The Saudi's unpegged their currency from the dollar for the first time since the oil dollar was established. They had no choice; it would have been suicide for them to follow Bernanke's move. And elsewhere, other countries will have to follow suit or the US will drag them down. Japan is scrambling for shore.

Not long after the cut in interest rates, the dollar passed a key point against the Euro when it surpassed 1.41 dollars to one Euro. Since then the value of the dollar has continued to drop. The US dollar has been dropping against the Euro since January 2003. It now worth less than 59% of the value it had four years ago. At this point a dollar crash is nearly inevitable. US dollars may soon have as little value as confederate dollars.

For many years we have depended on foreign investors to support our economy by stockpiling our currency. These foreign investors cannot hold onto their dollars for much longer. Already they have lost over 40% of their investment. They will have to cut their losses and divest. This has already started to happen, and as the sell-off accelerates the dollar will find itself in a freefall which will quickly leave it a worthless currency. A massive sell-out could see the dollar losing as much as 90% of its value within days.

Snake Oil

You would not know any of this from the major news networks. They are trying to tell us that the drop in the dollar is actually a good thing. They reason that foreign consumers will flock to the US to buy devalued goods. This is a load of crap, and they know it.

US goods will not devalue. There are very few goods that are wholly US-made today. Most are at least partially manufactured offshore. Because of that, US goods will not devalue, they will simply go up in price. Soon, US consumers will find that their dollars can only purchase half of what they currently buy. And this ratio will worsen as the dollar continues to plunge. Once this crash is complete, US consumers will learn that they have lost everything. They will find that their salaries, their pensions, their health insurance coverage, everything is worthless.

So why is the media trying to sell us this lie? Simply to keep up consumer confidence. If US consumers understood what was really happening, there would be a panic. The truth could cause a run on the banks. Along with foreign investment, consumer spending is the only other pillar supporting the US economy. Consumer spending has already become sluggish. If the reality of our situation were understood, US consumer spending would quickly crumble.

The smart money is already fleeing the US market. It is diversifying into precious metals and a host of other currencies. It is quietly moving outside of the US. This migration has been going on for years, but now it is beginning to speed up. Yet, while this flight is going on, they want the general public to remain unalarmed. The smart money is trying to make its exit before a stampede blocks the fire doors. There were only so many lifeboats on the Titanic and the first class passengers were evacuated before anyone else was allowed out of steerage.

Black Monday and Bloody Tuesday

Monday, October 1st is the day of fiscal reckoning. October 1st is New Year's Day for businesses, and on that day all the banks are required to open their books and honestly assess their current standing. The fear for the last couple months is that more than a few banks may close their doors. On Monday, we will find out for sure.

For several years now, the banks have been playing wide and loose with loans and investments. Spurred by low interest rates, they lured in consumers and home owners into mortgages and loans that they simply could not afford. It used to be that a bank would underwrite and fund every loan it made. But in the past decade, banks have developed the practice of making loans, storing them on their balance sheets for a short period of time and then packaging them into derivatives called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). These CDOs were then sold off to investors expecting a high rate of return on the investment. Through this mechanism, the banks did not tie up their own collateral with the loans they issued, so they could issue more and more loans.

CDOs were bought up by insurance companies, hedge fund managers, pension funds and even other banks throughout the world. Due to low interest rates, these managers even purchased CDOs with borrowed money. The CDOs themselves became collateral for more borrowing.

There are hundreds of billions of CDOs out there, and until now it has been mostly speculation as to what percentage is junk. Monday, October 1st the banks will have to fess up, and we will know once and for all whether or not they are capable of covering their losses. The losses in CDOs will be amplified and complicated by the problem of commercial paper.

"Commercial paper is highly-rated short-term notes that offer investors a safe haven investment with a yield slightly above certificates of deposit or government debt. Banks use the money to purchase longer-term investments such as corporate receivables, auto loans, credit card debt, or mortgagees." (Wall Street Journal 9-5-07)

There is $2.2 trillion in commercial paper in the US. Much of this commercial paper is currently worthless because it is tied to toxic CDOs. Yet the banks are obligated to cover this commercial paper and refinance it regularly. Right now nobody will touch anything connected to CDOs, so the banks are sitting on whatever commercial paper they have in their possession and will have to cover its finances and make up for its losses on their own.

And here is the problem. The banks do not have the collateral to cover hundreds of billions in commercial paper and failing CDOs. So they have turned to the Fed, and their friend Bernanke has tried to come to their rescue by making billions in emergency bank loans and by lowering the interest rate. This lowering of the interest rate will not be used to lure in more shady mortgages. Nobody is offering mortgages right now. The funny money the Fed is currently printing up is supposed to help cover the banks' losses.

Unfortunately, it is too little too late. Nor would it solve the problem anyway. The toxic CDOs are still there, as is the commercial paper. At best, the lowering of interest rates will simply buy a little time, while making the crash worse when it does come. That is all Bernanke was hoping to achieve when he lowered rates last week. And he did this as a wager that the weak dollar would not unravel as a result.

That is precisely what is happening. The dollar is unraveling, and on Monday, October 1st, we will find out just how much help Bernanke provided to his banker friends. If the banking news is as grim as many analysts believe it will be, then we will hear of banks defaulting and closing their doors. Thousands of small businesses and millions of regular customers will find that they cannot access their accounts. Where they can do so, there may be runs on the banks until they do close their doors.

A Black Monday will likely be followed by a bloody Tuesday as the banking news leads to a route on the stock market. In this climate, the dollar is likely to plummet even farther as foreign investors hurry to divest themselves of their shrinking dollars. It could all be over for the US economy before the week is out. And we may well see our once vain public standing in soup lines by the beginning of November.

Police States & the North American Union

Yes, we already live in a police state. But after the economy crashes, they will act to consolidate this police state and bring it to a new level of repression. Protests will be dealt with severely and encampments of the homeless will be aggressively policed.

It is possible that they will ram through new debt regulation that could turn the US into a nation of debt-servitude. The power-players may walk away from their financial obligations, but they will not want the general public to do so. If you can declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, do so right now. Otherwise, try to discharge all of your debts while the dollar still has some value.

Eventually the government will announce that it is abandoning the dollar and creating a new regional currency: the Amero. This new currency will coincide with plans for consolidating the US with Mexico and Canada. It will be announced as our answer to the European Union, and will be touted as the road to future prosperity.

It probably will bring some prosperity to large corporations. But for the rest of us, it will mean lower wages, environmental destruction, a strengthening of the police state and the further encroachment of fascism. The North American Union is just more snake oil to benefit the rich and oppress the rest of us.

Stock Up and Drop Out

What can be done to prepare for the worst? The best thing you can do right now is to stock up on essential goods before the dollar collapses and prices go up. Purchase dried goods such as beans, grains, flour, dehydrated milk and dried fruit. It would be wise to stock enough of these durables to last your family for a month. Keep them someplace dry and air tight.

You might also invest in other items such as soap, razor blades, batteries, gardening seeds, socks, and other small but important items. A good supply of fishing gear could come in handy. Bicycles, spare tires and bicycle trailers would also be good items to have around.

These are goods that you will find useful. They are also goods that will have a high barter value if the dollar becomes worthless. If you think about it for a while, you can probably come up with a long list of such items. Things such as deodorant, spices, solar stoves, water purification kits and/or tablets, antibiotics, vitamins and other first aid supplies could also be worth a premium.

After stocking up, it is time to wash your hands of the system which has brought us 9-11, the "War on Terror," global warming, energy and resource depletion, environmental destruction and increased economic disparity. George Bush told us how to do this when he told us that it was our patriotic duty to consume.

Stop consuming. Find some like-minded people and work on disconnecting yourself from the system. Default on your debts if you can and pay them off if you cannot. Leave your job and find a way to support yourself outside of the system. Stop going along with business as usual and build that sustainable lifestyle that we all know is the only sane alternative. Don't put it off any longer. Start right now while there is still a chance. Or you will find yourself slaving away in a collapsing police state in short order.

Collapse

Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army ''terrorist organizations,'' in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The hard-line dominated parliament cited U.S. involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.

''The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror,'' said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The resolution, which is seen as a diplomatic offensive against the U.S., urges Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations. It also paves the way for the resolution to become legislation that -- if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog -- would become law. The government is expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision.

Collapse

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that, consequent to this belief of American leaders, the U.S. had, even before the deployment of troops for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, around 752 military installations located in more than 130 countries with actual American military contingents stationed in 65 different foreign countries. They would have known that like all occupying powers, Americans have around 70,000 U.S. troops in Germany, 40,000 in Japan and about 37,000 in South Korea, where they have been since 1951. Add to it now around 140,000 troops (not counting the 100,000 Blackwater type mercenaries) in Iraq and another 27,000 in Afghanistan and one gets a fair inkling of American's idea of 'regeneration of the world' the American way. If wishes were horses.

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that that is THE reason their leaders believe that they could, by divine privilege, take any land they pleased. And that the land on planet earth, not just at home, was rightfully theirs and that every one else was merely squatting on their territory. Historically, therefore, their country has come off as an obstinate nation that would take what it wanted at any cost, 9/11 or no 9/11, the world opinion be damned. They would have known that surpassing by far the brutal ventures typical of European colonizers, the U.S. has, during the past several hundred years, annihilated millions of Native Americans, conquered half of Mexico, occupied Hawaii, subjugated the Philippines and taken the whole of Iraq and Afghanistan butchering a colossal number of the indigenous populations in all these places. If wishes were horses.

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that not only has their country rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law, their country itself is a leading terrorist state and has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in 1986). The 'War on Terror', therefore, is unwinnable because America needs to then declare a war on its own self and that it won't. If wishes were horses.

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that if by 'terrorism' only the 'terrorism of others' is meant then bombing the countries from where those terrorists come is not the solution to the problem but in fact a part of the problem. For if that had been the case the British would have bombed Belfast for IRA's bombing of London and one earlier American administration would have bombed Timothy McVeigh's home town for Oklahoma bombing. They did not. If wishes were horses.

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known the sordid history of their country's contemptuous attitude toward smaller countries of this planet. They would have known, for example, that back in the 80s, a tiny country by the name of Nicaragua was subjected to violent assault by their country in which tens of thousands of people died with that country itself substantially destroyed. They would have known that rather than responding by setting off bombs in Washington, a la the American way, the poor Nicaraguans went to the World Court that ordered the U.S. not only to stop the atrocities but also to pay reparations. The U.S. scornfully responded by escalating the attacks. The Nicaraguans next went to the Security Council who ruled in their favor. The U.S. derisively vetoed the resolution. The Nicaraguans then obtained a similar resolution from the General Assembly. The U.S. and Israel opposed that one for two years in a row. If wishes were horses.

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that the world does not hate them for the values cherished by them; it rather aspires for the same. It abhors their duplicitous attitude, their hypocritical behavior and their cruel conduct on the world stage. It loathes them for their 'freedom' cries while sitting atop massive piles of human corpses. It despises their double embrace of the dictators the world over while singing sweet 'democracies' to their subjects. It hates them for their ruthless killing of half a million Iraqi children and then calling the effort, "worth the price". If wishes were horses.

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that the whole world is cognizant of the horrible injustice to the Palestinians and America's blind allegiance to the perpetrators. And that their bosom buddy Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza 35 years ago and over the course of these 35 years Israel has killed, blinded, mutilated, crippled and disfigured thousands of men, women and children, destroyed thousands of homes, businesses, hospitals, and schools, incarcerated and tortured hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. If wishes were horses.

If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that over the years they have become too strong for their own good. They are all muscle and sinew now and no brains. They would have known that with the deadly, single minded purpose of a troll, they trample on through the blood and bones of their diabolical administrations' innocent victims without hearing their cries. They would have known what their great country has come down to. They would have heard the windy, lonely, desperate last cries of the soul of America across its forlorn skies each night as it continues to crash into black nothingness;

Oh! Oh! This fiery height!

Oh, my feet of fire!

My burning feet of fire

(Algernon Blackwood, The Wendigo)

If wishes were horses.

Collapse

CB: Please explain the Vermont secessionist movement and why many Vermonters support it. Why do you support it? What do you think might happen to Vermont if secession does not happen?

RW: The Vermont secession impulse is born out of our understanding that the United States - once a great republic - has become an unsustainable Empire governed by a very few. Beyond massive (and bipartisan) national electoral fraud, 9/11's unanswered questions, a "war on terror" (that will not end, we are told, in our life times), the collapse of the U.S. Constitution, the erosion of civil liberties, and the practicing of "disaster capitalism" on a massive scale by political and economic elites, the U.S. is simply too big to function as a democratic republic in its current state. In other words, as astute observers from across the political spectrum have pointed out, the Empire is essentially ungovernable, unsustainable, and un-reformable.

We in the Vermont independence effort are a growing group of citizens who have moved beyond frustration with the current imperial system and are championing a more honest and hopeful paradigm - that of "small is beautiful" sustainability and, if need be, peaceable secession from the Empire, and the re-invention of Vermont as an independent republic, as it was from 1777 to 1791. Contrary to popular belief, New England was the first region of the country to openly call for secession - not once but several times - during the early 19th century, for similar reasons as our own in the 21st: concern about growing corporate and commercial power, and legitimate fears of a centralized federal/statist apparatus that trumps local decision-making and state sovereignty. Given expansive federal regulatory power over our food (USDA), our airwaves (FCC), our animals and livestock (NAIS), our educational endeavors (NCLB), and every other aspect of our lives, it makes sense to take a good hard look at some legitimate alternatives that exist as a forgotten part of the U.S. political tradition - this is what we are doing here at Vermont Commons newspaper.

While this is no small task, as a patriot and a secessionist both, I support Vermont independence (and indeed, the restoration of sovereignty for all states within this allegedly "indivisible" Union) because I think that peaceable secession is the only viable way to save what we so deeply appreciate about the ideals and values of our United States. And, without sounding too grandiose, secession may allow us to help sustain our civilization as a whole as we seek to "re-invent" our former republic-turned-Empire in the face of emerging "big picture" problems such as climate change, global peak oil, and the excesses of corporate globalization, what former Bush/Wall Street insider Catherine Austin Fitts calls the "tapeworm economy."

CB: What does a "sustainable" lifestyle mean to you? What percentage of Vermonters would you say are living this way?

RW: "Sustainability" can be one of those vague and meaningless buzz words that is often used without thought. To me, living "sustainably" means practicing pragmatic but careful stewardship of our spiritual, physical, and economic resources - which leads, of course, to a thousand thoughtful daily decisions about how we live our lives. Vermont has a long tradition of frugality, self-reliance, community support, and what we call "Yankee ingenuity" - we'll need all of these qualities in spades moving forward into this new century, which will look very different than the previous one.

And becoming more "sustainable" is a personal and collective process. Five years ago, my wife of fifteen years and I didn't own land, keep chickens, split, stack and heat our home with local wood, grow and store some of our own food, and press our own cider, and now we do - thanks to continued collaboration with friends and neighbors who are as interested in these same sorts of issues, and are intent on finding local solutions to big picture problems.

CB: How and where do you see re-localization happening in Vermont? Which areas of the state are more supportive of the concept?

RW: Vermonters are speaking out on climate change (witness the Step It Up campaign, born out of a 5 day collective walk on behalf of "taking action on climate change" one year ago here in Vermont); beginning to adapt new and more local agricultural and energy/food consumption habits (our exploding Localvore movement, for example); conserving land for agricultural spaces (our vibrant land trust movement); seeking "alternative" energy solutions to fossil fuels (the explosion of local solar and wind companies here), and generally beginning to engage in some collective head-scratching about how we might steer our civilization towards more sustainable paths. Every Vermonter I know has a garden and knows how to grow food. Regarding regions, every section of Vermont is working on these dilemmas in their own ways. In one sense, I feel like Vermonters are returning to their roots by reviving practice in self-reliance and "do it yourself"-ness.

