the consequences of their actions. Two of
those people ran over someone who was already injured. One of them ran over her after others had stopped to help her.

One could argue fate. Ms. Guzman is an extreme example of when it's your time, it's your time. But this is much more than that. If there were three different people on the same street within the same ten minute period who would run someone down and speed away, how many others are there? My guess is a lot. My guess is that there are quite a few hit and runs, but we only hear about the ones in our cities and towns.

Well, I decided to do a search, Guess what? Hit and run accidents are indeed on the increase. According to the Consumer Protection Agency, hit and run accidents have increased 15% over the last five years (Wise Drivers).

But is not just hit & runs that are up. There have been sporadic news reports that violent crimes are up as well. I believe that it is linked to the amount of violence and devaluing of life that goes with war on the one hand, and the heightened level of fear that is being mongered on the other. Of course the general desperation that seems to pervade the air we breathe probably doesn't help either.

Whatever, the awful events of Ms. Guzman's death should be seen as a warning. It should be seen as a cautionary tale rather than a tale of the bizarre.

Does the American Election Matter?

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

Presidential elections in America are long, with formal campaigns lasting about a year and positioning leading to the campaigns lasting nearly three years. A President's four-year term of office leaves just enough time to dish out contracts and jobs.

There is nothing out of the ordinary in America about the length of presidential campaigns. Elections for other offices consume time pretty much in proportion to their power and importance. Senators, for example, spend about two-thirds of their six-year term just raising money for the next election.

American elections consume not just time but money, a great deal of money. Bush is expected to have a quarter-billion dollars in donations ready to fight for re-election. The nation's air waves will be jammed for months with mind-numbing images easily confused with personal-hygiene or toothpaste commercials.

In America's early years, only a few men of considerable substance could vote. Any concept of wider democracy disturbed America's founding fathers as risking their wealth to the votes and whims of men without any. With the gradual, unavoidable extension of the American franchise over two hundred years of wars and social movements, a political system gradually emerged preserving the founders' concerns. Americans in theory can vote for anyone, but the candidates they see and hear and whose names appear on all the ballots in so vast a land will only be people effectively pre-selected by those of great substance. It is an
inherently conservative system.

I don't want to put too much weight on the result of the Iowa caucus, it is hardly a future-shaping event, but the winner, John Kerry, brings pretty modest potential for change in America.

Kerry is an uninspiring figure, a man who has never stood out on matters of life and death or great injustice. He declared his candidacy in front of an aircraft carrier. Yes, he can shout his lines with the best of them when seeking the power and privilege of high office, but Kerry's voice is not one known for defending great principles. He opposed the war in Vietnam toward the latter part of that holocaust against Asians, but by that time being anti-war had become almost
stylish, and Kerry's opposition came only after a ferociously-ambitious effort at a successful career in the war, a career that included shooting a man running away as well as a man under his command killing a child.

The War on Terror, while remaining an undefined slogan, is supported by Americans. Despite the odds of death by terror being not much greater than death by lightning, an attack by nineteen men, all of whom died in the effort, has caused America to kill thousands of innocent civilians abroad, destroy the economy of Iraq, keep thousands of shackled prisoners in offshore kennels, deport people against whom it has no evidence so they can be tortured in other lands, and to pass fearful new laws.

Sentimental liberals continue to write about a glorious national past blotted out by Bush, ignoring America's tradition of near-rabid responses to real or imagined danger. This tradition began before the Revolution with periodic waves of fear and violence in the South over imagined slave revolts, and it continued with crazed slaughters of aboriginal people, the police-state Alien and Sedition Acts under President Adams, Jefferson's police-state enforcement of a boycott on
British trade, beatings and killings of blacks in the North thought responsible for conscription during the Civil War, Lincoln's police-state suspension of basic rights in what was a totally-avoidable war, periodic mass slaughters of blacks during the twentieth century, the internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II, the wanton incineration of Japanese cities, the
McCarthy-era lunacy, a holocaust in Vietnam second in size only to the Nazi's grim work, and countless ugly little colonial wars and overthrows of elected governments.

It is notable that much of this kind of liberal writing ignores the international dimension of what Bush has done, the truly new and highly dangerous part of his handiwork. The authors focus on nasty domestic laws and bringing the troops home. Most liberals, like most conservatives in America, have a remarkable indifference about what happens to the world, so long as it doesn't affect their enjoyment of life. It is a disturbing orientation for people who, secretly or
overtly, regard themselves as divinely-anointed planetary overseers. So many times during the Vietnam War, I was astounded that people went right on happily sucking beer and dancing while American pilots napalmed villages in Asia. It was only when American coffins started arriving by the hundreds that much popular music turned harsh and full of protest and many proms lost their cozy glow.

There will be no return to what, before Bush, passed as normal in America until the nation has shaken its latest violent seizure. Even then, actions have been taken that will continue to sour the future. Does anyone believe that all the new oppressive legislation in the United States will be rescinded? that the bloated, dangerous increases in military spending will be undone? that America's damage to international institutions will be corrected? that America's contempt for its more thoughtful allies will disappear? that the immense welling-up of prejudice against Arabic people will simply disappear?

The truth is that even if a moderately liberal person were elected President, he or she would face exactly what the Clintons faced for eight years, a hideous and relentless assault with opportunity for few meaningful accomplishments. The American Congress is so conservative, and has demonstrated itself so lacking in courage or imagination or largeness of view, that only the most modest changes can be expected.

Failing new developments, the one big issue promises to be whether the costly, pointless invasion of Iraq was a legitimate part of the War on Terror. I believe the answer will hinge on how many Americans continue to die rather than any rational discussion. The most troubling aspect of this is the way many Bush opponents seem only to care about getting American troops out of there. Where's the sense of responsibility for the mess America created? Iraq will take many years to return to any kind of meaningful society.

Well, by all means, it would be nice to see Bush back with the rattlesnakes in Texas and once again to have a President capable of addressing civilly the rest of the world - nice things but not a lot to get excited about. No likely Democratic candidate is going to produce a greatly more rational and decent United States. One or two Democrats, Lieberman or Clark, almost certainly would be as narrow and harsh as Bush, offering nothing beyond a day's satisfaction in seeing Bush sent packing.

Not a positive sign for the economic future

In a move that does not send a positive measure about the economic future of the US, the US Treasury is calling in 30 year bonds that were not due until 2009 (Treasury Calls 9-1/8 Percent bonds of 2004-09). This is a Public Debt News relaease from the Department of the Treasury release 1/15/04. The bonds called for redemption are 30 year bonds purchased in 1979 at a guaranteed return of 9-1/8%. Those bonds not redeemed by May 15, 2004 will stop accruing interest (even though they should accrue interest through 2009).

Below is the text of the release:

TREASURY CALLS 9-1/8 PERCENT BONDS OF 2004-09 The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2004, of the 9-1/8% Treasury Bonds of 2004-09, originally issued May 15, 1979, due May 15, 2009 (CUSIP No. 912810CG1). There are $4,606 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $3,109 million are held by private investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2004 will stop earning interest.

These bonds are being called to reduce the cost of debt financing. The 9-1/8% interest rate is significantly above the current cost of securing financing for the five years remaining to their maturity. Incurrent market conditions, Treasury estimates that interest savings from the call and refinancing will be about $544 million.

Payment will be made automatically by the Treasury for bonds in book-entry form, whether held on the books of the Federal Reserve Banks or in TreasuryDirect accounts. Bonds held in coupon or registered form should be presented for redemption to financial institutions or mailed directly to the Bureau of the Public Debt, Definitives Section, P.O. Box 426, Parkersburg, WV 26106-0426. For more information concerning called coupon or registered bonds, you may contact the Definitives Section at (304) 480-7936.

According to an article on Taxpayers Union for Financial Freedom (TUFF), this amounts to the US government defaulting on the contract of the bond, and the move undermines the US government's argument of these bonds being the "safest investment in the world" ( TREASURY RENEGES ON 30 YEAR BOND HOLDERS).

However one looks at this, it is not a positive sign. Bonds are issued to finance government debt. Bonds are being issued the current debt. Investors large and small purchase government debt because of the safety and guaranteed return on investment. With this move, the Treasury has sent the message that that safety no longer exists, and that the government cannot afford to stand behind its debt. Big news and troubling. Certainly it will not be lost on either domestic or
international investors, nor on the IMF which was already raising its eyebrow at the US deficit run up.

This breach of privacy must be addressed

The US Census Bureau released both household and individual information from the 1990 census to NASA for data mining (Study used census information for terror profile, Hudson, Wa. Times, 1/19/04.) The data (five million census records) was used as part of a data mining experiment by NASA to identify potential terrorists. The release of identifiable census data is a massive breach of trust, and to the best of my knowldege, the last time this happened was in WWII to identify Japanese Americans for detaining them. The American people were promised it would never happen again.

The data collected by the Census Bureau is the statistical base for all kinds of analysis and decision-making. Because of this, every mechanism is supposedly imposed to protect the quality of that data. The most basic protection is the assurance of confidentiality. If people feel that information they provide might jeapordize them in some way, they are unlikely to provide accurate information. The Census Bureau has historically gone to great lengths to protect the privacy
and security of the information they collect - even to the point of maintaining record confidentiality from the courts. To learn that the Census Bureau turned over five million individual and household records is shocking and undermines any future data collected. It is also a massive invasion of privacy.

What apparently opened the doors to this breach of sacred trust is the CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System) legislation for indentifying airline passengers and assigning them risk levels. [See Incremental TIA - CAPPS II, Uncommon Thought, 3/02/03]

Many already have problems with airlines (and other businesses) turning over personal customer data to the government. This release of information to the government was made legal through the passage of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. The use of the data to create "watch lists" of the flying public has consistently been challenged. The CAPPS program was initially tested through Delta Airlines, Northwest Airlines has turned over data to NASA, and Jet Blue has done so as well (Airline Gave Government Information on Passengers,
Wald, NY Times, 1/18/04)

Also at question is why NASA is involved in testing this data mining system. What does the space agency have to do with commercial airlines and national security issues of this type? My guess is the military. TIA (Total Information Awareness) was a program under DARPA, and was supposedly shut down. It has sense raised its ugly head in a variety of data mining efforts - including CAPPS II, the Office of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon (which Homeland Security recently criticized because their system did not sufficiently take privacy issues into account) (Inaccurate databanks pose challenge for new visitor tracking system, Strohm, GovExec, 1/07/04).

