The article posted at Veterans for Peace is The 14 Characteristics of Fascism is a reprint of an article by Lawrence Britt from the Spring 2003 Free Inquiry magazine. Britt's article is well worth reading in full, but I would like to talk about them from my own perspective.

1 - "Powerful and Continuing Nationalism"

2 - "Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights"

3 - "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause"

4 - "Supremacy of the Military"

5 - "Rampant Sexism"

6 - "Controlled Mass Media"

7 - "Obsession with National Security"

8 - "Religion and Government are Intertwined"

9 - "Corporate Power is Protected"

10 - "Labor Power is Suppressed"

11 - "Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts"

Please note that the book is upside down. Not to mention that Bush proudly proclaims that he never reads a paper (or probably anything else than the Bible) and gets all his information from his "trusted" advisors. What more can you say?

Of course, we also have Ashcroft spending $11,000 to "drape" the statue of Justice as an example.

12 - "Obsession with Crime and Punishment"

13- "Rampant Cronyism and Corruption"

14 - "Fraudulent Elections"

In many ways the US has always had close ties to fascism. The cultural theses of exclusivity, superiority, and racism make the US particularly susceptible. That is why democracy is an ongoing struggle and not a done deal. The public has been rallied over and over to join together to fight for "freedom" and "liberty." Repeatedly, those struggles have been oppression of others for the benefit of "America," and particularly certain "Americans." People in the US look to Nazi Germany as the modern example of fascism. People need not look so far.

Just days after deciding that they had somehow separated the "good" Ba'athists from the "bad" Ba'athists, the US tapped Salah - a former general of Hussein's army - as the go-to guy for Falluja. Falluja has reported to have been a Hussein stronghold. So perhaps it is not too surprising that Salah and his forces receives a hero's welcome (SpaceWar, 4/30/04). It must have been a severe jolt to the US and to US troops at Falluja to see the welcome that they had hoped would greet the US.

It is interesting that the US not only selected the General for the job, but that he had his own troops - not the new Iraqi forces recruited by the US. "Salah showed up in town with 200 followers before heading into closed door talks with the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, General James Conway, at Camp Fallujah, a few kilometres (a couple of miles) outside town" (Space War, 4/30/04). Just what was an ex-General of Hussein's forces doing wandering around with "followers" from the old Iraqi army? How many "followers" are there (obviously over 1,000).

I presume that the US decided that Salah was a "good" Ba'athist and not loyal to Hussein. Though where did the US find him, and what was his offer to them, and what does he (and his troops) get out of this? One has to assume that the US is paying these forces - there isn't anyone else except defense contractor who could. Or is this one of the few private contracts that have gone to Iraqi's rather than to US corporations.

What surprises me is that there doesn't seem to be anyone asking these questions. The news reports come through without a bat of the eye. It's as if it is normal that a Hussein General is roaming around Iraq with a band of former Iraqi military offering his services where needed.

Was the response of the people of Falluja a reaction to the US pulling back, their replacement by Iraqi forces, or to a return to "normal?" How many other former Iraqi Generals are roaming around Iraq with troops waiting to replace US forces? One has to wonder if this is the new US approach to replacing lost "coalition" forces, and reducing US troop numbers in Iraq. Perhaps the Bush regime feels that the Ba'athists, and Hussein's army and police will work better with Negroponte (who has no qualms about death squads, torture, and forceful control of populations).

It is still unknown who the US is turning (partial) sovreignty of Iraq over to on June 1. Perhaps this is an indication? Will the "new" Iraq look very much like the "old" Iraq except with a much more blatant US presence (both corporate and military)?

I guess that time will tell what will happen in Iraq, but I sure wish that someone would ask pertinent questions, and get some decent answers to them.

Virtually missing from all US reports is that the CIA, military intelligence, and private contractors were hired at the prison to direct "interrogation," and that US soldiers most likely were following their orders in torturing the prisoners.

4/30/04 Borger, Guardian/UK, US military in torture scandal "According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon."

....

Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein."

5/10/04 Hersh, New Yorker, TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell' and the answer I got was, "This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done." . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have "encouraged and told us, "Great job," they were now getting positive results and information," Frederick wrote. "CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI's request." At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. "His reply was "Don't worry about it.'"

If these reports are accurate (and personally I believe they are), then the use of abuse and torture were deliberate and sanctioned from the top. It also means that it is likely that this kind of abuse is not an "isolated incident," but a common practice being used on prisoners (in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere).

It is most likely also not "accidental" that the abuse was so copiously documented. I suspect that the photos were used as an additional form of degradation.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. "Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other it's all a form of torture," Haykel said. (Hersh)

Who were these dangerous prisoners who were being degraded and tortured at Abu Ghraib? Hersh states in the New Yorker article:

Most of the prisoners, however, by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers, were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. They fell into three loosely defined categories: common criminals; security detainees suspected of "crimes against the coalition"; and a small number of suspected "high-value" leaders of the insurgency against the coalition forces.

It seems likely that some of the prisoners died from the abuse that they received:

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood. (Hersh)

And these prisoners were definitely tortured - not "just" humiliated. A 53 page report of the investigation of abuse by Major General Antonio M. Taguba obtained by the New Yorker (and not a public document) listed some of the following conclusions:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

Also taken from this the Taguba report is the following quote from an interview with one of the US soldiers involved:

SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.

When he returned later, Wisdom testified:

I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn't think it was right . . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, "Look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds." I heard PFC England shout out, "He's getting hard."

The level of depersonalization of the prisoners, even months after the abuse is frightening to me - note the reference above to the prisoner as "it."

The Hersh article lists the names and ranks of the US soldiers under investigation. Interestingly, none of the CIA, military intelligence, or private contractors are named. Nor do we know how many of them were present at the prison. We do know the companies that were contracted at the prison thanks to a report in the Guardian/UK - US military in torture scandal, Borger, 4/30/04.

The investigation names two US contractors, CACI International Inc and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in Abu Ghraib.

Titan, based in San Diego, describes itself as a "a leading provider of comprehensive information and communications products, solutions and services for national security". It recently won a big contract for providing translation services to the US army.

CACI, which has headquarters in Virginia, claims on its website to "help America's intelligence community collect, analyse and share global information in the war on terrorism".

According to the military report on Abu Ghraib, both played an important role at the prison.

At one point, the investigators say: "A CACI instructor was terminated because he al lowed and/or instructed MPs who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by setting conditions which were neither authorised [nor] in accordance with applicable regulations/policy."

There may be a strategy in utilizing private contractors for such "jobs" as they are not under milittary jurisdiction (Borger: "One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him"). It would seem to me that civilian contractors who violate the law would come under Iraqi law. By turning offending contractors over to their employers for "discipline" a free rein is essentially given to any activity. In other words, under the US occupation of Iraq, contractors can be hired to abuse, torture, and kill Iraqi's and face NO legal consequences whatsoever. They can act with impunity.

This story became public (in part) because of Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick who was stationed at the prison and kept a journal once the investigation began. (See a partial transcript at 'I asked for help and warned of this but nobody would listen', Guardian/UK, 5/01/04).

In a BBC report - Link to video of a 5/01/04 report it is noted that Frederick, claims to have complained about the conditions, is a prison officer in civilian life. Frederick is one of six soldiers under investigation for abuse. He claims he raised the conditions to his superiors, but was under orders to abuse the prisoners.

The distraction being put out by most reports was that there were only seven soldiers responsible for 800 prisoners. This may well be true, but it how many CIA, military intelligence, and private contractors were at the prison? Obviously, this kind of soldier-prisoner ratio would have resulted in appalling conditions even without the abuse and torture. Another distraction is that these soldiers were "untrained." Well Frederick certainly wasn't. But one must ask, "trained" to do what? Act as a prison staff? Engage in humiliation and torture? They certainly were trained to "follow orders" which apparently they did with zeal if the photos are to be believed.

Obviously this "incident" and the release of the photos are not improving relations between the US and Iraqis, but are likely to enflame an already growing hostility against the US (Muslim 'torture' backlash, Langdon, This is London, 4/30/04; Outrage at US abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Al Jazeera, 5/01/04). No amount of "smoothing ruffled feathers," nor "sincere apologies" are going to cover the fact that the humiliation and torture was a standard practice, authorized at the highest levels.

The events at Abu Ghraib should be responded to with outrage by the citizens of the US. This happened in OUR NAME and the consequences of those actions will be directed against the US. It seems clear that the violation of human rights, of civil rights, of international law and of the Geneva convention, is the accepted practice of the Bush "War on Terrorism." That is not just unacceptable - it is despicable and not to be tolerated, condoned. There are too many facts available at this point for the lie of being "disgusted" at this "unfortunate incident" to fly. This requires the broadspread condemnation of the people of the US for what it is - a policy of anything goes.

The utilization of "private contractors" protected from any personal or legal consequences is also unacceptable. Those contractors were under the employ of corporations and had their orders directly from the US military and intelligence command. The US military and intelligence command had their orders directly from the Pentagon, and the Pentagon is DIRECTLY under the command of George W. Bush. This goes to the top.

Certainly, the pattern of secrecy and covert actions fostered and practiced by the Bush administration is part and parcel of the policy of total disregard for either law or human decency. The refusal to allow human rights organizations access to prisoners enhances the continuance of such secrecy and abuse.

What can we do?
Pressure the US corporate media to TELL THE TRUTH and to INVESTIGATE and REPORT HONESTLY to the American public about these events and others. Without that, the majority of the American public will accept the lies and distractions, and rest comfortable thinking that this was an anomaly involving seven stressed out soldiers who "lost it" under unbearable pressure. This includes flooding the papers with letters to the editor.

Contact your legislators and tell them exactly what you think, and what you believe should be done. I would suggest that impeachment proceedings be started immediately for Bush and Cheney, and the replacement of the entire chain of command from Rumsfeld, to Bremer, to those in Iraq. I would suggest criminal charges for all who devised and ordered this strategy, and turning them all over to the International Criminal Court.

Get the information - print out the reports, the pictures, make copies. Given them to people. If you have a website, post them there. The government may be trying to keep all of this quiet, but you don't have to.

Links for your Convenience - not exhaustive so add your own

4/30/04 Borger, Guardian/UK, US military in torture scandal

5/10/04 Hersh, New Yorker, TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB

'I asked for help and warned of this but nobody would listen', Guardian/UK, 5/01/04

Link to video of a 5/01/04 report

Muslim 'torture' backlash, Langdon, This is London, 4/30/04

Outrage at US abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Al Jazeera, 5/01/04

4/30/04 DemocracyNow, Abu Ghraib: New Warden, Same Prison

4/30/04 Mejendie, Reuters, Iraqi Prison Photos Mar U.S. Image

4/30/04 Borger, Guardian/UK, US military in torture scandal

5/01/04 WSWS, "Bush and the Democrats are responsible for torture in Iraq"

Paul O'Neill brought this up in his little expose of his time in the Bush White House, and Clarke, brings it up in his account of the events immediately following Sept. 11. It was also in Rumsfeld's private notes immediately following 9/11/01. It is clear the administration wanted to come go into Iraq before ever setting foot in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and that 9/11/01 provided a pretext to set that up. Not to mention the invasion of Afghanistan. Apparently, the U.S. OK'd plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11 (MSNBC, 3/23/04).

In attempting to figure out whether the attacks of 9/11/01 could have been prevented, the Commission is examining both the Clinton and Bush Jr. knowledge and actions. The question keeps coming up of why Clinton and Bush didn't act against al Qaeda sooner. The basic answer for both is that neither the Congress or the people would have supported launching an all out military assault. Not to mention that Clinton was hamstrung by the Republican and press on both the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations. The reality is also that GW seems to have not been too concerned about al Qaeda prior to 9/11/01. He had other fish to fry - literally since he was on vacation for over half of his first 9 months in office.

I find it more than surprising that what was considered the most "effective" plan was to overthrow the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Apparently Afghanistan was on the top of the Bush to do list. Colin Powell was in Afghanistan with a check to the Taliban for $43 million in "humanitarian aid" in July of 2001 (Madsen, CRG, 1/23/02, Afghanistan, the Taliban
and the Bush Oil Team.). One has to wonder about the nature of that visit as apparently the warning was given that Afghanistan would be invaded by mid-October 2001 (US 'planned attack on Taleban', Arney, BBC, 9/18/01). Guess what? The US invaded in the middle of October. Wasn't it fortuitous that 9/11/01 happened to justify that invasion? It most likely would have been very difficult to get UN Security Council support otherwise, and the invasion of Afghanistan (like that of Iraq) would have been illegal under international law.

While it is clear that Hussein had no relationship to al Qaeda, the spin certainly was that they did. Much was made of this in spinning the US (and the rest of the world) into a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. I asked one of my classes at the beginning of March 2003 whether they believed that Hussein was directly involved in the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Over 70% thought that this was a fact. This is despite broad coverage at that time that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda. Roughly the same number thought that the terrorists on those planes were Iraqi.

Which brings us to the question of legality. The US has taken the strategy of pre-emptive war and assassination as viable strategies to protect US interests. Israel is certainly on the same page with the Palestinians. assassination of foreign diplomats and heads of state is not legal under international law. Both the US and Israel are openly engaging in this strategy. Israel targeted Sheik Ahmed Yassin and killed him, and Israel 'targeting entire Hamas leadership' (Oliver, Guardian, 3/23/04). Meanwhile, Bush Backs Israel on Self-Defense (Kessler & Lynch, Wa. Post, 3/23/04). The UN is considering sanctions for Israel for the assassination. Israel, Palestinians clash in UN Security Council (McCool, Reuters, 3/24/04), and Israel argues the hypocrisy of not condemning the suicide bombings.

The reality is that the murder of Yassin, and the open plans to go after others, are rousing the entire Middle East. If it was tense before, it is definitely explosive now as was seen by the 100s of thousands of protesters in Palestine, Syria, and Iraq (to name a few). Further, the US support of Israel on this attack is being responded to with even more anti-American sentiment. Bush started his "war on terrorism" with Christian rhetoric of the Crusades. Israel's murder of a spiritual leader and Bush support of that murder, only reinforces the perception that it is Islam under attack. In my opinion, this can only bring more Muslims to the side of the Islamists. It seems clear that the perception of a war on Islam will be met with fierce resistance and even violence.

Meanwhile, the march to empire continues. While saying that the US is turning over authority in Iraq on June 30th, the US is setting up 14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq (Spolar, Chicago Tribune, 3/23/04). The US has launched a new offensive in Afghanistan with 35,000 plus troops, and is mobilizing troops in Northern Africa. The US has been implicated in the Aristide coup in Haiti, and has been active in ongoing attempts to oust Chavez in Venezuela.

The Bush administration has talked a lot about regime change, and has certainly shown the utmost disdain for both the UN and the international community. Apparently the umbrella of that disdain extends to Israel as well. This is not surprising as the neo-cons also support Israel. One has to ask whether international law will eventually come to bear on illegal activities, and what the US would do in the event of such an action by the international community. If the international community through the vehicles of the UN or NATO declared the US a rogue state, what would that mean? Could sanctions be enforced, or would we have a "regime change" in the US?

