The following are some quotes from an email conversation. In sharing them I hope it sparks thought, but also provides an opportunity for a wider conversation.

When you send people to hell don't expect them to act like angels.

War is a low down dirty thing; that's why we are against it.

These sorts of things have been going on by both sides in every war.

I knew some WWII vets that told me things most people wouldn't believe.

Of course they shouldn't have taken a leak on the Afghans, but somehow
I understand.

For some reason I am more outraged at the sanctimony response. It's like nobody has blood on their hands. Flag waving chicken hawks.

Thanks for letting me vent, hope you understand the context.

PEACE

Once you say it's ok to kill people then everything else is off the table. I find this uproar somewhat laughable.

Further, when they use a phrase such as "the target (a person) has been neutralized" and then find it shocking when Marines piss on a dead Afghans it is just such bull shit.

There is a strange sense of American exceptionalism and racism. What concerns
me also is some people are saying "Well they were just Afghans" So racism will used to justify not only the killing but also the urinating. It's like the the brutality of war is never really examined or dealt with. It's odd when you think about it we never kill white people. Unless they are poor, uneducated then we put a needle in their arm and the state calls it o.k.

I'm outraged that there's so much said about the pissin and NOTHING about all the fuckin killing that never seems to end. I totally agree with ya [name withheld].

All my vet friends agree as well. When you are in military they teach you and use words to dehumanize the enemy. Gook, slope, chink, they use cold words like well you know. But when soldiers adapt to their environment people don't like it. Even though they "Support the Troops" whatever that means.

It's all such bull shit and really gets my PTSD a working.

I read a Marine Corp Sgt. analysis today on some channel, I admit I am a news junkie, highly addicted. Any who, the MC Sgt started to get to the meat of "it" and then went bull shit USMC. Too bad. Somebody needs to express a feeling, an understanding, of the complexities of war, how it really fucks your mind up, how you see yourself changing into something you really aren't but nevertheless changing ...going along to get along... but actually feeling what HST talked about: Fear and Loathing.

So the events depicted in the video are much more than a side incident of a few bad actors. It is systemic. Just as what happened at Abu Ghraib was not a few bad actors but systemic. Until we address the reality of what we are creating we will continue to allow it to be created. Generation after generation of troops will have to keep the stuff of nightmares bottled up inside, or it will come out in another attack and another prison sentence.

For those who are not familiar with Ron Paul, he can be a very attractive candidate for a wide cross-section of the population. He is generally not acceptable to the "right" or the "left" for different reasons. Ron Paul is known as "Dr. No" because he votes 'no" so often - from the Iraq War to aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina (Copeland, Washington Post, 7/9/06).

Ron Paul is an Ayn Rand, "Austrian Economist" Libertarian. He claims to also be a "constitutionalist." What he does not claim to be is a liberal, though there are some on the right who argue that he is. He is pro-corporate, and sees nothing wrong with the Citizen United ruling that said corporations can throw unlimited monies into campaigns.

On the surface, Paul is an attractive candidate to many at this point in time. In part because he is largely rejected by the Republicans, he is seen as a rebel at a time when rebellion seems to be popular - from Tea Party to Occupy Movement. He is also attractive "on the stump." I watched one of his Iowa speeches. It was full of "individual freedom" and "individual liberty" and very short on specifics. Both those phrases are potent rhetoric in the US where those are key icon cultural phrases. It could garner him a win in Iowa.

The way I see it, among the various possibilities are two that Place Ron Paul in a power position. One possibility is that Ron Paul does well in Iowa and elsewhere, and then bales out of the Republican Party before the convention to launch a presidential run as an Independent candidate. Why bale? Because the party would never stand for him taking the nomination. In a run as an Independent, Paul could prove a credible threat to in a presidential run - at least in 2012.

In another, and perhaps more likely, scenario, Paul can find himself as "king maker" for whoever does get the Republican nomination. This is a possibility already being noised about by some pundits. What Paul would "charge" for his endorsement is something that is not being discussed, but it would likely include something that the Republicans would want anyway - such as privatizing Medicare, or ending Social Security - stands that Ron Paul shares.

Which brings us to why Ron Paul is not the candidate that the less conservative and even "progressive" might think he is. Paul cares not a whit for the social contract for individual freedom means each stands alone. There should be no social safety net. In fact, there should not even be public education. On the other hand, he does not see it as government's responsibility to regulate business either. So there should be no safety regulations, not environmental regulations. Business, like individuals, should not be bailed out by the government. Back on the individual side, Paul is against Civil Rights legislation, thinking that equality would somehow "just happen" in a laissez faire free market economy.

Which brings to light the truth of the Libertarian, and Ron Paul, platform. Small government is not one that offers any protection for the individual or the society. It is also not one which protects the interests of the individual or society. Hence, Paul supports opening up all public lands for oil, gas, coal, exploitation. In fact, under Paul, there would be no public lands.Everything would be private and go to the highest bidder. There would be no national parks which have preserved wild spaces to the present time - spaces that would not be there without such protections. For Paul, and Libertarians in general, there is no "commons" nor need for them.

Time and circumstances have colluded to make Ron Paul a more attractive candidate than he has ever been. At age 76, Ron Paul may have finally come into his perfect moment. We can only hope that people are more informed than usual for Ron Paul's world is not one that I relish.

Recommended Reading; How Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. Into a Selfish, Greedy Nation

In 2011 ALONE, the American Red Cross responded to 137 major operations in 46 states. They also provided relief to Japan following the tsunami, and the earthquake in Haiti. Across the large scale disasters, the Red Cross sent out 27,622 volunteers; set up 1,019 emergency shelters, and served 6.7 MILLION meals and snacks. Meanwhile, in Canada, the Canadian Red Cross delivered aid to the First Nation Attawapiskat who are starving deplorable conditions in northern Ontario.

Where there is a major need, that is where the Red Cross goes. They operate on a triage basis. Those who are most in need receive aid - regardless of who you are. There is no politics or prejudice - just critical service - in war, disaster, and in our communities. In many ways, the Red Cross is us, from volunteers to blood banks (half of the US blood supply comes from donations to the Red Cross). It is also us through our financial contributions.

Over the past decade as the economy has contracted and the contributions with them, the Red Cross has been forced to go through a number of restructurings - the nice term for cutting staff and reorganizing. So fewer and fewer staff have taken on more and more responsibility. These are amazing people who are committed to the vision of the founder of the Red Cross - Clara Barton - to be of service to those who are suffering. In this time when the need continues to grow, the Red Cross should be growing - not shrinking.

There are many worthy organizations (and I contribute to a bevy of ones I think are important), but the Red Cross is truly a great organization because both here and around the world, it is very much us. I know that I assumed that the Red Cross must get considerable funding from our tax dollars because they are everywhere doing highly necessary service, but they don't. They get some grants for specific projects from local, state, and federal government, but most of their funding comes from donations and through the United Way.

So if you can, please consider pitching in - a few bucks, a few minutes, or a few drops of your blood.

The crisis we are watching with the Postal Service with services being cut, workforce being cut, and post offices being closed, is a manufactured crisis. The Republican Congress in 2006 passed legislation - Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act or PAEA -  that requires the Postal Service to pay 75 years of future retirees' disability benefits - up front over 10 years. Charlie Hegee (President of the NALC - Branch 36) sums up the PAEA as follows:

"... the Postal Service has overpaid into federal retirement systems, FERS, and CSRS. Once the Postal Service has access to its own money, there will be no need for closures of neighborhood post offices and no need to eliminate six-day mail delivery." ... "The 2006 legislation forces the Postal Service to pay 75 years of future retirees' health benefits and pay all of it within ten years, which amounts to a 5.5 billion dollar payment each year! No other U.S. company or agency is required to do this. " (Hegee)

The insanity of the legislation is brought out by Chuck Zlatkin (legislative and political director of the NY Metro Area Postal Union) in discussing the manufacturing of the Postal Service crisis in that the Congress is demanding benefits be paid by workers who have not even been born yet!

In 2006, five years--had created this crisis, because it mandated that the Postal Service, every September 30th, has to write a check from its operating funds--that's the only place it could come from--for $5.5 billion to the U.S. Treasury to partially--it's involved in fully pre-funding future retirees' health benefits, for 75 years. You're talking about funding the retirement benefits for people who haven't even been born yet, let alone working in the Postal Service. - Chuck Zlatkin DemocracyNow! Interview 9/27/11)

This is a patently ridiculous requirement, and my guess is that it would bankrupt most organizations - public or private. Clearly, such a requirement is meant to force the Postal Service to close its doors. 

While it is true that email and text services have undoubtedly impacted the demand for letter services, it has not eliminated the need. In fact, no other carrier has jumped in to compete for first class mail service. If they did, the odds are that the cost would be astronomical. Why? Because no carrier other than the Postal Service is organized to deliver to every address in the United States on a daily basis. Have you ever stopped to think what a tremendous accomplishment that is? Or how important that is?

There are whole areas of this nation which are still largely disconnected from the internet and whose information lifeline is the US Postal Service. These are the rural areas, and importantly, many of them Reservations. Given that the population in these areas is low, and the cost of services higher than in urban areas (just consider gas costs), these would be prime areas to cut.

This whole thing is just plain wrong with hardly a nod to hiding what is being done. Already almost one-fifth of the workforce has been laid off. That helps a lot in terms of a flagging economy heading for a double-dip recession.
​
 As noted above, there are two highly apparent goals of the Bush administration "gotcha":
1. Destroy a major union;
2. Turn control of all postal services in the country into the hands of private corporations.

So why not kill the Post Service? What's the big deal? We might start by asking what the Postal Service contributes.

The Postal Service is just that. It provides parcel and letter service to every address in the United States on a daily basis six days a week. It does this at a cost which is less than half (in​ most instances) that of any other carrier - assuming that a carrier would handle just a letter for 44 cents. Further, despite these efforts to eliminate the Postal Service, it is a service included in the US Constitution. That means, like most other pawned off services in the this effort to destroy government, the tax payer will pay for the service via contracting out to private business. Adam Hatung is not trying to make this point in his Forbes article, but he provides some Postal Service factoids that show just how profitable that move might be (though he is not trying to make this point):

• delivers roughly 700 million pieces of mail a day;
• .009 cents per mile for a first class letter averaged across the entire nation;
• delivers more in a day than FedEx does in a year;
• delivers more in a week than UPS does in a year;
• The CEO of USPS is paid $800,000 a year, FedEx CEO $7,400,000, UPS CEO $9,500,000;
• The Post Office works with an all union shop.

There is a belief that email has decimated the Postal Service. While I am sure that it has cut into the first class mail significantly, it certainly has not replaced the need for first class mail service. clearly advertisers and politicians still think that giving people something to hold onto and read has value - if my mail is any indication of "typical" mail. There is an ongoing need for physical mail for all kinds of legal things. While electronic documents are great, they also have a nasty habit of disappearing, getting junked, getting destroyed when a hard drive crashes, etc. If you have something that you are going to  need, or need to keep for a long time, I would definitely not recommend electronic media. Further, a solar storm of any EMP burst is going to take our electronic system O U T.

We are entering the holiday season. There is something distinctly different about receiving a JibJab Hanukkah card, and one you can share with others and hang it above the mantle.
But seriously, I think it is important to realize that this is the Postal Service. The carriers are involved in the community. Because they run their routes on a daily basis, they are intimately familiar with their neighborhoods. They are a first line of safety and response. They notice when mail goes uncollected, or something else changes. It is not happenstance, that we hear the news stories of the injured resident found by the action of a Mail Carrier. 

They are also a first line of anti-terrorism defense - particularly for the elected representatives who are trying to kill off the Postal Service all together. They might think twice about cutting the jobs of those who keep the anthrax laden letters from their offices.
It is time to take action.

There are two bills under consideration right now. One needs to be stopped and one encouraged.

STOP Darrell Issa's H.R. 2309-Postal Reform Act of 2011 (currently in committee). Call your Congressional Representatives at 202.224.3121.

Call your Senators at 202.224.3121 and SUPPORT Barney Sanders S. 1853.
Contact all of your Representatives and encourage them support the USPS by removing the retiree funding requirement and making sensible rate plans.

(Find your Representatives)

Let your Postal Carrier know that you support the Postal Service and Postal Carriers
Sign the petition

Yes Gingrich has shifted his position on the poverty and the poor further to the right than he was in 1994. Then he was making the culture of poverty argument, and the result was a policy about face. The country went from a war on poverty to a war on the poor. "Welfare Reform - under the auspices of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOA) was passed into law.

The primary goal of welfare reform was to decrease the number of people receiving aid - not helping people get out of poverty. Like Newt's "new" ideas his "new" contract wants work for benefits even though that is already part of existing welfare policy. This policy is largely based upon the same wrong-headed idea that the poor don't have a work ethic, and therefore perpetuate their own poverty. What welfare reform did was to deepen the level of poverty while lessening access to aid.

Welfare reform was then "updated" under George W. Bush by increasing both work requirements and making punishment for out-of-wedlock births even more stringent. This of course included throwing even more government monies into abstinence programs - an approach that was already a proven failure.

At a forum on November 17th at the Kennedy School of Government, Newt sprang his new component of pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps approach replete with the Republicon coding that has become ingrained in the amerikan psyche. Namely, he wants to put poor children to work.

Newt Gingrich:"Child labor laws are stupid"

(My transcript of this soundbite at end of article)

Gingrich claims that it is bureaucracy and unions that are keeping the next generation embedded in poverty. His solution is to fire the union janitors in the schools and replace them with the poorest children under the supervision of a "Master" Janitor. I am hoping that is just a poor choice of wording. The "poorest neighborhoods" are essentially code for non-white neighborhoods. His plan would take children - apparently starting in grade school - out of their classes for 20 hours a week so they can develop a "work ethic" and earn some money. Since Newt sees this as a cost saving measure for the schools, one presumes that these children are not going to making union wage - or even minimum wage - and likely benefits and workers compensation are not part of the plan either.

Of course, those union janitors would be thrown out into an economy that is already short of jobs, and hence will join the ranks of the unemployed, but Newt is going to break the cycle of the "culture of poverty" by reinstitutionalizing child labor.

It seems that we have gone past the time of outrage over the use of child labor globally (Nike, Kathy Lee, etc). I vaguely recall that child labor has been used because children's labor is cheaper than adult labor; that child labor actually displaces adult labor; that children who are working pretty much seal their fate as uneducated (or undereducated) adult laborers. Hence; encouraging child labor likely drives the next generation deeper into poverty.

A core tenet of the culture of poverty theory is that children learn dependence and non-work habits from their parents and other adults. Therefore, if one wanted to break the cycle of poverty, it would make sense to get adults employed and children the best education available. It would make sense to attract businesses and manufacturing into the proximity of the poorest neighborhoods, and engage in training programs to get parents (and even teens) skilled to fill those positions. I find it hard to believe that taking kids out of class for 20 hours a week is going to prepare them to compete in the job market. After all, kids are only in school for about 30 hours a week. To turn the poorest kids into janitors plan would have them laboring 20 hours and in classes about 10 hours. That sure sounds like a poor plan to break the cycle of poverty.

So we have the anti-union slant, but Newt also throws in bureaucratization. Now that can mean a lot of things, but given that one of the embraced tenets of the entire Republican field is to "shrink government" (until it can be drowned in a bath tub as Grover Norquist has declared) it probably means "privitization." So one presumes that the schools - or at least the administration of the schools - is going to pass into the hands of private corporations.

It is clear that Gingrich is trying to say that it is a lack of work ethic - not other structural barriers - that is responsible to poverty. So if we start these "poorest of the poor" kids working early then inequality will disappear. Further, that we all have a God given right to be exploited and believe that is the path to happiness.

It is mind boggling how even someone as privileged as Gingrich could actually believe this.

**********
Transcript of Gingrich speaking at Kennedy School of Government 11/17/2011

Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest of neighborhoods crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality than any other single policy.

It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, in child laws, which are truly stupid. OK you say to someone "You shouldn't go to work before you're 14, 16 years of age." Fine. You're totally poor. You're in a a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing.

I tried for years have had a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising.

Get any job that teaches you to show up on Monday. Get any job that teaches you to stay all day even if you are having a fight with your girl friend. And the whole process of making work worthwhile is central. We have cut (and this is a huge and you have put your finger on it) I take seriously that every American of every ethnic background in every neighborhood has a right to pursue happiness and that was endowed by their creator.

You're going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America. And to give people a chance to rise very rapidly.

I find even making these suggestions of "transitioning" to "political power and action" troublesome at best, and an undermining of the movement at worst.

This is a coalescing social movement. It has its roots in the protests in Seattle during the WTO in 1999. What we saw then was a number of different groups with different base concerns (globalization, labor, environment, etc) coming together to engage in a visible coalition statement against globalization which impacts all of these concerns.

However, what we see with the Occupy Movement is not a redux of Seattle in 1999. All of those players and more are certainly present across the country. However, they are largely present in a more holistic way. The exception to this seems to be the unions which vaguely stand apart, but increasingly they are merging as various actions around the country move forward.

The Occupy Movement appears to be an evolution from 1999 that reflects a growing awareness of the interlocking nature of various issues, and how they are linked to the concentration of wealth and power. In Seattle we saw distinct groups coming together for joint action. In Occupy we have the issues present and the different groups largely vary in strategy - not by organizational affiliation. Further, there is a dramatic change in organizational structure. The Occupy Movement has decided to utilize a decentralized consensus model.

The Occupy citizenry have made clear that they are operating in a flat, decentralized organizational structure. There are no "leaders," and the movement eschews hierarchy. They meet in General Assemblies and break up into smaller groups for discussion of complex decisions. The decisions are made via a form of consensus. The calls from outside to the movement for an organizational structure are a blind slap in the face as there already is a structure. Once again the 1% (and their lap dog media spokespeople) are trying to force their model upon others. Essentially saying "take me to your leader" for a group that deliberately has none. Concluding that the Occupiers are disorganized because they don't follow the dominant model is propaganda. Further, is the apparent belief that in order to "move forward" the Occupy Movement must change to a hierarchical organization with leaders and become a political movement (at best) lacks imagination.

The organizational model that has been chosen is the carrier wave of the movement - "we are doing this differently." This choice is linked to one clearly identified problem - "the system" (our social system) is broken. Choosing to organize and function using a different model is a direct challenge to cultural practices - not just political issues. It is one of the many things that identify the Occupy Movement as a social rather than just a political movement. It is a clear statement that we must think and act differently to achieve different results.

Calls for the Occupy Movement to transition to a political movement are calls for the movement to fit a failed model. It is an attempt to bring the movement under a political party tent when the clear statement is that that system (political) is also broken. Certainly there are policies and legislative changes that can help address some of the issues raised by the movement. However, there are things that go beyond the political - such as communality, low consumption, direct democracy, non-violence, that are clearly social. Further, in theclassification of social movements, the Occupy movement falls into "revolutionary." Essentially:

Revolutionary movements are not interested in working within the system. For members of such movements, the system itself is the problem and it cannot be fixed; therefore, the only solution is to get rid of the system and replace it with a system that members think is better. ~ Global Sociology

There have also been those who have proposed that the Occupy Movement is (or is trying to be) the flip side of the Tea Party. The two are not comparable in a variety of ways that have been detailed by others. However, the Tea Party is clearly a political movement, and is totally integrated into the Republican Party (regardless of claims of "independence.") If we look at the Tea Partiers socially rather than politically (though this distinction has become moot in the Republican Party with virtually all of the Republican Presidential candidates pledging their "born again" vitas at the Family Leader Forum) we would identify it as a "reformative" movement. Such a movement advocates returning to a former time (a pressure in the Republican Party since Reagan), and operating within the existing institutions. In fact the Tea Partiers are largely an extension of a long term extreme conservative takeover of the Party. This connection to the accepted reins of power is clear as Tea Partiers can show up for a demonstration carrying automatic weapons (including when the President is present) and not be met by the police. Far different than the shoulder to shoulder police presence at Occupy events across the country.

Corporate media further the meme that the Occupiers need to take "action." I am not sure what counts as "action," but that has been characteristic of the movement across the country. We have seen the movement strategically physically claiming territory as a component of free speech and direct social action. What more action are folks looking for?

While the movement is monikered the "Occupy Movement," or "Occupy Wall Street Movement," what is happening is a claiming of space - be that park, mall, building or street. This physical claiming of space for the people is a powerful statement. It proclaims each space as public - even when that occupation is a branch of Chase.
Yet a floating critique has surfaced that the focus of the movement is unclear. Really? Unclear? It seems perfectly clear to me that there are multiple clear foci. If one listens to 30 minutes of streaming video of almost any of the occupy groups one will likely hear the following issues:

• politicians should legislate to the good of the 99% - not the 1%;
• drastically narrow the wealth gap;
• prosecute the criminality of the investment banks;
• stop investment into private prisons;
• protect and serve the environment;
• universal college education;
• universal, single-payer health care;
• house the homeless;
• house the homeless vets;
• stop the wars.

In short, most of the focus is on social justice and equity. This is a movement towards fairness in a society and economic system which is beyond unfair.

With typical lack of historical context here in the U.S., one might assume that this is the first time we have been in this situation of revolt of the masses. It is not. I think that the following quotation is stunning on its reflection of what is happening today. It is from United States History: American Labor Movement..

Concentrations of wealth by 1900
Mass concentration of wealth through acquisitions, such as one with J.P. Morgan to form the United States Steel Company in 1901, and the unbridled power of investment banking firms, led labor unrest to the doorstep of a population of one percent owning more national wealth than the other 99 percent.
...
Between the years of 1897 and 1903, approximately half of America's families did not own property. And by 1900, 18 million of the 29 million made an annual wage of around $500, which was below the cost of living for a industrialized family of four, while Andrew Carnegie earned $23 million himself.

In fact, time after time it has been workers who have risen up to fight the concentration of wealth that leaves workers in essentially a slave labor situation. Each time, there has been the use of violence against workers to bring them back under control. That violence has been carried out by police, the state, as well as private brigands hired by the wealthy (as if they were really separate groups).

However, historically those who were revolting were more than workers. Like the Occupy citizenry of today, they were the 99%. While much of the resistance across time has been the unions, many times those unions were more than political - for example the International Workers of the World (IWW or "Wobblies" still still extant).

Since we have been on this loop before, one might ask if we will do something different this time. I have heard people say that capitalism needs a "re-set." Clearly that doesn't really work. The inequality stays high and then ultimately reaches a point where there is an "uprising." The reality is that the very rich stay very rich across time.

In America's Richest Families by Duncan Greenberg and Marie Thibault (Forbes. 12/03/09), they state:

The 25 families on our list are worth a combined $418 billion. Given the stance of secrecy often adopted by American aristocracy, all of the net worth figures should be considered "at least" estimates.

Of the 25 families we've identified, 44% owe their fortunes to companies founded in the 19th century. Another 36% trace their wealth to businesses started in the first half of the 20th century. Three companies--Stryker Corp. ( SYK - news - people ), Estée Lauder and Fidelity Management and Research--were founded in 1946.

(See end of article for list of the families)

Today we point at the top 1%, but there is a huge range of wealth distribution among that group. William Domhoff points us to a couple of excellent sources on the top 1%. First is an investment manager who works with the wealthy. According to him, folks enter that 1% range at about $300,000 in earnings and $1.2 million in net wealth. While that is clearly a lot of money for many of us, it is also clear that the wealth skewing is higher up than the 1% line. We climb up to the 0.01% level at about $24.4 million. Then above that lofty group (according toDavid Caye Johnson) we have the top 400 taxpayers who in 2008 had an average annual income of $240 million.

So $300,00-$400,000 annual income and a net worth of $1.2 million gets one into the top 1%, but the top .1% it takes roughly $24 million, but the top 400 tax payers earned an average of $240 million, and beyond them we have the billionaires. I have trouble wrapping myself around $240 million a year (much less billions). That would be like winning a lottery every year. Welcome to capitalism.

After the disaster of 2008 which continues as a depression (not a recession or a slow economy for the majority of us) many people realize that the deck has been stacked and drastic action is needed to even attempt to right the scales. Sure the "banks got bailed out and we got sold out." It happens every time. We have a presidential candidate (Romney) openly arguing for corporate personhood, and we have a sitting President whose administration is reportedly actively working to break up the Occupy Movement. In this case I am referring to the Department of Homeland Security working with Mayors to bust up the encampments.

Attempts to Delegitimate the Movement
There are common and long-used tactics to discredit the movement. The encampments drew in those who were already on the streets - the diverse array of the homeless. (As one Portland woman put it, these people have been "occupying" Portland for decades.) They brought their already unmet issues with them. The Occupy encampments did not create homelessness, or mental illness, or substance abuse problems. They did, however, largely respond to these groups with compassion, food, and inclusion. What they got for doing what communities largely have not done is for the encampments to be branded as hotbeds of crime and drugs, and the Occupiers as criminals and drug users.

Another delegitimating tactic has been to equate anarchy with lawlessness, vandalism, violence, and crime. Anarchists are not necessarily lawless and violent, and there are certainly those who are not Anarchists who are lawless and violent. The use of vandalism, and non-peaceful response are tactics - as is civil disobedience. Anarchism has a long and complex history with many different "flavors" at this point in time. To use it as a euphemism for what is considered "bad and lawless" by the corporate lapdogs is propaganda and not information.

I believe that watching the live feeds, and watching the people's media reports and analysis dramatically demonstrate the discrepancy between what is happening and what gets reported. There are even weird discrepancies in what does get reported. So, for example, on N17 at 8am, a march was to take place across the Steel Bridge in Portland, Oregon. The police closed the bridge to traffic at 4am. However, a handful of people were arrested for sitting on the bridge and refusing to move. One of the charges in their arrest? Interfering with traffic.

While the Occupy Movement reaches across the country and appears to continue to grow, the people's movements continue across the world. In Europe, the issues are similar to our own. Namely protests against rapacious capitalism and the efforts to address the depression on the backs of the 99% - not the financial system and very wealthy who both caused the problem and reaped the riches of the various bailouts. In the Middle East, the protests are against the repression of regimes which have held power with the blessings of the "West." The people of the world are restless under the yoke of systems which interlock and have the same population at the invisible helm of power and influence.

The scales have been weighted against us - if we count economic resources as the only thing that counts. But there are other options and other resources. We do have numbers and our ability to control (to some extent) our participation in the system which is grinding most of us into the dust. This is not just an economic problem, nor a political problem. It is (as the Occupiers know) a system problem which has stretched across centuries and now occupies our lives - something else we need to take back!

Mic check!

******
The 25 Richest Families from Forbes.com
Waltons ($90 billion)
Kochs ($40 billion)
Mars ($35 billion)
Cargill/McMillan ($30 billion)
Cox ($21 billion - media)
Johnson ($20 billion - investment)
Pritzkker ($17 billion - Hyatt Hotels and Marmon Industries)
Du Pont ($15 billion)
Hearst ($14 billion)
Johnson ($13 billion - Johnson and Johnson)
Ziff ( $12 billion Ziff-Davis Publishing, investments)
Dorrance ($12 billion Campbell Soup)
Johnson ($11.5 billion SC Johnson)
Mellon ($10 billion Alcoa, Gulf Oil)
Bass ($10 billion oil investments)
Newhouse ($9 billion publishing)
Johnson ($9 billion investments)
Taylor ($9 billion Enterprise Rent A Car)
Rockefeller ($7 billion Standard Oil)
Lauder ($7 billion Estee Lauder)
Scripps ($6.7 billion media and technology)
Bechtel ($6 billion)
Fisher ($5.5 billion The Gap)
Stryker ($5.2 billion hospital beds)
Phipps ($5 billion Carnegie Company)

One that I would encourage downloading and then forwarding to your elected representative is Going for Broke: The Budgetary Consequences of Current US Defense Strategy. In this analysis Carl Conetta details the impacts of DoD contracting. The Pentagon's New Mission Set: A Sustainable Choice? is a companion piece that focuses on the growing role of using military for as a universal tool.

The final piece is by Charles Knight. Strategic Adjustment to Sustain the Force: A Survey of Current Proposals. In this piece Mr. Knight evaluates the some of the strategic proposals and their implications. After operating for over a decade on a blank check budget, politicians and the Pentagon must come back to reality based constraints.

Even before this collapse/implosion, the United States was in a shaky position. We have an economy recrafted on consumerism and a service economy. Productive capacity has been hamstrung since the 1980s as increasingly manufacturing - even infrastructure and security critical activities - were relocated to "cheaper" places in the world. The question raised early in this movement was "Can a nation that produces nothing survive?" Unfortunately, the United States may soon be able to answer that question in the negative.

The globalization/corporatization movement pushed by Republican neo-conservatives, and Democratic neo-liberals have auctioned the economic and political sovereignty of the United States by chasing the grail of making money out of nothing. Now we are in a situation where the dollar may be replaced as the standard currency and for oil. We may be waving goodbye to the petrodollar, and that is bad news for the country that prints those dollars - the United States.

Hocked to the ears and beyond to Dubai banks, China and Japan, the United States has it's butt blowing in the wind and survives at the pleasure of those creditors. If any of them choose to call the loans, or sell off the their dollar reserves, then what is a now dire situation in the United States may take on the hue of the "good old days."

Therefore, we (and the economists) can well say "the world has changed," and that change means ongoing higher levels of unemployment and underemployment, and falling wages - for most of the population.

Speaking from a different perspective, the Goldman Sachs International Vice President stated at a panel in Britain: People should "tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all"... "we should not ... be ashamed of offering compensation in an internationally competitive market which ensures the bank businesses here and employs British people."

One has to wonder if this is the world that those at Goldman Sachs and other profiteering finance firms have always had in mind - extracting the the wealth of the global population and returning to their perceived "natural" order of the royalty and the serfs. Perhaps, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach sees no real issue with stagnant wages and high unemployment for the masses. After all, it leaves more for the "deserving" at the top. However, it seems unlikely that he can truly believe that extreme inequality somehow creates "prosperity." The pronouncement itself makes absolutely no sense. However, being one of the big winners in the monopoly economy, perhaps he is only concerned about the prosperity of those with extreme wealth.

This two class society where the few get bonuses, compensation, and investment windfalls in the millions of dollars, while the majority of the population (here and globally) scrabble for leftovers, is possible only if we accept the constraints of the current system. It is only inevitable if we accept Lord Griffiths world view that extreme inequality somehow increases prosperity. However, I do not think that the population of the planet will share the inevitability of this skewed world view.

10/19/09. Raum. Associated Press. Higher unemployment might become the norm as result of recession

10/21/09 Quinn & Hall, Times/UK, Goldman Sachs vice-chairman says: 'Learn to tolerate inequality'

Statement of action - also directly available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-M07v8N_eU

We Are the Many - directly available at http://www.youtube.com/user/MakanaVideos#p/a/u/0/xq3BYw4xjxE

We Are The Many

Ye come here, gather 'round the stage
The time has come for us to voice our rage
Against the ones who've trapped us in a cage
To steal from us the value of our wage

From underneath the vestiture of law
The lobbyists at Washington do gnaw
At liberty, the bureaucrats guffaw
And until they are purged, we won't withdraw

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

Our nation was built upon the right
Of every person to improve their plight
But laws of this Republic they rewrite
And now a few own everything in sight

They own it free of liability
They own, but they are not like you and me
Their influence dictates legality
And until they are stopped we are not free

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You enforce your monopolies with guns
While sacrificing our daughters and sons
But certain things belong to everyone
Your thievery has left the people none

So take heed of our notice to redress
We have little to lose, we must confess
Your empty words do leave us unimpressed
A growing number join us in protest

We occupy the streets
We occupy the courts
We occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You can't divide us into sides
And from our gaze, you cannot hide
Denial serves to amplify
And our allegiance you can't buy

Our government is not for sale
The banks do not deserve a bail
We will not reward those who fail
We will not move till we prevail

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We are the many
You are the few

Credits:
Directed & Edited by Kamuela Vance
Filmed by Tom Hackett & Kamuela Vance
Creative Consultant: Evan Tector
Thanks to 'Olelo Community Television
All images Fair Use.
Our heartfelt gratitude to the Artists and Photographers.
... (more info)
(less info)

How does it feel to be the man who kills the last shark in the sea? And how does it feel to eat that final bowl of shark fin soup? Do visions of that shark dying a gruesome death intensify the flavor of the soup?

How will it feel to be the man who kills the last tiger? (It will likely happen soon) Killed so that the precious skin can be a rug. How does it feel to own that remnant of a magnificent and now extinct species so you can walk across it like any nylon shag?

Watch out all creatures great and small
Please know that we shall kill you all.

The fewer, the dearer, the higher the price.
Thank greed and capitalism for your demise.

Meanwhile a few will shed a tear
To watch the last of you disappear.

***************
Dashiell Bennett. Black Rhinos Are Now Extinct in Western Africa. The Atlantic Wire.

The pursuit of rhino horn -- which is prized for its supposed medical value and as ornamental trophies -- has decimated populations and reportedly pushed the price per ounce above gold in some places.

I was sitting in my hospital room at about 6 pm when the nurse came in to say that the doctor was calling me with good news. For the life of me I could not imagine what good news the doctor could have for me. Shortly thereafter, a Doctor Forester called and said that they had found a donor who was an excellent match and did I want the lungs. I was stunned. I had thought I was too far down the list to be transplanted. I asked if they were really a match and he said "an excellent match." I asked if I could have fifteen minutes and he said "Yes."

I immediately called Kelly to tell her the news and ask her input. She was also stunned, but ecstatic, and said "Of course." I was still just stunned. We spoke a few minutes more and I got off the phone. Kathi (Kelly's sister and my dear Sister-Out-Law who had come with me on this trip to Stanford) had come with me for the Stanford check up to get the lay of the land in case she came down to help me when I had a transplant. Little did we know how soon that would happen. So it was truly a gift when Kathi promised to stay with me. This was a huge comfort as I was scared of going through all of this alone. However, it was above and beyond the call of family for her to set her life aside for almost a month to stay with me and then to help Kelly get oriented and settled in. Meanwhile Kelly was doing a whirlwind preparation to move us to Stanford and leave the house in some decent condition for Cory and Conrad - all while being desperately worried about me and sick as all get out from an abscessed tooth.

I could not believe the energy in the hospital room. It was palpable ... a vortex of energy that was undeniable and left me little time to be afraid of what was coming. The doctor called back and I said that I indeed wanted the lungs. That set in motion a whirlwind of activity between getting me scrubbed down for surgery to calling family and Kelly again and celebrating with Kathi in between. Kelly and Kathi were willing to learn my spirit song and promise to sing me back from the surgery. Before I knew it, or had too much time to think ahead, I was being wheeled out to surgery with Kathi at my side.

There were a few final health questions (of which I have no recall) from the surgeons and I was wheeled into the surgery.

There were several times I came to in extreme pain - two of which I swear were in the surgery. And several that I came to in the ICU and saw the clock, but even with the clock I did not know day from night or day from day. It was a disorienting time which I soon found was less than a day after the surgery. I later learned that it was common for folks to remain out 3 - 4 days. However, I had asked Kelly and Kathi to sing me back and they had done so. My concern had been that if I was out there too long I would not (or would not be able) to come back, and also that it was very possible that I might need to fight to stay alive. I believe that both were true.

That first week was ... difficult. Starting with the intubation which left me unable to communicate and still leaves me with difficulty swallowing. I really needed to communicate. I tried everything I could think of to communicate including signing the manual alphabet and pantomiming paper, pencil, and writing. The nurses just kept telling me to "quit waving my hands around." It was not until Kathi showed up and understood that I wanted to write that any progress was made. Of course, I was so shaky that nobody could read what I wrote. Finally the tube was removed, but it would be a couple of days before I could really say much.

I could not believe how little I could breathe. The respiratory therapists and others kept telling me to cough. I told them that you had to be able to get breath in your lungs in order to cough. The breathing did not improve. They tried a nasal pharyngeal vacuuming of my lungs. While unpleasant, it helped some. They placed me on a Bi-Pap machine. This is a piece of equipment that forces air into your lungs every time you breathe. My experience of it was that it was "pushing" me. The pattern of the Bi-Pap was just that - puff puff on each breath. When I got off the machine, my lungs had picked up that pattern - filling one at a time. It drove me crazy and sent my nascent claustrophobia off the scale. By the evening of day three, I was losing ground again. Late night 3 or early day 4 I went into respiratory crisis. Alarms were ringing and I was gasping like a fish out of water. My pain level was off the chart. At that point I thought I was going to die and the pain was bad enough that if that was the case I hoped it would be soon.

It was decided to vacuum my lungs out again. They asked me if I would do that. I had no air to answer and just nodded. I didn't see any other possibilities. So up my nose and into my lungs and they vacuumed what little breath I had right out of me. I am sure it was just a few seconds, but it seemed an endless stretch of time. Then the hose was back out and I continued choking, but I could get small gasps of breath. They wanted to put me back on the Bi-Pap and I resisted. They said I really needed to do it - even if just for an hour. I negotiated down to 30 minutes. So the time started and I tried to not watch the clock. However, you had better believe that at 30:01 I was waving and pounding to get the damn thing off of me. Two more times they got me onto the Bi-Pap (never for more than thirty minutes) before I refused to let it anywhere near me. My claustrophobia had set up residence.

That was the crisis point for me, and successfully moving past it meant a relatively steady progress in my breathing. I was still struggling, but little by little I was getting enough breath to start coughing the "packing material" out of my lungs. There is some solution they put the lungs in (or in the lungs) and I am still coughing up remnants of it. Either that, or my donor lived some place with sky high pollution because I have coughed up two lungs of an icky grey/green/brown crud that you definitely do not want in your lungs.

Ultimately I was moved to the floor (I believe it was day 7) and there continued my respiratory therapy and breathing exercises and slowly increased breathing capacity. What became increasingly clear was that my heart was not settling down. It was galloping along at a resting rate of about 135 and going up from there. The doctors said that it was due to the surgery and also that my heart needed to "remodel" after pumping against the high pressure in my lungs due to the pulmonary hypertension. They started me on a low dose of metoprolol and have increased it up to 50 mg twice a day. It is helping, though my heart rate is still too high and I get easily winded.

I have had various problems with the medications from unstoppable diarrhea and nausea, to neurological problems and a drop foot. So I have gone through several medication changes to address the digestive issues. The neurological issues they hope will resolve with time and therapy.

I am exercising daily and getting stronger day by day. However, I am having a hell of a time gaining back the 27 pounds I lost during the process. It is down right frightening how much weight and muscle I have lost. By the time I got out of the ICU, I had lost about 20 pounds. The other I lost because I wasn't able to get enough food in me to do any good even maintaining my weight.

I take a ton of pills a day and they still upset my stomach and they still "fill me up." They also make virtually everything taste like various flavours of cardboard. So eating enough is still an issue. I am told that my taste buds will recover with time.

Kelly and I are currently living in a "studio" apartment, though that is a generous interpretation. It measures under 280 square feet - including bath and kitchen. We are sitting in each other's laps and the place is very difficult to live in. We are supposed to be moving August 8th to a 1 bedroom. YAY!!! That should make life more comfortable, and give each of us a little privacy.

Meanwhile, "recovery" is both time and energy demanding and keeps both of us occupied. Dealing with the Kaiser pharmacy has become the bane of Kelly's normally calm and loving nature (along with trying to keep everything in its place in this closet that is our current "home"). Thankfully, Kelly and Kathi discovered the Goodwill. Kelly has had great luck getting things we need cheaply and also in getting some well deserved "hunting and gathering" therapy.

Kelly has succeeded in making this closet into a slice of home. Her efforts have made me feel connected to our home where we hope to return in October. I can't believe how wise she was in her selection of what to bring from home to meet the needs of soul and psyche. She also does an amazing job keeping this place livable and feeding me despite my lacklustre response to almost any food. It makes me feel guilty how little help I am. I have started doing dishes and cooking a bit. Unfortunately, I can't even get the food out of the refrigerator (it is a dinky thing with low shelves and I cannot bend over or lift anything over 4 pounds).

I want to give a huge thank you to Kathi who stayed with me through the surgery and helped Kelly get oriented to the area. She has drawn numerous pictures which have captured her experience of this process, as well as to help us all deal with the challenges of this mighty transition.

I also want to thank Cory and Conrad who have uprooted their lives and moved into our house (deep cleaning and clearing all in their path) and are caring for the dogs. This is a huge gift and we (and the dogs) would be in tremendous upheaval without them. Thanks to Gail who has generously stepped in to stay with the dogs when Cory and Conrad cannot. As most of you know, our four legged family members are truly members of the family. I was terrified of what would happen to them in the event of a transplant. How and who would take care of them over such a long period of time? Who would love them and provide safety and security? Cory and Conrad offered to move into our house, and Gail and Kathi offered their support as well. I could not be blessed with better family and friends, and I know few who would make such sacrifices - even for family.

Thank you brothers Ed and Robert (wink) who provide so much support to both Kelly and myself. The nurses at Stanford were tremendously impressed with my brothers. That made me smile and I told them I was truly blessed. Thanks also to my PCC family who have contributed so generously to my NTAF campaign, and to Powell Boulevard Veterinary Clinic who has been raising funds and had a car wash to help me out.

Thanks to all of you who with your love, healing thoughts, and generosity, have contributed to the healing energy which is so critical to this process of returning to health. Thank you for being a support upon which I draw on a daily basis.

Six weeks ago I was wondering if I would survive the summer. Things were looking pretty grim. I was in such bad shape that I couldn't figure out how I would get home from Stanford as I couldn't breathe at the altitude to either drive or fly. I figured the trip home would finish off what the trip down had started - high altitude heart failure. If I made it home it likely would have been on my last breaths. Then the miracle of new lungs based on the generous gift from some poor soul I will never know. New lungs that now offer me beginnings rather than endings. New horizons instead of sunset. Now I will have two birthdays to celebrate. The one that my mother gave me and the one some generous stranger has gifted me with.

The healing is mine to accomplish. Paying the price of the medication issues and recovery from the insult to the body of surgery is mine. Dealing with a life of anti-rejection medications is the price of living with this gift. But I believe that this gift came to me for a reason. There are apparently things I am yet meant to do. So I will follow that small voice inside that directs one's heart on the right path and bless the spirits which have made it possible for me to walk it.

My love and gratitude to you all,
rowan

Whether for pure profit, or some larger plan to pull the progressive movement into heel I do not now, but I fear that is the effect. Hence, we have The Nation which has at least been newsworthy sucked increasingly into the neuter stew - while on the other end AOL swallowed up the Huffington Post.

Patrice Greanville of The Greanville Post is capturing this phenomena in his "Stenographers to power" series. I highly recommend them.

1- Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals -> ED SCHULTZ.

2- Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals -> ED SCHULTZ: "Dems tough"

3- Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals ->Lawrence O'Donnell

4 - Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals->Chris Matthews

It has long been the conservative Republican plan to squash the political opposition of the people and to place all power within the hands of the corporations and the very wealthy. The last real organized bastion against that are the public employees unions. This is why the full on attack on unions in Wisconsin and across the country are extremely important. With the unions gone there is effectively no worker or public voice left to compete against the corporations. This is reinforced by the quote from Karl Rove highlighted in the Schultz broadcast as well.

Quote from Karl Rove:

They lost 612,000 union members in 2010 alone and think about it, every one of those 612,000 people had perhaps several hundreds of dollars going into the political covers of their unions to spend on candidate, and so if you have a half a million people leaving every year, you will have a crimp in the political budgets of the union and it will have a direct effect on the presidential election.

So watch the video and share it if you feel it is important for all of us to stand up against the takeover of our government and our nation by forces that care not at all for the health and conditions of the people of this nation.

Clip from The Ed Show on 3/03/11 Middle Class Fate Tied to Unions.

As Union Membership Decreases, Middle Class Income Shrinks

If you still have any doubts, then look at this interactive chart from The State of working America. From 1969 to 2008, 100 percent of income growth went to the top 10% of the population.

There is no doubt about who Walker serves - and those interests want the unions dead. This is the Republican plan for America. Wisconsin is just part of the attack as it is occurring in states across the country.

