Jennifer Lee, over at the NY Times has an article on a National Academy of Science Report for the EPA. The article, Study Clears Pesticide Tests With Humans (2/20/04), noted that the NAS report concluded that testing of pesticides and other toxins on humans should be conducted if "the participants of the study will not be harmed." Even given this, the report recommends utilizing animal studies in leiu of human testing. This announcement comes at the same time that the Bush administration is being accused of manipulating science to fit its own agenda (Scientists group claims the White House distorts findings, Almeda Times-Star, 2/21/04).
The 2/19/04 press release by the NAS seems as bizarre as the Times article suggests (EPA Should Impose Stringent Scientific and Ethical Standards on Studies That Deliberately Expose People to Toxins, and Evaluate Such Experiments
To Ensure That Standards Have Been Met).
When regulating chemicals to protect public health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should consider information from studies that involve intentional dosing of humans with toxic chemicals only if such experiments meet the most stringent scientific and ethical standards, ensuring that research participants are protected and that the studies are scientifically necessary and valid, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. At the same time, EPA should establish a Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to evaluate all human dosing studies – both at the beginning and upon completion of the experiments – if they are carried out with the intent of affecting the agency's policy-making. Human testing of chemicals must be approached with the utmost caution and care, warned the committee that wrote the report."Human studies involving pesticides, air pollutants, or other toxicants – as opposed to therapeutic agents – are particularly controversial, and because of this, EPA should subject these studies to the highest level of scientific and ethical scrutiny," said committee co-chair James F. Childress, a professor of ethics and medical education, and director, Institute for Practical Ethics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. "Our report proposes a framework for EPA's oversight of this research. And the recommended framework should apply to studies that are sponsored by so-called 'third parties' – private companies or other sources outside the agency – as well as by EPA."
The claim of "no harm" in toxic chemical research seem a stretch. The purpose of such studies is generally to find out 1) the minimum safe dossage, and 2) what the effects are. Therefore it would seem that such studies are based around "harm." Toxicity studies with animals certainly cause them harm.
The NAS report recommendations include the following:
The committee recommended that intentional dosing studies in humans be conducted and used for EPA regulatory purposes only if all of the following conditions are met:¨ Studies must be necessary and scientifically valid, addressing important regulatory questions that cannot be answered with animal studies or other studies that do not involve human testing. They must be designed, conducted, and reported in a scientifically rigorous manner to ensure that they answer a specific research question.
¨ The possible benefits to society from such studies must outweigh any anticipated risks to participants.
¨ Studies whose results would be used for the sole purpose of improving the scientific accuracy of EPA's established reference doses for humans, and that would not provide health benefits otherwise, would be justified only if there were no identifiable risks to participants, or if investigators could show with reasonable certainty that participants would not be harmed.
¨ All of the recognized ethical standards and procedures for protecting the interests of study participants must be observed, including equitable selection and recruitment of human subjects, the obtaining of informed consent, and independent review of the scientific and ethical merits of a given study by an institutional review board (IRB) or its equivalent.
Extra safety measures mandated by the 1996 Food Quality and Protection Act (FQPA) to protect children would not be affected by the use of data from intentional dosing studies in humans, the report adds; dosing studies in children generally would be unethical. Also, information directly relevant to children cannot be obtained from these types of dosing studies in adults.
The report references "third-party" studies, which I believe is a euphamism for "industry-sponsored" studies. Effectively this means that once again, the producers of these toxins are providing data on their products - products in which they have a financial investment. It is no secret that such studies have a tendency to minimize the risk of a product.
It is interesting that the report also addresses some specific considerations in relationship to responsibilities to research participants (emphases mine):
Research participants should be representative of the target population, and scientific investigators should take steps to avoid exploitation of any particular social group, the report says. All parties involved in designing and evaluating a research protocol should consider whether the proposed level of remuneration given to participants would constitute exploitation or offer an undue incentive to take part.Voluntary, informed consent by research participants is another principal requirement, the report says. In this area, EPA should develop and disseminate to relevant IRBs, investigators, and research sponsors a list of "best practices" regarding informed consent in intentional human dosing studies. It also should encourage stakeholders to implement the measures and require their adoption in studies that the agency itself sponsors or carries out. Sponsors of or institutions conducting human dosing studies also should ensure that participants receive necessary medical care, free of charge, for any injuries they might incur from their involvement in research
One has to wonder if the "representative sample" clause refers only to sex and race? The reason I raise this is that there would seem to be social class implications here which are recognized by the panel - this has to do with concern that the poor might participate solely to earn money if too large a compensation is offered. There is another class issue here though. That has to do with environmental classism and racism. Higher levels of toxic waste are often present in poorer neighborhoods. The poor also typically live in housing that may have hazards (such as high lead contents from old pipes and lead-based paint). The poor do not have access to the same quality of nutrition nor to medical care that the more affluent have. All of these could lead to higher levels of toxins and conditions in study participants who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Another problem with toxicity studies is that they focus on a specific toxin in a "controlled" environment. This does not reflect the conditions that exist in the real world where these chemicals combine in unexpected ways with other chemicals and elements in the environment. Let's take pesticides (hypothetically). Let's say that one uses pesticides and that they do not break down into non-toxic elements in a reasonable period of time (and many don't). Let's say that instead they accumulate over time thereby increasing the actual toxic load in the environment and to which humans are exposed. The "safe level" of exposure could be exceeded by individuals using that chemical simply by prolonged exposure and accumulation.
Or , let's suppose that the pesticide actually combines with other toxic residue in the environment (other pesticides, herbicides, industrial, or waste products). Such an interaction might potentiate the harmful effects of a tested toxin, or the tested toxin might potentiate the harmful effects of another.
Or, let's assume that the toxin is safe as used, but accumulates elsewher causing indirect toxic effects. An example of this would be leaching into the water supply which then settles to the beds of streams and rivers, where it is eaten by bottom-feeding fish. Those who then eat those fish (human and other species) can receive highly toxic loads.
These are "hypothetical" only in the case of new toxins, because we already have evidence of these processes with toxins already present. Further, we already have dramatic problems with cleaning up the chemical mess in our environment.
There is another consideration that should be brought to light. These testing recommendation (should they be adopted) only apply to the United States, and only protect research subjects in the US. Many, if not most of the corporations developing and producing these "products" are multinational corporations. Could one ont get a "representative sample" by testing in another nation without those restrictions? Certainly products that are banned in the US (DDT for example) are heavily used elsewhere in the world to the harm of agricultural workers and the environment. There is no stipulation that I see in the release that these toxicity studies had to take place in the US. Given the level of poverty around the world, it seems that "exploitation" (as noted in the recommendations) re more than a possibility.
It seems to me that the NAS report supports a rollback of standards that has become characteristic of the current administration. I imagine that one or more of the political petitions sites will jump on this pretty quickly, so if you are concerned, keep an eye open. You can also contact the EPA directly to express your opinion.
After searching through the EPA site, my first recommendation would be to contact:
EPA Test Methods
617-918-1991, 617-918-1992 (fax)
email: nelson.peg@epa.gov
This is a referral point for information on EPA measurement methods. These test methods are used in complying with Agency regulations and for general environmental monitoring.
I am finding it somewhat worrisome that the avian flu seems to have dropped from the US corporate media radar. It is not under control. It continues to spread, as does the spreading ban on importing poultry (Japan halts Canada poultry imports due to bird flu, Reuters, 2/20/04). Japan has also stopped poultry imports from China, Thailand, and the U.S.
Despite earlier claims by various officials of control of the avian flu;
"This virus is still spreading no matter what some authorities are saying about it being under control. It is spreading on a daily basis," World Health Organization (WHO) Manila-based spokesman Peter Cordingley told Reuters.
Even more worrisome to me is that this flu seems to be readily jumping species. On 2/17/04, the Independent reported that the Bird flu spread kills leopard in zoo. Then on Reuters 2/20/04 reports we see Pandas isolated in bird flu scare. The article notes:
After killing millions of chickens and ducks across Asia, bird flu is feared to have jumped to some exotic species, possibly killing a leopard and cranes in Thailand and pheasants in Taiwan. Now a zoo in northern Thailand has even isolated two giant pandas over fears they could catch the disease.
Cats, however, are hardly an "exotic" species. It would seem that particularly in China this new problem might raise significant concerns. SARS is assumed to be at least partially spread through civets (in the feline family and part of the food supply in China). To have yet another hit such as avian flu which also is jumping species, would seem to hit the food supply very hard - aside from the major health concerns.
Thus far over 80 million chickens in Asia have been slaughtered to control the disease. Several flocks in the US have also been slaughtered to control a different strain of avian flu.
I am somewhat alarmed by the difficulty in controlling this outbreak, and that it seems to be jumping species rapidly. This would seem to indicate a rapidly mutating virus. While to date there doesn't seem to be contamination from human to human (or even within species beyond birds) it looks like only a matter of time. Because of the silence of the reports on how the virus is being transmitted, I have to assume that it is being passed to other species only from the birds. However, given the apparent flexibility of this virus it would seem to me that within-species transmission is only a matter of time.
Keep your eye on this - the US corp media doesn't seem to be.
Update - 2/20/04 Reuters, Texas finds bird flu in a poultry farm - source
Is the far Right cracking? Is there a growing schism between the Christian Right and the neo-conservatives? Well take a look at Pat Buchanan's review of Perle's new "An End to Evil" - No End to War - The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict. Buchanan's article made the cover of the March 2004 cover of "The American Conservative."
The review starts with:
On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the “intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy.”The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.
and goes down hill from there.