While the flying public may have some reservations about their full personal, credit, and itinerary information being turned over to the government, the release and use of personal census information is indefensible. It undermines the entire census process and data collected. This would be a good time to contact the Census Bureau (comments@census.gov), and your
elected representatives Email addresses of the White House and Congress.
Given that it is an election year, it wouldn't be a bad idea to contact your favorite candidate(s) as well.

Bold vision or grand deception?

President Bush announced his plans for the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The starter steps are to create new launch vehicles, then get back to the Moon and establish a base, then mine the Moon and at the same time head for Mars where yet another "colony" might be started. This vision is supposed to ignite the imaginations of young "Americans." It is supposed to give us hope and purpose. There are some issues though.

The bold plan is placed clearly within a revised doctrine of manifest destiny. This is not a vision for the "human race," nor truly for "international cooperation" (though there was a belated "invitation" to join this herculean effort). In fact, in taking this "new step," the US is planning to abandon its support of the international space station, and existing tools, such as the Hubble telescope, also seem slated for the trash heap (NASA Cancels Trip to Supply Hubble, Sealing Early Doom, Overbye, NYT, 1/17/04).

This "bold vision" is also not about the friendly exploration of space. It is not about extending our knowledge in any general way. Indeed, it follows the same "vision" that the Bush administration has had since dreaming GW into the Whitehouse - empire and corporate profits. The "new" reach beyond the Earth occurs in the context of the clearly stated US plan to control space for military purposes, and thereby rule the Earth and its inhabitants. [For one write up on this see Mission to Mars for Military Benefit, not Just "Spirit of Discovery", Daily Mislead, 1/16/04).]

It is no surprise that many aspects of space control are on the same schedule. You might want to look at the following reports: The Air Forces 2025 Final Report, Executive summaries of Joint Vision documents, US Space Command Vision 2020 (This file is in adobe format. When you click the link wit will download the file and then you can open it.) The clear intent is US military domination of space.

Another aspect of the Bush vision is to get corporations involved. The current shuttle program seems to be on the auction block, with more active involvement to come. Note the following quote from Hearing on Space Launch Initiative: Testimony by Tom Rogers:

Our Country would finally begin to set aside the dependence upon the kind of old fashioned Cold War thinking that still undergirds the financing of our civil space program. In doing so we would create a novel new entitlement program to underwrite our astronauts striding across the solar system for the decades and centuries ahead. But, in a creative financing fashion that replicates the creative substance of this absolutely unique national program, it would expect the recipient of the entitlement payments, NASA, to lead in the creation the national wealth from which the entitlement payments were made! Our human Moon/Mars activities would thereby become economically focussed -- economically here on Earth!

It is no accident that part of the plan is the mining of both the Moon and Mars. The exploitation of resources here on Earth is getting to the bottom of the barrel (some pun intended). When resources are exhausted on our planet, then the plan is apparently to turn to the rest of the solar system to strip it bare as well. While the Moon may not be made of swiss cheese, in the not so distant future it may well look like it is.

There are immediate threats to planet Earth and to the "advanced" civilizations that reside here. In relationship to resources and their impacts we have a global petroleum based economy, global warming, and the loss of fresh water supplies. There are plenty of good resources to access about the oil crisis. Michael Ruppert at From the Wilderness has been writing extensively about this for years and has excellent resource links. A newer site is Life After the Oil Crash by Matt Savianar - also excellent.

The oil crisis is known as the "Peak Oil Crisis." In essence, oil is not a renewable resource. The use of that limited resource has been accelerating. We will run out (interestingly enough the optimistic estimates are ... 2020). Some say, "Oh, we'll find another energy source," but that is not too likely. The reason is that oil is not just about transportation, it is about virtually everything made in an industrial society (plastics for instance). It is about food supply - which covers planting and harvesting, fertilizer, processing, and transportation. It is about the energy that gets used to run electric power plants. The loss of oil is about the death of mass civilization (and the populations in it).

The structure of corporate globalization has dramatically increased the use (and dependence) on oil. The overwhelming majority of products (including food) shipped around the globe is carried on massive cargo ships - and I mean massive. Without that transport, there would be virtually no mass cargo movement. The development of high energy consumers is seen as "growth" and "progress" - witness the massive industrialization of China which will ultimately bring 1 billion plus Chinese to the mass oil consumption level of the US. [I really don't think the oil will last that long).

Of course with the massive consumption of oil comes environmental destruction in all kinds of forms from oil spills to toxic chemicals from processing to global warming emissions. While global warming is its own issue, it cannot be unlinked from the massive consumption of fossil fuels - particularly oil. Global warming will result in massive environmental transformation, the deaths of species, and the deaths of humans in mass numbers. One small example is the 10,000 plus people who died in France due to the heat last summer, and on a grander scale, hundreds of thousands are expected to die on a yearly basis.

Related to oil, globalization and environment is the issue of fresh water supplies. Fresh water only makes up about 2% of the entire planet's water. It is being destroyed at a tremendous rate and is becoming a very corporately desired resource. Oil extraction is a part of the destruction as fresh water supplies are used to force oil from the ground. What remains is a highly mineralized discharge. Fresh water is also directly linked to global warming in (at least) two ways. One is that much of the fresh water is stored in the polar ice caps which are melting at a tremendous rate, and secondly the melting of other glacial and snow pack sources.

So with all of this bad news - shrinking resources, climate changes, environmental destruction - all intertwined with the same issues, there are directions for governments to go. One direction would be to focus efforts on alternative energy, environmental protection, and localization of food supplies. In other words, address the environmental issues and transition to a non-oil based global economy. This would be a monumental human endeavor. The other direction is to engage in processes to control the resources. The US has clearly decided that the way to go is to form an empire based on extreme military might and threat to gain sole control of oil resources. The reality is that while this vision draws on the perception of a "God given right" to all the US desires, it is not the US that will survive. Ultimately it will be an elite that is somewhat buffered from some of these problems. If there are viable colonies on the Moon and Mars, it will not be the "average" US citizen who will find a home there.

So Bush has presented us with a bold vision to inspire the imagination; to give a long term focus to the hopes of a people. That vision draws upon a deep seated ethnocentrism, and sense of imperial rights that runs deep in the US cultural system. It draws upon the worst in the culture while painting it as a vast adventure - another conquering from sea to shining sea. For those who grasp the militarism of this dream, the pull is that it is the US first and always. The US is the best and if anyone should have total control (even if it means the unfortunate death of billions of others), that is just a sad reality.

Bush has stated that this new step to the stars is a worthy goal for the country. He states that the developments needed will push our imaginations and engage our labors. Unstated, but implied, is that the "conquest" of the Moon and Mars is an appropriate goal for an empire - this empire. I think I could envision an equally engaging alternative that would serve us far better.

Let's focus our energies on creating a sustainable environment, eliminate the use of oil and fossil fuels as a basis for survival, pull together with the rest of the human race for the survival of the human race. This simple endeavor would challenge the human race in a way that no other vision can. It requires working in peace and cooperation. It requires the engagement of minds, technologies, and labor to redevelop a world that does not consume the planet on which we live. It requires all of us to think in totally new ways about our relationships to each other and the Earth. It requires going in a totally different direction than most of the species has been going for the last 10,000 years.

It is easy to present a plan to take us off the planet. In the US it builds on deeply held values and cultural stories. It follows the rutted path of conquest and colonization, exploitation and destruction. In fact, it doesn't even question the validity and viability of that world view. This is no bold vision - it is simply an elaboration of a vision that is destroying us and the entire planet. A truly bold vision would take us in a different direction. It would uplift us and call to the most honorable aspects of ourselves. Bush's vision does not do any of this, and it will not save "us." Most of us will die. Most of the species on the planet will die. The Earth will look like those amazing pictures from Mars - a vast desert which will not support anything beyond specialized microbes and bacteria. Follow "the dream" of conquering the Moon and Mars and Earth will look just like them. I would argue that we truly need a much different "dream" in order to survive - a dream that captures the HUMAN imagination and spirit, and is for the good of all of us who share this precious place we call Earth.

SARS ... avian flu ... under control?

Bits of contradictory news today. On one hand Vietnam and China Report New Cases of Avian Flu and SARS (Bradsher, NYT, 1/18/04). On the other, we have China Says Has Won Battle Against SARS (Macfie, Reuters, 1/18/04). Well if you read the second article you will find that China has not found a way to treat or control SARS. In fact, it sounds like they are quite nervous as a mass movement of the Beijing population gets ready to go to the provinces for the Chinese New Year holiday. But there is spin and there is ommission - the first article actually provides the clues.

During the SARS outbreak last year, I wrote several pieces on the disease. Of concern was that it seemed to be a mutated form of the corona virus which is much more common in animals (particularly dogs and cats) than in humans. Further that the corona viruses carried by animals have not in the past been communicable to humans. What this means is the virus has mutated and jumped species.

The Reuters article states in relationship to the avian flu:

Not one of the latest cases of bird flu appears yet to involve person-to-person transmission, said Bob Dietz, a spokesman for the W.H.O. in Hanoi, Vietnam. But as people become infected from chickens, doctors warn that the easily mutating virus could mix genes if someone with a human flu strain contracted a bird flu strain as well. A combined flu virus could be more readily transmissible among people.

So we have avian flu which is transmissable to humans from birds (primarily chickens), but apparently not yet transmissable from human to human, and we have SARS from an apparently animal corona virus source that is apparently transmissable both from animal to human and human to human. What do these two diseases have in common? They have both shown significant (and rapid) mutations from diseases that were present (primarily) in domesticated stock, but have now spread to humans. Does this sound like any other current issue? Say BSE - vCJD (mad cow disease)?

I guess that I shouldn't be too surprised that there is not more discussion about this by those who have a much stronger biology, epidemiology, and medical background than I. There is a nasty trend here that truly needs to be discussed.

We now have three dieases in the news that paint a frightening scenario in my opinion.