Push back. Spread the word.
There are rallies being scheduled across the country on Saturday. Find a Rally near you.

Through a different lens, one could say that we are watching the unraveling of decades of the maintenance and support of the US client states. Interestingly, we hear this while it is not explored too deeply. Egypt is the classic type of client state. The US supported Mubarak and gave billions in aid every year. Much of that aid (as is typical) went right back unto the coffers of the U.S. Military-industrial complex. In return, Mubarak did a number of jobs for the U.S. - recognizing Israel, serving as torture central, and keeping a lid on its population

However, there is another lens, and that is the growing levels of inequality across the world thanks to monopolistic capitalism and the coming fruition of the global corporate state. However, it is not just inequality. At the root is something so simple as the grocery bill.

Global manipulations of markets, corporatization of the world's food supply, utilizing food as biofuel, and climatic changes have converged to drive up the cost of food across the planet. There is no place where this has not happened, though the immediate effects of that cost are different across the world. The increasing cost of food has moved it essentially out of range of almost a billion people. Televised media - where people now turn to find out about the world - mentions briefly if at all.

However, a newly released report by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) shows a damning tale, and it is clear what they think is driving the growing conflict - the dramatic increase in food prices. The chart and table below speak volumes. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization FAO Food Price Index report is to be released 3/02/2011. Both the real and the nominal index are at their highest recorded point.

In Marketplace (2/18/2011) "High food prices cause concern in Middle East:"

"Rising food costs hurt poor and middle class people in the Middle East. Prices have fueled protests everywhere from Jordan to Yemen and Egypt. "

The Center for American Progress in "Making Egypt More Food Secure" (Caldwell, 2/18/2011) notes:

"Egyptians buy government-subsidized bread from a bakery in Cairo, Egypt. Egypt has spent $4 billion a year, or 1.8 percent of GDP, on its bread subsidization program in an attempt to insulate the 40 percent of Egyptians living on less than $2 a day from inflation. But prices continue to rise."

And those prices continue to rise with a 47% increase in the cost of wheat - a staple in Egypt and many other places (Afghanistan and Pakistan come immediately to mind).

There is definitely something going on but is it what pundits, and the media lens, depict it as being? Somehow I think not. This is not the first time that the peoples of the Middle East have risen in numbers.

Are we watching the domino collapse of the U.S. Policy of client states? Are people now thinking that it is time to change the regimes under which they live? Is it truly a push for democracy?

I think there are certain constants that are broadly shared. One has been the reign of dictators or royalty, backed by the United States. The other is a larger issue that is engulfing the world - growing inequality.

At the root of the most recent Egyptian revolt is food, and lack of opportunity in the face of an elite pulling away from the population (sound familiar?). All of these forces have driven the cost of eating beyond the range of almost a billion people. Many more beyond these are struggling just to make enough to eat.

So we are pointed in all kinds of directions that largely distract from the ones that would be most helpful - stabilizing or decreasing the price of food, and providing living wage jobs. Instead we hear the hypotheses of the births of democracy. And perhaps this will be true - over time. People want a change of leadership, and perhaps government, for a lot of reasons. However, it is likely that those reasons bear some similarity to the reasons why there are protests in the so-called "democracies" such as the U.S, France, and Britain. In Britain, France, and New Zealand, we have massive protests and political unrest over the "austerity" programs.

Here in the US, there were protests as well, but the only ones that got hype (and therefore a belief in their legitimacy) were "Tea Party" protests underwritten by the Koch brothers. Yes, the Koch brothers the "Billionaire Oilmen Behind the 'Grassroots' Tea Party Movement." Just to show you that whole money may not buy you love, it can buy you a social movement and ... maybe ... the government. The same Koch Brothers who are calling out their minions to try and shout down the citizens fighting to keep the right to collective bargain in the state of Wisconsin. Where, according to the plan of the new conservative governor - Scott Walker, walked in with a surplus, gave out big bucks to special interests, cut taxes, and then decided to balance his spree on the back of the State's Unions (Huffington Post, 2/17/11). Oh sorry - only those unions who didn't support him. And here too, food and fuel prices are expected to rise by double digits.

While this is a different story than the events in the Middle East and Northern Africa, it has the brass bottom similarities of economic pressure and scared people who feel their lives and livelihoods slipping through their hands. So they call for change - almost any change - on the hopes that things will improve. So that they can feed their families again.

One huge difference between the dissent and growing uprising in the U.S. and those in the Middle East and Northern Africa, is that there are U.S. "interests" there. Those interests revolve around oil and maintaining control of whatever governments arise to replace the ones that might fall. On the one hand, the U.S. cannot be seen to be on the side of brutal dictators ( now that it is common knowledge that has been the U.S. policy in the region). On the other hand, there is too much at stake to leave it to the whim of the people. So, as with Afghanistan the U.S. finds "friendly" (meaning to the U.S.) Taliban to hedge their double-down on Karzai.

Yes there is a revolution, perhaps a global revolution, in the air. It is not the same everywhere, though this is a moment of many awarenesses to nurture. The awful truths become increasingly difficult to hide behind fancy rhetoric and empty promises. There are those places where circumstances conspire to favor the people - as in France and the Egyptian Army siding with the people. And there are those places where the full force of (U.S. made) arms will be fatally aimed at the people - as in Bahrain.

Monday marked the 50 year anniversary of Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation.

Remarkably, this former General took the opportunity of his farewell address to the nation to warn the country about the threat of a growing military-industrial complex:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Here is the link to the full farewell speech.

Brain Williams' paraphrasing of "hospitals and schools" is front and center as the Republicans (and Eisenhower was a Republican) start attempting to chop away at health care reform. While the legislation is far from what many of us hoped, it does help. So the money to continue to feed war and "security" from the party that says only it can keep us "safe" will indeed be taken from areas critical to the welfare of the country and the people - just as Eisenhower warned.

It is said that Eisenhower actually had planned to use the term "military-industrial-congressional complex," but chose not to. According to wkipedia:

In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government.

We have moved far indeed. Now the "industry" includes actual fighting forces, and huge chunks of our national security apparatus. (as a side note, the 1/17/2011 Frontline segment Are We Safer? is an eye opener in this regard.

In this segment of Frontline they discuss the huge scope of the new security bureaucracy and that it is so big that no one knows how large it actually is. Since this monster has invisibly sunk its tendrils so deep that most think we couldn't stop it if we wanted to in less than ten years, how about a "complex" that has had 50 years to sink its roots?

As we wring our hands over the federal budget, how much discussion will be given to these two money-hungry behemoths (military and national security), or to the wars and military "actions" that are happening across the globe? My guess is not one word and the argument will be over destroying social programs and social security; eliminating health care reform; and selling off whatever is in government hands that is worth selling (our ports, our highways, water sources and systems, etc).

The constant push has been to drive down workers wages. One of those techniques is the all out warfare declared on unions. State workers (who are unionized) have been demonized repeatedly as sucking the state coffers dry, while pulling further away from private sector "comparative" wages.

The issue is how the private sector has sucked the life blood of wages and benefits out of worker's pockets, while demanding more and more of them. We have seen downsizing, "right" sizing, turning to temporary workers, bringing in "guest" workers, utilization of a global workforces via outsourcing and offshoring. We have seen a shrinking of the number of employers as mergers narrow the range of competitors. It is not at all unusual for workers to be laid off and hired back into the new employer's business doing the same thing at a lower wage, fewer benefits, and a loss of all seniority.

We have seen wage freezes and employee "give backs" of existing benefits. We have seen employers shifting increasing costs of insurance to workers. This is the same thing as a wage cut for workers as they accept more and more employer costs.

Meanwhile, remaining workers find workloads higher than ever, compensation shrinking, and a growing fear to say anything about it because it is an employer's market - meaning that there are lots of deseperate people willing to work for next to nothing just to get some kind of income.

Yet what do we hear? "Are state workers overpaid?" No, we are not. We too have gotten hit by pay freezes, outsourcing, hiring freezes and increasing workload - many of the same pressures of the overall workforce. We have also been the repeated scapegoat of the corporate media for the budget problems in Salem.

Why aren't we hearing about how much income the state of Oregon has lost by tying corporate taxes to federal corporate taxes? (I imagine this is in the multi-billions of dollars on a biennium basis).

The correct question is "Why have we let workers wages and benefits evaporate while corporate coffers have exploded?"

Start asking questions from the people's perspective instead of the corporate perspective and you may get a whole different set of analyses and solutions.

The "worst case scenario" has gone from neglible according to BP's site specific plan, and the BP Regional Gulf of Mexico Splill plan, the likelihood of well problems was infinitesimal and the damage should that occur minimal. The plan for dealing with a well blowout more than a mile under water were essentially the same as if that well were on dry land. I suspect that such an insane assumption also impacted the environmental impacts. On land, one could do a number of things to isolate a blown well - containment dams, moats, etc. However, even in shallow water such containment is not possible.

That "worst case" has grown and grown. The implications magnifying as people look at what is happening, and what is happening goes far beyond "decades to return to normal." The "worst case" could mean more than the Gulf of Mexico becoming a dead zone, to damaging the oceans and its inhabitants beyond recovery. In other words, the worst case could be an ocean killer and that would decimate - if not ultimately eradicate - virtually all life on the planet.

Before one leaps to the conclusion that the claim of possible planetary death is "tin foil hat" alarmism, think a moment about what is peice-meal coming into reality. The oil is not just on the surface, but throughout the entire water column from ocean floor to surface. Those plumes in the water column that BP denied, are now proven. The dispersant (Corexit) that BP continues to liberally dump is full of toxic chemicals, and does little more than make it look like there is less oil on the surface. In other words, liberal amounts of poison are being dumped in the Gulf for cosmetic purposes. The dispersant is making cleanup more difficult, and introducing another slew of toxicity into the ocean food chain.

We were told, that the oil would remain in the ocean and not be transported by rain. Now we know that it is raining oil from Louisiana to Florida (and perhaps beyond). Oil (and dispersant) continues to push into the marshes an bayoos of the Gulf coast, but has also jumped a steady progression of disaster by showing up in Lake Ponchartrain in New Orleans.

The Gulf Coast houses 40 percent of the breeding and nursing grounds for the entire United States. All of that is at risk - or already damaged. It is almost a certainty that the oil will leave the Gulf and enter the Atlantic. There is little doubt that it will impact the East Coast - and its fisheries. Once in the Atlantic, it will have various sea life impacts all the way to the Arctic - including hitting the North Sea fisheries of Europe. Along the way, it will decimate - if not drive into extinction - a number of species. One that is already endangered because of its desirability and over-fishing is the blue fin tuna. This fish breeds and migrates through the Gulf of Mexico.

We then have a different toxic effect from the well blow out. One is the dramatic increase in methane which is now at levels which are "one million times greater than normal" in some areas of the Gulf. This is enough to "potentially deplete oxygen" in those areas and create dead zones. Methane is also a highly potentn global warming gas. The massive amounts of oil are also raising arsenic levels in the Gulf. This is happening because oil is interfering with the normal process whereby arsenic bonds with material on the seabed and then gets buried by sediment. The oil in the water means that arsenic is staying suspended and then aggregates in the the food chain. Arsenic bio-accumulates - meaning that lower level food chain absorbs arsenic which is then taken up by others who then are eaten by another species etc. At each step along the way the accumulation of arsenic increases. Those at the top of the food chain (humans, the fish we eat, etc) end up ingesting the highest levels of arsenic.

Much of the environmental impact concern has been to species in direct contact with the oil and other toxic substances. Increasingly, there is concern for species that migrate through the region (birds and aquatic life) who are nwo likely to be negatively impacted. Over a million birds migrating between North and South America, as well as a feew species which migrate globally are now in the crosshairs of the toxic stew that now makes up the Gulf and Gulf Coast.

The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has an ever-growing footprint that is extending far beyond the Gulf and could become hemispheric at least. With that growing wave of destruction goes the human and social impacts. These casualties include tens of thousands jobs and multi-generational, regional cultural decimation, destruction of a significant food supply for the U.S. and elsewhere, loss of entire communities, and unknown health impacts which may go on for decades at the least.

Even if the well was killed today, the damage has been done, and it is possible that BP will have difficulty killing the well. It is within the realm of possibility that the well casing is damaged beyond usefulness. It is possible that given the nature of the seabed around the well, that the seabed could collapse and create and ongoing oil seep of unknown proportions. It is possible that the pipe will collapse as they try to shoot drilling mud at high pressure.

So what does responsibility mean? What does "making it right" mean? The damages from BP's disastrous activity in the Gulf of Mexico go beyond any type of economic damages. You cannot bring back people's livelihood when the basis of that livelihood is detroyed. You cannot bring back species driven into extinction with a few well placed donations. You cannot put global warming gases back in the bottle.

Certainly there are things that BP can and should do. Among those things is to NOT continue reckless drilling around the globe.

As hundreds of thousands of gallons a day of oil (liberally seasoned with the Corexit dispersant) flow into the Gulf of Mexico, but we are told that the Gulf is large and the spill a minute amount within that vastness. Now we are watching the viscous oil killing the marshes of Louisiana and making its way around the Gulf - to Florida today.

And within that stinking sludge we see the birds and wildlife who have become so coated it is difficult to tell what they are.

Across the Gulf is an ever-growing "sheen" of oil - moving with the wind and the tide. However, not all the oil is on the surface. An unknown amount moves through the various depths and are subject to the complex edies and currents of any large body of water. In the Gulf of Mexico, the strongest current is the "Loop Current." That flow is already circulating the oil around the Gulf of Mexico including towards Cuba.

As the gushing oil has moved east, there is now public admission that the Atlantic is also at risk - particularly the East Coast of the U.S. The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research produced a simulation (below) and reported "Ocean currents likely to carry oil along Atlantic coast".

The simulation shows that the oil could hit not just the East Coast of the United States, but continue to drift towards the Mid-Atlantic - and the North Atlantic current. That path will ultimately take it to the Arctic. In its wake, will swim and feed the marine life of the coasts and marshes; the fish and mammals, the plankton and crabs. It will impact the entire marine food chain. While most of the impact will likely contaminate the life of the Gulf, it seems highly unlikely that it will stay there.

The BP disaster, also known as the Macondo Prospect well, could continue to gush until at least August 2010 - and perhaps much longer. Millions of gallons of oil and natural gas will create growing dead zones and plumes that capture all life in its wake. The Gulf of Mexico could indeed become a "dead sea" for decades. The question is whether the Atlantic will share that fate.

What is happening with the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf is the destruction of precious and irreplaceable marine environment. More specifically, it is resulting in the destruction of whole ecosystems. Currently, the most visible destruction is occurring in the rich fisheries of the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The "solution" for BP is to pay fisherman (and others) for their loss of income. However, as has been eloquently stated by some of the local people interviewed, this is about more than money. How do you put a price on a heritage?

We can look at "heritage" in a number of ways. The connection to fishing (including shrimping, crabbing, and the oyster farms) has passed from one generation to the next. Even those not directly engaged in these activities for their livelihood are variously impacted from "recreational" and subsistence activities, to the daily food and cuisine of the Gulf Coast. It is at once a natural heritage and a cultural one. It is at once a personal embedding and part of the deep bonds of shared experience and environment. There is no dollar amount that can be placed on a culture. Hiring local men to clean beaches or haul boom may (barely) meet their family economic needs, but does not replace their livelihoods. In fact, for many folks, their skills are largely worthless (from an economic perspective) with the loss of the Gulf and the marshes.

This human-caused destruction has "economic" impacts for sure. However, more importantly it is removing the capacity to continue a way of life. It is removing the capacity to pass on a heritage. This is an important component of the story that is an almost hidden public side of this disaster. It makes real an issue that many in the United States have failed to understand or appreciate. Namely, you can't pay people for the destruction of their lives and culture.

Capacity is an important concept to grasp in this disaster. The economic failure of families and businesses that are happening along the coast is not a matter of lack of desire, or skill, nor ability. It is that the capacity to attain those things has been removed. One can't wish fish into existence. One cannot dust off the oysters coated in oil and Corexit and have those oysters reproduce. What BP's unchecked gusher has done is to undermine the capacity to continue - economically and culturally.

In a society that has increasingly been focused on "everything is economics," and "everything is money," the importance of "other things" has been minimized beyond recognition. This has been part of a long, embedded process of cultural minimization. It is historically reflected in the forced life changes placed on the tribes of the United States where the deliberate destruction of ways of life were seen as positive things to do. Namely, bringing the "heathens" into the "right" world of the European-based colonizers.

This theme was so "successful" that it carried over into other endeavors beyond the shores of the United States - particularly in South America, though certainly elsewhere. The "plans" historical and modern were to bring "those" people into the modern age. We could use their land and resources for our purposes, but we would give them ... villages down the road with running water, schools, and a medical clinic; or new jobs in factories producing goods for our consumption (that they could not afford).

One of the ugly realities was (and is) the removal of the capacity for "those" people to continue "their way of life." All too frequently, there is a virtually permanent removal of that capacity. So, for example when the forests of the Amazon are destroyed to make room for ranches and resource extraction, the lives of the people of those forests are gone forever. This is part of what we are witnessing right now along the U.S. Gulf coast. The death of the ecosystem means the death of a way of life for millions of people. With the shrimp, crab, fish gone - likely for decades if not forever - then those who have for generations made their livelihood from that natural wealth have had that capacity to live and pass on "their way of life" ripped from them.

Sure, BP (even at its most generous) may pay the fishers, and shrimpers, and tour guides, and restraunteers (and many others) for their economic losses for this year (and perhaps several years in the future). However, money will not replace their "way of life." Money will not replace the soul of a culture.

The capacity to fish has been removed. Giving a previously self-supporting people "fish" feeds them only for today.

It is said that the people are "angry." The reality is that as the oil and toxic dispersant have rolled into the marshes and shores, the people have watched a death and they are in a rage of grief. Something central to their lives and souls has died and is dying. However, it did not simply die, it was murdered. What justice is there for this crime? How ?do you make a people - and an ecosystem - "whole?"

Hey! let's do this everywhere! The Arctic Ocean and off the coast of Alaska where the conditions are far more extreme and the environment is also incredibly fragile.

Yes. Drill baby drill. Getting the oil and natural gas (and coal) are worth any cost.

Of course, now the news has changed. President Obama has placed a moratorium on exploratory off-shore drilling until the investigation into this incident is done. That 1,000 barrel oil leak has been upgraded to 5,000 barrels a day - or a quarter million gallons of oil into the Gulf a day. There are no real estimates of how long it will take to stop three leaks from this one well. (Don't you think there is a certain irony to calling 5000 barrels oil a day blasting into the Gulf of Mexico a "leak." )

The media is doing the usual - not challenging outright lies. The clip below is from MSNBC Nightly News for April 29, 2010 (full segment). In this 30 second clip, the BP representative boldly claims that "No one in the history of the industry has ever had to fight a leak 5,000 feet down."

Now that isn't really true, and there is at least one very recent example. In November of 2009, the Montara oil leak in the Timor Sea off the coast of Australia was finally stopped after leaking an estimated 300-400 barrels a day for more than two months. As with the BP leak, the Montara platform caught fire, but that was after the leak - not before it. That raises the question of which came first with the Gulf platform - the leak or the fire. Also, the Montara platform did not collapse into the sea. However, the Montara leak was also deep water - namely it was almost 1.5 miles down, and not the supposed 1 mile of the BP well.

Currently, the leak is big news as it hits the sensitive U.S. coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico. However, this leak could continue for months - and into the depths of hurricane season. Do you think we will get the ongoing reports of what is happening with the "leak," or with the 250,000 gallons of oil per day that will flow unchecked into the Gulf? Somehow, I doubt that. Just as the "recovery" from Hurricane Katrina has largely slipped off the public radar.

The Montara well was owned by PTTEP Australasia which is a company based in Thailand. They have refused to release final report from their leak, but the Montara well was insured, but the capping operations reportedly exceeded their insurance. I have seen no reports thus far regarding how much insurance BP has on their platform.

Perhaps we should put BP in touch with PTTEP for a few pointers on dealing with a deep drill "leak." Perhaps we should ask MSNBC why they don't challenge blatant lies from officials (corporate or political).

Related News
Gulf of Mexico Leak
4/29/10 BBC, Gulf of Mexico oil slick said to be five times bigger

BP Oil Well Leak in Gulf May Take Months to Close

US oil rig spill 'very serious'

Gulf oil well leaking - 'a very serious spill'

Coast Guard tries Burning Gulf Oil Slick

Every Branch Of Government Investigating Killer Oil Rig Disaster

From Rachel Maddow Show

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Montara Oil Leak - Australia
Australia oil well catches fire

Australian company refuses to hand over oil leak report

Biodiversity survey of the Montara field oil leak. World Wildlife Fund.

The advertisement below, is pushing GE's Medical Division.

(Link to GE ad)

Now the words to the song that the GE pitchmen are AHahAHahing in the ad is Joyful, Joyful. Here are the lyrics"

1. Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee,
God of glory, Lord of love;
Hearts unfold like flow'rs before Thee,
Op'ning to the sun above.
Melt the clouds of sin and sadness;
Drive the dark of doubt away;
Giver of immortal gladness,
Fill us with the light of day!
2. All Thy works with joy surround Thee,
Earth and heav'n reflect Thy rays,
Stars and angels sing around Thee,
Center of unbroken praise.
Field and forest, vale and mountain,
Flow'ry meadow, flashing sea,
Singing bird and flowing fountain
Call us to rejoice in Thee.
3. Thou art giving and forgiving,
Ever blessing, ever blest,
Wellspring of the joy of living,
Ocean depth of happy rest!
Thou our Father, Christ our Brother,
All who live in love are Thine;
Teach us how to love each other,
Lift us to the joy divine.
4. Mortals, join the happy chorus,
Which the morning stars began;
Father love is reigning o'er us,
Brother love binds man to man.
Ever singing, march we onward,
Victors in the midst of strife,
Joyful music leads us Sunward
In the triumph song of life.

So is GE just trying to evoke a positive connection? Are they saying they are the ordained of God? Are they saying they are in effect "God" and we should be singing gratefully to them? Take your pick.

I am not a Christian, but I have to wonder where the Christian, Religious Right, Activist Conservative Christian, outrage is on this sacrilege. As far as I can tell, there is total silence on the issue.

I have lived with a pack for almost 20 years. I can say with certainty that they have a life of their own. The dynamics of relationships among the dogs are fascinating and they fit their pack life and responsibilities around our human doings. The dogs within the pack all have their own responsibilities from who watches the door and warns of intruders to who "relay" barks, to who has perimeter duty. In packs which howl, there is the one who starts the howl and who ends it. The order of the pack and who has what rights in what area is made by some determination of their own.

In relationship to the human members, they each have their own relationship, but there is a pack influence that is clearly evident. Who is responsible for keeping an eye on what member. Who follows and who watches. While we humans are officially in charge, there is only so much intervention into the actual day to day functioning of the canine members that is effective. In my experience, determining who has what job is not a human's to determine.

When a member of the pack is lost, it is crushing for the entire pack. The loss is felt on many levels, and they grieve. This is not anthropomorphism on my part. I have watched that grieving process too many times. While each dog expresses their loss in their own way, it is clear that they mourn the loss in an emotional way. Their process is also much different in some ways that human grieving. I believe this is because their sense of smell plays such a big part in their lives. When they smell the missing pack member, it reignites the hope they will reappear. It also reignites the sense of loss.

I am writing this now because we have lost two members of our pack in a short period of time. While the loss of these two close companions is huge, so is the potential loss of the pack continuity.

We spay and neuter our dogs, so our dogs do not reproduce. However, they do pass on the pack knowledge and (dare I say) culture. Our most current pack was Ben and Grady's pack. We have had dogs come into this pack. First Aerie, and then for a period of time Maddy and Buddy who eventually moved to Seattle. But Ben and Grady moved from becoming two dogs as part of the household to a pack when Aerie came to us. Sadly, she died an untimely death due to being poisoned.

What had been forged with Aerie was a pack. I don;t know that I can explain the transformation even though I lived through it. With Aerie's entrance into the family the whole dynamic among the dogs changed. The relationships became much more complex and richer in some ways. Their relationship to the human members of the pack also changed in more subtle ways. Humans calculated into their lives in a different way. They became more emotionally complete and balanced somehow. When Aerie died, the "pack" component remained, but it was clear that the balance was wrong.

By the spring after Aerie's death two pups - Crow and Fox - came to join Ben and Grady. They trained those pups to be dogs, but they also formed a complex pack with a rich life that we were honored to be a part of. As they started reaching adolescence, Ben and Grady went from being a pack with pups for who they were surrogate parents (a task Grady definitely did not like) to a rebalanced pack again.

First, Ben passed and the pack went on with Grady essentially taking on full pack leadership. One of the most amazing things was Ben's passing. He had seriously injured himself and could not stand any longer. Grady, Fox, and Crow all kept a close eye on him. Each would check on him. Crow took a tennis ball down and carefully placed it within his reach (Ben was an avid ball player). It was one of the most touching things I have ever seen.

When Grady passed, Fox and Crow were adrift. They clearly carried the social "mark" of Ben and Grady, but they were a pack missing something. Neither had ever had to be "in charge" and they leaned on each other heavily. The following summer Cody joined us. He raised his share of hell in terms of how things were supposed to work He was nine months old and not a malleable puppy. However, over time things settled down and Cody took his place in the pack and learned our pack's rules. He was a "pushy" dog and He and Fox came to a compromise. Fox was in charge outside and Cody was in charge inside. Crow of course refused to acknowledge either of them being in charge and was the real leader of the pack.

Cody was the anchor of the next generation of our pack which started with Ben and Grady. Then, on December 31, 2009, we lost Cody to a hemangiosarcoma. There was nothing to be done. Crow and Fox were stunned and bereft, and so were we. We had not just lost a dear companion, but now the future existence of this pack was at risk. We had been keeping an eye open for another pack member before Cody's death. We now started looking more closely, but no likely dog presented him or herself.

Then, just as we were starting to adjust to the loss of Cody, we got hit with another loss. Our dear Crow went into massive convulsions which were caused either by a brain tumor or pancreatic cancer. The prognosis was more than grim for even a short term (week or two) improvement, and virtually no hope beyond that. So we gave her back to the universe. This loss was devastating on so many levels. It was devastating as the loss of a dear companion, particularly following on the loss of our Cosmic Clown Cody. It was a devastating loss to Fox who had now lost his entire pack, but also his sister from whom he had never been separated. It was also the loss of a significant part of the pack's knowledge.

With the loss of both Cody and Crow, all of the pack's responsibilities fell on Fox. He was now a pack leader without a pack - they had all been ripped from him. He was not just a dog alone. He was a grieving one dog pack. His response, and our own loss, was tearing us all apart.

We checked the Humane Society site for the 100th time, and there was a dog who had that certain look in her eye. So we immediately loaded Fox into the car and headed off to the shelter. Upon arrival, we said that we wanted to meet "Missy." We met her and she seemed a sweet and calm creature, so we asked to have Fox meet her. The meeting went better than we ever expected. It seemed that they could become friends so we adopted her and brought her home. She and Fox are still figuring each other out, and "Missy", who we have renamed Mossy, is trying to adapt to living in this new home.

We are not sure what will happen from here. We do not know if Mossy will learn the pack knowledge. We will likely be getting another member once Mossy is secure and settled in and Fox feels more confident with her. Our pack - Ben and Grady's pack - is still at risk of "dying." That will only magnify the loss.

The dying out of a pack is like the dying out of a tribe. Once it is gone, it is gone - forever. You can build a new pack, but it will be another pack. While over the years, as members come into and leave the pack the individual personalities leave their stamp, there is a certain "feel" to the pack. I can't explain it.

For now, we grieve the losses and cling to each other (human and canine) to find what comfort we can. We hold hope for a firm bonding of Mossy into our lives, our hearts, and our pack.

The founders of our current pack Ben and Grady. Ben is the German Shepherd, and Grady a dingo and border collie cross.

Ben (right) and Grady were joined by Aerie (left).

Grady, Fox and Crow.

Cody

Fox (foreground) with Crow and Rowan.

Sir Fox

Mossy on her first night in her new home.

The United States has just finished construction of a $60 million facility at Bagram. Interestingly, the new facility is sometimes referred to as an extension of the existing facility (modified aircraft hanger).

Bagram is a former Soviet air base which is now used by the United States and NATO as a primary airfield and shipping point (Al Jazeera 11/16/2009):

The air field part of the complex is already handling 400 tonnes of cargo and 1,000 passengers daily, according to Air Force spokesman Captain David Faggard.

It is continuing to grow to keep up with the requirements of an escalating war and troop increases.

Plans are under way to build a new, $22m passenger terminal and a cargo yard costing $9m. To increase cargo capacity, a parking ramp supporting the world's largest aircraft is to be completed in early 2010.

So here is (apparently) the situation. The U.S. spends $60 million to build a prison (extension) in the middle of a what is (currently) a U.S. airbase (with apparent plans to make it a commercial flight center). The prisoners in the modified hanger (including at least 30 non-Afghan detainees) have, or will, be moved to the new facility. This facility will be transferred to Afghan control. Yes an Afghan prison (supposedly) in the middle of a U.S. airbase.

Now, who might get the contract to train Afghan police? Xe/Blackwater of course. I realize that prison guards are not police, but there is no mention of who will be training the guards for the prison after transfer. One assumes that it will be a contractor since the U.S. seems to be outsourcing much of military, intelligence, and transition efforts.

There are more questions than answers. Is the U.S. building what will eventually become a commercial international airport at Bagram? If so, is it a good idea to have a major prison in the middle of such an endeavor? Or will the United States maintain Bagram as long term military base with an Afghan-run prison in the middle of it? Is there an agreement between the Afghans and the United States that the facility continue to house what the U.S. considers "high value detainees"?

News reports really shouldn't leave one with so many questions.

Other Information
Bagram Airbase Fact Sheet

How Camp Cunningham got its name. Camp Cunningham is where many of the troops for the Bagram airbase are housed.

We have been attacking Yemen both directly and indirectly. Most notably, we have been attacking indirectly via the Saudis, and directly with our own drone operations. The United States has also been providing support to the Yemeni government to fight alleged terrorists.

According to a NY Times report on December 18, 2009:

The United States provided firepower, intelligence and other support to the government of Yemen as it carried out raids this week to strike at suspected hide-outs of Al Qaeda within its borders, according to officials familiar with the operations.

The officials said that the American support was approved by President Obama and came at the request of the Yemeni government.

It is important to know that more than al Qaeda is happening inside of Yemen.

Internally, southern Yemen has been trying to secede. Southern Yemen is the location of what oil Yemen has, and primary sea access. However, the unification with northern Yemen has not brought an improvement in life for the south. Meanwhile, the primary ethnic group - Houthi - in the north have also been engaged in active fighting that has both sectarian and historical roots. The short story is that Yemen is one of the poorest nations in the world and internal conflicts are ripping it apart.

While the U.S. wants the Yemeni government to focus its efforts on al Qaeda, it is more concerned with its own internal struggles. Its poverty, and the conflicts, have made it a primary area for a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran - which tangentially means the United States and Iran. This is particularly true given the oil-arms relationship between the Saudis and the United States.

However, undiscussed but central to Yemen's internal problems is not oil, or even poverty, but lack of another resource - water:

Yemen is running out of water - fast.

But the water crisis and the rise of militancy are not unrelated perils said Abdulrahman Al Eryani, Yemen's minister of Water and Environment, in an interview. Much of the country's rising militancy, he argues, is a conflict over resources.

"They manifest themselves in very different ways: tribal conflicts, sectarian conflicts, political conflicts. Really they are all about sharing and participating in the resources of the country, either oil, or water and land," said Minister Eryani. "Some researchers from Sanaa University had very alarming figures. They said that between 70-80 percent of all rural conflicts in Yemen are related to water."

A big part of the water problem is tied to the cultivation of one plant - qat. Yemen is in a drought (dare we say an impact of global warming?). However, the only money making crop is qat - a mildly narcotic plant which is chewed (endlessly) by the Yemeni population. This is similar to the farmers in Afghanistan focusing on their (narcotic) cash crop - poppies. However, the lack of water, and water deliveries, across Yemen have led to water wars, illegal wells (draining the aquifers), and conflicts which frame themselves through various lenses.

Poverty, hardship, and failed government coordination (failed state) make Yemen a primary recruiting area for all comers who can demonstrably ease the hardship - namely Iran, sectarian interests, and al Qaeda. And the U.S. takes the now familiar militaristic path to decimate the reputed enemy. Silly us as al Qaeda (and other forces of "insurgency") are providing goods and money to the people. This is exactly the same (successful) strategy of the Iraq insurgency, and the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. No number of bombs or high tech (hackable) drones, or arms sales is going to "win" such a conflict. They make more desperation - not less - and drive more people into the conflict de jure.

In the news

Yes, the U.S. is still engaged in torture.

12/17/09 Cobain, Guardian, CIA working with Palestinian security agents

Palestinian security agents who have been detaining and allegedly torturing supporters of the Islamist organisation Hamas in the West Bank have been working closely with the CIA, the Guardian has learned.

Less than a year after Barack Obama signed an executive order that prohibited torture and provided for the lawful interrogation of detainees in US custody, evidence is emerging the CIA is co-operating with security agents whose continuing use of torture has been widely documented by human rights groups.

The relationship between the CIA and the two Palestinian agencies involved - Preventive Security Organisation (PSO) and General Intelligence Service (GI) - is said by some western diplomats and other officials in the region to be so close that the American agency appears to be supervising the Palestinians' work.

Insurgent's cheap trick for capturing military drone video.

12/17/09 MacAskill, CNN, US drones hacked by Iraqi insurgents

One of America's most sophisticated weapons in the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the unmanned drone, has been successfully penetrated by insurgents using software available on the internet for $26 (£16).

Insurgents in Iraq intercepted live video feeds from the drones being relayed back to a US controller and revealing potential targets. A US official said the flaw was identified and fixed in the past 12 months.

Here is the 12/17/09 Rachel Maddow show with Noah Schachtman (Danger Room) discussing this. (7 minutes)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Taliban offers to stop al Qaida in Afghanistan. U.S. is silent.

12/17/09 Porter, Asia Times, US silent on Taliban's al-Qaeda offer

he Barack Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give "legal guarantees" that they will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries.

The administration's silence on the offer, despite a public statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing skepticism about any Taliban offer to separate itself from al-Qaeda, effectively leaves the door open to negotiating a deal with the Taliban based on such a proposal.

U.S. double agent allegedly planned the Mumbia explosions.

12/16/09 Yusuf, CSM, India: Was Mumbai suspect a double agent for US?

The Indian press is abuzz with news that Indian Home Ministry officials have said they are investigating whether Pakistani-American terror suspect David Coleman Headley was working as a "double agent."

Indian officials reportedly raised questions about Mr. Headley's links with US intelligence agencies - even as another terror suspect accused of involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks was denied bail by a US federal court. These latest and widely-publicized accusations against Headley are expected to put pressure on India's ruling Congress Party, which has emphasized closer ties with the US as part of its foreign policy.

The US has not allowed Indian authorities to interrogate Headley over the Mumbai attacks, much to India's consternation.

Yes, our rights are still under attack as U.S. dissident groups are targeted.

12/16/09 Savage & Shane, NYT, Intelligence Improperly Collected on U.S. Citizens

In February, a Department of Homeland Security intelligence official wrote a "threat assessment" for the police in Wisconsin about a demonstration involving local pro- and anti-abortion rights groups.

That report soon drew internal criticism because the groups "posed no threat to homeland security," according to a department memorandum released on Wednesday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The agency destroyed all its copies of the report and gave the author remedial training.

That was just one of several cases in the last several years in which the department's intelligence office improperly collected information about American citizens or lawful United States residents, the documents show.

The Formation of the Committee
The British Parliament approved the forming of a non-political, non-government, inquiry group which was publicly launched by this report from the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee. The reasons for launching a public inquiry are instructive - particularly for the United States. The following quotes are from the Select Committee's report as the reasons for having an inquiry.

From "Conclusions and Recommendations" (Pg 7) 3. The need for effective accountability and public confidence demands that the inquiry be conducted as openly and publicly as possible. We recommend that the Government reconsiders its decision to conduct the Iraq inquiry in private. There needs instead to be a presumption in favour of the inquiry proceeding in an open and public manner. There should be only very limited exceptions to this general rule, which would be best decided by the members of the inquiry itself, not by the Government. (Paragraph 16)

So one reason to perform a public inquiry into Iraq is to restore public confidence in the openness and integrity of their duly elected government.

From "Purpose of the Iraq Inquiry" (Pg 10) 4. The scope of the Iraq inquiry, as announced by the Prime Minister, covers an eight year period that encompasses the circumstances leading up to the decision to go to war, the military conflict itself, and the post-conflict administration of Iraq. The inquiry will focus on the lessons to be learned from Britain's involvement in Iraq. We share the Government's belief that the inquiry should be constructive and that it should seek to identify the policy lessons to be learned from Iraq, particularly if there are lessons that could be applied to the UK's involvement in other conflicts (such as Afghanistan).

Another reason to engage in a thorough investigation is because it may impact on other conflicts such as Afghanistan - where both the United States and the UK are still embroiled.

From "Purpose of the Iraq Inquiry" (Pg 10) 5. There is, however, another fundamental reason for holding an Iraq inquiry. In the words of one of our seminar participants, an inquiry needs to "get at the truth" and to be seen to be getting at the truth. This is vital to restoring the loss of public confidence in governing processes and institutions that has resulted from the UK's involvement in Iraq. There is also a justified expectation--demanded in particular by the relatives of British soldiers who have died in Iraq--that the inquiry will enable the executive to be held to account for its decisions and conduct.

This is a stronger reiteration of 3 above. There is an admission that the Iraq war, and the events surrounding it, have damage the people's confidence in both the government and the institutions thereof. The confidence of the people of the United States has also been damaged, and there is a demand for accountability.

The Iraq Inquiry
Out of this came The Iraq Inquiry which is still ongoing. However, this is not the path that has been taken in the United States. Despite broad public demands for investigations, the Obama administration has repeatedly made clear its reluctance to pursue any such inquiry. Obama wants to "move forward." In fact, efforts that had been made to identify the various issues surrounding th invasion of Iraq, and notorious events surrounding it, have been quietly moved from public view. Perhaps you remember Representative Henry Waxman's dogged efforts to address various aspects of the Iraq adventure - such as his this link, or search the Guardian site for "Chilcot Inquiry."

Many of the things that have come up in the inquiry thus far should be making big news in the United States, and definitely should provide impetus for investigations in the United States.

Guardian report of Sir Peter Ricketts testimony

- In 2000, the new Bush administration was already talking about "regime change" in Iraq.

- That after 9/11/2001, the Bush administration was pushing a link between Hussein and bin Laden even though there was no evidence of any such connection.

SIr John Scarlett testified that Blair's claim of WMDs in Iraq, and the 45 minute launch capability, was overtly political. This is confirmed to some extent by Blair's own admission that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even had he known there were no WMDs. However, as the Downing Street Memos and Scarlett's testimony show - it was known (or at least not proven).

As reported by David Stringer of the AP, the UK Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, testified that Bush was "hell bent" on invading Iraq, and felt the UN approval was a waste of time.

While Britain was the primary U.S. ally in the invasion of Iraq, Bush chose to go it alone by keeping Britain out of the information loop according to MI6 chief Sir John Sawyers.

Why Britain and not the U.S.?

The question has to be asked why it is that Britain keeps pursuing the truth of the Iraq invasion, but the United States does not. While it is no surprise that the Bush administration would not investigate itself, it is stunning that the Obama administration continues to pursue a "let by-gones be by-gones" approach. For all the much smaller involvement of the UK, they have much more concern for the effects on the people and their government. What happened in the United States poses a much more significant challenge to the very structure of our government and the way that it operates.

The Bush administration rewrote the balance of powers and transformed Constitutional protections. Those changes still largely stand under the Obama administration. This is not a partisan issue. What Bush crafted, and which is largely unchallenged and considered "water under the bridge" by Obama, ensures that those changes remain in effect. There remains the unchallenged policy of the Bush administration that the President can do anything he wants. I felt that was a threat to our rights and government under Bush, and it remains so under Obama.

Wrongs have to be righted. Failure to do so condemns future citizens to an ever eroding situation in terms of our government and our protections under the Constitution. Where Bush pushed the Unitary Executive to, is where the Obama administration starts. To leave the abuses of power unchallenged creates a new starting line of Executive Branch power into the future.

Instead, here in the U.S. we are largely "protected" from the public inquiries in the UK. Of course they directly impinge on and implicate the U.S., but if nobody knows who is hurt? We are - as are all future generations of the people of the United States.

---
Note: The Iraq Inquiry Digest does an excellent job of keeping up with the testimony from the Inquiry.

The Iraq Inquiry web site

After Downing Street - Complete text of the Downing Street memo

The Boston "Tea Party" was populist activism by the colonists in "America" who were protesting the Tea Act of the British Parliament which imposed a tax on tea. The "rebels" felt that they should not pay a tax that was not passed by their elected officials. Interestingly, the Tea Act was passed by the Parliament to save the East India Tea Company from bankruptcy (Encyclopedia Britannica - Boston tea Party). The East India Company was given a monopoly on all tea exported from Britain to the colonies, as well as imposing a tax on that tea. The refrain of "No taxation without representation" was one of the arguments of the rebelling colonists (Wikipedia - Boston Tea Party)

Regardless of frequently claiming to be "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," the current Tea Party is highly conservative in the contemporary sense of that word. They are anti-tax (meaning individual taxation and increasing taxes for the wealthy), anti-immigrant, and pro-corporate and privatization. They are largely anti-government, which is the supposedly "Libertarian" strain - which in the current popular rendition is largely "conservative" as well. (See site sampling at end of article).

This is a far cry from the rebel terrorists (and as far as the British were concerned the folks in Boston were terrorists) of the original "Tea Partyers". The Boston Tea Party rebels were acting against British rule in the American colonies, but particularly British taxation. They were acting against monopoly corporatism as represented by the East Indian Tea Company. They were making a first strike for liberating the colonies from Britain.

However, the current "Tea Party" does have close corollaries to another historical party. The party in mind is the "Know Nothings" also known as the American Party which arose roughly 80 years after the revolt of 1773. Both parties were responding to a social environment of slavery (and the conflicts around the institution), and to waves of European immigration. Feagin (1997: 19-20 as quoted in Wolf) characterizes this period as follows:

"In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the 'white race' emerged as a constructed social group for the first time in history." ... "Early English invaders and their descendants saw themselves as culturally and physically different from Native and African Americans, the stereotyped 'uncivilized savages.' Moreover, by the early 1800s the importance of Southern cotton plantations for the U.S. economy had brought a growing demand for Native American land and African and African American slaves. Slavery was being abolished in the North, and the number of free black men and women was growing. In this period, the Anglo-Protestant ruling elite developed the ideology of a superior 'white race' as one way of providing racial privileges for poorer European Americans and keeping the latter from joining with black Americans in worker organisations. By the mid-nineteenth century, not only later English "immigrants" but also "immigrants" from Scotland, Ireland, and Germany had come to accept a place in this socially constructed 'white race' whose special racial privileges included the rights of personal liberty, travel and voting." (As quoted in Wolf, 2008)

The Know Nothings were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic, though they were split North and South on the issue of slavery. As stated in Wolf (2008):

The Know Nothings grew out of a secret society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner. They were formally known as the American Party. They were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic and claimed to be champion of the rights of American male Protestant voters. The northern part of the party being anti-slavery and the southern part being pro-slavery (Anbinder, 1992; Billington, 1952). They took political control of many state and city governments from 1855 to 1860. They supported Millard Fillmore in the 1856 Presidential election and he took 21% of the popular vote and eight votes from the electoral college.