CB: Can Vermont feed itself? There is much talk of this, but in a state where the ground is frozen 8 months out of the year, how can Vermonters make this happen?

RW: You need a good-sized root cellar to pull this off! But more and more Vermonters I know are rediscovering the satisfaction that comes with canning, pickling, and preserving; of raising chickens and other livestock; of growing their own food and supporting CSAs, farmer's markets, and farmers who are their neighbors. Specialty foods, many grown locally, are becoming a Vermont hallmark, as well. Once upon a time, one hundred years ago, Vermont proved much more self-sufficient then it is now. We have spent much time and energy these past few decades trying to preserve our family-owned dairy farms in the midst of a global dairy economy that milks them alive, while ignoring other agricultural needs - but we're getting savvier in this arena, as well.

And one cannot exist on maple syrup, milk and cheese, and apple cider alone - ultimately, we need some state leadership on diversifying our food economy, beyond our "Buy Local" campaign, and we are, of course, continually discovering the joys of trading with our neighbors, as well as remaining plugged into a global food network while we can.

CB: How are Vermonters changing their form and quantity of energy consumption? How feasible is solar energy in Vermont? What other forms of natural energy are being used? How widespread is this usage?

RW: We Vermonters live in the midst of interesting times for energy here - 2/3 of our state's electricity, for example, is generated by so-called "clean" non-carbon-emitting energy sources - Vermont Yankee Nuclear in the western portion of the state, and HydroQuebec, which owns the eastern border's Connecticut River dams projects. The problem here is that Vermonters ultimately don't have much say over the future of either of these out-of-state corporate energy sources, as "clean" as people perceive them to be in the short term. The state public service board, the legislature, and, to some extent, the governor's office have all made some strides towards renewable and "alternative" energy. I think, though that local Vermonters and businesses are ahead of the curve. I've got neighbors who are growing solar panels in their back yard, bringing in wood stoves for more biomass, conducting energy audits to make their homes and businesses much more efficient, and the like. And this is what it takes - let a thousand ideas and projects bloom here in the Green Mountains.

Big picture - as with sustainable agriculture, there are many ideas on the table re: energy - my current favorite is a proposal I just read suggesting that we plant 100,000 acres of switch grass across the state. Switchgrass is a relatively carbon-friendly and renewable form of biomass energy - which could theoretically replace the entire state's imported natural gas supply for heating our Vermont homes and businesses all winter. We've also gotten tremendous mileage out of our "Efficiency Vermont" energy conservation program - though there is much more work to do here. We are a state with the second oldest building stock in the Empire, too, so re-tooling our buildings to make them more energy efficient is key. In short, there is plenty of work to be done, and we're well on our way. The bottom line is - we have to figure out how to do more with less energy, and do it more efficiently, and "incentive-ize" this in any way that we can.

CB: One of Vermont's principle "industries" is education with the state spending more on education than many other states do. Is there opposition in the state to the No Child Left Behind Act? If so, how is this opposition being expressed? To what extent are people home-schooling their children?

RW: I've been a local school board member for several years now. While they have their problems, Vermont's public schools are among the highest-performing of all fifty states within the Empire - we seem to be able to absorb NCLB's demands - often unrealistic, opportunistic, and under-funded - without flinching too much, and, while I work with a vocal minority of NCLB critics, I am surprised there isn't more public opposition to NCLB from the rank and file, though most teachers and administrators I know would prefer to test less and educate more. I know folks in Vermont who home school for a wide variety of reasons, but I don't have any specific numbers here.

CB: Can you tell us a bit about Vermont's new experiment with healthcare coverage, Catamount? What is your opinion of it? How will Catamount be funded and who will actually benefit from it? How prevalent are alternative health practitioners in Vermont? Vermont obviously sits on the Canadian border, so I'm wondering how successful Vermonters have been in obtaining medications from Canada. Please comment.

RW: Vermont is a great state to be sick in, aside from occasional life-threatening traumas that demand the kind of intense and immediate care that only a high-powered and high-tech urban hospital might be able provide. I think it is too early to tell how successful Catamount will be - the jury is still out, though I know that much is riding on its performance. Our once and future republic is a refuge and an incubator for a wide variety of alternative health practitioners - you can't swing a live catamount in this state without hitting a physical therapist, yoga mistress, Reiki guru, or massage specialist. It is nice, actually - when we get sick or stressed, we have so many affordable options in our communities, and I know many folks who go over the border for surgeries of various kinds - it is good to have options.

CB: We hear much about "community" in Vermont, but what do you actually see happening in terms of people "living in community"? Are there intentional communities in Vermont? Please explain to readers the "village green" tradition in Vermont. Why is it important?

RW: The annual town meeting tradition, in which Vermonters take the first Tuesday in early March to attend their town and school board meetings to vote on budgetary matters, is under siege here - according to some recent figures, only 20% of Vermonters polled actually attend their town meetings on a yearly basis, and some towns are switching to Australian Ballot measures. This is too bad, as there is much to celebrate with our town meetings, which Henry David Thoreau called "the true Congress," because we look at our neighbors face to face and deliberate matters vital to our communities.

And there is this funny paradox here - because we have no intermediate governing structures between town governments and the state, for the most part (no county seats, for example) - political decision-making is very centralized, in some ways.

But local Vermonters also donate tremendous amounts of time to school and select boards, planning commissions, ad hoc committees, neighborhood groups, volunteer fire and ambulance services, and the like.

And we in the Vermont independence effort have just started our "Free Vermont" campaign - to use annual town meeting as a way to jump start a debate about peaceable secession. Find out more at www.freevermont.net/.

CB: What do you absolutely love about Vermont? What are some of the challenges of living there? What would you like to change about Vermont?

RW: Vermont is a small, rural, poor, sparsely populated, beautiful, and quiet place. This is both a blessing and a curse - it is easy to live and work out of doors, and the skiing and other recreational opportunities are phenomenal, if you can put up with cold, long, dark winters, as well as the aesthetic pleasures of "mud" and "stick" season.

But for someone who grew up in the suburbs and then spent ten years living in cities as a young man in my twenties, I love Vermont's size, Vermont's neighborliness, Vermonters' "live and let live" approach, and what might be called Vermonters' "jack of all trades" quality: everyone I meet here is involved with all kinds of fascinating projects, working with their minds, and hands, and hearts, and all are passionately dedicated to this place we call Vermont, despite our disagreements about the specifics.

I'd like to see more ethnic and racial diversity here - we have had historically and still have a very small population of color here (though trends like a growing number of African refugee resettlement programs in cities like Burlington are changing this, and for the better, I think). We also have 2,000 Mexican migrant workers, for example, working on Vermont's farms, who tend to keep a low profile, for obvious reasons. Vermont's legal support for "civil unions" after much contentious conversation is another example of our "live and let live" philosophy, and this, from state with gun laws so liberal you don't even need a permit to carry a hand gun! And this sort of fascinating combination of factors is what makes Vermont unique. We're 630,000 citizens who are not so easily pigeonholed, though the national media tries and fails to most every time.

Ultimately, I think it is Vermont's balanced combination of fierce independence and "live and let live" attitude, of community-mindedness and self-reliance.That is most compelling to me.

CB: This question probably should have been asked first, but what is your background? Where did you grow up? How long have you lived in Vermont? Do you work with Vermont Commons full-time, or do you do other work?

RW: I am not only a "flatlander" (as Vermont natives like to call us new arrivals), I am what Ethan Allen called almost pejoratively, (I should add) a "Yorker" - I grew up in the New York suburbs just four hours south of where I now live in central Vermont's Mad River Valley. I've lived in Vermont for six years - and I am volunteer (web) editor for Vermont Commons. I am an historian, teacher, and musician by training, and I teach history and media studies courses at Champlain College in Burlington, when I am not out and about at our home tending to kids, chickens, and chores.

Collapse

This just makes my jaws ache. For our elected representatives, and in particular the Democrats, to vote for these things is not an issue of "fear." If they are willing to destroy our rights because they are "afraid," then one must assume that they actually believe that Constitutional abridgements are "necessary" for our security. Bull. A total surveillance society (in other words not the one we thought we were living in) is not safer, and it certainly does not have the wall of privacy that is needed for a free citizenry.

While I appreciate Harman stepping up and speaking about this, it is just pure cowardice that our elected representatives would throw away our Constitution because they were scared. Apparently, that was a fairly self-serving fear, because the "hyped" threats were to Congress. COWARDS and fools.

How many times can the administration lie, deceive, obscure, cherry pick, and "hype" before the Dems wake up? What ever happened to "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me?"

Or how about the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that passed the House on September 25, 2007? That is the bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard (their military) a terrorist organization. Excuse me? We want to declare a government's military as a terrorist organization? Seems to me that the U.S. is on very shaky ground there. What about the School of the Americas now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation? You remember SOA is the one that trains Latin American military and police in torture, supression of "insurgency" and other means of controlling an "unruly" population? Since this is part of our military, should it be considered a terrorist organization? Or what about the CIA? The U.S. has an fairly long list of "helping" certain factions to power, arming "insurgents" to overthrow their government, etc. In fact, the U.S. has been aiding "dissidents" inside Iran to take over that government. Sounds like any of those might make the U.S. ripe for claims that we are state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, we are even arming and training "insurgents" (or those formerly labeled "insurgents") in Iraq.

The list could go on and on, but I'll just add one more that sticks in my craw - the hyped indignation about MoveOn.org's add prior to the Petreaus report. What pray tell happened to free speech? Why are our elected representatives taking time to "condemn" free speech? Why did they not do the same for Max Cleland, John Kerry, or John McCain. Shall we really get into personal attacks and defamation of character? Yet a number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate somehow felt they need to spend time and breath on some sort of display of false patriotism.

I am tired of the cowardice of Congress. I am tired of Democrats supposedly taking a stand while too many seem to be voting right in lock step with the Republicans. I am tired of excuses that are totally off the point. They can all - Dems and Republicans - start representing us, or they can get the hell out of Washington. That same message needs to be sent loud and clear to the Presidential candidates. We (and by that I mean the almost 75% of citizens of the United States) do not want more of what we have seen and experienced for the last seven years.

Below, I have included the votes on the items mentioned in this article.

Who Voted How?

Link for Senate Roll Call Votes

Link for House Roll Call Votes

S. 1927 Expansion of FISA Public Law No: 110-55 Yeas 60 Nays 28 Not Voting 12

YEAs ---60 Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Martinez (R-FL) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Salazar (D-CO) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) NAYs ---28 Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) width="100%"> Not Voting - 12 Alexander (R-TN) Boxer (D-CA) Bunning (R-KY) Dorgan (D-ND) Gregg (R-NH) Harkin (D-IA) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) Murray (D-WA)

H. R. 3356 Yeas 227 Nays 183 Not Voting 23 (Dem Yeas 215)  Plain text Democrats / Italics Republicans

Yeas Aderholt Akin Alexander Altmire Bachmann Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bean Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boustany Boyd (FL) Brady (TX) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Carney Carter Castle Chabot Chandler Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Costa Cramer Cubin Cuellar Culberson Davis (AL) Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Lincoln Davis, Tom Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Donnelly Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Ellsworth Emerson English (PA) Etheridge Everett Fallin Feeney Ferguson Flake Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hobson Hoekstra Hulshof Inglis (SC) Issa Jordan Keller King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) Lamborn Lampson Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers Melancon Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Mitchell Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rodriguez Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Royce Ryan (WI) Salazar Sali Schmidt Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shays Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Snyder Souder Space Stearns Sullivan Tanner Taylor Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walberg Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Walz (MN) Wamp Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (FL) Nays Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boucher Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carson Castor Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Costello Courtney Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Ellison Emanuel Engel Eshoo Farr Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Giffords Gillibrand Gonzalez Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Hinchey Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kind Kucinich Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shea-Porter Sherman Sires Slaughter Smith (WA) Solis Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tauscher Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth Not Voting Becerra Clarke Clay Coble Crenshaw Davis, Jo Ann Delahunt Goode Hastert Hayes Hinojosa Hunter Jindal Johnson, Sam Kilpatrick Klein (FL) LaHood Lantos Paul Saxton Skelton Tancredo Young (AK)

H.R. 1400 Iran Counter-Proliferation Act Passed in House, engrossed in Senate Yeas 397 (209 Dem) Nays 16 (12 Dem) Not Voting 19 (10 Dem) Yeas Ackerman Aderholt Akin Alexander Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Bachmann Bachus Baird Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Barton (TX) Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd (FL) Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carter Castle Castor Chabot Chandler Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Coble Cohen Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Lincoln Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly Doolittle Doyle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Ellsworth Emanuel Emerson Engel English (PA) Eshoo Etheridge Everett Fallin Farr Fattah Feeney Ferguson Filner Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Frank (MA) Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Giffords Gillibrand Gingrey Gohmert Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hall (TX) Hare Harman Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Heller Hensarling Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hinojosa Hirono Hobson Hodes Hoekstra Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Inglis (SC) Inslee Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Jordan Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Klein (FL) Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) LaHood Lamborn Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Marchant Markey Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCaul (TX) McCollum (MN) McCotter McCrery McGovern McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Tim Murtha Musgrave Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Neugebauer Nunes Oberstar Obey Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pearce Pence Perlmutter Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reyes Reynolds Richardson Rodriguez Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Rothman Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Salazar Sali Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Saxton Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Sestak Shadegg Shays Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solis Souder Space Spratt Stearns Stupak Sullivan Sutton Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Taylor Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiberi Tierney Towns Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walberg Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Walz (MN) Wamp Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Wexler Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth Young (AK) Young (FL) Nays Abercrombie Baldwin Bartlett (MD) Blumenauer Conyers Ellison Flake Gilchrest Hinchey Lee McDermott Miller, George Moore (WI) Olver Paul Stark Not Voting Berry Bishop (GA) Carson Cubin Davis (IL) Davis, Jo Ann Delahunt Herger Jindal Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Kucinich Lampson Platts Poe Ross Schmidt Snyder Tiahrt

Senate Vote Condemning MoveOn.Org's ad regarding General Petreaus Vote #344 Yeas 72 Nays 25 Not Voting 3 YEAs ---72 Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Salazar (D-CO) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) NAYs ---25 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Not Voting - 3 Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Obama (D-IL)

Collapse

The first part of the book takes the reader on a cogent journey through some basic economic theory in a way that is accessible. Magnuson then examines two nexuses of capital: households, corporations and the market system; and labor unions and business associations. He then moves into the role that government has played in the ascent of capitalism in the U.S. These build a story that launches us into the world of finance in its various forms and ultimately brings us to the current capitalist form.

Now if this sounds like a snore thus far, it certainly is not. Magnuson tells a story that traces the connections of the development and transformation of U.S. capitalism. I certainly do not have the economics background to tell the cogent story that Joel Magnuson weaves. This historical economic tale includes the human side (and costs) of the development of what I have referred to as "hegemonic capitalism" though he does not use that term.

Joel Magnuson approaches this topic holistically with the focus on the human, social and political implications of the development of American capitalism. I learned some things I did not know in the process of reading this book. I knew of some of the changes and forms that capitalism has taken, but did not have the players and details which Magnuson supplies.

He goes into great detail about the construction and operation of the financial system, and how even "instabilities" are organized to maximize the gains and power of the capitalists. All of this sets the stage for Magnuson's proposal of what he refers to as "Mindful Economics." The title itself is nudging the savvy reader towards Joel Magnuson's "bias" in his work - namely Buddhism. While the work is not Buddhist in a religious sense, that approach certainly colors his work.