Avian flu
This is a big deal because while the "flu" is not something uncommon in humans, it has always come from birds (as far as I know). The change is that the flu had to vector to another species and then to humans - such as the swine flu. This has actually protected the human population in significant ways even though the flu once in humans is transmissable between them. At this time the avian flu is transmissable from birds to humans; however, there seems to be an expectation that it will merge with other flu strains and then become transmissable from human to human.

Corona virus
I'm sure there are a ton of strains of the corona virus - one of which seems to underlie SARS. To the best of my knowledge variants of corona virus have been barried within species (dogs couldn't catch corona from cats, etc). Now some strain or strains of corona have apparently made the leap from animal (perhaps civets - a feline type creature) to humans. It seems to me that if that leap has been made it is possible (if not likely) that it can also spread to other species as well.

BSE
There are naturally occuring (though rare) forms of spongiform encephelitis (deer, elk, sheep and perhaps cows). However, these too have not seemed to be amenable to jumping species. Now one form (at least) has made the leap from cows to humans. It is definitely transmissable between animals, and one could assume that once in humans it would also be contagious.

I hate viruses - always have. They are all damnably hard to kill and while they can go dormant they are not eradicated in a host. That means that every virus you have ever had is lying there dormant in your body waiting for the trigger to emerge again. That is one of the things that sometimes happens when you have "cascading" illnesses (you get really sick with one thing, and then something else grabs you that no one else has). The most widely known example of this is chikenpox which can reeemge in adulthood as shinges. I haven't heard anything about the hardiness of SARS and Avian flu, but BSE is virtually indestructible (as living things go). Anyway, I digress.

There are similarities that trouble me with Avian Flu, SARS, and BSE. They are:
1 - they are all hosted in domestic animals (particularly those in the human food supply);

2 - they are all virulent and potentially lethal (at this point BSE seems most lethal);

3 - the viruses have all suddenly (and mysteriously) jumped the species barrier to humans;

4 - the proximate solution seems to be mass termination of the host group (chickens in China and Vietnam, civets in China, and cattle wherever BSE crops up).

The similarites haunt me. Something has changed significantly. We could of course argue that viruses are highly dynamic and the contact between the animals involved and humans may have facilitated such a mutation. However, I haven't heard that being argued. In the case of BSE at least, the focus seems to be on the system of feeding beef - canabalism in essence. If infected animals get recycled into animal feed then that apparently increases the liklihood of BSE. My guess is that if one follows that argument, then BSE could be vectored to other animals - such as chicken, swine, and sheep who also receive rendered beef in their food.

My guess is that something else is also happening because there are other commonalities which are not being discussed. For example, the massive use of antibiotics in the food supply (ALL of the food supply - not just animals). These are the same antibiotics that we keep hearing that patients demand and doctors prescribe which has led to the emergence of antibiotic resistant diseases (and antibiotic reactions in humans).

Another commonality is the the bulk of animal production for human consumption occurs in absolutely horrid conditions (such as overcrowding, lack of ability to move, lack of natural food supply, etc). This is definitely NOT a healthy environment, and that is part of the reason for the high use of antibiotics.

Yet another common issue is that sick animals are consistently entering the food supply - human and animal. That doesn't seem particularly "healthy" to me.

All of us - humans and these species - are inundated with toxins that have all kinds of short and long term negative effects on health. The vectors in question not only share these toxins, and the antibiotics, but also have high contact with humans.

Is it a food supply issue? I am not sure. My guess is that facilitates adaptation and transmission, but I think there is something larger and more pervasive at work. What leasd me to this is yet another virus that apparently mutated and "jumped" species - HIV. And the concern that ebola may also do (or has done) the same. Neither HIV nor ebola are in the domesticated food supply (that I kow of) - yet HIV has (apparently) jumped. Are we looking at some broader environmental event that viruses are responding to faster than immune systems? It looks that way to me. Or is it that whatever is attacking the environment is undermining immune systems at the smae time that viruses are mutating? I don't know, but I have a gut feeling that the issue is much larger and deeper than the discussion of the individual viruses depicts. If that is the case, then simply killing herds and flocks, removing infected animals from the food supply, or working on vaccines become stop-gap measures. I would feel much more comfortable if those who work with these things would starting talking in a broader way. Maybe they do among themselves, but I'm not seeing that discussion in anything that I'm reading.

Addendum
Not sure how I missed this one, but it is interesting.
1/18/04 Ansfield, Reuters, South China Farms Ever Ripe for Pandemic

I wonder if there is a relationship ...

A somewhat alarming bit of news today about the deficit Government Deficit Shooting Up Fast. Very fast indedd with the first quarter figure of $129 billion. At that pace, the deficit will be somewhere over $515 billion this year. Hmm. I'm sure that there is no connection between that shortfall and GE's windfall - GE Reports 47 Percent Increase in Fourth-Quarter Earnings. Yes folks over at military contractor GE their profits are up almost FIFTY percent.

In what is surely another totally unrelated bit of news, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is running at a massive deficit - U.S. Insurer of Pensions Says Its Deficit Has Soared. PBGC is another one of those GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises). It is the largest insurer of pension funds in the US. Its deficit has grown by almost $8 billion in the last year (to $11.2 billion), and they have gone from a surplus in 2001 to a massive deficit in 2003. Why? Business mergers and closures, and early retirements have effectively outmatched resources. Who pays the bill if the deficit continues? As a GSE the tax payers of the US do.

Yep, no relationship at all.

PRESIDENT FROM PODUNK DRILLING INC

BY: John Chuckman
[John's pieces appear in Counterpunch, Online Journal, Yellow Times, Media Monitors, Scoop, and many other sites. This was sent as a guest submission to Uncommon Thought. John Chuckman can be reached at chuckman@counterpunch.org, chuckman@yellowtimes.org, or JChuckman@mediamonitors.org.]

Thinking people aren't surprised to be told that failed-oilman George Bush qualifies as a moral and intellectual dry hole.

Bush's halting words come from a mouth so long smugly-set it can scarcely form the shapes of vowels, but enormous ignorance also manages to come through. Still, it never hurts to have a first-hand account, expert testimony, to reinforce even our strongest perceptions, and former Bush Cabinet-member Paul O'Neill has now supplied that in spades.

As to the moral portion of Bush's substance, it is an interesting phenomenon that a President who claims Jesus as mentor thinks nothing of lying, enjoys bloody revenge, and shows little tolerance for those who disagree. Not that any of that matters to his spiritual advisors, all CEOs of major fundamentalist conversion-operations: their bond to him is not one respecting truth but knowing what's good for business. You can only stage profitable theatrics like tears running down your cheeks for the boys battling damned heathens with a man of Bush's caliber in office. He is good for collection-plate take.

Paul O'Neill, in interviews to publicize a new book, offers candid snapshots of a President who doesn't even discuss policy with some of his highest officials. It is interesting that O'Neill got himself sacked as Treasury Secretary for voicing sound and traditional conservative views on two Bush economic policies, the imposition of import tariffs against steel and a gigantic, irresponsible tax-cut.

Bush's tariff against foreign steel violated basic economic understanding and the rules governing international trade, and it was repealed after the WTO declared it illegal. While those rules permit tariffs as a response to dumping (selling a product abroad below its domestic production cost ), often what is called dumping by the United States is not dumping at all, but simply lower-cost, more efficient production. So it was with foreign steel, and one does not expect sound conservatives to support tariffs under these circumstances.

It does not take an education in economics to understand how irresponsible Bush's monstrous tax cuts are at the very time American military spending is exploding. The economic mumbo-jumbo of the Reagan era that tax-cut induced growth generates a revenue greater than the lost taxes has been thoroughly discredited by Reagan's legacy of gigantic deficits. No so-called "tax and spend" liberal ever produced such astonishing piles of debt.

I would add, that at a time when economic disparity in America is growing vigorously (in good part owing to the effects of globalization on employment and wages for those with the least skills), it is poor public policy to reduce the tax burden on the well-off, especially when that burden already was low by world standards. These taxes finance many forms of needed redistribution including education and healthcare, services already starved of funds, but this kind of thinking is social and could not be expected to carry weight with most Republicans.

Many contemporary Republicans seem to reject classical economics, and balanced budgets with sound accounting have evaporated as fitting national responsibilities. Tax cuts have become a form of buying votes, an inverted form of what liberals were long accused of when they promised new programs. And just as with careless promises of new spending, the tax cuts are never done with sound accounting. Voters are not told what services should be cut as the price for reduced taxes - only the vision of lower taxes is dangled before them. Perhaps voters should know better, but they are conditioned to slick promises of gain twenty-four hours a day on television, including from Bush's spiritual advisors.

To a considerable degree, taxes cut at the federal level since Reagan's time have had to be made up by local communities, the very political entities with the least flexibility and wherewithal to increase taxes since they depend largely on property taxes. Maintaining even a token sense of equal opportunity across a large nation in basic services like education and healthcare can only be done with transfers from higher levels of government. But what is true for many communities, whether blighted or small, is true also of states with unfavorable ratios of resources and obligations.

You might think a Treasury Secretary with a successful background in international business (quite unlike the President's failed Podunk drilling company, failed, that is, for investors but not for Bush who bailed out with handsome profits) worth listening to on such matters, but Paul O'Neill tells us that this President engages in little discussion, sitting mainly in silence at high-level meetings. O'Neill felt in one-on-one meetings as though he were having a conversation with himself.

One suspects from what O'Neill relates that Bush's modus operandi consists of having his éminence grise, Dick Cheney, tell him in a private conference after any meeting of experts what in fact the policy should be. That is not the kind of consultation he would want to share with others.

O'Neill forcefully comments on the invasion of Iraq, telling us that despite seeing high-level intelligence on Iraq as a member of the National Security Council, there was never evidence of dangerous Iraqi weapons. The President simply was determined from the start to topple Hussein. Indeed, Bush began his first National Security Council meeting with a demand that those around the table find a way to get rid of Hussein.