The "nativist" Know Nothing/American Party, were vehemently anti-immigrant, mirroring one of the foci of the current "Tea Party." As noted in Wolf:

The American Party platform included the following:

1. Only native-born Americans could hold public office;

2. A 21 year waiting period before foreign-born could vote;

3. Restrict public schooling to Protestants and have the Protestant bible read daily in classrooms. (Anbinder, 1992)

So called "native" Americans, those white descendants of primarily western Europeans who had been born here, saw the "immigrant" influx as a threat in a number of regards. They saw them as racially and culturally different and inferior to themselves. Samuel Busey (1856) wrote a book called "Immigration and its Evils" in which he presented a detailed discussion of the inferiority of the "immigrants." In the following passage he compares the illiterate American born to the illiterate foreigner.

"The ignorant natives who speak our language have been reared under our institutions, and are acquainted with the practical workings of our government; the ignorant foreigner is totally unacquainted with the language; has not enjoyed the advantages of experience and practical observation of the complex machinery of our government, and is consequently far inferior, intellectually, to the uneducated native. He cannot understand the theory of a free government, because he is destitute of the knowledge sufficient to comprehend its objects, purposes and blessings. He cannot acquaint himself with its practical operation and direct and immediate advantages to himself, because he wants the experience and observation, which birth and habits have taught; besides he is totally unacquainted with our language, and has been reared under institutions hostile to personal liberty, to free institutions, and to a Republican government; hence it is that foreigners are so prone to congregate together, to organise themselves into clubs, societies and even communities, occupying entire sections of a county, State, and of a country. These foreign organisations are dangerous to our established institutions; because, wherever they have been in our country, they have repudiated the fundamental principles of our government. (Bussey, 1856: 127-129)."

After WWI, white nativism reared its head again in the context of economic turmoil and rising immigration. The depression of the 1930s intensified nativism - now focused largely against Mexicans. It re-emerged again after WWII with the return of troops, and the displacement of the "substitute" workers who had been women, African Americans and Mexicans who had been encouraged into the country to fill labor demands. The racism that arose obviously focused in its hostility against Japanese Americans , "Asians," Jews, "Mexicans," Germans and Italians.

The point here is that nativism is an old theme, and the current "Tea Party" joins a long line of white "nativism" and so-called conservatism.

It seems disingenuous to call them the "Tea Party," and "Know Nothings" seems more appropriate. Regardless, it joins the long theme of racism and exclusion that is the uglier part of the history of the United States. While even loosely this movement does not represent the majority of Americans, they are currently influencing - even defining - the social and political terrain. Their effectiveness, one might even say their very existence, is due to corporate funding and big monied interests on the right. For example, their birthis out of Fox "News" owned by Rupert Murdock. This has given them - or their corporate inventors and sponsors - a media megaphone. If they are allowed to continue to define the social and political terrain, we are likely to see an extremely difficult and challenging time become very destructive and ugly as well.

Notes
The Know Nothing and American Party sections are quoted in Chapter 6 of The Dialectic of Social Inequality by Rowan Wolf. 2008.

Time Line of the Boston Tea Part. Google.

Sampling of "Tea Party" Sites
Tea Party Patriots

Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

Tea Party Express

Re-Tea Party (ironically, the "principles" page is "not found")

Desert Conservatives Tea Party Issues Statement

Albuquerque Tea Party

Brentwood tea Party

Many return from their service transformed All too often, they are too uncomfortably transformed to fit into the "civilian" flow of life. For some, it is more comfortable to return to bloody combat and the risk of death, than to return to friends and family, and co-workers, and a clueless populace. The adrenaline, and violence, and death-linked comradery is a real embrace. The invisibility and lack of understanding of "home" is a different kind of death.

For some, there is no return to war zones, and for better or worse they wrestle the demons and some "win" and some "lose." Some rebuild their lives. Some end up on the streets, or in the jails, or numbed by drugs of choice. Many, and certainly their families, cling with all their might to the comfortable myth that "it was all for a grander purpose."

I have heroes who are veterans. I have watched many face the demons of war (and military "actions") that remain with them - often for a life time. One of the sacrifices they made is the tattering of a glamorized entertainment myth of war and fighting in the face of bloody reality and burned indelibly upon their mind's eyes, and upon their hearts. It is a cost beyond bearing, and one that goes virtually unacknowledged by the populace.

Instead, they all too frequently face a betrayal by those societally tasked to know - and support - them. Namely, the Department of Defense, and the various military services, and the Veterans Administration. Conditions such as PTSD and psychological issues are frequently ignored, or those who have served are dissuaded from pursuing services. Then there are those other things that the military does not want to acknowledge, and therefore refuses to provide service - the "atomic" vets, agent orange, depleted uranium, Gulf War Syndrome, the effects of vaccinations, the paltry benefits left to the families of the fallen, the list goes on and on. The realities of serving - or surviving serving.

Once a year (twice if we count Memorial Day) the nation is called on to recognize these heroes - standing and fallen. This sanitized recognition does not mean embracing the reality of the service or the true sacrifices made. This sanitized recognition does not even recognize the human and national costs of that service. Certainly, nothing is said in this war glorifying culture regarding what the best recognition should really be - a commitment to ending war and working for peace. Yes, peace is work - ongoing work. However many veterans DO make this commitment, and for veterans that commitment comes at a higher price than for most who have never served.

So I want to say thank you to the most courageous of veterans who I know - those veterans who struggle for peace. They have fought, and continue to fight, incredible internal battles while waging the most significant of struggles - the struggle for peace. Thank you veterans for this ongoing service to an ungrateful nation. Thanks also to those veterans organizations that struggle untiringly for peace and truth, and support those who have served in this critical struggle.

Please thank a veteran, and thank a Veteran's organization such as those below. Importantly, also commit to fighting for veteran's rights and to creating a world where such sacrifices are never needed again.

Veterans for Peace

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Veterans Against the Iraq War

Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

One could believe that ocean drilling and oil platforms are old hat and incredibly safe. After all, we hear so little about the problems with drilling platforms. Instead, we are told that the companies can safely drill six miles down under the ocean and seamlessly deliver oil to the maw of the global economy. However, according to the Rig Incident List at Oil Rig Disasters, they list 198 incidents listed from 1956-2007 (most incidents listed are after 1976) which resulted in 1078 fatalities (though there is not fatality data on a number of incidents).

There is a more current example that could serve as a case study of why Arctic Ocean drilling should be avoided. The case study is the West Atlas drilling platform in the Timor Sea off the coast of Australia. This oil platform title="Australia fails to plug oil leak , BBC, 10/14/2009">has been leaking for more than two months. Multiple attempts have been made to find and plug the leak; however, they have been unsuccessful. Meanwhile, oil continues to pour into the sea, and into the migration route and habitat for marine life - including endangered turtles, humpback whales and others.

There is an attempt to build a nearby "relief well" and pump sludge into the existing well to stop the leak. However, there is now a new problem. The well and rig are now on fire. The fire is the result of another attempt to stop the leak, and efforts thus far have not stopped the fire. (All workers are safe and have been evacuated from the rig.) At this point, the drilling company's (PTTEP Australasia) plan is to continue with the "kill well." There are no estimates of how long that will take.

Now take this incident and move it to the Arctic. Move it to what is considered one of the most sensitive environments in the world with one of the the most extreme climate environments. How long might such a leak go on in those conditions? Months? Years? Until the well ran dry? What would happen if the Arctic ecosystem was drowned in oil? I have no idea, but shudder to think of the death of the Arctic and virtually all life forms within it. Certainly that destruction would not be confined to the Arctic.

Despite the risks and sensitivity of the Arctic, the Obama administration has given "Shell a green light" for offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea. The noise of the drilling alone could have dramatically negative effects on marine life - particularly the bowhead whale. As reported in The Guardian article:

Whale experts warn that the bowhead stocks are sensitive to noise and could be driven further off shore by the disruption of drilling. That in turn would have an impact on their chances of survival, which have already been harmed by early side-effects of global warming.

There are also fears that any drilling could lead to oil spills which would be impossible to clean up amid the Arctic's broken sea ice.

Drilling in Arctic waters is worse than a bad idea. It is a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, even without an accident, the operations could cause irrevocable damage to already endangered sea life.

Can't we just stop and figure out a way forward that doesn't cause further destruction of a world on the verge of eco-collapse?

As of 11/03/09, the rig fire has reportedly been extinguished

The truth of the vast reserves comes in an article by John Dizard of the Financial Times. In his article "Shale gas numbers may not add up," Dizard writes: (emphasis mine)

From one end of the known world to the other, which is to say from Boston to Washington and some points in between, there is a consensus among the well informed that one part of a national energy plan is in place. Thanks to the discovery and mapping of huge reserves of gas in shale formations, we have an alternative to dirty old coal, and, possibly, imported oil for transport fuel. A 40 per cent increase in the country's gas reserves! You can thank advanced American technology for that.

Well, you can thank advanced American something, but along with the technology you can also thank the advanced American ability to extract money from investors. The key element of this national characteristic is the willingness to listen carefully to determine what people with money want to hear, and then tell them that. Again and again.

Money, that thing we are told "makes the world go round." If one wants to extract money, then one must convince folks that the "product" is worth buying. In the world of investing, that "product" is making money - not natural gas, or cars, or grapes. In the case of oil and gas, the risks are higher because the failure rate is higher. There are hypotheses that oil and gas should exist some place, but drilling may end up "a dry hole," or far less resource than was thought. Therefore, to get investors (or government/tax payer) money, one has to engage in overselling the potential. This has become more difficult as oil has stayed below $100 a barrel (though that is unlikely to continue).

There is another obstacle. Namely, that the extraction of natural gas (and oil) raises its own problems regardless of how available - or profitable - that might be. The extraction of natural gas (and oil) comes with its own destructive side with toxic chemicals and redirecting and contamination of water supplies.

There is some degree of irony that the term used for extraction is "fracking." Fracking is a mining process where water and chemicals are pressure forced into the ground (or well) to both force the natural gas or oil to the surface, as well as to ease its movement through the ground and pumping process. Fracking potentially pollutes water sources as the fracking mixture escapes into ground water, and by the waste sludge that is pumped up. This is also a water intensive process and therefore diverts fresh water supplies from natural, agricultural, and human use.

This means, that while vast supplies of natural gas may lie just below our feet, the process of obtaining those resources may cause unacceptable damage to human populations and the environment. Fracking may also cause another problem - earthquakes. Increased levels of quake activity in Cleburne, Texas in the wake of fracking activities raises the level of concern about the practice. Given that the process does break down underground rock and soil, it is not a stretch that it could cause earthquakes.

Drilling and extraction companies have largely refused to say what the ingredients of the fracking mixture are by claiming that it is proprietary, and the EPA does not require them to disclose this information because the mixtures are claimed to be "proprietary." However, some energy company executives have also asked for this information. As reported at ProPublica, at least some of the mixture has been determined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. While, the mixture is broken down, the actual chemicals have not been released. In the NY samples, the composition included 90.6% water, .11% acid, .05% controller, .08% subtractant, etc. In other words, the purpose of the chemicals used, but not the chemicals themselves.

As noted in the ProPublica article:

At issue is whether hydraulic fracturing, and the chemicals it requires, might be responsible for water contamination incidents in drilling areas across the country. The process, which is currently exempt from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act, forces millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and small amounts of chemicals, into the earth to break rock and release gas. Scientists, including some at the Environmental Protection Agency, have said they can't thoroughly investigate the contamination incidents because the names of the chemicals are protected trade secrets.

The expanded exploration and drilling is meeting increasing resistance from East Coast to West. In the news of late, public protest and activism in Pennsylvania has stopped the plans to drill for natural gas in the northern Pennsylvania watershed. Likewise, a "plan to drill of the Colorado plateau" is meeting strong public resistance.

The impacts of oil and gas exploration in Wyoming is increasingly becoming publicly known. A new documentary, "Split Estate" is bringing attention to the multiple problems being faced by Wyoming residents. There are water contamination issues resulting in health problems, use and contamination of scarce water supplies, and encroachment on property rights and living conditions. The property rights issue ties to the fact that many people own the surface of their property and not what lies beneath it. This is not a new problem and has been an issue in water poor states such as those in the Southwest for quite some time. However, the issue in Wyoming is that drilling operations are being set up within feet of people's homes as exploration rights are granted to oil and natural gas companies. Below is a clip from the documentary "Split Estate:"

We are in an age of global warming which is threatening water supplies across the planet. Even those in water rich areas such as the Pacific Northwest look to shrinking supplies and loss of water reservoirs as winter snowpack and glaciers dwindle. Therefore, massive new drilling expeditions across the country pose a significant threat, and that may exceed concerns about oil and gas supplies. Fracking, and perhaps for resources that are more hyped than real? No frakking way!

Related Articles of Interest
Don't Frack with Our Water!. Polly Howells. In These Times. 10/04/2009.

Water Worries Threaten US Push for Natural Gas. Jon Hurdles. Reuters. 10/01/2009.

DemocracyNow! 9/03/2009 segment Fracking and the Environment: Natural Gas Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Contamination:

Even before this collapse/implosion, the United States was in a shaky position. We have an economy recrafted on consumerism and a service economy. Productive capacity has been hamstrung since the 1980s as increasingly manufacturing - even infrastructure and security critical activities - were relocated to "cheaper" places in the world. The question raised early in this movement was "Can a nation that produces nothing survive?" Unfortunately, the United States may soon be able to answer that question in the negative.

The globalization/corporatization movement pushed by Republican neo-conservatives, and Democratic neo-liberals have auctioned the economic and political sovereignty of the United States by chasing the grail of making money out of nothing. Now we are in a situation where the dollar may be replaced as the standard currency and for oil. We may be waving goodbye to the petrodollar, and that is bad news for the country that prints those dollars - the United States.

Hocked to the ears and beyond to Dubai banks, China and Japan, the United States has it's butt blowing in the wind and survives at the pleasure of those creditors. If any of them choose to call the loans, or sell off the their dollar reserves, then what is a now dire situation in the United States may take on the hue of the "good old days."

Therefore, we (and the economists) can well say "the world has changed," and that change means ongoing higher levels of unemployment and underemployment, and falling wages - for most of the population.

Speaking from a different perspective, the Goldman Sachs International Vice President stated at a panel in Britain: People should "tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all"... "we should not ... be ashamed of offering compensation in an internationally competitive market which ensures the bank businesses here and employs British people."

One has to wonder if this is the world that those at Goldman Sachs and other profiteering finance firms have always had in mind - extracting the the wealth of the global population and returning to their perceived "natural" order of the royalty and the serfs. Perhaps, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach sees no real issue with stagnant wages and high unemployment for the masses. After all, it leaves more for the "deserving" at the top. However, it seems unlikely that he can truly believe that extreme inequality somehow creates "prosperity." The pronouncement itself makes absolutely no sense. However, being one of the big winners in the monopoly economy, perhaps he is only concerned about the prosperity of those with extreme wealth.

This two class society where the few get bonuses, compensation, and investment windfalls in the millions of dollars, while the majority of the population (here and globally) scrabble for leftovers, is possible only if we accept the constraints of the current system. It is only inevitable if we accept Lord Griffiths world view that extreme inequality somehow increases prosperity. However, I do not think that the population of the planet will share the inevitability of this skewed world view.

10/19/09. Raum. Associated Press. Higher unemployment might become the norm as result of recession

10/21/09 Quinn & Hall, Times/UK, Goldman Sachs vice-chairman says: 'Learn to tolerate inequality'

Snapshot History
George Bush invaded Afghanistan to engage in regime change. The justification for the massive assault on Afghanistan was that the Taliban held government would not turn over Osama bin Laden. After running the Taliban out of Kabul, ultimately the oil industry's choice Karzai (former UNOCAL adviser) was installed as the President of Afghanistan. It did not take long for him to be labeled "The Mayor of Kabul."

The Present
After a contested election, Karzai still holds onto power (complete with charges of the corruptness of his government), and he is still the Mayor of Kabul. And despite eight years of U.S. military assault in Afghanistan, the Taliban still control at least 70% of the country. Yes, seventy percent. Further, it is believed that most of al Qaida are now in Pakistan - not Afghanistan, AND the Taliban influence is spreading in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation, is facing its own struggles. On one hand there is unrest in the tribal regions, then there is the ongoing undermining of Pakistan's sovereignty via U.S. ground and drone attacks. Pakistan has in many ways shifted from a go-between/ally of the United States to an almost puppet state. However, it is not a happy puppet state. No sovereign nation can allow the continued aggressive military action by a foreign nation within its boundaries without it generating resistance from the populace - be that Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

So the negotiations are on to "deal" with the Pakistan "issue," and the attempts to go after al Qaida, bin Laden, insurgents, the Taliban or whatever enemy is on the rotating menu. An added serious imbalance is the relationship between Pakistan and India. Pakistan becomes a multimodal teeter-totter sitting on a crumbling fulcrum.

Pakistan
The U.S. wants to increase its footprint in Pakistan, and neither the Pakistani government, nor the people, are open to that expansion. However, Pakistan needs money in its coffers and the U.S. is waving "aid" (in the amount of $1.5 billion a year) in front of the government's nose; however, it is aid with tight strings attached. The main stipulation being:

The secretary of State must certify to the US Congress annually that Pakistan's security forces are cutting ties to extremist organizations and that a democratically elected government "exercises effective civilian control of the military." Specifically, the State Department must report on civilian oversight of the military budget process, military involvement in civilian affairs, and even the nitty-gritty of how senior military officers are promoted.

This is a significant given the power of the military in Pakistan, and the long term practice of Pakistan's intelligence organization - the ISI - working with militant groups within both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and being the historic go between for the U.S. and the Taliban. The ISI has been a feared power broker in Pakistan, and one that will play a central role in the success of any agreement between the United States, the Pakistani government, and the Pakistani army.

This situation is only exacerbated by the Pashtun push for independence - even if they must seek the aid of the Taliban. If the Pashtun's align with the Taliban, then any effort to track down al Qaida (if that is truly the target) will be devastating for the civilian population and lead to increased militancy against the U.S. - and Pakistan military presence.

Afghanistan
In my opinion, Afghanistan is a lost cause if the Taliban are not intimately involved in stabilization. For all intents and purposes, it is the Taliban who control Afghanistan - not any "elected" government. I am not saying that the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban in power, but thus far eight years of U.S. and international militarism have not made any progress minimizing Taliban power outside of major population centers. Indeed, the current plan seems to pull U.S. forces back into the larger population centers so that they don't slip into Taliban control. At this point, there is a zero sum game in Afghanistan.

As with U.S. intervention using Afghanistan in a proxy war against the Soviet Union, U.S. (and western nations') interest in Afghanistan are not equal to the Afghans determination for their independence. If we had spent the billions we have spent on blowing up Afghanistan on real aid to improve the lives of the people, everyone would be in a much better situation. I strongly suspect, that the power of the Taliban would have eroded, and a much more peaceful region would have been the outcome. No one is hungrier for peace than the people of Afghanistan.

Hidden Casualties
The Afghan refugee situation is largely hidden from the U.S. audience. After the early reporting on refugee camps at the beginning of the invasion, there has been a virtual blackout on refugees in the U.S. media. Refugees International states:

Today more than three million registered refugees remain in exile - 2.1 million in Pakistan and 0.9 million in Iran - and hundreds of thousands more are living abroad to escape economic hardship or targeted violence. Many are now being pressured to return home despite the fact that living conditions are not always secure or humane.

The estimated population of Afghanistan is 28.396 million. An estimated three million are displaced within the region, and certainly a large number are displaced inside Afghanistan, and those who previously fled to Europe are no longer welcome.

Refugees have fled to Italy, France, and the UK. They have survived in places like the Calais "jungle" in France. However, France doesn't want the migrants anymore, and is shutting down Calais. Most of the 1500 people remaining in the crumbling Calais camp are refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq. They have sought asylum, but Europe is getting much stingier in granting it. Despite the economic and personal costs paid by these migrants, Calais will be razed. The asylum seekers will be sent back or sent on.

Other refugees are increasingly seeking haven in Tajikistan, where they struggle to learn Russian and Cyrillic while living in horrible conditions. However, despite the poverty of Tajikistan relative to its neighbors, at least they will accept refugees. So more come hoping to rebuild lives that have been destroyed behind them.

I imagine that should conditions stabilize and improve in Afghanistan, many of the refugees would go home to rebuild their lives. As the displaced within Afghanistan hope for the opportunity to do the same.

Do Afghans Want the Taliban in Power?
From what news reports (largely from the BBC and a few independent journalists) I have seen, people don't relish the idea of the Taliban ruling again. However, the Taliban militias have a great recruiting tool - they can pay. So now the Taliban forces have roughly achieved military strength. One could argue that the Taliban are virtually the only "game" in Afghanistan, which speaks to the woeful failure of the "strategy" of the U.S. (under Bush and Obama) and NATO.

It seems likely that if the Pashtuns in Pakistan are pushing for their own state, that the Pashtuns in Afghanistan will hope for the same. Rather than creating unity, the effects of failed intervention in the interests of Western nations may result in a fracturing of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ways Forward
Given the complication and sheer destruction which has left competing powers as virtually independent operators, and people's lives in devastation, it is hard to see what will help - particularly over the short term. It seems that Obama is willing to continue a primarily military (or militaristic) path in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama has expanded the Bush administration's practices of covert troop increases in the region using "rotations" and outsourcing to corporate mercenaries to expand military presence. We seem to be in the same situation in Afghanistan as we were in Iraq: "As Afghan military and police stand up, we will stand down." However, our presence in Iraq is not substantively decreasing (especially when one counts "contractors"), and both formal troops and "contractors" are increasing in Afghanistan. Obama has also expanded the use of drones. One could even argue that the $1.5 billion in aid to Pakistan is in effect hiring the Pakistani army as contract forces for U.S. interests. What does "aid" mean in this context?

But the people want peace, to be able to support their families, to have hope for their futures. A "grassroots" experienced U.S. President might apply some of that insight to the turbulence in the region. Assistance in developing internal and external markets in Afghanistan and Pakistan would go a long way towards giving the people options they currently do not have. Assisting community and tribal leaders in building infrastructure and security would go towards balancing the power of the Taliban and whatever al Qaida organization exists in the region.

The poppies of Afghanistan seem to be an endless source of fund raising and international heroin markets. It would seem to be a no-brainer to use those poppies in legitimate ways - namely for the medical market. Why does Tasmania Australia have 40% of the medical opium market? India allows production of medical opium poppies, and they might resist legalization in Afghanistan. Regardless, why can't Afghanistan be a legal supplier of opium for medical uses?

Afghanistan does have natural resources - particularly oil, natural gas and coal - which is part of the reason for ongoing U.S. "interest" in the area. (See also Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of Northern Afghanistan, 2006) However, the real energy interests in Afghanistan have been the pipeline to ensure the West's oil supply. It seems that "safeguard" should be profitable for the people of Afghanistan.

Realistically, many of the people of Afghanistan may not want to join the "modern world" on the "modern world's" terms. They have local economies and ways of life that have sustained and enriched them for thousands of years. Stability would go a long way towards allowing local economies to function effectively once again.

What seems very clear is that there is not a military solution to the instability of the region. However, a military presence in that region serves a variety of purposes for the United States and the "West." Whose interest will prevail? Those of the people, or those of the the competing powers?

There are some interesting points beyond the stunning number of applicants - namely the wage and benefit package. I have bolded part of the quote below.

In the latest sign of weakness in Louisville-area employment, about 10,000 people applied over three days for 90 jobs building washing machines at General Electric for about $27,000 per year and hefty benefits.

The jobs dangle medical, eye care, prescription and dental benefit packages, as well as pension, disability, tuition assistance and more, said GE spokeswoman Kim Freeman. And despite the recession, no union workers have been laid off from Appliance Park since the company negotiated lower wages with workers in 2005.

"There are no jobs out there paying these kinds of wages that also offer these kind of benefits," said Jerry Carney, president of IUE-CWA Local 761 at Appliance Park.

Just four years ago, the same jobs paid $19 per hour. But that was before Local 761 approved wage cuts for new workers aimed at preventing the closure of Appliance Park.

To his credit, GE CEO Jeffrey Inmelt, declined to take his $12 million bonus in 2008 and his base salary was $3.3 million (USA Today, 2/18/09). Of course $3.3 million looks pretty good to someone making $13 an hour.

According to the United Nations, more than 100 million people in the world today are homeless. Millions more face a severe housing problem living without adequate sanitation, with irregular or no electricity supply and without adequate security.

Worldwide, more than 2 million housing units per year are needed for the next 50 years to solve the present worldwide housing crisis. With our global population expanding, however, at the end of those 50 years, there would still be a need for another 1 billion houses. (UN-HABITAT: 2005)

Raising awareness and advocating for change are the first steps toward transforming systems that perpetuate the global plague of poverty housing. World Habitat Day serves as an important reminder that everyone must unite to ensure that everyone has a safe, decent place to call home.

The U.N. further states that both developed and developing countries, cities and towns are increasingly feeling the effects of climate change, resource depletion, food insecurity, population growth and economic instability.

Rapid rates of urbanization cause serious negative consequences - overcrowding, poverty, slums with many poorly equipped to meet the service demands of ever growing urban populations.

With over half of the world's population currently living in urban areas the U.N. believes there is no doubt that the "urban agenda" will increasingly become a priority for governments, local authorities and their non-governmental partners everywhere.

U.S. Housing Facts

• About 95 million people, one third of the nation, have housing problems including a high-cost burden, overcrowding, poor quality shelter and homelessness. (National Low Income Housing Coalition: 2004)
• One in three American households spend more than 30 percent of income on housing, and one in seven spends more than 50 percent. (Joint Center for Housing Studies: 2006)
• The number of low-income families that lack safe and affordable housing is related to the number of children that suffer from asthma, viral infections, anemia, stunted growth and other health problems. About 21,000 children have stunted growth attributable to the lack of stable housing; 10,000 children between the ages of 4 and 9 are hospitalized for asthma attacks each year because of cockroach infestation at home; and more than 180 children die each year in house fires attributable to faulty electrical heating and electrical equipment. (Sandel, et al: 1999)

• By the year 2030, an additional 3 billion people, about 40 percent of the world's population, will need access to housing. This translates into a demand for 96,150 new affordable units every day and 4,000 every hour. (UN-HABITAT: 2005)
• One out of every three city dwellers - nearly a billion people - lives in a slum. (Slum indicators include: lack of water, lack of sanitation, overcrowding, non-durable structures and insecure tenure.) (UN-HABITAT: 2006)
• UN-Habitat has reported that because of poor living conditions, women living in slums are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than their rural counterparts, and children in slums are more likely to die from water-borne and respiratory illness. (UN-HABITAT: 2006)
• Housing formation generates non-housing related expenditures that help drive the economy. (Kissick, et al: 2006)
• Investing in housing expands the local tax base. (Kissick, et al: 2006)

The theme for World Habitat Day 2009 is "Planning our Urban Future"

Celebrations of World Habitat Day in Washington, D.C. will be an excellent opportunity to foster global discussion and raise the profile of shelter and urban issues at the national and international level. Events in the United States and around the world include policy forums, award presentations, luncheons, dinners, house-building and exhibitions.

What can you do for World Habitat Day?

Advocate - Educate - Donate

ADVOCATE Photo by photo, Habitat for Humanity advocates have created this mosaic that has already been sent to the White House. Now it is time to deliver a strong message to Congress: Make housing a priority. Pass legislation that would prioritize adequate and affordable housing. Ask Congress to Make Housing A Priority on World Habitat Day!

EDUCATE your community with Habitat for Humanity's World Habitat Day handbook to learn more about the importance of secure tenure and neighborhood revitalization. Get even more information about the issue of insecure tenure by reading Habitat's Shelter Report: building a secure future through effective land policies.

Brainstorm ways to get more people involved. Learn from the successes of last year's campaign, and come up with brand-new ways to celebrate and publicize the important work of Habitat for Humanity.

Take a virtual tour of the Capotillo informal settlement in the Dominican Republic and put yourself in the shoes of those who live in a broken community of violence, poverty and danger.

Link to Habitat for Humanity's World Habitat Day 2009 resources page on your social media pages, personal web site or blog to spread the word and raise awareness.

DONATE to be a part of making the world a better place and support Habitat's efforts. Donate online today!

I can't afford that. So when the pain comes, I won't have any defense. I'll spend hours in the fetal position, out of my mind with pain.

When my story went public a couple of weeks ago--with the help of over 100,000 MoveOn members--CIGNA said they would pay for a test I'd been asking for at Cleveland Clinic. It was a step in the right direction. But after two years of denials, and with a long course of treatment ahead of me, I knew better than to just take them at their word.

So I asked questions. But they wouldn't offer any explanation for why they denied my coverage for so long, or any assurance that they had changed their procedures so I wouldn't face the same unjust denials again. And I began to wonder if they were more interested in just sweeping my story under the rug than actually helping me.

When I got this latest news from CIGNA's pharmacy on Tuesday, I kept asking myself, is this a mistake? Or is this happening because I went public with my case? Are other CIGNA customers receiving the same phone calls?

I used to give CIGNA the benefit of the doubt, but after years of unexplained denials, I've had enough. So I'm asking for your help again. For myself, and for everyone else who is suffering, I am asking CIGNA for answers.

And I think it would help if thousands of people like you were to join me in demanding them. I'm writing them a short letter with a simple question: Why? Can you add your name to my letter?

http://pol.moveon.org/dawn/?id=17404-1221793-PTaEEWx&t=1

Here's what I've written to Dr. Jeffrey Kang, CIGNA's Chief Medical Officer:

As you probably know, your company has denied me needed care for two years while I suffer from a debilitating but treatable brain tumor. I pay my $753.47 premiums. I follow the proper procedures. But CIGNA refuses to give me the care I need.

Instead, you keep increasing my prices. First my premiums rose by hundreds of dollars, and now my prescription costs are going up by more than 10,000%.

What makes you think you can treat sick people this way? When will you stop doing this to me and the thousands of people like me who are suffering? And if you solve this latest problem, how do I know you won't do this to me again next week--that you're actually changing your ways and not just trying to make your PR problem disappear?

Please answer these questions. I need to know, for the sake of my health and my life. Many others have signed this letter too, to support me and make sure I get answers.

Respectfully,
Dawn Smith

Thanks for all you're doing. I don't know where I'd be without MoveOn members' help.

Most sincerely,
Dawn

According to the article:

1 Bill Gates, $50bn, down $7bn 2 Warren Buffett, $40bn, down $10bn 3 Lawrence Ellison, $27bn, unchanged 4 Christy Walton and family, Wal-Mart, $21.5bn, down $1.7bn 5 Jim Walton, Wal-Mart, $19.6bn, down $3.8bn

So after losses the five richest folks still had a combined wealth of $158.1 billion.

In trying to put such wealth and loss of wealth in perspective, I tried to find a comparison point. I decided to look at the budget of my state of residence - Oregon. The 2009-2011 budget for the state of Oregon is roughly $132 billion - or $66 billion a year. So the state of Oregon could run for about 4.5 YEARS on the losses from those folks. Or looked at somewhat differently, The state of Oregon could run for over 2 years on the wealth of the 5 richest folks alone. All of the schools, the roads, the courts, parks, fisheries, social services and Oregon Health Plan - for 4.5 years on the wealth of FIVE people.

According to Forbes "Fun Billionaire Statistics," the combined net worth of the richest 400 Americans is $1.27 trillion. The per capita of the U.S. in 2008 was $26,964 according to the U.S. Census Bureau Table P-1. Of course that includes those richest 400 people (and their near neighbours).

There is a difference between losing a few billion and what is happening to millions of people in the country. The graphs below appeared in the NY Times

One of the interesting things in the graphs - aside from the fact we have 6 unemployed people for every job opening - is that for the entire period the number of unemployed exceeded the number of jobs.

An interesting read at Forbes is the 9/30/09 article by Keren Blankfeld "How Billionaires Control Our Lives."

On September 2, 2009, Reuters reported that ElBaradei believes the nuclear threat is "hyped." According to the article:

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was no concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program.

"But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran's nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped," he told the specialist Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

This does not mean that ElBaradei is giving Iran a bye on the issue. He has consistently called for greater transparency from Iran. However, he does not see the imminent threat claims that keep reemerging from Israel, and under Bush, and now under Obama.

Perhaps part of his hesitancy regarding the imminent threat posed by Iran has to do with the documentation the IAEA has been looking at regarding Iran's nuclear status and ambitions. This comes in the form of sheaves of documentation coming from the United States and other "western" nations. The concerns over this documentation were discussed by Gareth Porter writing for the Inter Press Service on September 14, 2009.

According to Porter, and verified by his sources, is that there is possible veracity to Iran's claim that these documents are forgeries. While the IAEA tacitly vouches for the credibility of the documents as they "appear(s) to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent". However:

Iran has submitted serious evidence that the documents are fraudulent. Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations in Vienna, Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told IPS in an interview he had pointed out to a team of IAEA officials in a meeting on the documents in Tehran in spring 2008 that none of the supposedly top secret military documents had any security markings of any kind, and that purported letters from defence ministry officials lacked Iranian government seals.

Soltanieh recalled that he had made the same point "many times" in meetings of the Board of Governors since then. "No one ever challenged me," said the ambassador.

The IAEA has responded to this issue by suggesting that perhaps the supplying agencies have removed these types of identifying markers. As noted by Porter, why would an agency remove marking from documents that proved the validity of their origins and nature? Porter gives one specific example of the type of document which Iran claims is fraudulent:

Iran has also provided the IAEA with evidence that the handwritten notes on a May 2003 letter, which supposedly link a private Iranian contractor to the "alleged studies", were forged by an outside agency. The letter was from an engineering firm to the private company Kimia Maadan, which other documents in the collection identify as responsible for part of the alleged covert nuclear weapons programme called the "green salt project".

The letter itself has nothing to do with any "green salt" project, but handwritten notes on the copy of the letter given to the IAEA by an unidentified government referred to individuals who are named in other intelligence documents as participants in the "alleged studies", according to the latest IAEA report.

But the original letter, which Iran has provided to the IAEA, has no handwritten notes on it. Amb. Soltanieh recalled that he showed that original letter to an IAEA team led by the deputy director of IAEA's Safeguards Department, Herman Nackaerts, in Tehran Jan. 22-23, 2008.

He said the IAEA team was able to compare the original document with the copy that they had been given as part of the alleged studies documents and that Nakaerts declared that his team accepted the authenticity of the original they were shown.

I am starting to hear a lot of "You can't believe Iran because they have consistently lied to us." This sounds suspiciously like the methodology used to justify discounting Iraq's claim they did not have "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We were told the "Hussein's a liar, has always lied, he's lying now." Well we know how that turned out.

I don't know what the status is of Iran's nuclear projects - nor their purpose. However, once burned twice cautious as they say. It makes me quite nervous that the corporate media seems to not be any more cautious in jumping on the "Bad Iran" band wagon than they were on the "Bad Iraq" band wagon. Either they are stupid and don't learn from their mistakes, or they have much to gain from unquestionably beating the drums.

Kudos to Media Matters for making this available. They received the behind the scenes clip from an anonymous "tipster."

This is what was happening while the Fox "News" reporter - Griff Jenkins - was on the air.

This is what was shown on Fox by Glenn Beck

So what about Beck. Is he as way right as he seems, or is it entertainment hype? Well, it would seem that he is as way right as he seems. One of his political heroes is apparently W Cleon Skousen, as presented in a 9/16/09 Salon article by Alexander Zaitchik. Skousen was one of the intellectual founders of the contemporary ultra right wing - even to the right of the John Birch Society. This is an association which is affirmed by Beliefnet "Conservative politics and religion" writer Rod Dreher (who shows a Republican icon as part of his by-line) in his article "Glenn Beck, Cleon Skousen, Evan Mecham." Dreher, who is actually arguing against this type of "crackpot" activity notes:Glenn Beck is now the best-known devotee of the radical rightist Cleon Skousen. However, Dreher also partially recanted on Skousen with "I was wrong about "5,000 Year Leap"" a re-released book by Skousen, and which Beck has written the forward for (and pushed over the last year).

Where did Beck come from, and how did he land a gig on FOX? Well, he comes from a DJ and radio background. Which seems to be the pool that cable channels are fishing (for MSNBC, both Maddow and Schultz come in from radio). While being born and raised a Catholic, he converted to Mormonism - not surprising given how Skousen (a Mormon) "changed his life." Like another railing provocateur - Limbaugh - Beck has struggled with alcoholism and drug abuse.

As the Media Matters clips clearly show, despite Beck's alleged religiosity, he is not above deceiving to make his play. The current renditions of "conservatism" have clearly demonstrated that "the ends justify the means." This is where I am most dumbfounded by these supposed "religious" leaders of modern day conservatism. There is a seeming total embrace of this anti-Christian belief. Apparently lying, cheating, manipulating, are fine for "the cause" - even if people get killed (as with the Bush deceptions). Creating a propaganda at an event that was manufactured out of thin air and promoted by a media outlet that promotes itself as "news" is small potatoes I guess. One has to wonder though what Beck, and Murdoch, and Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, and Dobbs (to name a handful) see as "The Cause."

We keep hearing that we are recovering, but job losses continue, people losing their homes continues to rise, as does the number of people who are now homeless. So who exactly is recovering? Or what part of the economic sector is recovering? The financial sector (which has been the beneficiary of over $14 trillion between TARP and the Federal Reserve) seems to be doing well.- or at least the top management is. According to Andersen and Pizzigati, ten of the top 20 beneficiaries of the bailout bonanza have reported on bonuses. Adding up the bonuses of the top five managers from each of these firms comes to the tidy sum of $90 million in stock options alone.

Access to healthcare has been in the news a lot lately. Anyone who pays for health insurance is all too well aware premiums continue to rise as do co-pays and deductibles. Most people would acknowledge that we have both an insurance and healthcare access crisis on our hands. So one might think that the industry would be somewhat sensitive to the issue and try to control costs. And they are - by driving them upwards. In 2008, the CEOs of two major insurance corporations (Cigna and UNF) made a combined salary of $20.4 million. Insurance corporations had record profits for 2006, and again for 2007 - and as the economy crashed - remained strong for 2008. In fact, between 2000 and 2007 the top ten insurers saw profits rise by 428%.

Job losses and cutbacks continue to rise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics August 2009 report, the numbers are grim:

Jobs lost in August: 216,000
Total unemployed: 14.9 million
No. working part-time because hours cut: 9.1 million
Marginally attached to labour force: 2.3 million (up 630,000 from August 2008)
Current unemployment rate: 9.7%
Total unemployment and marginal employment rate: 16.8% (Series LNS13327709 seasonally adjusted).

However, given that grim news, productivity is up. In fact, "Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003." Productivity grew at an annual rate of 6.6%. So those who are left in the labor force are not only taking up the slack, but actually producing 6.6% more than when their co-workers were with them. Why would any employer want to hire people back when they can get this kind of fear driven productivity out of their remaining employees?

Of course, productivity may be somewhat skewed because workers are getting screwed. A new study was released this week - "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities". The study looked at labor law violations in three cities (Chicago, LA, and New York), and interviewed 4,387 low wage workers. The commonness of violations was the big surprise of the study. It was common for workers to not get paid, not get paid over time, and be dissuaded from filing for worker's compensation. In fact, only 8% of workers eligible to file for worker's compensation did so. In a summation of the study written up in The Nation , there was this startling information (emphases mine):

... we and our colleagues found severe and widespread violations of employment and labor laws. One in four workers were paid below the minimum wage in a given work week. Fully 76 percent of those who worked overtime were not paid the required time and a half. More than two-thirds did not get the meal breaks they were entitled to. And of those who came in early or stayed late, 70 percent did not get any pay at all for the work they performed outside their regular shift.

As a result, the average worker in our survey lost $51 per week, or more than $2,600 per year for a full-time worker. We estimate that 1.1 million workers across the three cities are robbed of $56.4 million every week because of employment and labour law violations.

$56.4 million a week for workers in three cities! What might the total be across the nation? In the trillions a week? What if we expanded this study beyond the low wage workforce? What if we expanded it to include these super-productive workers who set a productivity records with a 16.7% unemployment rate? We know where that money is going. It is on an express packet to the top of the earnings spectrum. It is in the pockets of the financiers, and it is part of the monopoly money that fueled the collapse - and keeps any real recovery from happening. Further, the architects of the collapse are building new empires - at our expense.

However, those at the top want more than our hard work and willingness to be abused and bilked. Apparently, an economic recovery requires lots of individuals to go into debt. Not surprisingly, people have cut back on their spending. Job insecurity (for those with jobs) is high. For those lucky enough to get unemployment, budgets are tight. In a short article by Kathryn Harris discussing the personal debt situation in the UK she notes:"If everyone pays off their debts and cuts back on spending at the same time it could lead the UK economy into an even darker downturn than the one we are currently in." In other words, the consumer economy is based on debt, and we have structured (as have the Brits) an economy dependent on consumption.

However, unlike the drop in interest rates in the UK, US credit companies and banks have raised (or are raising) the interest rate on personal credit. I know that it ticks me off when a corporation that has received a ton of TARP funds tells me that "economic conditions require we raise interest rates and fees." I read that as "We got $150 million in TARP and 0% interest from the Federal Reserve, and so we need to raise your rate by 8% and charge you an annual fee of $35 to make an increased profit."

So folks are ticked off. There is public pressure to control these out of control profiteers, and THAT is called "class warfare?" However, the everyday abuse, exploitation, and gouging of the people, is what? Just the way things work? No, I think it is well past time to talk about the real class warfare that is waged by those at the top on the rest of the population.

Resources of Note
9/03/09 Conaway, NPR. New Job-Loss Claims Fall, Rise At Same Time. The Big Number Comes Tomorrow.

The double-edged sword of falling debt. Kathryn Hopkins. Guardian. 9/02/09.

Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003. (Yes, You're Working Harder.). Laura Conaway. NPR. 9/02/09.

There's a Bubble That Still Threatens the Entire American Economy ... and Few Are Talking About It. Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati, AlterNet, 9/02/09.

Is Health Care the Next 'Bonusgate'?. Jennifer Liberto. CNN. 9/02/09.

So You Just Squandered Billions . . . Take Another Whack at It. Steven Pearlstein. Wa. Post. 9/02/09.

Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says. Steve Greenhouse. NY Times. 9/01/09.

Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities. 9/03/2009.

Working Without Laws. Bernhardt & Theodore, Nation, 9/04/2009.

In March of 2009, Obama's head of the EPA Ken Salazar decided to remove the grey wolf from the endangered species list (again). The last time this was done under Bush (April 2008), there was a slaughter of wolves in Yellowstone. A coalition of conservation groups filed an injunction to stop the slaughter.

While the groups fight on, the U.S. District Judge in Idaho did not continue the stay on the hunt. The "season" opened yesterday in Idaho, and will open on September 15th in Montana. Idaho sold 10,000 tags to kill 220 wolves, and Montana will allow 75 kills. In both cases, this is roughly one-fifth of the estimated population.

Why in the world are we hunting predators in the twenty-first century? We already have reduced most predator species (including wolves) to a population level which will likely drive them to extinction. In doing so, we have upset a balance so that other species (from rabbits and mice to elk) have population problems which must be controlled by "man."

The decision to remove the wolves from the endangered species list is wrong - scientifically and morally in my opinion. That the EPA continues to fight this in court is maddening. I am outraged. I am heart sick. It was no big surprise when Bush's EPA decided to remove the wolf. After all, he consistently put people in these positions who hated the agencies they were responsible for. However, I erroneously thought the Obama would take a more reasonable approach to the environment - and to the issues of the wolves in particular. Yet another disappointment.

Please Take Action

Despite the open season, conservation groups continue the fight for the wolves - and other species. The Western Watersheds Project remains one of the best resources on the legal battle being fought. You can support the organization at this link. You can also take action through The Defenders of Wildlife writing, donating, and spreading the word. Their lives are in our hands.

David Swanson (co-founder of After Downing Street, creator of ProsecuteBushCheney, and Washington Director of Democrats.com) is the author of Daybreak. The book is an excellent documentation of the theft of our democracy. Swanson presents a thoroughly documented analysis of the creation of the imperial presidency. This grounding is fundamental for citizens to have the tools to counter the blather that passed as news and neo-con talking points for eight years - and continues now as the talking heads try to block any investigation of those crimes.