Magnuson's idea of mindful economics is that we can transform this social institution by changing the goals and center of the economy and how it works. In other words, we can reclaim the institution and restructure it to work for the betterment of all and the planet by changing the goals of capital and economic activity. While I generally agree with this argument, I do believe that there is a basic problem with what Magnuson proposes - time. Magnuson seems to present a belief of a relatively gentle and long term transition of the economic system to serve the higher good. I see this as a problem as the I personally don't think that we have that kind of time. However, the premise is good, though I believe the transition will be much quicker because the current system is headed for either a total loss of the middle class and the peonage of the masses, or a chaotic collapse.

Magnuson argues at the beginning of the book, and then again Chapter 12, the fundamental incompatibility of capitalism and democracy. I must say that I found it affirming that a point I have argued for years was being seriously dealt with by an economist. He details this incompatibility in discussing how the economy needs to change to actually be reinforcing of true democracy rather than inimical to it. Magnuson offers a direction and a model for that change with his "mindful economics."

If you want to learn more about the development and functioning of U.S. capitalism, and an interesting approach to a different economic focus and organizations, take the time to read "Mindful Economics" by Joel Magnuson. For sure check out the Mindful Economics web site. In addition to more information about the book, Magnuson offers some interesting resource links.

Collapse

The 9/11 truth movement is stronger than ever, though it is generally derided by politicians and ignored by the mainstream media. It is fueled by people passionate about alternative explanations to the official 9/11 story. Understandable, considering that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission admitted: "We were set up to fail."

In 2006 Time magazine said: "The population of [the 9/11 truth movement] is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

A 2006 Zogby International poll found that 42% of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up."

This year Zogby found that 31 perecent of likely voters do not buy the official 9/11 story [72 percent for ages 18 to 24 and nearly 60 percent for Hispanics and singles]; 51 percent still await a congressional investigation of Bush's and Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks [88 percent for ages 18 to 24 and 77 percent for Hispanics and singles]; and 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous and still unexplained collapse of World Trade Center building 7.

So, six years later, a large fraction of Americans question the government's official 9/11 story. Countless groups and websites sustain the 9/11 truth movement with many conferences held nationwide. There have been several best-selling books and many well known political, military, law enforcement and academic persons publicly support alternative theories of 9/11 and/or the need for a new investigation. Yet being a 9/11 truth seeker exposes one to ridicule as a conspiracy nut by those brainwashed by establishment propaganda and lies, or afraid to face the painful truth, or too lazy to think for themselves.

Writing recently in the Guardian, Peter Tatchell made important points: "The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001. ...What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics."

In other words, the truth movement has set the stage for taking their passion to a higher political level that even more Americans can support - government reform.

Specifically, waiting is a reform mechanism as old as the Constitution itself. Few Americans realize they have a constitutional right to a national convention of state delegates that can propose constitutional amendments. Once convened, delegates can debate and propose amendments without government review, but like amendments proposed by Congress, still must meet the tough ratification requirements of Article V. Though all 50 states have applied for a convention, well in excess of the 34 required by the Constitution, Congress has refused to call one. The nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org seeks the nation's first Article V convention.

The Framers of our Constitution created the convention option because they feared one dark day the public would lose confidence in the federal government. With record-low approval of Congress - just 11 percent - and so little truth about 9/11, that day has crashed our democracy. Unsurprisingly, just like a new 9/11 investigation, Congress fears what may come out of an Article V convention. The truth is not politically popular.

The nexus between the 9/11 truth movement and the Article V convention effort is this: When a sizable fraction of the population wants a more comprehensive and credible government investigation into a matter of great public concern, but Congress and the Executive Branch refuse, a new legal mechanism is needed. Considering how the Bush administration used 9/11 to start the insane Iraq war, the public has profoundly good reasons for a new option for obtaining trustworthy information. Surely there will be other events and issues in the future that raise the same need for reliable analysis and conclusions independent of the usual web of government circles and tricks.

A new constitutional amendment can establish a framework for citizens to petition and seek "redress" from their federal government without going through elected representatives adept at ignoring them. Here is a possible approach. The highly respected and independent General Accountability Office could be given constitutional responsibility for collecting citizen petitions for investigations. If a threshold number is reached, then GAO would conduct a nonpartisan investigation using its staff and any other persons deemed necessary. This would be a taste of direct democracy, akin to a national referendum. The threshold might be one million citizen requests, with at least 10,000 coming from each of at least two-thirds of the states.

The intense 9/11 truth movement has a historic opportunity to seek a permanent means to counter bipartisan government intransigence and untrustworthiness that now is the rule, not the exception.

I urge 9/11 truth seekers to join Friends of the Article V Convention, recognizing that Congress' refusal to re-investigate 9/11 is matched by its refusal to permit an Article V convention. Our common goal is to compel the federal government to be accountable to the Constitution, federal law and the people. 9/11 truth seekers must become government reform seekers to achieve their objectives through smart political strategy.

Other political strategies also merit support, notably the current effort in New York City to obtain a ballot initiative to establish a new independent commission and investigation: nyc911initiative.org.

Consider what Mark Twain wisely observed: "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Our patriotic crusade for 9/11 truth and systemic government reform is still at the first stage. Courage is needed to persevere. Truth does not come easy.

Collapse

For those of you in and around Portland, Oregon ....

Sat Sept 29 Mobilization Against War & Occupation of Iraq
The march will start at 11 am from the Northwest Park Blocks (NW Flanders/Park downtown). It will then go down Broadway through downtown and end with a rally at the World Trade Center. This is a permitted, family-friendly event so everyone--from those in strollers and barely walking to those with walkers and wheelchairs-- can participate.

If you would like to volunteer to support this event, call email Dan at the Peace and Justice Works office (503) 236-3065 [email protected]

Link to September 29th Flyer for Portland, Oregon for complete co-sponsor and event information.

Collapse

The false outrage of perpetually offended conservatives serves as cover for the true outrages of our era, including: truncated civil liberties, rising levels of social and economic inequality and injustice, and foreign wars of aggression waged by an insular and secretive executive branch and fought by a permanent underclass. The outrages keep arriving, because the collective imagination of the citizen/consumers of the US, arbitrated by a careerist media elite, has been, for decades, in the thrall of false narratives that serve the interests of the elite of the corporate/militarist classes.

Concurrently, a sense of unease and despair, due to a sense of personal and collective powerlessness before exploitive power, has created the tone and tenor of the times, and begot the phenomenon of supine liberalism and Viagra conservatism. (In this way, liberals stand fecklessly by, as the public is, time and time again, screwed by the decrepit schemes of the right.)

In this way, liberal paternalism is insufferable; worse, it is dangerous. This has been the right's craftiest accomplishment: inducing "reasonable" liberals and "sensible" centrists to enable their crimes, from stolen elections to their present preparation for a massive bombing campaign of Iran, by intimidating them with the fear that any protest on their part will cast them among the ranks of America-hating, lefty moonbats, who wish to see the terrorist win, dumpsters piled high with discarded fetuses and metro-sexuality made the official state religion.

Moreover, these assaults upon both reason and the republic (what's left of it) will persist until progressives begin to effectively counter the narratives of the predatory right. Some call it shameful demagoguery; although, conservatives call it career advancement. This is not a novel situation. Throughout history, these kinds of pernicious mindsets have always been with us; it is our tragedy that they have been allowed to prevail.

Conservatives are eager to embrace false narratives: The surge is working; the terrorists hate us for our freedom; Fred Thompson is Ronald Reagan incarnate, but with a touch of Jed Clampett "folksiness." Accordingly, when the times are roiled with uncertainty, when thoughts of the future are tinged with dread, conservatives, like a character in Southern Gothic literature, will fall into a swoon, longing for the return of an imagined, purer past that never was. One can picture these rightwing sorts wandering the streets, wearing a faded prom dress and a broken, prom queen tiara, twittering and cooing, while repeating over and over again, "the surge is working; Anbar Province is now a beacon of freedom unto the world...") in an imaginary dialog with the ghost of their long lost beau, Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan, an ungifted actor, by means of playing the role of a "resolute" Cold Warrior, was able to gain the approbation and wealth that had alluded him as a contract player in Hollywood. In truth, Reagan's greatest accomplishment was convincing himself of his own sincerity.

Constantin Stanislavsky, who is considered the father of modern acting technique, is reputed to have said that when an actor starts to believe he is the character he's portraying it is time to escort him from the theatre. Withal, Fred, Rudy, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al., can you find the exits on your own or will you need to be medicated, strapped to a gurney, and wheeled from the public arena? Rather than being candidates for President of the United States, most of the Republican field seems to be vying for the title of National Crazy Uncle -- the kind of guy who corners you at a family gathering and rants that the PTA is a terrorist front group and gangs of illegal aliens are engaged in a vast conspiracy to steal single socks from his washer-dryer.

The Republican candidates for president and their fantasy-prone constituents wish to set the Way Back Machine to the golden days of the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was impersonating a man just arrived via the 1940s. This phenomenon is known as the Law of Republican Special Relativity, which states: When events begin to accelerate forward, the conservative mind will be cast, at an equal rate of speed, backwards in time. But the paradox is: they arrive in a parallel universe, an alternative past that never existed on this earth -- a low probability dimension, comprised of platitudes and false pieties, where white male privilege is sacrosanct, only for the reason (according to their reality-proof perspective) that it serves to provide all mankind with all things good and holy.

This law can be tested by performing the following simple exercise: Engage a conservative true believer in a dialog regarding the manner by which "state's rights" was misused in the Jim Crowe dominated Deep South of the pre-Civil Rights Era in order to propagate and maintain segregation, and your conservative-minded test subject will respond as if those realities transpired long ago and far away on a planet that he has never visited.

Yet, paradoxically, rightists have manage to create a Time Retrieval Device, a device that has summoned from the past wonders, such as the following: a reversal of many of the rights of working people; the return of unsafe and unsanitary practices in the food industry; widening gaps of wealth, health and privilege between social, racial and economic classes; in short, many the excesses of plutocratic rule inherent to unfettered capitalism.

As a result, a generation has inherited power who are devoid of the concept of causation and consequence. Ergo, we have developed a political class who rule by narratives of denial and shallow self-justification. An example of this is the blaming of the people of Iraq for the blood-drenched debacle that has resulted from the illegal and immoral invasion of their nation. As well as, an enabling cadre of media elitists who served as cheerleaders for the invasion, because they deemed it to be good for business, and, to this day, are unwilling to admit their complicity.

All of the above leads to the question: What are present day conservatives striving to conserve? Historically, conservatives gave their utmost to conserve institutions such as slavery, Jim Crowe, child labor -- and, of course, the use of leeches for medical purposes. (Perhaps, they simply couldn't stand the thought of a fellow blood-sucker being deemed dangerous, and they feared the start of a trend.) At present, the central paradox of contemporary conservatism is this: How does one practice conservatism within an all-encompassing economy based on disposability? This is analogous to establishing a brothel devoted to the goal of abstinence.

When engaged in a dialog with many conservatives, the question becomes: Are their reactions and responses evoked therein simply borne of plain ignorance, willful ignorance, or outright lying? Or are their responses the result of a group hallucination? All progressives have experienced the following nonsensical encounter of the conservative kind. Present a reasoned argument to a conservative -- and, all at once, completely ignoring the tenet, tone and thrust of the point, they begin hallucinating a creature, only known to exist in the rightwing bestiary, known as a "moonbat" -- a mythological beast that, ironically, seems to appear when a conservative is confronted with reality.

Accordingly, the time has come for a study of political zoology and to posit who are the true moonbats now making their habitat in the United States. Case study: Unregulated, wish-fulfillment-based conservative economic policy has created those suburban arrays of mold-incubating petri dishes known as products of the housing boom. Moreover, the bursting of the whole bubble-prone Ponzi scheme has sent shock waves throughout international economies and is surging the economy of the US towards recession. Furthermore, conservative anti-regulatory policies have rendered us babes in a cheap, plastic Toyland.

What has an era of conservatism wrought? Answer: a culture that has all the value, integrity, sustainability and safety as a toy manufactured in China. Apropos, contemporary life, as conceived and manufactured by conservative "values", is shoddily made, toxic and not a lot of fun.

In addition, it has spawned a culture ridden with public relations fabulists and media-savvy confidence artists who tell us that the taste of corporate ass-suck is the ambrosia of the gods. The locked-down, stultifying mindset and ideological barbarianism of present day conservatism is directly linked to the steep decline of the quality of life in the United States.

The recent revelations regarding the I'm-not-gay-I-simply-engage-in-same-sex-encounters-in-puplic-restrooms" wing of the Republican Party are instructive in understanding the rightist's worldview and its effect on our times. Covert sex in a public bathroom stall is an apt metaphor for how contemporary conservatism limits and restricts the possibilities of human life. In the same way that a closet-case gay conservative stunts the possibilities of his love life, the conservative mindset limits the scope of a culture's possibilities. Accordingly, economic life must be ruled by ruthless, unregulated competition, and the nation's meaning can only be found in war. Hence, under the Bush Junta, we are told, as far as international relations go, that the nation has few options other than its present policy of predatory capitalism and "wide-stance" militarism.

Regarding perma-fools such as these, Ernest Becker wrote: "Once you base your whole life striving on a desperate lie, and try to implement that lie, you instrument your own undoing." Accordingly, the republic is dead; it's ghost howls online only in pixelated protests such as this one. This grim reality will remain, until we rise up and repudiate the false narratives that have created and continue to comprise these tragic times.

Phil Rockstroh, a self-described auto-didactic, gasbag monologist, is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at [email protected]

Collapse

In April, 2007 I was pleasantly surprised to find Naomi Wolf's article, "Fascist America, In 10 Easy Steps" posted in several places online. I have been a fan of Wolf for many years, greatly appreciating her works and especially her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth. I had been looking for a list-or more specifically, an encyclopedia of the losses of civil liberties in the United States that might clarify for my history students the extent to which America has become a fascist empire. Wolf's "10 Easy Steps" was perfect, but her just-published book, The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot, from which the 10 easy steps was compiled, offers an even fuller picture-a succinct and engaging explanation of how our civil liberties have been hijacked in the past decade. It is the most poignant, powerful, genuinely patriotic piece of literature I have encountered since Thomas Paine's Common Sense. No wonder then, that the book's cover greatly resembles that 46-page tract by Paine written in 1775-as well it should.

One of the most frightening realities of teaching college history is that most students rarely have a clue what fascism is. They know about Hitler and the extermination of Jews, but they see little connection with Nazi rule in the 1930s and 40s and the current political milieu in the United States. Overwhelmingly, they cannot define fascism, nor can they define socialism or democracy. After all, they were pre-occupied during grammar school with becoming standardized human beings by way of taking standardized "No Child's Behind Left" tests, five hours a day, four days a week. So why would they know the definitions of fascism, socialism or democracy?