Bush was fixated on his father's failed policy in Iraq, perhaps attributing to it his father's failure to be re-elected - something Bush père is known to have taken very hard. If you add Hussein's purported assassination plot against Bush pére, the stain on the family escutcheon must have been troubling, although I still do not believe personal matters motivated the invasion. The neo-con institute crowd had been whining and puking about Iraq for years, despite all the horrors inflicted on that country by the First Gulf War, including tens of thousands poor draftees and civilians incinerated by American bombing, but there is never enough war and death to satisfy these grasping, manipulative people.

O'Neill's revelations imply three years of dissimulation by Bush. They imply also months of intense and steady lying as non-existent weapons were talked up, and, of course, Bush's lying to this day about Hussein's non-existent connections to terror. But they imply something more profound that goes to the very meaning of democracy. Bush never submitted the prospect of a conflict to voters. Had he done so, I doubt he could have successfully argued his case, something he hasn't done to this day.

O'Neill's account of the first National Security Council meeting has been confirmed by another official who attended but remains anonymous. Bush's lying about Iraq's weapons has been confirmed by a study of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which concluded that the threat from Iraq had been systematically misrepresented. The stupidity of Bush's invasion has been confirmed by the observations of a professor at the Army's War College who characterized it as a costly, pointless distraction.

One of the White House's immediate responses to the press about Paul O'Neill was along the lines of, "Nobody ever listened to him when he was in office. Why would anyone listen to him now?" Snotty, eighth-grade stuff, nothing to do with facts, having about the same moral tone as candidate Bush's calling a New York Times reporter "asshole"

Bush's smarmy White House isn't content with efforts to insult O'Neill, he is to be investigated for inappropriately using Treasury material marked "secret." This from the same crowd who revealed the secret identity of a CIA agent, the wife of someone else whose honest words they scorned. Watch your back, Paul.

Hmm, what is the issue

I saw this headline: Arlington Diocese Stung by Protest with the sub-heading "Parents Fault Plan for Teaching Children How to Avoid Sex Abuse" in the Washington Post (1/16/04). It kind of made me scratch my head. On the face of it this seems like a decent plan by the diocese to deal with an issue much in the news - sexual abuse of children by some priests (and the Church's negligent addressing of the problem). Why then would parents be up in arms? Well, you kind of have to read and read to figure out the real issue. The one that starts the article is:

Plans by the Catholic Diocese of Arlington to instruct students on how to protect themselves from sexual abuse have drawn opposition from parents who say the program would infringe on their right to teach their children about sexual matters.

So there is outrage at the church over the issue of child abuse, but parents don't want the church to teach kids protective strategies because it deals with "sexual matters?' That just is couter-logical to me. So I continued reading ... and reading ... and finally got to the real issue that had nothing to do with the one claimed.

Some of the opponents at Monday's meeting said they rejected the program because it did not address what they saw as the cause of the church's child abuse scandal: homosexual priests and bishops.

"This is an example of the diocese blowing smoke," said the Rev. William M. Aitcheson, pastor of St. John Bosco Church in Woodstock, Va. "Until we go into the seminaries and root out the homosexuals and dissenters, we will not get at the root of the problem" of child abuse.

HAH! said I. Now isn't this an interesting piece of misinformation and a double-bind?

The assumption is that priests who molested boys in their supervison were homosexuals. This files in the face of what is known about pedophilia - namely that the issue of sexual molestation of children by adults is not reflective of sexual orientation, but of POWER. There is nothing that I have seen that would indicate that the priests accused of (and guilty of) sexual abuse are homosexual. I am sure there are homosexuals in the priesthood (there are homosexuals in EVERY profession). However, the odds are more likely that the priests involved are heterosexual than homosexual.

However, an educational approach is not what (some) parishoners want. They want a witch hunt and purge. They don't want their children armed (to some extent) against abuse (as if it only happens inside the church). They don't want to discuss the issue of pedophilia, not deal with the fact that it is not confined to homosexuals.

The way the story is written, the author really didn't want to talk about it either. The final quote is from the very end of the article.

Back to the future

There are those out there who believe in Bush's compassionate conservatism. Personally, I am still not sure what that means. But with the changes is social programs, particularly for children, it might be instructive to see how they are coming home to roost from his gig as Governor of Texas. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle (1/14/04) Texas is being told to improve Medicaid for children.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that Texas had to honor its $1.6 million promise to provide health and dental care to the children of Texas. This was a promise made in 1996 when GW was governor.

The Supreme Court upheld U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice's order, issued in 2000, that the state make wide-ranging improvements in Medicaid services for children to comply with a consent decree, or agreement, the state had made in 1996. The state had appealed the order, issued during then-Gov. George W. Bush's presidential race.

And just to prove that the philosophy of compassionate conservatism continues in Texas,

Almost 100,000 children have been dropped from CHIP since May, reducing that program's enrollment to 416,000 for January. Enrollment reductions are projected to total 169,000 by mid-2005, thanks to budget cuts and new, more restrictive enrollment policies.

So we have then Governor Bush's version of "leave no child behind" that effectively swept tens of thousands of Texas children under the rug (or out of the schools), but the "numbers sure looked good. Now we have a health care being denied to poor children because, why? Heck I don't know. I'm sure that the money is doing much more good in some energy crony's pocket.

DIFFERENT WORLDS, DIFFERENT GLIMPSES – Pt 4

DIFFERENT WORLDS, DIFFERENT GLIMPSES – Pt 4
Austin City Limits and US Complexes
By Mathew Maavak [Mr. Maavak can be reached at qannai@hotmail.com]

After reaching my cousin Joe’s apartment, our first outing was to a local Wal-Mart store to get a toothbrush, which, couldn’t have been confiscated by those hawkeyed Dallas airport staff. It will never pass off as a suspected terrorist weapon though there might be enough residual matter to supply DNA data. Upon checking the merchandise inside, I was missing that mall wedged between Kuala Lumpur’s more impressive, more stunning twin towers. The clientele here was clearly the budget-challenged minority, mainly Hispanics and Blacks. Row after rows were items that anyone familiar with brands and pricing would snort in derision. A normal toothbrush cost so much that it was more viable to get an electric one, which, was just a little over double the price. In addition, Asians are brand conscious - unbearably so - and there is nothing like unsheathing some bitchin’ bristles from your scabbard of toiletries - it whirls signifying your sophistication, that you are revolutions ahead of your fellow citizens. That’s a nice way to start off the day before your teeth gets assaulted by a daily dose of tobacco. I needed a pair of sports shoes and a knapsack as well but I was willing to wait, as nothing seemed worthwhile; instead I was trying to figure out how this American chain still remained an icon. Later, I came across mundane things here not quite available at other super marts, like tiny acne removers and tea-ball sifters, and the rows of long-barreled toys, which turned me catatonic for a moment.

There, right before my transfixed eyes were rows of rifles. Rifles in a supermarket? I have been to all kinds of outlets before but this was definitely a shot in the arm for one lacking a little bit of excitement.

That’s right you Third World jackass! We’ve got both them guns un’ roses in here, you git dat? Think your Londons, Kuala Lumpurs, Singapores and where-is-that-place can offer these 95-dollar beauties? Take your Waitroses, Debenhams and Isetans and shove them…

There are a few things about America that no foreigner can understand. One is the proliferation of guns, and why gun companies can get away with murder, while tobacco firms get sued whenever someone thinks he might just survive that lung cancer, and enjoy a good life thereafter. Didn’t your mommy and school teach you about the dangers of tobacco? It gets even better when someone named Stella Liebeck spills hot coffee on her lap and gets US$2.7million (jury-awarded punitive damages) as a reward. (The real amount is now a conjecture, after a settlement between the aggrieved party and McDonalds who wanted to initially settle the case for US$800 instead of covering her medical expenses worth up to US$20,000). I wonder where her insurance company was in this drama, if they were any. But insurance companies can intervene for very guilty parties in say, the Columbine High School shooting. US$1.9 million was offered to families of the 36 victims, in an attempt to reach settlement. Insurance setups can work as fast as fatal bullets in such cases. This not quite the comical farce that would amuse Ronald McDonald. The guns were illegally procured, and involved sale to minors. Yet, President George W. Bush, who holds an honorary law degree from Yale, is trying to prevent gun companies from getting sued under almost any circumstances. It seems there are too many “frivolous law suits” around. In the end, families of dead cops cannot sue those merchants of death after maniacs go on a killing spree. Now, there is an idea for those who get teary-eyed whenever the Star-Spangled Banner is played against the Sept 11 backdrop, when the backs of protestors are broken at WTO meetings by the very same cops.

The total annual bill for gun related violence is staggering. It’s US$100 billion per annum by one estimate. (Even those who don’t get sprayed with bullets may need PTSD treatment). And who pays for this? Finally, there seems to be a long-term method to the legal system’s madness. They will eventually exonerate any willful negligence caused by mega corporations.

But violence is a global pastime, not just American. You will find more screwed systems abroad. Yet, no one is able to understand the US healthcare system, unless he is a banana republican. I was reminded of this when Joe asked me if I had taken a short-term insurance plan, specially designed for US visits. Only foreigners who actually fall sick realize that the trip to Disneyland wasn’t worth it. This was one constant fear I had, despite all that talk about County Hospitals. Foreigners, especially those with all sorts of pallor except the now healthy yellow, need not worry. Sensitive airport staff will selflessly pump up enough adrenalin and antibodies to make sure you don’t fall seriously ill until you reach home.

Any casual observer would find the US healthcare system to be a giant, eugenics complex, systematically weeding out the weaker, or poorer sections of the community. In the long run, this costs less. To keep up the moral façade, there are laws against euthanasia and preventive measures against suicide. It is not just the US insurance companies that reap huge profits; those who own the government can spend a lot more time playing war games instead of being burdened with the infirmities of non-entities. Here, you need haggle for months or years after being slapped with thousands for a simple medical procedure. They come in multiple bills, from the anesthetists, specialists, administrative personnel and the other plagues lurking within US hospitals. A two-hour usage of a hospital bed can cost more than a two-night stay at a five-star hotel in an idyllic Pangkor Island. Canadian and foreign doctors, in the meantime, are multiplying like cancers at US hospitals, as there is lots of money here. Nobody wants to be a doctor in this status-obsessed land or have they been weeded out as well? That’s another idea for those poor White supremacists, who, by virtue of their economic status, are the front liners in any war of medical attrition. Gumption is a rare human trait. Soldiers are still willing to fight when veteran benefits are whittled down. They cheer on when their commander-in-chief regards them as anything but cannon fodder. Ask him to explain about the Gulf War syndrome and why they are battling the foot soldiers of former US sweethearts like Osama bin Laden! Just two out of a familiar thousand questions they could ask. But they won’t or can’t.