Buchanan thinks that Frum and Perle are "hysterical" when it comes to the threat to the US by "fundamentalist Islam." He feels that the concern that fundamentalist Islam will overthrow US civilization to be highly unlikely. They don't have the power or the resources. As Buchanan notes:
Yet, assume it (fundamentalist Islam) makes a comeback. So what? Taken together, all 22 Arab nations do not have the GDP of Spain. Without oil, their exports are the size of Finland’s. Not one Arab nation can stand up to Israel, let alone the United States.
Buchanan himself discusses the split he sees. He frames it"
Thus between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives a breach has been opened and an irreconcilable conflict has arisen. We of the Old Right only have one country. We believe U.S. foreign policy must be determined by what is best for America. And what is best for America is what our forefathers taught: If you would preserve this Republic, stay out of foreign wars, avoid “permanent alliances,” beware of “passionate attachments” to nations not your own....
To the neocons, however, Zionism is second nature. They cannot conceive of a foreign policy that is good for America that does not entail absolute solidarity with Israel. They are dangerously close to imbibing the poisonous brew that drove Jonathan Pollard to treason: If it is good for Israel, it cannot be bad for America.
And then to clearly demark the lines he states:
The Perle-Frum book is marinated in conceit, which may prove the neocons’ fatal flaw. In the run-up to the invasion, when critics were exposing their plotting for war long before 9/11, the neocons did not bother to deny it. They reveled in it. They boasted about who they were, where they came from, what they believed, how they were different, and how they had become the new elite. With Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush marching to their war drums, one of them bellowed, “We are all neoconservatives now!”But it is always unwise of courtiers to boast of their influence with the prince. And now the neocons have outed themselves. We all know who they are. We all have the coordinates. We all have them bracketed.
So, here in an election year, Buchanan throws the glove and one must ask which way Bush will turn. Will he turn to the power and wealth of his neo-conservative puppet masters, or will he turn to his electoral base of the (as Buchanan calls them) the "traditional conservatives." There is no missing the challenge or its meaning in Buchanan's "We have them bracketed."
So the split is official - or at least out in the open. If Bush chooses to follow his cronies rather than his voting block, what will the "traditional conservatives" do? It would be truly ironic to have them joining the campaign to "oust" Bush & Co. and vote for a Democrat.
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]
Crowds cheering, bands marching, costumes glittering, high-wire stunts, and even animal acts (if the latest Bush stories about Kerry are to believed) - all these and more are coming this fall to America's local fairgrounds and national airwaves.
American elections are not noted for depth of content. Despite constant disparagement, sound-bites often are the only way to know what all the racket is about.
The candidates are typically such pasteboard-cutout figures, but what would you expect from people spending large parts of their lives in Washington? It is stifling preparation for anything useful, and, if the time was spent in Congress, the only solid skill you likely possess is sniffing out campaign funds.
But even extravaganzas grow tiresome. How many times can an audience watch candidates with drippy television-smiles and capped teeth stand on a podium, hands clasped over their heads like boxing champs, while balloons and confetti rain down? If they can't come up with a new closing act for the conventions, some enterprising person should develop a computer program so that the parties only have to insert an image and voice-sample for this year's candidate. Balloon colors would be adjustable as would theme music. Confetti and streamers could be added in any desired proportions.
The phoniness starts well before the conventions and actual campaigns. Honestly, have you ever seen a picture of a would-be presidential candidate in the primaries who isn't either stabbing the air with his forefinger, a la Kennedy 1960, or reaching out with both arms like one of those hog-sized television evangelists groping the air symbolically for his flock's wallets? The images are so repetitive, a good computer program could save everyone time and effort.
One thing is different this year. I don't recall such a wealth of filth being released at so early a date in the run-up to a campaign. We're in for a hilarious season. By November, even the most jaded viewer should have had some good laughs.
Ratings for the national debates, always guaranteed yawns unless one of the gents forgets his lines, should soar as viewers anticipate a darkly-serious Bush reaching into his jacket to pull out a pair of soiled panties in a sealed evidence envelope. Janet Jackson's breast-stunt was probably planned by a Republican ad agency to test audience reaction for the campaign. If a woman who looks much like her brother, minus the "skin condition," wearing a costume from a cheap 1950s sci-fi film about an invasion of giant cock-roaches, can get Americans excited, rating prospects for the fall are excellent.
Bush operatives already are reported to be conducting a worldwide search for any former intern who may have had an affair with John Kerry. The search will not overlook such past contacts as plump-bottomed baton-twirlers at county fairs and employees of the Boston branch of Hooters. The records of dry-cleaning establishments across the United States are being scrutinized by an ever-vigilant FBI for cleaning tickets identifying biologically-stained dresses or undergarments with torn straps.
Dick Cheney ordered the top-secret NSA to enter a salacious-word search into the supercomputers of its Echelon system that daily records and sorts through the world's telecommunications for clues to miscreants. By the way, if Dick Cheney were running, he'd only have to show a wallet-snap of his wife's embalmed-prune smile to be forgiven any straying from the marital bed, but Kerry is married to America's Grand Duchess of Pickles and Ketchup, and her five hundred million or so make up for an awful lot of shortcomings in other departments.
I must confess to not having mastered all the details. I wonder whether Intern-gate is supposed to have happened after Kerry's marriage-alliance with America's canned-spaghetti fortune? Maybe, the Grand Duchess is a tolerant wife. I feel no compulsion to research these points since I'm sure I'll be filled in during the campaign.
Letters already produced suggest Republican politicians long ago closely vetted Bush's National Guard files and wiped them clean. Former Guardsmen, though, have come forward suggesting that Bush never showed up for duty in Alabama after leaving Texas. Bush drifting off into space should surprise anyone?
Bush still thought it worth countering with some murky pay records. Hell, Junior's entire career before going into crooked Texas politics was built on people trying to influence his dad by giving the boy the appearance of an honest living. Why would anyone expect his pay to have been stopped?
We all know what a vital role the National Guard plays, but it was a lot more vital during a protracted and vicious war. It was the only way to avoid Vietnam while getting yourself glossy, full-color pictures in uniform with a huge flag in the background - it was a future politician's dream duty. Bush joined by jumping the queue in front of scores of other influential people's sons. And, hell, he even got to play with a real jet plane once in a while, although for some reason, not explained in the record, his flying was cut short well before his service ended. Smart alecks have unkindly suggested that he was either too smashed or high to fly, but I'm sure this matter will be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction by the campaign.
The critical nature of Bush's service to the nation is brought home by a report concerning his using a National Guard plane to transport what were identified only as "tropical plants" to Texas. Apparently, either there was a shortage of pineapples at the base lounge or Bush invented a new role for the military in the war on drugs.
I'm just hoping a home-movie clip survives somewhere of Bush's legendary naked table-dancing in a bar. This would provide a hilarious finale to the campaign. CNN could show it again and again, frame by frame, with commentaries by a staff of legal experts. Who knows, if we're really lucky there's a Polaroid out there somewhere of Junior with white powder stuck to his nose.
We may need porno-entrepreneur Larry Flynt to put up a million-buck reward to get the goods. If Flynt is a bit short of cash after cutting down some prominent Republican hypocrites during the Clinton impeachment-farce, maybe George Soros, anxious to find a way to retire Bush before he blows up the planet, could send him the dough in a plain brown envelope.
I must end on a somber note. There are almost no genuine issues for Kerry and Bush to debate, unless you include Bush's low effective intelligence, which you may or may not think important since Cheney pretty much keeps Bush to ceremonial duties, a bit like the Queen of England. Kerry drones about jobs, seemingly unaware that a President has little influence on employment, although whenever a Democrat starts talking about jobs, you can bet protectionist trade measures aren't far behind.
As far as Bush's pointless brutality in Iraq, Kerry has long supported intervention there. He supported a resolution to that effect in 2002. He never said a word when the limbs started being blasted off. But what would you expect from the rarified air of the Consort to the Grand Duchess of Pickles and Ketchup?
Well, you have heard folks argue that the Bush Administration didn't lie to get public support to invade Iraq. Heck, you have even seen some of them come up on this site. The Center for Globalization has an article that brings the lies together. It is good ammunition for the truth in this time of re-written history. The list was compiled by Jackson Thoreau and here it is Bush Administration Officials’ Lies about Iraq’s Supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Their Own Words
Came across this AP report U.S. Marines Set for Philippine Exercises (AP 2/15/04). Apparently about 2500 US Marines are joining Philippine forces in "live fire" exercises near the territory of the communist "New People's Army." The US military claims that this is purely to improve the readiness of both US and Phillippine troops, but it should be no surprise that
The guerrillas suspect the exercises are a cover for a U.S.-backed counterinsurgency, spying or other operations and have warned that Americans would be attacked if they enter rebel zones.
This is an interesting "exercise" since the Philippine government kicked the military out of Subic Bay in 1991. It is also interesting in that (if my memory serves me right) the Philippine constitution does not allow foreign forces to fight in the country.
I guess that if you are using live rounds in "rebel" territory and a few "rebels"just "happen" to get in the way, or if in shooting off mortar rounds "rebel" camps just happen to be hit, well I guess that such an unfortunate incident could be overlooked. On the other hand, if the "rebels" feel provoked to attack, then those fired on certainly have every right to defend themselves.
Might they have picked a less sensitive area to do their live fire exercises if all they were doing was "practicing?"
I am vehemently against the death penalty, but that has little to do with what has been happening to Kevin Cooper in California. Evidence was not allowed in his trial which calls into question his conviction and sentencing. Gov. Schwarteneiger wouldn't give him a stay, but the courts finally did - just three hours and change before his execution was to occur. There is a great pair of articles at CounterPunch related to this. One is by Bruce Anderson Kevin Cooper and the Midnight Needle, and one is by Kevin Cooper relating his experience - Still Live from Death Row - The Rituals of State Murder. I recommend both of them.