Refreshingly, Wolf is not shy about using the term fascism and lets the reader know why. "I have made a deliberate choice in using the terms fascist tactics and fascist shift when I describe some events in America now. I stand by my choice. I am not being heated or even rhetorical; I am being technical." (20) She explains that where Americans tend to see the various political "isms" as all-or-nothing, that perception is often inaccurate because of what she calls a "range of authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and varieties of Fascist states...there are many shades of gray on the spectrum from an open to a closed society." (20)

Wolf also emphasizes that America has flirted with fascism openly in the 1930s when numerous corporations and robber barons helped finance Hitler and when as Edwin Black notes in IBM And The Holocaust, some American corporations assisted the Nazi regime in carrying out its "final solution" to the "Jewish problem." In fact, several of these corporate tycoons attempted to stage a coup d' etat to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and restructure the American government under fascist control. A thorough investigation of American politics and society from the end of the Civil War until the present moment reveals, as I have carefully traced in my book U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You, that much of recent American history is replete with a preference on the part of corporations and the politicians they own for an economic and political system on the far right end of the spectrum. In fact, resistance to fascism in the United States has been an arduous and daunting struggle for those who have been able to understand and oppose the appeal that fascism has to the corporatocracy, and in fact, take seriously Mussolini's fundamental definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

As an historian who views American history as the complex unfolding of events that it is, I feel invigorated upon hearing someone like Wolf-especially the Wolf of feminist Beauty Myth fame-part company with the presentation of the Founders as "dead white men" inwardly tormented by various hypocrisies, such as the ownership of slaves and the subordination of women. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves and fathered six children by one of them, but what gets lost in that drama and other colorful stories of the Founders is that they were also thinking, speaking, and writing highly subversive thoughts. "You are not taught," says Wolf, that "these men and women were radicals for liberty; that they had a vision of equality that was a slap in the face of what the rest of their world understood to be the unchanging, God-given order of nations; and that they were wiling to die to make that desperate vision into a reality for people like us, whom they would never live to see." (27) I do not wish to romanticize the Founders and their generation living in a milieu replete with racism, misogyny, and classism, but neither will I throw their achievements out with the bathwater of political correctness, nor is Wolf willing to do so in her examination of them.

In the "10 easy steps" outlined by Wolf, countries move from open to closed and repressive societies by devolving past certain markers, and Wolf makes a powerful case for the way in which the United States is following a similar pattern without any significant deviation. In each instance she compares and contrasts how America's adherence to the pattern compares or contrasts with the pattern in pre-World War II Germany. The 10 steps are:

1. Invoking an external and internal threat


2. Establishing secret prisons


3. Developing a paramilitary force


4. Surveiling ordinary citizens


5. Infiltrating citizens' groups


6. Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens


7. Targeting key individuals


8. Restricting the press


9. Casting criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"


10. Subverting the rule of law

As noted in the quote from Justice Douglas above, the fascist shift is a protracted process; it never happens overnight, and in U.S. History Uncensored, I offer an historical narrative describing exactly how we have arrived where we are-at "the end of America". Some aspects of the process were generated before the U.S. Civil War, but our recent history is nothing less than the story of the acceleration of the fascist agenda and the death of the Republic.

Frequently, books come into our lives with momentous timing. Several weeks ago a friend of mine was traveling through a small town in upstate New York looking for the location of a meeting he was scheduled to attend. Realizing that he was lost, he spotted a police officer in a marked car and waived to the officer to pull over. The officer pulled over, and my friend innocently got out of his car to walk back to the officer's car. Suddenly, the officer's voice came blasting across a loud speaker, "Get back in the car! Stop where you are! Get back in the car!" My friend returned to his vehicle and waited for the officer to approach his driver's side window. The officer, with a hand on his holstered firearm, angrily asked my friend what he wanted. When my friend asked him for directions, he replied with hostility that he didn't know the location of the place for which my friend was searching and once again repeated, "Never get out of your car when you're dealing with a police officer." So much for asking directions from a police officer these days.

On another occasion, two friends of mine returning from Canada were detained at the U.S./Canadian border, and while one of them had a U.S. passport, the other had forgotten to bring his. He produced a variety of identification but was taken aside, questioned, shouted at, and harassed in an extremely hostile manner as if he were an enemy of the state. Fortunately, after over-the-top intimidation from a couple of surly customs officers, he was allowed to enter the U.S.

About three weeks ago I was returning from a routine visit to the dentist in Mexico and had a U.S. passport with me, even though none will be required for returning from Mexico until January, 2008. I was told by a very aggressive female customs agent to pull over to the center where vehicles are detained. I was ordered in a very hostile manner to give her my driver's license and the keys to my vehicle and stay in my vehicle. When I asked what the problem was, I was told to be quiet and again, to stay in my vehicle. Having taught in Mexico for three years, returning to the U.S. every day and rarely having to show any identification whatsoever, I found this procedure to be astonishingly rigid and unnecessary. I have made many trips to Mexico in recent months and have never had any problem when the automatic photos that are taken of every license plate crossing the border appeared on U.S. Customs computer screens.

After what seemed like an eternity the female officer returned and told me that it appeared that I had had an expired vehicle registration four years ago which I had not taken care of and that I needed to do so at once. She gave me the name of the court where the offense was allegedly registered. The very next day I contacted the court and discovered that indeed I had been stopped four years ago for an expired registration for which I was given a warning. Every year since, I have purchased my annual registration well before the deadline, but the offense was never brought to my attention, and I even acquired a new driver's license last year through the motor vehicles division and was not informed of the offense. Not wanting any further hassle regarding the "heinous crime" of having an expired registration four years ago, I agreed to pay the small fine imposed by the court. Some readers may assume that I was harassed because of who I am and my open delivery of alternative news and opinions on this website daily. I, on the other hand, do not believe that this was "all about me." Whether or not it was, it is blatantly obvious to me that the behavior of law enforcement in the United States has shifted dramatically in recent months. Whether or not I was targeted, which I sincerely doubt, this kind of treatment is becoming standard in law enforcement procedure throughout the United States.

And now fast-forward to yesterday, September 18, 2007, at Florida State University and the tasering of a student questioning John Kerry regarding the 2004 elections and Kerry's membership in Skull and Bones-an incident which has been viewed by millions on the internet and on mainstream TV news broadcasts. Writing of this debacle, Wolf's article "A Shocking Moment For Society" appeared on various internet sites this morning, and in it she states:

There is a chapter in my new book, The End of America, entitled "Recast Criticism as 'Espionage' and Dissent as 'Treason,'" that conveys why this moment is the horrific harbinger it is. I argue that strategists using historical models to close down an open society start by using force on 'undesirables,' 'aliens,' 'enemies of the state,' and those considered by mainstream civil society to be untouchable; in other times they were, of course, Jews, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals. Then, once society has been acculturated to that use of force, the 'blurring of the line' begins and the parameters of criminalized speech are extended - the definition of 'terrorist' expanded - and the use of force begins to be deployed in HIGHLY VISIBLE, STRATEGIC and VISUALLY SHOCKING WAYS against people that others see and identify with as ordinary citizens. The first 'torture cellars' used by the SA, in Germany between 1931 and 1933 - even before the National Socialists gained control of the state, during the years when Germany was still a parliamentary democracy - were informal and widely publicized in the mainstream media. Few German citizens objected because those abused there were seen as 'other' - even though the abuse was technically illegal. But then, after this escalation of the use of force was accepted by the population, students, journalists, opposition leaders, and clergy were similarly abused during their own arrests. Within six months dissent was stilled in Germany.

What is the lesson for us from this and from other closing societies, some of them democracies? You can have a working Congress or Parliament; newspapers; human rights groups; even elections; but when ordinary people start to be hurt by the state for speaking out, dissent closes quickly and the shock chills opposition very, very fast. Once that happens, democracy has been so weakened that major tactical and strategic incursions - greater violations of democratic process - are far more likely. If there is dissent about the vote in Florida in this next presidential election - and the police are tasering voters' rights groups - we will still have an election.

What we will not have is liberty.

We have to understand what time it is. When the state starts to hurt people for asking questions, we can no longer operate on the leisurely time of a strong democracy - the 'Oh gosh how awful!' kind of time. It is time to take to the streets. It is time to confront those committing crimes against the Constitution. The window has now dropped several precipitous inches and once it is closed there is no opening it without great and sorrowful upheaval.

As I read Wolf's latest article, I realized that despite my enormous admiration for her and The End Of America, there are a number of areas where I must disagree with her.

First, the only thing shocking to me about the University of Florida incident is that so many Americans are shocked that it happened. Last night I posted a communication to her mailing list regarding the incident from former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who says:

No police officer should be in the business of denying Constitutional rights to anyone; I am particularly chagrined when it appears that a black police officer participated in this attack on an innocent student.

What is happening to us???? How much more will the people accept?? I was outraged as early as 2000 when Florida was stolen and the Democrats said nothing!!!! Now, innocent students get tasered just for asking questions.

What kind of US Senator do we have who can't or won't answer a question about his own election that affects all of us???

Wolf has given us a compendium of civil and Constitutional rights stolen from us during the past eight years of the Bush administration. If one understands this odyssey of oppression, then yesterday's tasering of a questioning student makes perfect sense. I appreciate why Wolf used the word "shocking" in her most recent article, but I'd be willing to bet that she isn't shocked at all-not after the extraordinary documentation she has given us in The End Of America. What I do believe she wishes to clarify is the intentionally traumatizing methodology of law enforcement to maintain social control.

Secondly, I must take issue with Wolf regarding her statement that "...we on the left must snap out of our 'it's-all-the-WTO-the-two-parties-are-the-same' torpor...We have to reengage in an old-fashioned commitment to democratic action and believe once again in an old-fashioned notion of the Republic. We need to help lead a democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas." (141)

Again, let's fast forward not to yesterday, but today and the headline "Senate bars bill to restore detainee rights"-a decision which supports the Bush administration's denial of habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners who want to challenge their imprisonment in court. Need we reiterate one more time that since the 2006 elections, the Democrats have done virtually nothing to end the occupation of Iraq? Need we watch the video one more time of John Kerry standing mute and statue-like on the University of Florida auditorium stage-saying or doing nothing as a student was tasered for asking him why he handed the 2004 election to George W. Bush? Does anyone seriously believe that in a world where fellow students applaud as police remove and taser a questioning student and do nothing to speak up against such an outrage that we will see a viable, effective "democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas"?

As for Wolf's suggestion in today's article that we "take to the streets", the police state is preparing for that eventuality as well by letting us know that it has developed severely injuring electromagnetic crowd control technology that will dramatically limit how many and how often people can "take to the streets." Welcome to full-spectrum "1984".

I repeat: the police state is right here, right now!

Moreover, some pivotal factors that Wolf has not addressed are global energy depletion, climate change, and global economic meltdown which are exacerbating the fascist shift about which she so brilliantly writes and which will continue to embolden that shift as energy scarcity, climate chaos, and financial crises add fuel to the fires of terrorism that the ruling elite have so consciously and carefully incited and fanned throughout America. As American society continues to unravel, the fascist shift will escalate, and what is left of our civil liberties will further evaporate.

As for political parties, I prefer the definition offered by Mike Ruppert in "America: From Freedom To Fascism" in which he explains that the two major parties are like two crime families-the Genoveses and the Gambinos. They function like players in a crap game that feign opposition to each other, but when the chips are down, they will always unite to serve their common interests. (If the Iraq occupation is not a case in point, then I don't know what is.) When we vote in presidential elections for corporately-owned candidates or "the lesser evil", we are merely choosing between the two crime families, and even if one candidate were not a crime family member, our votes in the past two presidential elections, as Bev Harris has so astutely demonstrated, have been hacked. In the throes of the current, and I might add, rapidly-accelerating fascist shift, what evidence do we have for assuming that if there is an election in 2008, anything will be different? Tell me again, what's the definition of insanity?

At this moment another Naomi comes to mind-Naomi Klein whose book Shock Doctrine I shall soon review on this site. In that work Klein documents one of the key strategies of fascist empires: shocking their citizens into submission in a variety of ways from widespread societal terrorism to the administering of electroshock therapy to individuals. What we witnessed at the University of Florida yesterday, and what we are likely to see more frequently in America, are deliberate shock tactics applied by law enforcement to citizens for the purpose of achieving massive social control.

Some of my students who are criminal justice majors tell me that the latest strategies now being taught to police officers are "shock doctrine" techniques which terrorize and intimidate civilians in order to control them. Law enforcement officers are no longer encouraged to "keep a cool head" but to "follow their own instincts" (which usually means their own internal, adrenaline-charged state of terror) and react with full force because it's easier to apologize (or encounter a lawsuit) than to ask permission or risk being killed. Terrified people should not be wearing a badge and carrying a gun, and when they are, a fully terrorized society is guaranteed.

In spite of my disagreements with Naomi Wolf's suggested solutions, I cannot recommend The End Of America enthusiastically enough. It is now a permanent part of my U.S. history curriculum and is an ideal tool not only for educators, but for parents who want to teach their children where all those civil liberties we used to have actually came from as well as how and why they are disappearing in the present moment.

Collapse

Bush shook Abu Risha's hand two weeks ago for the cameras. Bush can shake his hand again, but not the rest of him: Abu Risha was blown away just hours before Bush was to go on the air to praise his new friend.

Here's what you need to know that NPR won't tell you.

1. Sheik Abu Risha wasn't a sheik.
2. He wasn't killed by Al Qaeda.
3. The new alliance with former insurgents in Anbar is as fake as the sheik - and a murderous deceit.

How do I know this? You can see the film - of "Sheik" Abu Risha, of the guys who likely whacked him and of their other victims.

Just in case you think I've lost my mind and put my butt in insane danger to get this footage, don't worry. I was safe and dry in Budapest. It was my brilliant new cameraman, Rick Rowley, who went to Iraq to get the story on his own.

Rick's "the future of TV news," says BBC. He's also completely out of control. Despite our pleas, Rick and his partner Dave Enders went to Anbar and filmed where no cameraman had dared tread.

Why was "sheik" Abu Risha so important? As the New York Times put it this morning, "Abu Risha had become a charismatic symbol of the security gains in Sunni areas that have become a cornerstone of American plans to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq though much of next year."

In other words, Abu Risha was the PR hook used to sell the "success" of the surge.

The sheik wasn't a sheik. He was a fake. While proclaiming to Rick that he was "the leader of all the Iraqi tribes," Abu lead no one. But for a reported sum in the millions in cash for so-called, "reconstruction contracts," Abu Risha was willing to say he was Napoleon and Julius Caesar and do the hand-shakie thing with Bush on camera.

Notably, Rowley and his camera caught up with Abu Risha on his way to a "business trip" to Dubai, money laundering capital of the Middle East.

There are some real sheiks in Anbar, like Ali Hathem of the dominant Dulaimi tribe, who told Rick Abu Risha was a con man. Where was his tribe, this tribal leader? "The Americans like to create characters like Disney cartoon heros." Then Ali Hathem added, "Abu Risha is no longer welcome" in Anbar.

"Not welcome" from a sheik in Anbar is roughly the same as a kiss on both cheeks from the capo di capi. Within days, when Abu Risha returned from Dubai to Dulaimi turf in Ramadi, Bush's hand-sheik was whacked.

On Thursday, Bush said Abu Risha was killed, "fighting Al Qaeda" - and the White House issued a statement that the sheik was "killed by al Qaeda."

Bullshit.

There ain't no Easter Bunny and "Al Qaeda" ain't in Iraq, Mr. Bush. It was very cute, on the week of the September 11 memorials, to tie the death of your Anbar toy-boy to bin Laden's Saudi hijackers. But it's a lie. Yes, there is a group of berserkers who call themselves "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." But they have as much to do with the real Qaeda of bin Laden as a Rolling Stones "tribute" band has to do with Mick Jagger.

Who got Abu Risha? Nothing - NOTHING - moves in Ramadi without the approval of the REAL tribal sheiks. They were none-too-happy, as Hathem, noted, about the millions the US handed to Risha. The sheiks either ordered the hit - or simply gave the bomber free passage to do the deed.

So who are these guys, the sheiks who lead the Sunni tribes of Anbar - the potentates of the Tamimi, Fallaji, Obeidi, Zobal and Jumaili tribes? Think of them as the Sopranos of Arabia. They are also members of the so-called "Awakening Council" - getting their slice of the millions handed out - which they had no interest in sharing with Risha.

But creepy and deadly or not, these capi of the desert were effective in eliminating "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." Indeed, as US military so proudly pointed out to Rick, the moment the sheiks declared their opposition to Al Qaeda - i.e. got the payments from the US taxpayers - Al Qaeda instantly diappeared.