The eugenics complex is also tied to the work ethic complex. Many here actually get employed for medical benefits, until that pink slip and a 15-minute ultimatum leaves them dangling, wondering which politician was responsible for rewarding Chinese workers for American votes. Moving offshore is an inevitable global capitalist logic and there is a partial solution for job losses. In Malaysia, while lower end manufacturing shifts in droves to places like China, local workers are given government-aided intensive training to produce higher end products. Why can’t US firms do the same?

Add to this the non-nuclear family complex. Many American couples avoid tying the knot simply coz a partner’s Medicaid ceases once the ring is on the finger. “In God We Trust”, but your insurance company has an indirect say over how the Sixth Commandment should be interpreted.

Despite this financially bloated mess, it can take months to get an MRI in the US whereas in the Germany that the United States once – and proudly - liberated from Nazism, it can be arranged within four hours at a public healthcare-based hospital. Sick Britons were being sent there, and France, from 2002 onwards as UK’s underfunded NHS couldn’t cope. The British army seems better equipped in Iraq. Tag-along Tony might as well send his patients across to the Atlantic, to their “cousins”, instead of getting them nursed by traditional enemies in the Old Europe.

You think all this is good for US businesses, when qualified foreigners are routinely pissed off and your underprivileged are nothing better than statistics, some of whom don’t even make up those numbers? But enough of boring healthcare stuff! I came well-stocked, with made in USA meds that were far cheaper in Kuala Lumpur as Third World citizens should get subsidies from richer nations. You see they are not as capable of profiting insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Or more importantly, they are not willing either!

I badly wanted to watch the Austin City Limits Festival but my features, which can be occasionally seen besides some pretty faces, could now grace catwalks for the bomb squad. I had to miss out taking snaps of some Sept 11 anniversary ceremony earlier in Dallas as I was told it “wasn’t safe…for us”.

So, I had to stick to downtown Austin. There were some interesting places to visit like the O’ Henry Museum but hardly anyone knew its exact location. I strayed on foot for miles and got lost in an area where the stares were less friendly. Taking a cab to someplace familiar was out of the question as I was reminded of a Russian acquaintance’s “strange” experience – his airline ticket to Moscow cost less than intra-London cab ride to Heathrow. I approached this real estate agent who was getting a house spruced up. Downtown was “that way” as the bald eagle flies but it was too far a journey for a footman. (In Britain, women walk that distance). He offered a lift, and the friendly expression didn’t change after learning that I was from Malaysia. (He knew where it was and thought I was a Muslim). He was surprised to note that we shared a remote consanguinity, which I earlier guessed from his Eastern European surname, his Texan looks and his un-Texan amiability towards “lonely sojourners in distant shores”. Thousands of years of peregrination amidst danger can impart certain qualities. My newfound friend had Cracow-born grandparents who fled present day Poland before stomping goosesteps could blight their paths. We shared other similarities as well. He didn’t like religious fanaticism, racial stereotyping, ignorance and the other cultural high points prized by the American South. He liked Austin though, as it was cosmopolitan but advised me against venturing too far into those “Bubba” outskirts. And I shouldn’t take airport goons too seriously as even blonde-haired, blue-eyed grandmothers were subjected to similar scrutiny. This puzzle was solved later.

I had to maze around downtown Austin for two or three days until I got myself inside the O’ Henry museum. I had earlier found it on the wrong day, when the doors were shut but such was Austin’s reverence for this author that even a cop guarding a Federal building wasn’t sure where it was. It was in fact a block away. A Prophet is indeed without honor in his own country while foreigners gush over this man’s genius for humor and twists. The friendly lady in charge proved my hunch right, that the museum gets a lot of visitors from the literature appreciative Russia and India.

There were trips to the scenic Mount Bonnell and dinner at a Texan BBQ joint not far away. Its catchphrase “eat here, diet at home” wasn’t a boast. The pretty young waitresses were good enough for the Miss Southern Pride pageant. They can stay slim by just delivering orders to a table. Lifting a tray for two was tantamount to pumping weights, and the dexterity involved was an art of its own.

It wasn’t the humungous portions that were a cause for alarm; American cows get a regular hormone regimen; no Asahi beer or sake treat like in Kobe. The result is an obesity problem seen nowhere else in the developed world. So, how do some stay slim? Visit Austin’s Town Lake Park and you will get a glimpse of a thriving counter industry. This is what you call the bovine-sports gear industrial complex, in case anyone needs a thesis idea desperately. I have never seen a large number of joggers on a weekday at noon. They come fully accoutered. Young mothers can jog, drag along hi-tech strollers (how else could the babies sleep soundly inside?), and frantically check up the cholesterol/fitness ratio through monitors attached to their arms. Tiny MP3 players remind you that the 21st century had long arrived. As a former athlete still in the age bracket for serious sports, I can tell you that these women could outrun me, even with their babies, and they don’t have a choice if those waistlines are to be maintained. Very few win this battle of the bulge. A famous one who did was former Texas Governor George W. Bush, right in this place, after he had successfully avoided other lesser battles. And you are comparing this man to Hitler, a decorated war hero who won the Iron Cross First Class?

Enough of heroes, I had a peek into the netherworld at this park. Someone called The Flash, much to my surprise, sidled up for a chat. The preamble was a question over Stevie Ray Vaughan’s statue. Who was he? I told him what Joe told me in the morning. In three minutes, he was offering a stick of marijuana for three bucks and the salesmanship, to be fair, wasn’t pushy. In 10 minutes he was singing one of Vaughan’s classics, I think. The Flash was a registered college student with a good degree of intelligence. He preferred making US$1,000 a week from selling weed to completing his college education. We got talking, and he wasn’t perturbed that I was a journo. Asked why he was doing this, the answer came in the form of a post-modern disquisition on the calculus of indifference in a callous society. The system sucks coz no one cares and no one ever will. His political sense, his understanding of the masses was well-formed for a 20-year-old. To him, Sept 11 was a farce – there were “scanners” onboard that revealed exactly what was going to transpire before those fateful bangs. (I would later read that it could be possible for the control systems to be overridden, plunging those planes into safer shores. This doesn’t explain why pilots, anywhere, aren’t coming forth to denounce the non-use of this option). Sensing my neutral response, he singled out the second Twin Tower strike, 20 minutes after the first, in full view of the global TV audience but not apparently on the military’s radar. In my psy-war class, we were told that Bin Laden was astute enough to understand the propaganda value of live, spectacular, televisual strikes, knowing very well that camera-mounted helicopters would be launched by the world’s media in minutes – it was after all New York – to inadvertently capture shots of the second strike. The logic was brilliant; bin Laden understood media and military psychology superbly. He seemed to have known that there would be hovering CNN or Fox news helicopters nearby after the first hit while supersonic jet fighters couldn’t be revved up to prevent the second. An attack helicopter could have launched a beyond visual range missile as well while media choppers took a closer look. Here lies the ultimate paradox, at least to me, of Sept 11. Can anyone explain this before proceeding to other anomalies? For the benefit of future generations, we need a spin like how the hijackers were locked up in intense negotiation before the promise of a safe haven and, tragically, ham and eggs for breakfast blew everything up.

Sept 11 wasn’t the only tragedy. Why are smart young American youths like the Flash pushing weed? College students elsewhere smoke them for want of thrills and amnesia - the world sucks after all – but they rarely make it a fulltime business enterprise.

There were other things different here. Weight and distance were measured in the Imperial system, while the rest of the world has switched over to Metric. Even travel agents can’t tell you how much your 50-pound luggage limit is equivalent in kilos. This is an irritant for American businessmen and scientists as well. In 1999 a Made-in-America wonder called the Mars Climate Orbiter plunged into the red planet instead of orbiting it after a NASA mix up over both systems. US$125 million was wasted away in our cosmos because long back, some Frenchman thought the universe revolved around his culture. The more down-to-earth Hellfire missiles make no such mistakes.

The roads were a nightmare. Unlike the British Commonwealth, cars here traveled on the opposite lane, and traffic lights flashed very briefly for pedestrian crossings. Before you reached the other end, the lights change and cars charge forward, after the pedestrian’s walking speed is approximated. Too bad if one needs to keep dodging cars for a while. You really need to be on your feet in this country. Looking back, I didn’t see any old folks crossing such roads. The public transport system was the worst in the developed world – many “worsts” here in America. The solution is cheap cars and cheap oil, one needing industrial ingenuity, the other a standing army of financers and warmongers. The soldiers can die in Iraq while pipelines are sabotaged, as expected.

Texan TV was a bore even if it offered 100 channels over cable. The comedies were great but the news sucked. Local stations were too busy reporting on the traffic situation, the Austin City Limits Festival and that gerrymandering exercise that was causing more storm than Eye-raq. CNN was its usual self – the newsy equivalent of a freak show. I watch them only for two reasons – the efficacy of Botox (applicable only to female newscasters) and the study of crude “propatainment”(propaganda + entertainment). You won’t find, wrinkled, gray-haired tele-bimbos here. (They say when it comes to age and calibre, Barbara Walters is one of few exceptions). Males are excused. Gray on the likes of Wolf Blitzer give off an illusion of sagacity, which he uses to manage the course of any discussion. This time he was seen amateurishly browbeating an evangelist or church rep whose points didn’t seem unreasonable to me. Here, you have the civil liberties-separation of church and state propaganda complex, managed by those who demand exceptions over Zionism. Things are allowed to work differently in Israel. (Check if their healthcare system benefits from US largesse. And take a closer look at their medical units and veterans benefits.)