David Swanson also provides suggestions and strategies for an activist citizen's movement to (1) address the undermining of the Constitution and balance of powers, and (2) to return citizen voice and power to the ruling of our nation.

One of the issues that people across the political spectrum should agree on, is the long term threat that the powers stolen by the Bush presidency will pass from President to President unless they are challenged. Swanson (and most in the impeachment movement) are aware of this as well. There is a consistent effort to paint those who want thorough investigations - with prosecution where warranted and legislative remedy where needed - as wanting "revenge," or having "political" interests, or just "Bush Bashers." However, we know and Swanson makes clear, the stakes are much higher - the future of any functioning democracy in the United States.

This book is more than a "read it" book. Swanson has created a reference manual for activists. Daybreak is chock full of organizational strategy and mechanisms. It provides a vision of what a citizen involved democracy in the United States could look like - and how to get there.

My recommendation: Get it, read it, share it. Kudos and thanks to David Swanson.

According to a report by Matt Apuzzo with the Associated Press, Wall Street's way out of the economic mess is virtually the same one that got us into the mess.

In recent months, banks have tiptoed toward a possible solution, one in which the really good bonds get bundled with some not-quite-so-good bonds. Banks sweeten the deal for investors and, voila, the newly repackaged bonds receive AAA ratings, a stamp of approval that means they're the safest investment you can buy.

"You've now taken what was an A-rated security and made it eligible for AAA treatment," said Richard Reilly, a partner with White & Case in New York.

As for the bottom-of-the-barrel bonds that are left over, those are getting sold off for pennies on the dollar to investors and hedge funds willing to take big risk for the chance of a big reward.

Do we have the oversight issue fixed? No. Do we have any controls in place? No. Have we "plugged" the leak that allowed the wild escalation in the derivatives market? No.

What we have done is throw trillions to Wall Street and financial institutions (while they throttle credit and raise interest rates) to "restabilize" them.

All that "repackaging." Why? Who benefits?

In "Fun with Derivatives," James Kwak notes:

Which brings me back to something Mike Konczal ... discussed a while back - why do so many "innovative" financial products included embedded options? In Mike's words, "When I was discussing this prepayment penalty theory with a very smart person from a hedge fund, he told me that selling people embedded options is always deviously clever because people don't understand that they are buying them, and often don't understand their value."

Ah ha! Why all of this unbundling and rebundling? To deceive, defraud, and make quick, short term profits.

So given that nothing has substantively changed in the system (while the world has changed for most of us), it is not too surprising that Nouriel Roubani is warning there may be a double-dip recession. Roubini calls the U.S. and European economies "anemic," and likely to remain that way for the next couple of years. Further, policy makers (and national banks) are walking an economic tightrope between inflation and depression. He states:

... the global economy "could not withstand another contractionary shock" .

And there are plenty of possibilities for a "contractionary Shock" from oil prices, to natural disaster, to a real pandemic, to radically increasing food prices due to a variety of causes. Like many of us living on (or over) the unraveling edge, we pray that not one bad thing will happen. Unlike us as individuals, nothing major happening in the WORLD for several years is damned unlikely.

The signs seem to indicate that the current economic downturn will continue, and perhaps even intensify over the next couple of years. Part of this has to do with more real estate issues, part with continued job losses, and part with the global economic scenario. For real people, things do not look all that good.

The real estate debacle is not behind us. The chart below from Credit Suisse shows mortgage reset activity remaining high through 2011. Elizabeth Warren, appearing on the August 12, 2009 MSNBC "Morning Joe," warned that another shoe would be dropping as commercial real estate entered a reset period that runs through 2012.

The chart below is an edited version found in an article by Doug Hornig, which is originally from page 47 of the Credit Suisse 2007 report Mortgage Liquidity du Jour: Underestimated No More

The U.S. (and other nations) continue to experience rising unemployment. The upbeat report by the Obama administration stating that the unemployment rate had dropped while the number of new claims increased was based largely on dropping 637,000 people from the labour count. In other words, a statistical change occurred in the number of people actively looking for work. It does not mean they became employed.

All those job losses translated into a 34 % increase in consumer bankruptcies - in July alone. Unemployment (and under-employment) is also fueling ongoing foreclosures. Foreclosures and tight credit drives down housing (and real estate values) putting more people (and businesses) upside down on their loans.

Not surprisingly, the global nature of the economic collapse is reflected in a major hit on global trade. It is down 36% from its peak in July 2008 or about $1.5 trillion.

And so we cycle around and around, sinking a bit lower on each spin. All of the indicators I see do not signal a recovery. However, there are other indicators which could be interpreted with a new meaning: that "recovery" may not mean the same thing any more. If "recovery" means returning to where we were before the current crisis, then the odds seem slim indeed. If "recovery" means returning to the growth path we were on, then the odds seem long beyond calculation. The reasons for this have to do with the physical constraints of the planet. Simply, there would appear to be a limit on the resources and capacity of the planet for continued development, growth, and exploitation.

Below are a series of graphs. The first one is a sample of an exponential growth curve. These curves are characterised by their "J" type formation. The sharpness of the "J" depends upon the rate of growth that the curve is measuring.

Sample of an Exponential Growth Curve

(From: Regents Prep Algebra Lesson

Here is the fossil fuels curve. This represents the dominant form of energy use around the world (and particularly in "developed" nations) at this point in time. Since it is frequently argued that the other human growth curves (population, development, per capita income, etc) are linked to energy availability, then the energy curve is distinctly important in any recovery.

(From: Geothermal Education Office slide 117)

However, fossil fuels are not the only resources that we use. This graph from The New Scientist is instructive (link gives scalable image of graph below).

Of interest is that if global consumption continues at the current rate, the materials indicated have a life expectancy of 58 years (on average). However, if the global rate increase to half of the U.S. current consumption, the expectancy drops to 20 years. Currently the uranium supply is expected to last another 30-40 years, but every nation that has the capability (including the U.S.) wants to dramatically increase the number of nuclear power plants to make up for the loss of fossil fuels (and decrease CO2 emissions). Such an increase would likely halve that 30-40 year estimate.

Certainly one major consideration is the global growth in population. That alone would naturally increase consumption of resources. However, if you add increasing consumption AND population growth, then the impacts increase significantly.

(From: SUSPS)

And of course we have the issue that consistently gets talked about, but not acted on - global warming. Below is a graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. While CO2 is hardly the only contributor to global warming, it is an indicator we ignore at our own peril.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

(From: Planet for Life)

Back to "J" curves.

I would make the proposition that an exponential growth pattern is not sustainable in a closed environment. When we look at fossil fuels, resources, population, CO2 (among a myriad of things we could measure), all are on an exponential curve. This means that any "recovery" will occur in a physical environment of increased demand and (soon) decreased availability. In other words, we cannot return to the previous path and continue on our merry way.

Some of you may be science fiction fans, and have read (or watched) the stories of people mining the junk yards for resources. We could well find ourselves in that situation. In fact, in poorer areas of the world, they are already "mining" our "junk." For example, in China (and elsewhere) electronics - particularly computers - are smelted down for precious metals or stripped for reusable parts. This may become a global (pre)occupation. Reducing consumption - or radically changing what and how we consume - is central to any recovery. So to is firmly addressing the issue of population. The U.S. consistently withdraws global family planning funds because of "religious" considerations. We have to get past this, and put reproductive control in the hands of women. That birth planning and control needs to be in women's hands. Such power increases the voice and status of half the population. It also reduces the number of unintended (or forced) pregnancies.

We need to look real hard at Reduce - Reuse - Recycle, and follow it. There are huge implications of the "three Rs."

Reduce, means consume less. Not good news in a society where consumption is 70% of the economy. However, reducing consumption would be aided by improving the quality and longevity of what is produced (get rid of planned obsolescence). On the other hand, there are those things which really do have a short use expectancy - packaging for example. These things should have an accelerated degradation so they do not persist in the environment, or can be remanufactured to other purposes.

Reduce also has possibilities for the energy scenario. It is estimated that we could globally reduce energy use by 60% by increasing energy efficiency across the board (transportation, electronics, buildings). Such efficiencies can lengthen the time frame to depletion, though not eliminate it.

Reuse means the repurposing of things. The simplest example is using plastic food containers for other storage purposes. However, it would be helpful if they could be used for the same food storage. In other words, instead of everything coming neatly packaged, people could refill their containers from bulk sources. Some stores already have this option for some consumables. Reuse may also be taking items and passing them on, or recycling them for a different purpose (clothing fabric into rugs for example).

Recycling presupposes a use for the recycled material. Right now, there is some recycling that occurs (unevenly across the country and across the world). However, the uses of recycled materials is not what it could be. Right now, the primary use for recycled plastic is outdoor furniture. We only need so many picnic tables in the world. Right now there is a global argument on the use of plastic bags. However, plastic bags are not the only plastic issue. Plastic seems to be the packaging of choice - even for food. It shouldn't be, and it doesn't need to be. It is something that the world can no longer afford to use the way that it does.

We need to look at the future (and the present) very differently. In that examination, we need to reframe the "economy." This may be the hardest for the U.S. to do. We have structured an economic system (and to some extent enforced it globally) where money stands between the individual and virtually everything needed to live (housing, food, power, education, water, medical care ...). This means that folks must get money legally, illegally, or through inheritance, to survive. When that legal path is based on high consumption, then we are chasing our tails through a tunnel of mirages. Profit means getting excess value - from the planet, from the workers, and from consumers. We are at the end of excess, therefore we need to reimagine a different way of living.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with needing to either change our path - or be forced to change our path. The planet provides certain baseline realities that add dimension to the current economic crisis - and strategies to "get out of it." Simply regaining the status quo is not a solution (or at least not one that will last long). In fact, a return to our previous path will only accelerate the next collapse - for which we will have even less capacity to respond. It is critical that we not be lulled to sleep by soothing rhetoric, and demand real answers - and real leadership - from decision makers.

Now the citizens showing up screaming at "tea bag" parties, and town halls are clearly angry and afraid. The Republican politicians do little but fuel their concerns that Obama (Democrats) and "government," are taking on outrageous powers, and ruining the Constitution and the country.

I just have one question.

Where were these people and their concerns when George W. Bush and Company were forging the Unitary Executive?

I can tell you where they were. They were cheering BushCo. on. They were shouting "America, love it or leave it." They were calling those that were concerned about the shift of power to the Executive branch, and the deliberate refusal to any oversight of their actions, "terrorists" and "communists" and "conspiracy nuts." Some even loudly proclaimed that all us "kooks" should be locked up in Gitmo or killed.

These were the folks, who despite evidence of being lied into a war, and lied to about covert surveillance of Americans and a policy of torture, said "My country. Right or wrong, my country." Or even argued forcefully for the rightness of the authority Bush was taking, and for the tearing up of Constitutional protections to make us safe.

What has changed from their purported perspective? We are still at war. We are still under threat of terrorism at home and abroad. Al Qaeda is still operating, and new foes have arisen. Iran and North Korea are still defined as active nuclear threats. If these threats were what legitimated the embrace of power by the Bush administration, those conditions still exist.

If there was any consistency to the ideology of the right wing screamers, then they would not be screaming. Or if they are screaming now, they should have been screaming then.

If there was any consistency to the REPUBLICAN party line, then they should have been in outright revolt under George W. Bush. Not only was there not revolt, they were in lock-step supporting every abuse of power and shredding of the Constitution.

To say the least, all of this is disingenuous, but it is more than that. It is posing, fomenting, and manipulation of folks who are willing to be manipulated.

I am sick of the duplicity. I am sick of the lying. I am sick to death of the hatefulness of the fueling of people's fears to make them shock troops for corporate and party interests.

I'm just sick of the whole thing.

I have no idea how one addresses this insanity - for that is what it is. There are those who are the manipulators - the creators of lies and rhetoric - and they are serving their own ends. They know clearly what they are doing and are quite comfortable doing it. If they change, it will be for personal events that touch their lives. Then you have the people who are swayed and fueled by them. They have belief systems that frame their world providing a lens that consistently focuses one way. They will believe the manipulators, but there is no way through evidence or information to get them to reflect on that ideology. Evidence and information which conflicts with the ideology are just lies.

The manipulators have been pumping the rhetoric bellows overtime to fuel some people's fear and anger. They run the risk of pushing more people over the line into physical violence. I seriously doubt they are concerned about this. Why? Because the people's lives do not matter to them. At best, we are abstractions and certainly expendable. So a few folks get maimed or killed, and those actors also end up jailed or dead. All those lives are acceptable losses in the big struggle for power. There are many side benefits to the hate and the chaos. It raises questions among the non-extreme, and it intimidates many into silence. It hamstrings actual discussion and debate thereby strengthening the power of the rhetoric.

The only course of action is to be as honest as possible and to try to offer fact and information. For those who try to be informed, this will work. For those who avoid being informed, whatever they hear the most is what they are likely to believe. Therefore, doing the best we can to keep the mainstream media semi-accurate is perhaps the best we can do.

Perhaps the primary thing it is important to keep in mind is that people are people. Most of those who think that Obama and the Democrats are somehow stealing the country and bent on removing their "choices" are just folks. The manipulators are a different issue all together. However, the manipulators are not the ones protesting - those they see as expendable shock troops are.

Recommended:
No Cure For Stupid Liars. Natasha Cart. OpenLeft. 8/10/09.

Please Cut the Crap - site by Milt Shook.

As some of you know, I underwent radiation surgery for a tumor in my brain this June. (For those who have been concerned and sent good wishes and prayers, I am slowly recovering, but the trend is generally positive). My HMO split the procedure with another provider who had the equipment to perform the procedure. Let me share the procedure and then the big shocker.

Prior to the procedure it was required that I have an MRI and a CT scan. The CT scan had to be performed with the head harness installed on my skull. All of these procedures occurred at my HMO's facilities. My family then needed to load me in the car - head frame attached - to drive me to the partner facility where they did the procedure and then removed to head frame. I thn got to go home. This was an outpatient, day long, surgery.

Today I received the statement from the partnering facility for the surgery - just the surgery. That bill dropped my jaw. The radiation surgery cost ... $35,501. I have received other bills for the personnel involved and various office visits in preparation for and followup from the surgery. They have totaled in the vicinity of $2500.

My HMO has not informed me of the costs of the MRI and the CT scan. However, I would estimate that the MRI cost about $3000 and the CT scan about $800. I have no idea what the day surgery and head frame installation cost, but let's say a modest $1500.

That brings us to an estimated cost of $43,301.00. $43,301.00 for a DAY surgery. (And I will need to have another MRI this winter as a followup.)

If I had to pay this full bill, I would be filing bankruptcy. If I did not have insurance, I would not have had the tumor addressed. If I had not had insurance, I likely would not have had the tumor diagnosed because I could not have fronted the money for the first diagnostic MRI that was done.

Believe me, I feel incredibly lucky to have decent insurance with my employer. I know that my health would be far different if I did not have it. I feel for the 50 million people in our nation who do not have insurance, and for double that number whose insurance is poor (or craps out on them when they need it most). That should not happen.

We have treated healthcare in this country as a commodity. Something to be bought and sold and whatever cost the market will bear. Those without funds can't get it, those with modest funds can get a varying range of access, and those who are wealthy can get anything they want. Those who qualify may get access through state systems or medicaid. Those funds (and services) are limited.

Many people in the U.S. feel that the commodity approach to healthcare has failed. The pressure is that the people of the U.S. join the ranks of many other nations where healthcare is a right. We are willing to contribute to that effort. Many are willing to kick the private insurance companies out of their current role as middleman and gatekeeper - charging ever-increasing tolls to access a necessary service.

I had a totally unexpected condition that required treatment. This (or something like it) could happen to anyone. Should people's "choice" be to let the tumor in their brains grow because they can't afford either insurance or healthcare? Should people die because they can't afford healthcare? They do - every day - about 18,000 people a year. All so private insurance companies can see record profits year after year - as they did in both 2007 and 2008.

It is way past time that healthcare was a basic right within this country. The big money interests have had their run and sucked all the blood they are going to get. We need access, and we need to control costs. Healthcare reform should have two goals: 1) everyone gets access to quality care; 2) healthcare is not for profit any longer.

It seems that the mainstream media can only focus on one thing at a time, and then are easily distracted from what they are focusing on. Right now, they are focusing on healthcare reform. This is truly an important issue, but all the reporting takes us little closer to understanding the issue. However, it conveniently forced a number of other issues out of the circle - the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the global economic crisis, and global warming (to name a few). I am starting with global warming because the news has been dire and under-reported.

Things are changing with global warming - and changing rapidly. How fast warming is happening has been revised once again. It is 2009 and we are told "World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns." The culprits pointed to in the article are increasing solar activity and intensifying El Niño. So it is bad news that warming will speed up again, but solar radiation (or how it impacts the earth) and El Niño themselves are impacted by other sources. A case in point is cloud cover and ozone reduction.

In a classic example one technological advance causing more problems we have dealing with the hole in the ozone. As you may recall, this is a battle that we are supposedly winning. The ozone layer is a primary protector of the planet from solar radiation. The widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) - chlorine based materials that were used in refrigeration of all kinds, and as propellants in spray bottles. After finally accepting the link between CFCs and destruction of the ozone layer, there was a major switch to replace CFCs with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). This happened in the 1990s and has been successful in allowing the ozone layer to start rebuilding itself. Yay, technology caused a problem and then solved it - or did it?

Now we find that those ozone-saving HFCs are actually increasing the global warming problem. According to research reported in the Washington Post (7/20/09):

But researchers say what's good for ozone is bad for climate change. In the atmosphere, these replacement chemicals act like "super" greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.

While HFCs are still a small part of the global warming gas emissions, they are a growing one. If we do not stop this source soon, then the HFCs may undermine any gains from reducing CO2 emissions.

Given the severity of the consequences of global warming, and the fact that it is accelerating, what massive effort is being made to address the issue?

Well, "ExxonMobil (is) continuing to fund climate sceptic groups." ExxonMobil has continued to fund global warming denier think tanks and lobbying efforts despite publicly claiming that they have stopped such funding.

The G8 met in early July to hammer out a global warming strategy. The compromises to addressing the issue are not moving far enough fast enough, and certainly fall well short of the ever increasing pace of global warming. In fact, the baseline of emissions actually moved 15 years - from 1990 levels to 2005 levels. The also agreed to a 2C cap on global warming. This is one of the stupidest agreements that one could make. We clearly have no handle on even slowing down the rate of either emissions - nor controlling the positive feedback loops that are accelerating warming. What are we going to do when we hit that 2C increase? Shrug? Further, the goal for reducing emissions has been moved from 2020 to 2050. Believe me, this is a problem that we cannot "kick down the road."

Obama certainly takes global warming much more seriously that Bush did; however, is he taking it seriously enough? New evidence is now surfacing on the advance of global warming that was hidden by the Bush administration. That information has been released by Obama. Further while the Bush administration budgeted $1 for global warming for ever $88 budgeted for defense, Obama has narrowed that gap. His budget ratio is 1:9 (excluding additional funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). However, much of that is within the one time economic recovery appropriation. Beyond the recovery money, the Obama budget for global warming is $10.6 billion. (Lobe, IPS, 7/28/09).

Global warming poses a threat that may decimate human population and life on the planet. In fact, if the oceans die (and there is a growing possibility of this), then global warming may be an extinction level event. Global warming is referred to as a "threat multiplier" in security-speak - meaning that it will dramatically aggravate other security issues. Yet, the United States, and virtually every other nation, continue to drag their feet on addressing the issue.

I know we have critical issues we face as a nation and a world, but this one will not wait for us to "get around to it."

Among the luminaries arrested are:

A New Jersey assemblyman and the mayors of Hoboken and Secaucus were among public officials arrested this morning by FBI agents in an international money laundering and corruption probe that includes rabbis in the Syrian Jewish communities of Deal and Brooklyn.

Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt (R-Ocean), Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell and Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega are among those already brought to the FBI building in Newark. Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini has also been arrested.

The NJ.com article has several video clips for those who are interested.

According to the article at Forbes, the roundup included five rabbis from NJ and NY and the FBI raided a synagogue in Deal, NJ:

In rounding up the defendants, FBI and IRS agents raided a synagogue Thursday morning in Deal, a wealthy oceanfront city of Mediterranean-style mansions, with a large population of Syrian Jews.

Those arrested include Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn, who was charged with conspiring to arrange the sale of an Israeli citizen's kidney for $160,000 for a transplant for the informant's fictitious uncle. Rosenbaum was quoted as saying he had been arranging the sale of kidneys for 10 years.

The politicians arrested were not accused of any involvement in the money laundering or the trafficking in human organs and counterfeit handbags.

Also rounded up were a number of government employees (inspectors and others) who participated in the corruption, but were not part of the money laundering activities.

The money laundering ring stretched from the U.S. to Switzerland and Israel, with charities and non-profits being used.

From the Wall Street Journal:

In 2007, for example, Eliahu Ben Haim, the principal rabbi of Congregation Ohel Yaacob, a synagogue in the shore community of Deal, accepted a $50,000 check from the cooperating witness, which was drawn from an account held by a fictitious company set up by the FBI "for the purpose of enabling [the cooperating witness] to launder money represented to be the proceeds of illegal activities," according to one criminal complaint. Mr. Ben Haim was named as a co-conspirator in court documents. The check was made payable to one of Mr. Ben Haim's charitable organisations "with the expectation that the proceeds would be returned to the [cooperating witness] at a later date, minus a ten percent fee to be retained by Co-conspirator Ben Haim."

Besides Mr. Ben Haim, the charged rabbis include Edmond Nahum, the principal rabbi of Deal Synagogue; Saul Kassin, a rabbi at Shaare Zion Congregation in the New York borough of Brooklyn; Mordchai Fish, a rabbi at a Brooklyn synagogue, Congregation Sheves Achim; and his brother, Lavel Schwartz, also a rabbi.

So we have a sordid tale of politicians, commissioners, government employees, and rabbis variously engaged in money laundering, selling counterfeit pursues, and trafficking in human organs. What is not clear at all is where that money was going and for what purpose.

Here is the link to the criminal complaint filed against current Mayor Cammarano and Utilities Commissioner Peter Schaffer

Let me say that the basic philosophy of the discussions is rooted in the fact that we are generally not talking about healthcare, but INSURANCE.

The "government option" has been morphing in front of our eyes. It has moved from being a mechanism for reintroducing competition in the insurance pricing market, to being a program to cover the currently (probably 50 million people) uninsured, while forcing those with existing healthcare insurance through private or government employment to stay with their existing plans. As framed in a Kaiser Health News article:

Jonathan Oberlander, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, "The rhetoric is that Americans will gain new alternatives, but the reality is that they are putting up firewalls that are going to restrict the access of people with employer-sponsored insurance to the exchange."

Indeed, the "alternative" being offered is primarily for those already uninsured to get insurance. It is not an alternative for the majority of the insured to change to the government plan. Therefore, it poses little "competitive" challenge to private health insurance.

Senator Ron Wyden (OR) has been pushing his plan which while essentially taxing insurance benefits, is aimed at providing health insurance to everyone in the country. In other words, an "option" which people currently insured could select, and which would challenge the stranglehold of private insurance corporations. However, Obama considers the plan "too radical". In Obama's opinion, it is too radical in terms of changes to the existing system, and too radical in term of providing universal coverage. That opinion speaks volumes about where President Obama plans for healthcare are likely to go - virtually nowhere.

Discussion of the "serious" plans bring up issues such as:

- focused on covering only a portion of the currently uninsured;
- requiring business coverage of employees in PRIVATE plans;
- not allowing people with employer or government-based plans to change to the government plan;
- taxation to pay for the government plan;
- requiring people to have insurance.

The hand of corporate insurance is clearly being shown in the plans. What will likely benefit them the most is an isolated government plan that covers part of those without access while requiring that everyone be insured (enacting penalties on individuals who do not purchase insurance). The first poses little price competition to private insurance, and the second guarantees a forced market for PRIVATE health insurance companies.

MCJoan has a nice article about the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPA) which has stayed firm on requirements for a "robust" public option which they summarised in a letter from the CPA to Senator Nancy Pelosi. In summary form, their requirements include a plan not conditioned on private industry, that is available to all and preserves choice of provider. Further, it needs to be affordable, and include access to populations often left without adequate coverage, and should maintain transparency and bargaining power. there should be one government plan that covers all, not a number of different plans that cover only targeted groups. They summarise their requirements as:

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

MCJoan also provides a list of members of Congress who will not vote for a plan that does not meet the "robustness" criteria, and those who are leaning that way. It would be a good idea to encourage your representatives to support the CPA plan.

I am sure that most of you are on the mailing lists of many groups encouraging you to contact your legislators. We all know that the pressure is on and the timeline is short. Certainly the industry wants this to go through quickly and with as little review as possible. However, healthcare is a huge issue and it is critical that the "first swing" at this be fundamentally strong. If not, it will erode support for necessary change. Our elected representatives need to know that we are watching and that we WILL hold them accountable for their votes.

Here is the link to the House Bill currently under discussion in the House of Representatives.

Here is a clip of a portion of that interview (and here is the link at MSNBC to the full interview):

Partial transcription (emphases mine):

Frank: Look, we have banking regulators and their primary job is to protect the banking institutions - I understand that. We have historically given them the right to protect consumers, but that's not their primary role.

The Federal Reserve, control of the currency, the FDIC, they just have a primary focus on protecting the banks and the bank system. We think the time has come to have a separate institution that protects the individual customer - on credit cards, on bank overdrafts, on truth in lending, on all of those things. And the administration proposed it. It had been originally proposed by Professor Elizabeth Warner at Harvard Law School. We are going to put that into place so that individuals dealing with financial institutions, it will cover pay day loans. It will cover a lot of things where we have seen consumer abuse, and have an institution whose focus will be on the consumer protection rather than doing consumer protection as kind of an after thought to more important (as they see it) jobs.

Mitchell: Now speaking of Elizabeth Warren and the Harvard law professor who's also leading the Congressional oversight panel, that panel issued a report today. Saying that the Treasury is selling its stakes in banks for one-third less than they're worth. We're talking about billions of dollars here. Does that raise concerns for you?

Frank: It does. I would have to look at them. There is this point that we do want to have the banks to have some funding to be able to do their job. But I have to tell you that the banks have disappointed me some. There was a recent very good study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston about national issues which said that the banks are not really doing what they should be in helping us avoid foreclosure in rewriting mortgages, and again we're expecting the banks that got money from the federal government under the TARP program (as we call it) to do that. So yeah I will be looking at that because the federal government was there when the banks needed it very badly, and I haven't seen the report. I've been in that hearing all day that you mentioned until literally five minutes ago, but I will be looking at that report.

Frank tells us that the purpose of these various federal institutions and agencies is to protect the "banks." Protect them from what and for what? When did the financial institution's health get redefined as disconnected from the needs of the nation and the needs of the people? Clearly, what has been interpreted as "good" for them has been (and continues to be) disastrous for "the people." Now Frank recommends setting up an agency to protect the "customer." What kind of leverage is it going to have against the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, SEC, etc.? Likely not much. At best, people's needs might be weighed and balanced against financial/corporate needs. Why is "what's good for monied interests" even in the equation?

We have bailed (and continue to bail) out the financial industry. Virtually no money is going to people. Instead, the foreclosure crisis continues, and the banks are not doing ... anything. So Frank is SOMEWHAT disappointed! I am totally outraged. Across the country people are losing their homes - including apartments and rentals. The banks are foreclosing like crazy. In losing those homes what little wealth the majority of people have is being stolen from them. Their life savings and dreams and stability are being stolen from them. This "crisis" and the response to it, is a massive transfer of wealth from the people to big investors.

Let's take one example. The situation in Detroit, Michigan was captured in this article - The city of $10,000 homes: Outside buyers drawn to Detroit's foreclosures:

Welcome to Landlord Nation, where foreclosure notices are plentiful and for-sale signs offer at least 1,800 homes for under $10,000 that once were worth at least 10 times more.

In extreme cases, homes are on sale for $1 or less, which has enticed investors to Detroit from as far away as the United Kingdom and Australia.

"In the past few months, I've picked up 10 new clients from out of state that are buying in bulk," said Mike Shannon, a suburban Detroit real-estate agent. His office specializes in foreclosures in a city that's among the national leaders.

"They're coming to us saying, 'Look, I want to buy 50, 100, 1,000.' They want to own every decent and cheap house they can find."

Despite a stagnant retail housing market, real-estate sales of foreclosed homes are booming.

This same phenomenon is happening across the country. Here we have homes worth over $100,000 that have been taken away from those who owned them (foreclosed), and are now being sold for ten cents on the dollar (or less) to groups doing a land grab. Now if the banks and mortgage companies are going to sell these homes at a 90% loss, wouldn't it have been a better idea to work with those people in their homes? Wouldn't it have been more "profitable" to renegotiate loans and terms - even if it meant a 50-80% decrease in the principal? Logic would say "yes," but finance would say "no."

How can this be? Well, if you change the mark-to-market rules (which was done) it allows the banks to value the homes at whatever they want (incentive is to value high). So if you take a $100,000 home that will only sell on the open market for $70,000, you give it full value on your books because that makes your assets and loan ratios look good. On the other hand, you can foreclose that property and sell it for a $90,000 loss and this is made up by the federal government because clearly this is a "toxic asset". So you can lower your tax burden and continue to qualify for federal bailout. However, making deals with home owners really gets you nothing on either side of the books. So what has been incentivized (and facilitated) by TARP and the Federal Reserve is a land grab and a massive transfer of wealth.

Those "investors" are buying up huge numbers of homes (1,000 at a time) in ONE city. Meanwhile, 1,000 families have lost everything.

I had a mortgage with Washington Mutual. Chase was bankrolled (by us) to buy WAMU. The mortgages went to Chase for pennies on the dollar. No one asked me (nor any other WAMU mortgagee) if we wanted to buy our own loans at this fire sale rate. But Chase got something for nothing. Likewise, those folks around the country who are losing their homes are not being offered "deals" that would make sense. They are being offered 40 and 50 year loans. The banks won't negotiate the principal, but by god they will take everything and sell it for pennies on the dollar to big monied firms.

Barney Frank is disappointed, but the system is doing just what Frank (and virtually everyone else in Washington and on Wall Street) wanted - increase their coffers and increase their death grip on valuable assets and the money supply.

This is not disappointing. IT IS DEVASTATING!

How long has it been since you have heard a discussion of peace? It has become a rare commodity over the last decade - perhaps decades. The only political discussion of peace was during the last campaign was Dennis Kucinich being laughed out of candidacy with his "Department of Peace." It has been so long since any serious discussion of "peace on Earth" that I would guess that for many peace isn't even a thought. In the U.S. - and perhaps the rest of the world - we have become so inured to war that we seem to think it is an inevitable and natural state.

I am not going to make an argument that the world does not have a history of warfare. However, I do not believe that a history of warfare proves the argument of the natural inevitability of war. War is a choice. As a choice, it means that humans could make different choices.

There is a good reason why even thoughts of peace seem to have fled the public dialog. Namely, that there is big money in weapons and war. I highly recommend Mother Jones's special report "Shock and Audit" which is an analysis of the Defense Budget and where it is going. The short story is that more and more dollars are going to "defense" spending. A significant portion of this financing growth is the continued expansion of U.S. global military presence (see MoJo's interactive map Mission Creep: US Military Presence Worldwide).

So the path we are on does not seem to be focusing on peace, but focusing on endless, global, military conflict. Still, there seems to be (at best) muted complaints about framing our present and future within the context of endless war. The horror of that does not seem to sink in. I believe this is due to the spinning of war technology. U.S. war technology development seems to be headed towards involving fewer soldiers and more "remote" technologies. While this may reduce the number of U.S. troops lost and permanently injured, it definitely does not lessen the footprint of those wars where it tromps.

The remote technologies range from robotic weapons platforms patrolling streets, to weaponized drones flying overhead, to space-based laser (and energy) weapons platforms which can strike anywhere on the planet. Since the video game-esque presentation of the first Iraq War (Desert Storm), the U.S. public has been sold a bill of goods about "smart" weapons and "precision" weaponry. What is kept as distant as possible is that these weapons are neither "smart" or "precise," and that civilians are constantly on the receiving end of them. Obama has apparently embraced the defense establishment hype and has expanded the "drone" attacks across Afghanistan and Pakistan - and also expanded the non-combatant toll of those weapons.

The other major area of development is the creation of the super soldier (or as the DoD prefers to call them - "future war fighters"). This line of pursuit engages in various degrees and types of technologies that either meld "war fighter" and machine externally (through robotics) or internally (through nanotechnology and the implantation of weapons and systems control devices in the "war fighter"). Another line of development is to improve the war fighter through biotech and genetic options which would allow things from rapid muscle repair/recovery to being able to digest cellulose (from boxes to grasses) so that time in the field without resupply can be extended.

Instead of discussing where we are going, our leaders continue to create more incentives to grow the military investment. The "military-industrial complex" is increasingly diverse and more an more private contractors take over former military tasks - from food services, to strategic monitoring, to mercenary forces. We are rapidly becoming (if we are not already) an economy with the war complex at its hub.

In his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower' spoke of the dangers of the war machine that had been created (See end of article for quote and video). He stated that we must guard against this powerful military industry dominating our society. We have failed to heed that warning. Instead, through careful manipulation and strategic rhetoric we have not only come to embrace the war machine, but to accept the "need" for it, and the naturalness of war.

Perpetual war has become completely merged with a fatal belief in "capitalism." We have been sold an ideology that idolizes the "benefits" of capitalism - particularly its "efficiencies" driven by "free market competition." Meanwhile, government is presented as "bloated," "wasteful," and "corrupt." We are led to believe in the inherent "badness" of government combined with the assumption that "business" is self-regulating. While the debacle of the current global economic meltdown should have debunked the myth of "efficiency" and market "self-regulation," it apparently has not. There is little broad public discussion of the fact that the economic meltdown is the result of monopoly capitalism seeking the most "profit" imaginable while "free market" governmental believers turned a blind eye to regulating or controlling the "excesses" of capitalism.

Perhaps because this lesson is being missed, or perhaps because the connection is not made, we are incentivizing permanent war. More and more privatization of the military leads to more incentives (profits) from never ending war. Just as privatizing jails and prisons creates an environment to "grow the market" (increase the number of prisoners and the length of detentions), so privatizing the military creates an environment for more war.

Government is not a business. The activities it engages in (in part) are to address social needs that are not necessarily profitable. Increasingly, it needs to engage in meeting social needs that are dangerous when placed in the private market sphere. We are seeing this with the argument about health care, and we should be discussing it in relationship to defense (and other charges of government). Instead, where the concerns about capitalism occur, it is to pose government as a necessary competitor to the private sphere. This is an underlying argument of the "public option" in health care reform. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the U.S. government has been argued to be a necessary competitor to bring U.S. industry back to competitive capitalism. In part, it shows how weak the monopoly barriers have become that the only agency big enough to offer corporate competition is the government of the United States.

The expansion of militarism and imperialism (soft or blatant) is following the same course with looming disastrous consequences. We need to seriously discuss the reality of perpetual war and the profit driven industry that is being created. We need to challenge the rhetoric of never ending conflict and that we can engage in "neat" wars. They are not, and never will be "neat." They will always bear the costs of blood and life, deadly environments, and decimation of human connection and community.

A peace movement arose under the whip of the "war on terrorism." It seems to have gone back to sleep with the election of Barack Obama. While there are numerous fronts on which people are struggling right now, it is critical that the peace movement be highly visible and loud. Obama and Congress are expanding the financing of the defense industry. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still being supplemented by "emergency" funding despite promises they would be transparently included in the federal budget.

We have a world at stake with the crises of energy, environmental destruction, and climate chaos. We need each other to meet these challenges if we are going to survive. We have the best bases in the world to come together peacefully than at any time in human history - our very survival. I firmly believe that our ability to successfully meet these challenges rests in peace - not war. We have a choice to make - peace or assured destruction (which will be profitable for a few).

Related Articles
DARPA 2010 Budget Estimates 471 pages pdf.

Injectable bio-chips ... hmm. Wolf, Uncommon Thought Journal. 12/30/2003.

War Without End & Now ... the Permanent Soldier. Wolf, Uncommon Thought Journal. 5/18/2009.

A Visit to DARPA-land. Wolf. Uncommon Thought Journal. 5/15/2009.

Quote from Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organisation today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognise the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Among the various headlines, the one from the BBC reads "Afghan guards held after shootout." It is a headline one could just breeze right by unless one reads a bit further:

Forty-one US-trained Afghan guards have been arrested after a shootout in which Kandahar's provincial police chief was killed, the regional governor says.

One could still assume that among the thousands of local forces being trained by the U.S. military that these are a "rogue element." However, the BBC article offers some tantalizing clues (and little information).

Up to eight other policemen were killed after the guards, who are employed by US security forces, entered the prosecutor's office in Kandahar city.

They were trying to free colleagues held in the building, the BBC was told.

Say what? Here we have a fairly large force of U.S. trained Afghans who are employed by the U.S., who are trying to break someone out of jail.

There is remarkably little information, and most of it is repetitious. However, an article by the AP published in The Guardian gives us a bit more insight.

The US military said it was not involved in shooting, calling it an "Afghan-on-Afghan incident". However, Karzai's statement suggested that the guards sought refuge in a US coalition base after the killings, and he "demanded that coalition forces prevent such incidents, which weaken the government".

According to the article, the man these contractors / employees (?) were trying to break out of the jail at gun point had been arrested for "forging documents." What documents for what purpose? I have no idea at this point.

Among the officials killed were the provincial police chief, Matiullah Qati, and the province's criminal investigations director. Hours later, Karzai released a statement.

"President Hamid Karzai demanded that coalition forces hand over the private security individuals belonging to coalition forces responsible for the killing of Kandahar provincial security officials to the relevant security authorities of the Afghan government," the statement from the president's office said.

Here we have a situation where a man accused of forgery (and presumably also in the employ of the United States), is the center of a shootout by Afghans trained and employed by U.S. forces, who then run back to a U.S. installation for protection from Afghan authorities. Among those killed in this raid are the Police Chief of Kandahar and the head of criminal investigations (coincidence?).

We might write this off as some bizarre incident except that the United States is ratcheting up its use of "contractors" in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to an investigative report by Jeremy Scahill, there are currently almost 250,000 contractors employed by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, and

there has been a 23% increase in the number of "Private Security Contractors" working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan

Does this number even include those domestic forces that have been trained and are now employed by the United States? I think that it probably does not.

All this raises questions that need to be answered. Obama is continuing a policy of replacing U.S. military forces with "contractors" - in other words privatizing war. We know from numerous reports on contractors in Iraq that this creates 'gray" areas of mission, accountability, and even national security. It also presents the mirage that the United States is withdrawing forces (and influence) while exactly the opposite is happening - and happening at great expense monetarily and in terms of human life.

It also creates a "gray" area in terms of merging military, counter-terrorism, and covert operations. It all becomes one big tangled mass, and any attempts at oversight or transparency go out the window.

What is being created is a shadow complex of mixed mercenaries intersecting at various levels with U.S. military missions and political activities. Meanwhile they are also intersecting with the interests of whomever else these "forces" may be working for. The potential for "blowback" (bad boomerang consequences from previous actions) grows geometrically. During the Cold War and the proxy conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, we had the CIA create, train, and fund what was to become al Qaeda, followed by the rise of the Taliban to formal power in Afghanistan. What we are doing now is magnitudes of scale larger than that little "operation."

This "incident" needs to be fully, and publicly, investigated. I suspect that it is a case study in how U.S. military policy and intervention are currently being structured - and funded.

The following video was taken from a presentation by Stuart Brown who founded the National Institute for Play. The pictures are from reknowned nature photographer Norbert Rosing taken on an expedition to Canada's Hudson Bay in 2006.

It is interesting to run into the National Institute for Play, as one of my all time favorite books is Playing by Heart by O. Fred Donaldson. The video from Rosing's pictures epitomizes play in its most natural state.

Thanks to Bill for sharing this with me.

We have gone from a discussion of UNIVERSAL healthcare, to single-payer health care, to no "public option." This shift is not just ominous - it is wrong. Further, the discussion of the "costs" of providing public healthcare has become a major debating point. It is a point I do not understand.

Theoretically, a universal, single payer system should be considerably LESS expensive - even if nothing else changed. Why? Because in insurance terms, the larger the "pool," the less the "risk" and therefore the less the "cost." This makes certain "conservative" plans non-starters for dealing with the issues with our healthcare system. Why? because they shrink or constrain the "pool."

An apparent compromise position is to establish health insurance "cooperatives." This, at best, would create multiple pools with fewer insured and therefore have limited effect at decreasing costs.

Another compromise is to do a "public option" that extends Medicare/Medicaid to part of the uninsured population - the SCHIP program for children (for example).

If one creates a plan where a significant portion of the population can totally opt-out of, then you undermine pool, increase cost, and decrease income.

There is no good compromise position that I can see if we are going to address both access and cost issues. We either have a universal system that everyone pays into (including employers), or we fill the pockets of private insurers while increasing the public costs of healthcare.

The second part of the problem is that healthcare provision is private. We have virtually no public healthcare system. Therefore, if we do not start the creation of a public healthcare system, and place controls on private healthcare (and pharmaceuticals), then even if we have a public insurance system, it will potentially bankrupt us on the provision end. This was the problem with the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan which barred any efforts to negotiate drug costs.

If we need public insurance to create price competition with private insurance, then we also need public healthcare to compete with private healthcare. This is not to mention that the efforts of private medicine are already heavily subsidised by public dollars (drug, therapy, and treatment research) which is turned over gratis to the for-profit sector.

One bogus argument on the provision side is that medical malpractice suits drive the cost of healthcare provision. This is patently not true. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no positive impact on costs of either insurance or care provision in those states that have enacted malpractice limits. Further, this is a public check on healthcare facilities and providers. Does this mean that there are not bogus or misdirected suits? No, it does not. However, it provides accountability in an arena where the individual is the underdog - not the providers or insurers.

What has successfully been allowed to happen in the United States is to make healthcare a commodity which is kept artificially short. This combination grows higher and higher costs. To fix the problem, we must make healthcare a right - not a commodity - and decrease the scarcity.

One place to start the prototypes of public healthcare provision would be in rural America. For all the access problems in urban areas, rural areas have a growing crisis. Public facilities with publicly paid practitioners could be easily instituted in rural areas. If the model works there, it can (and should) be expanded to urban areas.

The short version of all of this is that healthcare reform should dramatically reduce healthcare costs and SAVE us money - not cost us more. If the projection is that a plan will cost us more money, then we can rest assured that private industry is getting its pockets lined at public expense, and that the system created is not truly serving the needs of the people.

Below are two reports, one from ABC in 2007 and one from CNN on 2008 discussing U.S. covert operations inside Iran.

This first video is an investigative report by Brian Ross on ABC Now aired on 2/24/07. It discusses the Bush administration approval of $400 million for CIA operations with the intent of destabilizing the government of Iran. (5:34)

The second video is a CNN "Late Edition" interview with Seymour Hersh on U.S. intervention in Iran. It was aired on 6/29/2008. (5:01)

While recent news reports "tsk-tsk" over claims of U.S. intervention, it is only fair to note that the U.S. has intervened. We just do not know in what ways. And while we hear feigned outrage that Iran is monitoring all cell phone and electronic communication in Iran thanks to Nokia Siemens Networks sale of network monitoring systems to Iran, and how invasive and silencing such activities are, we hear virtually nothing about the U.S. doing the same thing (Feingold Expresses "Concern" that Obama May Now Endorse Warrantless Wiretapping (6/13/09); E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress (6/16/09)).

I am in no way trying to demean the actions and risks of the people of Iran in trying to force responsiveness to their concerns and desires from the government of Iran. However, I also feel that it is critically important for us to place this within a larger context. Rather than arguing about whether President Obama is being "forceful" enough or not, and pointing to the "anti-democratic" and "brutal" activities of the Iranian government, we should perhaps look at our own activities and responses. The United States is not the icon of the global right to freedom of speech and assembly. "Dissident" groups are being (and have been) infiltrated and monitored; massive electronic surveillance has occurred and continues to occur. Black suited special police squads are present at virtually every demonstration in the U.S. with batons, stun guns, fire extinguishers full of pepper spray, and "non-lethal" rounds.