What is clear is that both the US and Israel are in violation of numerous international agreements. Much of the rest of the world seems aware of this and it is reflected in the meteoric drop in international negativity about the US. It is also behind the dramatic increase in perceptions that suicide bombings are justifiable against the US (Pakistan went from 36-46%, Morocco 27-66%, and Jordan 24-70% as reported by the PEW survey). What seems clear is that while Bush and Co. may be intent on creating the empire of the 21st century, the rest of the world will not submit without a struggle.

Note: The information sources for this article come primarily from the independent and international media as the corporate (or mainstream) media has chosen not to report fully or accurately the events discussed. For a list of good independent media sources, see the links after the bibliography.

How far would those with extreme political and economic power go to enhance and secure their position? Would they truly aim towards global hegemony regardless of the costs to life and environment? Would they engage in practices that they knew would kill and disable workers and populations? Would they knowingly commit permanent damage on the environment to gain their ends? Would they sponsor and enact agreements that would overturn the sovereignty of nations; purposefully send populations into poverty; intentionally strip the earth and its inhabitants of the necessities of life; make the entire population of the earth dependent on them for our very survival?

Would they knowingly orchestrate the deaths of thousands of people to advance the control by a few? Would they knowingly release deadly bacteria and viruses on unsuspecting populations? Would they knowingly start a global war bringing the most deadly biological, chemical, and nuclear technologies to active use?

To the average global citizen (and I am one), the answer to all of these questions is obviously "No." To the average person -- regardless of race, nationality, political or religious affiliation, the answer is "No."

We have difficulty fathoming these types of actions because they entail such a pathological disregard for everything that seems sane, and such a pathological self-interest that is generally assigned to the criminally insane. We do not accept that someone or someones can deliberately engage in activities with the foreknowledge of destruction of lives. To get others to join in and cooperate in such ventures calls up visions of mind control and bizarre cults.

Probably the closest "sane" framework is war (or its equivalent), where on a broad scale, many can dehumanize a population or a group to a point that virtually any action against them is seen as legitimate. We are well familiar with this mentality in the United States. However, applying this explanation to those who would use and consort to use their power for wildly destructive purposes has frightening implications. It would mean that those who hold the reins of power see us as the "Enemy" with all the nastiness such a construct entails.

Unfortunately, we are not dealing with an individual pathology, but a systemic pathology. We have allowed the creation of an environment where these "pathologies" are the norm -- part of day to day operations of our economic, social, and public institutions. It might even be argued that this drive to power has been normalized by our particular capitalistic system which while portrayed as "free market capitalism" has become cannibalistic capitalism.

Though we find it difficult to understand these types of heinous activities, we have ample examples that they do occur, and that they occur on a regular basis. Despite this, we seem to be largely willing to continue to trust corporations, the power elite, and allow them to advance their position vis a vis the people and the earth. Perhaps we do not act because they are presented to us as isolated incidents.  This is nowhere more clear than in the case of corporate malfeasance that impacts our environment and health.

The Environment, Resources and  Human Health

The following quotes by Monsanto representatives capture the aim of corporations:

In India, Monsanto has bought MAHYCO, Maharashtra Hybrid Company, EID Parry and Rallis. Mr. Jack Kennedy of Monsanto has said, "we propose to penetrate the Indian agricultural sector in a big way. MAHYCO is a good vehicle." According to Mr. Robert Farley of Monsanto, "what you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain. Since water is as central to food production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is now trying to establish its control over water. During 1999, Monsanto plans to launch a new water business, starting with India and Mexico since both these countries are facing water shortages."  GE Food Alert Campaign. 3/6/02. 1

While Monsanto (and I am sure other corporations) are poised to control our environment and the necessities of life, there are by-products of this takeover. There are over 40,000 superfund sites in the United States. 2 Each of these sites reflects toxic environmental damage caused by a business, corporation, or government installation. Most of this damage was caused with the full knowledge of the polluters, and with the intent to keep that knowledge from the public, and often from government regulatory agencies. There are notorious and publicly documented cases such as:

Love Canal 3
: On August 7, 1978, Love Canal (a neighborhood in the City of Niagra Falls, NY) became the first man-made disaster declared a federal emergency. The former chemical landfill which then became a housing development was so designated by President Jimmy Carter.  The neighborhood was the former home and dump site for Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp. from 1947 to 1952. Hooker sold the land to the City of Niagra in 1953 for $1.00 and a disclaimer that he was not responsible for any future damages due to buried chemicals. There were reports that the Pentagon had also disposed of toxic materials at the site. There were high numbers of birth defects and cancer rates among Love Canal residents -- as high as 10 percent (1 in 10). So ultimately Love Canal was evacuated permanently and the residents forced to relocate in November of 1979.

While Love Canal was the first area officially lost to toxic dumping, it certainly is not the only one -- or the last. A study reported by the Washington Post 4 on January 21, 2001 stated that an estimated 600,000 school children in 1,200 schools in five states (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and California) "are located within a half mile of  federal Supefund or state-identified contaminated sites." The study is available from Child Proofing Our Communities Campaign at Poisoned Schools: Invisible Action, Invisible Threat .

MTBE, a highly toxic gas additive, has been found in water supplies across the country and many towns have contaminated drinking water 5. And of course we have the PG&E debacle memorialized by the movie Erin Brockavich which documents the company's activities in covering up the dumping of hexavalent chromium and other chemicals to the detriment of their neighbors. PG&E is under fire again in Mt. Hope Bay in Somerset, Mass. for their coal-fired energy plants. 6 And of course, there is the unforgettable incident with Union Carbide in Bhopal India 7  in 1984 in which at least 3,800 people died, thousands are permanently disabled, and the court cases continue to the present time. (For more global cases go to  TED Case Studies: An Online Journal   -- TED are Trade Economic and Development case studies around the impacts of globalization.)

The most recently publicized debacle was documented by Bill Moyers on PBS: Trade Secrets (2001). This expose' fully documents the industry-wide coverup by the chemical industry (including Monsanto) of the effects of vinyl chloride on humans -- including the disastrous effects on workers.

Politics and Economic Interests
Of course, corporate malfeasance certainly spreads beyond the environment to other manufacturing areas and to our services sector. We recently have seen the recall of tires by Ford and Firestone for the roll-over problems with SUVs, but there have been significant problems in the auto industry before. More recently, we have Enron, Anderson, and Global Crossing as exemplars of corporate operations -- and of their links to the political process and the highest levels of government. I heard a radio talk show host saying that none of the millions that Enron contributed to political parties (or to President Bush (in particular) helped them out in the long run. The purpose of this statement was to prove that corporate influence on the political process was non-existent (or minimal). However, what all that money and influence did buy was changes to regulations that opened the door for them to operate the way that they did.

On a governmental level, we have the well documented cases of Watergate under President Nixon 8
which resulted in the resignation of both the President and Vice President, and the resignation or jailing of 40 government officials. We also have the Iran / Contra  9 debacle for the Reagan administration further linked to the CIA's involvement in the drug trade in Nicaragua 10. Now we have the GAO (Government Accounting Office) suing Vice President Cheney and the Bush Administration over materials related to our energy plan and the influence of Enron (particularly Kenneth Lay) in its development 11.

Given this history of collusion and cover-up over at least the last 50 years, I am at a loss to explain how we can have such trust in our government or the "good word" of corporations. Our government (and many others) have signed agreements such as GATT (General Agreement on Tariff and Trade), NAFTA (North American Free Trade Act), and GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) and allowed the creation of an independent enforcement body --the WTO (World Trade Organization) -- for most of these agreements. The signatories to these agreements essentially sign away most of their sovereignty to corporations. These agreements essentially remove national borders for "trade" and undermine governments' ability to control corporate and financial activity. The following quote from Greg Palast captures the nature of global trade and "development" agreements:

"We found inside these documents [from the World Bank] that basically they required nations to sign secret agreements, in which they agreed to sell off their key assets, in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really devastating to the nations involved and if they didn't agree to these steps, there was an average for each nation that signed one-hundred and eleven items that they are required to sign on to. If they didn't follow those steps they would be cut-off from all international borrowing. You can't borrow any money in the international marketplace. No one can survive without borrowing, whether you are people or corporations or countries - without borrowing some money and having some credit and ..." Palast (3/4/02,12)

Now we have the FTAA being pushed into existence by the same consortium that pushed the other agreements. We have put into office an administration that reflects and intertwines corporate, political and financial power to an extent we haven't seen before (to the best of my knowledge). Further, we seem willing to follow this group into a "war without end." The cost is both economic, and devastating to our democracy.

If we get past the "news" of the corporate media, connections and trends emerge that cause all thinking people to pause and reflect. Below, I attempt to demonstrate the depth and breadth of these connections. Let's start with some history.

The George W. Bush Administration
Bush's cabinet, staff, and top level appointees have served either as corporate management, consultants, board members, lobbyists for, or advisors to the following corporations: Harken, Haliburton, Monstanto, Microsoft, Pharmica, TMBR / Sharp Drilling, Motorola, Sears, GM, GE, Ford, Lockheed Martin, Lear, Amtrak, Phillip Morris, Delta Petroleum, BP Amoco, AT&T, Enterprise, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines, Clorox, Bank of America, Citigroup, AOL, Gulfstream, Boeing, Alcoa, International Paper, Lucent Technologies (Bell), Lilly, Qualcomm, Chevron, Charles Schwab, and Transamerica. (See Bush Administration Connections )

Likewise, this administration has significant membership from former Republican administrations stretching as far back as Richard Nixon. Here are some highly publicized examples. Dick Rumsfeld served under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. Dick Cheney served under all except Reagan (when he was a Congressman from Wyoming). Colin Powell held positions in the Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. administrations. Ann Veneman, Paul O'Neil, and Antony Principi served under the President's father. (See Bush Administration Connections )

The Nixon presidency brought us the Watergate scandal, and Reagan's brought us Iran / Contra. It is likely (and in some cases proven) that current representatives from those administrations were knowledgeable of and participated in those scandals. President Bush has also appointed several people convicted in the Iran / Contra investigation: John Negroponte (now US Representative to the UN); Otto Reich (now Asst. Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs ); Eliot Abrams (now Dir. of Office for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations) 13. (Oliver North is now a Commentator for Fox News). Given the relationship of the current cabinet and appointees to the projects of previous administrations, it is not surprising that President Bush has blocked the constitutionally timed release of the Reagan presidential records 14, and virtually eliminated the Freedom of Information Act.

If the Bush administration is linked to corporate and financial interests, then assuredly those interests also are linked to the administration. The most highly publicized source of suspected influence is the President's father and the link to Carlyle (a private investment firm). Two excellent articles address the connections and activities of the Carlyle Group: Melanie Warner in Fortune (2/18/02, 15) The Big Guys Work for Carlyle and Tom Shorrock in The Nation (4/1/02, 16 ) Crony Capitalism Goes Global . The Carlyle group utilizes a strategy of recruiting those who have held high positions in government to make connections around the world and in the halls of Washington. Its CEO is Carlucci (former CIA Deputy Director and Defense Secretary under Reagan). Among its luminaries are: Jim Baker (former Sec. of State), Dick Dartman (former White House budget Director), William Kennard (former head of the FCC), John Major (former PM of Britain), Fidel Ramos (former President of the Philippines), and not least ... George H. W. Bush Sr. (former President of the U.S. and father of the current President) to name a few (Warner, 2002,  15).

Given Carlyle's defense related investments and overseas investments, war (or at least dramatically increased defense spending) is very good for "business" indeed.

Afghanistan and US interests prior to 9-11
It has been widely broadcast that the U.S. helped arm and train Afghans and extremists to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It is ironic that these same people would turn their skills and arms against the United States. However, it is beyond deceptive to present this as our sole connection or interest in Afghanistan.

The Clinton administration had been working with the Taliban from 1994 forward. Why? Because some companies (particularly UNOCAL and Saudi owned Delta) wanted "to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan." ... "so that the vast untapped oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian and Caspian region could be transported to markets in South Asia, South-East Asia, Far East and the Pacific" 17. This is supported by Jon Flanders (2001, 18) article. While official relations were purportedly broken off in 1998, relations with the Taliban were maintained through the State Department (Ahmad) and through the Pakistan Military Intelligence ISI by the CIA. 19

According to Jon Flanders (2001), U.S. interest in the pipeline restarted in 2000, but was still not moving forward when Bush was elected. With Bush came Cheney (CEO of Halliburton) and Halliburton had investments in Turkmentistan for "integrated drilling services with an estimated value of $30 million for the total package." 20

It should not be surprising given the oil interests of the President, his kin, and his appointees, that Bush placed Afghanistan on the top of his action list. In July 2001, Colin Powell gave the Taliban $43 million for "humanitarian aid" (Madsen, 2002, 21).

According to a BBC report by George Arney (9/18/01), the US was planning military action in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. "Naiz Naik, a former Pakistan Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action would go ahead by the middle of October." 22

War, Terrorism and the War on Terrorism

Who knew what prior to September 11, or should the government have known?

Michael Rupert (2002) has pulled together a timeline of events related to September 11 which has made it to Project Censored's list of uncovered news. According to this article 23 the following warnings were given but fell on deaf ears:

8/1/01 - a U.S. Naval officer jailed in Toronto writes the details of the WTC attacks, seals it in an envelope and gives it to Canadian authorities;

7/4-7/14/01 - a CIA official meets with Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital;

8/01 - Russian intelligence passes on a warning that there are imminent attacks planned on US airports and government buildings;

9/3-9/10/01 - a caller to a Cayman Islands' radio talk show gives repeated
warnings of an imminent attack on the US by bin Laden.

9/11/01 - Two hours before the first plane hit the WTC, "employees at Odigo,
Inc. in Israel, ... with offices in New York, receive threat warnings of an imminent attack on the WTC;"

Added to these warnings, is the visit of Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed (head of Pakistan's military intelligence - ISI) the week prior to 9/11. The ISI has a long history of working closely with the CIA, and the CIA has consistently used them as a contact with the Taliban, the United Front, and the Al Qua'eda, and funneled money through them for various projects (Chossudovsky, 11/2/02) . Ahmed was the CIA's preferred head of the ISI. The connection between the CIA and ISI is supported by the following quote from House of Representatives International Relations Committee: "US support funneled through the ISI ... has been a consistent policy of the US Administration since the end of the Cold War ..." 24

In July 2001, the ISI sent Mohammed Atta (suspected ring leader of the 9/11 attacks) $100,000. In October General Ahmed retired from the ISI after "US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to ... Atta ... from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the insistence of Gen. Mahmoud." 24

To all appearances, others also knew of the attacks.

Bush
It seems highly unlikely that the President of the United States did not know exactly what was happening on September 11 (unless his staff chose to keep him in the dark). On the morning of 9/11, President Bush was on a planned visit to Sarasota Florida and was making a scheduled appearance at Booker School - remember we saw him speaking from the school? The following information is from an excellent series of investigative reports by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel (2001, 25). It appears that the President knew that a plane had hit the World Trade Center before he left his hotel to go to Booker School. Certainly, an Associated Press reporter (Sonya Ross) knew, as her office had called her and she attempted (without success) to get information from the Bush Staff. They also knew that four planes had been high jacked and exactly where they were. The FAA warns the Secret Service in such a circumstance so that Washington can track the planes on their own (see part two of the noted report).