You still like CNN? We go back to my psy-war class, where the uncensored clips of the 1991 Al-Amiriyah carnage were shown. Charred little bodies and those presumably of women and non-combatants were seen being carried out of the bunker. There were no remnants of military devices, not even a shred of an epaulette (Scores of Western journalists were seen taking pictures and for once, the Iraqis imposed no limitation on their movements, questionings or reports). CNN was there. And how did they spin this in the run up to the current Iraq war? Its website made clever allusions to the “Iraqi claim” or “Iraqi allegation”. There were so many that I was confident enough to access them one day again (CNN’s search facilities were good). Now, type out the name of the place and try out spelling variations and this is the best you might find. “On January 13, 1991, the 28th consecutive night of bombing against Baghdad, two precision-guided laser bombs hit a shelter in the district of Amariya, killing as many as 400 men, women and children, according to Iraqi claims.” (CNN, Feb 13, 1998) Somehow, its search engine, powered not surprisingly by Google, can’t retrieve those articles whipped out around early 2003. But why restrict to media whores?

Feminists, like those botox-propped faces at CNN, aren’t perturbed. Burning bras, hedonism and misandry are the feminist (not to be mistaken for women’s rights) pre-occupation. And they are in the killing business too. They want free-for-all abortion and yet condone mothers who claim, right in front of TV and their kid, that they wouldn’t have had him or her if there were earlier access to that French RU486 abortion drug. I really wonder what kind of adulthood the kid will face when mommy’s confession can be watched during a classroom debate years later, or easier still on the net. Militant feminists make choices easier for crisis-ridden, single American mothers who despair of their unborn child’s future. It’s cheaper and easier to import children from China – now a thriving industry - than to adopt a local American kid. The Chinese are getting pragmatic. Why abort when you can export? Here is a question my girlfriend e-mailed from Seattle: “If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?”

If your answer were yes, congrats! You would have just killed Beethoven. What about Van Gogh? And Stephen Hawking, the Einstein of our day? (There is an irony here for those who have read Hawking!) In the end, the eugenic complex gets even bigger, churning out dumbasses who vote in dumbasses.

The feminist-civil liberties -separation of church and state complex have done well to contort the issue of abortion, spotlighting on the genuine horror stories i.e. rape victims. These same activists can be seen marching out in force against vivisection, and medical experiments that really do save human lives, and correct defects in unborn children. Are the lives of animals worthier than blobs of cells called fetuses, something we were all at one time? “Church-inspired” Bush would agree to this - for rightwing votes - but not to the Al Amiriyah barbarity, in concert with CNN/Fox newscasters, its Zionist backers, having the tacit consent of “leftists”, propped up by mega financers in that great human complex called the Animal Farm! There is no reason needed in this desensitized, Stucke-stampeded world. If you don’t like some people kill them, if your “fetus” is going to turn out ugly, kill it. When you grow old and frail one day, you can be spared of expensive Medicaid, and anguish, and expect the same clinical mercy. “Today the unwanted child, tomorrow the unwanted adult.” Now, who said that?

Reason? Who needs it? I should have just rolled out those three bucks.

Part 5: The Two Towers

Jan 14, 2004
Copyright © 2004 Mathew Maavak

Another "brilliant" Pentagon decision

In another stroke of genius, the Pentagon Resumes Anthrax Vaccinations After Judge Lifts Restraint (AP, 1/08/04). Maybe they didn't get an early notice of a research Report linking vaccines to Gulf war syndrome (BBC, 1/12/04).

A senior army doctor has provided the first official support for claims that the cocktail of vaccines given to soldiers before the 1991 war in Iraq probably caused illnesses that became known as Gulf war syndrome ...

The findings are based on cases of British troops who received the "secret" vaccination cocktail given troops scheduled to be posted to fight in Gulf War 1, but did not go there. Therefore, that suggests that the vaccinations rather than contact with toxins or other agents present in Iraq as the source of "Gulf War Syndrome."

Are we heading for even more violence in Iraq?

THe US has started a massive troop rotation in Iraq as noted in In a Logistical Ballet, U.S. Is Bringing In Fresh Forces to Iraq (Schmitt, NY Times, 1/11/04). According to the article, virtually all the troops currently in Iraq are to be rotated out by May of 2004 (a total movement of 240,000 troops in and out of Iraq. At the peak of the rotation, the US will have almost 200,000 troops in Iraq and commanders intend to "capitalize" on having the extra forces.

I have talked about the rotation problem before. As I understand active duty times and rotation vs troops available, the US will have significant difficulty rotating troops entering Iraq in this rotation with fresh troops later. This is because Guard and Reserve troops rotating out will not be eligible to rotate back in in under 18 months, and new enlistment is down. Even if it were up, new recruits would probably not be ready to rotate in an acceptable time frame. While this is a major concern for the continued occupation, there is a different issue that has me concerned.

As we all know, there are ongoing violence in Iraq, with some (Ted Kopple for instance) hinting that there is an explosive situation among civilians. In a Nightline report I watched, Kopple was interviewing former Iraqi military who the US was supposed to support, but who have received no pay since last year. With an unemployment rate of over 60% in Iraq, most are still not employed. It was suggested that another month without some form of economic relief would result in massive repercussions.

The lack of rebuilding, the lack of infrastructure, and the majority of the population with no legal way to support themselves is creating an increasingly tense situation. This situation may come to a head at the same time that massive troop rotations are in process.

It seems to me that creates a very tenuous and dangerous situation. First is the confusion of massive troop and equipment movement into an out of Iraq. If there were concerns about the vulnerability of the long supply and troops lines during the invasion, there is likely to be even more traffic and thinner stretched lines at this time. Second is that while troops need to be rotated, those currently in place should be at least somewhat familiar with the territories and people they are stationed in. Positive relationships and communications may have been established. Those may be undermined or lost as troops rotate.

Fresh troops may likely not know the territory, certainly will not know the people, and most likely will not be accustomed to the situation in Iraq. On one hand, this may undermine certain existing stabilites at the same time that fresh (and perhaps green) troops adjusting to their new assignment.

Maybe I am just a pessimist, but there seems like a lot of opportunity for disaster.

Secrecy and democracy don't mix

One of the things that I think escapes most US citizens is that secrecy in a democracy can be very dangerous to democracy. Last week I wrote a piece about detainees (Democracy vs Totalitarianism). In today's news Supreme Court rejects appeal over secret 9/11 detentions (CNN, 1/12/04). The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court decision to not release the names of those being held for questioning in the fall out after 9/11/01. When that news is coupled with Miami federal court has 'secret docket' to keep some cases hidden from public (O'Neill, SUn Sentinel, 1/08/04), the hairs on the back of my neck go up.

When I hear about secret detentions, my mind automatically jumps to the thousands of cases of the "disappeared" around the world. It is a typical tactic of toalitarian regimes. South Africa did it to Black South Africans challenging apartheid, it has been a common practice in Central and South America, Saddam Hussein did it in Iraq. And now the US is doing - in the US, in Guantanamo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

When people are scooped up a detained secretly, then no one knows where they are and the government can claim they are not in custody. THey can rot in jails, tortured, even killed and no one knows. That is what makes this tactic so terrifying. In the US, we are guaranteed certain rights under law. Secret detentions fly in the face of those rights and the necessary transparency of the system.

When we find that there are secret hearings happening, that should make us nervous as well. If they are happening in Miami, where else are they happening? Secret hearings for secret detainees possibly convicted and punished based on secret evidence. This is NOT to United States I thought I lived in. In fact, it is exactly this type of loss of freedom which was used as a call to war for the US - whether that was "fighting the spread of communism," or "freeing the people of Iraq."

The same administration is using the same practices in the US and in Iraq. When we hear and watch protestors being killed in Iraq (i.e. Six Iraqi Protesters Killed During Clash) and you watch the combat garbed police attack protestors in the US, maybe they want to live fire into protesters here as well. When we hear that the US has banned certain broadcasts in Iraq, and arrests people because of literature that they have in their homes, does that make one question the ultimate intention of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in the US?

The parallels between what is justified in the name of "securing" Iraq and what is justified in the name of "the security" of the US are hauntingly similar. The fact that there is not discussion of this all over the corporate media, nor an outraged response from the US public disheartens me beyond words.

A government that operates in secret, that strips people of their rights in secret, that uses secret sources as evidence of crime, that allows torture of prisoners ... that is not a democratic society. If people who think they live in a democratic society do not cry out against such injustices, then that democracy will become history.

See also US keeps 'terror' arrests secret, BBC 1/12/04.

New space shuttle

Well it briefly made the news, but is now getting drowned out by other news - Bush wants to put a base on the Moon ... and then possibly Mars. The related news bite is that the existing shuttels are going to be replaced with new ones (Bush Space Plan Envisions New Spacecraft Holland, Reuters, 1/10/04). What captured my attention and sent me digging was the following (emphases mine):

It would be launched using conventional rockets much like the Apollo capsules of the 1960s and 1970s and would have an escape system that the shuttle does not have.

The new spacecraft would replace a planned orbital space plane that had been expected to follow the space shuttle.

Well if it uses conventional rockets to launch, what does it use once it is in space? So far I have not found a definitive answer to that, but I did find that it may not use a "conventional" rocket engine to escape Earth's gravity. Instead, they are looking at a supersonic combusion ramjet - or scramjet, and that the University of Florida got a $16 million contract to work on it (NASA moving ahead with plan for new spacecraftCNews, 2/19/03). While a "scramjet" or something else may be used to get the vehicle into space, my hunch is that a nuclear engine will take over once in space (President's Budget proposes $279 million; ($3 billion over five years) for Project Prometheus.) The site where this article is posted is scarily worthy looking at - NuclearSpace. com.

Project Prometheus is straight out of the DoD, so my guess is that the new space craft is not just for science and commercial use. This concern is reinforced if you look at the picture Site Launch Initiative News. The middle picture looks like missles to me, but I guess they could be ejected fuel tanks. There is nothing I can find about what powers the vehicle in space. However, the implications are that spce vehicles will be powered with nuclear engines.

This is particularly alarming if the shuttle uses such an engine. The shuttles are designed to be reusable vehicles - exitiing and re-entering the atmosphere numerous times. If the space-based propulaion unit is nuclear then we have a risk of unleashing highly radioactive nuclear material over a large are if the shuttle should break apart or crash.