If we are going to gasp in horror at the Iranian governmental response to protestors in the streets, we should perhaps also gasp at the U.S. government's response to protestors in the streets.

Much has been made of the ejection of international media from Iran, and that the activities are being reported on social networking sites. What would we know in the U.S. if our media were not reporting on what was coming out on Twitter and YouTube and other sites? In the U.S., the media has largely refrained from covering protests, and we too have "twittered" and "YouTubed" and blogged to little avail.

There are a number of messages to be taken from the events in Iran. There are a number of questions to be asked. I hope that those messages and questions go beyond the manufactured boundaries of the Iranian government's response to the people raising their voices in protest, and risking their lives on the streets.

As Iran continues to intensify the crackdown on "dissidents," it is important to let the Iranian government know that the world is watching - and cares. One supportive action you can take to help complicate the identification of those people in side Iran who are trying to get the word out to the world is to add yourself to Twitter. Another impact of this action is to show the Iranian government that people are engaged in this issues. Please note that you can skip adding your email address book to Twitter on sign-up. (I did not think of this, but it was passed on to me by another activist for broadcast).

1- Create a Twitter account (with what ever name you like) http://twitter.com

2- Set your time to Tehran's time (+12 1/2 hr)

3- Set your location to "Tehran" or another Iranian city (Esfahan, Tabriz, and Shiraz, Mashhad)

4- Set your status something meaningful

By doing this, attempts to identify twitters inside Iran will take longer and become more difficult.

Articles of Note
U.S. Is Said to Expand Covert Operations in Iran. Job Warrick. Washington Post. 6/30/2008.

Preparing the Battlefield:The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran. . Seymour Hersh. New Yorker. 7/07/2008.

U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran: report. Reuters. 6/29/2008.

Reports Suggest Obama Faces Early Choice On Iran Covert Ops. Ron Synovitz. Global Security. 1/13/2009.

In the complaint (Padilla v Yoo amended complaint 23 pages pdf), Padilla is suing John Yoo for being directly responsible for his detention, the violation of his Constitutional rights, and being subjected to torture and abuse. The basis of the case was to determine if Padilla was within his rights to pursue his complain against Yoo. In most regards, Judge White states in his opinion (Opinion in Padilla v Yoo  - alternate link - 42pages pdf) that Padilla has basis to pursue his suit.

Here are a few notable excerpts from Judge White's opinion.

"Padilla also alleges that he has suffered gross physical and psychological abuse upon the orders of high-ranking government officials as part of a systematic program of abusive interrogation which mirror the abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay." p2-3

What is notable here, is the admission within the Judge's opinion that the interrogation methods experienced by Padilla in his three years and eight month detention at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina were the same "abuses committed at Guantánamo Bay." This is notable on two counts. First, that Padilla was subjected to these techniques (detailed on pages 4-5 of the opinion, with associated Constitutional violations on 9-10). Second, because of the specious argument that no such "techniques" were used at Guantánamo (and were therefore not "exported" to other facilities - notably Abu Ghraib).

Yoo also advocates that this Court should abstain from adjudication because the Court should leave review of his legal memoranda and the conduct which followed to the coordinate branches of government based on substantive areas of law raised by the memoranda. The Court notes the irony of this position: essentially, the allegations of the complaint are that Yoo drafted legal cover to shield review of the conduct of federal officials who allegedly deprived Padilla of his constitutional rights. Now, Yoo argues that the very drafting itself should be shielded from judicial review." p 21-22

Here, Judge White is responding to Yoo's request to place not only his direct (and self-admitted) actions regarding torture and Padilla's case in particular, but that the very work that he did, under the shield of immunity. Judge White offers his opinion that such a shield does not exist.

ii. Eighth Amended Prohibition Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Yoo contends that because Padilla was not convicted of a criminal offense at the time of his military detention, the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to him." p35

I believe that the quote above is exemplary of the convoluted "logic" of both Yoo and the Bush administration. First, they create a new "category" of detainee to get around both U.S. law and international agreements. He then argues that because Padilla was not "convicted" that the guarantees against "cruel and unusual punishment" do not apply.

A lot is being written elsewhere about the opinion, and it is not my goal to repeat those pieces here. I believe that there is much to be gained by taking a half hour and reading the Judge's opinion. It not only details this specific case, but goes into the legal arguments of other cases, and pertinent memos which have been released.

Related Articles and Documents
Padilla v. Yoo - Judge denies motion to dismiss "torture memos" case. Constitutional Law Prof Blog. 6/13/2009.

Padilla v Yoo suit (1/04/2008)

Obama administration backs immunity for author of Bush torture memos. Patrick Martin. WSWS. 6/09/09.

San Francisco judge rules convicted terrorist Padilla can sue Bush aide over torture memos. Don Thompson. AP. 6/13/09.

Judge Presses Government on Torture Memo Liability. Dan Levine. Law Journal. 6/09/09.

Judge: Ex-Bush lawyer can be sued over torture. Bob Egelko. SF Chronicle. 6/13/09.

Judge rules Padilla can sue over torture memos. USA Today/AP. 6/13/09.

Judge Allows Civil Lawsuit Over Claims of Torture. John Schwartz. NY Times. 6/13/09.

The code words of "identity politics" are meant to indicate someone who is of a minority status - woman, person of color, homosexual, and sometimes not Christian. It means that the person or group places the interest of "their" group above the "common" good. It means that the person or group has an "agenda" that does a disservice to, or detracts from, what is "right" or "good."

What is interesting about the charges of "identity politics" are they almost always arise from the same people - namely white conservatives. It is parroted by others in the ordinary conversations and discussions. Once again, those speakers are almost invariable white.

Interestingly, we can follow this same generation of conceptual flow with such code phrases as "political correctness" and "reverse discrimination." It starts with a trumpeting and repetition on the far conservative right, is played repeatedly within the mainstream media, enters into "common" conversation, and comes almost invariably out of "white" mouths.

This pattern should raise eyebrows and questions, but it rarely does. First, if "identity politics" is confined to nondominant groups, the "common" good/interest/gain must be that of the dominant group. Second, if there is a pattern of commonality of these charges and concerns that are coming from the dominant group, would not their perspective also represent "identity politics?"

What we have watched and experienced over the last 40 years is a deliberate and repetitive strategy to gain and hold political power. It is a strategy that employs stimulating the fears of whites that they will be usurped, their privileges stripped away, they will be "overrun" by "others" who are out to "get" them. The strategy has been expanded to cover homosexuals, humanists, Muslims and women. It is a strategy that has been deliberately employed, honed, and largely successful. It has allowed a relatively small portion of the population to successfully frame almost every issue, and present an impression of a constant threat of the "divided" America ready to break out in a "Civil War" - and that terminology is also generated from the same sources to stimulate the messages being sent.

This particular strategy was popularized during the Nixon Administration and it was known as "The Southern Strategy." (1) This "strategy" was aimed at consolidating the whites in the south who had been Democrats, but were (supposedly) angered by the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.(1, 2) It was an ongoing attempt to motivate white voters to switch to and vote with the Republican Party. Over the years, the appeal expanded to include an activist Christian right with the party hammering on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. Alliances made to shape the power block of the Republican Party, and expanded by Ronald Reagan and those who followed him.

There are those who would argue that there was no such thing as the "Southern Strategy." However, in 2005 then Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman made a statement to the NAACP stating that the Southern Strategy was wrong (3):

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

One of the problems with the apology issued by Mehlman was that the Republican Party was not "exploiting racial tensions," but stimulating them. The mechanisms of the strategy were to increase a sense of threat from non-whites, and to create a sense of disenfranchisement among whites. This mechanism underlies the various formations of claims of "identity politics," "political correctness," and "reverse discrimination" among others.

However, there is much more going on here than even these rather blatant calls to white racial unification. Much more subtle, but no less racial, are calls to other "interests" that are predominantly shared by whites, but seem to be a broader appeal. These are appeals to class interests, community interests, and "national identity" interests.

Class interests are appeals such as: "They're taking our jobs," "They are a burden" (on our schools, our hospitals, and our social welfare system).

Community interests: "They are running the good people out"; "They are taking over".

National identity: "Pretty soon we'll all have to speak Spanish ;" "They are a threat to our community" (i.e. English Only movement); "Pretty soon whites will be a racial minority in the United States... "

National Security: "They are a threat to our national security" (crooks and criminals).

What is largely left out of the understanding of race formation and enforcement in the United States is that it is not just "prejudice in some people's heads." There is indeed "prejudice," but there is a larger bias of cultural ideology. Further the social structuring over the history of the United States has placed (and continues to place) different groups in different worlds. Some might refer to this as institutional discrimination; however, it is also structural inequality.

Racial qualifications were placed on citizenship in the United States for much of the history of the country. Both Native Americans and Black slaves were denied birthright citizenship in the United States . While that barrier was purportedly removed at the end of the Civil War for Black slaves, it was not removed for Native Americans until the passage of the Native American Citizenship Act of 1924.

Citizenship via naturalization had various racial limitations at a national level until 1965 (Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965). The first naturalization law in 1790 (Naturalization Act of 1790) restricted naturalization to "any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years." The issue of citizenship has always been an issue because of the rights and privileges of citizenship. Earlier in our history being excluded from citizenship limited one's ability to work, to own property, to access public services such as access to water and education, to testify against a citizen who had harmed you, and protections under the law. These are above and beyond whether one can vote.

While citizenship had racial restrictions, it was hardly the only structural process in place. Separate educational facilities were standard for a very long time (and de facto are becoming so again), as were radical inequities in the funding of education. Racial restrictions were in place for higher education, and entering a variety of trades and occupations. The occupational restrictions were extended in many areas by labor unions. All of which created a racially segregated labor force which is still all too prevalent today.

Housing issues also played a role, especially with the housing initiatives which decimated inner urban housing and created the suburbs after World War II. The government legalized an already existing segregation in housing practice by realtors and lenders with the national appraisal standards. This moved both tax dollars and mortgage lending to all white housing areas. Those who were non-white were almost totally excluded from this wealth opportunity.

What all of these various policies and practices across an array of social institutions did was to create a number of shared interests among whites. Many of those shared interests revolve around social class. In particular, the housing policies following World War II reinforced geographically racial segregation (and structural race inequalities) in U.S. society.

One of the consequences of this, is that frequently the rhetorical appeals and threats to social class interests are in effect a call for whites to unify to protect their shared interests. That call to white racial unity is indeed calling on white "racial identify" without ever mentioning the issue of race.

These constructed shared interests of whites are not shared equally by all whites, which are why there are a diversity of calls. This strategy effectively unifies many whites across both class and regional lines. It allows Lou Dobbs to disingenuously and stridently claim that his vehement rants against "illegal" immigration have "nothing to do with race."

The biggest lie of the accusations of "identity politics" is that those making that claim are engaging in identity politics. The attacks on Sotomayor are a thinly veiled attempt to stimulate white fear and enhance a feeling of dispossession and disenfranchisement. The fact that she is Latina only enhances the arguments around "the Latin threat" in its various manifestations. Overall, it is just another iteration of the same identity politics that have been utilized over the years.

The argument goes that because Judge Sotomayor is Latina, and has spoken as a Latina, that she is "biased" (with strident claims that she is "racist") and therefore that she is influenced by "identity politics." The argument then goes on to say state that justice is "blind" and "color-blind" so the personal background of a judge does not matter. This then circles back around to Sotomayor's "race" (sic meaning ethnicity) and that because she claims her Puerto Rican and Latina heritage that she engages in "identity politics." And it goes on and on, round and round like some Tommy two note.

The implication of the claims of identity politics and their inherent racism is that white males are inherently more neutral and objective. They are purportedly reasoned individuals who can interpret the law fairly. It seems a waste of time to argue the embedded racism and sexism of such a base assumption.

Also implied, is that this argument of inherent "fairness" is affirmed by the fact that 106 of 110 Supreme Court Justices have been white males. Under this argument, there is not only no reason for "diversity" to be an issue on the Supreme Court, but by extension, it is not an issue anywhere within United States. This is not a conceptual leap on my part as one of the major issues among the "conservatives" is the issue of "affirmative action." This will certainly be a line of questioning in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings.

However, (at least) two current Supreme Court justices would not have been seen as "white" all that long ago. Southern and Eastern European immigrants were restricted as being "undesirable" under the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act. Not to mention, that being Catholic was long a point of fear and discrimination in the United States. Alito in particular brought up his immigrant origins and how that shapes him during his confirmation hearings. However, I heard no claims of identity politics surrounding discussions of his ability to be "fair" or administer justice "blindly."

Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito are all Catholic. Alito clearly has ties to Opus Dei, and there is strong speculation that Scalia and Thomas do as well. Yet, I do not recall questions about their religion, or ties to this conservative Catholic organization coming up in regard to their roles as justices, or potential justices, to the Supreme Court. (Breyer and Ginsburg are Jewish, Souter is Episcopalian, and Stevens is Protestant - source)

Both Roberts and Alito are strong supporters of the theory of the President of the United States as a Unitary Executive. This is a theory has vast implications for the operation of our form of government. Yet, there they sit.

So where does the line of "identity politics" get drawn, and who gets perceived as "biased?" What about the issue of ideology politics and the Court? If one embraces an ideology of "right to life," or that all political power rests within the Presidency, or that corporations naturally trump people and workers, does that count as "bias," or just a "simple difference of opinion?" Can (and do) those Justices holding deep set ideologies put these aside in their interpretation of the law and the cases that come before them?

How about just simple conflict of interest? For example Scalia's involvement with Bush/Cheney and the SCOTUS deciding to block any further challenges to Florida's vote in the 2000 election?

Ah yes, inherently fair and unbiased indeed. The issue of potential bias seems to only arise if one is not a white male. If that does not throw a flag for folks about how racism and sexism are coded into the debate, then I do not know what would.

"Blind" Justice

On to the "blindness" of justice. This is embodied, and alluded to, in the ongoing circular argument, in the statue of Lady Justice. She stands holding scales and a sword, and is blindfolded (she was also "draped" by Ashcroft because he thought the statue indecent). I have now heard numerous times that Lady Justice embodies the "western tradition of justice."

Regardless, the issue of "blindness," and therefore "fairness," is a central question for all of us. What is morphed within the "debate" across the board is how one's status impacts one's "blindness."

Blindness in this context is an interesting concept. Does it mean that one does not acknowledge the impact of differences, or that they do not exist? Does it mean that the law, and decisions of the Courts, are applied regardless of status of the litigants? Does it mean that one should ignore that the impact of legal judgements which may actually advantage some while disadvantaging others - in other words, the outcome of the legal decision is "not fair."

Should there be an acknowledgement that this society has been, and continues to be, embedded with inequality based upon a number of group statuses (sex, race, orientation, age, ethnicity, social class, ability, etc.)? Further, that these statuses are experienced by individuals, but that they are applied to the entire status group? Further, that this structuring privileges some groups while disprivileging other groups, and is often reflected in the embedded biases not just of the society, but of the laws? And even further still, that living through these various structurings actually presents individuals and the groups to which they belong with different experiences of reality?

Let me offer you a non-legal example. Pundits. and social service planners came up with the idea of replacing the foodstamp voucher-type system with a "debit card" system. It was believed that such a system would be cost effective (saving mailing costs and being able to be renewed electronically), and would remove some of the social stigma of using foodstamps. Not discussed (apparently) and one of those unspoken assumptions, was that "everyone" was familiar with debit/credit cards.

A test of the program was run in New York City. Foodstamp recipients received their new food debit cards in the mail. Very shortly, foodstamp offices were being overrun with people wanting to know where their foodstamps were. A number had discarded the cards, all who showed up had no idea how to use them. The originators of this innovation were stunned. What was up with this? They had never thought about the fact that many of the people receiving foodstamps lived within a cash-based society and did not have even bank accounts much less debit or credit cards. It never occurred to them that knowledge of ATM and checkpoint systems might not be common knowledge.

Why did they not know this? Because such experience and knowledge was such an integral part of their world that they thought it was just "common knowledge." These were not folks who were deliberately classist or racist. In fact, they were trying to address some stigma issues with their decision. However, the socially structured reality that they lived in was quite different than that of most food stamp recipients.

So what does representation from diverse groups within our organizations, communities, society, and yes - the Supreme Court of the United States mean? It does not mean that "those people" all have an agenda, or are contaminated by "identity politics." It does mean that people coming from different realms of our society bring understandings and different perspectives with them. "Different" including the dominant group(s) understandings and experiences.

The white male Justice is no more neutral or unbiased than the Justice who is not white or male. If we are to attribute agendas, then we could equally argue that the white male Justice has an agenda as well - that of blindly reinforcing the structured inequality and biases of the society in which they reside.

That last sentence likely raises the blood pressure of many reading it. So take a breath and ask if the assumption that a non-white, non-male Justice should be labeled as inherently biased is any different an assumption - or any less of an insult.

Related Resources
RNC fumbles Sotomayor talking points. The Hill. 5/26/09.
Identity Justice. George Will. Wa. Post. 5/27/09.
Lady Justice.

Note

A brief examination of Lady Justice is instructive.

The presence of Lady Justice (or Blind Justice) is ubiquitous in U.S. courts. This is actually a statue of the Greek Goddess Themis (so one would think that some folks would have a problem with this). Regardless, if we look up "Themis" in Wikipedia we find:

"Themis is an ancient Greek goddess. She is described as "of good counsel", and is the embodiment of divine order, law, and custom. Themis means "law of nature" rather than human ordinance, literally "that which is put in place", from the verb τίθημι, títhēmi, "to put". To the ancient Greeks she was originally the organizer of the "communal affairs of humans, particularly assemblies".[1] Moses Finley remarked of themis, as the word was used by Homer in the 8th century, to evoke the social order of the 10th- and 9th-century Greek Dark Ages: Themis is untranslatable. A gift of the gods and a mark of civilized existence, sometimes it means right custom, proper procedure, social order, and sometimes merely the will of the gods (as revealed by an omen, for example) with little of the idea of right.[2]" BUT "Themis occurred in Hesiod's Theogony as the first recorded appearance of Justice as a divine personage. Drawing not only on the socio-religious consciousness of his time but also on many of the earlier cult-religions, Hesiod described the forces of the universe as cosmic divinities. Hesiod portrayed temporal justice, Dike, as the daughter of Zeus and Themis (daughter of Uranus and Gaia). Dike executed the law of judgments and sentencing and, together with her mother Themis, carried out the final decisions of Moira. For Hesiod, Justice is at the center of religious and moral life, who, independently of Zeus, is the embodiment of divine will. This personification of Dike will stand in contrast to justice viewed as custom or law, and as retribution or sentence. [5]"

This is indeed interesting, because Themis ruled over traditions and mores, and Dike was actually the rule of law as we understand it. This may actually explain a lot about how some see the role of the courts and the Supreme Court in particular.

I attempted to talk to Chase about this (good luck trying to figure out how to get to their mortgage folks - try this number 1-800-848-9136). I was informed that they could not find my mortgage in their system, but I should not worry about the date change.

When I asked what would happen on 6/1, the representative said "I don't know." I asked what would happen if the automatic payment of the mortgage from my account overdrew my account. She said "I wouldn't worry." I asked if I would be charged an over draft fee, and she said "I don't think so." I asked, Why wouldn't I be charged and overdraft fee, Her response, "I don't know."

So I tried a different approach. I asked her WHO would get the mortgage payment on 6/1. Get this "I don't know."

Failing there, I tried my Wamu branch again. (I had originally asked there and they sent me to Chase). The tried to find my mortgage. They couldn't find it either. After explaining the situation, the branch Rep said she would try to find out and call me back. I am still waiting.

I figure a lot of folks could get their tails caught in a ringer on this one. Late fees, overdraft fees, and the various consequences thereof.

Another possible complication. I also have an Amazon credit card - which is issued through Chase. Guess what. It is now showing up on my BANKING accounts. Since all of that is in the same system now, there is a potential for folks who have mortgages and credit accounts with Chase that a late mortgage payment could directly result in a change to your credit card interest. Realistically, that rate hike could happen with non-Chase accounts.

I will update this when and if I get any further information.

However, there is a different story of the tennis ball. It was told to me by a dear friend (now departed) who had lineage back to the early dingos. She passed the story on to me saying that it had passed via species memory to her.

Grady was an afficianado of tennis balls. She always loved them - to chew on, to chase, to bounce off her nose. Every tennis ball was her ball, and she never lost a tennis ball in her life. She always knew where each one was - even those that ended up behind the bookcase from the discouraged indoor playing of ball.

Having deep experience with her love, and indeed obsession, with tennis balls, I asked her once what was the deal. She told me this story.

Long, long, ago her great great great (bunch of greats) grandmother Surí (pronounced sue - ree) had an idea.  She needed a multipurpose implement for pups and adults for training, exercise, and entertainment.  And it had to be useful for training humans as well. Surí thought long and hard and came up with the requirements for her tool.

Requirements

•     Right size for her people's mouths
•     Chewable and flexible
•     Hide or fur to massage the gums and clean the teeth
•     Keep the kids occupied while the adults went about adult business
•     It needed to "skitter" for skill building and entertainment purposes
•     Durable
•     Attractive to humans

Many hoped that with the election of Barack Obama the protections and balance of government eroded under the Bush administration would be restored. That is clearly not happening.

Three things have happened of late which are significant in continuing the Constitutional and legal abridgements instituted under George W. Bush. Those are the continuing pursuit of U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act provisions which allow numerous types of surveillance, and covert activities of all people within the United States including: the continued indefinite detention of prisoners suspected of being terrorists (or connected to terrorists), and the continued use of Military Commissions.

Stop the Terrorists
The most recent and highly public use of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act was the capture of four "terrorists" who were going to blow up synagogues in New York - or so the story goes. Many of the reports of the foiled terrorist plot follow a story line similar to the one found in the NY Daily News (5/22/09) "NYPD, FBI heroes honored after foiling plot to bomb Riverdale synagogues." Here is a sample to give you the flavor.

The cops and G-men who busted a gang of homegrown terrorists before they could blow up two Bronx synagogues got a big pat on the back Friday from a grateful city.

"I feel safer in the city today than ever before," Mayor Bloomberg said at a City Hall ceremony to honor the heroes. "They have prevented what could have been a terrible loss of life."

Gov. Paterson called the plot "one of the most heinous crimes that has been [planned] in this city for a long time."

And Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly called the police and FBI response "a textbook example of how a major investigation should be handled."

Except that is not quite what happened.

You see, an FBI "informant" had infiltrated the terrorist cell and tipped off authorities about what was to happen.

The actual story is somewhat more sordid than brilliant work by the FBI and NYPD. From the NY Times "In Bronx Bomb Case, Missteps Caught on Tape:"

The case is the latest in a series in New York and around the country since Sept. 11, 2001, and sounded familiar in some ways. The investigation, for instance, began with the work of a confidential informant, who portrayed himself as an agent of a Pakistani terror organization, and who became a critical member of the men's plot.

The full nature and extent of the informant's role in facilitating the plot is unknown. In other cases, defense lawyers have sought to portray these informants as engaging in entrapment, suggesting they had, in effect, provoked and fueled the actions of their clients.

That man is now understood to have been Shahed Hussain, a former New York state motel owner who became an FBI informant in 2002 to avoid deportation to Pakistan after being arrested on fraud charges. Hussain appears to have met Cromitie at a Newburgh mosque where the plot to bomb Jewish targets was hatched.

With Hussain's help, the FBI was able to monitor every move made by Cromitie and the others. Hussain also provided the group with bogus C4 explosive and a fake Stinger missile and launcher supplied by the FBI. When the conspirators planted their dud bombs outside two Jewish targets on Wednesday night, the FBI was watching. The area was smothered with heavily armed Swat teams, the would-be bombers' exit was blocked and agents hauled them away in handcuffs.

The alleged terrorists, all US citizens, were arrested Wednesday as they laid what they believed were bombs -- in fact duds supplied by undercover agents -- outside a Jewish temple in New York's Bronx neighborhood, authorities said.

The stranger's behavior aroused the imam's suspicions. He invited other worshipers to meals, and spoke of violence and jihad, so the imam said he steered clear of him.

"There was just something fishy about him," Mr. Muhammad said. Members "believed he was a government agent."

Mr. Muhammad said members of his congregation told him the man he believed was the informant offered at least one of them a substantial amount of money to join his "team."

OK, so here's the short version. The FBI recruited an informant who went to entice folks into a bogus terrorist cell with friendship, gifts, and money. He then provided fake explosives and other materials from the FBI to the group while egging his "recruits" into violent action. He also facilitated the recording of virtually all activities of the group. In other words, there would have been no terrorist group without it being created by the FBI.

While this operation was started under the Bush administration, it continued and came to fruition under the Obama administration. Likely for the same reasons it was started under Bush - to promote fear but show that "intelligence" worked, and that the administration is on the job "protecting the country."

In fact, under the Bush administration we had a notable creation of hapless terrorists with the "cell" broken up in Florida - "Homegrown terrorists" arraigned in court:"

"Batiste allegedly met in December in a hotel room with someone posing as a representative of al-Qaida -- someone law enforcement officials say was actually an agent of a country friendly to the United States."

Many of us lived through this dark time in U.S. history. That is why so many spoke out against the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act. However, like the fear of "communists" and "dissidents" in the Cold War era, fear ruled the public in largely not supporting the fight against the evisceration of our legal protection by the state. Further, the effect is the same - to silence dissenting voices.

Preventative Detention
Perhaps it is not surprisingly, nor coincidental, that the NY "terror" plot is fueling the rhetoric around closing Guantánamo, and what to do with those still being held by the United States. As presented by FOX News:

It also provided evidence to some lawmakers that closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay or releasing any of its 240 detainees into the U.S. federal prison system would further endanger national security.

"The initial reports that we're getting [are] that these alleged terrorists were converted to radical Islam in jails. I think we need to look at that as a problem as well if jails are going to become a breeding ground for people to convert to any kind radical Islam," Rep. Eliot Engel, (D-N.Y.) told FOX News.

The "foiling" of the "plot" coincidentally occurred as if to frame President Obama's National Security Address on 5/21/09 at the National Archives. In this speech, Obama states that he will continue to use the (Bush) Military Commissions to try some detainees. He stated that military commissions have a long history in the U.S. - which they do. However, that history has largely been a battlefield court - and not a supplanting of the judicial system of the United States. He goes on to state how he is changing these commissions as they were restructured under the Bush Administration. However, even with restructuring, they remain an extra-judicial forum - a court outside the court system following different rules than our courts.

More troubling are those detainees who cannot be prosecuted but are perceived as a potential threat to the United States. For these detainees Obama proposes "prolonged detention" which could last into perpetuity. The words are different, but this was exactly George Bush's policy intent. Namely, to lock up folks indefinitely for actions the might take.

In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- ten years from now.

I strongly encourage everyone to watch Rachel Maddow's 5/21 discussion Prolonged Detention (approximately 12 minutes long also included at the end of this post)

Where Are We At and Where Are We Going?
Our Constitutional and legal protections have been shredded over the last eight years, and apparently they will continue to remain so into the indefinite future. Neither Obama nor the Congress seem to fundamentally question what has been established. While some things are being tweaked to increase the appearance of legality and constitutionality, the threat of the abuse of power remains in force. The Republicans may spew their complaints and fears about even the "tweaks" being implemented, but in fact they are not challenging the basic perversions of law they supported under Bush.

Now, as when they were first implemented, much of the public seems to be complacent. Some would argue that the politics of fear still reign, and people are willing to give up their liberty for security. I actually believe that fear is a prod, but that most people do not think that such "extreme measures" would ever be taken against them.

Random stops and searches by police, and secret invasions of their homes and offices and cars and phones and email? "Hey I don't have anything to hide, and they wouldn't look at me anyway."

Being identified as a terrorist, supporter of terrorism, or potential threat to the United States? "I'm not Muslim or Arab," and a belief that only "bad" people get arrested; if someone is in jail / detention they must be guilty.

But what if you disagree with the powers that be? What if you go to a demonstration to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan? What if you join a picket line outside of Goldman Sachs (economic terrorism if it impedes their business)? Or you give money to Greenpeace to protect the whales (supporting environmental terrorism)? Or you give money to a relief organization providing aid to refugees in Pakistan (potentially supporting terrorists)? O yeah, terrorism has become a label that covers so many activities that even checking the "wrong" book out of the library (or buying it almost anywhere with an electronic transaction) can throw flags in the massive governmental datamining projects.

Those who do question soon become aware of the possibility that they may cross some invisible line that may land them in "prolonged detention." Folks have (and do) choose to not go to a demonstration because agents are everywhere taking people's pictures. They don't join study groups because they might "get in with the wrong crowd." They don't even try to search the internet for information because that activity might be misinterpreted. In other words, people are afraid to question, much less to exercise their constitutional rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. People know that there is no right to privacy.

Some will argue that I overstate the threat or people's fear. I do not believe that is true. I have had these concerns expressed to me by numerous folks. "Well, I'd go to the march, but I'm worried about all the surveillance." "I was going to do some research on x issues, but when I saw what the google search pulled up I thought it might make me look like a suspicious character."

I raised the concerns as various legislation and policies were put in place under the Bush administration. I argued then, that whether one had full faith in Bush or not the power carved would pass to the next President and the next, and the next. I argued then that placing so much control into the hands of a President would be too attractive to the various political parties for them to challenge it. These issues and infringements are not a party issue, or even a trust issue. Whether the Republicans or the Democrats hold power; whether Bush or Obama are in office; the people must push back. As massive activity by the people led to the Church Committee and boundaries being placed on the police and intelligence agencies to protect the rights of the people, so too we need to press our elected representatives to push back and restore protections to the people from the abusive use of power against the people.

Other Pertinent Resources
Paul Wolf's COINTELPRO Archive
Yet another bogus 'terror' plot
Failed New York Terror Plot Widens Debate Over Closing Guantanamo 
New York "Terror Plot" Another Provacatured Set-up 
FBI Blows It: Supposed Terror Plot Against NY Synagogues Is Bogus 
Alleged N.Y. terrorist plotters known as regular guys 
Silencing Dissent in the Name of Security 
5 found guilty in Miami of trying to join in terror plot with al-Qaida 

The transcript of the full program is available at this link from CNN. The Cheney interview starts about 1/3 of the way down the page. I will be excerpting from that transcript below.

Liz Cheney: But I think that, in fact, what's happened is, my dad has stood up and said: Wait a minute. If you're going to be the transparency president, and if you're going to libel the brave men and women who conducted this program...

And then later in the interview regarding the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib she states: "I do know what happened at Abu Ghraib was a crime and that the people there have been prosecuted."

So where does she, and her father, stand? Are these valiant interrogators "brave men and women," or are they criminals? Surely they cannot be both.

The interview continues with Cooper trying to get acknowledgment on the link between the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison and the methods being used at other facilities.

COOPER: Your father said today -- and you have said it in the past -- and your father repeated it today -- he's said it a lot -- that -- that, basically, what happened in Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident. He -- he termed them sadistic prison guards.

Isn't that -- goes against the evidence, that, basically, there was a line between what happened in Guantanamo Bay and what happened in Bagram Air Base and what happened later on in Abu Ghraib?

L. CHENEY: No, I think that's just absolutely wrong, Anderson.

I mean, I think, first of all, the enhanced interrogation program, which the president has now stopped, was a program that was run by the Central Intelligence Agency, designed by the CIA, approved by everybody in the administration. And...

COOPER: So, you're saying there's no connection between all these?

L. CHENEY: No, absolutely. There's no connection.

So Ms. Cheney confirms that "everybody" in the administration approved of the use of abuse and torture in interrogation. Further, that those methods which came to light in Abu Ghraib were not the same methods being used elsewhere.

Cooper raises the issue of the Schlesinger report which discusses the transfer of General Miller who had  implemented "enhanced interrogation" at Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib for the purpose of instituting the same procedures there. Ms. Cheney just flatly claims "Anderson, you are completely rewriting history to say that there was a connection... " After another challenge by Cooper she charges that he is "misinterpreting" the report.

However, it is not just the Schlesinger report that stated that the interrogation "techniques" implemented at Guantánamo were transported to Abu Ghraib. So did the Taguba Report, the Fay Report, and others.

What is clear from the reports and investigations that we have known about for over four years now, is that the atrocities that came to light from Abu Ghraib were not isolated incidents. They were part of a systematized policy implemented within the highest levels of the White House, and through the Pentagon. Now with the initial release of the "torture memos" it becomes ever clearer how high and how far that approval went.

So Liz Cheney goes on to reassert her father's call for the release of all of the memos and reports to "prove" that the use of torture protected the people of the United States from another terrorist attack.

L. CHENEY: ... without saying, you know -- you know, you assert this, and I assert this, and the president asserts something.

But the president won't let the American people see. He was in the National Archives today, which is the building where these memos are housed. He could have walked up the stairs to the second floor of that building, and, with his pen, signed a declassification order, and those memos would be here tonight, so you and I could actually have a discussion about what we learned from the program.

But we're prevented from doing that because he is suppressing those memos.

I have found this demand for transparency from the Cheney duo particularly galling. The man who spearheaded the movement for the Unitary Executive, who marshaled one of the most opaque administrations in known history, who defied court orders to release information even before 9/11 is calling for complete transparency from the Obama administration. The whole stance reads as pure posturing on the part of the Cheneys.

And people were not only tortured, people died.

COOPER: But more than 100 people are known to have died in U.S. custody. I think about 20 of those have been ruled a homicide.

I mean, if -- if these were just tightly-controlled things, how come so many people are being murdered in U.S. custody?

L. CHENEY: Well, Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible. And I think that you're...

COOPER: Why?

L. CHENEY: Because you are conflating things that aren't conflated.

And then continues...

COOPER: Do you personally have any reservations about what may have gone on with these enhanced interrogation techniques, as you call them, under CIA control, or in Abu Ghraib, or in Bagram, or in Guantanamo? I mean, do you have -- do you have any doubts at all? Because your father seems, very clearly, to have no doubts.

L. CHENEY: Look, of course -- of course, as my father made clear today, what happened at Abu Ghraib shouldn't have happened. Nobody is defending what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I have no doubts at all, no reservations and no regrets. And, in fact, I feel that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women at the CIA who carried out this program. I think there are American lives alive today because of that program.

And here we have the lies within lies within lies. Because it was not the "brave men and women" in the CIA and military who were directing the torture. It was PRIVATE CONTRACTORS who were hired to supervise, direct, and sometimes participate in interrogation. This was pointed out in the Taguba report and others. The Bush administration not only legitimated and approved torture, but they outsourced torture.

One might wonder why this is the case. Why outsource torture? Why remove the United States from the International War Crimes Tribunal? Why create an legal no man's land in Iraq where private contractors were not subject to U.S. law, Iraqi law, and U.S. Military Justice?

Why? For this time when they are out of power. Why? To muddy the trail and make legal prosecution a rat's nest of conflict. Why? To drag the process out past the U.S. statute of limitations.

According to John Dean, the U.S. statute of limitations on war crimes and torture is five years. That clock is already almost down to zero on some of what has happened. The longer it can be drug out - and Obama is doing his best to deep six the whole thing - the more likely that absolutely no action will be taken. There will be no consequences for those within the Bush administration for violations of national and international law.

Further, the fact that a President of the United States can approve and implement a policy of denial of human rights, abuse, and torture will stand as a precedent for any administration that wants to do the same thing.

Right now, the two most urgent things that need to happen are to extend the statute of limitations on war crimes and torture, and to continue to press our elected representatives for multi-pronged investigations (House, Senate, Special Prosecutor).

Resources
Article archive of abuse of prisoners and detainees by U.S. Forces
The Fay Report
8/21/02 Memo from Alberto Gonzales
The Taguba Report
The ICRC Report
Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations 3/06/2003
The Schlesinger Report
Torture resources and memos
King Bush - The Unitary Executive
A Slow Motion Coup

In a perfect world, people would not starve by the road while others own private roads.

In a perfect world, the color of one's skin, the sex of one's birth, the direction of one's affections; the religion one follows, the economic level of one's family, would not set one's course to security or exploitation.

In a perfect world, we would not fight endless wars over resources.

In a perfect world, no one would need an army or a bomb or an automatic weapon.

In a perfect world, people would not need drugs to buffer themselves from their existence.

In a perfect world, we would not be debating competing rights between fetuses and mothers because women would be seen as equal in consideration to the life that they bear; women would have autonomy in their lives; children would be valued by the community; there would be birth control for men and women; and ... and.

In a perfect world, when we said "life isn't fair" the unfairness would not be constructed by the society we live in.

But we don't live in a perfect world.

Some would argue that means we should just get along and go along.
For others, it is a farcical concept.
For some it means that we need to engage our hearts, minds, and hands in constructing a social existence that moves us towards a perfect world.

Will we achieve that world? Perhaps not. I am certainly not a utopian idealist. However, I am very aware that we have created the world we are in. We have created the cruelty. We have created the inequality and destruction. It was not visited upon us. It is not an "accident" or part of the "human condition."

Nope, we made it.

True, what we have made has also made us captives to a certain extent. We have become dependent upon destruction and exploitation for the survival of some at the cost of many.

However, it must be possible to break that captivity. It must be possible to change.

In fact, if we do not change what we have created, humanity may be but a footprint in the sand that was here and gone between waves.

In the 100 days press conference (April 30, 2009), President Obama responded to Jake Tapper's question "Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?" was a follows (transcript courtesy of The Huffington Post) :

What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And -- and so I strongly believed that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I'm very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on an unscrupulous enemy.

I would agree with President Obama that the use of torture and the abuse of prisoners "erodes our character." However, I strongly disagree with his seemingly tacit acceptance of the framing that torture is an efficient way of getting information. In using the word "shortcuts" in relationship to torture, he is essentially saying: "There are two ways of getting necessary information from a prisoner. There are legal interrogation methods, and there is torture. Torture will get to the information quicker, but we are too good a people to use it." In other words, there are times when torture may be used.

This perception is reinforced by Obama's repeated response to the Bush administration use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" as a "mistake." In other words, "There is a place and a time for torture, they just made a poor choice."

In the press conference analysis by Olbermann and Maddow, Maddow captures some key points of concern by stating:

I thought his (Obama's) framing of the issue was surprising. He was sort of accepting (I thought) of the sort of Jack Bauer (of the Fox show 24) Dick Cheney framing of the issue in a way that I think liberals will be very disappointed in.

The video clip below is a shortened version from the YouTube video at Olbermann & Maddow Disagree With Obama On Torture! First 100 Days Press Conference.

The questions, the discussion, to this point in time, have focused around the policies and practices of the Bush administration in relationship to torture. In that regard, Obama has consistently reiterated his preference (and one assumes the pressure being applied) is to "move forward" and not address the past. While such an approach essentially leaves future permission for the acceptability of a President ordering torture if he/she feels it necessary, it does not address a newly emerging issue. Namely that the abuse and torture of prisoners within the care of the United States is still going on.

According to a new report by Jeremy Scahill - "Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama" from 5/15/09, Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) or Emergency Reaction Force (ERF) teams are still being employed at Guantánamo. Known as "Extreme Repression Force" inside the Guantánamo facility, these units and methods are still operating under the Obama administration.

"The IRF team is intended to be used primarily as a forced-extraction team, specializing in the extraction of a detainee who is combative, resistive, or if the possibility of a weapon is in the cell at the time of the extraction," according to a declassified copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta at Guantánamo.

The characterization of IRF team action by "human rights lawyers, former prisoners and former IRF team members" is chilling:

"They are the Black Shirts of Guantánamo," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented the most Guantánamo prisoners. "IRFs can't be separated from torture. They are a part of the brutalization of humans treated as less than human."

Clive Stafford Smith, who has represented 50 Guantánamo prisoners, including 31 still imprisoned there, has seen the IRF teams up close. "They're goons," he says. "They've played a huge role."

Under the section of Scahill's article "IRF-ing Continues Under Obama" he states that the Center for Constitutional Rights has found a continuing use of these teams under Obama. In fact, there seems to be an escalation in the use of such teams.

But one month later, the Center for Constitutional Rights released a report titled "Conditions of Confinement at Guantánamo: Still In Violation of the Law," which found that abuses continued. In fact, one Guantánamo lawyer, Ahmed Ghappour, said that his clients were reporting "a ramping up in abuse" since Obama was elected, including "beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-force feeding detainees who are on hunger strike," according to Reuters.

"Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration," Ghappour said.

While the dominant media coverage of the U.S. torture apparatus has portrayed these tactics as part of a "Bush era" system that Obama has now ended, when it comes to the IRF teams, that is simply not true. "[D]etainees live in constant fear of physical violence. Frequent attacks by IRF teams heighten this anxiety and reinforce that violence can be inflicted by the guards at any moment for any perceived infraction, or sometimes without provocation or explanation," according to CCR.

In early February 2009, at least 16 men were on hunger strike at Guantánamo's Camp 6 and refused to leave their cells for "force feeding." IRF teams violently extracted them from their cells with the "men being dragged, beaten and stepped on, and their arms and fingers twisted painfully." Tubes were then forced down their noses, which one prisoner described as "torture, torture, torture."

In April, Mohammad al-Qurani, a 21-year-old Guantánamo prisoner from Chad managed to call Al-Jazeera and described a recent beating: "This treatment started about 20 days before Obama came into power, and since then I've been subjected to it almost every day," he said. "Since Obama took charge, he has not shown us that anything will change."

We cannot allow President Obama to continue to soft pedal the issue of torture. For all kinds of reasons, it is not acceptable to just "move forward." The conditions at Guantánamo (and given the systematized nature of abuse and torture that has been employed "in the past") likely continue elsewhere. The investigation of past policy and practice must be addressed, or current and future Presidents will use this precedent. Ongoing practices under the Obama administration are a continuation of those "mistakes" Obama points to.

I supported Obama. I voted for Obama. With all my heart I hope for a substantive change from Obama. However, I cannot give him - or any other politician - a free pass. People say, "Well, he's only been in office less than four months." Indeed this is true. However, every day of those four months, as Obama pursues a reframed "war on terror," people are being terrorized, traumatized, and killed IN OUR NAME. No politician, no matter how loved or hated, can get a free pass. As Howard Zinn urges in his article "Changing Obama's Mindset," it is we who must stand up. The citizens of a nation, any nation, are ultimately the ones who must "keep them honest." We are the one's who must lead, and we are the one's who must demand accountability.

Other people in other nations seem to know this, and to practice it. Whether it is the people of Burma living under essentially military totalitarianism, or the workers of France in the streets, other peoples know that they must stand up to the abuses and actions of their governments. We need to do the same. We need to speak out and shout out. We need to let our elected representatives know that we are watching them even more closely that they are watching us.

We were told over and over again by the Bush administration that we needed "boots on the ground" and to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Well, we need "boots on the ground" by the citizens of the United States to reclaim and protect this nation. For if we do not fight for democracy and justice here, then any fighting anywhere else is nothing but imperialism.

More Information
Contact the President

Center for Constitutional Rights

Report: Current Conditions of Confinement at Guantánamo Still in Violation of the Law

In my life I have gone through and still live with some very painful conditions. This condition has brought me to a place of the philosophy of pain. It has made me recognize something that I was never conscious of before - that is, each type of pain has its own character - almost a personality. Medical professionals have developed the pain scale (1-10). They ask questions about the nature of the pain - dull, sharp, burning. And about the duration of the pain - shocking, intermittent, constant. All of this communicates general information about the pain, but somehow it does not capture the experience.

I must say that explaining the nature of the pain of this current condition has stripped me of words to describe it. How does one describe how weird it feels to have pain that runs to the midline of your face and stops at the middle of your nose. To have extreme pain inside your left nostril, but feel absolutely normal millimeters away?

Fear not, I am not going to wax elegant about the pain of this condition, but hopefully this is adequate to help you see why trying to understand the nature and message of pain might become a past time.