This miraculous military change, where the enemy just evaporates, has one explanation: the sheiks ARE al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Just like the Sopranos extract "protection" payments from New Jersey businesses, the mobsters of Anbar joined our side when we laid down the loot.

What's wrong with that? After all, I'd rather send a check than send our kids from Columbus to fight them.

But there's something deeply, horribly wrong with dealing with these killers. They still kill. With new US protection, weapons and cash, they have turned on the Shia of Anbar. Fifteen thousand Shia families from a single district were forced at gunpoint to leave Anbar. Those moving too slowly were shot. Kids and moms too.

Do the Americans know about the ethnic cleansing of Anbar by our erstwhile "allies"? Rick's film shows US commanders placing their headquarters in the homes abandoned by terrorized Shia.

Rick's craziest move was to go and find these Shia refugees from Anbar. They were dumped, over a hundred thousand of them, in a cinder block slum with no running water in Baghdad. They are under the "protection" of the Mahdi Army, another group of cutthroats. But at least these are Shia cutthroats.

So the great "success" of the surge is our arming and providing cover for ethnic cleansing in Anbar. Nice, Mr. Bush. And with the US press "embedded," we won't get the real story. Even Democrats are buying into the Anbar "awakening" fairy tale.

An Iraqi government official frets that giving guns and cover to the Anbar gang is like adopting a baby crocodile. "A crocodile is not a pet," he told Rick. It will soon grow to devour you. But what could the puppet do but complain about his strings?

This Iraqi got it right: the surge is a crock.

********
Greg Palast is the author of "Armed Madhouse: from Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild." See Palast's reports for BBC Television's Newsnight, now filmed by Rick Rowley and partners, at www.GregPalast.com

On his departure from Iraq, Al Jazeera's English language network agreed to broadcast the Rowley/Enders film. I urge you to see it:

Part 1 of People and Power - al-Anbar progress? 09 Sept 07 at this YouTube link. (11:55)

Part 2 - People and Power - al-Anbar progress? - 09 Sept 07 at this YouTube link.
(10:24)

Collapse

Hard as it might be to believe, there is a very real possibility that Bush will exercise these rights before his term ends. All he needs is an excuse. At present, the economy is on the verge of collapse, the Iraqi Occupation is going badly no matter what Bush and his chosen generals say, energy supplies are unable to keep pace with demand, disapproval of the Bush administration is growing, and Bush wants to attack Iran and so complete his Middle East conquest. He has all the reason in the world to declare martial law. All he lacks is a sufficient excuse.

Many people who follow the news are worried that Bush will declare martial law sometime in the months ahead. If natural crises prove insufficient, they are afraid that he will stage another 9/11. The current economic climate is very similar to the climate at the time of 9/11, though the present brewing economic hurricane will be much worse than the dot.com bust. The economic crises we currently face could very well result in bank closings, the crash of the US dollar, and the impoverishment of a large segment of the US population. What is more, with peak oil and the dawn of a new era of energy depletion it is unlikely that we will be able resuscitate our economy once the collapse is complete.

In the past couple weeks, we have heard about nuclear weapons being "mistakenly" shipped across the country onboard B-52 bombers. These weapons, which have a very limited capacity, were accidentally shipped to one of the bases that coincidentally functions as a staging grounds for the Middle East . While it is possible that these weapons were intended to be used for tactical strikes against Iran , I think it more likely that they were going to be used on US troops in Iraq , or perhaps even citizens within the US . A nuclear terrorism attack would clear the way for an immediate attack on Iran and provide a sufficient excuse to declare martial law within the US . (See Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.)

This sounds far-fetched and paranoid, doesn't it? Well, word is circulating around Wall Street that billions in put options were made at the end of August. Put options are short term bets that a corporation will do poorly. From the number and size of these puts, some big players are betting that the stock market is going to take a major fall before the end of September. The last time there was a move in put options this large was just prior to 9/11.
(See Dispelling the 'Bin Laden' Options Trades, 'Bin Laden' Options Trades Have Wall Street Whispering, and $4.5b bet on another 9/11 within 4 weeks)

Whether or not there are plans to stage another terrorist event, the fact remains that Bush has cleared a path towards establishing a dictatorship within the US . Given Bush and Cheney's psychological profiles, it is unlikely that this pathway was cleared for altruistic purposes, and it seems equally unlikely that they will not now take advantage of it. No r d id Bush clear this pathway for some future president. Bush and Cheney are both far too selfish and egotistical for that. So it is likely that Bush will walk this path sometime before the next election.

Now the question arises, what will we do if Bush declares martial law and usurps our government?

What to Do

Should Bush declare martial law, life in this country will quickly become untenable for a great many of us. Halliburton subsidiaries are currently building internment camps to house detainees. The first sweep will pick up radicals and known dissenters, along with Blacks and Hispanics. Successive sweeps will capture more disruptive minorities, along with any newly vocal critics.

Knowing this, my first impulse was to head for the woods and disappear in the event of martial law. Yet this would not solve the problem. And I would have to hide forever, while my family and friends suffered the consequences. Hiding is not an option; the only recourse is to fight back.

The establishment of martial law and dictatorship depends on a majority of the public going on with thei r d aily lives as usual. They cannot arrest everyone; they cannot even arrest a sizable portion of the population should they all decide to resist in solidarity. Therefore, the key to defending our country against martial law and dictatorship lies in massive resistance and solidarity.

If martial law is declared we must, each of us, tell everyone we know that the US government has been overthrown. Everyone must know that it is time for each of us to stand up and resist. Do not go to work, do not go to school. That is what they want us to do. Far from complying, it is ou r d uty to rise up for freedom and justice. Our forefathers and foremothers would be ashamed of us if we did anything less.

Simply refusing to serve is not enough. Nor is a march through downtown an adequate response. Short-term protests will be dismissed as soon as they end. Nor is any resistor safe so long as he or she remains at home. We must rally, for safety and power. And we must stay together until the dictatorship is toppled and martial law is ended.

Rallying

There are a few possible targets for rallying. Progressive communities such as college towns would be relatively safe places to rally, and might attract large numbers of people supported by the local community. Yet for greatest effect, rallies should target seats of government and finance. The most effective targets would be state capitals, Wall Street, and Washington DC . For those desiring an even more confrontational approach, you could rally at military bases and National Guard armories. Bear in mind that these military targets have the greatest potential for bloodshed.

It would be best to plan rallying locations ahead of time. There is no telling how disrupted communications might be after martial law is declared. If the internet is still functioning, that would be great. But do not plan on it.

Print up flyers explaining what is taking place and what needs to be done about it. Tell people that it is thei r d uty to resist. Let them know where they can rally to protest. If need be, drive down the street with banners and/or megaphones.

Above all, make it clear that these rallies will not end until the coup leaders have been arrested and martial law has ended. Ceasing our efforts before our goals are achieved is simply not an option. What is more, we will all be safer if we stay together. They cannot pick us off separately; they will have to deal with us en masse.

Breaking Hard

We should be prepared for the worst. It is likely that they will try to break our rallies with force. Stand fast and be prepared. It would be wise to learn how to improvise body armor, procure helmets with safety visors, and gas masks. First aid stations should be established at all rallies.

Above all, resist any impulse towards violence. Violence will achieve nothing, but will provide them with an excuse to crack down. The violent overthrow of government by the masses simply isn't possible in this day and age, nor is it desirable. Our strength lies in our solidarity and our ability to bring the machine to a screeching halt. When we resort to violence, we have compromised our strength and made ourselves weak.

Appeal to the police and the National Guard that you are the citizens they were hired to serve and protect. Help them to understand what has happened. It may be that many of them will side with you.

If the military does attack, stand firm, but be prepared to give up ground and reform elsewhere. Do not simply scatter and give up. In the face of a military advance, pass along word of a secondary rallying point. And send an advance team to secure that area and prepare.

Remember, martial law and the establishment of dictatorship will only succeed if we let it. Know that if you do nothing as martial law is declared and nothing as they come for your neighbors, then the day will arrive when they come for you. Or you will be left to answer for what has happened while you were looking the other way and going on with your own life.

We, the people, have the power, and never let us forget that.

Collapse

Yes. A slug. Apparently slugs have been dining on the peanut butter. I did not even know that they liked peanut butter. This one apparently made the mistake of not getting all the way inside before dining.

Collapse

Yes, it is sad indeed, "politically inconvenient" or not, that we invaded, decimated, and continue to occupy a nation to control its oil reserves. Or to perhaps be a bit more specific, to turn over control of that oil to private oil corporations.

How much is it costing? Well there are the measurable costs, such as $10 Billion a month, or the almost 3,800 U.S. troops that have given their lives, or the almost 38,000 U.S. troops who are casualties, or the 144 who have taken their own lives. But all of that pales in magnitude to the estimated 1.2 million Iraqi's who have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and the dominoes that has set falling.

According to a recent poll by Opinion Research Business (ORB), it is estimated that 1,220,580 Iraqi's have lost their lives as a direct consequence of the conflict since 2003. Almost 50% of the households in Baghdad have lost at least one family member.

ORB notes that the murder rate in Iraq now exceeds the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The poll also revealed the displacement of Iraqi's. While roughly 52% are displaced within Iraq, 48% have crossed into Syria or Jordan with the majority going to Syria.

Oil has often been a bloody business, and it continues to get more so as the resource becomes scarcer. Now we have word from the horse's mouth that peak oil is on the way. Lord Oxburgh, former CEO of Shell oil predicts oil prices at $150 a barrel with production peaking within the next 20 years. Oxburgh was interviewed by the Independent. He is scheduled to address the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) meeting in Ireland this week. In the Independent interview he stated:

"We may be sleepwalking into a problem which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time we are fully aware."

The argument against oil being the motivator for the invasion of Iraq has been that Iraqi oil production has shrunk dramatically since the invasion. And indeed this is true. However, there is as much (if not more) profit from restricting the flow of oil as there is in increasing the flow of oil. All one has to do is to look at the major oil company profits since the "instability" in Iraq has manifested itself in the market. Namely record profits one quarter after another. The continued U.S. armed presence in Iraq, has been linked to Iraq's "government" making headway on Iraq's oil. Namely, that it approves highly biased PSAs (Production Sharing Agreements) put in place by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority shortly after the collapse of Hussein's government.

Recognizing the centrality of oil in the Iraq occupation, Oil Change International has started an fundraising campaign to Support Iraqi Resistance to the Oil Law. The also have a number of informational and local action links that I recommend. I highly applaud and support their efforts. They have a sad but true short video on the issue called Addicted to Oil.

Increasingly, the people of the United States are calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This weekend there was a march in Washington D.C. of almost 100,000 people calling for withdrawal and for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Approximately 200 protesters were arrested. Across the country there have been marches, demonstrations, and campaigns to inform our elected representatives. To date, those representatives have shown more talk than action on the issue. It is critically important - both for the people of Iraq as well as the people of the United States - to continue applying pressure to representatives and the White House. However, it is also critically important to recognize the driving forces in the current occupation - controlling increasingly scarce oil resources.

All too often, recognition of this central issue gets expressed as "ending our dependence on foreign oil. No. We need to end our dependence on oil. There are not adequate reserves in the United States to meet the continued U.S. levels of consumption. This was acknowledged by Shell President John Hofmeister. We need (and the world needs) to refoot our life styles and our expectations. The cost of the path we are on is simply too high.

Collapse

In July, 2007 I wrote an article "What To Do, What To Do? Taking Action In The Face Of Collapse" in which I offered some options for collapse preparation. Truth To Power will continue to illuminate the ugly realities of collapse-AND, it will also focus from time to time on people who are doing extraordinary things not merely in preparation for collapse, but because those activities and lifestyles give them energy and feed their souls.

 

This post highlights Lisa McCrory and Carl Russell in rural Vermont who operate Earthwise Farm and Forest which teaches a variety of skills for sustainable living, including the use of draft animals in raising organic crops. They are hosting Northeast Animal-Power Field Days, September 29-30 in Tunbridge, Vermont.

 

Their lifestyle and work model not only a broad knowledge of survival essentials, but an intimate connection with the earth and the non-human world. Here is my interview with them:

1. How long have the two of you lived in Vermont?

Carl: I have been in Vermont my entire life, (so far!!). Our family is living and working on property that my grand-parents purchased in 1938.

 

Lisa : I moved to Vermont in 1974 with my parents and siblings (from Wisconsin) and have lived here ever since.

 

2. What motivated you to become farmers? Did you grow up on a farm? Did you have a transition from city life to rural VT? If you did have to make a transition, what was that like for you?

Carl: I grew up in the 1960-70's, and in Vermont there were still many people who had small farms, raised their own food, worked in the woods, and lived self-employed, diversified lives. I was always drawn to animals, soil, and the forest, but I was also affected by an admiration for the sufficiency and independence that I saw in these farmers and woodsmen. Even though I worked on farms and in the woods, there were also trends toward playing sports, learning the ethic of commerce, and "hanging out". By the time I was out of college, the expectations were toward professional careers, credit cards, and car loans. The transition I made was mostly in the way of perspective. I remembered my desire for independence, purposeful work, outdoors, with soil, plants, and animals. So actually I interrupted the transition I might have made into the cultural norm.

Lisa: I was not raised on a farm, but when we moved to Vermont in the early 70's (I was 11 at the time) we did move to a place with a house, barn, a few acres and my parents allowed us to dabble in raising a few farm animals (riding horses, chickens, a goat and lamb) and have a vegetable garden. This was the time of my transition from city life to rural life. I have always been drawn to animals and the natural world and know that my calling is to be a steward of the land; to participate in a deeper understanding of the needs of the Earth and how to work co-creatively with the land, my family, our farm and our local community. I pursued a degree in animal sciences and in the plant sciences knowing that one day I would have a farm where I would be growing most of my own food and living as closely to the land as possible.

3. What inspired you to begin using draft animals for farming? What are the advantages f using them? What are some of the liabilities?

Carl: There were people in my youth who worked horses of oxen, and I loved to see them working. As a young adult I had it in my mind that I would someday have a work-horse, but it seemed more like a hobby in a more modern lifestyle. In 1986 as I was preparing for self-employment as a forester/logger, I visited a man I had been buying logs from. He was a horse logger, and as I watched him perform what seemed to be a working dance with a living animal, I was awakened. I could see the energy efficiency, the low-impact, and the independence of low overhead, Most of all, I could see the craft, the expression, and the fulfillment. The drawbacks of draft animals are all related to experience and expectation. Learning how to care for them, and what to expect from them. It's all about time, time, and more time. It is continuous, laborious, slow work, with low cash flow. But, it is very satisfying, and it puts into perspective what we are losing as a planet and a species by developing technologies that turn life into quick, easy projects. By using draft animals as our primary power, we lay hands on so many aspects of our own lives.

Lisa : I started getting involved with draft animals when I met Carl in 2000, but this lifestyle has attracted me for quite some time and may have something to do with what brought us together. I have worked with horses and cows most of my youth and it has tied in nicely in my professional career as an organic livestock and grazing consultant.

4. Can you say more about the principles of stewardship that you encourage others to follow?

Carl: So much of what we promote is craft. Stewardship is the art of managing land-based resources. Like any artist, the steward of land must learn the nuances of his/her medium, and learn to use tools and processes with finesse. The scientific process has helped us to see many important relationships that stewardship protects and cultivates. The drawback with scientific reasoning is a preconception that if we can't measure something, it has no value. If we don't know about it, it doesn't exist. We promote a highly intuitive process, where stewardship is about emotional investment, and personal responsibility. Do what you know is right, because you can feel it, and it makes you feel alive and connected to your surroundings.