Given this information, Bush proceeded to his scheduled public appointment. It seems unimaginable that a President would be allowed to proceed on a scheduled set of activities with four commercial airliners high jacked with suspected terrorist intent. One of the highest profile targets is the President, and protocol exists to protect him.  President Bush cut short his appearance and was whisked away to parts unknown under heavy military escort. This is just what one would have expected as soon as the news came down. Bykov and Israel argue convincingly that the delayed initiation of measures to protect the President implies that there was little concern that the President would be a target.

High Finance
There was a significant number of "put" options on United Airlines and American Airlines just prior to September 11th. In fact, "The levels of put options purchased were more than six times higher than normal." ... and "no similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday [9/11]" (Rupert 2001,26). A put option is an option that a stock will go down and can be sold at a later date. The FBI investigated put options in an attempt to discover (unsuccessfully) a money trail leading back to Osama bin Laden.

Likewise, there was heavy put option activity in the stocks of major corporations housed in the World Trade Center (e.g. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Merrill Lynch & Co.) 26 27 A number of these put options were placed through Deutchbank - Alex Brown. Deutchbank is one of the largest banking firms in the world, and its former CEO (1998) was A.B. "Buzzy" Konrad who is now the current Executive Director of the CIA 26  27 28. Konrad also served as the Vice Chair of the Board of Bankers Trust and engineered its merger with Deutchbank-Alex Brown 28.

Who sent that anthrax?

Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. was rocked by deadly anthrax traveling through the USPS mail system. Official reports stated that this was "weapons grade" bacteria 29 and at first an effort was made to link it to Muslim terrorist groups, then to domestic terrorists groups 30, and then to some disgruntled former government scientist 31. Most recently, we have discrepant stories. The FBI is claiming this was an inside job, and the CIA is saying that the anthrax is linked to terrorists on the high jacked planes 31.

Enter the British Broadcast Company (BBC). The BBC reports that there was lax security at U.S. bio-weapons research facilities 32 33. There is a "popular theory that last year's attacks were carried out by a current or former scientist at the army's bio-warfare research centre in Maryland." 32

The CIA, from the beginning, has denied that it was the source of the anthrax sent through the mails. However, the CIA has a bio-warfare program that utilizes weapons-grade anthrax 34, and has shared it widely with other researchers and nations 31. Finally, Newsnight (BBC) interviewed a number of US bio-defense experts and former bio-weapons employees who argued that the anthrax attack was almost certainly an "inside job" and may even have been a CIA deep agent operating on his or her own 35.

Perhaps the most alarming news out of the BBC was that there were a number of specimens "lost" from bio-warfare research centers (at least 27 samples in fact), and that those samples included both anthrax and ebola 32. To the best of my knowledge, no US source has discussed that ebola is missing. The BBC report notes that one batch of anthrax was located, but "the whereabouts of most is still unknown"  32. (Perhaps the most detailed report and connections are in a report by Leonard G. Horowitz, Could the Anthrax Mailings Be Military-Industrial Espionage?  36)

Conclusion

Bringing it all together
U.S. corporations have a significant interest in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and the Middle East (and in numerous places in Central and South America and Africa for that matter). Through various administrations the U.S. government has been willing to advance and protect those interests. Unocal and Halliburton (to name two companies) have major money on the line in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. Some parts of our government had already planned a war in Afghanistan to secure those interests. But how could they get public support for such a war? One obvious method would be to have a group that was already on the outs with the U.S. (the Al Qa'eda) dramatically attack the U.S. on its own turf. Given that a CIA agent met with (and did not arrest) Osama bin Laden in July 2001 may have been a provocative maneuver. Perhaps a threat was issued, or Osama was told "the US is going to attack Afghanistan no matter what you do." Who knows?

What we do know is there were high level contacts, there were exchanges of large sums of money, and there were numerous warnings to various parts of the US government which were not heeded. When the planes were high jacked, normal procedures were thrown out the window and whether through bungling or stupidity or intent the high jackers were allowed to fulfill their mission. We know that President Bush did know about the events with the four planes, but continued about his appointed rounds as if nothing was going on, and then was whisked away into obscurity. We know that the current US representative to Afghanistan is Zalmay Khalilzad who also happens to be a former aid to (guess who) Unocal 37, and that the current Prime Minister of Afghanistan -- Hamid Karzai -- was a top advisor for (guess who) Unocal, and had been negotiating with the Taliban for Unocal. 38

We know that a phenomenal number of put options were placed on the two affected airlines and some major businesses impacted by the "terrorists." We know that some of these originated from Deutchbank and there are high level connections between the bank and the current Director of the CIA. We know that those put options were worth millions of dollars, and that the FBI has been unable to link them to bin Laden or the Al Qa'eda.

We know that under the impetus of the events of September 11, and the anthrax scare that followed, major initiatives and changes occurred. President Bush declared a war on the Taliban, the Al Qua'eda, and on Terrorism in general calling it (ironically) Operation Enduring Freedom. He has vowed to fight this war for generations if necessary (you can see the military-industrial complex jumping with glee). He pushed for and got passed The USA Patriot Act of 2001 that erodes the boundaries between the CIA, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies, and essentially left most of our freedom up to the discretion of those same agencies.

We are relatively confident that the anthrax came from at least one of the US bio-weapons research centers, that it was an inside job, and there were discussions about "delivery" of such weapons. We can safely assume that the anthrax attacks probably made concerns of random, undirected terrorism much more immediate for the US public, and made us much more amenable to give up freedom for protection. The intended recipients of the contaminated letters hardly seemed random (Democratic leadership and the media). But it was folks like us who were primarily affected -- ordinary workers (postal workers, secretaries, etc.) and unrelated citizens. Perhaps these victims were simply "collateral damage."

We know that the domestic policy changes have allowed the FBI, CIA, and Justice departments to finally unleash the surveillance power of CARNIVORE 39  and "Magic Lantern" 40 (software programs aimed at monitoring and recording internet traffic). These programs enable government to monitor all communication within the US, and The USA Patriot Act gives them the authority to do so. Face recognition technology is being put in place, as is the plan for finger print and retinal scans at airports, and the mass rounding up of presumed Muslim and Arab immigrants -- all supported by our fear of international terrorists.

We know the administration has let slip that we will expand our nuclear technology and use it as "we" see fit (Nuclear Posture Review) and named names of who we might first use them against (a blatantly provocative move). The report signals "our" willingness to utilize first strike strategy. "We" are also willing to bring "our" chemical and biological weapons on line as well (which we now knows includes the deadly and untreatable ebola virus).

We have given billions of dollars to businesses impacted by the destruction of the World Trade Center, more billions to United and American Airlines (which they then used to cover their debts - laying off thousands of workers). More billions to corporations in the economic stimulus package, billions more to the Defense Department ( and a blank check for more), and billions more to Columbia (and now Peru) to assist them in controlling "terrorism" (though primarily to protect oil pipelines).

Some would have us believe that all of these connections are just coincidence. I believe in coincidence, but my credulity has been broken by the sheer volume of "coincidence" involved. Is is just coincidence that the Carlyle Group is a major defense contractor reaping part of these billions? Is it coincidence that they own the anthrax vaccine? Is it coincidence that Cipro was the recommended antibiotic, and the sudden surge in purchases pulled Bayer (the makers of Cipro) from the brink of bankruptcy 36? Is it coincidence that BioPort (owned by Carlyle) is one of the major contractors for the anthrax vaccine? 36

I believe that we are dealing with an attempted coup by the power elite; that we and the world are pawns in this game of domination. I believe that this elite would go to any ends, risk any human and environmental damage, to advance themselves. I believe that they are operating by the rules of a system that is truly pathological, and that we are being duped into supporting these plans under the guise of patriotism, the fear for our safety, and the lie that "what's good for them is good for us."

It is difficult to embrace the scope of the deception and betrayal that emerges from an investigation of the events that first came to public attention on September 11, 2001. Even though I am well versed in the duplicity of corporations, and sometimes of government, I am overwhelmed by events, directions, and inescapable conclusions. Generally, people deny the 'coincidences." They argue that too many people would have to know to pull off the greatest deception of all time. However, if you look at the players it becomes increasingly likely that not only do a lot of people know and participate in manipulating the American public (and the world), but that they (and their connections) have much to gain by participating. If the events and actions of the seven-plus months have not been at the instigation of the highest levels of the
government and the financial arena, then they have certainly done everything
in their power to turn these events to their personal and collective gain. Therefore, if they are not engaged in seditious conspiracy or treason, then they are certainly engaged in conspiracy.

Finally, I believe that it is well past time for the people of the United States to stand up and make our government accountable for its actions. We should demand full disclosure of all pertinent material. We should have our own - rather than government selected -- investigators find out what is really going on. We should immediately curtail the power of corporations and their PACS and lobbies on our government. We should kick out, fire, or impeach every single elected representative and appointee who has sold us down the river. We should, and I feel we must, act now to take back our democracy before our power to do so is totally destroyed and we too become a fascist society ruled by a corporate elite. I believe that we can reclaim our nation and our government through the vigorous exercise of our democratic rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.

Bibliography

1 GE Food Alert Campaign. 3/6/02.
CRG -- Monsanto Moves to Control Water Resources and Fish Farming

2  Toxic Alert. Links to EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)  as well as to details of each site.  The EPA Superfund List

3 Love Canal Collection - University Archives - University Libraries - State University of New York at Buffalo

4 Pianan, Eric and Fletcher, Michael A. 1/21/02. Washington Post. Many Schools Built Near Toxic Sites, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

5 3/6/00. Press Release.  Fitzgerald Poses Ban on MTBE ....

6 Conservation Law Foundation Coal in Mt. Hope Bay

7 Bhopal: Incident Review

8   Watergate - The Scandal That Destroyed President Richard Nixon, WashingtonPost.com:
Watergate, WashingtonPost.com:
Watergate - the players

9  Walsh Iran / Contra Report Real
History Archives Iran-Contra Collection

10 Gary Webb articles from the San Jose Mercury Sun 1996-1997 and related Dark Alliance

11 CNN.com - White House to GAO: 'See you in court' - January 26, 2002

12 Palast, Greg. (3/4/02) World Bank Secret Documents Consumes Argentina: Alex Jones Interviews Reporter Greg Palast

13 Martin, Patrick. 8/1/01. World Socialist Web. Iran-Contra gangsters resurface in Bush administration

14 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP). 7/20/01. Bush Administration Keeps Reagan Records Under Lock and Key

15 Warner, Melanie. 2/18/02. Fortune. (CRG) The Big Guys Work for Carlyle

16 Shorrock, Tom. 1/1/2002. The Nation. Crony Capitalism Goes Global (1)

17 Ahmad, Ishtiaq. 10/20/01. "Pakistan Observer" How America Courted the Taliban (CRG)

18 Flanders, Jon. 10/6/01. Indymedia. The World Trade Center Attack ... Caspian Oil and Gas and the Afghanistan Pipeline

19 Chossudovsky, Michel. CRG -- Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence Agency (ISI) in the September 11 attacks

20 Flanders, Jon. 10/6/01. Indymedia. The World Trade Center Attack ... Caspian Oil and Gas and the Afghanistan Pipeline

21   Madsen, Wayne. 1/02. Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team

22 Arney, George. 9/18/01. BBC.
CRG -- US Planned Attack on Taliban .

23 Rupert, Michael. 11/2/02, revised 2/11/02. "Oh Lucy! - You Gotta Lotta 'Splain' To Do: Timeline Surrounding September 11th FTW)

24 Chossudovsky, Michel. 11/2/02. CRG -- Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence Agency (ISI) in the September 11 attacks

25 Bykov, Illarion  and Israel, Jared. 1/18/2002. Guilty for 9-11, Section 3: Bush in the Open

other parts of the series: 11/14/01 GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS (part 1)

11/18/01 GUILTY FOR 9-11 update to part 1

11/21/01 GUILTY FOR 9-11,' PART 2: MR. CHENEY'S COVER STORY

26 Rupert, Michael. 10/9/01. FTW. 9-11 Insider trading Suppressed details of insider trading leading directly into the CIA's highest ranks - FTW

27 Flocco, Tom and Rupert, Michael. 12/6/01. CRG -- Profits of Death -- Insider Trading and 9-11 (Part 1)

28   Flocco, Tom and Rupert, Michael. 12/11/01. CRG -- Profits of Death (Part 2)

29 12/16/01 CNN.com - Official: CIA uses anthrax, but no link to letters - December 16, 2001

30 3/23/02 CNN.com - Report raises question of anthrax, hijacker link - March 23, 2002

31 12/18/01 CNN.com - Anthrax sent to Senate matches Army strain - December 18, 2001

32   Buchanan, Michael. 1/22/02. BBC News | AMERICAS | Alarm over US lab security

33   Sackur, Stephen. 3/1/02. BBC News | AMERICAS | US bio-defence security lax

34 Ensor, David. 12/16/01 CNN.com - Official: CIA uses anthrax, but no link to letters

35   NewsNight transcript 3/14/02 BBC News | ARCHIVE | Anthrax attacks

36 Horowitz, Leonard G. Could the Anthrax Mailings Be Military-Industrial Espionage?

37   Martin, Patrick. 1/3/02 World Socialist Web on CommonDreams. Unocal Advisor Named Representative to Afghanistan

38 Madsen, Wayne. 1/02. Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team

39 BBC 9/17/01. Carnivore  High-tech hunt for low-tech man

40 Bridis, Ted. 11/21/01. Associated Press. CRG -FBI Develops Eavesdropping Tools

Links to Independent and International Media Sources

Centre for Research on Globalization http://www.globalresearch.ca

CommonDreams http://www.commondreams.org

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting http://www.fair.org

From the Wilderness http://www.copvcia.com

Independent Media Center http://www.indymedia.org/

OpenSecrets http://www.opensecrets.org

Project Censored http://www.projectcensored.org

The Emperor's New Clothes http://emperors-clothes.com/

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press http://www.rcfp.org/

Links to Excellent Articles not Included in the Article

Weaver, Mary Ann. The Atlantic Monthly. May 1996 Blowback - 96.05 http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/blowback.htm

Kucinich, Dennis. 2/26/02. Common Dreams. "A Prayer for America." http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0226-09.htm

In a what has become a typical move of Bush Jrs policy approach, he has stolen a page from the policy book of a former president - this time his father (he also likes resuscitating Reagan policies) - pulling out the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 which was modified by Bush Sr. in 1990. But Bush Jr. has made an important shift in that policy (emphases mine):

But the House bill makes one basic switch: where the old law attacked measures that would lead to a "net deficit increase,'' the new one attacks measures that lead to "an increase in direct spending.''