In treating this condition, the neurologist placed me on an anti-seizure medication. This is supposed to calm the nerve and at least temporarily resolve the issue. This is unlike pain medication which can help with the pain, but does not address the condition. The doctor informed me of the side effects of this drug - namely drowsiness and that I might experience some effect on my thinking. I had no idea what was in store for me.

The medication did a bit more than make me drowsy. It knocked me out for hours at a time. It did impact my thinking. I felt like I was struggling up a mountain of sand to grasp at thoughts that somehow broke apart and skittered in different directions. Clearly I felt that the drug was not just "calming" the nerves, but "calming" my thoughts. Emotionally, it made me feel flat, to depressed, to absent. Functioning at all was an act of will that left me crying in despair on a daily basis.

Then I had a significant allergic reaction to the drug. I broke out in a body wide rash. I contacted my doctor who told me to stop the medication immediately.
By the middle of the next day, much of the medication had apparently left my brain. All of a sudden I had my brain back. My thoughts seemed lightening quick. I could put thoughts together without struggling. I felt that suddenly I was flying where hours before I had trudged under an unbearable weight. The change was more than striking, and that is truly what prompts this writing.

I knew how I was struggling under the medication. What being freed of it did was to give me a deep felt appreciation for how my brain (and likely most folk's brains) works. I so took for granted the facility of thinking. The ability to easily make conceptual leaps. I took for granted (except in a philosophical way) how much of my self is in my brain, and how much its processes and expression I take for granted.

Now, for at least this brief moment in time, I grasp how amazing this gift of self and thought are. Like the pain that I experience, this too is almost beyond description. I have no thought scale, no intensity or duration scales that have some communication standard that is even ball park shared. Does it make sense that my mind felt like a fresh spring breeze full of the smells of earth and growing things? Does it make any sense to say that my mind went from the sloth on a hot day to a kestrel diving through mountain air? Does it make any sense to say that my emotions felt like sludge in a pipe to a babbling brook dancing across the rocks?

Soon, when this drug reaction resolves, the doctor will want to try me on the next drug on the list. As it too will be the same category of drug, it is likely to produce the same effects. This time, I find that thought more realistically frightening than I did with the first medication. In proceeding with the treatment, I am willing to accept confining my "self" to a dim prison; consenting in the hobbling of my thoughts and emotions. I will consent to this treatment because it might cure, at least temporarily, this condition that gives me such difficultly to describe, and even more difficult to address, pain. This time I will know the cost to me, and I will hope that the medication does not steal too much of me, and that what is stolen will come back.

This experience has been more than educational. It has been a journey that has quest-like overtones.

I know that others of you have taken, or are currently on, such an unbidden journey. I have learned through previous experiences that there is something to be learned of our selves and the nature of things. This particular journey has taken me on unexpected and unknown turns which I am still struggling to understand. No other previous experience has given me the deep felt sense of appreciation for who it is that lives inside me. I hope that sharing this experience gives you an increased appreciation for what most of us takes for granted every day - the basic working of our self.

I do not know the origins of these images so thanks to whoever in the world put this together.

THIS IS INDIA . IT'S WHERE YOU CALL WHEN YOU HAVE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR COMPUTER.

Now let's say that in this stress test we allowed you to decide on your own level of debt. For example, you are obliged to pay off that long term loan, but if all goes well you hope to pay that off within the next year. So, let's knock that amount off the list. And that home loan? Well, you're currently paying $1,000 a month, but if you get this loan you will be paying $850 a month. So let's take that figure. Clearly, such assumptions and choices on your part MIGHT misrepresent your financial situation.

Now let's stress test those financial institutions. However it was that the Obama administration originally wanted to test the banks, the banks didn't like. So the banks pushed back. Effectively, they got the calculations of capital needed changed. This is a nice trick if you can do it - and they successfully did it.

But even before the stress test they got something else changed - the way they value their assets. Rather than providing the market value of the mortgages they held, they could provide what they think those assets are worth in a non-distressed market:

Bankers bitterly complained that the current market prices were the result of distressed sales and that they should be allowed to ignore those prices and value the securities instead at their value in a normal market. At first FASB, pronounced FAS-bee, resisted making changes, but that changed within a few days of a Congressional hearing at which legislators from both parties demanded the board act.

Even given the change in accounting rules, and whatever other changes in the "test" that was won by the banks, nine of them still failed. Oh excuse me, they didn't "fail," they did not pass the test. Oh EXCUSE ME! All 19 Banks Pass Stress Tests ("But many require new capital infusions to stay solvent). That little gem is from"Consumer Affairs." In a sop to those we generally think of as "consumers," the article states:

Consumers shouldn't be concerned that their bank was deemed to need more money. Even if a bank failed, deposits of up to $250,000 are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Besides, the whole idea behind the stress test was to make sure than none of the 19 banks fail.

So what are the consequences for banks who failed, excused me, did not pass, excuse me, passed but could be better? (And people yell about the schools not being tough and honest with students). Well, according to an article at the BBC - "Ten US banks fail 'stress tests' " (emphasis mine):

The treasury secretary said he believed that while the majority of the banks would be able to raise any additional money they need from private sources, if they were unable to do so the government may have to provide them with more taxpayer money.

Well that's telling them!
(Read in a stern and parental voice) "Correct those deficiencies or the taxpayer will give you more money!"

Other pertinent articles

Stress Tests for Beginners. The Baseline Scenario. 5/04/09.

The Mark-to-Market Myth. The Baseline Scenario. 4/02/09.

Fed: Banks Tighten Lending Standards Further. Calculated Risk. 5/04/09. These charts are instructive.

Government Offers Details of Bank Stress Test. Andrews & Dash. NY Times, 2/25/09. (But the article does not)

Stress Test for Banks Exposes Rift on Wall St.. Dash. NY Times, 2/24/09. (Actually pretty good given the successful change to accounting valuing changes)

There are three things about this flu that should have people concerned.

1. It combines three viruses - swine, avian, and human.
2. It strikes children and young adults.
3. It went global very quickly.

1. While the current version of this flu seems to have a lower mortality rate than originally believed, the combination of viruses is troubling. One of the big fears about the more lethal form of the "Avian Flu" has been that it would combine with a human flu virus and become directly communicable between humans. This version of the avian virus seems to have "figured" that out. It is logical to assume that the more lethal variant could potentially attach to, or "learn" from, this cousin.

2. It is worrisome that this flu strikes the group that is generally less likely to suffer from the flu (or at least to be seriously impacted by "the flu"). The typical high risk groups are the very young, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. This flu apparently strikes children and the prime breeding population. IF it increased in lethality, then the impacts would disproportionately hit the most fertile group and the "next" generation. Now if one thinks that this might be a positive thing in terms of our population "problem," then that might be. However, my guess is a lethal virus that hit 15-30 year olds would be responded to with intense grief, fear, and anger.

3. The spread of this virus shows how easily a virus can spread across the planet. One good thing about the reporting is to show just how vulnerable we are to a pandemic situation. Further, that by the time we realize that there is a problem it is likely too late to stop a global spread.

So, is asking people to isolate themselves, closing schools, etc. a rational response, or an over-response? I would argue that it is a prudent in many situations. The more people who have this virus, the more opportunity there is for the virus to evolve or mutate. If we can control the spread of this virus, it gives researchers the opportunity to figure it out - and perhaps develop a vaccine. If it goes through rapid (or continuing) transformation, then responding to it becomes increasingly difficult. Much of this year's "flu" was immune to the antivirals. What happens if this H1N1 learns that little trick? It could you know. So caution is prudent, while panic certainly is not.

I am quite upset at the way this has (or has not) been addressed in the media. The public perceptions set up a situation where people are likely to discount or not respond to the next health event. After all "it was no big deal" this time. A bit of information would go a long way to address this situation. The reality is that the "regular flu" kills about 36,000 - 50,000 people every year (the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S.). A flu epidemic like the Swine Flu of 1918 would result in approximately 2 million deaths in the United States.

Given that, how do you want the U.S. government (and local schools) to respond to a potentially virulent "flu?" I would prefer they err on the side of caution.

Why would Russia want floating nuclear plants? Well to power their Arctic oil and gas extraction of course.

Of course.

The issue of attempting to exploit petroleum resources in the Arctic is a hot topic with five nations waging a turf war - Russia, Canada, United States, Denmark, and Norway. Russia of course believes that the entire Arctic is theirs.

While many deny - or have never heard of - "Peak Oil." It is the global depletion of oil and gas reserves which makes the Arctic a huge issue. It is relatively "virgin" territory to explore with the hope of a BIG find. Assuming that there might be such a massive reserve in the Arctic means whoever controls it gains huge economic and political clout. [And yes, that is another thing that doesn't get talked about much. For example, the myth is that U.S. ingenuity, drive, and productivity made it a super power. However, from before WWII and onward into the 1960s, the U.S. was the largest producer of oil in the world. And then it collapsed and Saudi Arabia became oil king, and hence the influence and U.S. dance with the House of Saud - but that is another story for another day.]

According to the Vidal article, Russia is already working on a prototype floating nuke plant "at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk." The estimated completion is next year and contracts for four more have already been signed. Russia sees possibilities for floating nuclear plants for other energy provision and oil and gas extraction in at least 33 areas.

This could give the term "loose nukes" a whole new meaning.

The comment from the Sandinvian environmental watchdog group Bellona in Vidal's article sums up some of the concerns:

"It is highly risky. The risk of a nuclear accident on a floating power plant is increased. The plants' potential impact on the fragile Arctic environment through emissions of radioactivity and heat remains a major concern. If there is an accident, it would be impossible to handle," said Igor Kudrik, a spokesman.

Not mentioned is the need to reduce human industrial activity in the Arctic for protection of ecosystem and species on the brink of extinction. Certainly an "oil rush" is not what the Arctic needs.

However, one can bet that if Russia is on the trail of floating nuclear plants then other nations are as well. They offer the "benefit" of being out of sight and therefore out of mind to the public.

I highly recommend watching the entire program at Moyers Journal: Top Secret. The full transcript of the program is available at this link. The discussion addresses most of the major points that I have heard and read about how we should pursue the use of torture by the Bush administration.

Danner and Fein discuss the legal, political, and social implications of various ways of addressing the open acknowledgement that the United States institutionalized torture as an matter of policy.

Danner's focus in the discussion makes several key points. First, that because the country is divided on this issue we need to pursue it in a public way. Second, that there is a precedent that has been regarding the use of torture that opens us to using it in "extreme" situations again. Third, that the issue is not "past" politics, but present (and future) politics. Namely because the argument is being made by Cheney and others, that failure to continuing to use torture creates a vulnerability to the nation.

Fein's argument focuses around the legal and Constitutional issues. Namely that President Bush took it onto himself to override the law and created an illegal situation. It is a situation that continues to decimate the balance of powers and must be addressed. He says that if the law handcuffs the national security apparatus, then the resolution is to change the law - not ignore it. He argues, at length, that the Constitution and rule of law must be righted or that we truly do become a "banana republic." Fein notes that if Obama does not want to prosecute the architects of the torture policy, or those who engaged in it, he can do a pardon in advance of investigations. However, that it is critical to the country to operate under the rule of law.

Addendum
Additional related information and links to the memos, Red Cross report, and other source documents can be found at this link at the Moyers Journal site.

Bruce Fein is a conservative who has served in three Republican administrations, and is associated with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation - both conservative think tanks. He has started his own American Freedom Agenda organization which is acting restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of government.

Mark Danner is a long time journalist who has expertise in covering U.S. international policy and human rights issues. He was a long time writer for The New Yorker, has written a number of books, and is a professor of journalism.

We are in an age where it is implied that everything is a matter of opinion. Well, "everything" is NOT a matter of opinion. When it comes to "torture," it is not a question of "opinion" or "effectiveness" as to whether the "enhanced interrogation" methods are torture or not. It is a matter of law.

The United States is a signatory of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It was ratified by the U.S. Congress in 1994.

The Convention is clear on a number of pertinent issues. Below are Article 1 and 2:

Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Further, a person cannot be sent to a nation where he or she might be tortured.

Hence, there is no question that the "enhanced" interrogation techniques are torture. Further, engaging in "extraordinary rendition" programs was illegal when it was used to send prisoners some place else to be tortured. This is why George W. Bush, regardless of the opinions of counsel expressed in the released memos, removed the United States from the International War Crimes Tribunal.

Whether the United States has engaged in "torture" or not, or whether "enhanced interrogation" techniques were "really" torture is not debatable. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of law. Whether those who may have authorized or participated in these actions are guilty under the Convention and U.S. law is a matter for legal investigation.

The spin from many Republicans and most recently by Dick Cheney is that torture was "effective" in protecting our safety. There are a number of issues with such a position, but there are three main points.

1. It makes no difference whether it was "effective" or not, because the use of torture is illegal - both under international and U.S. law.
2. There is no proof that it was effective, and virtually all professional interrogators argue that it is NOT effective - including the U.S. military.
3. To say that it was effective implies that the "information" extracted could not have been gotten by legal means - or that even more reliable information may have been obtained.

We then have folks saying that the "techniques" used are "uncomfortable" but definitely not torture. Some point to SERE training and say they've been "waterboarded" and it is not torture (others with the same training vehemently argue it is torture). However, as noted by Senator Carl Levin in his statement regarding Senate Armed Services Committee investigation, SERE training is prepare troops for conditions they might experience as prisoners of those who have not signed the Geneva Convention. This does not mean that troops (or others) received training in doing "enhanced interrogations," or that the military approves or recommends such methods. Indeed, it rejects the use of such methods - until the Bush administration and Rumsfeld issued different orders.

So we have two issues. First, the legality of torture is not debatable; nor is what is torture debatable. Second, whether torture is (or is not) "effective" is a moot point since it is illegal. The corporate media's continued presentation in this mode is at best an effort to generate "audience" and at worst a deliberate effort to mislead and misinform the public.

Addendum
The Obama administration has made clear their reluctance to pursue an investigation of possible authorization and use of torture. This is not the President's call, nor is it Congress' call. It is the Department of Justice's call. If pressure is placed on the DoJ to not investigate, then that is political meddling. The memos and investigations, and the reports and investigations of the International Red Cross - among others - clearly point to the need for a formal, legal investigation. We do not want the shame of the international community, or the International War Crimes Tribunal, doing this for the United States.

Comments from Philip Zeikow and Dennis Blair as reported in Effectiveness Of Harsh Questioning Is Unclear (Joby Warrick & Peter Finn, Wa. Post, 4/26/09):

"The systematic, calculated infliction of this scale of prolonged torment is immoral, debasing the perpetrators and the captives," said Philip D. Zelikow, a political counselor to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who reviewed secret Bush administration reports about the program in 2005. "Second, forfeiting our high ground, the practices also alienate needed allies in the common fight, even allies within our own government. Third, the gains are dubious when the alternatives are searchingly compared. And then, after all, there is still the law." ... "There is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Blair (current Director of National Intelligence) said in a statement. "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

This from "This Week" (4/26/09) as recommended by Bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-B_-ExYZQc as recommended from Firedog Lake

Links of Interest
Patrick Coburn. Independent/UK, 4/26/09. Torture? It Probably Killed More Americans than 9/11.

From the NY Times Torture Memo Guide

From the ACLU collection of torture memos

2009 Report of the Armed Services Committee

President Obama's statement on the release of the memos (4/16/2009).

Interrogation Documents from the National Security Archive - 7/13/2004

Armed Services Committee 2008 Executive Summary - Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. Statement of Senator Carl Levin on the report.

In order to debunk the stereotypes and the associated bigotry, we need to grasp the reality of who is Muslim and who is Arab.

Who Is Muslim?
Anyone who follows the faith of Islam is a Muslim. Just as anyone who follows the faith of Christianity is a Christian. Muslims are spread across the world (see maps). Islam is the second largest religious group (est 1.6 billion) after Christianity (est 2.1 billion).

Major Religions of the World

There are an estimated 7 million Muslims in the United States (American Muslims Demographic Facts). The demographics of the population by race and ethnicity is :

African Americans 24%
Arab Americans 26%
South Asian Americans 26%
Other 24%

Present across 74% of these Muslim Americans are "Whites" as a racial group. As we can see, the Muslim population is racially and ethnically diverse both across the world and within the United States.

Who Is Arab?
Like the Muslim population the "Arab" population is tremendously diverse racially and ethnically. The term "Arab" is actually a linguistic term that refers to people who speak Arabic. There are approximately 300 million people in 22 Arabic speaking countries in the "Middle East" and Northern Africa.

What is the Arab World? The Arab World consists of 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Iran and Turkey are not Arab countries and their primary languages are Farsi and Turkish respectively. Arab countries have a rich diversity of ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities. These include Kurds, Armenians, Berbers and others. There are over 300 million Arabs. - Facts About the Arab World

The "Middle East" itself includes Arab countries from Egypt to the Persian Gulf, Israel and Iran. Iran is actually Persian, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are considered South Asia. Turkey is sometimes considered part of the Middle East and sometimes part of Europe.

Challenging Stereotypes
Obviously, the above information confounds our cultural understanding of both Muslims and Arabs. The stereotype in the United States is that Arabs are Muslims and that they constitute a distinct racial group. The truth is that Arabs are a racially diverse people who speak Arabic, some of whom are Muslims. Further, that Muslims are racially, ethnically, and nationally a global population - some of whom live in Arabic nations. Further, the largest populations of Muslims are not found in the "Middle East," but in South and Southeast Asia. Namely, in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (Islam by Country).

Islamophobia

As succinctly discussed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamophobia consists of the following beliefs:

- Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities.
- Islam does not share common values with other major faiths.
- Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric and irrational.
- Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
- Islam is a violent political ideology.[i]

While the points above are an accurate depiction of Islamophobia, it is generally combined with Anti-Arabism. In other words, Islamophobia intersects with and legitimizes prejudice against Arabs. The larger stereotype is that all Muslims are Arabs, and Arabs are violent and "terrorists."

Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism Is Alive and Well in the United States
There are numerous examples of how these prejudices have played out within the recent history of the United States. For example, on April 19, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. However, the early wide spread speculation was that "Arab terrorists" had bombed the building. Certainly there has been a renewed animus in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. Further, the launching of the "War on Terrorism" with the highlight on al Qaeda, and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, has brought increased animus against "Arabs" and "Muslims." This has refueled longstanding prejudices in the United States.

While deeply embedded prejudices are at the heart of both of these forms of bigotry, they do not exist solely within the minds of the "uninformed." They are reflected in the interlocking aspects of cultural beliefs, and institutional practices and policies.

We can observe these "biases" represented in both the entertainment industry and from the so-called information media. We saw its power in the recent Presidential campaigns with the claims that Obama "palled around with" terrorists, and supported "Muslim extremists." Even the repeated stressing of Obama's middle name - "Hussein" - was thrown out to inspire fear (and sometimes provide "proof") of his Muslim origins and connections. All of these were blatant calls to Islamophobia.

However, it is not just the media or political campaigns who call up and fuel these stereotypes. Other social institutions have embedded discrimination into a variety of formal processes.

The passage of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) which provided wide reaching changes to numerous aspects of existing law supposedly targeted at "terrorists," actually institutionalized racial profiling against "Arabs" and "Muslims." The impacts of this legislation and other changes to law have stretched from FBI investigations, to spying on Mosques and civil groups, to monitoring libraries and requiring certain types of student tracking by colleges and universities. While these are examples of what is referred to as "institutionalized discrimination*," they are legitimated by inspiring Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism in the general population.

*Institutionalized discrimination refers to the embedding of inequality within the various social institutions, formal policies and practices, and informal operations of day-to-day life.

All of this plays out in individual people's lives. On the one hand, we have the case of the arrest of a woman in Douglasville, Georgia for refusing to remove her headscarf in the courthouse (CNN, 12/23/2008). On the other, we have the increasing presence of White extremists within the U.S. military (SPLC, 12/14/08).

Conclusion
Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism are interlinking forms of prejudice and discrimination that are prevalent within the United States. These prejudices are like other forms of stereotyping that employ broad cultural and racial generalizations that target a part of the population for disparate treatment on both a personal and collective level.

Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Resources
Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism Book Excerpts from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Islamophobia Watch: documenting the war against Islam

Making Islamophobia Mainstream: How Muslim-bashers broadcast their bigotry. Steve Rendall and Isabel Macdonald. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) 12/2008.

Bipartisan Islamophobia Frustrates Muslim Voters. Anil Mundra. NPR. 10.22/2008.

Anti-Arabism. Wikipedia.

Setback for Arab-Americans. Jack Tapper. Salon. 9/17/2001.

A Bibliography of Anti-Arab Discrimination, Stereotyping, and Media Bias. Arab-American anti-discrimination Committee. (ADC)

American Gulag -- A Record of Anti-Arab Bigotry in America. Website of articles and resources.

100 Years of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stereotyping. Mazin B. Qumsiyeh. Originally published on The Prism.

Islamic World - religion and history.

Islam Map Set. Different maps and information regarding the global Muslim population

Facts About the Arab World

Islam by Country. Wikipedia.

USA PATRIOT Act. ACLU. 11/14/2003.

2008 Hate Crime Survey. Human Rights First.

FBI 2007 Hate Crime Statistics.

Pirates

Let us start with the central issue of human rights - the "pirates." If you listen to (or read) the news, then this all seems pretty straight forward. There are pirates off the coast of Somalia hijacking vessels and returning them to their owners when a ransom is paid. There was an effort to link the pirates to al Qaeda, but that failed. However, the reference still comes up from time to time. There is no known connection between the Somali pirates and any terrorist organization.

One has to ask "When is a pirate a pirate?" In the short view, we have roving bands of folks taking ships and crews hostage for ransom. Until relatively recently, companies and governments have paid up; the ships and crews have been released; and trade goes on. In other words, paying off the pirates was treated as the "cost of doing business." Now, after almost a year (in the U.S.) of manufactured outrage regarding the pirates (and coming to a semi-head with the capture of the Maersk Alabama) we have the U.S. sending war ships and the FBI to resolve the issue. It is highly likely that an international effort will soon be proposed to deal much more harshly and swiftly with pirates.

If one takes a slightly longer view, one runs into a much thornier issue regarding the Somali pirates. Namely, why they became pirates. The evolution of the Somali pirate starts with multinational fishing fleets engaging in uncontrolled "poaching" off the coast of Somalia. See, the people were fisherman, and the trawling fleets removed their livelihood - and destroyed a number of boats. This happened with no action from the "government" of Somalia, nor with intervention from an national or international body. So there sat the fisherman with no fish and no way to survive.

Piracy in Somalia began because traditional coastal fishing became difficult after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks. Desperate fishermen started attacking trawlers until the trawler crews fought back with heavy weapons, leading the local fishermen to turn to other types of commercial vessels. The pirates prefer to call themselves the Somali "coast guard," noting that, prior to the recent spate of hijackings, they organized themselves to defend their communities from overfishing and, according to several accounts, to protect Somalia's coastline from toxic dumping by foreign vessels. ~ Somali Piracy and the International Response

Hmm .. "pirates."

In an article from the Guardian, a Somali pirate - Asad Abdulahi - offers a different perspective from the spin:

We don't see the hijacking as a criminal act but as a road tax because we have no central government to control our sea. With foreign warships now on patrol we have difficulties.

The Abdulahi interview also shows the escalation of the weapons of piracy. As ships and military vessels use increasing fire power, so too do the types of weapons that "pirates" employ. This is of course not unexpected - both history and research show that this escalation is inevitable.

Given the situation leading up to the career change from fisherman to pirates, perhaps "pirates" is a misleading label. After brainstorming with my life partner trying to come up with a more accurate label, we finally settled on "repirates." The Somali fishermen were robbed of their livelihood (it was "pirated"). They in turn shifted to a tax or duty approach to make up for what they had lost. Of course, they had (and have) no governmental sanction for such "collections," so they are acting illegally. But they are not "pirates" but REPIRATES.

Now this term leads to some interesting relationships.

If one pronounces it rē '- pirates, then they are pirates stealing back from pirates.

If one pronounces the word as rĕ - pĭ-rĕ ts' then it sounds more like reparations.

Either way the concepts more closely fit the situation than "pirates."

As a side note, this discussion of modern sea "piracy" calls into question the supposed history of piracy (or at least it does for me).

A U.S. Ship?
Now what about the ship that is generating so much attention - the Maersk Alabama? It is oh so difficult to determine the actual nationality of a ship these days. First, Maersk is a multinational corporation having operations in 130 countries. It was established in 1904 by A.P. Moller (and his father), and now has more than 550 container ships (Maersk site). The Maersk Alabama may be out of the Maersk operations in Norfolk, Virginia. So, one could argue that it is a "U.S." ship - or at least on its current mission it is.

This is where determining national ownership issues becomes much more complicated. The standard practice in international shipping is a practice called "flags of convenience" (FOC). In essence, FOC's are an "open registry" practice that allows captains (or ship owners) to fly whatever nation's flag which will be most beneficial to them for the purposes of their mission. Generally, this "benefit" relates to regulations, ship conditions, crew wages etc. Because of the abusive use of flags of convenience, the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) has launched an campaign against the use of FOCs.

For 50 years the ITF, through its affiliated seafarers' and dockers' unions, has been waging a vigorous campaign against shipowners who abandon the flag of their own country in search of the cheapest possible crews and the lowest possible training and safety standards for their ships.

So FOCs allow shipowners to hire the cheapest labor they can find, with questionable training and protections.

I may be wrong, but it seems that pirates of old used "flags of convenience" as well. The stories go that one way they would get close to ships they wanted to "pirate" was to fly the flag of the ship of that nation. Interesting how the commercialization of the concept is an acceptable way to exploit workers and regulations for economic advantage.

So, perhaps for this particular trip, in this particular location, the Maersk Alabama is being considered a "U.S." vessel.

Interestingly, flags of convenience also seem to be used for ships contracted by the military - including Maersk line ships. The Maersk facility out of Norfolk, Virginia is one of the primary shipping contractors to the U.S. Department of Defense according to GlobalSecurity.org.

Summing Up
Perhaps the proper contextual headlines regarding the Maersk Alabama situation should read: "Somalian Repirates seize Dutch owned Maersk ship flying under the flag of convenience of the United States."

In an interview with Fox News, Gingrich stated:

GINGRICH: I would use whatever methods were necessary for the missile never to be launched. And I think you could do it probably with unconventional methods.

VAN SUSTEREN: So that's military. Are you saying military?

GINGRICH: If necessary. If I can't find a way to bribe somebody to blow it up, I'd find a way to have either a small team go in, or a way to deliver either a laser or another kind of device.

This is a missile that is sitting there on that launch pad, and I think you could take it out with very, very minimal risk to anybody.

The media interpretation (including "progressive" commentators) was essentially to respond to Gingrich's remarks as if they were off the wall and that the use of laser weapons showed his disconnect with reality.

I hate it when purportedly smart people make stupid statements. Brushing off laser weapons as a "joke" is at best misinformed.

The United States has an array of laser weaponry which is in use. What Gingrich's suggestion of such weaponry does is to confirm a technology capable of destroying a missile and a missile facility. That is big news, and to the best of my knowledge the first confirmation that the United States has this capacity.

The United States has been working on the laser technology for use as a weapon for some period of time. An airborne laser weapon (1) was under development in 1997. In an overview of articles (2) on military lasers, the authors state:

Since 2004, Boeing has been working with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin under contract from the United States Military to develop a laser defense system mounted on a jumbo jet meant to track and destroy missiles in flight. This system has already been tested and proven to have the strength and duration necessary to destroy almost all classes of missiles, as well as project their intended impact site. Northrop Grumman also has their own Sky Guard laser defense system in development, which is a ground-based system capable of shooting down missiles, UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), and artillery shells within a five kilometer radius. A third, and most revolutionary, laser system in development is called the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL), which is the first laser system to be developed with both lethal and non-lethal capabilities. This laser system can slice through metal from up to nine miles away, giving it the ability to shoot down missiles or take out enemy armor, as well as produce a non-lethal laser pulse which can disable enemy armor or personnel.

In 2004, the HELLIAD system (3) - High Energy Laser Area Defense System - was more than half way through its development program. It is a system capable of being load onto tactical vehicles - including drones. And the U.S. has been working on (and possibly has) a space-based laser system. (4)

In 2006, there were reports that laser weapons were being tested in Iraq (DemocracyNow, 7/25/08; LA Times, 5/18/2006).

So back to Mr. Gingrich's suggestion of using laser weapons against North Korea is not a joke, it is a confirmation. He is a Washington insider with his fingers and ears in military and national security infrastructure. I believe that his comment was actually a "oops" as the actual readiness of weaponized lasers is not publicly acknowledged. The media's laughing it off is at best a feature of them being misinformed, and at worst engaging in disinformation.

(1) The Airborne Laser and the Future of Theater Missile Defense. Maj. Gerald W. Wirsig. 1997 (pdf. See page 15 - Airborne Laser)

(2) Laser Technology. GlobalSecurity.org

(3) High Energy Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) . GlobalSecurity.org

(4) Space Based Laser [SBL]. FAS.

From the Reagan "revolution" forward, the Republicans have maneuvered to weaken government and place power in the hands of the capitalists. They have done this under the guise of protecting our "freedom," and in the process they engineered the theft of the government from the people. Along the way, they had the assistance of neo-liberals who jumped on the "free" trade band wagon. It has been known for a very long period of time that unfettered capitalism would eventually (or cyclically) result in a train wreck. AND IT HAS.

This "gang" also facilitated the undermining of the Constitution, destruction of civil liberties, and transfer of power to the executive branch under George W. Bush to support the farce of "Unitary Executive. The Republicans moved in lock-step to give Bush as much power as he wanted (or could take) with no objection whatsoever. They endorsed torture, corporatizing the military, and clapped as the largest bureaucracy the world has ever seen was created under the auspices the "Department of Homeland Security." The signed away OUR rights and OUR honor with a smile and a flag wave. They grew the K-Street crew and pocketed the payoffs serving their new employers rather than protecting the interests or serving the needs of their constituents.

Now. NOW. They have the gall to say that OBAMA is "infringing" on the "rights of private business." Now. NOW. they shout like terrorized parrots, that OBAMA is running rampant over the people (read the capitalists). Now. NOW. They shout in repetitious fashion, of this terrible "threat" to our nation.

I say "Shut the f up! You have NO basis and NO credibility. Your transparent efforts to continue on the failed course that you have pursued is bankrupting the country. Your cries of alarm and anger are worse than hypocritical - they are treasonous. So shut the f up!"

The short version of the story is that two (and perhaps more) Luzerne County PA judges (Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan) received $2.6 million for sending juveniles who came before them to private juvenile facilities. They have plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges. However, while the short version is shocking, tracking down the details is educational.

The Longer Story
The two judges involved, did not just take kickbacks for sending juveniles to private "kiddie prisons." In 2002, Conahan, then president judge of Luzerne County, had shut down the county facility, and signed an agreement to send juveniles to PA Child Care LLC (AP). Then Conahan and Ciavarella, started sending a disproportionate (compared to other juvenile court judges - 25% compared to 10%) number of juveniles to two private facilities - PA Child Care and Western PA Child Center. So the two judges received the $2.6 million from 2002-2008.

Now PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care are owned by Mid-Atlantic Youth Services. The owner of Mid-Atlantic is one Gregory Zappala. Zappala is also an attorney (among other things). The "other things" makes for interesting reading.

Gregory Zappala is the son of former state Supreme Court Justice Stephen A. Zappala. Aside from being an attorney himself, he was also the head of a municipal financing company RRZ Public Markets - later purchased by JP Morgan (Pittsburgh City Paper). Zappala is also connected to Bush Jr.'s "go to guy" Tom Hardiman - who married into the well-connected (democratic) family.

Side Note from Lord article: (Hardiman) met Lori Zappala, who would become his wife, bring him to Pittsburgh -- and give him instant entrée into the legal and political circles that have made him a nominee for judge.

Lori Zappala is the daughter of Richard A. Zappala, whose real-estate interests include the McIntyre Square shopping center in Ross Township. Her uncle is former state Supreme Court Justice Stephen A. Zappala, whose son and namesake is Allegheny County's district attorney. Another of the former justice's sons, Gregory Zappala, headed up municipal financing firm RRZ Public Markets, until it was purchased by New York-based JP Morgan Chase & Co. in February.

Hardiman married into the politically connected, heavily Democratic clan...

In the purchase of RRZ, Gregory Zappala became JP Morgan's VP of Pennsylvania operations. One has to think that the well placed Zappala was part of the reason for the "no questions asked" investment by Pennsylvania educators in JP Morgan.

Schools Flunk Finance:

Education officials in Erie and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, were so impressed with the quantitative skills of JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley that they bought interest-rate swaps without ever knowing the price. That cost taxpayers millions of dollars for the errant financings.
...
David DiCarlo, an Erie-based JPMorgan Chase banker, told Barker and the school board on Sept. 4, 2003, that all they had to do was sign papers he said would benefit them if interest rates increased in the future, and the bank would give the district $750,000, a transcript of the board meeting shows. "You have severe building needs; you have serious academic needs," Barker, 58, says. "It's very hard to ignore the fact that the bank says it will give you cash." So Barker and the board members agreed to the deal.

What New York-based JPMorgan Chase didn't tell them, the transcript shows, was that the bank would get more in fees than the school district would get in cash: $1 million. The complex deal, which placed taxpayer money at risk, was linked to four variables involving interest rates. Three years later, as interest rate benchmarks went the wrong way for the school district, the Erie board paid $2.9 million to JPMorgan to get out of the deal, which officials now say they didn't understand.
...
During the past four years in Pennsylvania alone, banks have pitched at least 500 deals totaling $12 billion like the one JPMorgan Chase sold to Erie, according to records on file with the state Department of Community and Economic Development. Most of the transactions--which occurred outside the state's largest cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh--have been made without public bidding, which means that banks and advisers privately arranged the deals with small school districts, the records show. (I recommend reading the whole article)

Indeed, JP Morgan did well with Zappala at the helm of the Pennsylvania "operations."

The very busy Zappala was also a partner with Gladstone Partners, L.P. which is trying to get an cargo-capable airport built in Hazle Township, Luzerne County. The proposal received a "Conditional No Objection" from the FAA in May 2007 (Bond Buyer).

The Zappala family is obviously a big player in Pennsylvania, and Greg Zappala is no exception. He has contributed politically personally, and through his companies, to both Republican, and Democratic campaigns. It does not appear that he contributed to the Biden Presidential campaign; however, there is a Charles Robert Zappala who was listed as a Congressional Staffer for Biden in 2005 and 2006.

Summing Up
The story of the kids summarily sent to private detention centers for profit is a case study in power, money, and its abuses. Just as Bernie Madoff bilked his friends and those who trusted him of billions of dollars with apparently no qualms, Zappala and Judges willing threw aside any care for the juveniles who were shunted into for-profit facilities. Just as Wall Street and big finance went on an exploitation scheme that we may never know the full extent of. One and all, they are reflective of a perverse system where people's lives are below consideration.

The U.S. public has been told for decades that "What's good for business is good for us." We have been fed a line that "Government is bad and business is good." We have been told that "Government is inefficient and business is efficient." So we were sold a bill of goods to privatize as much of government as we could, and private corrections are right up there at the top of the list. As the Pennsylvania situation shows, "corrections" can be very profitable indeed. However, that does not mean that is a cost saver for the public. It does mean that there are incentives to throw away important considerations - like people's lives, worker safety, environmental protections, troop safety - so more money can be made.

In the corrections arena this translates into more people incarcerated for longer periods of time - because there is more money to be made that way. So we get the constant spin of crime out of control and "let's get tough on criminals." We take away discretionary sentencing and put in mandatory sentencing. We say "lock them up forever" with the "three-strikes" law. So the incarcerated population grows, and the cost grows, The "solutions" we are offered are to undercut prisoners detainment facilities (decrease health care, education, even prisoner population limits), force prisoners to "work" for their keep, and privatize, privatize, privatize.

Of course this means that private facilities get to stack prisoners on top of each other, decrease staff training, and use the incarcerated population as a low wage captive workforce. Meanwhile, they also collect from the government for each prisoner for the duration of their incarceration. A nice deal for the corporations, though perhaps not what the public thought they were signing onto.

The "game" is rigged, and the sooner people quit buying into the lies the more likely we will get to a reality-based life.

Aside: I am vehemently against the death penalty, and am heartened that it is finally coming under serious questioning by the states. However, life imprisonment in a privatized prisons scenario makes me wonder at the sudden change of heart. This is particularly true since it is being said that it is "cheaper" to keep someone for a life sentence than it is to execute them. Cheaper for whom? Profitable for whom?

Court Documents: PA Childcare LLC v Stephen Flood, Thomas Crofcheck and Leonard Pocius - regarding release of audit of PA Childcare. (2005)

The new Afghan "democracy" was touted with the "election" of Hamid Karzai - ex-primary UNOCAL consultant- to the presidency of Afghanistan. Many around the world, and in the region, feared the rigging of those elections, and that Karzai was little more than a U.S. pawn. Now we have open news that this may well be the case. Borger and Macaskill write in the Guardian "US Will Appoint Afghan 'Prime Minister' to Bypass Hamid Karzai." Really? The U.S. can appoint a government official in another nation to usurp the powers of the "elected" president? This is followed on 3/24 by Jane Perlez of the New York Times with "U.S. Weighs Sharif as Partner in Pakistan." So the U.S. is meddling in Pakistan's political process as well?

So why are we there? Is it to oust al Qaeda, control "terrorist" groups, "stabilize" the region? Or are we there because of the long simmering oil and natural gas issues with Russia?

As Pepe Escobar succinctly states in his article "Liquid war: Welcome to Pipelineistan:

Forget the mainstream media's obsession with al-Qaeda, Osama "dead or alive" bin Laden, the Taliban - neo, light or classic - or that "war on terror", whatever name it goes by. These are diversions compared to the high-stakes, hardcore geopolitical game that follows what flows along the pipelines of the planet.

This is not new news, but our ongoing "interest" in Afghanistan has virtually nothing to do with either "terrorism" or with good wishes for the people of Afghanistan - anymore than we seem to care about the people of Pakistan or Iraq. The United States is not there for them - it is there because of U.S. "interests." Apparently, both our government, and the people of the United States, are willing to accept a lot of "collateral damage" to protect (or advance) those "interests." All too frequently those interests are energy related, and those interests pass through and advance corporate interests. For example, the consortium of oil companies who were bargaining for the pipeline through 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 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 (Chossudovsky).

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." (Flanders)

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).

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." (From: Power Play? Wolf, 2001)

All of which of course begs the question of September 11, 2001 and the catastrophic lies and invasions that occurred as a response. However, this article is not focused on 9/11 (though it hauntingly suggests the power of "interests"). Rather, one has to ask whether our new President has any different a world view, or policy initiative, than has been in play in the United States since at least the end of World War II.

Currently, Obama has expanded drone attacks into Pakistan and there is actually very little news of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Has the "war" shifted? Obama has already stated, and started, the shifting of forces from Iraq (the "bad" war) to Afghanistan (the "good" war). I have to ask if this is because Iraq is seen as safely on a leash, or whether the saber rattling of Russia has raised the priority of protecting the pipeline (and hence "leashing" Russia's energy power)?

Left or right, there is little hard questioning of either why we are there, or what we should be trying to do. The focus has largely been "get out of Iraq" with a general acceptance that we left Afghanistan "undone." "Undone" meaning we still don't have bin Laden. However, the stakes have changed, and it is looking increasingly likely that the Taleban will be back in control of the Afghan government soon - and perhaps Pakistan's as well. While this prospect is murmured as "unfortunate," it is seen as a "realistic" approach. Perhaps, the negotiations with the Taleban have little to do with what is "realistic" and who can provide the muscle to guard the pipeline.

One note of hope is Obama's pledge to take the United States to energy independence. Success in this are - and around the world - would radically reduce the armed conflicts. While oil and gas are not the only conflict issues, they are major ones. Addressing that would start a transformation of international policy - overt and covert.

Related Articles of Interest
Ramzy Baroud. 2/21/2009. A New Afghanistan Nightmare

John Steppling. 8/13/2008. Inventing Your Own History as it Happens

Rowan Wolf. 5/26/2005. "Pipe-istan" Becomes A Reality.

Rowan Wolf. 6/27/04. Afghanistan - not a pipe dream any longer

Rowan Wolf. 5/2002. Power Play?.

According to Scientific American "coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste." After various studies it has been determined that:

the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant --a by-product from burning coal for electricity-- carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

Perhaps you remember to billion plus gallon ash sludge spill in Harriman, TN. The ash is full of heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, mercury, thallium, which persist in the environment for a very long time.

One might wonder at the wisdom of sludge ponds - open pit storage - of such a toxic waste. It does not seem wise or prudent. Neither does "reusing" toxic material.

Perhaps folks remember Times Beach, Missouri which had to be destroyed because of dioxin mixed with oil that was placed on the roads. So how is using fly ash for sandblasting significantly different? There are no toxic controls that I know of with sand blasting operations?

How does using fly ash, and other coal remnants, as landfill keep it out of the water system?

The argument is made that mixing it with concrete for construction is a "safe" use. The assumption being that concrete is durable. However, concrete is frequently broken up - or erodes over time. One would assume that the heavy metals would likewise be released as it degrades. Using it for bridges - particularly bridge pylons that stand in water doesn't seem very safe to me.

Certainly, mixing it gypsum in sheet rock/wallboard seems dumber still.

How many folks, myself included, do their own home repairs? As you are mixing you concrete, or replacing a damaged wall in your home, do you seal the area, wear a mask, dispose of the residue in an approved toxic site? I don't, and frankly it never occurred to me that I was potentially placing myself - or others - at risk. There is no warning sign that I have ever seen that says that concrete or sheet rock contains toxic material or heavy metals.

I've also been around significant demolition of sites in my life. Imagine the dust that settles over everything and ends up in the landfill, or washed down the street drains. There are no precautions taken there for the escape of this type of toxic materials either.

However, the idea of reusing / repurposing toxic materials could certainly be extended. How about all those spent rods from nuclear power plants and radioactive material from medical facilities. Why not grind it up and use it in the same construction materials? Oh, I forgot. The United States does use "depleted" uranium in its heavy munitions, and as counterweights in airplanes. Never mind. That is nuts too if you ask me.

And they say there is "clean" coal.

If you think that using fly ash in construction and landfills is not a good idea, then here are a couple of actions you can take.

Action form: Tell the EPA to strictly regulate the disposal of contaminated coal waste

Action form: Tell TVA to Take Responsibility for Toxic Coal Spills!

For Further Information
Libby Tucker. Green Inc. 3/12/2009. The Quarrel Over Coal Ash Waste.

NRDC. Contaminated Coal Waste

In 2004, a number of individuals filed an International War Crimes Indictment against George W. Bush for the events which occurred in Afghanistan. Now in 2008, there is virtual silence in the U.S. with the exception of Tom Lasseter at McClatchy, and the international press.

In less than a month, George Bush will leave the White House. The official silence, and even tacit facilitation of destruction of evidence, speaks of not just neglect, but of guilt.

The official U.S. line is that they had no knowledge of the events which transpired where prisoners suffocated in cargo containers in the hot sun, or were killed when bullets were shot through the containers. Of course, the U.S. has looked the other way at the destruction of evidence as well - pointing at the government of Afghanistan.

Some might say that this is ancient history, but it is not. Now as we move to install a new President, we are also moving to double the number of U.S. forces inside Afghanistan. The word is that the majority of this "surge" will be mostly Special Forces. It was reportedly Special Forces who were supporting and "advising" the Afghan "war lord" Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum who was allegedly directly responsible for the massacre.

Do we think that U.S. forces, perhaps particularly Special Forces, are going to be welcomed in Afghanistan? Will injecting more troops into the region ease the conflict or inspire it? At what point will the U.S. take at least symbolic stand for justice - particularly for one of the most horrendous war crimes of the last eight years?

I believe that it would do Obama (and the stature of the U.S.) well, to (at the least) publicly acknowledge the crimes and make an effort to facilitate rather than impede the international investigation.