It is becoming more and more interesting that Pakistan seems to be one of our most important allies in the "war on terrorism." As news of the sale of nuclear information and materials has made the headlines, it must surely raise questions about how the US picks its friends. While recent news has focused primarily on Dr. Khan's private profit from the sale of nuclear technology to North Korea, Lybia, Iran, and others, little is being said about more recent activities which continue a state sponsored pattern of nuclear technology for sale. Namely, the contract between Pakistan and Saudia Arabia, for nuclear technology support.
It seems as if the spin has been to confine try an confine the mess to Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, but for a variety of reasons that is implausible. First, how could Musharraf not have known what was going on? He was a top ranking general during part of the activities, and the President for other parts. Second, the sale of technology and material is not confined to the past, but has continued all the way to this year. This denotes an ongoing program of arms and information for sale - a program with official sponsorship, not just one man profiteering on hes position.
One might think that this type of activities might make Pakistan one of the "rogue" states, but alas - no. Of course, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban have openly operated in Pakistan, and the border region is virtually uncontrolled (and perhaps uncontrollable). This too might put Pakistan on "the list," but it has not.
There are rumors that the US will launch a new major initiative this spring with troops in Pakistan. This would seem to be a very dangerous thing to do. Important ally or not, Musharraf is barely hanging on, and anti-American sentiment is strong in some parts of the country. Is it really a good idea to have a campaign in Pakistan - in those very regions where there is the most support for al-Qaeda and other forces? Is it a good idea to hold a nation so close to the breast that is actively engaged in selling and sharing nuclear technology to those on "the list?" Of course, Pakistan is not alone in this process. China, Japan, Germany and Russia have all been implicated as well.
It is interesting to watch foreign policy at work don't you think?
Selected Article Links
Pakistan to Strengthen Nuclear Capability, Arab News, 2/12/04
Powell Pakistan Must Uproot Proliferation Network, Reuters, 2/09/04
At Least 7 Nations Tied To Pakistani Nuclear Ring, Wa. Post, 02/07/04
Confronting the Nuclear Threat America Didn't Want to Be True, NYT, 2/08/04
Pakistani Scientist Is Pardoned, Wa. Post, 2/06/04
Warhead Blueprints Link Libya Project To Pakistan Figure, NYT 2/04/04
Musharraf Named in Nuclear Probe, Wa. Post 2/03/04
Pakistan's Nuclear Responsibility NYT 1/31/04
From Rogue Nuclear Programs, Web of Trails Leads to Pakistan NYT, 1/04/04
Libyan Arms Designs Traced Back to China Wa. Post 2/15/04
Bruce Conway over at LightWatch.com has an interesting announcement U.S. Postal Service to issue Chemtrail stamp designs. Some may not be familiar with chem-trails. Essentially, chemtrails are thought to be part of military experimentation and warfare to place various disease-causing chemicals into the atmosphere in order to test them on populations and environment. These agents are dumped in the exhaust streams of jets for dispersal. (See the end of this post for links to sites and information articles.) Anyway, chem-trails are alleged to leave distinctive "cloud" patterns. Many of these patterns are presented in the June 2004 release of the US postal stam "cloud" collection.
Personally, I believe that the military is engaged in activities that are linked to chemtrails. I do not think that every contrail left by jets is a chemtrail, but there is credible evidence (in my opinion) that such activities are taking place. Which brings us back to the new postage stamps.
The decision to include chemtrails and contrails as "clouds" is an interesting resconstruction of what is "normal." Even if these trails are no more than the exhaust streams of jets and planes, they are far from "natural." They are no more natural than smog - should smog be presented as "cloud" formations.
What this pictures do is normalize and naturalize an abnormal (and perhaps hazardous) phenomenon. There is no distinction between natural cloud formations, and these emissions into the sky. I personally feel that this is dangerous. It leads people down a conceptual path which contributes to a larger problem. Human degradation of the environment is not, and should not be, presented as a "natural phenomoenon." A "pristine" (or natural environmental state) environment is not one with shimmering oil slicks floating on water. Nor is it one where chemical exhaust is a "cloud."
The mixing of the human-caused harm with earth created environment is related to the argument for biotechnology as part of the "evolutionary process." This has been a big argument with genetically modified food, where industry scientists and the FDA have argued that genetic manipulation (inserting genes from one species into another) is nothing different that what humans have done for thousands of years. It is indeed drastically different because seed genes and insect genes and bird/fish/mammal will never naturally integrate each others genetic material. But like the "cloud" stamps, it blurs that line and the uninformed, unexposed, or non-critical thinker (most of the population) wil follow right along. They follow never knowing that the very basis of their understanding has been substantially redefined.
It is that redfiniton/reconstruction of reality that is most pernicious and dangerous. By redefining the human/industrial/technological as part of the "natural," the ability to see the potential (for harm or good). In the attempt to resolve critical issues, those parts we can control move beyond the pale of our influence. We become mystified victims of a social construction process that does us no good, and possibly great harm.
FYI - Chemtrail Sites
Educate Yourself - Chemtrails
AEROSOL OPERATION CRIMES & COVER-UP (Canicorn.com)
Chemtrails Data Page, Rense.com
I had to read the title twice - CBS Pulls Ads on Medicare Prescriptions (Goldstein, Wa. Post, 2/14/04). CBS apparently decided that the federally funded advertisment was too political.
The network's decision adds to a controversy in which the administration and congressional Democrats are battling over the wisdom of the expanded Medicare program, which Congress approved in November. It comes days after the General Accounting Office agreed, at Democrats' request, to examine whether the $9.5 million in ads, airing on network and cable television through March, constitute political propaganda, rather than neutral public education about the new law.
The GAO has not made a decision, but CBS has decided to wait on airing the advertisement. CBS executive VP also sited concerns that the ads might not meet CBS standards for "accuracy in advertising." Truly an interesting standard to use given the nature of advertisning these days.
This decision is interesting in several ways. On one hand, it somewhat reinforces the belief that the ad may be political propaganda (a Bush campaign ad being paid for by US tax payers). On the other, it seems consistent with the CBS decision to not air MoveOn.org's 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl. (That may have been a blessing in disquise given the uproar over Super Bowl programming).
However, the timing of the decision is interesting given the grilling that CBS has been under. After the head of CBS Viacom appeared before the House and was undeniably, and publicly slammed for using indecency to line his pockets. Since that charge seemed to be most vocally led by some Republican Representatives, perhaps CBS is quietly letting it be known that they have some power in this situation as well. A wise flag to throw down as the pressure for increased control of the media looms. The timing is opportune for sending such a message as the presidential campaign gets rolling (and perhaps millions of dollars of free advertising for Bush hangs in the balance).
The Pentagon investigates, the Air Force, Navy, Marines investigate, but nothing really seems to change. The sexual assault of female troops by their own comrades in arms and superiors is not new. The recent reports out of Shepard Air Force Base (Air Force Probes Alleged Rapes at Base, AP, 2/13/04 - more than two dozen women), and from troops serving in Iraq and Kuwait (Rape in the ranks, Florida Today, 2/10/04 - more than three dozen reports) are not something new - they are part of an ongoing problem which previous "actions" have done little to resolve.
Rape is an issue in society, and it is certainly an issue in war. Ingrained into warfare for most of known history has been the "conquests of war" - rape and pillage. It seems that seeing women as property, and raping them as a way of striking out at the enemy, is ingrained at a very deep level. Not to minimize these issues, it is important to look at the implications of the ongoing sexual assault of women in uniform.
Rape is probably one of the most under-reported crimes. It is under-reported because women are ashamed, because women are assumed to be responsible in some way, and because of fear of both personal and institutional harassment. For women in the military, each of these must be magnified dramatically. The military seems to have a pattern of looking the other way and not addressing the problem unless it somehow leaks out to the public. Then they put on a big show of not condoning such actions, and getting to the bottom of the problem. After a while things die down and nothing has really changed.
There is a special horror in these assaults because the women may very well have their lives in the hands of those who assaulted them. Pressing the issue of assault may spread disregard for them to others in the troop who were not involved, but see the woman as making trouble for a buddy over something that is "no big deal." Male bonding seems a higher value than support of a female comrade in arms.
The military not only looks the other way, but may order the woman back into the same unit where the assault occured, or sanction them for reporting. This is shown in the following excerpts from Rape in the military: Female troops deserve much better (USA Today, 2/06/04):
Yet, when several reported sexual assaults in the combat zone during the past year, equal treatment vanished. They say their complaints were ignored or spurred mistreatment by male superiors.Thirty-seven women who have served in Iraq and Kuwait in recent months have reported to a civilian group that they were sexually assaulted by fellow troops or superiors during their assignments overseas. They or their families contacted the Miles Foundation, a Connecticut-based organization known for championing the cause of abused military women.
While the foundation has declined to release details of the incidents, it said some women felt that they had been doubly victimized: first by attackers in their own ranks and then by shoddy military treatment. They complained that the military failed to provide basic services available to civilians who have been raped, from medical attention to criminal investigations of their charges, according to Kate Summers, Miles' director of victim services.
....
•Poor medical treatment. Eleven women reported assaults to military authorities, but several said they were not tested for sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy. Nor did they receive psychological counseling. Assaults occurred in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, according to Summers
...
•Condoned retribution. One female officer who reported an assault by a subordinate now faces a court-martial on charges of fraternizing with a subordinate and adultery because she is married. Summers said her alleged assailant has not been charged. Another officer, placed on medication for trauma after belatedly reporting an assault, said she lost her security clearance because of the drugs she was taking.
Of course rape in the military is linked to a rape society. The socialization of males as sexual predators and women as compliant sexual objects is rife within US society. If anything, it is most likely magnified in miltary settings both because of the "rape and pillage" mentality, and that these are "real" men and women are invading "their turf." The lack of substantive action on the part of the US military is part of the problem. You can create the toughest rules you want, but if they are not enforced, indeed there is a silencing process for the issue even being addressed, then they are not worth the paper they are written on. When, additionally, women who are are assaulted are ignored or sanctioned, then there is going to be extreme reluctance to press the issue. All to the good from a military standpoint. In my opinion, this is an egregious violation of these women and should be no part of their "service" to their country.