Put another way, the prime concern is not a balanced budget. It is growth in government spending. Unlike the "pay as you go'' rules of the 1990's, Congress would not have to offset the costs of new tax cuts.

And put another way, the deficit could grow in a relatively unchecked manner.

Andrews points out that the top economic priority for Bush is making permanent his "temporary tax cuts" (and you thought it was getting the economy running again) which will add $1.3 TRILLION in debt in the next ten years. This is the largest single contributor to the deficit. The proposed Congressional legislation would not hinder the Medicare bill, or supplemental spending for "sudden or unforeseen" events. (Andrews notes that ongoing spending in Iraq, but notes that the White House says the wording would not impact supplemental allocations for Iraq.)

So if the budget must be balanced, where would the money come from? You guessed it:

IF Mr. Bush and Republican Congressional leaders prevail, the burden of reducing the federal budget deficit will fall primarily on domestic discretionary programs - housing vouchers for low-income families and public housing, grants to local police and fire departments and block grants for child care assistance.

Hey! More "compassionate conservatism"!

As Anderson notes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the plan would cut "domestic discretionary spending by $120 billion below the levels needed to keep up with inflation." Given that "domestic discretionary programs account for only about 17 percent of the federal budget", then that is unlikely to have much affect on stopping deficit growth. (Not to mention reduce it).

So here we go again. The Bush Administration has put forward their best effort at milking the treasury for pet programs at the expense of the health of the nation. I am sure the plan will be pushed as a bold and dramatic step. It is indeed that - a step towards destroying the quality of life for 80% of the population. It is also a step that fits nicely with the privatization of government services. Those services include: health care (both Medicare and Medicaid), all of the education system, and prisons/corrections to name a few. Of course, we are already moving rapidly down this path. Meanwhile, what about programs such as food stamps, or assistance to needy families, or (gasp) unemployment? Well, you either eliminate them (already in process), or you turn them over to religious groups (faith-based initiatives) or volunteer activities (Bush Senior's "thousand points of light').

I really can't believe that this is the future that most in the US want to go to ... or pay for.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has some nice analyses of the new proposal:

Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? Economists Say No.

HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE PROCESS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT RESTRAIN THOSE
AREAS OF THE BUDGET THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE DEFICITS

MANY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES WOULD LOSE FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE UNDER PROPOSED FUNDING CUTS

CHAIRMAN NUSSLE'S DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAP PROPOSAL REPRESENTS UNSOUND POLICY

HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE PAY-AS-YOU-GO PROPOSAL WOULD EXEMPT ALL TAX CUTS AND MAKE A MOCKERY OF EFFORTS TO RESTORE FISCAL DISCIPLINE

He continues:

From the outset Haiti inherited the wrath of the colonial powers, which knew what a disastrous example a Haitian success story would be. In the words of Napoleon Bonaparte: "The freedom of the negroes, if recognised in St Domingue [as Haiti was then known] and legalised by France, would at all times be a rallying point for freedom-seekers of the New World." He sent 22,000 soldiers (the largest force to have crossed the Atlantic at the time) to recapture the "Pearl of the Antilles".

France, backed by the US, later ordered Haiti to pay 150m francs in gold as reparations to compensate former plantation and slave owners as well as for the costs of the war in return for international recognition. At today's prices that would amount to £10bn. By the end of the 19th century, 80% of Haiti's national budget was going to pay off the loan and its interest, and the country was locked into the role of a debtor nation - where it remains today.

Any prospect of planting a stable political culture foundered on the barren soil of economic impoverishment, military siege and international isolation (for the first 58 years the US refused to even recognise Haiti's existence). In 1915, fearing that internal strife would compromise its interests, the US invaded, and remained until 1934.

In short, Haiti was driven into poverty by France and the US, and subsequent to 1934 have been kept their through the shackles of international "aid." The US supported the vicious regime of "Poppa Doc" Duvalle, and supported the election of Aristide with the criteria that he accept the IMF and World Bank conditions for entering the "global" community. Haiti remains one of the most economically enslaved nations in the world with unbelievable poverty. It is an environment where hardly any political process will long stand the pressure of hunger and the burden of massive debt and structured dependence.

But the hypocrisy of the US in relationship to Haiti goes beyond simply economic shackles. US immigration and refugee legislation does not apply to Haitians. Haitians trying to escape Haiti - overcrowding boats and many dying at sea, are sent to Guantanamo then returned to Haiti. If caught near US shores they are incarcerated and deported. As noted in New Haitian exodus? Same old US treatment of refugees Christian Science Monitor, 2/03/04):

The US has long had a double standard when it comes to Haitian refugees. And with the war on terror as an excuse, the Bush administration has raised the bar for Haitians looking for refuge in the US. When two large boatloads of Haitians arrived in south Florida in December 2001 and October 2002, the US implemented new measures aimed at deterring Haitians from ever attempting to flee their homeland. These measures drastically reduced the time refugees had to make their case and limited the ways they could exercise their rights to plead asylum. These changes, coupled with the "shout test" - which requires a migrant picked up at sea to literally cry out for help once aboard a US vessel even to have a shot at political asylum - have proved an effective deterrent.

Of the 1,490 Haitians interdicted last year, just one received refugee status. But that Haitian remains - along with four other compatriots who received refugee status in 2002 - at Guantánamo awaiting resettlement in a third country.

Many have accused the US of blatant racism when it comes to Haitian refugees. This is not surprising if you recall a case a couple of years ago when some Haitian refugees rescued some drowning Cubans. On reaching US shores, the Cubans were given asylum, and the Haitians were incarcerated and deported. THEY WERE IN THE SAME BOAT!

But there is perhaps something even more despicable that the way that the US deals with Haitian refugees, and its lack of positive intervention in the bloody rebellion now happening. That is that the rebellion looks to be backed by the United States - Haiti's lawyer: US Is Arming Anti-Aristide Paramilitaries, Calls For UN Peacekeepers (Democracy Now!, 2/25/04):

The US lawyer representing the government of Haiti charged today that the US government is directly involved in a military coup attempt against the country's democratically elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Ira Kurzban, the Miami-based attorney who has served as General Counsel to the Haitian government since 1991, said that the paramilitaries fighting to overthrow Aristide are being backed by Washington.

"I believe that this is a group that is armed by, trained by, and employed by the intelligence services of the United States," Kurzban told the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!. "This is clearly a military operation, and it's a military coup."

The response of the US has been clear - they want "regime change" in Haiti. As noted by Goodman and Scahill in the DN report, two weeks primary to the first rebel activity, the US began preparing more Haitian refugee space at Guantanamo. They also note "Several of the paramilitary leaders now rampaging Haiti are men who were at the forefront of the US-backed campaign of terror during the 1991-94 coup against Aristide. Among the paramilitary figures now leading the current insurrection is Louis Jodel Chamblain, the former number 2 man in the FRAPH paramilitary death squad."

If this is a coup attempt backed by the US, it is more in line with the way the US has done "regime change" in the past. That is, funding "rebels" to overthrow a legitimate government (i.e. Nicaragua, Panama, and Colombia). The attempted overthrow of the Chavez Venezuelan presidency a year and a half ago, was less militaristic and largely involved funding and propaganda aid - as well as official US pressure on Chavez.

So the questions must be asked. Is the current coup attempt in Haiti backed by the US and to what end? Actually, why has the US historically and continuously undermined and suppressed Haiti? I don't have the answer to that. I do not see what possible gain there is to the ongoing policy of oppression. I do not believe that it is simply racism on a grand scale though certainly that is present. What good does it do anyone to keep Haiti poor and chaotic at the cost of millions of lives lost and degraded over the years. I wish I had an answer, but I do not. What has resulted from this ongoing oppression is a new justification for the treatment of the people of Haiti - a terrorist hot spot - as declared by Ashcroft last April (CSM article).

Whatever the basis for the ongoing US policy towards Haiti, I feel that it is morally wrong and most likely illegal under international law. However, that has never given the US pause before, and I doubt that it will this time either. If you feel powerless in this situation, then offer up a good thought for the people of Haiti. If it ticks you off, then start writing those letters to your representatives and to GW. It seems to me that the least we can do is make a stink.

Other News
2/19/04 Lobe, OneWorldNet, Rising Stakes In Haiti as Ex-Duvalier Thugs Take Over Opposition

2/16/04 Reeves, ZNet, US Double Game in Haiti

Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may be shaping up today probably has more to do with us. In 2001 an international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities -mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes. A few years ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or grandkids. Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not conveniently wait until we're history.

The perception of the pace of global warming is rapidly shifting (as I have discussed before here on Uncommon Thought). Rather than a gradual warming taking a century or more we are looking at a much shorter timeline - a decade or less. Further, rather than getting significantly warmer and staying warmer for some time, there is likely to be a relatively rapid descent into an ice age - severity and duration unknown. The reasoning is based upon evidence of previous ice ages and what seemed to precede them.

The pattern seems to go: warming, shut down of the "ocean conveyor," ice age, warming towards normal. The northern hemisphere seems to get hit the worst by ice ages. The warming melts the polar caps and the North Atlantic current ("ocean conveyor") stops. On one hand, this stops the flow of the warmer ocean waters of the south from having their affect on both Western Europe and North America. The melting ice also decreases the salinity of the ocean which changes the force of the circulation patterns. It gets cold and stays cold until the polar caps restore themselves sufficiently to restart the ocean conveyor.

The warming that is happening at this point is rapid because of the massive contribution that we have made to that process (as noted in the quote above). Scientists now believe that neither the climate, nor Earth's balance, is limitlessly pliable. Rather once the balance moves out of a certain range, we have the "tipping point." The question right now is whether we are near, at, or past the tipping point. Regardless of when the conveyor shuts down, it is likely that there will be a rapid descent into an ice age. What is known as the "Little" ice age lasted from about 1500 to 1850 and brought violent storms, droughts, and very hard winters. From my reading of the article, neither the Pentagon nor the scientists expect anything so mild.

Some of the evidence noted in a supporting piece by Stipp (Growing Evidence of Scary Change (UTJ Permalink):

- In tandem with rising average temperatures across the globe, 3% to 4% of the Arctic ice cap has melted per decade since about 1970.

- Recently the Arctic's largest ice shelf broke up near Canada's Ellesmere Island, releasing an ice-dammed freshwater lake into the ocean. (Scientists believe that the similar melting of an Arctic ice dam 8,200 years ago triggered an episode of abrupt climate change.)

- The North Atlantic's salinity has declined continuously for the past 40 years?the most dramatic oceanic change ever measured.

- The flow of cold, dense water through a North Atlantic channel near Norway?part of the great ocean current that warms northern Europe?has dropped by at least 20% since 1950, suggesting that the current is weakening.

The article includes the Pentagon's "most likely" scenario for various place around the world, but let's focus on the one for the United States (from the main Stipp article):

Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.

Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands?waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

This actually seems like a highly flawed scenario in my mind as it overlooks some critical issues, and is based on some possibly flawed assumptions. Let's start with the flawed assumptions.

First, this climatic change and resulting violence would probably take out most of our coastal cities which would kill and/or displace literally millions of people (13 million from NY City alone). These cities happen to also be the primary points of commerce (import and export), house the heart of both national and international finance, and the seat of the federal government and the Pentagon (Washington, DC). At the same time that this is happening, the drastic climatic changes will totally shift the various biosystems of the US. What is now the "bread basket" of the United States could face severe droughts, and winters rivaling Siberia. Areas that might be agriculturally productive may be under millions of tons of shopping malls and urban sprawl. Things will be tight. People will be hungry. The global proposition of the "haves and have-nots" will be taking place nationally as much as it will internationally.

The next set of flawed assumptions is that the US infrastructure can withstand such a dramatic change. Across this nation, much of the infrastructure has and is deteriorated. The massive blackouts this last summer in the east were at least partially due to an inadequate and ill maintained power grid. Cities across this country are fighting failing water and sewer systems, and failing bridges, tunnels, and roadways. Even during the relatively posh times of the mid-1990s, infrastructure was not at the top of the list. Now, with most states running deficits, and no help from the federal government, infrastructure is not even on the radar screen. Ongoing declining funding for public education in Oregon has resulted in the diversion of funding for even regular maintenance - until buildings and systems fail. Cities and states are facing similar situations. A weakened infrastructure is not likely to withstand what appears to be hanging over us.

There are also critical issues that lead to significant problems. At the top of the list is the peak oil crisis. We are at, near, or beyond peak oil. In other words, the point at which half of the known global oil reserves have been depleted. At this point global consumption is not only not stabilizing, it is accelerating at a rapid rate. We are going to be in the middle of the loss of the world's primary power resource at the very time that we may need it the most. The loss of the oil, even without an ice age, is expected to result in the deaths of billions of humans (Life After the Oil Crash by Matt Savinar). The solution? Well, it seems that the Pentagon assumption is a mass transfer to nuclear power (which has its associated nuclear proliferation risks and is noted in the Stipp article). Problem? First, we don't have those plants in place. Second, they have not been particularly efficient or dependable. Third, what do we do with all that nuclear waste?

The oil crisis will hit agriculture as well. Not just planting and harvesting. Not just processing and transporting of product. The oil crisis will hit agriculture because we are using tons of oil as fertilizer to replace what we have stripped out of it by over-farming, and use of pesticides and herbicides.

I'll make this the last critical issue. The US cannot even feed itself - even though we have just about the best agricultural climate and landscape in the world. Why? Two reasons. First, like the rest of the globalized planet we are bound to an export/import economy. Agricultural products are among our top exports. That means that the production has been focused to a profitable export market and not to feeding the population of the United States. If you took the time to follow my recommendation and read Robert Manning's article "The Oil We Eat" in this month's Harpers, then the following statement might have jumped out at you:

America's biggest crop, grain corn, is completely unpalatable. It is the raw material for an industry that manufactures food substitutes. Likewise, you can't eat unprocessed wheat. You certainly can't eat hay. You can eat unprocessed soybeans, but mostly we don't. These four crops cover 82 percent of American cropland. ...

About two-thirds of U.S. grain corn is labeled "processed," meaning it is milled and otherwise refined for food or industrial use. About 45 percent of that becomes sugar, especially high-fructose corn sweeteners...

So most of the agricultural land is taken up by four crops that can't be used without utilizing more energy to make them edible. Further, that the processing that is set up does not create what we might consider a "healthy" diet - not one that we could probably live on for very long.

Therefore, the scenario that we can hunker down in fortress America and wait out the ice age is unlikely. It is more likely that the US, like much of the rest of the world will experience a massive die off. We will face massive social disruption as infrastructures and political structures bend and then fail. The space-based weapons systems the US is planning and building are certainly there, in part, because of just such a looming catastrophe. Of course, what they were looking at was capturing and controlling a dwindling resource supply in the face of globalization. With or without globalization the resources are dwindling. An ice age just accelerates the scenario and increases the risks - not lessens them.