As I sit housebound by the great blizzard of 2008 which froze my pipes and has me working hours a day shoveling and hauling wood (see pics below). I know that much of the country is suffering under the same conditions. Folks stuck in airports, bus terminals, and Red Cross "warming stations." The endless local news has our Mayor Elect telling us that the $48 million in cuts to road projects is not helping a road cleanup bill from the storm that is running us further into the hole at an estimated $150,000 to $190,000 a day. And guess what? The federal funds don't cover snow emergencies (according to our Mayor Elect).

From Personal

One of the main ideas in Obama's economic stimulus package is to jump start construction projects. Well that cannot happen to soon as the national infrastructure is rapidly crumbling - as we have seen through disaster and tragedy.

The NY Times tells us that the economic slump is forcing states to halt road projects." In fact, some states - such as California - are in such straits that they are halting all construction and infrastructure projects. I am sure the current storm damages across the entire northern tier of the country will add dramatically to the "things not done" list.

Sadly, most of Congress is off on vacation, because Washington DC is having its own test of infrastructure collapse. A 5 1/2 foot water main has broken in Bethesda, MD which has required folks to be rescued by helicopter (See Washington Post footage below).

As a sideline, we learn that main breaks are becoming increasingly frequent in Maryland. In fact, Maryland's Infrastructure Report Card from the American Society of Civil Engineers says the water system needs a $1.7 billion investment.

Of course, Maryland is not alone in its woes. According to Oregon's Report Card, we need $830 million to fix the bridges on Interstate 5 alone. The National Infrastructure Fact Sheet tells a grim and expensive tale of just how badly the nation is falling apart.

One might ask how we got into such dire straits, but most of us already know. We have been told that infrastructure is not politically "sexy" so representatives across the board from local to national level have avoided it at all costs. However, the real problems are part of the same problems - corporatization and diversion of our tax dollars to make up for the free lunch and corporate welfare we are paying an ever larger price for. According to the GAO report released last fall, almost all of the major corporations paid no taxes over the last three years. Wouldn't you like a tax holiday like that? But then this laxity is part of the same "voodoo economics" that got us into the current economic crash.

Ah well, don't mind me. I'm just aching from shoveling snow.

From Rob Stein at Washington Post:

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

While the regulation was aimed at the provision of abortion services - including supplying the "morning after pill" - the scope of the rule goes far beyond that. Suppose a clerk has religious beliefs that antibiotics are an abomination? Yes, they could decide not to allow you to check out of Wal-Mart.

The rule has such sweep that anyone could deny virtually any health service to anyone. While this is significant across the board, it is especially significant in those areas where there is little choice of health care providers or supplies - poor neighborhoods, small towns, and rural areas. In those areas, people can't just go down the street to receive services. They are stuck with the provider's or employee's "conscience."

This regulation is not one that can be easily removed by the new Obama administration. It will likely take Congressional action to overturn.

I highly recommend taking 7 minutes to watch the video clip below from the 12/18/08 Rachel Maddow Show:

Related Information
Access full rule RIN 0991-AB48 Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law 127 pages

Representatives to watch for countering legislation:
Diana DeGette, Louise Slaughter

12/19/08 Rubenstein, Wall Street Journal, Bush Administration Adds 'Conscience' Rule on Abortion

12/18/08 Savage, LA Times, Health providers' 'conscience' rule to take effect

12/02/08 Savage. AARP Bulletin. Broader medical refusal rule may go far beyond abortion

Obama's selection of Warren is a slap in the face to those who support equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, and recognition of same-sex relationships.

Warren, who has made it a practice not to endorse candidates or political parties, wrote in October that the issue of gay marriage is not a political issue, but instead "a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population." (Mooney, CNN, 12/18/08)

While I would challenge Warren's claim that only 2% of the population is not heterosexual, that shouldn't matter when it comes to the rights of our population. Nor do I see extending equal rights to all of our citizens "appeasing" a minority population. One might argue that the political embrace of evangelical Christianity is also "appeasing," but we wouldn't want to go there would we?

In a June 2008 CounterPunch article, Jeff Sharlet says this of Rick Warren:

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don't set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what's possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It's big tent fundamentalism - everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men -- and the new evangelicalism as a movement -- continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it's self-help; scratch, and it's revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There's a sense in which Buchman's vision of "God-controlled supernationalism" thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

After having eight years of evangelical power mongers in the Bush White House, are we now to expect more of the same with Obama? Are we being informed that the Obama presidency will continue the goals of the Christian Right in its domestic and international policy? There has been a lot of concern among so-called "progressives" about Obama's choices for leadership positions, but the tapping of Warren is perhaps the most disturbing decision so far.

Articles of Interest
12/05/2003. Chip Berlet & Nikhil Aziz. Right Web. Culture, Religion, Apocalypse, and Middle East Foreign Policy

10/11/2005. Brian MacQuarrie. Boston.com. Pastor rivets many without politics

By Rowan Wolf and published at Uncommon Thought Journal

12/23/2003. Apocalyptic belief and foreign policy

5/19/2005. Merging "Rights" In A Time of Fear.

11/04/2006. Haggard, Bush, and the Unholy Alliance

One can imagine what the classified report must contain since the summary itself is damning:

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. This report is a product of the Committee's inquiry into how those unfortunate results came about.

The Summary states that Bush's removal of Geneva Convention protection for detainees "opened the door" to abuse and torture. Further, the Department of Justice redefined what torture was to permit "aggressive interrogations. Then Rumsfeld approved the use of torture. Torture was approved for use at Guantanamo, in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The conclusions in the Executive Summary start on page 16 of the document, and traces the decisions made from the White House and top administrations officials, through training practices and into the field.

In Senator Carl Levin's (head of the Senate Armed Services Committee) press release regarding the report, he concludes"

"The abuses at Abu Ghraib, GTMO and elsewhere cannot be chalked up to the actions of a few bad apples. Attempts by senior officials to portray that to be the case while shrugging off any responsibility for abuses are both unconscionable and false. Our investigation is an effort to set the record straight on this chapter in our history that has so damaged both America's standing and our security. America needs to own up to its mistakes so that we can rebuild some of the good will that we have lost.

In the Joint Statement of Levin and John McCain (senior Republican on the committee) states in part:

The Committee concluded that the authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials was both a direct cause of detainee abuse and conveyed the message that it was okay to mistreat and degrade detainees in U.S. custody.

Chairman Levin said, "SERE training techniques were designed to give our troops a taste of what they might be subjected to if captured by a ruthless, lawless enemy so that they would be better prepared to resist. The techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody."

Senator McCain said, "The Committee's report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."

Just this last week in one of my classes, the "auto workers get paid $70 an hour" came up again. I patiently tried debunking this propaganda - for the umpteenth time. The $70 an hour includes the costs of all benefits for existing workers - and for retired workers and their families or survivors. Those pension plans are already paid for by the workers who have retired. They are not being paid for by current workers - they are paying into their own benefit plans. Keith Olbermann did a nice job of confronting the inflated pay claims.

There is no clearer evidence that corporations control the messages we receive than the bogus claims of "outrageous" wages (and benefits), and the "huge" burden of "legacy" costs.

The propagandistic nature of these claims were revealed in a 2008 report by Schultz and Francis in the Wall Street Journal - "Companies Run Up Big IOUs, Mostly Obscured, to Grant Bosses a Lucrative Benefit. In fact, GM alone had $9 billion more in its workers pension fund than it needed, but a $1.4 billion liability for its executive benefits.

The auto industry is not alone in its claims of "legacy costs" as a way to divert those monies somewhere else. In 2003, Schultz and Theo did another investigation for the Wall Street Journal - "Executive Pensions Often Secured First. This was written at the time that corporations were bailing out of their obligations and throwing the retirement obligation to the U.S. tax payer. In fact, it is not even illegal for corporations to under-fund, or even bail out on, their obligation to workers while dumping big bucks into their executive plans. Shows you who is writing the legislation doesn't it?

The corporate media has done an excellent job of turning workers against workers. The fact that the so-called "public" can be outraged at $70 an hour (which is a lie anyway) tells us how far we have fallen. While many have been angered at the $700 billion Wall Street bailout while the executive suite continues to collect multi-million dollar bonuses, little has been made of what Wall Street employees make. In fact, that figure has hardly been reported. According to a report in the Boston Globe, the average Goldman Sachs employee makes $622,000 a year (including bonuses and benefits). To break that down, that equals $299 an hour - over 3 times more than the inflated autoworker $70 an hour.

Of course, the $622,000 is overinflated as well because it includes what "top traders and investment bankers" made as well. But regardless, there is no drumbeat of worker extortion for these well paid white collar workers.

So how much do those autoworkers make? According to the United Auto Workers (UAW):

In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole - roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers' wages. (Starting wage is $14 and hour)

Of course, that $27.81 looks good when the average wage in the U.S. was $19.56 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Further, there is a difference between the wages of Union and Non-Union workers as well - part of the success of turning workers against workers. In private industry, for example, the average Union worker made $818 ($20.45/hr) a week compared to $651 ($16.28/hr) for non-Union (BLS, 2008). Even these wages look good to those at the Federal minimum wage of $6.65 an hour.

Regardless, even while the CEO's of the Big Three are forced to beg for a bridge loan while the Financial Sector pulls trucks up to the Treasury and the Fed no questions asked, the attack on workers - and the average person - continues. The Big Three want their money, but apparently they don't want to undermine their decades long attack on Unions in the process.

I swear if I hear the Wall Street - Main Street claptrap again I am going to scream. The money isn't getting to those who are bleeding - workers and those who are still housed (however precariously). It definitely is not getting to those who have lost their jobs and their homes. And this is where a the ongoing brainwashing of the people is clearly reflected. Those who are losing their homes have been depicted as losers who should have never gotten loans in the first place. While there were "risky" loans that were made, 60% of those who received sub-prime loans were actually qualified for prime mortgages. Regardless, homeowners and renters are losing their homes. Apartment dwellers are losing their homes. People in the "service sector" are losing jobs and so are public employees. This is not a case of "deserving" and "undeserving." What has happened is the bilking of the people by those at the top. Further, those at the top are making out like bandits, They ARE bandits!

We have seen decades of the corporate spin on everything, and we've been sold that this is "truth." The "public" - even much of the "informed" public - has swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. It was the propaganda that sold us NAFTA and GATT. It caused the gleeful attack on the poor resulting in so-called "welfare reform." It is a strategy that has been effective in turning us against ourselves in a feeding frenzy of self righteous rage while the "Big Boys" sit in their boardrooms laughing at us and counting their phony profits.

I am deeply troubled by the haunting similarity in the portrayal of those facing foreclosure with those who were the "undeserving poor" living on the "welfare". The outrage at the modest wages of autoworkers carries the same emotional tenor as the manufactured outrage at "illegal" immigrants. We are pointed at each other like the creatures heartlessly released on each other by cheering jeering dogfight enthusiasts. And like those hapless dogs, we rip and kill each other while massive wagers (called derivatives) are made on the outcome. I am sickened by the whole debacle.

We balk at helping those in foreclosure the same way we balk at giving money to those receiving assistance. We don't trust them to spend it right. Yet we seemingly are comfortable giving billions to those who have already stolen everything we have. This makes no rational sense, but it does reflect that the corporate perspective has been accepted as the definition of the world as it is.

Despite all of this, I support saving the auto industry. I support it because the auto industry is the backbone of our industrial sector and we have lost far too much of our industrial capacity already. Likewise, I believe that we should be putting in place controls on the sale of property to non-residents of the United States. Right now house hunting tours are being sold to Chinese tourists. I believe that special loans need to be made available to farmers so that they don't go belly-up while banks refuse to advance them the money for the coming year's crops.

We need to wake up and speak out to make sure that the people's and the nation's needs are addressed. If we do not, we will wake up to a nation that is not ours. Those who have the money will scoop up the bargain basement "buys" of the United States. Our industry will not be ours. Our agricultural capacity will no longer be ours. Our utilities and infrastructure will no longer be ours. We will belong to global moguls and multinational corporations. There will be no United States left. The current crisis is already seeing the big sharks eating the slightly smaller sharks. We are watching a dramatic growth in the concentration of wealth and power as this disaster unfolds. That concentration will weaken us further; setting us up for continued "collapses" in the future. We have to stop this and reverse course, while retaining our capacity to support ourselves. If we do not, then we are signing away any figment of sovereignty and autonomy we have left.

In speaking out, we need to make clear that we want a bottom-up recovery - not a trickle-down recovery. We want controls on those institutions receiving aid to ensure that they are serving the needs of the people - not their interests. We should demand a voice in the recovery and a place at the table. We want to come out of this recovery stronger as a people and a nation - not sold into a permanent servitude to the powerful.

Additional Resources
The truth about UAW members and the U.S. auto industry. UAW.org

Olbermann Exposes Myth Of Auto Workers' Average $70/Hr. Salary. The Liberal Curmudgeon. 12/02/08.

The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker. Eric Boehlert. Media Matters. 11/25/08.

Wages and labor costs. UAW.

Shame On You CBS. Rowan Wolf. Uncommon Thought Journal. 5/15/2007.

Schultz & Francis, 4/24/03, Wall Street Journal. Executives Get Pension Security While Plans for Workers Falter (also available here and here)

Hidden Burden: As Workers' Pensions Wither, Those for Executives Flourish also available here

The first analysis is Forceful Engagement: Rethinking the Role of Military Power in US Global Policy. In this report, Conetta highlights that while there has been a dramatic increase in military spending over the last ten years, the world is a more dangerous place. Further, the virtual dependence of the US on projecting military force as its primary approach to global situations has stretched that resource beyond any level of efficiency. This means that the US is "paying more and more for less and less security."

Further, the dramatic increase in military spending and the end of the Cold War, was seen by some as an opportunity to extend US dominance. Perhaps in part to justify the growing budget, "worst case" scenarios were increasingly pushed to the fore. With the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive invasion and the use of nuclear weapons, we now are watching an escalation of military development which threatens to place us back on vulnerable footing with both old and new competitors.

There are possibilities for the new administration to transform growing tension into mutual cooperation by focusing on shared concerns. Conetta frames this alternative as follows:

An alternative security policy would emphasize broad multilateral cooperation in containing and resolving regional crises, reducing conflict potentials, and redressing the sources of instability in the international system. And, it would recognize that the sources of instability today are not principally military, political, or ideological in character, but instead economic, demographic, and environmental.

The real measure of a renewed US diplomacy will be efforts to reach across current strategic divides-- especially to Russia, China, and the Muslim world-- and find common ground. Cooperation on water, food, energy, and health security, global warming, economic development, and the management of globalization could serve as a foundation for progress on more divisive issues. A re-emphasis on traditional "quid pro quo" diplomacy will pay higher dividends in resolving divisive issues than will the resort to coercive diplomacy and saber rattling.

The second policy perspective is "Re-Envisioning Defense: An Agenda for US Policy Debate and Transition." Conetta points out twenty-five strategic concerns organized into three core areas - policy vision, role of the armed forces, and the fit between defense and global security.

Policy Vision: the "war on terrorism" places us on a permanent war footing which not only increases costs, but may actually serve to aggravate existing problems - such as stretch and the arms race.

The Role of the Armed Forces: Conetta argues that the use of force has been increasing. This is not only expensive, it makes that force increasingly ineffective and sometimes counter-productive.

Fit Between Defense and Global Security: the increasing reach of the Defense arena is overwriting the diplomatic arena. Not only has the pressure led us to a policy of global coverage, but military usurping of State Department arenas. Development of more peacekeeping and training activities would contribute to a better balance and increase security.

I strongly encourage readers to look carefully at these two documents. They raise issues and present information that is critical to our informed evaluation of the role of the defense system and national and international security. There are many forces that are driving the world towards either solutions or increased conflict (resources, environmental destruction, collapsing global and national economies). The military is currently the biggest and most frequently used tool in the box. This isn't working, won't work, and actually increases risk. We all need to think about these issues.

On the face of it, the protests are arising because the timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces is perceived as too long. One assumes, that al Sadr supporters (and others) want an immediate withdrawal - not a three year timetable. However, it seems likely that other issues are at play than just the timetable.

Having read the full text of the agreement, I suspect that the real issues are in the details. The agreement calls for virtually the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from cities and villages (except as approved by a joint command committee yet to be formed), and apparently places a check on U.S. activities and immunities inside Iraq. However, as I read the agreement, US forces and contractors who violate Iraqi law, will be transferred to the U.S. justice system - not to the Iraqi justice system. That might be one sticking point.

it also refers back to UN Resolutions that may have other consequences. One item in particular drew complaint earlier this year from Nouri al-Maliki was inclusion of Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression) which is still included in the final agreement:

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday said that Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter is "shackling" the Iraqi leadership, calling on the world organization to rid Iraq of its repercussions." (Iraq Update, 7/09/2008).

Does "SOFA" undermine sovereignty because of the timetable for withdrawal, the immunity to fees, licence's, and taxes, or some other reason. It may be all of the above. Included in the agreement are references to UN Resolutions that may be the real sticking points.

UN Security Council Resolution 1790 (passed 12/18/2007) is included which disavows sectarianism in Iraq, reapproves the presence of a multinational force inside Iraq, and extending the support and protection for the Development Fund for Iraq (and here.

In fact, the real sticking point may be the Development Fund for Iraq and who controls and protects it. Article 26 of the SOFA extends the protection of the Fund from international claims. However, the Fund itself is the repository for the oil revenues of Iraq. Who can access it becomes a big question. If Iraqi's feel that the Fund is in foreign (U.S. control), or that the Iraqi government is coerced in this agreement and therefore only has fictional control, that would indeed bring the people to the streets.

The reason I believe that the Fund may be a central point of complaint is that UN Resolutions referenced in the SOFA continue to circle back to Iraq's oil, and the Development Fund. For example, UN Security Resolution 1546 6/08/2004. Ended the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), but continues the immunity of Development Fund for Iraqi oil revenues:

Recognizing the benefits to Iraq of the immunities and privileges enjoyed by Iraqi oil revenues and by the Development Fund for Iraq, and noting the importance of providing for continued disbursements of this fund by the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors upon dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority,

However, it also reinstituted the graft ridden Oil-for-Food-Program.

Also included is UN Security Resolution 1483 (5/22/2003) which protects Iraq from claims by Kuwait against Iraq (and therefore access to compensation from the Fund). And UN Security Resolution 1546 (6/08/2004) which specifies that revenues from Iraq's petroleum sales will be deposited to the Development Fund.

The SOFA also directly references the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship issued by George Bush on 11/26/2007. Those "principles" included the continued "internationalization" (read privatization started under the CPA) of Iraq, and that the U.S. would remain a protector of Iraq from external threats. This "Declaration", prominently included in the agreement, reasserts the institutionalization of multinational corporate control of Iraq's resources.

While I am sure that the continued presence of U.S. forces (and contractors) are odious, I strongly suspect that the big issue is who controls and profits from Iraq's oil reserves. Under Hussein, Iraq's oil resources and profits were nationalized. The benefits thereof remaining in the control of Iraq. One of the first things "converted" in the United States' preemptive invasion of Iraq were those oil reserves. I believe that the real issue is who controls the wealth of Iraq. As far as I can tell from the agreement, that wealth (or the portion that remains after corporate profit-taking) goes to the Development Fund for Iraq, which seems to be controlled by the United States - not Iraq. Certainly controlling the wealth of a nation (and its resources) would be as critical to sovereignty as foreign troops on one's soil.

Documents

Final Agreement on the Withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq. Passed by the Iraqi Parliament 11/27/2008.
Referenced in Article 25 of the agreement

text of UN Security Council Resolution 1790 passed 12/18/2007.

Text of Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship issued by George Bush on 11/26/2007.

Article 26.2 Protects from international claims on the Development Fund
Development Fund for Iraq UN Global Policy Forum

Development Fund for Iraq Wikipedia.

Article 26 Iraqi Assets
UN Security Resolution 1483 5/22/2003 regarding claims by Kuwait against Iraq.

UN Security Resolution 1546 6/08/2004.

Additional Information
IAMB - Internation Advisory and Monitoring Board for Iraq

Development Fund for Iraq. Global Policy Forum.

US Lost Track of $9 Billion in Iraq Funds. From CNN at Global Policy Forum, 1/30/05.

Iraq politicians question Shell gas deal transparency. Iraq Oil Report. 11/26/08.

Interview: Iraq Ambassador to U.N. Hamid al-Bayati. Iraq Oil Report. 11/07/08.

Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth . Greg Muttitt. Global Policy Forum. 11/2005.

Statement of Stuart W. Bowden, Jr. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Tuesday, February 6, 2007

UPDATE 1-Iraq says Kurdish contracts not legal. Reuters. 11/28/08.

In Final Days, Bush Pushes for Iraq's Oil. Maya Schenwar. 11/11/08.

Iraq Revenue Watch

U.S. would control profits from Iraqi oil exports under agreement. Jeremy Hammond. Online Journal. 11/24/08.

The article is damning of the power of financial lobbyists and the Bush administration. Here are some teaser quotes"

The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:

-Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

-Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

-Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

-Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

-Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.

Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.

Or go here for a permanent link.

It is noted in the article, that the day after Thanksgiving is an appropriate time for the National Heritage Day recognition with the following explanation:

The holiday marks a 1621 feast in which English settlers and Wampanoag Indians celebrated and gave thanks in Massachusetts for their harvest, but it was followed by centuries of battles and tense relations between the United States and tribes.

Mentioned only incidentally; "Thanksgiving is controversial to some people," said Joe Garcia, director of the National Congress of American Indians.

However, the connection to Thanksgiving and the attempted genocide of Native Americans is much more direct than that. Thanksgiving was used to celebrate that genocide.

The myth runs that Western Europeans originally came to this land to escape religious persecution. They met a few friendly "Indians," but for the most part were in a hostile land surrounded by hostile savages. While there were not many Indians, they did pose a threat to these innocent, God fearing immigrants (colonizers). Dealing with the hostile natives required "killing a few" and "moving a few." However, even "friendly Indians" proved traitorous and had to be dealt with.

Hence, we have the kind Indians that fed the poor pilgrims through their first winter at Plymouth Rock. When the colonists got on their feet they returned the favor, inviting all the Indians to a sumptuous feast - replete with turkey and all the trimmings -- and a good time was had by all.

The reality is not as simple and straightforward. There were not very many "Indians" left around Plymouth Rock. While the Pilgrims landed in 1620, they had been preceded by a British expedition in 1614 who took 24 people as slaves and left smallpox behind. By 1617, the population of the coastal tribes had been reduced by over 90%.

"John Winthrop, a founder of the Massachusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, "But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection." (Revolutionary Worker, 1996)

One of the slaves taken in 1614 was Squanto who returned with the Plymouth Pilgrims. They established the Plymouth Plantation on the remains of the Wamponoag village Pawtuxet. Squanto helped the Pilgrims make a treaty with chief Masasoit of the Wamponoags.

The Puritans survived and were followed by many other Puritans, and villages and farms expanded, encroaching on the remaining tribal villages. The question arose as to land ownership. Those who argued that the land belonged to the Indians were excommunicated and exiled from the towns. Governor Winthrop determined that the Indians had not subdued the land (put it under cultivation) and so the land was public domain. This meant that land ownership went through the British crown (and the Governor who was crown's representative) rather than through the Tribes already on the land.

The first Thanksgiving was in 1621 when the Governor declared a three day feast because the colony survived the winter. The next Thanksgiving was in 1637 [See Box 6.1]. Most of the "Thanksgiving Days" for the next 100 years were declared to celebrate victories against various Native American tribes. "The first national celebration of Thanksgiving was called for by George Washington. And the celebration was made a regular legal holiday by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War (right as he sent troops to suppress the Sioux of Minnesota) (Revolutionary Worker)

Box 6.1 1637 Pequot Massacre

Excerpted from a piece by William B. Newell

"The year was 1637. ... 700 men, women, and children of the Pequot Tribe gathered for their Annual Green Corn Dance in the area that is now known as Groton, Connecticut.

While they were gathered in this place of meeting, they were surrounded and attacked by mercenaries of the English and Dutch. The Indians were ordered from the building as they came forth, they were shot down. The rest were burned alive in the building.

The next day, the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared: A day of Thanksgiving, thanking God they had eliminated over 700 men, women and children."

More innocent immigrants (colonizers) came and settled in, eventually expanding across the "unexplored" (by "whites") country: a land that was empty of all but space and natural resources (and a few hostile Indians). Word of the possibility of empty land ripe for the taking spread across the sea and people of Europe flocked to the opportunity. Wolf, 2008

So it seems entirely consistent that have many decades of covering up "Thanksgiving" and the genocide it came to symbolize, that the U.S. government would select this "Black Friday" as the one time only acknowledgment of Native American contributions to the United States. I am sure that both the Congress and the President saw no irony in the recognition.

However, even this backhanded recognition would not have occurred without seven years of effort by Frank Suniga (Mescalero Apache living in Salem, Oregon) and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (reznet). We can hope that this is a first step, and not the last, in recognizing the true history of the United States and the roles of Native Americans historically and contemporarily to this nation.

Thank you Mr. Suniga and the Affiliated Tribes for your ongoing efforts for recognition and equality.

Courtesy of Media Matters:

California's Proposition 8 passed. The explanation from the voter's guide was unambiguous:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

* Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
* In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

The passage of Prop 8 presented a California Constitutional amendment to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling which determined that the California Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The California DOMA was passed in 2000, and overturned in 2008.

The passage of Prop 8 sparked demonstrations across the country. It is, in part, these demonstrations that the "Right" (and FOX) are pointing at as violent "secular fascists."

The movement for equal protection under the law has been long, and it is incomplete. From the efforts to gain citizenship by immigrants who were not "white" to the long struggle for people of color and women, to Constitutional protections for Gays and Lesbians. Throughout the history of the United States there has been an unceasing effort to expand the umbrella of equal treatment and equal protection to all of our people. Every step of this struggle has been met with fear and hatred by those who held the privilege of equality. Yes, the "privilege," for if equality and equal protection does not belong to all, it is a privilege.

The language of division is meant to inflame. It is meant to make targets of certain populations for random and mass attack, It is meant to create fear on the part of the targeted and drive them back to their places of invisibility and second-class citizenship (or no citizenship). It was what drove the witch trials of the early United States, the horrors of lynching, the brutality of the reservations, the disenfranchisement of Japanese and Mexican Americans, and the incarceration, beatings, and murders of gays and lesbians from the twentieth century to today.

The language of privilege and division enrages me. I am sick of arguments over "special rights" of the disenfranchised thrown by those who have those rights. I am sick of the privileged saying that the unprivileged are "violent" and "harassing" them. I am sick of the language of reversal that seems to be the rhetoric of choice by the "Right Republican." But more than that, I am sickened by what this rhetoric is intended to inspire - violent suppression of the marginalized populations. It is nothing more than an incitement to hateful action, and those doing it are fully aware of what they are doing.

Gingrich knows that the hatred he inspires may cost lives. O'Reilly has to know that his ongoing vicious rants against "illegal aliens" is resulting in death. Both McCain and Palin were well aware that their rhetoric of "terrorism" and appealing to "real Americans" was an appeal to violent white backlash against people of color. And now, in the wake of Obama's win, racism, race related hate crimes, and death threats against the President Elect are skyrocketing.

Who wins by such hate? Certainly not those who carry it out, but those who promote it do - and the big interests that back them. One would think that after almost eight years of nothing but the politics of fear, folks would have wised up. One would have thought that after almost 30 years of this drumbeat rhetoric that people would turn a deaf ear. But they don't and it continues to work to mobilize people to protect their "privilege" from the cries of those who want only to have equal protection under the law.

On one level, it is dis-spiriting. On the other, it is the reality of the ongoing efforts to achieve a nation (and a world) where all are equal under the eyes of the law and the eyes of their neighbors. The history of the United States has taught us a clear lesson - achieving and maintaining the rights and liberties and protections of the Constitution require constant vigilance and effort. A good society is not an end - it is a process. However, one would hope we could follow this journey without inciting the privileged populace to violently suppress others.

I am no fan of the U.S. automakers. They have fought every safety and environmental improvement. They have colluded to disenfranchise the country of functional mass transportation. They have colluded with big oil to make and grow oil demand. They have inserted themselves as major players in governmental policies and agencies. They have supported the global warming denial "movement." They have created demand for huge vehicles, and then blamed their lack of change on consumers. They have been profligate spenders, and not provided the innovation the nation and the world needs.

The list of egregious behavior could go on and on. They are the epitome of "bad actors.' However, I still believe that we cannot risk their failure. There are three reasons I feel we need to hold onto the U.S. auto industry: workers, economy, and maintaining an industrial base.

The table at the end of this article is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2002 manufacturing center reports. While the "Big Three" do not make up all of the motor vehicle sector in the United States, they are a healthy chunk of it. The loss of these corporations would likely result in an overall job loss well in excess of 2 million people. That does not include those in the steel or glass industries. Nor does it count those losses in auto dealerships, repairs and parts sales. Nor does it look at the loss of jobs in service industries (restaurant, retail, etc.) Nor does it count the hit on specific cities and regions of the country.

All of these losses would hit an economy already on the skids, and already hemorrhaging jobs at a horrendous rate. The failure of the major U.S. automotive industries would be a tsunami on an already drowning economy.

But perhaps the biggest long term loss would be the decimation of the manufacturing sector. The United States has already lost most of its manufacturing and industrial capacity due to the processes of outsourcing and off-shoring. We have sent it to Mexico, China, India, Eastern Europe, and other places. In the 1980s, as we made the shift from a manufacturing to a "service" economy, we sold off, and parted out, significant portions of out manufacturing capability. This included electronics, textiles, and heavy industry. Our manufacturing sector is a fading shadow of itself. As we have sold off capacity to make "real" things, we have become increasingly dependent on those who do.

There is a lot of talk about the impacts of our dependence on "foreign" oil, but virtually none on our dependence on "foreign" manufacturing. Why is that? Largely because the transnational corporations profit significantly from moving manufacturing out of the United States. The country has not profited. The tax burden has shifted more and more to the people. The people trying to earn a living (all of us) have not profited. In fact, we have seen an erosion of wages and benefits, and increasing personal indebtedness. But big media and big business are the same entities and we get the corporate view of the world. "We the people" rarely figure into that drama.

The "Big Three" are a significant part of our dwindling manufacturing capacity. Having that disappear, or be sold into the hands of international businesses, places us even further in jeopardy than we already are. It undermines our sovereignty and security. This is exactly the same situation that a number of nations are in where U.S. (and "rich" nation) manufacturing and extraction have control. The process undermines any nation's sovereignty and security. It is one of the major arguments against globalization as it has been structured. Now the United States could find itself in the same situation as Guatemala, or the Philippines, or a hundred other struggling nations.

Of course, one of the unmentionables is that one of the "Big Three" is not a U.S. company any longer. Chrysler is now owned by the German company Daimler [Correction: Chrysler is now 80% owned by the private equity firm Cerebus making it a private business.]. So part of the "bridge loan" - should it occur - will be going to bail out a German manufacturer. If Ford and GM also hit the tubes, it is likely that their loss will be filled by China, or Japan, or India, (or Dubai or the Saudis). Then, if they run into problems, they too may come hat in hand to the Congress for a bailout. But then that is perhaps the long term plan.

In a world increasingly structured around the corporation rather than the nation and people, perhaps our roles in the future will be to directly funnel tax dollars into the global corporate maw.

So, I argue, keep the behemoths alive and put big chains on the public support they receive. It is clear that the U.S. automakers have not been operating in either the public or national interest. On so many levels, there is just too much at stake, the consequences of their failure too high, to not act to keep them operating.

U.S. Census Bureau Manufacturing sub-sector Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (2002)

Sector	Vehicle Manufacture	Body & Trailers	Parts	Total
Businesses	374	2,151	5,728	8,253
Sales Value (x1,000)	241,284,704	24,373,366	204,110,290	469,768,360
Payroll (x1,000)	82,067,852	4,192,324	32,130,831	118,391,007
Paid Workers	1,676,198	127,099	728,134	2,531,431

Data from U.S Census Bureau - 2002 Census. Manufacturing - by subsector (drill down N336)

The word is that in July of 2008 George Bush "secretly" approved special forces to carry out assaults inside of Pakistan without the knowledge or approval of the Pakistani government. According to the NY Times report which broke the story:

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants' increasingly secure base in Pakistan's tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

Almost in passing, the article also notes that:

The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military's Special Operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

So is it the CIA that is currently flying the drones on their bombing missions inside Pakistan? Isn't that a "military" function? Yes, it is, and it is part of the secret army within the CIA. This CIA assault force known as the Special Operations Group. Douglas Waller of Time wrote an excellent expose in February 2003 titled "The CIA's Secret Army."

But back to our "story."

The claim (included in the NY Times' article) was that officials inside Pakistan had tacitly agreed to the attacks inside their borders. There was no word of exactly what "officials" made that agreement. However, IF it such tacit approval happened, then it was likely the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) given the involvement of the CIA.

As outrage from the government of Pakistan has mounted over the attacks on its people and sovereignty, the claim of tacit approval of the U.S. cross border raids were thrown in yet again - this time by the Washington Post on November 16, 2008 ("Pakistan and U.S. Have Tacit Deal On Airstrikes). The nifty little floating of this story is not just the "tacit approval," but that Pakistan could pitch a fit over the incursions.

The officials described the deal as one in which the U.S. government refuses to publicly acknowledge the attacks while Pakistan's government continues to complain noisily about the politically sensitive strikes.

What a convenient "explanation" of Pakistan's appropriate anger at the U.S. incursions. Of course, Pakistan vehemently denies any such agreement.

What is information and disinformation?

Well some things seem to be real. First that President Bush approved the use of "special forces" to operate within Afghanistan. Those "special forces" could be military or CIA - or both. Second, that the attacks inside Pakistan have really happened : by ground which purportedly stopped in September 2008, and then drone bombing runs conducted thereafter. Third, civilians have been killed and injured and homes and villages destroyed. Fourth, the people of Pakistan are outraged, turning to the Taliban - even if we can't know (given the counter claims) whether the government of Pakistan is or not. Fifth, that the attacks undermine the authority of the new Pakistani administration.

There are a variety of reports that Pakistan's ISI was behind the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7, 2008 (UN Afghanistan Mission, NY Times, National Security Network). The various reports seem to indicate that Pakistan is targeting Indian missions and companies inside of Afghanistan out of concern out rising Indian influence inside Afghanistan. Further that Pakistan and the ISI are renewing alignments with Taliban, and perhaps other militant groups.

The short story is that complex situations tend to get more and more convoluted. Enemies and allies swirl in haze of conflicting interests and ongoing disputes and alliances. As always, the innocent are caught in the middle.

The news for today on the most recent tightening of the Gaza blockade is that the UN has had to close its aid centers in Gaza because of lack of food.

The Gaza strip is a 25 mile strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea between Israel and Egypt. It is the "home" to roughly 1.5 million Palestinians (BBC Gaza Profile). Of that population, an estimated 471,551 are located in eight refugee camps (Jabaliya (106,691), Rafah (95,187), Shati (78,768), Nuseirat (57,120), Khan Younis (63,219), Bureij (28,770), Maghazi (22,266), Deir el-Balah (19,534) (BBC Profile). In other words, within the blockaded Gaza almost half o the population is in refugee camps. In effect, Gaza has become a large prison camp.

The current siege has been in place since June of 2007 after Hamas took control of Gaza (they had won the 2006 Palestinian elections).

According to Trapped - collective punishment in Gaza:

The blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip over a year ago has left the entire population of 1.5 million Palestinians trapped with dwindling resources and an economy in ruins. Some 80 per cent of the population now depend on the trickle of international aid that the Israeli army allows in. This humanitarian crisis is man-made and entirely avoidable.

Even patients in dire need of medical treatment not available in Gaza are often prevented from leaving and scores of them have died. Students who have scholarships in universities abroad are likewise trapped in Gaza, denied the opportunity to build a future.

The Israeli authorities argue that the blockade on Gaza is in response to Palestinian attacks, especially the indiscriminate rockets fired from Gaza at the nearby Israeli town of Sderot. These and other Palestinian attacks killed 25 Israelis in the first half of this year; in the same period Israeli forces killed 400 Palestinians.

However, the Israeli blockade does not target the Palestinian armed groups responsible for attacks - it collectively punishes the entire population of Gaza.

The siege of Gaza is punishing an entire population under the mantle of stopping militant attacks on Israel.

The current shut down of aid into Gaza is in its tenth day (as of 11/15/08). Amnesty International and other organizations are calling for Israel to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.

The people in Gaza were already on a razor's edge of survival. The current shut down by Israel is making an already desperate situation impossible. Imagine yourself and your family and friends after 10 days without food, electricity, medical care or supplies. That is Gaza right now.

I urge you to take one or more of the following actions:

• Visit Amnesty International and consider joining
• Sign the One Million to End the Siege petition
• Visit the American Friend Service Committee (AFSC) for information and action opportunities
• Send a letter to your Representatives (US) from AFSC
• Contact President Elect Barack Obama and tell him to add his voice to easing the conditions in Gaza
• Spread the word to your friends about the situation in Gaza.

All of this may take a half hour of your time. Wouldn't you want someone to take a half hour to help you if you and those you love were starving in the dark?

Other Resources
Palestinian International Campaign to End the Siege of Gaza

United Nations Development Programme: Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People

American Friends Service Committee

Obama has become an icon since accepting his party's nomination. On one hand an icon of hope and progress, on the other a demon set to undermine the "American way." Underneath that he is a human being with strengths and weaknesses, susceptible to the same forces as any of us. The question is how much of his integrity will resist the erosive force of the power he will soon wield?

Since the first Clinton administration, the Democratic party's response has been to "lead toward the center." Meanwhile, the Republican party's response has been to run to the right. Within that long strategy, the center has moved further and further right, and more and more into the sphere of corporate interest and influence. Witness that both Obama and McCain volubly supported the $700 billion (plus) bailout of Wall Street and financial interests, while touting the struggling "Main Street." We cannot be "centrists' at this critical moment for the life of the planet and those upon it.

Many of us have been under no illusions of the "radical" leanings of Obama. It became obvious that Clinton and Obama were only fingernails apart in their positions during the primaries - Clinton is an avowed centrist (as Bill became while in office). This is not to denigrate the other character and experiential strengths that Obama brings to the White House. However, in terms of policy, he is not "left" or even "progressive" despite McCain campaign rhetoric that he is a "socialist."

The messages sent during the Obama campaign raise worries for many - particularly in his role of Commander in Chief. While ardently arguing for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, he embraced Afghanistan as a "just war." While promoting negotiation and collaboration, he also argued he would engage in unilateral, preemptive military strikes. He moved further and further into the full embrace of unquestioned support for Israel.

Throughout the campaign, Obama collected an entourage of advisors. Now he evaluates who will move to positions of power within the Obama administration. His first choice of Rahm Emanuel is telling regarding the influence of existing Democratic party power brokers (the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)). The DLC describes itself as a "centrist" Democratic organization to which Obama was connected though not involved in 2007, but now apparently embraces. Emanuel is a significant figure within the DLC (and seen as an "enforcer" by many).

The pressure is on Obama to move to the defined "center," but can he resist doing so? I believe that he can with the citizenry as an active, vocal force behind him. Either the powerful engagement of the people in the Obama campaign must remain active participants in the dialogues, or there is a need to transform a political campaign into a social movement. As the house continues to collapse around us, we need bold action - not the promise of action. Obama has a mandate and the hopes of the world riding on his shoulders. He needs to take that momentum to first recraft the direction of the Democratic party leadership and power brokers or he will be stymied by his own party before he ever takes the oath of office.

Barack Obama is exceptional. There is no doubt of that. He has skills and character that I believe are deeply necessary to address the problems that face our nation and our world.

However, I harbor no doubts that Obama is a political radical. Like many of you, he is too close to the supposed center. He has advisors and influences that are distinctly part of the establishment. He is also a thoughtful individual who I believe will listen.

The response to Obama as reflected by the tremendous support he has earned is significant, but let no one be fooled. A political campaign is not a social movement. It will take a social movement to take the momentum of hope and commitment for a better world and move the nation and the world forward.

We still have months of a Bush administration in place which is eviscerating regulations as I write this. This digs an even deeper hole for the people and our new President to operate from.

The winning of this election is the first step - not the end. I, like many of you, have been an activist for most of my life. We know the double edged sword of "victory," The inexperienced will think "we've won" and go back to their lives. Democracy is a process. Resolving the problems of our nation and our world is a process. It is a life long task. It is a task that we will pass to the next generation, and they to the one that follows them.

It is my hope and my prayer that Obama will use his gifts and his support to be the truly courageous leader that we need. I am certain that he cannot be that leader without the heart and effort of the people - of us.

For now; for this moment; let us celebrate the fact that we are starting on a new path with a leader who is seen rarely. We are in this together. Let us celebrate together, and then move forward together to address the monumental challenges we face.

Palin came out with her constant references to "Hockey Moms" and "Joe Six-Packs" which stereotypically define a white population. Then we had Bill Ayers introduced an Obama "paling around with terrorists." We have heard Palin's talking about "real America" followed by her denials, followed by more references to draw lines of "real" "patriotic" Americans. We have heard oft repeated that Obama is a Muslim. Most recently, the accusation is that Rashid Khalidi is a PLO supporter (which he is not) and that Obama supports him (neither here nor there).

The contagion has spread to other Republican campaigns. We have Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R - Minnesota) arguing that members of Congress should be investigated for being "anti-American." We have Senator Elizabeth Dole labeling Kay Hagan as a supporter of "Godless Americans"." We have McCain calling Obama a "socialist" for wanting to "share the wealth."

What is up?

We already went through, (and survived mostly) the "my country right or wrong," if you don't support Bush, if you don't support the war, rhetoric of (real) American versus anti-American. I can understand the frustration and anger that drove Sojourner Truth to stand up at the 1851 Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio presenting what has come to be called her "Ain't I a Woman" speech. It was not a prepared speech, but a fit of passionate response to the hypocrisy of the arguments.

The "Real American" conflict goes way back; however, current claims rest on that deep and institutionalized foundation. In 1790, the U.S. Congress immortalized what was then already a common bias with the United States first naturalization legislation - Naturalization Act of 1790. The U.S. Congress restricted the right to become a naturalized citizen to:

"any alien being a free white person who shall have resided within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States for a term of two years."

Thereafter, there was deep legal and cultural institutionalization of the concept (and reality) of who was a "real American." Being a U.S. citizen depended on one's race, and that race was "white."

This almost consistently has become intertwined with the claim that the United States is a "Christian" country. While we could argue that culturally, most "whites" identify as "Christian," the U.S. was not founded on Christianity. In fact, every effort was made to keep Christianity (and religion in general) out of the founding principles, Constitution, and government. Why? To protect religion. While there are governmental references to "God," (for example on the U.S. currency) that was not aimed at a Christianity. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, it states (emphasis mine):

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The concept that won the day was actually Deism and not Christianity. Deism is the belief in a supreme being, and that reason not revelation was the path to truth.

However, in the construction of whiteness (which has evolved over time), race, and religion have become entwined to a degree. Therefore, claiming that someone is a "Muslim" has been constructed to mean they are not "white," and more recently that they are "terrorists." Therefore being called a "terrorist" raises racial classification, and being a "friend" of "terrorists" means one is a (white) "race traitor." Given the twisted, conceptual, and stereotypical interlinking where "white" means "American," then non-whites (and non-Christians) by default are under suspicion of being "not American." However, throwing in the "terrorism" claim makes them "anti-American" as well.

The definition of the "Real" American gets narrower and meaner. It is becoming (if it has not already become) and very small circle of white, fundamentalist Christian, militaristic, imperialistic, anything goes if my "president" says so, ideologues. The (glorious) end justifies the (immoral) means.

This is not the "America" I was taught, nor the "American" I want to -or can - be.

I am sick and tired of waving the (heroic) troops as those who have fought for our "freedom," or paid the "ultimate price" for our nation. While most of those who have served under uniform may have thought they were fighting for our "freedom," they were largely fighting to further political and economic agendas of the powerful. Fighting the (illegal) war in Iraq, does not protect our freedom of speech or association in the United States. It does not protect the people of the United States from the abusive use of power of the government. It doesn't even make us "safer."