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]
Trying to bring reason to the subject of terror seems hopeless. The subject is crushingly-weighted with hatreds, prejudice, and political lunacy. But the attempt is important because the subject may dominate the lifetimes of most readers.
Terror is both a real phenomenon and a fraud. It is real in that groups with deep grievances do sometimes kill innocent people in their attempt to influence events from a position of political and military weakness.
Yet, following the vast and organized murder of the twentieth century, there is nothing distinctive or unusual about killing innocent people when trying to get your way. The United States and some other states now do it all the time to advance narrow interests. Politicians who most loudly decry terror display the dishonest, insincere thinking Dr. Johnson characterized as "cant." In this sense, terror is a fraud.
Extreme examples often best make a point. No more extreme example of misused words exists than George Bush, but when he speaks of terror, he exceeds all his other loose and silly talk. Bush calls guerilla attacks in Iraq the work of terrorists. Since when are people whose country has been bombed and overrun by tanks engaged in terror if they take reprisals? They are usually called partisans or resistance fighters or guerillas, and the only reason Bush is not laughed off the stage for speaking this way to Americans, who cherish their right to keep arms against tyranny, is that it is their sons and daughters often being killed.
One never knows all the terrible outcomes of war. That was and remains one of the strongest arguments against the Iraq War. We won't understand for years the full damage of what Bush has done.
We do know that Bush's invasion of Afghanistan released a storm of heroin because the weak, though well-intentioned, new government there has no means of governing regional warlords financed by poppies. American troops in Afghanistan are pitifully few in number - about ten thousand in a land the size of Texas with more than twenty million people - and their focus is finding bin Laden. Were Bush to send the forces needed to subdue the warlords, we would see the same reprisals we see in Iraq, perhaps worse. America's "allies" in Afghanistan swiftly would become its enemies. New variations on al Qaeda would crop up like poppies.
I read Putin's statement following a bomb attack in the Moscow subway. My God, he is determined to root out terror.
Anyone who appreciates what the Russian army has done in Chechnya wonders which terror Putin is talking about. Russia's cruelty and wanton destruction have been on a colossal scale. The American press does not report much on this both because its access is limited, but, more importantly, because a cozy modus vivendi exists between Russia and the United States on what they call terror. Russia has a free hand to reduce Chechnya to a landscape of tank-tread ruts in return for its lack of opposition to Bush's bombings and human-hunts.
Russia did oppose the invasion of Iraq, but that only points up the fact that even Russia could see Bush's invasion had nothing to do with terror.
The Chechens, who for years have wanted nothing more than the same independence achieved by other regions of the former Soviet Union, have been treated much the way people in 1860s' Georgia were treated when they stood in the path of General Sherman's March to the Sea. The comparison is apt, since the American Civil War was only necessary because of Lincoln's ferocious insistence that no state was entitled to change its mind ever about being part of what he quaintly called The Union. His position was in every respect as irrational and bloody as any argument advanced by slaveholders or future leaders of the Soviet Union.
As I write this, Israel has again rolled its tanks and armored bulldozers into Gaza. Its soldiers killed about a dozen people, wounded about forty, including several children. And the purpose? To bulldoze three houses, some orchards and olive groves, and to look for suspected tunnels used to obtain weapons. A second incursion within hours apparently killed another three and wounded still more.
There are limits to how badly you can beat a people down. Every time a desperate and powerless Palestinian suicide bomber kills himself or herself in order to attack Israelis, we see that proposition again demonstrated.
I do not mean to say that all so-called terrorists have rational goals. After all, many people in ordinary life do sometimes make unreasonable demands or yield to violent impulses. But a person of good will recognizes reasonable goals, and the goals of the Chechyns and Palestinians, decent treatment and their own states, are reasonable.
The goals of an organization like al Qaeda are less clear, but it was hardly necessary to invade two sovereign nations and kill thousands of innocents to deal with them. All the resources of international cooperation, security, intelligence, and diplomacy could have been patiently applied. If you want rule of law, then you must abide by it. If you want the arrogant privilege of stepping outside the law, then you have no moral claim against the people you call terrorists.
I suspect al Qaeda's goals were along the lines of Timothy McVeigh's or those who blew up an airliner over Lockerbie, vigilante reprisals for what were felt as stinging injustices or insults. In McVeigh's case, he was horrified at having seen the FBI, impatient to end a stand-off, attack a large group of armed religious fanatics with tanks. The people were odd and they had broken the law, but they hardly deserved to be incinerated or crushed. The FBI's actions, so similar to those of the Chinese army at Tiananmen, were revolting, but for a person like McVeigh, an American militia-type with paranoid anti-government fantasies, they aroused a passion to play avenging angel.
The Lockerbie bombing was vengeance for the U.S. Navy's destruction of an Iranian airliner with three hundred people aboard. How easily the American government could have avoided the whole mess by decently apologizing and paying compensation for the rash act of the ship's commander. Better still, it could have avoided the dangerous act of stationing the ship in a sensitive place during someone else's war.
The United States has made a long series of blunders in the Middle East guaranteed to offend and intimidate Muslims, especially fundamentalists, the people from whom an organization like al Qaeda draws support. These blunders must be seen in the context of an almost irrational support for Israel's bloodiest behavior. While Arabs are resigned to Israel's existence, how can they accept Sabla, Shatila, Jenin, the destruction of Beirut, or words of prejudiced contempt so often heard from Israeli leaders?
I suspect the single most provocative American act was the posting of troops in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia contains Islam's holiest sites, and its population is among the most tradition-bound in Islam, but the U.S. in pushing its troops into Saudi Arabia, made no serious effort to protect local sensibilities. Troops were posted near Riyadh and exposed to local people in highly offensive ways, as when female soldiers walked about in Western outfits with informal and careless American manners. This was the equivalent of having a stripper jump on stage and disrobe at a Baptist revival meeting, but it was not a one-time incident, it continued over time.
It was more provocative than my analogy can convey, for here was an insulting presence seemingly kept in place at gunpoint. This was sheer arrogance of power, and later yelling the word terrorism at the top of your voice ignores your own failed responsibilities.
Keep in mind that the CIA earlier had played with fire in Afghanistan, supplying and training associates of bin Laden's in America's dirty war against the Soviet Union. The resentments of fierce, traditional, mountain fighters were exploited with all the arts the CIA could summon to kill Soviet heretics. Not many years later, the same United States had troops in the holiest of lands with women, in the view of traditional Muslims, exposing themselves.
Vengeance is not legal in most societies, and it cannot be tolerated in international affairs. Vengeance-seekers must be brought to justice, but we should also learn something by the whole sad experience. What are we to make of America's actions after 9/11, most of which have been little more than vengeance on a global scale? Do you stop vengeance with vengeance? I don't think there are any good examples in history of that working. The examples set by the U.S. in this are extremely dangerous, especially its willingness to flout international law and concerns.
America's post-9/11 behavior resembles the careless, arrogant acts which caused people's sense of being violated in the first place, only now it comes on a grander scale. And the irritating context of Israel's refusal to deal fairly with its neighbors has been permitted to change from bad to worse. War on Terror? What we need is a war on stupidity.
I'm going to go out on a limb here just to raise a question that doesn't seem to get asked about the use of resources. What if the resources of the planet serve some vital function other than our exploitation of them? What if oil does something other than sit in the ground waiting to be pumped? What if iron and nickel serve some function sitting where they are at? What if veins of gold conduct important currents through the earth's crust? The U'wa of northeast Columbia have been struggling against the governments of Columbia and the US and Occidental Oil who want to exploit the oil under U'wa lands (see the U'wa Campaign for some good resource links and information). The U'wa believe that the oil is the blood of the Earth. Might they be right?
Virtually all discussions of resource exhaustion focus around how that is going to effect us. Maybe it is time to ask how that exhaustion might effect the Earth.
I felt less alone this morning when I read that Thalif Deen shared my sense of US hypocrisy regarding Bush's new plan to curb the proliferation of nuclear arms and materials ( New U.S. Plans for Nukes Hypocritical, Say Experts, IPS, 2/12/04). The "plan" calls for strengthening the IAEA, strengthening sanction of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), and controlling nuclear materials for energy production. Since the US openly declared its contempt for the NPT by declaring it was going to develop and produce a new generation of "strategic" nuclear weapons, and that the US was more than willing to use those weapons (and other WMD) preeemptivley, It is indeed hypocritical that the US should be making this mighty push to control expansion of nuclear material. On the other hand, it is perfectly in line with what seems to be the belief in the Administration, that only the US should have such weapons.
Last night I listened to Condi Rice discuss the new plan on The News Hour (2/11/04). One of the points she mentioned was that the US realized the need for nuclear power plants, and that the US would be willing to provide nuclear fuel to nations wanting to go that way, rather than have them producing their own nuclear material. My ears perked up. Her announcement was confirmed in Sanger's NY Times article Bush Proposes Fuel Ban to End Spread of A-Bombs (2/12/04).
Declaring that terrorists with deadly unconventional weapons pose "the greatest threat to mankind," President Bush announced a new proposal today to limit the number of nations allowed to produce nuclear fuel.In an afternoon speech at the National Defense University here, Mr. Bush called for a re-examination of what one administration official called the "basic bargain" underlying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: that those states that promise not to pursue nuclear weapons will receive help in producing nuclear fuel for power generation.