Another thing that makes me suspect that there may be nuclear propulsion involved, is that in 1999 the University of Washington was working on solar engines for space travel (New spacecraft propulsion method could be out of this solar system Wa. University 1999.) I could find no information that such technologies are still being explored (or funded). Doesn't mean they are not, I just couldn't find it.

According to a transcript from 2001) of a Hearing on Space Launch Initiative: Testimony by Tom Rogers, the desire for military/security considerations with the SLI is clear:

Therefore, to see that the attainment of the fundamental "Initiative" goal receives the imaginative and energetic attention that our Country requires, the first thing that should be done is to broaden the active Federal presence in the space transportation area. The new Rumsfeld report-related change in the National Security Council has seen the creation of an overarching Space Policy Coordinating Committee. This Committee should see that appropriate early attention is given to this Federal broadening.

Lest one think that the Moon/Mars vision is unrelated to other aspects of the Bush administration agenda, read the closing quote from the testimony:

Our Country would finally begin to set aside the dependence upon the kind of old fashioned Cold War thinking that still undergirds the financing of our civil space program. In doing so we would create a novel new entitlement program to underwrite our astronauts striding across the solar system for the decades and centuries ahead. But, in a creative financing fashion that replicates the creative substance of this absolutely unique national program, it would expect the recipient of the entitlement payments, NASA, to lead in the creation the national wealth from which the entitlement payments were made! Our human Moon/Mars activities would thereby become economically focussed -- economically here on Earth!

"Entitlement" programs???? For private corpoerations participating in the program? That is what seems to be implied in the testimony.

My purpose here is to draw folks attention to something that seems to be moving at escape velocity under the radar of the news. I make no claim to knowing exactly what is going on, and I am not a rocket scientist (no pun intended). I do know that something big - and very expensive - is happening here. My deductions are just that. If anybody has more information or sources, then please post them. Mostly, I suggest following up on the little news blurbs that do come out. It looks like NuclearSpace.com might be worth keeping an eye on.

Sources
Bush Space Plan Envisions New Spacecraft Holland, Reuters, 1/10/04

NASA moving ahead with plan for new spacecraftCNews, 2/19/03

Space Launch Inititative pdf

Hearing on Space Launch Initiative: Testimony by Tom Rogers

NASA - Space Launch Initiative

Space Launch Initiative News Site

New spacecraft propulsion method could be out of this solar system Wa. University 1999

President's Budget proposes $279 million; ($3 billion over five years) for Project Prometheus)

Florida Researchers work on new space craft AP, 4/13/03

Economy in the gutter, but some prosper

Well it is no surprise to most of us that the economy is NOT in recovery. While the Bush administration may stomp and cheer making us doubt our sanity, the news is popping out all over the place that the current situation is not good and is not likely to improve soon. Andrea Hopkins quotes an estimate of 9% unemployment (Discouraged Job-Seekers Mask True Jobless Rate , Reuters, 1/11/04). Further, she includes a surprising quote from a surprising source:

Wells Fargo chief economist Sung Won Sohn said all the talk lately about the booming economy and rising stock market did little to persuade employers or job-seekers that their prospects were picking up as 2003 drew to a close.

"Despite all the hoopla, neither businesses nor potential employees have confidence in the economy. They're not believing all the stories about a strong and healthy economy given by the economists and the government," Sohn said.

Hopkins also notes that only 278,000 jobs have been created since July - making the net job loss since Bush took office 2.3 million jobs. Hopkins also notes:

Sohn said many of the discouraged workers are likely refugees from the factory sector, where 2.8 million jobs have been cut in 41 straight months since the industry's last peak in July 2000. With many jobs gone forever to cheap-labor countries like China or India, workers have little hope of finding work that can compare with the $20-an-hour jobs they lost, Sohn said

The trend is reinforced by Jacob Hacker in the 1/11/04 NY Times article - Call It the Family Risk Factor - who also notes that families are experiencing high levels of income volatility (roughly 5 times 5 times greater in 1972). He notes:

Optimists point out that Americans are much richer than they were in the 1970's. But while they are as a whole, incomes have grown little for the middle class and working poor — even as wages have become more unstable, the financial effects of losing a job have worsened, and the cost of things families need, from housing to education, has ballooned. Yet government and the private sector aren't just ignoring these problems, they are making them worse. Many programs for the poor, for example, have been substantially cut. And middle-class programs like Social Security have steadily eroded.

The truly staggering changes, however, are taking place in the private sector. The number of Americans without employment-based health benefits has been rising for decades. Employers are also restructuring workplace benefits to impose more risk on workers. Once, for instance, workers lucky enough to have a pension enjoyed a guaranteed benefit. Now, with so-called defined-contribution plans like 401(k)'s, workers have to put away their own wages and the returns of the plan depend entirely on their own investments.

While the scenario is unstable for most of us, the CEOs are having a great year (Lifting the Lid: CEO Bonuses to Surge as Profits, Stocks Rise, Sorid, Reuters, 1/10/04). In fact, the median bonus this year for CEO's rose 45%. WHAT you say? Yep, the median bonus is up almost half again above last year's. The articlel attributes this bonus increase to improved stock performance. Noting that there has been pressure for compensate CEOs for their performance, the improvement on 18% in the 2003 S&P 500 merits the generousity.

EXCUSE ME!!! The top 500 companies show stock increases of 18% and that results in a median CEO bonus increase of 45%? That is for all CEOs, not just those leading the S&P 500 companies. Imagine what the bonus increase was for those folks. Meanwhile, most opf those companies are laying off and "outsourcing" their workforce. For example, MCI just cut 1300 US-based jobs and is sending those jobs out of the country.

Meanwhile, it is a campaign year and Bush is downplaying the bad jobs news and playing up how great the "recovery" is going. Talking heads for the administration say things like"

"It's not a good idea to give excessive weight to any particular statistic," said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. "If you look at the pattern, most of the economic news has been good rather than bad." Bush Seeks Ways to Create Jobs, and Fast, Andrews, NY Times, 1/10/04)

I would be the last to claim that Bush is totally responsible for job loss and a lousy economy for most of us. After all, while Clinton was cheering in the White House about "all boats floating," the number of people seeking food assistance went up over 100% nation wide. The problem is that the present administration is not doing anything to confront a growing problem. Job losses are growing - not shrinking. There is an acelleration of job losses and outsourcing. Tax cuts - both for business and for individuals are doing nothing to promote job creation or income stability. In fact, the corporate giveaways aren't even tied to maintianing or increasing current US employment numbers.

During the Clinton years, the US was watching what I would call a "false economy." Not because there wasn't job creation, and not because some portions of the workforce didn't see some income gains, but because it was based largely on technology stock speculation. In other words, tons of money was floating around with nothing but hot air underneath it. Neither CLinton, nor now George W. Bush, were ready to look at the unsettling fact that the US is now anchored to a GLOBAL economy. The Federal Reserve scratches its collective head over why lowering the prime isn't raising the economy more. Economists collectively scratch their head over how economic fighres can seem to recover while jobs continue to be lost. The reality is that no one is willing to address the issues of stabalizing a national economy in a world of globalized capital.

We saw this same problem hit Brazil and Japan - both huge economies - and folks scratched their heads. I can give some suggestions and I'm not even an economist.

1. If the mutinationals won't create jobs then take the money we are giving them and start fund some innovative new initiatives - such as recycling or alternative energy. OR ... fund infrastructure strengthening and repair which is almost guaranteed to create US-based jobs.

2. Tie the money given to multinationals to job creation in the US, or conversely, charge them for every job they cut, and an extra penalty for sending that job out of the country.

3. States are also outsourcing their jobs. Every state that outsources jobs should lose part of their federal funding. States creating jobs should receive bonuses.

4. Get us out of the grip of NAFTA, GATT, GATS, etc. These agreements are not stabilizing or enhancing to anyone's economy.

5. Address the deficit. Ultimately it is going to sink us. I know it is difficult for folks in the US to imagine, but the crash that is coming will make the crashes of the 20th century look like child's play. ANd folks, G.W. Bush is directly and immediately responsible for the deficit (and its growth).

For your information

I've run across a couple of really interesting things lately. Well more than a couple, but most I can wrangle into a Journal post at some point. I may with these also, but I haven't really gotten the "connections" with other things that generally spurs me on.

First, If you are interested in the entrance of the US into WWII, some of the documents (particularly around Pearl Harbor) have recently been declassified. There is an extensive set of links by Paul Wolf (no relation) OSS Psychologic Division (1941-1942). As the title notes - it focuses on psy-opps. In a related piece of documentation CRG has Propagand document related to Pearl Harbor.

Foreign Policy In Focus has five articles related to the The PetroPolitics Conference Report. Those of you who watched NOW last night heard Moyers reference to the conference. I thought these were good, so wanted to pass them along.

Buckminster Fuller fan anyone? The full Mad Cows USA.

While I'm on "mad cow" there is an excellent article on Orion Microbial Migrations. The article talks primarly about hoof and mouth disease, but also BSE within the context of globalization - an excellent article.

The Carnegie Foundation has released their report
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications. There is a permanent link under "Featured Articles" in the left column of Uncommon Thought.

I have also added a new feature - "Quick Find Resources" directly under "Featured Articles." This is a work-in-process. I was finding that I wanted to jump back to some resources and got tired of looking for them. Therefore I decided to make them more easily available. I thought you all might find it useful as well.

Well, that's enough reading to keep you busy for a while :>

The Empire and Space

The pictures of Mars are all over the news and the headlines read Bush to Offer Initiative to Explore Space (Wald & Sanger, NY Times, 1/09/04). It seems that the push is on to place permanent installations on both the Moon and Mars - Moon fever grips US space agency (BBC, 1/09/04). Visions of claiming both as US "discoveries" dance through my head - much like "discovering America." And like these other discoveries and claims, the bodies become the property of the US to exploit as they so choose.

Questions have been raised about whether this is a campaign year attempt by Bush to present some "bold vision" for the future (Wald & Sanger), or is it part of a broader plan that involves ongoing US military dominance of space? Or maybe it is both.