This is truly a grim picture. But I don't think that it has to be quite as grim as I have depicted. My assumption is that we are unlikely to change the course we are on. It is possible that we could. Assuming that we are not past the climate tipping point, then massive reduction of global warming gases could slow (though not avert) what is going to happen. That would have the additional benefit of extending the global oil supply. We could address the impending climate change directly by strengthening infrastructure, refooting our economy, and moving populations from areas that are likely to be ravaged by rising oceans and the accompanying storms. We could prepare in a number of ways, and we could help the rest of the world do the same thing. This would lessen the threat of invasion or attack foreseen by desperate masses trying to survive.

Would this bring us, or the rest of the world, through either the oil crisis or the ice age unscathed? No. Would it make it more likely that we (and other Earthly inhabitants) might survive? Yes. Would it have the additional benefit of working collaboratively with the rest of the world thereby reducing tensions and hostilities? I think so. Would it be possible to go into this event that will have global impact as a global community? Yes, I believe that as well. I believe that we could pull together rather than pulling apart, and that would be a wonderful thing to behold.

However, this takes acknowledging the problem and addressing it head on. So far the Bush administration hardly wants to admit there is an issue (either peak oil or global warming), even though the Pentagon is obviously thinking about how to militarily deal with these same events. Much of the nation is still arguing that global warming is a "theory" based on the corporate science that also doesn't want to address the issue because the current path is so profitable for them. So people need to know what is going on - in both the broad and long view as well as the specific issues. Maybe we can give our politicians the backbone to directly face these rather unpalatable truths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Halliburton Connection , The Dossiers

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

Halliburton Plc. CorpWatch, 7/2003

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

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

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

US Arm-Twisting Global Policy.org article collection.

The Times article goes on to discuss that the Agriculture Department favors "digestion" as a way to destroy the contaminated tissue. The patent for this process for tissue digestion is held by a company called WR2. However, the prion involved in BSE and vCJD appears darn near indestructable. Will WR2's process destroy the prion?

Well, the company claims by that their process WR2 that claim that their process "Converts animal, human, and microbial tissues into a sterile, neutral, aqueous solution suitable for disposal to a sanitary sewer." This process utilizes"alkaline hydrolysis" in a sealed vessel to raise the internal temperature to about 250 degrees for a period of three hours. Supposedly, this sterilizes the remains. Patrick Condon at Twin Cities.com discusses the process as being used with a variety of different infected tissues (Iowa lab tests for BSE).

But does it sterilize the remains?

The Andean Community (CAN) apparently isn't satisfied - CAN broadens prohibition against imports that could open the way to "mad cow disease".

According to a May 16, 2002 report OPINION AND REPORT ON : THE TREATMENT OF ANIMAL WASTE BY MEANS OF HIGH TEMPERATURE (150°C, 3 HOURS) AND CORRESPONDING HIGH PRESSURE ALKALINE HYDROLYSIS. by the Scientific Steering Committee from the European Commission on Health & Consumer Protection

BACKGROUND AND MANDATE Commission Services received a submission and accompanying dossier from a commercial company requesting endorsement of a process for the safe disposal of animal waste which may be contaminated by TSEs. This process consists of a treatment of animal waste by means of high temperature (150°C, 3 Hours) and corresponding high pressure alkaline hydrolisis.

Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) was requested to address the following questions:
1. Can the treatment of animal waste, as described by the dossier, be considered safe in relation to TSE risk? Can the liquid residues be considered safe in relation to TSE risk?

2. Can the by-products resulting from this treatment (i.e. ash of the bones and teeth of vertebrates ) be considered safe in relation to TSE risk?

It is not in the remit of the SSC to endorse specific commercial products and processes. This opinion therefore relates only to the nature of the process as it relates to possible human health and environmental risks. The opinion does not address practical issues such as economics and potential throughput of carcasses/tissues.

The SSC appointed a rapporteur to address the mandate in a scientific report to be discussed by the TSE/BSE ad hoc Group. This report, amended in the light of the discussions by the TSE/BSE ad hoc Group on 2 May 2002, is attached.

OPINION
1. Regarding the first question of the mandate the SSC concludes that the liquid residue after a 3-hour digestion cycle could retain infective potential. Under controlled laboratory conditions in a single experiment the treatment of animal waste by means of high temperature (150°C, 3 Hours) and corresponding high pressure alkaline hydrolysis has been shown to reduce the infectivity of TSE/BSE by a factor of 103.5 - 104.5.

No infectivity was found after 6 hours. This may indicate that the clearance after 6 hours processing time is higher than after 3 hours. However, these experiments can only give a measure of the minimum clearance possible and do no permit to exactly quantify the clearance factor after 6 hours.

Regarding the second question of the mandate, the SSC concludes that, on the basis of the data available, by-products of the 3-hour process could carry a risk of BSE/TSE infectivity and that this risk may decrease with the duration of processing.

The SSC refers to the attached report for some comments on the experimental
conditions, which were considered when drawing the above conclusions.

2. The possible human BSE exposure risk under field conditions not only depends on the maintenance of the efficiency of the equipment during processing, but also on factors such as: the probability that a TSE-infected animal is processed, the type of material processed (e.g., carcasses as compared to by-products and waste from animals that tested negative for BSE), the relationship between effectiveness and throughput and workplace control and environmental protection measures. The consideration whether or not the inactivation capacity of a process is effective must take fully into account such
factors. The SSC opinion of 24-25 June 1999 on "Fallen Stock" provides some further guidance on which materials should be disposed of and which ones could possibly be recycled for certain uses1."

However, even if this process does seem to work, there is another concern - dioxins:

a) chlorophenols, dioxins and other polychlorinated hydrocarbons One of the principal public concerns about the incineration of animal waste is dioxin generation. It is appropriate therefore to consider whether the WR2 process might also generate toxic chemicals. Research has shown (for example: Wikstom & Marklund, 2001) that chlorophenols, dioxins, etc are formed under a number of conditions of relevance to the proposed process i.e.: - in the presence of weak to strong alkali; - at process temperatures in excess of 150° (particularly (250-400°); - in the presence of chloride and/or organochlorine compounds.

Chloride is of course a common element in animal tissues. Since the proposed
process conditions involve a strong alkali and a temperature of 150°C, the extent of the possible formation of chlorophenols, dioxins and other chlorinated
hydrocarbons needs to be investigated. According to WR2 (2001) the process
does not generate detectable emissions of dioxins5, furans, SO2 or NOx, however no details of what else was looked for, nor of sensitivity limits are available in WR2 (2001)."

Their conclusion?

"The process appears to cause a very substantial reduction of BSE/TSE infectivity but after 3 hours does not result in complete destruction of TSE/BSE. From the experiments conducted by Somerville (2002) a reduction of infectivity after 3 hours of between 103.5 and 104.5 seems likely. No infectivity was found after 6 hours. The experimental set-up does however not permit to exactly quantify the clearance factor after 6 hours. One problem in interpreting the data in this study is that it is difficult to explain why in the study the highest dilution samples showed the greatest infectivity. It is important to resolve this question."

Just how tough is the BSE prion? Amazingly tough.
Biology of BSE and Related Disorders:

"Chemical disinfectants (e.g. domestic bleach), weak acids, DNAase, RNAase, proteinases (including those found in the animal gut), ultraviolet light, ionising radiation, heat (cooking tempertures), and chemicals that react with DNA (psoralins/UV light, hydroxylamine, zinc ions), all have little effect on the infectivity of the agent. High temperature autoclaving (135 degrees centegrade for 18 minutes) decreases the infectivity dramatically, as does the use of 1M NaOH, but neither will fully destroy the agent, as it has been found to remain infective after 360 degrees C for 1 hour or even after incineration. Internment of infective tissue in the soil for three years did not destroy the agent. Some phenols and proteases will decrease the infectivity of the agent but not to an adequate degree to be of value in disinfection.
Prevention of TSEs

Nosocomial CJDs should be prevented by prohibiting CJD, GSS, or Alpers disease patients (or those with obscure neurological conditions) from becoming blood or tissue donors, by the incineration or high temperature autoclaving of all materials that came into contact with blood, or post mortem tissue from such a patient, and by the disposal of all surgical instruments used for brain surgery on such a patient. The body should not be used for teaching anatomy or surgery. Correct action to be taken concerning BSE infected herds is currently under intense discussion."

In other words, the commission is leary of the effectiveness of the WR2 process in elimiating the BSE prion.

The prion seems virtually indestructable as is noted in the following sources:

The WellnessWise Journal (reprint 1996) by David J. DeRose, MD, MPH, who states:

"The prions differ from those similar normal proteins, however, in their three dimensional shape. Prions seem to cause disease by coming into contact with those normal proteins and then stimulating them to change their shape to mimic the prion protein. This change in shape appears to set up a chain reaction. Normal proteins change their shape to look like the prion proteins and then later influence neighboring proteins to do the same. The end result is a progressively devastating and ultimately fatal disease. No treatment has yet been discovered.

Making the picture even bleaker is the resiliency of prions. They are not destroyed by the usual means used to kill infectious agents. They are resistant even to boiling at temperatures as high as 250 degrees Celsius (well over 400 degrees Fahrenheit). They are also resistant to ionizing radiation. "

Note that the temperature here is over 250 degrees (C) - well above the 150 degrees (C) that the WR2 process utilizes.

So what does it all mean?
1. The prion involved in BSE is very difficult, if not impossible to destroy.
2. The UK killed over 1.5 million cattle, it is unkown how the US will handle its outbreak.
3. The US favors utilizing the WR2 process and then using the remains as fertilizer. This is apparently what they are doing with other contaminated tissues at this time, including (one assumes) the herd of sheep that was killed because of suspected scrapies (the sheep form of BSE and suspected as a possible contaminating sources causing bovine BSE).
4. So these potentially contaminated remains could end up broadcast across the country as fertilizer, or even back in the animal food supply (bone meal).
5. Even if the process does work, a by-product is highly toxic dioxins. Given the amount of remains likely needing "digestion" this could cause a huge environmental problems with dioxin disposal. Remember the evacuation and destruction of Times Beach, Missouri (see resource links below)?
Don't you think it might be time to be asking the FDA, USDA, and our elected representatives some tough questions?

Excellent Resource Links
Re: Prions not destroyed by incineration?

MadCow.org

Guardian/UK archive of BSE articles and resports

BSE risk in bones and blood used in meats , Lawrence, Guardian/UK, 5/22/03)

Times Beach, Missouri
Dioxin Poisoning Caused by Improper Waste Disposal in Missouri

Times Beach, Missouri

CLEAN UP OF MISSOURI TOXIC WASTE SITE COMPLETE. TIMES BEACH SUPERFUND SITE LAST OF THREE TOXIC WASTE SITES TO BE CLEANED UP THAT SPURRED CREATION OF THE SUPERFUND LAW, US DOJ 7/3/1997)

Addendum - Snafu at the NY Times
I ran into a problem when I started to write this article. I had found the article by Denis Grady last night at the NY Times online for 1/06/04. However, this morning, the link took me to a totally different article. I thought that maybe I had screwed up the link so I went to the Times online and there was the same title link. I clicked it and it took me to a "replacement" article (Human Mad Cow Toll Up). I called the Times and was passed through a variety of people until I got to "James" who would not give me his last name. James said, that "he would check it out." When I asked how I would be able to followup, he said check the online version in about an hour.

I did check back and guess what? The original article is back. I guess that sometimes it helps to complain!

Addendum
I also posted the article at Correspondences. The Chairman of the Board of WR2 wrote a response. Below is Dr. Kaye's response and my response to that.

Name: Dr. Gordon I. Kaye
Email Address: gkaye@wr2.net
URL: http://www.wr2.net

Comments:

Dear Dr. Wolf:

No one in the scientific or regulatory communities has ever minimized the difficulty of destroying the agents that cause TSE. Unfortunately, your commendable attempt to emphasize this may do more to confuse the issue than clarify it because it appears to be based largely on incomplete, inaccurate, and out-of-date information.

The WR2 statement that the process "Converts human and microbial tissues into a sterile, neutral, aqueous solution suitable for disposal to a sanitary sewer" is based on extensive validation testing with ALL of the standard indexed agents required for testing for approval of any process for treatment and disposal of regulated medical waste (RMW) in the various states of the United States. In fact, the most rigorous state health department, that of New York, was the first to specifically approve the WR2 Process for RMW treatment based on TOTAL elimination of all of the index organisms tested by an independent laboratory. Subsequently, every other state health department that has undertaken or required validation studies has also approved the process, following the same demonstration of TOTAL destruction of all the organisms tested. Also, the process is carried out at 150º Celsius (approx. 302º Fahrenheit), not 250º F as noted in your article. Further, I am unaware of any testing done at any Iowa lab as there is no installed WR2 unit in Iowa nor could any reference to the Patrick Condon citiation be found at Twin Cities.com.

I have no idea what a reference to the Andean Community (CAN), a group of countries in Central and South America, banning US meat imports after the report of one BSE infected cow in Washington State has to do with the validation of the WR2 Process for any use.

The most unfortunate incomplete and out-of-date information in your article, however, refers to the opinion and report of the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Union Commission on Health and Consumer Protection. The Opinion and Report you cite was superceded by two subsequent reports in which errors in that report that were identified by WR2 and Waste Reduction by Waste Reduction Europe, Ltd. (WRE) were corrected and some of the non-scientific and bizarre questions and conclusions, such as the reference to the possible generation of dioxins in an aqueous solution1 were answered or removed. The Final Opinion and Report was published only in April 2003 and specifically recommended approval of the WR2 Process for use for treatment and disposal of Category 1 animal byproducts, i.e., highly infectious materials and materials contaminated with BSE. In fact, the final regulations for use of the process are currently being edited and, when the text is approved by the 15 member Council, will take on the force of law in the EU.

The quotation from the "Biology of BSE and Related Disorders" (no citation presented) is interesting and potentially informative general information but has NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM IT BY YOU THAT "In other words, the commission is leary [sic!] of the effectiveness of the WR2 Process in eliminating the BSE prion". As noted immediately above, contrary to what you state, the Commission recommended approval of the WR2 Process for treatment of Category 1 animal byproducts.

We regret that your access to incomplete and inaccurate information led you, in your commendable zeal to try to clarify an issue with which many people who do not have the background and experience in the field have recently become concerned, to write the article without checking with the primary sources concerned. We would have been happy to direct you not only to the correct information had you contacted us but to several experts in the elimination of prion infectivity who could have provided you with additional accurate scientific references. We hope you will seek such resources in your future discussion of this and other important health and science matters.