This is an interesting plan with some very interesting implications when you step back and think about it. On the surface, nations promising not to develop their own nuclear production technology will receive "ready to go" material from the US. This keeps nuclear processing technology and facilities within the hands of US corporations (the government is not making this material). So the corporations (and apparently the US government) will have a monopoly on both the technology and nuclear material. In light of the upcoming exhaustion of the global oil supply, this positions those corporations for a monopoly on what is likely to be pushed as the general energy source of the coming decades.
There is another issue however. What about the "spent" nuclear material? For the very same reasons why the US would supply the material in the first place, it cannot let go of control of the material after it is no longer useful for energy production. Stockpiles of spent nuclear material are as dangerous (if not more so) in potential terrorist hands than the original material itself. Further, since that material is no longer economically useful, the protection of it goes way down. Therefore the US can't leave spent fuel rods floating around in world. One assumes that it must come back to the US, but what are we going to do with it? We can't even figure out what to do with our own nuclear waste - much less the world's - oh yeah, we make "depleted" urananium munitions.
There is a slight issue in my mind as well about the transporting of this nuclear material around the globe. Transporting this material around the world exposes it to natural disaster (storms, crashes, ships sinking, etc) and to the possibility of theft of part or all of shipments. The theft issue has been of particular concern in the US with the relocation of nuclear waste from one location to another. I see no reason why it would not apply to global shipment as well. And i=other considerations aside, who is going to pay for this?
Perhaps, these small concerns have not been addressed in the "plan" yet. I'm sure they will eventually get to that point? I mean after figuring out how to corporately control the global nuclear trade with the backing of the US military, surely the issue of safety of sid material, and what to do with the waste can't be far behind - can it? Surely, there was some plan (for example) about what to do after "regime change" in Iraq - wasn't there?
(ps ... Isn't it strange that the initials for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is "NPT"? That looks like it stands for Nulcear Proliferation Treaty.)
Well, according to the Dept of Agriculture, the "mad cow" investigation is closed even though they only found one-third of the suspected cattle (U.S. Ends Investigation of Mad Cow Case, Vandantan, NYT 2/10/04). There, now don't you feel better? Of course, there are some other issues - and not just with cattle.
The Asian Avian Flu is still out of control, and over 10 million chickens and ducks have been killed to stop the spread. On the positive side, the WHO says no evidence people passing bird flu ... yet. But fear not, Scientists find how bird flu moves to humans from studying the 1918 outbreak that killed over 20 million people world wide. On the downside, this Bird Flu Twice as Deadly as Last Outbreak.
Not to be out done by someone else, the US is fighting its own battle with a different strain of "bird flu," and over 72,000 chickens at farms in Delaware have been destroyed.
Then early this winter, US consumers were warned to significantly reduce the amount of fish they were eating because of increasing mercury concentrations. My guess is this isn't just a US problem, as many of these fish are ocean-going.
Hmm, cattle questionable, chickens and ducks questionable, fish questionable. If the news is to be believed at this point that leaves those who eat meat the options of pork and sheep. Given that they are certainly not raised in any better conditions than cattle, chickens, or farm-raised fish, I would say it is just a matter of time until there are major problems there as well.
I want to make something very clear. These are NOT flukes, and the lesson is broad ranging. What we are seeing with food produced for human consumption is a direct result of intensive agriculture, and increasing the "efficiency" of food production. In other words, while these methods have dramatically increased the food supply, and have increased the profits of agribusiness, the diseases springing up are not accidental. Take heed. Make the connection, and spread that information on.
The Petrochemical industry and Bush are still arguing that human are not contributing to "climate change." Burn more, dump more, increase global consumption - hey humans have nothing to do with this. I bet we do.
The level of toxins in the environment from "modern" agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation are rising. There is no longer a known place on the earth that these toxins have not found their way. Humans, even in the most remote locations, have the presence of toxins and heavy metals in their blood. Meanwhile, the rates of auto-immune disorders (particularly among children) skyrocket, as do the rates of cancer. Globally, males sperm counts are dropping. These (like the threat to the "food" supply) are directly attributable to what we are putting into the environment.
I urge folks to make these connections because the corporate media doesn't (by and large). They give the news but not the connections. Everything seems to stand alone with its own independent causes (which rarely include what we are doing). Instead they push "life style choices" as the major issue. I'm not trying to minimize that, but it totally distracts from a much larger issue - the true costs of the environment we have created. So please help overcome the corporate media distraction. Help folks understand the relationships of cause and effect.
Alfred Cavallo has an interesting article in the Jan/Feb 2004 edition of the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists called Oil: The illusion of plenty. The discussion focuses around peak oil, but in particular the relationship to Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and the US. This is one of the more interesting articles I've read about why US control of Iraq's oil won't make the US (or anyone else) more oil secure.
Cavallo notes that the Iraq is estimated to have about 112 billion barrels of oil reserve. However, the global consumption (at this point) is approximately 27 billion barrels a year. He points out that Iraq's no reserves would meet the global needsw for onlyu about 4 years.
Cavallo goes on in this well reasoned article explaining how the invasion of Iraq actually strengthened Saudi Arabia's position - in part by contracting with them to increase production to account for the 2 million barrels a day lost during the invasion, and ongoing to date. The Saudis are the stop-gap, the stabilizer, and a huge power in OPEC which largely controls the cost per gallon. That cost far exceeds the cost of production from non-OPEC nations (by about $20 a barrel). This creates all the incentive to pump and push as much oil as possible to get in on the inflated pricing. Over the long run, this creates a perception of endless supplies while accelerating the depletion of this truly limited resource.
Cavallo has written an excellent article, so give it a look.
Feds Win Right to War Protesters' Records (Foley, AP, 2/08/04).
A federal judge in Des Moines, Iowa has ordered the Drake University to turn over the records of some anti-war activists. The protesters were present at a forum on 11/15/03 - "Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!". The court additionally ordered the school to turn over any information on those attending the forum. It also demands all records from the local chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild which sponsored the forum.
According to a copy obtained by The Associated Press, the Drake subpoena asks for records of the request for a meeting room, "all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting."It also asks for campus security records "reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting."
It seems clear that such as sweeping set of orders are intended to silence discussion of the war in Iraq through intimidation. By the account, this was a peaceful event. Presence at such an event is no crime, nor any reason for the vicious breach of privacy protections we hold under the constitution. Here we have people who most likely gathered to hear what was being said. That is part of what higher education is about. How will this affect other forums on this and other issues, if simple attendance is enough to bringone under the invasive eye of government?
But wait. That is not the only thing going on that is troublesome. There is new legislation under consideration to allow the
To meet these new requirements, funding is also to be made available to expand the Law Enforcement Support Center under the Attorney General. As noted on Anti-War Blog. the Campaign to DEMILITARIZE the POLICE has an effort going to defeat H.R. 3439 (also known as the "Maloney Bill"). While cities across the country stand up in opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act (which Bush wants to make permanent), there is a widening proliferation of these pieces of legislation. They show up in both stand-alone bills such as Maloney's, as well as integrated into other related and non-related legislation. Both this bill and the subpoena of all information related to a student forum are direct consequences of the policy of fear being perpetrated in this country. It may have started as manipulating the fears of citizens that they were imminently and constantly vulnerable to terrorist attack. However, it is being transformes in a variety of ways to make people afraid to participate in any kind of dialog that might be seen as against Bush policy. Those who argue that such practices are a "cost" of making America safe, overlook the fact that our participation is this "democracy" is not through edict and intimidation. They overlook just what we are losing. Or maybe they just don't care, or think it doesn't matter. If this continues there will be little of our democracy left to save.
The Justice Department's Report Finds No Abuse of Patriot Act (AP, 1/28/04). Why am I not surprised that the DOJ's investigation into the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act would find not constitutional violations with said Act? Of course the DOJ has lost in the lower courts on a variety of provisions of the Act, but it has appealed every one of them to the Supreme Court. I guess that if the DOJ doesn't accept a lower court's ruling then "technically" there are no violations of the Constitution. Of course, to admit that there are violations would undermine the
appeals wouldn't it?
Here is a sampling of decisions and appeals:
Can the government indefinitely detain "criminal" illegal aliens, Wa. Post, 1/17/04
The court rejects secret detention of two US citizens held as "terrorist" suspects, NY Times 12/19/03.
Can't prosecute a citizen on "secret evidence" without allowing testimony of individuals who could clear them (Moussaoui case), Uncommon Thought, 10/04/03
I' ve written numerous times here about the economy and job loss out of the country. It is clear, that what helps corporations does not help people. Now Michael Flaherty has the headline Corporate Profits Don't Lead to Hiring (Reuters, 2/08/04). Oh duh, I've been saying that for years. The expectation has been that (if you believe the line of "if you give money to corporations they will create jobs") Bush's give- aways to the corporations and the rich would increase employment. Or that holding down the prime would stimulate economic growth (including job growth). Nope, these are techniques that have died a lingering death under globalization and "free" trade.
As noted in Flaherty's article, "Indeed, even companies with quarterly profits soaring are shy about adding workers -- if they're not laying people off." Indeed, the report goes on - ""We listened to over a hundred quarterly earnings conference calls and we have not heard from anybody who says they are picking up the pace of hiring," said Richard Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research. "Not one.""
In another Reuter's article on 2/08/04 (Sluggish Job Growth May Threaten Recovery ) by Andrea Hopkins, she talks with economist Steven Woods who laments:"He worries the sluggish employment growth could eat into consumer confidence just as the economic recovery begins to gather steam -- undermining the shopping strength that helped pull America out of the recession." And consumer spending is a BIG piece of this economy according to Woods - 70%. A consumer nation indeed!
One would assume that if job growth isn't happening under all the "stimulus" here, that it must be happening somewhere else. Well, it may be growing somewhere, but as noted in the Al Jazeera report of 1/25/03 Global unemployment is at a record high.