Lisa: I think Carl said this nicely. The principles that we follow on our farm, on a practical level, are based upon organic farming principles: building our soil organic matter and balancing the soil nutrients so that the food we grow is nutritious for ourselves and our livestock. We also use biodynamic practices and products for some of our planting schedules and for composting our manure. Another part of our gardening and land management is the use of dowsing to plan our gardens and enhance the intuitive and spiritual connection we have with the land.

5. What positive differences has self-sufficiency made in your lives? What might be some of the liabilities?

Carl: As I have said before, independence, personal fulfillment, emotional and physical intimacy with soil, plants, and animals. It is a lot of work requiring time, knowledge, and commitment, and it interferes with professional careers and cash flow.

Lisa: I think that we are moving into a period where it is becoming increasingly important to KNOW how to grow one's own food, process it, store it and ultimately appreciate the bounty and build a connection with the land that we are farming. Building these skills is very satisfying, and there is always more to learn. With all the other things happening around us, sometimes we don't have the time or cash-flow to do everything that we would like to do, but this lifestyle encourages us to slow down - while some of our 'off the farm' work asks us to turn things around quickly. It can be a push-me-pull-you kind of feeling and we need to check in regularly to prioritize what needs to get done on a daily basis.

 

6. Since young people of the twenty-first century are often strongly influenced by technology and the peer pressure of having cars, cell phone, ipods and other luxuries that they feel they can't live without, how have your children reacted to self-sufficiency and your style of living off the land in such a simple, basic manner?

Carl: It should be understood that we have cell phones, laptops, CD players, DVD/VCR-TV, and game-boys. What our off-grid sustainable lifestyle does, is puts these things into a subclass of luxury and leisure. We teach our kids the language of our modern culture because it is necessary for them to function within their community. We do not shun modern culture, or try to hide from it, but we strive to teach our children the language of the Earth, about the spiritual and physical truths of human life on planet Earth. We entertain acquaintances as we process chickens, as many people seek our guidance with the skills of slaughtering and butchering their own animals for food. One day as I was removing entrails, our 5-year old son cheered, "Chicken Livers"! Our visitor turned to me with a look of astonishment. "How many modern 5-yearolds know enough about intestines to know where the liver is, and how many of them would be excited about eating it, especially after seeing where it comes from?"

Lisa: Although we do have all the things that Carl has listed above, we DO NOT have access to public or cable television, so are not heavily influenced by commercial advertising, the constant marketing targeted towards children, and the media-driven 'news' that to me is about 20% news and 80% questionable. We watch movies that we choose when it meets our schedule. We also home school our children which we feel has been very rewarding for our children and for ourselves (ages 3, 5 and 10). That said, our 10 year-old is going to the public school for some electives (music, art, math, soccer, band). I think that our kids are very in touch with where their food comes from and what it takes to make that happen. We went to eat at a friend's house not too long ago and our 3 year-old started asking questions about the food on the table; "Did you kill this chicken?" and other questions like that. Our 5 year-old was amazed to find out that this family did not have any farm animals and said 'You mean you don't even have one cow?' Hilarious what comes out of the mouths of babes!

8. What are some of the principles you teach in your workshops?

Carl and Lisa: Our workshops are mostly about skills for earth-based livelihoods. The underlying principles come from within us, live craft-full, purpose-full, and care-full lives. If the lifestyle speaks to you then follow your instincts. I encourage people to trust their intuition, and to learn to feel the anxiety that comes from a good choice un-made. If a particular path is avoided because of a lack of skills, and we can help with teaching those skills, then maybe the path can be followed.

9. How often do you offer the workshops? How should people contact you if they are interested?

Carl and Lisa: People come to us to learn about designing and building their own homes, understanding off-grid power systems, composting toilets and grey-water systems, on-farm slaughtering, bio-dynamic practices, spiritual gardening, dowsing, forest management, grazing systems, food preparation, timber harvesting, and working draft animals. We recognize that perhaps the most valuable product of our farm is our experience. We do not promote ourselves as possessing the "Right Way". We have skills, and we are glad to share them with people who value the learning. We entertain people on their own schedule, but from time to time we try to hold group gatherings to concentrate our efforts and to improve the experience through social engagement. People should contact us by phone (802) 234-5524, or by mail 341 MacIntosh Hill Rd., Randolph. VT 05060, or in person. We are not advertising, or trying to convince anyone. If we are on their path, then we'll be here when they arrive.

 

10. What kind of alternative energy do you use on the farm?

Carl and Lisa: "Alternative Energy". I've been waiting for this question. If you haven't felt the paradigm shift yet, then maybe this will help. The only alternative energy that we use on our farm is gasoline. All the other energy sources, sun, wind, plants, and animals are standard energies of the Earth. "Alternative" is a term used by the people who manage "Status Quo". It is part of a program on the main-frame of the Matrix. "Alternative" energy, medicine, agriculture, and lifestyles, are all truths that our culture cannot embrace at this time. I firmly believe that the success of a sustainable human culture depends on our recognizing the artificiality of the systems that prop up our modern lifestyles. Anyway, we use solar power from a small array of panels to make electricity, and electricity from a wind turbine also charges our battery bank. We are also dependent on a gasoline generator to back-up the system, because like everybody else, we can use more electricity than we can make. This is where conservation can become a very valuable source of energy. Draft animals are the only power we use for farm and forestry work. Our lifestyle also depends on our personal physical and emotional energy, which are at the same time used and fueled by our intimate involvement in raising our own food. We believe in sobriety and conscious presence, and we use homeopathy and avoid the "Health Care System". Our most abundant energy source comes from within us, and we revere it, protect it, and cultivate it.

11. How has the local community responded to you and your work? How have the utility companies responded?

 

Carl: In the 1980's when I started practicing and learning skills that so many in my community had been convinced to discontinue, people definitely looked askance. To some my ambition seemed to be an affront to them, as if I knew better. My choices are not about improving on those made by others, so as I demonstrated my commitment of purpose, and respect for those who knew more than I, I gained the respect that was slim at first. Now, there are many people who are trying to make those first steps, and they are looking to us for guidance. In the broader community, as issues of culture, environment, and energy increase in importance, there are more people who, at the very least, have an appreciation for the work we have been doing. The Utility Companies??? They really don't even know we exist. Since we are not grid-tied, we didn't have to get permits from the Public Service Board. For a while after we built, the meter-reader drove up our drive looking for a meter. After three or four attempts without success, he quit.

Lisa: We completed building our home in 2004 and since then have been growing our outreach to the local community and beyond. So our 'enterprise' is relatively new - though Carl has been farming/managing the woodlot here for many years prior to our partnership. People are becoming more and more aware of us as Earthwise Farm and Forest. I don't think that most people really get what we are doing, but when we make connections with people that are interested in our approach and lifestyle there is tremendous enthusiasm. Both Carl and I are involved in the community on many levels; as consultants doing our 'off-farm' work, on various boards and volunteering for numerous events. I don't think many people realize we even have a farm within some of these circles.

12. What advice do you have for people who are considering preparing themselves for the collapse of industrial society and who want to adopt a simpler, more self-sufficient lifestyle?

Carl: I am not in the advice business. We all have so many extenuating circumstances that may make my choices seem ridiculous to a lot of other people. However, I will encourage people to quiet themselves, and to find a path that provides them with a sense of calm and security. I feel that it is important to focus on the relationships that we must make with the Earth and other life-forms in order to survive. There is something called the "Lemming Effect", where over-population and depleted resources lead to illness and neurosis, which then lead to wholesale chaos, where millions of these rodents run over cliffs and drown in the artic sea. My only advice is believe it, and step aside; those of us left will try another approach.

Lisa: I would encourage people to stay open to their 'voice within' - to listen to their calling and to find the people around them that they can learn from. If someone is drawn to a certain geographical area, I am certain that there will be individuals there who can be an example and a resource and possibly a mentor. It is a valuable skill to be able to network and learn from others and it is important to realize one's own worth, ideas and individuality. Find your own truth and listen to your inner self for validation when you are walking your own path. The rest will fall into place.

Collapse

Bush reportedly "joked" after 9/11 that he had "hit the trifecta." His choices after that event have ruined the lives of millions, and drug the United States into the dubious honor of being a rogue nation.

Six years after the crimes of 9/11/2001, we still have more unanswered questions than those that have been answered. We have a Constitution in tatters and the government engaging in illegal surveillance and detention of U.S. citizens and others. The U.S. stands in violation of a laundry list of breaches of international treaties and agreements. We have two nations in shambles - "bombed back to the stone ages." We have tens of thousands of civilians dead in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have millions displaced - almost five million in Iraq alone. We have 3,776 U.S. troops dead (by Pentagon count), and at least 27,186 U.S. casualties. At least 122 U.S. service people have committed suicide.

All of this death and destruction, and there is no end in sight. General Petraeus (purportedly speaking independent of the White House) spoke of slow progress, but gave an expected up-beat report. Crocker (U.S. Ambassador to Iraq) was equally positive. Unfortunately, what I heard from their testimony was that by next summer the U.S. should have achieved a return to the conditions of the summer of 2006, which was worse than 2005, which was worse than 2004. In other words, this is not significant "progress."

To add to the debacle, the world is now facing the fall of Musharraf in Pakistan. This is big news that is not being adequately discussed in the U.S. Musharraf has been an "ally" in the "war of terror" in Afghanistan. His ouster there would be very bad news for the U.S.. Meanwhile, the Taliban is increasingly presenting as the (re)emerging power in Afghanistan. On the other hand we have Bush and the neo-cons trying to manufacture legitimacy for a preemptive invasion of Iran.

Given the current lack of "progress" in Iraq, one has to wonder what "progress" is being pursued.

Somehow it seems to have been forgotten what BushCo. was looking for in invading Iraq. The neo-cons saw Iraq as a potential tabula rasa for a test tube experiment in unfettered capitalism. The resources of Iraq were owned and controlled by Iraq. The utilities and infrastructure were public. One of the first actions after overthrowing Hussein was to start on an across the board privatization of Iraq. This was particularly true of the petroleum resources of the country.

The Bush administration has repeatedly conflated unfettered capitalism with democracy. They have hammered home a meme that pre-dated them, but Iraq was and is the test case. Capitalism is not democracy, and in fact the two are in direct opposition to each other. Under capitalism, the only ones with real voice are those who control enough capital to have a voice. In the U.S. we have seen that the price tag on voice has gotten increasingly dear.

Many in the U.S. are beyond frustration with the Democrats for not making significant progress to resolve the situation in Iraq and bring the troops home. However, the Democrats are using the same yard stick of "progress" that Bush and the Republicans are - namely the private control of Iraq's oil resources. They are apparently as heavily invested in the privatization of Iraq as Bush has been. However, neither the Iraqi people - nor the Iraqi parliament - are willing to sign over the wealth of the nation. Therefore, no "political" progress. Apparently U.S. "interests" are not served by Iraq controlling its own resources (or infrastructure). Of course, this is a simplistic analysis. A lot of money is being made by some on both endless war and keeping Iraq's oil off the market.

One might ask if we (or anyone else) is safer now than we were before. By all reports, we are not, and the world is not. Al Qaeda seems to have more diverse and active elements now than before September 11, 2001. There is now an Al Qaeda Iraq that was never there before, and which is enacting violence against both "coalition" and Iraqi civilians. Possible "terror cells" seem to be active in Europe. Turkey is threatening to launch strikes against Kurds in northern Iraq. This would be an attack against Iraq and draw U.S. forces into a conflict with an ally - Turkey. There are rumors of a permanent U.S. base on the border with Iran. That is sure to be a point of contention. Jordan and Syria don't know what to do with the 2 million plus Iraqi refugees, and the U.S. doesn't seem to be offering much of a solution to that.

In the U.S., we have had a dramatic restriction/erosion of both Constitutional protections and civil rights. Tests of weapons getting past airport screening systems show big weaknesses in even that basic system. The Coast Guard has spent millions on ships that won't float and are being decommissioned. Disaster response still seems to be a shambles.

So what do we have for all the cost paid by U.S. citizens, troops and their families, and people around the world? We have a highly intrusive (though apparently not particularly effective) "intelligence" apparatus. We have constructed a private contractor infrastructure that is not only expensive, but economically invested in continuing active war - forever. It has been suggested by more than a few that the massive diversion of resources into private contractors for military and intelligence purposes actually threatens the long - and short - term security of the nation. For example, 70% of the U.S. intelligence budget is going to private contractors.

Six years after September 11, 2001, we have a nation still largely in grief. We have added millions more to the casualty total of grievers - many now also looking for revenge. Revenge not against whoever was behind the events of 9/11/01, but against the United States.

Six years after September 11, 2001 what we do have is what might be expected when revenge is pursued rather than justice. Pain, death, grief and anger. Fear, reactionary decisions, and rhetoric aimed at factionalizing a nation. Our elected representatives need to step back from political and corporate interest and work on sane actions; healing actions; actions which move us all to a better place.

Collapse

Interview with Benjamin Orbach

-Where are you now, and what are you doing? Do you plan to stay in the region? Are you doing any further writing, and if so what type?

I returned to the United States from Egypt four years ago, and spent three years in Washington D.C. at the State Department working at the Middle East Partnership Initiative (mepi.state.gov). My work entailed managing and designing democratic reform assistance programs in the Middle East and North Africa. In those three years, I traveled to 11 countries in the region and worked directly with Arab civil society to support programs that address the needs and priorities identified by the UN Arab Human Development reports. Currently, I live in Jerusalem, and still work for the State Department and for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, in fact, as the Coordinator for Palestinian programs.

I continue to write, mostly on my blog, "Live from ...". I blog about daily life here in Jerusalem as well as about my travels around Israel and the surrounding areas. My blog (like this interview) reflects my opinion only and not any sort of official USG position.

There has been some press about the Iraqi refugee situation in the news. Not much, but some. The reports are that over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. About half of those in country, and half out of country. Reportedly, many of them have headed to Jordan. Is this accurate according to what you are seeing? How is Jordan receiving, and absorbing this population? How are the refugees perceived by Jordanians?

The last time I was in Jordan was in December of 2006, so it is difficult for me to offer a first person perspective on the latest involving the Iraqi refugee crisis. At that time, I was struck by how crowded the city seemed. Traffic was particularly bad. Friends told me that there were between 500,000 and 700,000 Iraqis living in Amman. I could hear Iraqi dialect being spoken in the streets and in stores, and random cabbies complained about how the Iraqis had increased the cost of living, especially as related to real estate. Several articles have been written about how Jordan got the rich Iraqi refugees and Syria got the poor ones.

As a result of the Iraq war, Jordan has seen an influx of different strangers: refugees from Iraq; foreign entrepreneurs, businessmen and AID workers; and also drifters with nefarious intentions. All of these newcomers -- from the Iraqi children who need to go to school to the militants headed to Iraq -- will have an impact on Jordan's social fabric and dynamics It will be interesting to figure out, over the next couple of years where the Iraqis fit in. They are new outsiders, similar in some ways to the Palestinians who came to Jordan in the immigration waves of 1948, 1967, and 1991.

It is also somewhat reported that many of the women who have made it out of Iraq are widows with families, or separated from their husbands. The report is that the situation of these women (many with children) is dire, and that many are becoming sex workers to support their families. Is this accurate? Is there any Jordanian, religious, or NGO support for women and children? How are governments, international organizations, NGOs or religious charities there to assist these refugees?

I've read similar reports. There are various American, international, and grassroots NGOs that support refugees, including the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA). For details on their work, I'd recommend taking a look at the UNRWA website, or that of organizations like CARE, Catholic Relief Services, the International Red Cross, ANERA, CHF International, and JumpStart International, a smaller international NGO that focuses on this exact subject.

On a more general level, what is you take on the political and emotional nature of the region? Do people feel hopeful or resigned? Do they see peace in their future? Or do they feel that there will be ongoing instability and conflict? How do you read the political and religious forces at play, and how the people are responding/impacted by that?