1 The Dioxin question was a particularly glaring, annoying, and expensive canard. It was repeatedly raised by one member of the SSC who had only ever worked with incinerators and did not understand the chemistry of the WR2 Process. Dioxins are produced during oxidation reactions, almost always by burning materials, and at temperatures above 250º C. Dioxins are thus produced by incinerators, crematoria, woodstoves, and fireplaces. They can only be produced by transformation of chlorinated phenolic compounds such as those found in plastics and wood. THERE ARE NO CHLORINATED PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS NATURALLY PRESENT IN ANIMAL TISSUES. The WR2 Process is a reductive process, hence the company name, and takes place in an aqueous solution at 150º C. There is no question that chloride, the element , is present in animal tissue. It is an essential ion in most cellular reactions and essential for maintenance of cellular integrity in animal tissues. If dioxins could be produced in aqueous solutions in boiling water, we would have eliminated human life on earth as soon as we started cooking with salt! Ironically, the authors of the one citation in the dioxin canard, Drs. Wikstrom and Marklund, both indicated to the SSC that their work was done with a fluidized bed incinerator model using a municipal waste sample and that, as chemists, they KNEW that dioxins could not be produced in an aqueous solution. Despite this, WR2 was forced to undertake an extensive and expensive controlled experiment involving analyzing undigested animal tissue, digested animal tissue, and even the water and alkali used in the process for the presence of dioxins. The analyses of the samples produced were carried out by one of only two laboratories in the world with the capability of undertaking precise analysis on such minute quantities of dangerous chemicals which prepared a report for the SSC that proved that NO DIOXINS OR FURANS WERE PRODUCED BY DIGESTING ANIMAL TISSUES WITH THE WR2 PROCESS!

Gordon I. Kaye, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Board
WR², Inc.

My Response to Dr. Kaye
I would like to thank Dr. Kaye for giving such an extensive reply and directing me to the April 10-11, 2003 EU Scientific Steering Committee FINAL OPINION AND REPORT ON : A TREATMENT OF ANIMAL WASTE BY MEANS OF HIGH TEMPERATUR(150°C, 3 HOURS) AND HIGH PRESSURE ALKALINE HYDROLYSIS. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out358_en.pdf.

Let me state a couple of things up front in my response. First, as methods of disposal of contaminated tissue goes, the process used by WR2 appears to be among the best. Also, the updated report from the EU SSC indicates that WR2 has made improvements on its original process to decrease emmissions of toxic gases and liquids. Therefore, the concerns of significant dioxin residues are reduced. Lastly, my concern in writing the original piece was not to demean WR2, but concerns about the overall approach to dealing disposing of BSE (and related agents) contaminated items - including tissue.

For clarity's sake, and as a reference point, let me quote the following from the WR2 website The WR2 Process - http://www.wr2.net/process.htm. The emphases are mine - not WR2's

Automatic Treatment Cycle

During operation, a measured amount of alkali, proportional to the weight of tissue loaded into the basket, is automatically added after the load has been weighed by built-in load cells. Water, also proportional to the weight of the tissue, is then added and the vessel is sealed pressure-tight. The contents are heated while the digestion solution is continuously recirculated. There are no moving parts inside the vessel. High level agitation is provided in the fluid circulating system. Standard digestion cycle time is determined by temperature; approximately 3 hours at 150° C (In emergency situations this time can be reduced substantially). The tissues rapidly dissolve during this heating time and are hydrolyzed into smaller and smaller molecules. The temperature, heating time, and recommended alkali-to-tissue ratios for particular types of loads, selected after extensive laboratory testing, result in a sterile, non-gelling, purple/coffee-colored, slightly alkaline, true solution with a soap-like odor. This solution can be discharged in accordance with local and federal guidelines regarding pH and temperature.*** If KOH is used as the akali, the resulting solution is suitable, after dilution, for direct application as a liquid fertilizer, containing Nitrogen and Potassium, for crop or landscape application.

In examining the EU SSC Final Opinion, I do not see the ringing endorsement that Dr. Kaye implies. The report discusses findings and concerns that linger. Many of their lingering concerns address the difference in potential outcome between small scale, highly controlled, experiments and the use of the technology in a real life environment.

The SSC continues to argue that some degree of TSE/BSE infectivity persists with 3 hours of process ind continues to recommend 6 hours of high pressure (5 bars) high heat processing.

" ... the SSC concludes that, on the basis of the data available, by-products of the 3-hour process could carry a risk of BSE/TSE infectivity and that this risk may decrease with the duration of processing; further data would be needed in order to make a definitive statement. "

They have issues with how levels, throughput and training may vary from experimental contitions:

"The possible human BSE exposure and/or environmental contamination risks under field conditions not only depends on the maintenance of the efficiency of the equipment during processing, but also on factors such as: the probability that a TSE-infected animal is processed, the type of material processed (e.g., carcasses as compared to byproducts and waste from animals that tested negative for BSE), the relationship between
effectiveness and throughput and workplace control, dilution of the possible residual infectivity, and environmental protection measures."

And that release into the human environment is not recommended:

"The consideration whether or not the inactivation capacity of a process is effective must take fully into account such factors, but the SSC nevertheless considers, as a principle, that the release into the environment of residual TSE infectivity should be avoided.

They do not recommend the release of processed materials into sewers as "it must thus be assumed that any residual BSE/TSE material could co-precipitate and hence be accessible to sewer vermin." and further: "On the basis of the above evidence, the SSC considers that for the time being the direct discharge of the liquid residues to the sewer without further treatment is not appropriate."

Further, they do not recommend dispersing the byproducts on the land. They point the reader to an SSC Opinion of June 24-25, 1999. That document http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out58_en.pdf states on page 45 that after incineration or alkaline treatment (similar to WR2's) that the waste should be encapsulated in a controlled landfill.

The Conclusions from the Final Opinion are quoted below in full (emphases mine).

IV. CONCLUSIONS
1. The process appears to cause a reduction of BSE/TSE infectivity after 3 hours but does not result in complete destruction of TSE/BSE infectivity. From the experiments conducted by Somerville (2002) a reduction of infectivity after 3 hours of between 103.5 and 104.5 seems likely.

No infectivity was found after 6 hours. The experimental set-up does however not permit to exactly quantify the clearance factor after 6 hours. One problem in interpreting the data in this study is that it is difficult to explain why in the study the highest dilution samples showed the greatest infectivity. It is important to resolve this question.

The experiments did not investigate the inactivation for durations between 4 and 6 hours. The data indicate that the process applied for 3 hours it is more effective than the heat/pressure rendering process at 133°C during 20 minutes and at 3 bars which is currently accepted to have a TSE infectivity reduction capacity of approx. 103.0 (EC, 1999). However, such comparisons are problematic because the impact of the rendering refers to the industrial scale process, while the alkaline hydrolysis infectivity reduction study was carried out under laboratory conditions and the equipment was used optimally (supervised by company experts). It may well be the case that, in the field situation, less substantial reductions in infectivity would be achieved using alkaline hydrolysis.

2. Pirnie (2000) states that the levels of 68 priority pollutant semi-volatiles were low and that odour emission was moderate. Recent detailed analysis provided by the company (WR2, 25 June 2002, i.e., after the adoption on 16 May 2002 of the SSC's previous opinion) have shown that
dioxin in the air could not be detected nor chlorophenols and other polychlorinated hydrocarbons in the residual fluid. Most of the numerous
analysed VOCs were reported to be below the given chemical detection limits. For the compounds detected, most concentrations were below their respective odour thresholds. Nevertheless, the alkaline hydrolysis system could produce air emissions with potential to cause odour impact, especially for some reduced sulphur compounds, some VOCs and amines. Odours should be controlled via appropriate trapping devices or failing this via air ventilation exhaust system. The treatment goal for the waste management facilities exhaust air would be to produce a treated air stream with the concentration of all compounds below their odour threshold concentration prior to discharge to environmental atmosphere.

3. Detailed analyses provided by the company shows (1) that dioxins in the air could not be detected nor chlorophenols and other polychlorinated hydrocarbons in the residual fluid of the alkaline process and (2) that the process did not generate dioxins nor polychlorodibenzofurans in the alkaline tissue digest beyond any dioxins possibly already contained in the original animal carcass tissue.

The SSC considers that, although the data were obtained from laboratory scale studies and experiments and the levels of chloride were probably low, the results provide sufficient reassurance that the levels of dioxin release into the environment during dispersal of the digestate are unlikely to constitute a risk.

4. Before the process can be recommended in a substantially scaled up form, measurement of appropriate parameters under actual practical plant conditions is essential. An effective monitoring regimen for the day-to-day performance of the equipment must also be devised.

5. Associated with the process, safe procedures for storage and handling of carcasses to be processed, which may be contaminated with TSE/BSE will need to be identified and implemented. These procedures should include consideration of the issues identified in the Notes of 27 October 2000 of the Scientific Steering Committee on the safe handling, transport and temporary storage of meat-andbone meal which may be contaminated with a BSE agent or other pathogens.

6. On the basis of the evidence available, the liquid residues after process duration of 3 hours retain a significant BSE/TSE infectivity risk [if the starting material contained high levels of infectivity]. They contain also very high BOD and COD values. It is therefore not appropriate to permit their direct discharge to the sewer.

Moreover, from a practical viewpoint the solidification of the hydrolysate on cooling is of concern in respect of the disposal. If hydrolysate is released on a large scale to a sewer in a warm condition without extensive dilution it is likely to precipate. In the absence of data to the contrary it must be assumed that any residual BSE/TSE material could co-precipitate and thence be accessible to sewer vermin.

If it is proposed that the residue is incinerated, hydrochloric acid should not be used as a neutralizing agent since it will facilitate dioxin formation.

As Dr. Kaye noted, "No one in the scientific or regulatory communities has ever minimized the difficulty of destroying the agents that cause TSE."

My concerns are not significantly relieved. In the original NY Times article stated the (US) Agriculture Department favored the treatment proposed by WR2. It then goes on to state (emphases mine):

"The process leaves behind only about 76 pounds of bone and teeth remnants that can be crumbled by hand into bone-meal powder, and 375 gallons of a sterile solution of water containing sugars, soaps and molecules that are the building blocks of proteins. Both the liquid and the powder can be used as fertilizer. The liquid, which the company described as "nonjelling" and "with a soaplike odor," can be safely dumped into a sanitary sewer, the company says. But large volumes of the liquid would need sewage treatment before being released, because the fertilizer content is high enough to cause ecological problems in waterways."

Therefore, while the SSC is recommending encapsulated burial in a contained site, the US seems to be recommending releasing the waste into the sewer system, and/or to be used as fertilizer. This simply does not seem prudent to me. While I do not have access to the final standards and controls, the final vote based on the recommendation of the SSC (as Dr. Kaye notes) "will take on the force of law in the EU." That does not necessarily mean the the US will follow the same standard.

Asides
Dr. Kaye stated that there was no known testing of BSE in Iowa, nor of a disposal system there. The Times article clear refers to testing and disposal in Iowa:

The Agriculture Department uses tissue digestors at its laboratories in Ames, Iowa, and Laramie, Wyo., and the veterinary college at Colorado State University in Fort Collins uses one to destroy the carcasses of deer and elk with chronic wasting disease, the company said. In Florida, the State Anatomical Board operates a digestor at Shands Hospital in Gainesville to dispose of cadavers used to teach anatomy.

The digestor in Ames, a 7,000-pound model, was trucked there on an emergency basis in 2001 to destroy more than 50,000 pounds of carcasses from a herd of sheep that the department had seized from a Vermont farm. The sheep, imported from Belgium, were destroyed because health officials suspected they had eaten feed contaminated with tissue carrying mad cow disease. The Ames digestor will be permanently installed sometime early this year, Mr. Wilson said.

---
The Andean Community source -
The press release was included because it discussed the CAN resoulution that it they would not accept import of any products or byproducts capable of spreading BSE. If the US were to approve use of treated BSE tissue as fertilizer, then that ban could impact not just export of fertilizer, but crops on which that fertilizer was used. In other words, by dispersing the treated waste as fertilizer it could dramatically effect the exportablity of US crops.

So there is a lot of traffic moving through the Panama Canal, but each one of those ships takes a lot off water to make the trip - 52 MILLION gallons per ship in fact (Water Woes). That is fresh water that is being used to raise and lower each ship the 85 feet in the crossing. All of that water comes from one water shed - the Panama Canal Watershed - of which the Chagres River basin is the largest supplier. The same watershed is the sole freshwater source for Panama (PANAMA CANAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT). So the canal oalone uses about 680 BILLION gallons of fresh water each DAY (52 mil gallons * 13,100 ships). Now that is one heck of a lot of fresh water. As a point of comparison, the Portland Oregon Metropolitan area (where I live) has a population of just under 1 million people and uses about 40 billion gallons of fresh water per YEAR.

There are some obvious concerns when one starts thinking about this level of water usage. First, how could a watershed continue to produce above that level of water, and what are the environmental impacts of doing so? Secondly (and I have no answer for this one) what happens to ocean salinization levels when you are pumping in that much fresh water? Third, with fresh water becoming increasingly scarce, who controls this water and at what cost?

There are obvious and known threats to the continued functioning of the Panama Canal: global warming, deforestation, and watershed destruction. Add to this that the canal was just significantly widened, and that the plans are to build additional canals to handle the traffic, and the scope of this problem takes on massive proportions. Global warming is making the water flow unreliable. Droughts have forced closure of the Gatun power station at Gatun Reservoir. Floods have eroded drainage. Logging of the rain forest has impacted drainage and disrupted the normal flow to rivers and reservoirs (Water Woes and USAID).

Fresh water is an increasingly scarce commodity and as such has become a major prize of corporatization. All over the world, but especially in water poor area, corporations are attempting to privatize water systems. An excellent discussion of this can be found in Blue Gold: The global water crisis and the commodification of the world's water supply put out by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG).

"Just at the time governments are backing away from their regulatory responsibilities, giant transnational water, food, energy and shipping corporations are lining up to take advantage of the world's water shortage, acquiring control of water through the ownership of dams and waterways; the development of new technologies such as water desalination and purification; control over the burgeoning bottled water industry; the privatization of municipal and regional water services, including sewage and water delivery; the construction of water infrastructure; and water exportation.

'Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors," says Johan Bastin of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Tragically, water is also the last frontier of nature and the commons."

Institutions of globalization such as the IMF and WOrld Bank have aggressively promoted water corporatization in the third world. Nations have been forced to sell part or all of water resources to meet debt payments, or as part of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP). THe consequences have been disasterous. The effects of this have been to actually reduce the amount of fresh water available to populations, or to make access to that water prohibitively expensive. "For example, in India, some households pay a staggering 25 percent of their income on water." ... "Biwater Plc. corporation increased water rates in Subic Bay in the Philippines by 400 percent." (Blue Gold) Enron actually owns part of the Panamanian water sytem (Blue Gold), and the plan has called for the government to allow private water contracting (V. IMF and World Bank Push Water Privatization News & Notices for IMF & World Bank Watchers, Spring 2001). Water privatization has been met with citizen protests all over South America and Panama is no exception (6,000 Clash in Panama City, AP 1998).

While GATT, GATS, NAFTA, and IMF/World Bank forces are playing a dramatic role in Panama's water plight, it is focused in the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP) puched by Mexican President Vincente Fox, that the most direct threat appears. The following quote is from Plan Puebla-Panama: The Next Step in Corporate Globalization by Hansen and Wallach (Labor Notes, 4/2002): (emphases mine)

"PPP would encourage foreign investment in the region, strategically located between the Pacific and the Atlantic, by constructing a series of transportation and sweatshop corridors spanning the isthmus.