What!!!?? one might ask, is going on? If you increase profits, how can you not increase employment? Simple, and we've been doing it for the last decade in the US. You decrease costs. One way to decrease costs is to decrease pay. Corporations have done this through "just in time" labor practices (hiring temporary labor), and using part time workers rather than full time. You can decrease costs by decreasing benefits. No need to elaborate on the loss of medical insurance, but it is tied up in both the cost and the labor strategies. You can decrease costs by getting rid of part of your labor force and expecting 2, 3, or 4 times the productivity from your remaining employees. Yep, most of us have experienced that as well. Finally, you can move those jobs to cheaper labor markets (globalization). And, yes we have seen that big time with manufacturing, and now increasingly with white collar service jobs.
But when you have cut all of those "costs" and done all of those strategies, what else can you do? Well, you start the process all over again with your international labor force. By and large, this is a labor force that is already working in exploitative conditions in national economies that have been degraded by various forms of colonialism (both the prototype, and the new globalized economic model). Who would one look to to see this exportaion of the US tried and true employment degradation but the largest retailer on the planet? Yes, you guessed it. Wal-Mart, the cost cutting leader, is cost cutting again - Chinese Workers Pay for Wal-Mart's Low Prices (Wa. Post, 2/08/04). Let me just extract a few of the more notable points of the article (emphases mine):
Most of the 2,100 workers here are poor migrants from the countryside who have come to this industrial hub in southern China for jobs that pay about $120 a month. A sign on the wall reminds them of their expendability in a nation with hundreds of millions of surplus workers: "If you don't work hard today, tomorrow you'll have to try hard to look for a job." ...More than 80 percent of the 6,000 factories in Wal-Mart's worldwide database of suppliers are in China. Wal-Mart estimates it spent $15 billion on Chinese-made products last year, accounting for nearly one-eighth of all Chinese exports to the United States. If the company that Sam Walton built with his "Made in America" ad campaign were itself a separate nation, it would rank as China's fifth-largest export market, ahead of Germany and Britain.
...
"Wal-Mart pressures the factory to cut its price, and the factory responds with longer hours or lower pay," said a Chinese labor official, who declined to be named for fear of punishment. "And the workers have no options."
...
"In the beginning, we made money," said a manager reached by telephone, who gave his name as Mr. Li.
"But when Wal-Mart started to launch nationwide distribution, they pressured us for a special price at below our cost. Now, we're losing money on every box, while Wal-Mart is making more money."
So there you have it. Except that the largest consumer nation the world has ever had is falling on its behind. Workers with no, or degraded jobs are slowing down consumption. Cheap credit only goes so far before folks get very nervous and stop spending beyond necessities. The stranglehold of corporations like Wal-Mart has on China can also only go so far (we hope). So at least in the short term, profits can go up while the lived economy (the people) suffocates under the weight of an economic foot on our necks.
Nicholas Kristoff has an interesting editorial in the 2/07/04 NY Times - Secret Obsessions at the Top - discussing how agendas can affect intelligence. In it he notes:
When a country's capital is in the grip of hard-line ideologues who demand a certain kind of intelligence, they'll get it. The result is an intelligence failure. And, more fundamentally, it's a political failure by the top leaders themselves.
Finally, we hearing the word "neo-conservatives" more frequently. There may be some who are wondering who these ideologues are. An excellent place to start is at a neo-conservative think tank called The Project for a New American Centruy (PNAC)
PNAC is the group that has brought us our National Security Strategy under the Bush Administration. Well before GW went into office, they were hard at work. In the PNAC's "Statement of Principles" they state:
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.Some of those signing on to the principles are may be familiar, and some you may not have heard of. Some of those who participated in the PNAC's strategy document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" may also seem familiar. Information of the folks involved are included in the addendum at the end of this article.
What becomes in looking at the biographical info on those linked to PNAC is that they are both an ideologically and familialy incestutous group. They are related in various ways: throught marriage, or as children of other members; by spawning an array of conservative "think tanks" and political action committees; through their placement in the highest levels of both appointed and elected office. In looking through those at PNAC, and particularly the positions of those who participated in the creation of "Rebuilding ...", one might wonder what so many people working for the government are involved. WOuldn't this be a conflict of interest? I encourage you to read through the brief bios below. I think you may be startled.
ADDENDUM
(Basic info is from Disinfopedia or The Four Reasons.org unless otherwise noted)Elliott Abrams Member of the National Security Council (NSC). Indicted in the Iran/Contra investigation for lying to Congress. Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs, including Arab/Israel relations.
Gary Bauer One of the darlings of right wing Christian organizations. Intitated several PACs including "Campaign for Working Families" that contributed large amounts to Newt Gingrich's campaign. Sec. of Ed. under Reagan.
William J. Bennett Current Co-Chair of Empower America (see Libby below). His influence in the current administration is reflected in the 5/8/03 CommonDreams article William Bennett: Next Viceroy of Iraq?/
Jeb Bush GW's brother and Governor of Florida.
Dick Cheney Vice President of the US under GW Bush
Eliot A. Cohen Has worked with Rumsfeld, and taught at the Naval War College. Bio at IRC's Right Web. Member of the Comm. for the Liberation of Iraq and the American Enterprise Institute. Also a member of the Defense Policy Board.
Midge Decter (Right Web source) . Midge is married to Podhoretz (see below). She is also on the boards of The Heritage Foundation, Comm. for a Free World, and the Hoover Institution. She has written a biography of Rumsfeld ("Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait")
Paula Dobriansky (Right Web) GW's Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, and a fellow at the Hudson Institute. Sr. VP for the Washington office of the CFR (Disinfopedia entry).
Steve Forbes Son of publishing magnate Malcolm Forbes. He too was on the Empower America board (previous from Disinfopedia).
Aaron Friedberg (Right Web) Cheney's Deputy National Security Adviser and one of the founders of PNAC.
Francis Fukuyama (Right Web) - on the policy planning staff of the US Dept. of State in the 1980's, and on GW's Chair on the Council for Bioethics (Disinfopedia listing on the Council for Bioethics).
Frank Gaffney (Right Web) Protoge of Richard Perle. Founder of Center for Security Policy, and adviser for Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT). Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle ( Bio from Center for Security Policy).
Fred C. Ikle (Right Web) Ikle is also with the Center for Security Policy, and formerly affiliated with RAND, The American Enterprise Institute (with Cohen above). He was an Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan.
Donald Kagan (Right Web) Trustee of the Hudson Institute. His son (Robert) so-edited a book with William Kristol. He is Robert Kagan's father (see below) Disinfopedia listing).
Zalmay Khalilzad (Right Web) US Ambassador to Afghanistan and now consultant to Iraq - both under GW. Served as primary representative for Unocal to Afghanistan to set up the gas pipeline. He is also a Sr. Analyst for RAND, and he made close ties to the Taliban when acting as intermediary for Reagan.
I. Lewis Libby Chief of Staff for Cheney. Good friend of Wolfowitz. See also Biographies of the Neo-cons: Lewis Libby & Norman Podhoretz. Currently "Scooter" is entangled in the investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Libby is also a former Chair of Empower America, another neo-conservative organization that has education as one focus. Empower America also has other notable intimately involved including Lynne Cheney (Dick's wife), Bill Bennett (also on PNAC), and Dick Armey.
Norman Podhoretz (Right Web) Podohertz' daughter is married to Elliot Abrams. See also Biographies of the Neo-cons: Lewis Libby & Norman Podhoretz. He was a Sr. Fellow at Hdson, and Co-Founder for Comm. for the Free World, and on the CFR.
Dan Quayle Yes Bush Sr's Vice President. He is involved with the Hudson Institute and is on the Defense Policy Board (Right Web Bio).
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense. He is a trustee for Freedom House, a member of the National Security Council, and is currently the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Right Web Bio).
Stephen P. Rosen Was a professor at the US Naval War College, and Director of Political-Military Affairs at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan.
Henry S. Rowen a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. "Rowen was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the U.S. Department of Defense (1989-1991) and chairman of the National Intelligence Council (1981-1983). Rowen served as President of the RAND Corporation (1967-1972) and was Assistant Director, U.S. Bureau of the Budget (1965-1966). He is a member of the Department of Defense's Defense Policy Board (disinfopedia)." He is a member of the Defense Policy Board.
Donald Rumsfeld Secretaty of Defense under GW Bush. He is also tied to the Hoover Institution, Empower America, RAND, Freedom House, Comm for the Free World and the Center for Security Policy (Right Web Bio).
Vin Weber (Disinfopedia) Former US Representative from Minnesota and Co-Founder of Empower America. He was a campaign adviser for GW, involved in the Aspen Group (Right Web Bio).
George Weigel (Right Web) - Sr. Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Council. He is also on the CFR ( Disinfopedia - New World Order).
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense for Rumsfeld. Disinfopedia Bio
Who Heads PNAC
William Kristol, Chairman
Robert Kagan
Bruce P. Jackson
Lewis E. Lehrman
Mark Gerson
Randy ScheunemannA key document that was produced prior to GW Bush coming into office was Rebuilding America's Defenses. What follows is a list of those who participated in preparing this particular report:
Roger Barnett - U.S. Naval War College
Alvin Bernstein - National Defense University
Stephen Cambone - National Defense University
Eliot Cohen - Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Devon Gaffney Cross - Donors' Forum for International Affairs
Thomas Donnelly - Project for the New American Century
David Epstein - Office of Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment
David Fautua - Lt. Col., U.S. Army
Dan Goure - Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan - Yale University
Fred Kagan - U. S. Military Academy at West Point
Robert Kagan - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Killebrew - Col., USA (Ret.)