When you take a look at the Middle East from afar, it looks bleak. Between the major crises of Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there seems to be a never-ending string of bad news stories emanating from Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other parts of the region involving political violence by Islamist movements or harsh behavior by authoritarian regimes.

Still, when you zoom in for a closer look, despite the macro problems, people continue to lead warm, full lives. Without a doubt, there are people who are frustrated by the lack of opportunities (political, economic, and social) and who seek to immigrate to Europe or America. At the same time, though, people in the region live lives surrounded by family and rich in cultural traditions. In my work and travels, I have the opportunity to meet a lot of young people who are striving to improve their communities and their countries. From afar, it is easy to overlook their efforts and aspirations. It is also easy to miss the salon and coffeehouse conversations, the Dabka dance performances, and the culture of hospitality that is the norm here. Saturday, for instance, I went to the Taiybeh Oktoberfest beer festival outside of Ramallah. Watching the nightly news and the lowlights from Gaza, there is no way that your average American could believe that such an event exists.

As you know, there has been ongoing pressure out of the Bush Administration, to "intervene" in Iran. It looks very much (from here) that there is a case being built to justify a "preemptive" strike on Iran. What is your perception of the threat (if any) that Iran poses to the region? In your opinion, how would such an act by the U.S. be received by the people? How do people feel about Iran, and its power in the region?

Regardless of the threat that Iran poses or potentially poses, it is hard to believe that the United States would enter another military engagement with our military bogged down in Iraq. From the standpoint of resources, management, or U.S. public opinion it doesn't seem feasible.

Similarly, even though the Iranian government is perceived rather negatively in most places in the Middle East, U.S. military action against Iran would be widely condemned. People here want fewer wars and less violence. Many on the "Arab Street" blame foreign interventions for the existence of the dictatorial regimes that run their countries; they want fewer foreign interventions of this sort, not more. On the other hand, people look very favorably on foreign interventions that take the form of human development projects. If a U.S. president announced that he or she was diverting funds that would be used on a strike against Iran to build schools, hospitals, and roads throughout the region, and to resettle Palestinian and Iraqi refugees, he or she would be applauded in the streets.

One of the reported losses over the last five years has been the international credibility and "moral authority" of the United States. Do you think this is true?

I agree that we are not in a good place right now. The good news is that because of our history and our status in the world, people are still willing to give us a chance.

Along these lines, I think that everyday Americans have an important role to play in regaining our credibility through devoting their time, expertise, and charity to human development issues in the Middle East and North Africa. America's "unofficial ambassadors," i.e. world citizens representing America, can provide tools and trainings that create opportunities for young people and undercut the lure of extremism. Unofficial Ambassadors can be visiting scholars who teach their fields of knowledge; authors, artists and entertainers who inspire creativity; Peace Corps volunteers, Doctors without Borders and other professional do-gooders who contribute their efforts and expertise to meeting unmet human needs; and study-abroad students who embody openness and curiosity. All of these are examples of Americans who, while representing our country and our values well, deliver tools that enable people on the grass-roots level to bring about positive, gradual and homegrown changes within their societies.

The key to improving our standing is the delivery of tangible benefits and positive change. If we can't achieve that change on the major policy questions of the day, than it becomes even more important that we help people reach their goals on the micro or individual level.

Collapse

It takes something fairly significant for scientists to use such language with the press. After all, science is staid and tested. One does not admit problems with models using such "dramatic" language. If scientists are saying they are shocked and stunned, then we all better hold on to our hats.

This does not come as a surprise for those of you who have read my articles on this issue over the years ... or who have followed the off-the-front-page news regarding global warming.

At this time I am waiting for the "other" news to hit. The news that we are at a tipping point. Not at the tipping point where global warming is unstoppable. That may already be the case. No the other tipping point where we flip from global warming into an ice age. I discussed this in two articles from 2004: Environmental collapse - sooner not later, and Global Warming on Cats Paws. This "tip" into an ice age is not wild speculation, any more than global warming has been speculation.

While the climatic and sea level changes we are seeing with global warming are both measurable and devastating, and rapid flip to an ice age could geometrically magnify both environmental and social catastrophe. The fact that we have stripped many critical resources (oil, gas, fresh water, metals, top soil, etc) from the planet reduces our capacity to respond.

It is well past time for folks to realize that we as a society and the globalized consumption oriented culture need to change paths - radically. I get sick of even progressive pundits talking about "democracy" and promoting free market capitalism. While I greatly appreciate Air America radio, Randi and Ed - you need to wake up. Capitalism is only "democratic" for those with the economic resources to participate - and that is not most of the population even in the United States. The same goes for politicians - left, right, and center - who refuse to speak honestly about the issue. All of these "opinion leaders" are reaffirming the social myth that we can "tweak" capitalism, or "tweak" the way we are living (and promoting others to live the same way) and resolve the global warming issue.

It is not technology that is going to "save" us from environmental disaster. The transformation needed is a change of mind and heart and culture. The pundits, the politicians, and the people, all need to get out of dream land or all members of the planet - furred, finned, feathered and frond - are in a world of hurt.

Some of you have made dramatic changes and I commend you for them. It is more than difficult to be surviving in the land of corporate capitalism in an oil-based economy and try to work against that very system. However, somehow we must. It is clear that it will take us experimenting, sharing, and leading to change the culture and the lives that we live. The pundits are not going to do it. The politicians are not going to do it. The "enlightened" corporatists are not going to do it.

Let's face it. This system is not working for many of us. Increasingly (as the busting of the housing bubble is demonstrating) it is not even fictively working for most of us. It is time for some brutal honesty, and we are the only ones who are going to speak those truths.

Collapse

Ethical Markets is a wonderfully "feel-good" book because it illumines what is possible in the United States and in the world in terms of re-engineering our economic system into one that is authentically sustainable. However, I cannot digest the book in a vacuum unless I choose to ignore the current reality which is inimical to everything promoted by Henderson and the stories of the extraordinary people included in her book. Therefore, I must read and review the book not with an either/or perspective but rather a both/and outlook because many of the concepts enthusiastically presented in Ethical Markets are impossible to implement on a broad scale under the current paradigm. And in my opinion, the paradigm will not transform sufficiently in order to make widespread changes possible without the collapse of every American institution-which incidentally, we are now witnessing and most dramatically in terms of the world and national economy.

Henderson begins Ethical Markets by grouping the three main areas of change that she envisions in moving toward a green economy: 1) lifestyles of health and sustainability, 2) socially responsible investing, and 3) corporate social responsibility. All of these have meaning only when viewed in the context of quality of life as the fundamental definition of success.

That said, Henderson follows her chapter on Redefining Success with a hard-hitting demand for Global Corporate Citizenship, for it is the corporation after all, that has behaved most egregiously, not only against consumers, but especially against the environment. The crux of Henderson's argument is that "Corporations can be good citizens-and provide good financial returns. Hundreds of studies now show that companies do well by doing good." (36) Her chapter on global corporate citizenship is replete with stories and photos of CEO's and other corporate players who are remaking their industries by requiring that their companies behave responsibly toward consumers and toward the planet.

Yet, neither GDP nor quality of life can be accurately assessed without inclusion of the Unpaid "Love" Economy" of housewives and other uncompensated providers of goods and services. This "hidden" economy is a crucial factor in times of an economic depression or currency crisis such as the one experienced in Argentina in 2001 and in the U.S. during the Great Depression when banks collapsed and people "remember that they can create their own local 'scrip' currencies, barter clubs, flea markets, and community credit-systems to keep local exchange and production humming." (45)

It is at this point in the book that we begin to catch the flavor of relocalization and the transition from global to local that is pivotal in transforming the current economic system into one that serves human beings and the environment. For example, Henderson refers to Riane Eisler who believes that "economics is basically about what we value, and we must value the work of caring and care giving and develop caring policies." In the current system of empire, the most effective milieu for accomplishing this is at the local level.

Edgar Cahn, founder of the Time Dollar Institute which has devised a local system of time/work exchange, says that in this system "You put in an hour, you get an hour's credit then you can spend it to get help for yourself or your family or you can give that time credit to someone else who needs it more." One result of this arrangement is the rebuilding of a sense of extended family in the communities where the system is utilized.

Ithaca Hours is another scheme implemented in upstate New York. It is essentially a barter program which is currency-based rather than time-based. At its inception each person who wanted to participate received $20 worth of money for free for joining and after that the Ithaca Hours newspaper shopping directory of offerings grew slowly, but soon businesses began accepting the program, and Ithaca Hours became a successful program because it kept money in the community a little longer than other money. The program helps build community by getting people talking to each other and in some cases enables them to get interest-free loans, mortgages, and healthcare. While traditional economists still disparage bartering as "primitive", we now have the world's largest garage sale online, ebay, which demonstrates how the mainstream economy can be bypassed.

Another section of the book highlights green building projects constructed with sustainable, environmentally-friendly products, as well as the proliferation of companies, such as the Fairmont Hotel chain, which uses organic cleaning products instead of the usual toxic cleaning products and encourages its Washington, D.C. employees by subsidizing their use of public transportation rather than driving their cars to work.

In a chapter on investing in one's local community, the Business Alliance For Local Living Economies (BALLE) is highlighted as an example of how sustainable local economies can be created and maintained. Countering the global economy, BALLE works with local communities to provide products such as coffee and chocolate which cannot normally be obtained locally. "...it's not about buying everything local. It's about buying everything in a way that supports a local community where that project originates; in other words, paying fair trade prices." (77) TransFair USA is an organization that certifies companies and products that meet the international Fair Trade standards and audits the entire global supply chain. Henderson lists the principles of Sustainable World Trade as:

1. Adherence to all United Nations principles, treaties
2. A well-regulated transparent, democratic global financial architecture
3. Ending corruption
4. Ending relocation practices based on tax holidays
5. Calculating all traded goods and negotiations in full-cost prices
6. Truly level playing fields on subsidies
7. Connecting GDP per capita based economic growth measures: Rio de Janeiro in Agenda 21 (1992)
8. Correcting stock and bond markets evaluations (101)

Although fully acknowledging the reality of Peak Oil, Ethical Markets, while offering a number of energy conservation guidelines, does not mention the fact that no amount of conservation or technological innovation can be implemented in time to avoid a massive global energy crisis. Nor does Henderson mention the suppression of alternative energy technology during the past 60 years or the fact that globalization will be reversed by Peak Oil alongside the global economic catastrophe whose storm clouds we now see gathering.

A fascinating chapter on the Transformation Of Work proposes practical strategies for implementing ever-shorter work weeks which allow workers to enjoy the arts, sports, self-improvement, learning new skills, and having more time for travel and vacations, ultimately creating a whole new economy. Three concepts make this possible: 1) A guaranteed minimum income for all 2) guaranteed jobs, 3) employee stock ownership plans. A genuine "ownership society", not the one proposed by George W. Bush, is possible-a form of ownership benefiting the working and middle classes, not the ruling elite.

"Clean Food" is a chapter that illuminates the machinations of agribusiness and its intention to own and dominate world food supplies. Alternative food production and education endeavors such as Rodale Press and Institute, Forestrade, Inc., the Clif Bar company, and others are models for the creation of non-toxic food products and supplements. Yet once again, because so many formerly "healthy" food companies such as Ben and Jerry's, Horizon Organics, and Boca Foods have been purchased by corporate giants, it is relocalization and local food security programs that are more likely to ensure the proliferation of clean food.

Especially helpful at the end of the "Clean Food" chapter is Frances Moore Lappe's "Ten Actions For Just Food And For A Just World":

1. Enjoy food fresh from the [local] farm
2. Vote your values with your dollar
3. Eat a sustainable and whole-foods diet
4. Support fair trade products and workers' rights
5. Transform the buying power of your community, ie. Bringing fresh, local, organic foods into your schools, hospitals, etc.
6. Create brand-free zones
7. Get a diverse media diet
8. Get involved with issues that matter to you
9. Host a teach-in, study group, or gathering in your area around any cause you choose [But what about one that educates the citizens of your area about food?]
10. Vote [And to this I must add that the local level may be the only venue where legitimate, non-fraudulent elections still exist. I cannot concur with Lappe on the importance of voting in federal elections where the likelihood of fraudulent, computerized election tampering is rampant. See Bev Harris's documentary "Hacking Democracy".]

Fortunately, Ethical Markets is not a book for "white people". Its pages are filled with stories of Hispanic, African American, Native American, Asian, and Middle Eastern women and men who are working to transform the global economy into more localized, community-based endeavors that seek to expand and enhance genuine prosperity, produce safe and healthy products and services, and remake the capitalist system. In terms of ethical investment, the Calvert Group was the leading mutual fund to divest from companies doing business with South Africa during apartheid.

For those interested in socially responsible investing, Henderson offers an entire chapter which along with Catherine Austin Fitts series on "Socially Responsible Investing" is an invaluable resource for individuals who are looking for profitable yet ethical investment opportunities.

In summary, Ethical Markets is a must-read for anyone committed to relocalized powering down and creating sustainable economics. Nevertheless, I must interject some concerns. The first is that Henderson does not clearly or adequately address the levels of greed, fraud, and corruption that pervade corporate America, nor does she explain the corporatocracy-that is the enmeshment of government with corporations which makes it virtually impossible to distinguish where one ends and the other begins. According to Mussolini, this is the fundamental definition of fascism. Failure to do so may foster hope where it is not fully warranted because when one understands the symbiosis of government and corporations, not to mention the legal precedent of "corporate personhood" which evolved from 1886 until the present, one can easily grasps that the inevitable outcome is government being conducted as a criminal enterprise in concert with organized crime. (See "Godfather Government: A Way of Life Is Not A Scandal" which I wrote in 2007 and "Godfather Government: The Sopranos Aren't Leaving" in 2006.)

And, as stated above, I believe that since all institutions are in a state of collapse in juxtaposition with Peak Oil, global economic meltdown, and climate chaos, activism which does not take into account the conjunction of these phenomena alongside a government that has morphed into a police state and continues to do so daily in front of our very eyes-such activism can only operate myopically. Rather, I believe that current events overwhelmingly indicate that an economic catastrophe on the order of or exceeding the severity of the Great Depression is unfolding rapidly which may result in the collapse of many of the remarkable enterprises documented in Ethical Markets. At the same time, the opportunity exists for all of those enterprises to rebirth or re-invent themselves on a local level both in the throes of collapse and post-collapse. The latter, in my opinion, is the ultimate value of Ethical Markets-a blueprint of sorts for how we might survive and create localized economic opportunity in a post-petroleum, post-paper currency world.

For Hazel Henderson's commentary on current issues, see her September update. Her articles may be downloaded at Ethical Markets TV, and the book may be ordered at Calvert-Henderson website.

Collapse

(Picture courtesy of NOAA)

As depicted by a scientist interviewed by the Guardian:

Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University in Denver which released the figures, said: "It's amazing. It's simply fallen off a cliff and we're still losing ice." The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002.

Dr Serreze said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice, then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our children's lifetimes."

"Off a cliff" indeed.

To make matters worse, while warming and its effects have gone "off a cliff" over the last five years, the worse is yet to come. It is predicted that global warming will "set in with a vengeance after 2009." "Natural forces" are currently partially offsetting the warming - according to the report. Guess they haven't been in the southern U.S. or southern Europe.

According to the to NOAA, from 1979-2000 there was a 2.9% per year. That is a significant loss, and it is going to accelerate. I would help adopt a polar bear and try to keep it cool, but the whole ecosystem is at risk. From the phytoplankton to the polar bear the arctic ecosystem is at risk. Unfortunately, what happens at the arctic doesn't stay at the arctic. The arctic is part of the global system (as are humans, but too many of us refuse to embrace that relationship).