Fox wants to transplant the maquiladora, production-for-export model that has been applied with disastrous results in northern Mexico, but with a few new twists. The isthmus is one of the most bio-diverse regions on the planet, and contains some of the most important fresh water reserves in the hemisphere. Exploitation of these resources is key to the plan. "

The US is in support of PPP: "Secretary of State Colin Powell has told Vicente Fox that the U.S. will support the plan if Fox militarizes the Mexico-Guatemala border to prevent immigration from Central America northward."

The US has a long and rather sordid history with Panama, and that is unlikely to change anytime in the near future. From the inception of the Panama canal and the importation of African workers to build the canal, to the 1989 invasion to make sure that control of the canal was maintained, to today's economic levers of contro, the US has had its hand on the reins. There is an excellent documentarty The Panama Deception which is well worth the effort to find (or purchase) and watch. It discusses both the history between the US and Panama, and the 1989 invasion.

So oil, both as cargo and as the fuel of a globalized economy, mixes with the dwindling waters of Panama to the long term good of corporations and the long term ill of Panamanians and the environment. I certainly which this was a unique story. Unfortunately, it is only an illustration of a much broader pattern.

The following is extracted from the article by Paul McGeogh from the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) We got him: Kurds say they caught Saddam.

Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam Hussein are being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president.

The first media account of the December 13 arrest was aired by a Tehran-based news agency.

American forces took Saddam into custody around 8.30pm local time, but sat on the news until 3pm the next day.

However, in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace.

"Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!"

The head of the PUK, Jalal Talabani, was in the Iranian capital en route to Europe.

The Western media in Baghdad were electrified by the Iranian agency's revelation, but as reports of the arrest built, they relied almost exclusively on accounts from US military and intelligence organisations, starting with the words of the US-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer: "Ladies and gentlemen: we got 'im".

US officials said that they had extracted the vital piece of information on Saddam's whereabouts from one of the 20 suspects around 5.30pm on December 13 and had immediately assembled a 600-strong force to surround the farm on which he was captured at al-Dwar, south of Tikrit.

Little attention was paid to a line in Pentagon briefings that some of the Kurdish militia might have been in on what was described as a "joint operation"; or to a statement by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraq National Congress, which said that Qusrat and his PUK forces had provided vital information and more.

What is truly interesting is not just the US claim of capturing Saddam Hussein, but the claiming of an elaborate operation that ended successfully (much like the scripting of the rescue of Jessica Lynch). Not only did that elaborate operation not work (if it existed at all), but the Kurds had him trapped in a hole while the US got the media apparatus together for the "dramatic" events.

What is also worrisome, but not unexpected, is the virtual silence of the US and British press. ABC News Online was the only US-based news I found, and it was a copy of the Agence French Press report.

News Sources Reporting the Story
I have put an * beside those reports offering the most detail

** We got him: Kurds say they caught Saddam, McGeogh, Sydney Morning Herald

** Saddam: Betrayed, drugged and traded Aljazeera

** Saddam was captured by Kurds, not US Sify.com

** Revealed: Who Really Found Saddam? Pratt, Sunday Herald/Scotland

Saddam held by Kurds, drugged and left for US troops: report ABC News Online

Kurds claim Saddam capture News.com.au (12/22/03)

Kurds Seized Saddam First, Novinite/Bulgaria

'Revenge for rape behind Saddam capture'

Report: ''Saddam capture - not result of American or British intelligence'' Al Bawaba.com

Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops Arab Times/Kuwait

Kurds claim Saddam capture The Australian (12/22/03)

Kurds claim Saddam capture Herald Sun/AU (12/22/03)

Saddam was held by Kurds and left for US troops: ReportHindustan Times (copy of AFP report)

Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops Channel News Asia (AFP report)

Kurds claim Saddam capture The Advertiser/AU (12/22/03)

** Kurds, Not U.S. Captured Saddam: Report Islam Online/UK

Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops Kurdish Media (AFP report)

Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops Infoshop News (AFP report)

Kurds, Not U.S. Captured Saddam: Report Palestinian Chronicle

** 'Kurdish forces nabbed & drugged Saddam' The Statesman/India

Kurds nabbed Saddam first? Today Online/Singapore (AFP report)

Saddam Captured by Kurds; US Troops Get Photo Opp Conspiracy Planet

Kurdish fighters 'drugged' tyrant Gulf Daily News/Bahrain

Saddam hld by Kurds, left for US troops Newind Press/ India

Saddam was held by Kurdish Forces, drugged and left for US troops China Daily/China

'Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops' Daily Star/India (AFP report)

A report has surfaced which, if true, adds some missing details about how Saddam Hussein came to be in his "spider hole"... Morons.org

Saddam captured by Kurds (I'm really sure the North-American free press will report this any day now) Vive le Canada

The Saddam Hussein Capture, A Hoax? Rice, Al-Jazeera

Did Kurds Dupe Bush's Brass; or Did Bush Sell Out Iraqis to Kurds as Part of Saddam Handover Deal? Kall, OpEdNews

How was Saddam Really Captured: A Journalistic Review Sorenson, Republicons.org

Widespread Claims Kurds Got Saddam First Scoop

TruthOut link to AFP release

Village Voice link to AFP report

Bryan, Ohio was the home of Etch A Sketch. Like so many other manufacturing jobs, the union workers at Ohio Art (the makers of Etch A Sketch) lost their jobs to a "cheaper" international workforce. Like so many others, life time employees of Ohio Arts found themselves on the streets of their town looking for jobs that didn't exist. Like so many other small towns, the loss of the jobs has torn the heart out of Bryan. Sometimes I think that this hidden loss is deliberately occluded by discussion of the decline and death of rural communities. The implanting of the idea that the only thing outside of major urban centers is fields waiting to become Wal-Mart hubs.

The Ohio Art workers kind of knew that the end was near. The company had brought in workers to be trained by the long time employees of Ohio Art. It seems sadistic doesn't it to have workers train their replacements knowing that their jobs, their lives as they know them, and their communities will be wiped away by the job they are required to perform? Such was the case for the Ohio Arts workers - some of whom had been with the company for 40 years.

That loss for Bryan was three years ago. They got their notices a week before Christmas. Now, on the other side of the ocean, the replacements are also suffering. Ohio Arts contracted the making of Etch A Sketch to a Chinese company named Kin Ki Industrial. Kin Ki promotes itself as a great work place - down to telling employees what to say when US companies come to inspect them. However, the reality of the Kin Ki company doesn't match the smiling marketing pitch. Most of the workers now making Etch A Sketch are teenagers from the provinces who work long hours and are paid 40% less than the company claims. According to the article, "They sleep head-to-toe in tiny rooms." So I am assuming that they are in company housing as well. There are no pensions, no medical benefits, and no overtime pay. These are what Kin Ki says it offers, but admits it falls short.

And the forces that lost Bryan, Ohio its jobs and community, and now exploits Chinese teenagers in Shenzhen China ... Wal-Mart (and Toys 'R Us). The "low cost leader" that is the largest corporation in the world wanted to keep the price of Etch A Sketch under $10. The image of that bouncy little yellow smiley face, impersonating Robin Hood, "slashing prices" all over the place. The hypocrisy of their mascot revolts me every time I see it. I see the little arrows going straight into the hearts of workers in industries around the country, and the slashed prices cutting the life blood of workers internationally. "Robin Hood" who "steals from the rich to give to the poor" is a frightening morph job on what Wal-Mart actually does.

Wal-Mart is owned by the five Walton children whose combined wealth is roughly $95 BILLION. It would take the typical US worker about 2.9 MILLION years to earn that much, and the typical Wal-Mart worker far longer than that (about 5 MILLION years). And the workers at Kin Ki Industries? Well, it would take them about 3 Billion years. There is a viciousness of cycle and intent here that is truly breathtaking. Wal-Mart displaces workers and kills communities making "Wal-Mart towns." Wages go down so that the only thing folks can afford is Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart exports the jobs to exploit an even more exploitable global labor force which further erodes US labor's ability to compete and drives wages overall ... DOWN. Meanwhile the Waltons sit at the top of ill-gotten wealth and plot how to extend their empire (Wal-Mart Invades, and Mexico Gladly Surrenders, Weiner, NYT, 12/05/03). For me, the smiley faced Robin Hood mascot has a maniacal grin.

The myth is that it is only those "low wage manufacturing jobs" that have been lost. The reality is that what has been (and is being) lost are working and middle-class wage jobs that formed the heart of a strong middle-class in the US. The myth is that we (US workers) have moved up to higher paying high tech and service jobs. The reality is that most of those jobs pay less than the manufacturing jobs did, and that manufacturing is not the only industry losing jobs to exploited global work forces. In an interesting article in the 12/07/03 NYT, Who Wins and Who Loses as Jobs Move Overseas?, Erika Kinetz discusses the latest and fatest growing trend - the outsourcing of white collar jobs to (primarily) China and India.

(Stephen Roach managing director and chief economist for Morgan Stanley) "The point is that the relationship between aggregate demand and employment growth looks to me as if it has broken down. That breakdown reflects not just the rapid growth and maturation of outsourcing platforms in places like China and India, but also the accelerated pace by which these platforms can now be connected to the developed world through the Internet. These are brand-new developments. This is a huge challenge for service-based economies, like the United States."

As we have moved into a more and more globalized economy, many of the traditional economic relationships have broken down. The US economy baffles many (how can you increase unemployment, increase productivity, be in a recession, and have the stock market going up at the same time?) How can you pour billions into the economy, lower interest rates, and have the economy continue to sink? Easy, national boundaries are not economic boundaries, and national monetary policies are beyond the control of nations.

So this year as you watch the ever-present Wal-Mart ads with the smiley-face mascot, or go to shop for the kids in your life at Wal-Mart or Toys 'R Us, think for a moment about the folks who have brought you these "low low prices" - the ex-Ohio Arts workers in Bryan and the hungry kids at Kin Ki Industries.

This approach of US government policy and action has contributed to unimaginable desperation in many areas of the world. These areas are also the source of desperate measures. There are two extreme responses which I believe are responses to the same forces. On the one hand there is "terrorist" activity - particularly represented in suicide attacks. On the other is people committing suicide. I believe that these are different responses to the same desperation that is being created by the forces of globalization and "rich nation" hegemony. It is clear that the US government at least knows full well that current policies are driving increasing inequality and desperation. It is clear that they realize that natural resources are growing increasingly limited and that the US will control these by whatever means and whatever cost necessary. This is clear in the US openly declared policy of the use of banned weapons (nuclear, biological, and chemical) and in the preemptive use of those weapons. It is made abundantly clear in the The United States Space Command Vision for 2020. In this document it clearly states that "The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between 'haves' and 'have-nots.'" For this reason the US is pushing for space-based weaponry that can launch pinpoint strikes anywhere in the world.

Suicide versus Terrorism
I want to look at two separate areas of suicide in response to desperation created by hegemonic capitalism. The first is the suicides of farmers in India and the second is the suicides of Guarani children in Brazil.

The farmers of India are committing suicide at an incredible rate. According to Vandana Shiva in a Democracy Now presentation, at least 20,000 farmers have committed suicide in the last year alone. Dr. Shiva has spoken on this topic frequently, but it has made the news as well. There are a number of articles included at the end of this article on the forces driving these suicides but there is general consensus.

Indian farmers have been under a variety of global economic assaults that range from being forced to grow export crops, to stealing of rights to those crops and products made from them through "intellectual property" agreements under the WTO (World Trade Organization - the agreement is TRIPS); to being forced to grow genetically modified crops (Round-Up Ready seeds) and then dumping massive amounts of chemicals on those crops. Monsanto has been a major culprit in the events in India.

All of these features have made the cost of farming (particularly the cost of seed) much higher, while making farmers very vulnerable to global price fluctuations. The biotech seeds and heavy use of Monsanto's chemicals have also eliminated export to the European market. The consequence, massive amounts of debt among farmers who cannot sell their crops. According to Vandana Shiva these resulted in a loss of $25 billion in economic losses to farmers last year (Democracy Now speech).

The consequence of this loss? Farmers committing suicide, most by drinking the very chemicals they had to purchase from Monsanto. According to Shiva, there were 735 farmer suicides in October 2003 in one district. If you note the date on the articles at the bottom of this article, you will see that this has been going on for some time.

There is no question whatsoever what is driving these suicides. There is a clear chain of cause and effect. And it is clear that the forces of globalization want to accelerate the current course rather than stray from it. We see this happening with the pressures for starving African nations to switch to biotech crops which will be equally undesirable on the international market. And who is strong-arming this move? The US government.

The Loss of the Children of Guarani
The Guarani of Brazil have been under assault for decades. The government refuses to protect any tribal lands, and in fact has followed a program of expropriating the lands of the tribe. First to exploit the rubber trees, more recently for Brazilian ranchers. The path that Brazil has followed in relationship to the Guarani has been virtually identical to the genocidal policies followed against Native American tribes inside the US. Even to removing the children of the tribe to boarding schools.

The response to the constant pressures, cultural genocide, and economic vulnerability has led to increasing numbers of suicide among the children. These suicides are happening among children as young as 9 years old. The following quote from Suicide thinning ranks of displaced tribe:

"What is there live for?" said Goncalo Moraes. "For years, we've been crying out for help but nobody listens."

The Guarani and Kaiowa used to be separate, nomadic tribes with lots of land, some of the best farm land in Brazil. When white settlers moved in, the tribes were pushed off their land, lumped together and isolated on a small reserve. Now, they can barely feed themselves.

In the past, young boys have left temporarily to earn money cutting sugar cane. This year, a drought has taken many of those jobs away.

Anastacio Peralta is the tribal leader. He says that there have been suicides before, but now suicides are on the rise. "There's more depression. Our young people are ashamed to be Indians. They have no sense of purpose," Peralta said.

And there is no hope for the future, either. They're surrounded by poverty, their culture is disintegrating. "This is a culture crisis," says historian Antonio Brandi. "These Indians are losing their identity, and many see no alternative but death."

The "Terrorists"
While the response of the farmers of India and the children of the Guarani is suicide, another response is to strike back. This striking back takes the form of what is being labeled as "terrorism." We have seen this in the suicide attacks of the Palestinians, and in the use of airplanes as bombs in the United States. We see it in numerous suicide attacks both inside and outside Iraq.
Harold Gould in an article for CounterPunch (11/28/03) has an excellent article Suicide as Weapon of Mass Destruction?. In it he discusses Emile Durkheim's discussion of "altruistic suicide." Altruistic suicide is essentially killing oneself for the benefit of others. It is clear that this is the driving motivation of the "suicide" attacks. People young and not so young are making bombs of themselves (or driving bombs) at an enemy they see as destroying them. The forces driving these actions are no different than the suicides of Indian farmers or Guarani children. This is not a tactic of choice, but of last resort.

In US movies, the classic presentation of heroism is the soldier racing into the guns of the enemies to kill them before they kill the rest of the troops. It is a suicide move. In the US it is often referred to as the "ultimate sacrifice." It is seen as an act of courage, loyalty and patriotism. However, when the equally futile attacks of people pushed beyond the edge of desperation are depicted, it is as "terrorists" intent on destroying "our way of life."