I was a big space fan as a child. Heck I wanted to be an astronaut for a long time. I have been a sci-fan for at least as long. There is something alluring about traveling through space, exploring and making new friends. There is also the dark side of conquering the universe. Some see space exploration and colonization as the ultimate technical solution to all our earthly problems from the population explosion to resource exhaustion to environmental destruction. The fact is that we have just about "used up" the Earth, so the solution becomes one of scattering earthlings around the universe ... to get all of our "eggs out of one basket."

In his article Is Mars Ours?, David Grinspoon discusses manifest destiny, the terraforming and colonization of Mars, and US space hegemony. It is a frightening scenario and all too possible a goal. Even if finding the bucks to do it might be difficult (Funding, Technical Hurdles Seen for U.S. Space Plan , Lister, Reuters, 1/10/04).

There are those who think that one way or another earthlings may have sprung from Mars. One theory is that whatever killed Mars (i.e. asteroid impacts) may have "seeded" Earth. Another is that Martians deliberately seeded Earth as their planet died around them (because they had destroyed it, or through natural causes).

In my more darkly speculative moments I see a conquest and exploitation arising on Mars and decimating the planet, then in a last ditch effort transporting humans to Earth, where they continue from the same foundation that destroyed their home planet. Part of the reason for this speculation is that Mars looks to me like the victim of massive environmental collapse. The signs are all there that Mars once had a very different visage with seas and atmosphere and (though not proven) abundant life. Mars looks to me like what they Earth may look like as we continue to destroy it. Based on that set of assumptions, there is a certain irony to reclaiming Mars. Reclaiming the planet which humans destroyed and now the first step back into the galaxy from yet another planet we have destroyed.

Unlike many, I do not see space exploration as a solution to human-caused Earthly problems. I see it as an exportaion off planet of the same failed drive that is currently destroying Earth. That sense of foreboding is reinforced by the US stated desires to militarize space and maintain ultimate and total control. The space surrounding Earth, the Moon, Mars, and beyond all become components of the published plans to be the supreme and only military force.

Programs of space exploration are inextricably linked with conquest in the US (and perhaps others) vision. The goal is military - not peace and not knowledge. Scientists and others participating in the programs may have the usual rationalizations of "for the good of humankind," but the task master looks to ultimate weapons and dominance.

THe "bold vision" of exploring and colonizing the stars plays into a cultural mythology that few question. Dreams of space and the possibilities integrate politcal policy, religious and national duty or destiny, and belief in technology as a god who produces wonders and saves us from our inevitable mistakes. It is an attractive and romantic vision, and I am sure it will be spun in that manner. However, I am equally sure that lurking below the inspiring vision of coursing the universe is pinpoint technology to destroy "enemies" and ultimately entire worlds.

The fact that the US is being led there by a man who said " "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system" is somewhat frightening. (Quote is from MisterShortcut)

Sources
Is Mars Ours? (Grinspoon, Slate, 1/07/04)

Bush to Offer Initiative to Explore Space (Wald & Sanger, NY Times, 1/09/04)

Funding, Technical Hurdles Seen for U.S. Space Plan (Lister, Reuters, 1/10/04)

Moon fever grips US space agency (BBC, 1/09/04)

The Mars Society Web site

Stop wolf slaughter

Many of you already receive email blurbs from various petition sites, but in case you don't I am urging you to sign the petition to Stop the Aerial Slaughter of Alaska's Wolves! .

The Governor of Alaska has decided to allow the hunting of wolves from the air to resume. Hunters in planes and helicopters chase wolves until they drop and then kill them.

There is something mythic about the war on wolves and western "civilization." For both good and ill, they represent wildness and freedom. This has made them targets over and over again, and many species have disappeared entirely. On one hand we make efforts to reintroduce them, and on the other formal policies and mythological hatred attempts to wipe them out. The decimation of wolves in Alaska is nothing new, but the "efficiency" of aerial hunting is a significant threat.

Double standard?

Well the latest economic reports are coming out and jobs are still in the gutter. Pick your report -
U.S. Companies Added Few Workers in December

Fresh doubts emerge on US economy after weak jobs report

But Bush says U.S. economy "very strong"

However, as the Daily Mis-Leader points out Administration Claims of Better Economy Don't Follow the Numbers, and as I noted in an earlier piece, the IMF isn't too happy with the direction of the US economy either.

It struck me that Bush pushed his "leave no child behind" policies on the grounds that public schools needed to be "held accountable." So a major part of determining which schools are succeeding and which are failing is "doing it by the numbers" - standardized test scores.

Yes, the "business" philosophy of quantification. Make standards, measure, analyze, profit or loss, cost effectiveness. Surely our schools are better held to such a standard. Not.

But when it comes to the economy, then despite what the numbers say everything is rosy. The deficit is out of sight and getting bigger? No problem. We are losing more jobs than we are gaining? No problem? Need a tax cut for the wealthy? No problem. Need another $100 billion for the Pentagon? No problem.

So in an arena where there are tons of unquantifiables (education) Bush applies strict numeric standards to make schools accountable. But in an arena most well known as quantifiable there is no accountability. Seems like a double standard to me. Of course, closing schools is good for business (private education) and good for the deficit (quit funding public education). Maybe that's why Bush thinks that the economy is doing so well.

It's the environment stupid

Two bad pieces of news about the environment this week. First is the release of the UN environmental report which predicts that global warming could cause mass extinctions not seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs (Global Warming Threatens Mass Extinctions -Study , Reuters, 1/07/04). The second piece of bad news is that the use of GM crops linked is to rise in pesticide use (Vidal, BBC, 1/08/04).

The UN Report
The report extrapolated global warming extinctions among land-based plants and animals out to 2050 (oceans and waterways were not included). THe estimate that (emphases mine):

"A quarter of all species of plants and land animals, or more than a million in all, could be driven to extinction," said Chris Thomas, professor of Conservation Biology at England's University of Leeds.

Thomas, lead author of the study published in the science journal Nature, told Reuters that emissions from cars and factories could push temperatures up to levels not seen for one million to 30 million years by the end of the century, threatening many habitats.

For all the glum news, the report argues that global warming (and its impacts) could still be mitigated by adhering strictly to the Kyoto Global Warming Agreement (which Sir Bush pulled the US out of).

GM Foods and Pesticides
It is laughable that the consistent argument for genetically modified foods is that they are friendlier for the environment. Even if one buys that little deception, the reality is that the majority of genetic modifications have been to create herbicide and pesticide resistant crops. In other words "Round-Up" ready seed. This allows farmers to douse their crops with herbicides and pesticides and not kill the crop (of course what it is doing to the land, life forms in the earth, and those who consume those crops is another matter entirely).

There is also the little problem that the GM seed that supposedly resists pests and blights are now requiring more "help" from herbicide and pesticide application.

According to the report, there has been a consistent increase in herbicide and pesticide use over the last three years - 2001 up 5%, 2002 up 7.9%, 2003 up 11.5%. The poster child for GM crops -maize- had a 29% increase in chemical treatment in 2002-2003 alone.

This is bad for the Bio-Ag firms, like Monsanto, who have been pushing the UK and Europe to drop their restrictions on GM crops.

The news for US consumers (and those globally who the US exports to) the news isn't so good either. However, most of those consumers will never have a clue as Monsanto and ADM continue to press their "GM is environmentally friendly" and "GM is the only way to feed a hungry world" ad campaigns.

Journalists - a different perspective

Since the Pentagon's decison to "embed" journalist in Iraq and Afghanistan, many (myself included) have argued that this doesn't not provide us with the best coverage. There have been a plethora of articles such as Bill Berkowitz' Media AWOL (TomPaine, 1/08/04) critiquing corporate journalists and corporate journalism. I think these are generally well deserved criticisms - corporate media has not served democracy well, though they have served the administration well.

Beyond the obvious issue that embedded journalists only see what they are allowed to see, and that their presence seems dependent on putting the right spin on things, is a very different issue - safety. If you tick off those who are protecting you then they may not protect you. So beyond the agenda of presenting the desired picture lies life or death.

The Middle East (particularly Iraq) has been a dangerous place for journalists. This stark reality came out in an AP article by Jamey Keaton (1/06/04) - 42 Journalists Killed During Iraq War. According to Reporters Without Borders report 2003, a black year:

The Middle East was the deadliest part of the world for journalists in 2003. Fourteen journalists and media workers were killed and about 15 injured covering the war and the period after the war in Iraq. The US military could be blamed for the death of at least five journalists, but in no case did they hold any investigation worthy of the name. On the third day of the conflict two journalists working for British ITN television,French cameraman Frédéric Nérac and a Lebanese interpreter Hussain Othman, mysteriously disappeared.

In the Middle East, 16 have been killed, 92 physically attacked, 67 have been detained, and 30 have been censored (RWB report).

The outright US military attacks on Al-Jazeera in both Afghanistan and Iraq, along with outright censorship and detainment must send journalists a clear message. If the US powers that be do not like what you are saying, your life is at risk.

What role has intimidation played in the coverage of the events in Iraq and surrounds? My guess is that it plays a not insignificant role. Whether the threat is that one will not be sent where "the news is;" or information may not come your way; or one may be taken off assignment; or one may be left exposed, or no one comes when you need help. There are a lot of levers of harassment and threat possible.

Does this mean that I believe this excuses the corporate media for not doing the job reserved for them by the constitution? No it does not. The threat comes not only from those with guns, but from media executives who haven't taken a stand to the responsibility that they hold, nor to protect journalists from a variety of threats. Corporate media has (seemingly) willingly colluded in this process of silencing. They (seemingly) have signed up eagerly to be an active participant in the propaganda machine.

There are similarities between supporting the troops, but not the policy that has put them in harms way, and supporting journalists, but not the corporate decision-making that leverages collusion through intimidation.

Those journalists who have died and are imprisoned in Iraq (and Israel) are generally not representatives of corporate media. But surely the message is clear to all what the potential consequences are of being labeled as the "enemy." I am sure that the message is not lost on journalists from the corporate media when they saw US troops firing on the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Baghdad.

The oft repeated question is "what to do." There are an array of groups and organizations that are fighting for freedom of the press - a freedom that includes fightinging the threat to journalists. Support them, support people's media, fight laws that lead to censorship.

A sampling of organizations
Reporters Without Borders
FAIR
Project Censored
The Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press