William Kristol - The Weekly Standard
Mark Lagon -Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Lasswell - GAMA Corporation
I. Lewis Libby - Dechert Price & Rhoads
Robert Martinage - Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment
Phil Meilinger - U.S. Naval War College
Mackubin Owens - U.S. Naval War College
Steve Rosen - Harvard University
Gary Schmitt - Project for the New American Century
Abram Shulsky - The RAND Corporation
Michael Vickers - Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment
Barry Watts - Northrop Grumman Corporation
Paul Wolfowitz - Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Dov Zakheim - System Planning Corporation
The Reuters' headline reads Pentagon Dumps Vulnerable Internet Voting System (2/06/04).
The Pentagon heeded the advice of cyber-security experts who urged in a Jan. 21 report the program be abandoned because it was impossible to create a voting system with current personal computers and the Internet that would stop hackers or terrorists from tampering with election results.
This is really pretty big news all things considered. First, "electronic voting" is the big push in the US these days despite ongoing concerns ( Test of Electronic Balloting System Finds Major Security Flaws, Schwartz, NYT, 1/30/04). I recommend the Black Box Voting to track the whole issue of electronic ballot tampering risks.
Second, is who has just lost the contract for the US military's voting system - Arthur Anderson under their new moniker "Accenture" - Offshore Company Captures Online Military Vote (Landes, Scoop, 7/16/03). Yes comrades the accounting firm that allegedly colluded with our old friend ENRON ... and you thought they were history.
It will be very interesting to see if the Pentagon's decision has any effect on electronic voting in general. The whole thing may just "slip under the radar" so to speak.
I got this from the Petition Site mailing list and thought I would pass it on. It has links to the Presidential canditates (including Bush's) platforms - Candidate Platforms. Thee platform summaries include: Energy, Global Warmning, Public Lands, Health Care, Eudcation, (Bush) tax cuts, Women's Right to Choose, and War with Iraq.
There is an interesting article in the February 9, 2004 edition of Fortune Magazine - CLIMATE COLLAPSE - The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare - by David Stipp. The Pentagon is apparently taking "climate change" seriously even if the White House is not. The Pentagon called in Andrew Marshall, who has been the the Defense Department's "sage" for over thirty years, to look at the scenarios.
Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may be shaping up today probably has more to do with us. In 2001 an international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities—mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes. A few years ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or grandkids. Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not conveniently wait until we're history.
The perception of the pace of global warming is rapidly shifting (as I have discussed before here on Uncommon Thought). Rather than a gradual warming taking a century or more we are looking at a much shorter timeline - a decade or less. Further, rather than getting significantly warmer and staying warmer for some time, there is likely to be a relatively rapid descent into an ice age - severity and duration unknown. The reasoning is based upon evidence of previous ice ages and what seemed to precede them.
The pattern seems to go: warming, shut down of the "ocean conveyor," ice age, warming towards normal. The northern hemisphere seems to get hit the worst by ice ages. The warming melts the polar caps and the North Atlantic current ("ocena conveyor") stops. On one hand, this stops the flow of the warmer ocean waters of the south from having their affect on both Western Europe and North America. The melting ice also decreases the salinity of the ocean which changes the force of the circulation patterns. It gets cold and stays cold until the polar caps restore themselves sufficiently to restart the ocean conveyor.
The warming that is happening at this point is rapid because of the massive contribution that we have made to that process (as noted in the quote above). Scientists now believe that the climate (nor Earth's balance) is limitlessly pliable. Rather once the balance moves out of a certain range, we have the "tipping point." The question right now is whether we are near, at, or past the tipping point. Regardless of when the conveyor shuts down, it is likely that there will be a rapid descent into an ice age. What is known as the "Little" ice age lasted from about 1500 to 1850 and brought violent storms, droughts, and very hard winters. From my reading of the article, neither the Pentagon nor the scientists expect anything so mild.
Some of the evidence noted in a supporting piece by Stipp (Growing Evidence of Scary Change:
• In tandem with rising average temperatures across the globe, 3% to 4% of the Arctic ice cap has melted per decade since about 1970.• Recently the Arctic's largest ice shelf broke up near Canada's Ellesmere Island, releasing an ice-dammed freshwater lake into the ocean. (Scientists believe that the similar melting of an Arctic ice dam 8,200 years ago triggered an episode of abrupt climate change.)
• The North Atlantic's salinity has declined continuously for the past 40 years—the most dramatic oceanic change ever measured.
• The flow of cold, dense water through a North Atlantic channel near Norway—part of the great ocean current that warms northern Europe—has dropped by at least 20% since 1950, suggesting that the current is weakening.
The article includes the Pentagon's "most likely" scenario for various place around the world, but let's focus on the one for the United States (from the main Stipp article):
Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.
This actually seems like a highly flawed scenario in my mind as it overlooks some critical issues, and is based on some possibly flawed assumptions. Let's start with the flawed assumptions.
First, this climatic change and resulting violence would probably take out most of our coastal cities which would kill and/or displace literally millions of people (13 million from NY City alone). These cities happen to also be the primary points of commerce (import and export), house the heart of both national and international finance, and the seat of the federal government and the Pentagon (Washington, DC). At the same time that this is happening, the drastic climatic changes will totally shift the various biosystems of the US. What is now the "bread basket" of the United States could face severe droughts, and winters rivaling Siberia. Areas that might be agriculturally productive may be under millions of tons of shopping malls and urban sprawl. Things will be tight. People will be hungry. The global proposition of the "haves and have-nots" will be taking place nationally as much as it will internationally.
The next set of flawed assumptions is that the US infrastructure can withstand such a dramatic change. Across this nation, much of the infrastructure has and is deteriorated. The massive blackouts this last summer in the east were at least partially due to an inadequate and ill maintained power grid. Cities across this country are fighting failing water and sewer systems, and failing bridges, tunnels, and roadways. Even during the realtively posh times of the mid-1990s, infrastructure was not at the top of the list. Now, with most states running deficits, and no help from the federal government, infrastructure is not even on the radar screen. Ongoing declining funding for public education in Oregon has resulted in the diversion of funding for even regular maintenance - until buildings and systems fail. Cities and states are facing similar situations. A weakened infrastructure is not likely to withstand what appears to be hanging over us.
There are also critical issues that lead to significant problems. At the top of the list is the peak oil crisis. We are at, near, or beyond peak oil. In other words, the point at which half of the known global oil reserves have been depleted. At this point global consumption is not only not stabilizing, it is accelerating at a rapid rate. We are going to be in the middle of the loss of the world's primary power resource at the very time that we may need it the most. The loss of the oil, even without an ice age, is expected to result in the deaths of billions of humans (Life After the Oil Crash by Matt Savinar). The solution? Well, it seems that the Pentagon assumption is a mass transfer to nuclear power (which has its associated nuclear proliferation risks and is noted in the Stipp article). Problem? First, we don't have those plants in place. Second, they have not been particularly efficient or dependable. Third, what do we do with all that nuclear waste?
The oil crisis will hit agriculture as well. Not just planting and harvesting. Not just processing and transporting of product. The oil crisis will hit agriculture because we are using tons of oil as fertilizer to replace what we have stripped out of it by over-farming, and use of pesticides and herbicides.
I'll make this the last critical issue. The US cannot even feed itself - even though we have just about the best agricultural climate and landscape in the world. Why? Two reasons. First, like the rest of the globalized planet we are bound to an export/import economy. Agricultural products are among our top exports. That means that the production has been focused to a profitable export market and not to feeding the population of the United States. If you took the time to follow my recommendation and read Robert Mannings article "The Oil We Eat" in this month's Harpers, then the following statement might have jumped out at you:
America's biggest crop, grain corn, is completely unpalatable. It is the raw material for an industry that manufactures food substitutes. Likewise, you can't eat unprocessed wheat. You certainly can't eat hay. You can eat unprocessed soybeans, but mostly we don't. These four crops cover 82 percent of American cropland. ...About two-thirds of U.S. grain corn is labeled "processed," meaning it is milled and otherwise refined for food or industrial use. About 45 percent of that becomes sugar, especially high-fructose corn sweeteners...
So most of the agricultrual land is taken up by four crops that can't be used without utilizing more energy to make them edible. Further, that the processing that is set up does not create what we might consider a "healthy" diet - not one that we could probably live on for very long.
Therefore, the scenario that we can hunker down in fortress America and wait out the ice age is unlikely. It is more likely that the US, like much of the rest of the world will experience a massive die off. We will face massive social disruption as infrastructures and politcal structures bend and then fail. The space-based weapons systems the US is planning and building are certainly there, in part, because of just such a looming catastrophe. Of course, what they were looking at was capturing and controlling a dwindling resource supply in the face of globalization. With or without globalization the resources are dwindling. An ice age just accelerates the scenario and increases the risks - not lessens them.
This is truly a grim picture. But I don't think that it has to be quite as grim as I have depicted. My assumption is that we are unlikely to change the course we are on. It is possible that we could. Assuming that we are not past the climate tipping point, then massive reduction of global warming gases could slow (though not avert) what is going to happen. That would have the additional benefit of extending the global oil supply. We could address the impending climate change directly by strengthening infrastructure, refooting our economy, and moving populations from areas that are likely to be ravaged by rising oceans and the accompanying storms. We could prepare in a number of ways, and we could help the rest of the world do the same thing. This would lessen the threat of invasion or attack forseen by desperate masses trying to survive.
Would this bring us, or the rest of the world, through either the oil crisis or the ice age unscathed? No. Would it make it more likely that we (and other Earthly inhabitants) might survive? Yes. Would it have the additional benefit of working collaboratively with the rest of the world thereby reducing tensions and hostilities? I think so. Would it be possible to go into this event that will have global impact as a global community? Yes, I believe that as well. I believe that we could pull together rather than pulling apart, and that would be a wonderful thing to behold.