Life and Death
What is happening around the globe is that people are being pushed to the edge and beyond of survival - both physical and cultural. The deaths due to starvation and disease increase. The US in particular gives little to reverse the trend (and works to extend the processes driving it). There is lots of talk of "failed states" as if it was some internal failure. The reality is that the internal failure is largely driven by external forces over which neither the people or their nations have any control. The argument is that "failed states" are unstable and breeding grounds for "terrorism." Therefore, they become targets in the "war on terrorism."

Certainly desperation breeds loss of faith in the governments of nations, and in the a sense of futility to do anything about the forces grinding people into oblivion. People are more open to "fundamentalism" because fundamental religion of any stripe is simple. There is clear distinction and explicit rules. There is forced adherence to a clear system of authority. There is sacred legitimation of action. In fact, forces similar to those driving the growth of "Islamic" fundamentalism, are similar to the ones driving "Christian" fundamentalism in the US. Fundamentalism provides a clear course of action to combat the forces that otherwise seem unconquerable. And if one dies in the fight, then one dies with a place in "heaven" assured. The next world is better than this one.
We are told we are in a global "war against terrorism." This is not an accurate depiction of the situation, nor of the forces driving it. We would do better to wage a "war on desperation." That at least is aimed at life rather than death. We need to stop the exploitation and expropriation. We need to drop the idea of getting to eat the rest of the pie by ourselves. We really need to take a different course that looks clearly at where we have been and where we truly want to go.

Resources
Stone, Anthropology News, May 2002, Biotechnology and Suicide in India
The Hindu, 12/12/02, 'Suicide by farmers due to high interest loans'
Karp, Wall Street Journal, 2/18/98, Deadly Crop: Difficult Times Drive India's Cotton Farmers To Desperate Actions
Tully, CNN, 4/9/01 Hunger drives India's farmers to edge
Lamb, International Institute for Holistic Studies, Rising suicides cut a swath through Amazon's children
Mirabella, CNN, 11/18/1995, Suicide thinning ranks of displaced tribe
Brazilian Indians in London to Launch Survival Report and Reveal Scandal of Child Suicides

The UN has released statements on its latest findings on the global AIDS crisis (HIV/AIDS deaths and new infections highest in 2003, says UNAIDS UN News Centre 11/26/03), and hunger (Hunger increasing around the world after earlier decline - UN food agency UN News Center 11/26/03). The bottom line? AIDS infections and deaths are up, and efforts to dramatically reduce world hunger are failing. While they try to look at the positive side -- the gains made -- the reality is that these statistics are a direct consequence of political decisions and globalization.

Paul Vallely of The Independent/UK (11/26/03) does an excellent job of getting at the heart of the issue of global hunger with his article How the world is getting hungrier each year.

Article Excerpt:

The report tries to put on a brave face. "First some good news," it begins, reporting that the number of chronically hungry people has declined by 80 million in 19 countries, including Brazil, Chad, Guinea, Namibia and Sri Lanka.

So why is the picture so grim everywhere else? The number of those going hungry in India has risen by 19 million since 1995-97, and yet China has reduced its figure by 58 million since 1990-92. "We must ask ourselves why this has happened," says the FAO director-general, Jacques Diouf, in his introduction.

Those who have bucked the trend share five characteristics, he concludes - faster economic growth, rapid expansion in the agricultural sector, slower population growth, lower rates of HIV infection and far fewer natural emergencies.

"The role of capital is decisive," said Hartwig de Haen, assistant director of the FAO's economic and social department in Washington. "Investment in agriculture is a precondition for growth in incomes of the poor and the food supply," he said.
Yet such investment has been declining. Rich countries must put more cash into the agriculture sectors of poor countries. It must, he said, "go back to the level where it was in the early Nineties".

If only it were so simple. The truth is that the 19 nations who have bucked the trend have not been the authors of their own good fortune.

They have been lucky not to have experienced the high levels of droughts and natural disasters that have increasingly afflicted the Third World over the past decade.

Nor have domestic politics had much influence over rates of population growth, which tend to be determined fairly directly by levels of poverty - the worse things are, the more children you need to look after you in your old age.

Nor have many poor nations been able to manage their Aids epidemics in the way the rich world has with its new drug regimes. It is easy for us in the First World to forget the scale of the ravages of Aids - which has killed some 25 million people in the poor world. In this decade it will claim more lives than all the world's wars and disasters of the past half- century. Aids takes a terrible economic toll; it kills off farmers in their prime and leaves behind young orphans and aged parents - mouths with no one to feed them.

Neither is it a coincidence that those countries most dependent on agriculture are those with the most hunger. Increasing the amounts of flowers and strawberries grown for export near Third World airports may help the balance of payments, but it does little for pastoral and subsistence agriculture in remoter rural areas. The economics of globalisation are that the very poorest get poorer still. There are some places to which wealth just never trickles down."

There is gloomy evidence of this in the report. "At least half the higher prices received for exports went not to farmers but traders," it notes, "and there was no increase in production in response to the higher prices". Worst still, it adds, "prices are expected to rise more steeply for food products that developing countries import than for the commodities they export.

"Overall," it predicts, "the lion's share of benefits from trade liberalisation is expected to go to developed countries."

It is critical that there be a much broader awareness of the relative wealth of the so-called "developed world." The reality is that wealth is based on the lack experienced in most of the world. Poorer nations realise this and the last two "trade liberalization" meetings (Cancun and Miami) show that the poorer nations are fighting for their lives. There is increasing global resistance (note the organization and protests at each of these events) to the path of greater corporatization. It is noteworthy that both of these talks (NAFTA and FTAA) broke down. While that is an excellent sign, it has not stopped or reversed the deadly progress monopolistic capitalism - a process that is dramatically increasing the gap between the rich and the poor; the few and the many; the exploiters and the exploited.

In the US (and perhaps in other "western" nations) free trade, trade liberalization, and privatization are promoted as great and positive courses for the US and for the world. It is certainly true that these upside down policies have provided temporary enhancements for the "average" person in the US. However, that is rapidly and dramatically changing as the bulk of the US population begins to experience similar forces as the exploited nations of the world. Namely, increasing costs, decreasing pay, union banning and busting, deteriorating environment, and fewer and fewer opportunities. I believe that it was Michael Parenti who first said that the ultimate consequence of these hegemonic capitalistic forces would be to turn the US into a third world country. The signs are certainly there.

Right now there is a major Grocery Workers Strike in California (see resources at end of this post). It is being driven by the labor practices of global exploiter Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has created more than price "competition." Its labor practices of low wages, temporary staffing, and lousy benefits is a forceful factor in deteriorating compensation for workers outside of Wal-Mart. That competition does not just exist in the grocery sector, but in hardware, electronics suppliers, automobile parts and repairs, etc. Recognizing the threat, the Teamsters in Florida have joined the striking grocery workers.

What is both frustrating and telling is that the grocery chains are fighting their workers rather than fighting Wal-Mart. The grocery chain's efforts to erode unionization and pay may lower their costs in the short term, but competing against Wal-Mart in this manner is a downward spiral. The problem is Wal-Mart and the grocery chains and others should get on board against them rather than trying to follow their same practices. Perhaps they share the same blind mentality of socialization into the "middle class" in the US which encourages the majority to see the very rich as a group to be protected, and the poor as the group "destroying society." In other words, the "public" doesn't want to hamper the rich because they might be rich some day, and the grocery chains don't want to come out against Wal-Mart because they take Wal-Mart's place some day.

If you think I have drifted off course here, I have not. Wal-Mart is a multi-national corporation engaged in exploiting a global labor force - not just its US labor force. It is certainly not the only one doing so. However, the free trade, trade liberalization, and global exploitation processes at work in the world are tied directly to these very same corporate entities. People must make that connection. People in the US must see that the sometimes impossibly cheap prices are tied to the increasing poverty of much of the world, and to the deteriorating conditions inside the US. These events are not separate things, they are the same thing.

Wal-Mart has made its reputation on destroying communities and the small business in them. These are called "Wal-Mart Towns." Now they are threatening to drive out of business not just small businesses, but other major corporations - Safeway is no small fish. They contributed to the eradication of Montgomery Wards, and to the closing of Levi's as a US-based manufacturers. Both of these businesses American Icons, and both huge businesses.

The path we are on is not good for children, workers, nations, or any other living thing on the earth (including those who are "profiting" from it). It is way past time for people in the "wealthy" nations, and the US in particular, to realize that global poverty is not just "out there," and easing their consciences with donations to the global hunger programs. Send money, but also stand up and be counted, and (as best we can) stop participating in the processes that are oppressing all of us.

It is clear that our so-called "leaders" know exactly the path the world is on. Further, they are prepared to make sure that it stays on that path. Note the following quote from The United States Space Command Vision for 2020:

The medium of space is the fourth medium of warfare-- along with land, sea, and air. Space power (systems, capabilities, and forces) will be increasingly leveraged to close the ever-widening gap between diminishing resources and increasing military commitments.

Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between "haves" and "have-nots." Accelerating rates of technological development will be increasingly driven by the commercial sector -- not the military. Increased weapons lethality and precision will lead to new operational doctrine. Information-intensive military force structures will lead to a highly dynamic operations tempo.

In other words, our "leaders" know that the current path will lead to increasing desperation, and the possibility of people acting out of desperation (read that as "fighting for their lives"). And what are we going to do? Well, we are going to use highly accurate space-based munitions, and high tech weapons systems, to wipe them out as necessary. President Bush launched the endless "war on terrorism." Of course no mention is made that this is a war to keep the dying from posing a "threat" to the plan. The US and some other nations seem to be willing to spend endless amounts of money to suppress people but very little to create a world where the desperation of poverty and the dead end of environmental destruction might be stopped.

Resources
O'Sullivan, VOA, 11/25/03, California Grocery Workers Strike Widens

Holland, NCTimes, 11/26/03, The truth about the strike

Daily Nexus, 11/26/03, Teamster Union Refuses to Deliver the Goods in Strike

Uncommon Thought Journal 7/06/03, If there was ever any doubt

One might ask what triggers either the compassion or the brutality. I believe it has to do with our feelings of connection ... and our fear. When our sense of connection weakens, or even breaks, then literally anything is possible - even if it potentially leads to our own destruction.

Fear can serve as a lever of connection or disconnection. Fear can cause us to embrace those with whom we normally feel little or no sense of connection. For example, strangers helping each other in a disaster. Or it can cause us to spurn those with whom we feel significant connection. For example, parents who reject a child for being gay, or rejecting a friend for a breach of faith.

This idea of connection or disconnection lies at the heart of the most basic "us versus them" mentality. It lies at the heart of what is sometimes called the creation of the "other." It lies at the heart of objectification. Many societies and ideologies are built on the foundation of distinguishing "us" from "them." The classic distinction of "man versus nature," or "human versus animal," lies at the base of so called "Western" societies. This was refined early in written history of the West with the further separation of "mind" from "body."

Objectification is by definition removing something from the inherent wholeness of life, and placing it as distinct from the objectifier. This is an intellectual process that fundamentally separates the objectified from the objectifier. The process is not one of simply recognizing others, but of creating "others." The "objects" created may be desirable or despicable; utilitarian or worthless. Regardless of the value assigned, the importance rests in the fact that we create them - or allow them to be created. Objectification, at its base, places objects relative to the objectifier. It is never a neutral process, but one which constructs the mental landscape which finds its reality in small and large choices and actions.

In US mainstream society the process of making "others" has a long history. The natural world is seen as an "other" to be controlled and utilized to "our" benefit. Non-"white" people are seen as "others" with an assumed relative position less than that of "whites." Women are seen as "others" with an assumed value less than men. Non-Americans are seen as "others" who may be friends or enemies, but are always competitors relative to "our" interests, and perceived "rights."

This otherness aspect of objectification removes the essence of the objectified and replaces it with a meaning and valuation that allows us to "rationally" disconnect from the object. The valuation places the objectified in the conceptual landscape relative to ourselves.

So the fact that we live in frightening times becomes a "predictable consequence" of our patterns of thought and behavior. But what of the manipulation? Manipulation of the meaning and positions of an objectified world is used by those who want to advance their interests. The manipulation can be through comission or omission - what is, or is not, told. It can be through active assigning of meaning. It frequently involves the naming of things. It combines all of these. For example, the chemical industry knew the health hazards of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) while 1) telling workers there was no problem, 2) keeping hazards secret from both government and the public, 3) extending the market for PVC, and 4) marketing the wonders of PVC. Omission, comission, decisions made.

Likewise, the Bush administration plays upon the mainstream ideological landscape. On one hand playing to the pride of US greatness, and on the other, playing to the fear of losing that place. This is reflected in such often repeated clichés of "either with us or against us," or the naming of those deemed as a threat as "evil doers" and the "axis of evil." Then making the historical and cultural link of naming the policy the "war on terrorism" and referring to it as a "crusade." We are now accustomed to the construction of boogie men, and the absorption of whole peoples under their umbra. These objectified others (Afghans, Iraqi's, Arabs, Muslims, and Islam itself) are threatening objects to be removed - "no matter what the cost ." The goals are purportedly "safety" and "democracy," and the people killed and injured along the way are "collateral damage."

This Administration has made a career out of creative naming and allusion. The US could not get support for a preemptive invasion of Iraq so we bought a "coalition of the willing" and defended ourselves through "regime change." We have "smart bombs," and not so smart but cutely named "daisy-cutter" bombs. We have the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act which sounds uplifting but stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." Or in a different vein, naming a policy that reduces clean air standards the "Clear Sky Initiative," or one that ultimately reduces funding for public education the "Leave No Child Behind Act." Or naming the new, tougher, version of welfare reform "P.R.I.D.E." (Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone). And likewise, they have done an excellent job of garnering support for their policies through the politics of fear and disconnection.

This allows, indeed almost forces, a fundamental disconnect that allows atrocity and the unthinkable. It garners support for destruction of real peoples and the lands where they live, and a policy of preemption with nuclear (and other) weapons. It promotes these disconnections as both a justified position based on protecting ourselves, and a "right" due to our relative position to the (objectified) rest of the world. And the sound bite becomes, "the best offence is a good defense." All of this creates a bizarre conceptual landscape where people can simultaneously pat themselves on the back for "liberating the people of Iraq" while supporting the destruction of those same people. Or we believe the war is wrong, but once the troops are in action we must support the war to "support the troops." Or we drill into soldiers an objectification of the "enemy" so they can "do what is necessary," then are horrified when those same troops engage in massacres and trophy taking, or come home and engage in "inappropriate behavior."

If disconnection at many levels is creating this frightening time, then the solution becomes rebuilding connection. As objectification is an ongoing part of this process, we must first change the meanings and conceptual landscapes. This is fundamental to returning "objects" to themselves and in reconnecting to the whole. What is patently assumed, and therefore overlooked, in objectification is that the objectifier also becomes a disconnected object. This is not a process of actor and acted on, or verb and subject, or real versus constructed. All become subsumed - the objects as well as the objectifier. Therefore, another strategy is to expose the object we have become. Such exposure may shock us into reconnection to the essence from which we have disconnected.