The earth is in for a rough time, and all of her residents are as well. I hear though the cockroaches are pretty hardy.

Collapse

Americans easily block out painful truths. Powerful societal forces keep much of the population distracted and uninterested in complex issues. Entertainment-oriented mainstream media contribute to mass ignorance. And the political establishment often buries the truth, uses propaganda and manipulates citizens. Intelligent, strong-willed people can fight all these.

But on a deeper level, many truths are blocked psychologically, because they produce too much pain. This results when truths sharply disagree with strongly held beliefs. The conflict produces cognitive dissonance that can block full acceptance of the disturbing truth. People fall victim to self-manipulation and self-delusion. Truths are dismissed and false beliefs remain embedded.

When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only Al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the two towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

If correct - IF - the immediate reaction is like a cosmic big bang. It would have taken considerable effort by a number of people with expertise and access to the buildings to rig them so that they could be intentionally collapsed when the two jets hit the towers. Tough questions flood in: Who could have engineered all this? Could foreign agents accomplish such complex actions - and if they did, why not take credit for it? If Americans did it, why would they intentionally inflict inevitable mass death and devastation? Worse, they seemingly knew about the plan to fly the jets into the towers.

Post-9/11, why have the government and official investigations not come to the same controlled demolition conclusion? This might be explained if the government was involved.

Pull one string and the whole 9/11 story unravels as your imagination triggers unending questions. Can Americans support a reinvestigation and rethinking of the 9/11 event? Or would they rather avoid even more pain and preserve the official account that places all blame on Al-Qaeda? So easy to criticize those who offer different explanations as conspiracy nuts.

After all, the new truth would be so shocking that we would have to question our political and government system. Could there have been such malevolence somewhere in our government? Did a monumental conspiracy push us into attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq? Did petroleum and corporate interests shape 9/11?

Like other groups, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth wants a new, honest and comprehensive study that considers all the evidence for controlled demolition. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building no. 7.

If there were non-Muslim forces - possibly U.S. government ones - that played a major role in the WTC catastrophe, then let us have the courage to face the truth. Suppose some element of our government played a secret, awful role. If we do not uncover it, then we are vulnerable to repeat nefarious and unimaginable activity in the future - possibly to impact the 2008 presidential election. Discovering 9/11 truth would enshrine the wisdom of the old adage: the truth hurts. That means suffering the pain of revealing lies and cover-ups. Mourning over the deaths of building victims and heroic first responders would expand with new anger. And another reason to hate and oppose the Iraq war would surface.

If those that believe the official 9/11 story - especially elected officials - trust their views, then let them support a serious investigation to test the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they fear and reject doing so, then let us see that as suspicious and unacceptable.

As a former engineering professor with growing skepticism about the official WTC story, I joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth; you can learn about the controlled demolition findings and other similar truth-seeking efforts at www.ae911truth.org. You choose: seek the truth yourself or take the easy way and just criticize those who question the official story.

To sum up, horrific possible answers can cause us to shun a question. But clearing our minds of fears of painful truths is essential to clearing our nation of destructive lies. Otherwise, we stay stuck in a delusional democracy.

Collapse

From them I have learned to more skillfully read the tea leaves of the current economic upheaval that is brewing within the United States and is now rippling into the global financial markets. Furthermore, I have realized that my government and the economy of the United States is being run as a criminal syndicate, and that the most useful way to understand the subprime mortgage meltdown and its implications was to familiarize myself with the economics of Tony Soprano, that infamous main character of the HBO TV series "The Sopranos", Mr. King of New Jersey "waste management" and proprietor of the Bada Bing.

On Friday morning I opened an email from a friend who sent me an article by an old "leftie" I've admired since my college days, historian Gabriel Kolko, entitled "The Predicted Financial Storm Has Arrived." Writing about the subprime mortgage crisis, Kolko noted that, "What the subprime market did was unleash a far greater maelstrom involving banks in Germany, France, Asia, and throughout the world, calling into question much of the world financial system as it has developed over the past decade." After explaining the international ramifications of the crisis, Kolko concludes:

We are at an end of an era, living through the worst financial panic in many decades. Now begins global financial instability. It is impossible to speculate how long today's turmoil will last-but there now exists an uncertainty and lack of confidence that has been unparalleled since the 1930s-and this ignorance and fear is itself a crucial factor. The moment of reckoning for bankers and bosses has arrived. What is very clear is that losses are massive and the entire developed world is now experiencing the worst economic crisis since 1945, one in which troubles in one nation compound those in others.

But later that day, President Bush stepped up to the cameras and declared that the U.S. government would provide assistance to borrowers in the U.S. who had been hit by the subprime crisis. Knowing full well that anything this government promises in the way of "relief" or "assistance" is almost guaranteed to be as "helpful" and "assisting" as that which it provided New Orleans in the throes of Katrina, I wanted to put this so-called bail out under the microscope and comprehend its actual substance.

You Mean This Didn't "Just Happen?"

I started with Catherine Austin Fitts's statement on her Solari site that "As we work to mitigate investment losses in the mortgage market and the harm done to communities through the fraudulent inducement of debt, we are well served to understand what has happened, who is benefiting, and why." And what is fraudulent inducement? Nothing more or less than inducing people who cannot pay their debts to borrow huge sums of money. The subprime crisis has now revealed the myriad "creative" methods used by lenders to make this happen. Tony Soprano would not only be proud of them, but would promote them.

In a CNN Money article "Mortgage Meltdown: Here Come The Judgments" from August 21, a California real estate attorney speaking about the many lawsuits that are resulting from the mortgage meltdown, stated that "Most claims will be against mortgage brokers for putting them into loans where they shouldn't have been." A property law professor at the University of California added that "...overly exuberant brokers and loan officers told clients not to worry about concerns like their ARMs (adjustable rate mortgage) resetting; they could always refinance and, anyway, interest rates were bound to fall." The end result, of course, has been millions of people with houses, which as one Florida real estate law attorney stated, they can't refinance, they can't sell, and they can't afford. For many of those borrowers, class action suits are the only way they can find some sort of remedy for their nightmare.

I was now getting clearer on what fraudulent inducement really means and the tragic ramifications for borrowers victimized by it. None of this, obviously, "just happened." Or as Fitts asserts:

Recently, we have seen numerous press accounts of bank and hedge fund losses from sub-prime mortgages. Remarkably, these reports imply that the losses are the result of a market downturn or contracting credit cycle. But there has been no mention of the extraordinary profits that were generated or who reaped them. There is no mention of who is poised to make a fortune on the bubble collapse. Even the most sophisticated commentators of our day are describing this financial coup d'etat as the unintentional consequence of "market forces".

But how exactly did this work? And how exactly does the "bail out" serve the interests of lenders, not borrowers?

My research has led me to conclude that the bail out will unfold in the following manner:

The Federal Reserve is lending money-that is, digital entries into accounts payable to hedge funds based on worthless mortgages, meaning that the these funds can borrow money cheaply in ways that will enable them to make huge profits. This is essentially a back-door subsidy from the Fed. At the same time, the Fed is most likely pumping credit into the market to pull it up because while feigning calm and cool, the Fed is terrified about the markets tanking. As Steven Weisman wrote in the New York Times on August 31, "Despite the assertion that affecting the markets is not the goal, one administration official said concern about Wall Street's reaction did affect the timing of the briefing. He said there was a fear that if the White House announced in the morning that Mr. Bush would be making an announcement on housing, there could be confusion as buyers and sellers of mortgage securities guessed what the announcement would be." As a result of Bush's announcement, of course, the markets spiked.

Or perhaps it wasn't just as a result of the bogus "bail out." After all, John Crudele has been writing profusely about the Wall St. Plunge Protection team, euphemistically referred to as the President's Working Group On Financial Markets which was established on March 18, 1988 by Executive Order 12631. In a June 8, 2006 New York Post article, Crudele stated:

Back during a stock market crisis in 1989, a guy named Robert Heller - who had just left the Federal Reserve Board - suggested that the government rig the stock market in times of dire emergency. ..... Proposed as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, it's a seminal argument that says when a crisis occurs on Wall Street "instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thus stabilizing the market as a whole." Had Heller been any other schmoe who writes op-ed pieces for The Journal this would have been long forgotten. But he had served for three years as a governor at the Fed and this proposal had the look of a trial balloon since stocks had just fallen sharply on Oct. 13, 1989, and memories of the 1987 crash were still fresh. Over the next few years people like me ... suspected that Heller's plan was indeed in effect. Whenever the stock market was in trouble someone seemed to ride to the rescue. Often it was a Wall Street firm that seemed more courageous than fiscally responsible. Often it appeared to be Goldman Sachs, which just happens to be where Paulson and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin worked. ...For a while I thought something called the Currency Stabilization Fund - which actually exists at the U.S. Treasury but is meant for currency stability - was the slush fund used for this venture. I was told by people who claimed to know that this part of the theory wasn't so.

WWTSD? (What would Tony Soprano do?)

The Bush bail out means that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will refinance mortgages in trouble, but this put borrowers in debt-yet again. In addition, it's important to understand that the FHA has two funds: The General Fund and the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund which provides insurance for single family homes. Essentially, what the bail out will do is create a huge pool of mortgages guaranteed by the FHA into a Ginny Mae pool which will end up bailing out, not borrowers, but mortgage brokers! Investors from hedge and other funds, will buy these so-called mortgage-backed securities, guaranteed by FHA, but they are in fact worthless, resulting in both borrowers and investors being defrauded. For example, a mortgage banker may have 100 mortgages which are worthless, and he puts them into a pool and issues securities tied to those pools and sells them to investors in Europe and Asia. Former FHA Housing Commissioner, Catherine Austin Fitts, has written extensively on the fraudulent behavior of FHA which put her at odds with the agency and ultimately led to her departure. Apparently, the FHA leopard has not changed its spots in the slightest.

Basically, what we have is a scenario comprised of three players: the borrower, the middleman (mortgage lenders), and the investor. The middle man is fraudulently inducing borrowers to borrow, and investors to invest, but the bail out helps no one except the fraudsters.

Or as Michael Panzner, author of Financial Armageddon writes:

Even assuming that some troubled borrowers manage to hang on, the truth is that enabling more of the same kind of bad behavior that got people in trouble in the first place will only make matters worse.

The hair of the dog that bit them isn't a cure. It merely delays the moment of reckoning.

In reality, guaranteeing loans for homeowners who can't afford the payments, encouraging mortgage-holders to hang on until they've been bled dry, and giving false hope to those who would be better off cutting their losses really only benefits one group: The lenders.

Commenting on "the greedy global financiers", The London Observer's Will Hutton states: "Little people's taxes are underwriting the mistakes of big people, who in the process have made riches beyond the dreams of avarice. Globalisation, it is now clear, is run in the interests of a global financial class which has Western governments in its thrall."

Calling the mortgage meltdown exactly what it is, theft, Hutton continues:

The last few days have seen some recovery in the financial markets and some hopes for a return to normality, but what does normal mean? The system that has delivered hundreds of billions of dollars of written-off loans with a global impact can hardly carry on as if nothing has happened. The banks at the epicentre of the crisis should go bust and heads should roll. The hedge funds which bought the debt, traded it and sold it on to banks globally should also be allowed to go bust and be subjected to much closer surveillance and regulation....

Instead, most central banks and governments across the West are straining every muscle to limit the fall-out, assure banks and hedge funds that there is limitless public money on tap and that governments' first aim is to get back to 'normal'. The explanation is obvious. The Western financial system is too important to be allowed to implode; credit is any economic system's life-blood and if the supply lines get gummed up because of a collapse of confidence and severely punctured balance sheets, everybody suffers. Quite right, but at least we can be careful in future about the terms on which supportive cash and potential bail-outs are made, as well as drawing larger conclusions about the nature of the implicit contract between finance and society.

The last thing borrowers need is more debt! Instead of a refinancing arrangement, the borrower needs a higher income and lower expenses which will allow him/her to pay down debt and improve his/her skills.

In the current George W. Bush-Tony Soprano scheme, every time a corporate player commits fraud, he gets to keep the profits, and borrowers have to pay an inflation tax as a result. Eventually, this results in the fraudsters owning more and more of the nation and world economy until they own it all. Money is simply printed out of thin air to bail out the fraudsters which causes all of our expenses to rise because we don't have the rigged income to hedge those costs as the fraudsters do.

One of the key fraudsters for more than a decade has been Goldman Sachs which not only fraudulently induced a plethora of borrowers and investors, but promoted the outsourcing of millions of jobs during the Clinton administration so that lucrative jobs that could have employed borrowers and enabled them to pay off their mortgages were moved offshore. Goldman Sachs has given us three Secretaries Of the Treasury in the past 15 years: Robert Rubin (Clinton Administration), Steve Friedman (Clinton) and Henry Paulson (Bush II)

It appears that the primary fraudsters are New York Federal Reserve member banks such as J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and AIG (American International Group) which has also been deeply connected with drug trafficking and money laundering. These are also the same players involved in the housing bubble of the 1980s and other scandals and such as Enron, World Com, and the shady Harvard Endowment Fund.

In his August 7 blog, Charles Hugh Smith asks "Is the USA a Giant Enron?" noting that our financial system is based on cooked books, lies and deceptions such as: Bogus inflation numbers; unemployment statistics manipulated downward; a GDP back-adjusted every quarter; balances sheets of corporations, pension funds, and government agencies massively understating liabilities and egregiously overstating assets and future earnings; and visible, laughable lies from the mouths of top officials, all spoken with a straight face.

Economist Peter Schiff forecasts that:

"Issued by government agencies, interpreted by spokespersons for the Government and the financial community ... the information we get has been manipulated to mould a public understanding favourable to the agenda of the powers that be." Schiff's prediction of economic doom has everything to do with the US mortgage and housing meltdown, a prophecy he made in the book before the latest market turmoil.

"The collapse of consumer spending, associated with higher mortgage payments and vanishing home equity, will plunge the economy into severe recession, further exacerbating the collapse in real estate prices, worsening the recession and continuing the vicious cycle," he says.

We have only begun to see the reverberations of the mortgage meltdown. They will be as sweeping and mindboggling as global warming or an earthquake measuring 10 on the Richter scale. Tony Soprano economics aren't necessarily noisy, but they are gargantuan in their reach and ramifications. Global economic meltdown, initiated by the ruling elite of the United States with full knowledge of omnipresent, pervasive global resource depletion-or as some have called it "Peak Everything", will obliterate the American middle class and result in the ownership of the planet by a voracious ruling elite.

Tony's predecessor said it best decades before Tony was even a twinkle in his father's eye:

Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.

Al Capone

Collapse

The thing that is most uplifting for me is the courage and commitment of these activists for peace. Brian and others who were protesting for peace in 1987 are still active today in current pressures for peace.

I have students who want to know what to do to fix things. Most of them think they can do one thing - some short term burst of energy - and they will be successful. Most look very dismayed when I tell them that making the world a better place is a life long commitment. They can't just go to a rally, or recycle their plastic drink bottles, or write a letter to their Congresspersons. If they want a better world, then they will being working at it for the rest of their lives.

What Nuremberg Actions, and Brian Willson show is that the peace and justice battles of the 1960s and early 70s were not won. They were carried on in the 1980s and 90s. They are carried on now.

I go to demonstrations and marches and I see a lot of grey hairs and not a lot of cherub faces. I see a lot of light skin and very little dark skin. I worry about the peace and justice movement of the 2020s and 2030s (assuming we aren't struggling to survive resource exhaustion and climate chaos). Will that movement be more diverse and span the age spectrum?

I hope that the efforts to the tens of thousands of dedicated activists help to inspire the current and next generation.

Collapse