However, this takes acknowledging the problem and addressing it head on. So far the Bush administration hardly wants to admit there is an issue (either peak oil or global warming), even though the Pentagon is obviously thinking about how to militarily deal with these same events. Much of the nation is still arguing that global warming is a "theory" based on the corporate science that also doesn't want to address the issue because the current path is so profitable for them. So people need to know what is going on - in both the broad and long view as well as the specific issues. Maybe we can give our politicians the backbone to directly face these rather unpalatable truths.
The United States policy of preemptive war and the expressed readiness to use nuclear weapons spurred on an arms race. Apparently the Bush vision of setting up operations on Mars has started a space race. Check out Europe Joins the Race to Put a Man on Mars , Lovell, Reuters, 2/03/04. SInce our last space race was to keep a military advantage over the then Soviet Union, and the military aspects of the current race escape no one, does this mean that our allies are now in a military competition for Mars?
I am encouraging folks to read a great article out in the February 2004 edition of Harpers entitled "The Oil We Eat" by Richard Manning. The article is not available on line at this time, but here are some teaser pieces"
- Humans consume about 40% of everything there is on the earth. "This simple number may explain why the current extinction rate is 1000 timkes that which existed before human domination of the planet."
- "Iowa's fields require the energy of four Nagasaki bombs every year"
- "On average, it takes 5.5 gallons of fossil energy to restore a year's worth of lost fertility to an acre of eroded land - in 1997 we burned through more than four hundred years' worth of ancient fossilized productivity."
-"... if all the world ate the way the United States eats, humanity would exhaust all known global fuel reserves in just over seven years."
This is a truly excellent article. When it is available online, I'll post the link, but don't wait till then to read it.
In bits a pieces there seems to be a pattern emerging around US military strength and deployment. It is no secret that Rumsfeld's vision for the military is to downsize troops and increase technology. The plan involves moving towards a force where highly trained (and in the future perhaps modified) soldiers operate in a high tech, rapid deployment units, backed by more high tech armaments (i.e. smart bomb technology, lasers, space-bsed systems, etc). The first minor test of this was Iraq, where many have complained that there was/is just not enough "boots" on the ground. However, I don't think that the "plan" is as simple as it generally being framed.
There are a number of things that are playing out right now: downsizing or closure of some bases overseas with redeployment to other areas; closing of US military bases; issuance of "stop loss" orders to soldiers due to end their enlistments; privatizing large sections of military operations; increasing the size of the standing military.
There is a global repositioning of US forces happening. Bases in the US are closing, but smaller command center type operations are being redeployed all over the globe - particularly in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. This would appear to be part of the "rapid deployment" scenario that Rumsfeld wants to have. Whatever the hopes for highly trained super soldiers, those forces do not exist (at least not in numbers) at this time. The placement of troops around the globe requires more troops not less, and so the numbers are inching up. The force size is being extended by the issuance of "stop loss" orders and by adding new troops to the mix. ("Stop loss" orders extend the tours of military personnel indefinitely.) Rumsfeld is also contracting out to private companies tasks that were formerly within the military (from communications, to food service to security). However, unlike Ridgeway (12/04/03), I don't think the goal is a total privitzation of the military. Rather, a way of creating more deployable fighting troops.
All of this repositioning and increasing fighting force strength is happening rapidly. It is not simply an issue of more troops for Iraq. There are new "offensives" on the horizon, it is just not clear what all of them are. We do know that the Pentagon readies anti-al-Qaeda offensive inside Pakistan probably for spring of 2004, and that Rumsfeld exerting pressure on Bush to launch military strike against Syria. There has also been speculation about Iran, The Sudan, and North Korea. It is also clear that Russia is nervous about US activities and fears they may be a target ( Russia Preparing for Nuclear Attacks on U.S, Britain and Russia organizing nuke drill, and the strategically placed denial by Powell No plan to ‘surround’ Russia militarily: US).
Bush is expanding the Pentagon's budget for this year and the next and the next. Those increases do not reflect the cost of engagements. For example, above the planned 2004 Pentagon increase is the estimated $50 billion additional for Iraq. Nor does it reflect the proposed spring 2004 Pakistan/Afghanistan initiative. Each "theater" will have its own cost that will need funding above and beyond the planned increases.
So what do I see happening?
The Pentagon is repositioning for multiple offensives, or a sequence of offensives, in the near future. Like Iraq, these will be preemptive strikes with massive fire power and probably smaller force strengths than most would recommend. Troop size is being enhanced by the outsourcing or outright privatizing of previously military operations. It is also being (unconstitutionally) enlarged by adding active forces, and stopping exisiting forces from leaving the military. The massive troop cycling currently going on in Iraq may serve a political purpose, but it is also setting up for the redeployment of those forces later in 2004 or early 2005. The timing seems to also to match the deployment contracts for Reserve and Guard forces (as I understand them anyway).
In the short term (from now until 2008), it looks to me like the US is being set up to go through a series of preemptive military invasions. We will soo start to see what the generatio long (or multi-generational) "war on terrorism" looks like.
Resources
11/24/03 Hallinan, FPIF, RUMSFELD'S NEW MODEL ARMY
Privitization
2/02/04 Cahlink, GovExec, Pentagon sets plan to convert, outsource, military jobs
12/08/03 Wolf, UTJ, New kinks in the military-industrial complex
12/04/03 Ridgeway, Village Voice, Secretary of Defense Aims to Privatize the U.S. Military
Troop Strength
1/29/04 Graham, Wa. Post, 30,000 More Soldiers Approved by Rumsfeld
1/05/04 AFP, Army to Extend Iraq Tours for Thousands of Soldiers
12/29/03 Hockstader, Wa. Post, Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
Targets/Bases
7/05/03 Schmitt, NYT, THREATS AND RESPONSES: EXPANDING U.S. PRESENCE; PENTAGON SEEKING NEW ACCESS PACTS FOR AFRICA BASES
1/14/04 IraqWar.ru, Rumsfeld exerting pressure on Bush to launch military strike against Syria
11/23/04 Bender, Boston Globe, Shift Begins For Military Overseas Large-Scale Redeployment Around World
1/28/04 SpaceWar, Pentagon readies anti-al-Qaeda offensive inside Pakistan
3/18/03, NewsMax, Russia Preparing for Nuclear Attacks on U.S, Britain
1/31/04 Isachenkov, Oakland Tribune, Russia organizing nuke drill
1/28/04 Daily Times/Pakistan, No plan to ‘surround’ Russia militarily: US
2/02/04 Reuters, Antidepressant Use by Moms-To-Be May Affect Baby
This is just a heads up. The study released today indicates that common anti-deperessants taken by pregnant women may effect their babies. While common SSSRIs (Paxil, Prozac, etc) have not proven to cause birth defects, this study seems to indicate that there are "neurobehavioral effects" (tremors, fewer changes in behavior, etc). The infants in the study were from birth to 40 hours. It is not known at this point if there might be long term effects.
Emily sent along a piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution - Dumbing down our past doesn't serve our future (Jarrell, 1/25/04) that is a frightening plan. Georgia plans to change the K-12 history curriculum of the state. They plan to start with 1500 and go through the 21st century. On the chopping block ? The Greeks and the start of democracy, all of the early philosophers, Egypt is gone (and Mesopotamia too I imagine), Louisana Purchase, Lewis and Clark, good bye Trail of Tears, both Lincoln and Lee have been deleted. Wonder if they left in the Civil War?
Aside from being horrified by the essential deletion of much of western and US history, I have to wonder at the selection process of what to leave and the context in which it is to be taught. History teachers in Georgia have to go back for training on how to teach the new curriculum. I have a sinking feeling that the curriculum is being designed to meet the new "standards" of the testing underlying "No Child Left Behind." If so, then Georgia is just the first.
I teach sociology, but I sometimes feel that I am teaching history. Students knowledge of history on the whole is already weak. For most, the history they learn is already woefully editted of important information (in my opinion). WHether it is an honest knowledge of Colombus, or the immigration laws of the US - most are unaware of the events. Likewise for Jim Crow laws, and the Civil Rights Movement (beyond Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech).
There are ongoing complaints from the radical right that education has an "agenda." The history lite that Georgia plans also seems to have an "agenda."
Ok, so I'm a little slow on the uptake. Along with blowing away Uncommon Thought, I blew away the notification list. I just realized that today. I have now rebuilt the list from my backup, and so you should get this. There have been several posts over the last few days. I didn't just go away on vacation.
Thanks for your patience.
The WHO has been very nervous about the Avian Flu outbreak in eastern Asia. They may now move to full anxiety as Human transmission feared in Vietnam bird flu deaths (Reuters 2/01/04). Two Vietnamese sisters have died from the flu after having possibly contracted it from their brother. This is just what everyone did not want to hear.
If you have been watching the news, the "bird flu" has become a regular report. Disaster was apparently averted in China several years ago with the slaughter of millions of birds. The new wave still seems to be spreading with at least five countries reporting the disease. The big fear has been that it would move from a bird-to-human transmission path to a human-to-human transmission path. It is possible that it has done so.
Just last night I watched a Canadian report on the possibility that the flu was feared to have been transmitted to pigs. That report was tremendously worrisome because pigs are so close to humans that transmission to humans would be inevitable. The reality is that Avian flu has been a time bomb for quite a while. Scientists have been learily watching for anything that would signal it was moving towards human-to-human transmission. If it has moved to pigs, or if it has moved to a human transmissable virus, then the feared flu pandemic is on our doorstep.
What's the big deal? Well a pandemic is a disease that covers a wide territory, and effects large portions of the population. All we have to do is look back to the spread of SARS and see what this might mean in an age of rapid transportation.
The Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 is estimated to have killed somewhere between 20 and 40 million people (The Influenza Pandemic of 1918). Today, we have a much larger global population, and rapid movement of people across the globe could make the 1918 Pandemic look like a cold.
This is an emerging disease that bears close watching. Certainly both nations and the World Health Organization are biting their nails.