What about those who did (and do) fight and die for our freedom? What about those who were freedom riders, and those who marched in the streets for civil rights? What about the abolitionists and suffragettes? What about the millions who have marched against wars, police brutality, racial profiling, the right to vote? What about those who have fought to ensure equal protection under the law? What about the union organizers and activists who gave us protection from abusive employers and worker safety standards? What about the environmentalists who struggled and have laid down their lives to protect us from hazardous wastes? What about the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACORN, Public Citizen, and a thousand other "grass roots" organizations?

DON'T THEY COUNT?!!

Being American is not an economic ideology. One can be a "real" American and be a capitalist, a socialist, a communist, or none of the above.

Being American is not a political ideology. One can be a "real" American and be of any political party or ideology.

Being American is not a racial ideology. One can be a "real" American and be of any race or combination of races.

Being American is not a religious ideology. One can be a "real" American and be Hindu or Deist; Muslim or athiest; Wiccan or Christian; Buddhist or Jewish.

Being American is not a social class placement. One can be a "real" American and be living under a bridge, or move between your numerous houses across the country.

So what does it mean to be an American? Where is the essence of "American?"

That is more difficult to answer concisely, but I believe possible.

A real American is one who wants to see the United States be the best it can be, and works to make it so.

A real American realizes that the uniqueness of our nation lies in the belief that freedom and self-determination go hand in hand and must be protected.

A real American understands that one cannot have freedom without equality and voice in our daily lives, and so fights to extend the protections of liberty to all members of our society.

A real American believes in fair play, honesty, and opportunity.

A real American believes that dissidence is critical for a functioning society that is "of, by, and for the people,"

A real American realizes that we are not in this alone; that we depend on our neighbors and our communities.

A real American realizes that we, as a nation, are part of a world - not the masters of it.

A real American realizes that peace is better than war.

A real American realizes that there are principles worth fighting for, but that there are many ways to "fight."

A real American feels empathy and a responsibility to those in need, to those downtrodden.

A real American realizes that the quest for power and control by the few will always be there, and that it takes constant vigilance to ensure that we are on the good path, with the broadest participation in the social fabric possible.

A real American realizes that the process matters; the ends do not justify the means; that democracy is not a goal, but a dynamic endeavor.

A real American takes her/his citizenship as a sacred job - a vital part in the governmental and political process. It is not just voting (or choosing not to vote). It is working in small ways and large as a participating member of this society, this nation.

Being a real American means we all have the right and the courage to "speak truth to power."

Being a real American is a big and difficult job. It means not only listening to those with who we disagree, but fighting for their right to continue to annoy us.

I hope that the narrow version of "real" American does not become the prevailing definition. If so, most of us are lost.

Items of interest
Naturalization Act of 1790. Actual document from the Library of Congress.

Sojourner Truth and "Ain't I a Woman?"

Voters, church leader speak out against Dole's `godless' ad. Zagaroli. Miami Herald. 10/31/2008.

In this Anderson 360 (CNN) report, there is a partial debunking of the issue, but also a lie - that McCain's link to Khalidi is only tangential - clearly not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egUfc8Kq8oY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egUfc8Kq8oY

Perhaps the best sourced report available online is at the Huffington Post in a brief article by Seth Colter Walls.

This particular line of attack which the McCain campaign continues to trot out is not just dirty politics, it is dangerous. Politics aside, the repeated accusations place real people's lives on the line as McCain and company spotlight individuals for those who might believe they are "protecting America" by attempting to kill terrorists who threaten "us." It seems to me that McCain and company are essentially engaging in "inciting a riot." Who is responsible if people get damaged (physically or their careers and reputations) by slanderous claims?

There are some lines you just do not cross, and McCain is way on the other side of that line.

As I recall the argument for invading Afghanistan, it went something like this. The assertion was (and remains) that Osama bin Laden (ObL) was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. ObL and his al Qaeda forces were 'hiding out" in Afghanistan. The U.S. demanded that Afghanistan turn over ObL. Since the Afghan government, controlled by the Taliban, would not turn over bin Laden, the U.S. would invade Afghanistan and perform a "regime change" (topple the Taliban), and root out ObL and al Qaeda. Well, regime change was performed, but both bin Laden and the Taliban seem to still be running around making trouble.

Regardless, the U.S. actions against Afghanistan were, and are still, claimed to be a good or just war.

The general consensus is now that the invasion of Iraq was about oil. This supposedly highlights the "justness" and importance of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Afghanistan spirals into chaos because Bush "lost focus." The argument is that we must shift forces to Afghanistan, and indeed there are increasingly strident calls by U.S. military commanders that more troops are needed in Afghanistan.

Inconveniently, invading Afghanistan was not ObL - at least not directly. First, regardless of the brutality of the Taleban inside Afghanistan, the U.S. was friendly with the Taleban. Through the Clinton administration, and into George W. Bush administration, the U.S. supported the Taleban government. In fact, Colin Powell gave the Taleban government $43 million in the summer of 2001 to facilitate progress on a pipeline through Afghanistan. That was the carrot. The stick was - do it or we will invade by October. Wow! Time lines from the Bush administration.

From Power Play?

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 Turkmenistan 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

The short story is that Hamid Karzai, former UNOCAL advisor in Afghanistan, became the head of the new Afghan government. The pipeline project moved forward, and the Bush administration jumped off to the next big energy target for control - Iraq. But Afghanistan would not, and did not, go away. Now the people of Afghanistan want Karzai out for corruption and failure.

Not only has Afghanistan not been a success, the strategy now seems to bring the Taleban back into the official government fold (CNN, AP). In fact, some areas of Afghanistan are already under Taliban rule.

Meanwhile, Pakistan seems to be falling apart on one hand, and ready to declare open war on the US on the other. At the very least the US strategy of raiding and bombing in Pakistan is increasing hostility, and threatens the new Pakistani government. Every indication is that Pakistan is on the edge - the edge of bankruptcy, the edge of losing precarious control, the edge of governmental collapse if the abridgement of its sovereignty continues. All of this threatens to not only remove Pakistan as an ally in the region, but to make it an enemy. Further, a destabilized nuclear Pakistan could trigger conflict with a nuclear India. In a compromise, Pakistan (and the US) may set up another "blowback" situation by arming anti-Taliban tribes in western Pakistan.

While both Obama and McCain have tried to out-hawk each other with threats of unilaterally pursuing al Qaeda into Pakistan, the consequences of doing that seem to be such a destabilizing force that it is clear a different strategy is necessary. It is just not a good idea to treat an ally as a threat. Nor should the US (or NATO) stand idly by while Pakistan spirals into an economic collapse. The US took that strategy before with Afghanistan, by walking away leaving Afghanistan in shambles after using it as a proxy in its conflict with the Soviet Union.

As with Iraq, reconstruction and stability goes a very long way towards undermining terrorist recruiting, and militia uprising. Unless the purpose of all this intervention has been to create a (profitable) chaos which requires indefinite US military presence in the region, we need a different course ... quickly.

Pertinent Articles
6/11/08 Anand Golan, Christian Science Monitor. Secret accord sheltered Al Qaeda linked militants in tribal Pakistan

6/11/08 Fouad Pervez, FPIF. The Real Crisis in Pakistan

10/04/08 Eugene Puryear, PSL. U.S. violation of Pakistan's sovereignty puts Zardari in a quandary

10/05/08 Christina Lamb, Times OnLine, War on Taliban cannot be won, says army chief

10/05/08 Nic Robertson, CNN. Source: Saudi hosts Afghan peace talks with Taliban reps

10/06/08 AP. Taliban, Afghan officials meet in Saudi Arabia

10/06/08 Isambard Wilkinson, The Telegraph UK. Pakistan Facing Bankruptcy

10/14/08 Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, McClatchy. New intelligence report says Pakistan is 'on the edge'

10/15/08 M K Bhadrakumae, Asia Times. A mad scramble over Afghanistan

10/15/08 Anand Gopal. Christian Science Monitor. Some Afghans live under Taliban rule - and prefer it

10/16/08 al Jazeera. 'US missiles' hit Pakistan village

10/16/08 AFP. Suspected US Strike Inside Pakistan Kills Five: Officials

10/17/08 Abdul Qodous, Reuters. South Afghanistan attack kills 17 civilians

10/18/08 Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times. Pakistan does some US dirty work

10/18/08 BBC, Pakistani army 'kills 60 Taleban'

10/23/08 Karen DeYoung, Wa. Post, Pakistan Will Give Arms to Tribal Militias

10/24/08 Saeed Shah, Guardian, Pakistan rejects 'America's war' on extremists

David Hass, a financial consultant wrote an interesting article on the derivatives market which contained the two graphics below.

Well that is pretty telling, but no one seems to be able to say where this particular monster is going to fall. However there is evidence that it may be crumbling in big chunks.

On October 6th, one of the largest banks in France experienced a "derivatives incident." That "incident" result in a bank loss of approximately $800 million, and resulted in the resignation of the bank's chairman. There are no descriptions that I have been able to find of what the exact nature of this "incident" was, except it was blamed on extreme market volatility.

Another symptom of the shadowy derivatives dram is the essential collapse of Iceland's banking system. That debacle is leading Iceland to negotiate a $6 billion IMF loan.

The "big boys" are not talking about the derivatives. The Congress is keeping mum on them as well as we now go into a "credit bailout" on top of the Wall Street and bank bailout. Now the talk is of putting money (stimulus) into the hands of the peons (sorry people) so they will hopefully buy something (they pray big - like a GM car).

Meanwhile, the feds are facilitating the merging of banks into ever-larger institutions which makes them that much more important to "save," because our eggs are getting placed into fewer and fewer baskets.

There is clearly something wrong with the whole concept, but it is an embedded and predictable direction to take. Western capitalism is based upon the belief that if you are not "growing" you are "dying." Therefore a return to "health" means continued growth. On the other hand, we are watching the logical capitalist end game of "winner take all." In this end game we have fewer and fewer players with higher and higher stakes. It is becoming increasingly clear that the current status of the game is not the national economy, but the conjoined "global" economy. So these "players" are betting with the livelihoods (and lives) of 6.5 billion people. High stakes indeed.

One might think that looking out at the current environment from their places of power and insider knowledge, that they might say "Hmm. This isn't working so well." That doesn't seem to be what they are saying.

Perhaps it takes a courage they do not have to recognize that the system is fractured and is (predictably) failing, and that throwing up levees will not stop the flood of collapse. Perhaps, change is needed, and not just implementing regulations.

We need to redefine healthy economies away from a growth model. There can only be so much growth in a closed system - and we live in a closed system. Growth under a capitalist system requires ever-increasing levels of consumption and wast, and the Earth just can't do that anymore. We also need to recognize that "bigger" is not healthier or stronger. This means that we must acknowledge that when it comes to economies and our lives that "small is beautiful" and local is livable.

"I apologize to anyone who was offended because that was not my intent," said club President Diane Fedele. "It was poor judgment on my part. It was strictly an attempt to point out the outrageousness of Obama's statement that he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." The caption reads: "Obama talks about all those presidents that got their names on bills. If elected, what bill would he be on ????? Food Stamps, what else!"

Fedele said the mailer merely parodied the statements Obama made during a debate last summer and wasn't racist.

Reportedly it brought a "rebuke" from GOP leadership - I'd hope so.

What world do we live in that the president of any official political group would think that "Obama Bucks" was a cute political parody? Perhaps the same folks who think that repeatedly claiming that Obama "pals around with terrorists" is equivalent of arguing that McCain has overwhelmingly supported the policies of Bush. Excuse me?

Do folks not get what racism is that they can blithely participate in it and think something is wrong with those who point it out? Such as McCain who appropriately corrected a participant at a rally who claimed that Obama was an "Arab," but then said "No, he's a decent family man." What the hell? While I appreciate his intervention, the embedded racism of his response is stunning.

Pundits claim that Obama has "transcended" race? Is that code for saying that he doesn't make (most) White people uncomfortable? What would it mean if they claimed that McCain had transcended race? Everyone would be scratching their heads.

Meanwhile, McCain is still saying how "hurt" he is by Georgia Congressman John Lewis stating that the McCain Campaign and GOP were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" in their drumbeat rhetoric. Lewis then toned down what he had said as he had been trying to talk about the climate being created - not the personal attack McCain claims. It was Lewis' "intent" to call out the climate being created by McCain's campaign "strategy." McCain, is (still) up in arms that he was called (by his interpretation) a racist. Lewis tried to clarify his intent. (The Obama campaign also issued a statement that John Lewis was not speaking for the campaign - but such disavowals are part of "transcending race.")

Under workplace harassment law, one's "intent" is not the issue - what the person receives is. If talking to (or about) a Mexican heritage coworker one calls out "Hey Guevara, you can eat your burritos with us," and he/she is offended. It is not intent that counts but the person's perception that you have made a derogatory slur. Arguing that you "intended" to be "friendly" and "inclusive" by calling the person by the name of a revolutionary leader (instead of their own) , and "kidding" about the burritos, will not fly.

Now why in the world would the Supreme Court have ever made such a "stupid" ruling? Because the context draws on a racial history which could reasonably be interpreted as stereotypical and abusive. Just as featuring "Obama Bucks" on food stamps, with foods stereotypically associated with African Americans, is not a parody, but promoting a racial stereotype.

Fedele, even in trying to minimize the issue, thought that placing Obama's face on food stamps was a no brainer. Gads, what other "currency" would you put a Black President on?

McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was a naked play to garner the support of the so-called Republican base - narrow fundamentalist Christians. Let me be clear that NOT all Fundamentalist Christians (and not even the majority of them) are "radical" (meaning wanting to take over the government of the United States and reshape the country into a religious fiefdom). However, that is the base that McCain went after. It is the "base" that George Bush supposedly captured.

Starting with the meme that Obama was a Muslim schooled in madrassas, the seed was planted that he was a "born and trained" terrorist. Even the long term relationship with Reverend Wright was not portrayed as proof of his Christianity, but was "proof" of his hatred of the United States. (Regardless that it should make no difference even if Obama was Muslim.) Repeatedly, McCain and - as a drum beat - Palin, have told the groups they are speaking to that they are "scared" of Obama. More recently, it has been the constant meme that Obama consorts with "terrorists" - namely Bill Ayres who was a leader of the Weatherman Underground 40 years ago.

As the carefully crafted memes aimed at inspiring fear of Obama in relationship to race, terrorism, and anti-Americanism, have been accelerated, the crowds at McCain-Palin political rallies have seemed more of a mob than a political rally. The more vehement the rhetoric, the more attractive McCain and Palin have become to the racist "right." It was predictable. It was intentional. It has not stopped.

Here are a few videos of what has been happening.

Here is a CNN report on Palin accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

Here is the DemocracyNow report about crowd response to Palin pushing the Obama-terrorism "connection."

Here is video from a McCain rally where the carefully instilled memes are repeated back from the crowd - clearly a political "success" for the McCain campaign.

Which has brought McCain to the point of defending Obama's character.

While I respect that McCain is publicly stepping back from the hateful rhetoric, at the same time, the memes are being reinforced with McCain approved ads such as this one:

Of course, underlying all of this is the issue of race. The McCain campaign doesn't even need to play the "race card" because it is embedded in the "American" consciousness. They just need to hint and it comes to the surface. This is obvious in crowd comments using racial epithets and saying that terrorism is "in his blood line."

The reinforcement of both racism and bigotry has been called up numerous times by surrogates of the McCain campaign mentioning Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. The Hussein is stressed to make a Saddam Hussein / Muslim / terrorist connection, but the use of his middle name plays an other important rhetorical role. Namely, that middle names are most frequently used to denote serious criminals - particularly murders (John Wayne Gasey) and assassins (John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald). The use of the middle name preconditions a perception of wrong doing and threat. Imagine the impact of the repeated use John Sidney McCain or Sarah Louise Palin.

The selection of Palin itself has been used as a racial rallying point - for "whites." Palin's constant reference to "Hockey Moms" and "Joe Sixpacks" are not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. They are intended - and do - promote the idea that Palin is of and politically/culturally embraces a "white" stereotypical identity. Her constant repetition of that mantra is more than a subliminal "white" rallying cry. Combine that with her telling those coming to see her that Obama is "scary," un-American, hates the nation, and is actively associated with "terrorists," they have created an explosive "mob" mentality. The "threat" of Obama is to the (white) Hockey/Soccer Moms and the (white) Joe Sixpacks.

This fire has been started and fed by McCain, Palin, the McCain campaign, and the various "swift boat" groups supporting them. Now they have a very unsightly (and potentially dangerous) conflagration on their hands. It is clear from the booing of McCain as he attempts to tamp down the fire that many of "his people" see such statements as backsliding and traitorous - or only for "show." The latter interpretation will likely prevail as the campaign continues to make the "terrorist" "anti-American" campaign ads. It is reinforced by the drumbeat question of "Who is Barack Obama?" A question - within the manufactured context - that reinforces the idea that he is part of a covert terrorist cell bent on destroying the (white) United States. A message apparently being reinforced out of at least one McCain Campaign Office.

In an interview with Galyle Quinnell (the woman who said she didn't trust Obama because he was an Arab and McCain corrected), she has pages and p[ages of "bad stuff" about Obama, and that it is being distributed through the McCain campaign office in Shakoppe, Minnesotta where she volunteers. She has passed this information onto hundreds of people. She does not know why McCain attempted to deny Obama's Arab origin, or said Obama was a "decent" person. From news reports, Andy Martin was the originator to the rumor about Obama being a Muslim - and other negative and incorrect information. **

The McCain campaign has built and poured gasoline on the fire. It is highly unlikely they can bring that fire under control - even if they really wanted to.

The question is the broader effect of this strategy, and people's (particularly "white" people's) response to the calls of "terrorist" and "kill him" from those at the McCain - Palin "rallies." Will folks be turned off by such blatant plays to, and expressions of, hatred and bigotry? Or will their fears raised as well? Will the version of exceptionalist ideology of white racism come into play - "Obama is a 'good' one" carry the day? At this point, it is difficult to say. However, what McCain's strategy has done is to significantly raise the risk of violent action against Obama (and increased the likelihood of racial/ethnic hate violence generally). Further, it is hardening and encouraging a violent and organized racist segment of the population.

Despite all of this, Obama leads in the polls; Palin was booed at a hockey game at which she was introduced and threw out the puck, and I personally know a group of "Hockey Moms for Obama." In other words, a large section of the (white) population is not buying into the McCain - Palin fear mongering and rhetorical ploys.

** paragraph added 10/13/08

Constitutional rights and protections are being tossed aside in the labeling of people as terrorists thereby calling into play everything from intense surveillance to hash imprisonment, to endless incarceration without access to courts or justice. Much of this is off the front page because of the economic meltdown and the political campaigns. But frankly, most of this wouldn't make the front pages or top of the news even if nothing else were happening. There seems to have been significant efforts to minimize coverage of these problems.

The problems started with the passage of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.Act, advanced with the Bush administration redefining "enemy combatant", were reinforced with the Military Commissions Act, and went over the top with ever-increasing surveillance powers. Now we have a situation where citizens and non-citizens can be held "indefinitely with limited to no access to the courts or counsel. We have a situation where even when a jury sets a sentence, that the accused can be held indefinitely. We have a situation where the labeling of people as "terrorists" brings the full force of covert surveillance into play.

Back in August 2008, military jurors were surprised to find out that Salim Hamdan (bin Laden's driver) would be held despite the tribunal ruling.

Gitmo jurors disappointed convict could be held

In an interview with The Associated Press, the juror said the panel of six American military officers did not learn until the trial ended on Thursday that the Pentagon retains the right to hold Salim Hamdan as an ''enemy combatant,'' even after he completes his sentence.

''After all the effort that we put in to get somebody a fair trial ... and then to say no matter what we did it didn't matter -- I don't see that as a positive step,'' the juror said in the telephone interview.

Now fast forward to a flurry of news bites.

We have lawyers for two U.S. citizens detained on U.S. soil (namely the military jails at Norfolk, Va., and Charleston, S.C.) who have been given the "Gitmo treatment" and are being held in isolation indefinitely - to the point that their attorneys are concerned for their sanity (Documents Say American Detainee Near Insanity analyzed separately in New Documents Reveal Unlawful Guantanamo Procedures Were Also Applied On American Soil).

It has come to light that the Maryland police put the names of death penalty and Iraq "war" activists onto the national terrorist watch list, along with related (though unspecified) organizations. This broad use of the terrorism watch lists put simple activists and peaceful organization under "legal" intensive surveillance. (Maryland Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists)

We then discover that member of the "RNC Welcoming Committee" - part of an anarchist group who were protesting during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, are being held as terrorists and face up to eight years in jail. (Framing the 'RNC 8')

Meanwhile, we discover that surveillance has been very broadly used and abused - as we hear in this ABC report on 10/10/08 - NSA's Ears Wide Open.

Instead of cracking down on the abuses, our legislators continue to expand the powers of "Big Brother.". The Attorney General's (Mukasey) new "guidelines" for the FBI instead expands the powers of surveillance - not make them more specific and contained:

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Democrat Patrick Leahy said the new guidelines expand the FBI's powers of surveillance.

"It appears that with these guidelines, the attorney general is once again giving the FBI broad new powers to conduct surveillance and use other intrusive investigative techniques on Americans without requiring any indication of wrongdoing or any approval even from FBI supervisors," Leahy said in a statement.

The abridgment of habeas corpus, and the protection of citizens from the abuse of the power of government, are absolutely necessary to maintaining a democratic society. If the people fear that they may come under the increasingly aggressive watchful eye of the "security" apparatus, and then may be consequently disappeared (and tortured) for even the hint of raising a contrary voice, then we are truly lost. No claims of patriotism - or of threat to our security - is worth giving up the most fundamental of rights and protections. People, pundits, and government officials point with anger and disdain at the junta government of Myanmar while allowing the implementation of policies that reflect the worst abuses of human and civil rights.

Many people have pooh-poohed concerns along the way that the vast new powers of government were any threat whatsoever to "honest" "law abiding" citizens. Well, they are being proven dreadfully naive as the "terrorism" laws morph and expand to implements of control of the population. Waiting in the eves for the other shoe to drop is yet a different enforcement and control agent is the deployment of the First Brigade Combat Team of the Third Division which has been tasked (and is training) to operate inside the United States to quell civil unrest as well as be a disaster response force (see excerpts at end of this article).

We are at a critical juncture in the existence of the United States. There are many (both Obama and McCain supporters) who think that the new President will take all the "crazy" stuff out of the law, and reinstitute checks and balances. While that may or may not be the intent (or hope) of the presidential candidates, undoing the legal and legislative damage will take decades of unstinting work by committed citizens. It always has, and I doubt that will change.

OTHER RESOURCES

I recommend this article by Edwin Viera, Jr., Hazards for Habeas Corpus

From the Army Times (9/30/08) Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1:

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

"Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future," said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. "Now, the plan is to assign a force every year."

...

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

...

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to get it."

As the long predicted crash started unfolding, I have been nagged by a long sequence of events that seem to be culminating at the current moment. There have been significant structural changes in the U.S. and elsewhere that have impacted both labor markets, and capital. In terms of labor markets (also known as workers) the transitions have been stark. In the United States we have watched the long term decimation of the manufacturing sector and a transition to a "service" economy. I remember the concerns in the 1980's about the transformation of the U.S. economy from a production economy to a consumer economy. This trend was accelerated with broad implementation of corporate-driven globalization and formalized by the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Act) and the rewriting of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).

These two international trade agreements were structured along similar philosophies. Namely the removing of "boundaries" to trade, and enhancing the "boundaries" around workforces. Those boundaries were national boundaries and national sovereignty. We saw the exportation of U.S. job (outsourcing and off-shoring) accelerate. We also started seeing the merger mania of the 1980s which have continued to the present. In fact, they are a prominent feature of the current crisis.

Other nations, in a competitive and revolving fashion, became the cheap, exploitable labor force for a global economy. China, maximizing on its single most abundant resource (people) successfully positioned itself as the cheap workforce for global corporations searching to always maximize profit. (Now they too import even cheaper labor).

All along this path towards removal of boundaries, there has been increasing financial and investment penetration in an increasingly intertwined global financial market.

Facilitating what might be framed as an integration of financial and corporate markets, the U.S. (and other nations) have engaged in almost three decades of deregulation and the removal of other boundaries and barriers - particularly in the "financial" areas. Insurance companies become investment marketers, banks become investment bankers, banks cash in on the lucrative credit market, credit card companies start offering mortgage financing. Functions and institutions that once had high barriers between them with regulation and oversight, became increasingly deregulated and shadowy. They pushed for, and got passed, barriers against predatory lending - like those pesky bankruptcy laws.

I can't help but thinking that (in part) we are seeing the "jobless recovery" of the 2001 recession coming home to roost. Lots of folks wrote about the jobless recovery including myself (What Jobs? What Recovery?) and even Ben Bernake (The Jobless Recovery). Most of us, myself included, focused on the restructuring of the economy at that time as a major component of what was going on. However, it was also clear that money was flowing from somewhere into the financial markets. Wall Street was recovering - the people (and workers) were not. This money flowing around was symptomatic of the liberalization of investment restrictions which was a major feature of international globalization.

Unfortunately while there was money being brought into the market, much of it was "little people's" money (i.e. money from state and corporate retirement funds). The little people's money provided grease for much bigger financial fish, and "derivatives" took a whole new life and growth spurt.

What the Hell are "Derivatives?"

Wikipedia defines derivatives:

Derivatives are financial instruments whose values depend on the value of other underlying financial instruments. The main types of derivatives are futures, forwards, options, and swaps.

The main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party. The diverse range of potential underlying assets and pay-off alternatives leads to a wide range of derivatives contracts available to be traded in the market. Derivatives can be based on different types of assets such as commodities, equities (stocks), residential mortgages, commercial real estate loans, bonds, interest rates, exchange rates, or indexes (such as a stock market index, consumer price index (CPI) -- see inflation derivatives -- or even an index of weather conditions, or other derivatives). Their performance can determine both the amount and the timing of the pay-offs. Unregulated Credit derivatives have become an increasingly large part of the derivative market.

If you don't feel particularly enlightened, you are not alone. One off the best articles I have found on the current derivative situation was written by Ellen Brown and published at Global Research. In "It's the Derivatives, Stupid! Why Fannie, Freddie, AIG had to be Bailed Out," Brown states:

The Anatomy of a Bubble

Until recently, most people had never even heard of derivatives; but in terms of money traded, these investments represent the biggest financial market in the world. Derivatives are financial instruments that have no intrinsic value but derive their value from something else. Basically, they are just bets. You can "hedge your bet" that something you own will go up by placing a side bet that it will go down. "Hedge funds" hedge bets in the derivatives market. Bets can be placed on anything, from the price of tea in China to the movements of specific markets.

"The point everyone misses," wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, "is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing."1 They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services. In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling. But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who not only lent legal and regulatory support to the trade but actively promoted derivatives as a way to improve "risk management." Partly, this was to boost the flagging profits of the banks; and at the larger banks and dealers, it worked. But the cost was an increase in risk to the financial system as a whole.2

Since then, derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy. The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars - that's 1,000 trillion dollars.3 How is that figure even possible? The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars. The answer is that gamblers can bet as much as they want. They can bet money they don't have, and that is where the huge increase in risk comes in.

Credit default swaps (CDS) are the most widely traded form of credit derivative. CDS are bets between two parties on whether or not a company will default on its bonds. In a typical default swap, the "protection buyer" gets a large payoff from the "protection seller" if the company defaults within a certain period of time, while the "protection seller" collects periodic payments from the "protection buyer" for assuming the risk of default. CDS thus resemble insurance policies, but there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer any loss, so CDS are widely used just to increase profits by gambling on market changes. In one blogger's example, a hedge fund could sit back and collect $320,000 a year in premiums just for selling "protection" on a risky BBB junk bond. The premiums are "free" money - free until the bond actually goes into default, when the hedge fund could be on the hook for $100 million in claims.

And there's the catch: what if the hedge fund doesn't have the $100 million? The fund's corporate shell or limited partnership is put into bankruptcy; but both parties are claiming the derivative as an asset on their books, which they now have to write down. Players who have "hedged their bets" by betting both ways cannot collect on their winning bets; and that means they cannot afford to pay their losing bets, causing other players to also default on their bets.

The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme. The potential for this sort of nuclear reaction was what prompted billionaire investor Warren Buffett to call derivatives "weapons of financial mass destruction." It is also why the banking system cannot let a major derivatives player go down, and it is the banking system that calls the shots. The Federal Reserve is literally owned by a conglomerate of banks; and Hank Paulson, who heads the U.S. Treasury, entered that position through the revolving door of investment bank Goldman Sachs, where he was formerly CEO.

Now the picture becomes a bit clearer ... and more dire. John Maggs, writing "Derivatives: The Other Shoe Waiting To Drop" for the National Journal quotes Warren Buffett:

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett has been calling these derivatives a "mega-catastrophe" waiting to happen since the 1990s, when they began to proliferate. Buffett warned in May 2007 that a crisis in the derivatives market wasn't just a possibility--it was an eventuality. "The introduction of derivatives has totally made any regulation of margin requirements a joke," he said, referring to the amount of borrowed money normally required to buy stocks and bonds. "We don't know when it will end precisely, but ... at some point some very unpleasant things will happen in the markets."

John Riley, Chief Strategist for Cornerstone Money Management, notes that the derivatives market has grown dramatically. To wit, there has been a derivative growth of 473% for the top 25 U.S. banks since 1999.

So the derivative "bomb" is being mentioned quietly, but there is yet another troubling part of this scenario and the big players chew up and swallow whole other big players (with the help of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury). Buyouts, derivatives, and risk become a not so hidden story in a recent report from the Comptroller of the Currency, administrator of National Banks "OCC's Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities First Quarter 2008." I truly struggled to make deep sense of this report, but much of it is beyond me. However, a couple of important things leap out.

First is the chart on page 6 of the report which shows that 98.8% of the credit derivatives for the first quarter of 2008 were "Credit Default Swaps." My understanding is that "swaps" are a primary tool of financial "speculation" - or crassly, financial gambling.

Page 9 of the report show a chart of the growth of derivatives among commercial banks from 1990 to 2008. The chart shows the grow from somewhere less that $10 trillion in 1990 to north of $160 trillion in the first quarter of 2008. Further, and confirming my suspicion that financial speculation played an important role in "jobless recovery," is that derivatives took off in 2002. They climbed from approximately $50 trillion to the current amount held by commercial banks (an increase of over 300% in less than 6 years).

If you continue trudging through this (almost incomprehensible to the lay person) report, you will come to Graph 4 on page 12. There you discover that five commercial banks have the lions share of derivatives - almost 97% of derivatives held by commercial banks. Continue reading through graphs and charts, and you arrive at page 17 which finally tells who those five derivative holding institutions are - the five largest commercial banks in the United States (in order of size): JPMorgan, Bank America, Citibank, Wachovia, and HSBC.

Keep going and one comes to a startling piece of information . Table 1 on page 22 is a listing of the "notional amount of derivative contracts." The top five banks (followed by 20 others) are right there at the top of the chart. JP Morgan shows total assets of $1.4 billion with total derivatives of almost $90 billion. This is a difference of almost 90 to 1, and most of those are those "swaps" discussed above. Anyone want to talk exposure and risk? For the entire group of top 25 commercial banks, the assets are roughly $10 billion with derivatives of $180 billion. Funny money ... a whole lot of funny money.

Now we add the scenario that these banks are eating up other institutions (JP Morgan scooped up Bear Sterns and Lehmans; Citibank swallowed Washington Mutual and is fighting over number four Wachovia with number six Wells Fargo). As they concentrate their holdings into a smaller and smaller group of mega-institutions, they also increase their holding to the questionable - and not regulated - derivatives. What happens if the over the top holding of derivatives flips the iceberg upside down? It is a frightening thought. It is particularly frightening since the trend seems to be that the treasury (and us the tax payers) are going to stand surety for "arcane financial instruments" which have no real value.

So the U.S. is pushing "bail, bail, bail" for an economic boat which essentially has no hull. There is a very real problem here that has governments scrambling. Historically financial recovery strategies have been dealt with on a national basis (often reaching out to exploit "undeveloped nations") to achieve economic recovery. However, there is now no real national boundaries to the financial markets. Everybody's ass is blowing in the wind to one extent or the other, and the markets have been given virtually total control. While the US and European nations seem to be nationalizing the losses to one extent or another, no one seems to have any ideas of how to put the unruly borderless market horse back in the paddock - much less in the barn.

I think it is very important to not be lead astray by the claims of "corruption and greed." While it is certainly true that these unflattering character traits were (and are) present, the systems have been restructured to reward avarice and illegal activity. Global investment and finance has become the biggest (and most rewarding) gambling venture ever known. It has been structured as a "money machine" that utilizes the labor and resources of the planet to extract every drop of wealth, and then protects the gamblers so that the big ones win regardless of whether those markets go up ... or down.

The current insane situation we are in, and the reality of over the (unimaginable) sum of a QUADRILLION dollars hanging over us with nothing but air supporting it is more than a daunting prospect. But this was an environment that was created and facilitated by "decision makers" in and out of governments across the planet. Now it is has gotten so big and so precarious that its monstrous head is coming into the view of "the people."

There hangs the question of what to do about it. My gut response is to slam the door. Put a wall around the real economies and the people in them, and declare derivatives and other "arcane" instruments and markets illegal. Shut them down and keep them shut down. Some how, some way, economies have to get back to real value. That value resides in the people, not in the Casino Royale of financial wizardry.

I know that politicians say what they think various groups of voters supposedly want to hear. Why does anyone want to be lied to, and why don't they react negatively when they are lied to? I must say that I am baffled, but then maybe that is why I am not a politician.

McCain claims to be a "maverick," but most of those things he stood against his party (and the President) on, he has changed his tune. Two notable changes - support for off-shore drilling, and his stand on torture.

He claims to be pro-veteran, but has consistently voted against care for veterans - and not just recently.

He supported the most recent big budget give-away ($700 billion), but has been virtually silent on his support for the conditions that led to the current mess - namely deregulation, and pro-corporate bankruptcy changes. Further, he really does want further deregulation and oversight of the medical industries. He has referred to himself (in the past) as Mr. Deregulator. In other words, he is right in there with the conservative and Republican agenda of unfettered capitalism.

Obama, has also been shifting to some hypothetical middle-ground voter. He consistently is against same-sex marriage. He consistently tries to out-hawk the hawks. He supported the essence of bailing out Wall Street. He has said he would preemptively strike inside Pakistan (and elsewhere). He has offered unqualified support and protection of Israel. Are these lies? Is he more progressive than his campaign rhetoric indicates?

Why can't folks just say where they stand and what their record is? If McCain has done noteworthy things beyond being a veteran and POW, then let him share those. If his only qualification is that he is a vet and a POW, then millions of folks are veterans, and thousands have been POWs. That alone does not qualify him for the Presidency.

Why can't Obama be upfront about who he is? If he is pro big capitalism (which his economic advisors and willingness to support the bailout seems to indicate) then just say so.

What lying says to me, is that folks care only about one thing - power. They don't care about us - or about the country.

Obama has been more honest and run a cleaner campaign than McCain, but he is a long way from where I would hope he would be. McCain is getting increasingly negative, and lying about Obama (fear mongering in fact).

I am sick of it. Aren't you?

The word "maverick" actually comes from the U.S. southwest and links back to a rancher - Samuel Maverick:

Samuel Augustus Maverick (July 23, 1803-September 2, 1870) was a Texas lawyer, politician, land baron and signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. From his name comes the term "maverick", first cited in 1867, which means independent minded. Maverick was considered independent minded by his fellow ranchers because he refused to brand his cattle.[1] In fact, Maverick's failure to brand his cattle had little to do with independent mindedness, but reflected his lack of interest in ranching.[1] He is the grandfather of U.S. Congressman Maury Maverick, who coined the term gobbledygook (1944). (wikipedia)

The word came from Sam Maverick's practice of not branding his cattle and then rounding up all unbranded cattle as his own . In other words, he was a cattle "appropriator." This from a friend of mine:

Samuel Maverick, a Texan back when it was its own country, had a lot of cattle... like many others who claimed the wildlands of the back-country West as "common lands". Most people who had cattle kept an eye on them, and the practice of annually rounding up one's branded cattle to sort out and sell some, and brand the calves of the new season, eventually became universal. But, in Sam Maverick's day, when longhorn cattle were sometimes only valued for their hides & tallow (because there was no refrigeration, and the railroads hadn't pushed near enough yet- so sailing ships were the method of transport), there were plenty of "cow-rich & cash poor" ranchers... including him.

So, Maverick figured that he would brand None of his cows... and at roundup time, his crews went through the bush and drove unbranded cattle to his ranch, to be done with as he saw fit. Of course, there were always escaped cattle around... and not all of them Maverick's... but it wasn't considered a problem, at the time.

* You can read his whole excellent discussion from this MySpace link under Sunday, September 28, 2008 "my iron is red hot"

Now Governor Palin has been announcing that she an McCain are not only "mavericks," but they are a "team of mavericks." This would seem to be closer to "first one to brand them," rather than the "nonconformist", "rule breaker," or even "loner" interpretations. In fact a "team" of "mavericks" is an oxymoron (kudos to Kelly for noticing that) - kind of like the idea of an "anarchist party."

It would seem that McCain lost his maverick status a long time ago, as he has embraced an ideology of corporate deregulation and cronyism (Savings and Loan scandal anyone?), and has voted almost in lock-step with George Bush over the last seven years - hardly and independent response. Not to mention his vaunted military background - hardly an arena where "mavericks" aka "rebels" are welcomed or tolerated.

Likewise, Sarah Palin has declared herself a "maverick" while at the same time avowing that she is a "hockey mom" - in short, a stereotype. Further she embraces the image that she is an average middle class woman, with a middle class family. In fact, that she is a living, breathing, specimen of "Main Street" America - Joe Six Pack ya know? More stereotypes and that is the antithesis is "rebel" or "nonconformist."

Perhaps that is how they get by with making claims of "maverick" with a straight (no pun intended) face. Since it ties back to a land baron who cared so little for the animals that were his responsibility, and violated the rights and good will of his neighbors ... yep. Or even that it is a hidden message to big bucks out there that McCain and Palin are open to being "branded" ... You betcha!

You can read through the various definitions of "maverick" here.

Gas lines miles long. People sleeping in their cars over night waiting for a delivery. Fights in gas lines. All off the front pages and top-of-the-news reports. Consigned to sound bites.

Here's a blogger in the area writing about his/her experience at the UNC - Charlotte Earth Club

(Excerpt)Thursday, I drove an hour to find a gas station that had gasoline. I don't mean I drove around in circles all over town, I mean I chose a highway and drove down that highway, passing numerous stations what were completely out of gasoline, for an hour until I found one station- way out in the country- that had gas. You know what else they had? Lines. Really long lines.

Here's a link to the Charlotte Observer photo gallery of the situation, and here's a couple of telling photos.

The lines seem to go on forever ...
(9/26/2008 Motorists line Albemarle Rd. in east Charlotte to get into a Shell station that had fuel Friday afternoon. TODD SUMLIN - [email protected])

And since the various government officials have failed to institute any controls or rationing, what you get is hoarding which exacerbates the problem.
(9/25/08 One customer makes sure he has enough gas by filling several containers as well as his car at The Pop Shoppe at the corner of Woodlawn Rd. and Park Rd. Thursday morning. DAVIE HINSHAW - [email protected])

Not pictured, but unfortunately likely when people are hoarding gas and storing it at home, are fires.

One might think, from what makes the news on this issue, that the only issue is inconvenience. However, imagine spending hours a week to try and get gas for normal transportation. What is happening to deliveries to say grocery stores? How many folks are going to businesses? How many folks are missing work, and losing income - if not jobs? Where are the children of these people waiting in the lines; pushing their cars in the line? How many situations are there like Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College which closed because too many of its 25,000 students just couldn't get to class?

We should be seeing this, and thinking seriously about what we are facing as a nation, when oil supplies fail.

You had McCain outright dissembling and distracting. "Mr. Deregulator" and friend of big business saying he didn't support "earmarks," and that more tax cuts for corporations was "good" for us. can't he get past Reagan's "Voodoo Economics?" While the US may have a higher tax rate on corporations than some nations, the corporations don't pay it - something I am glad that Obama pointed out (weakly), and should have had the stats to back it up. From the AP on 8/12/08, Most Companies In US Avoid Federal Income Taxes:

"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005"

"about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period."

"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,"

"More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts."

Obama continued his "I can out-hawk you" rhetoric, and McCain made his tear-suppressed association with those wounded vets. Yeah, and he is no friend of theirs when it comes to services.

Once again, we hear the campaign line that Obama doesn't know the difference between a "tactic and a strategy." And I waited with baited breath for Obama to say that McCain doesn't know the difference between a war and an occupation ... or at least to bring up that the most successful part of the surge is paying everybody on all sides big bucks not to shoot at each other (or U.S. forces). Nope - silence on all counts. Instead we hear (again) about the "good war" in Afghanistan, and that Obama would "kill" bin Laden if he was captured. Dumb and dumber. What happened to justice? What happened to the realization that such action would make a martyr of bin Laden and fuel radical recruitment?

Both support a bogus bail out of the (Ponzi) financial sector. Neither mentioned that the $700 billion is just the tip of the iceberg of the derivative debacle. Both successfully avoided mentioning that the bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was to cover those "toxic" mortgages.

Probably the smartest thing that Obama said was that single-payer health care would be a boon to both people and business. The smartest thing McCain said? Don't know, I must have missed it, but his healthcare plan that promotes "freedom of choice" (a $5000 tax credit, offset by charging taxes on employer healthcare contributions) will make for an even worse healthcare access problem than we already have.

Both expressed their supposed concern for the "middle class," but not one mention of the working class, working poor, or the downright destitute - ironically and sadly a population that returning vets are joining at an ever accelerating rate.

Ah Nuts!

Seven years and the immigrant families of those lost in the World Trade Center still have no legal status, and therefore no status. Many are even afraid to come forward for fear of deportation.

We have heard thousands of times of the heroes who lost their lives on that fateful day. All of the victims are considered "heroes" - except the hidden and inconvenient immigrant victims.

Justice takes many forms, and legalizing and recognizing these survivors should have happened long ago.

Since 9/11 we have watched the usurpation of power by the Bush administration; the attack on the Constitution and undermining of our civil rights; the rise of corporate power and privatization of the military and intelligence communities. We have watched the stripping of resources and blatant cronyism undermine the infrastructure and safety of the people of the United States. We have watched the nation's honor and integrity be forever sullied by torture and murder. Yet Sarah Palin is so disconnected to the critical nature of those rights that she chastised Obama in her acceptance speech: "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"

Indeed, this is a reflection of how far we have fallen from our commitment to law and justice. We have arrived at a point where candidate for the second highest office in the country throws away the principles of the Constitution with a sneer - and is cheered for doing so.

With the public's awakening to the injustice of the invasion in Iraq, Afghanistan has become the "good" war. Afghanistan, where we threw out the law and attacked a nation for one man. Almost seven years later the death and destruction continues. Even Obama hoists the "good war" flag for Afghanistan. It was not a "good war" when it started, and it certainly has not become one with the passage of time.

The trail of destruction spreads out from the events of 9/11 like the debris path of a megastorm. In many ways, it seems as indiscriminate as a storm, but it is not. The destruction has been deliberate, or at least the consequences of deliberate action.

I hope for a day when we look forward to rebuilding and healing the damage that has been done. A day when we realize that war is not an answer, and that human and civil rights are not an impediment to safety. A day when we realize that hatred leads to hardening ideologies and destructive actions, and we come to terms with ourselves and those who share our planet.

Let's start with the response to the news that the Palin's 17 year old daughter (Bristol) is five months pregnant and unmarried. This is not an uncommon situation. What makes me angry are comments such as "I am glad the Palin's are supporting their daughter through this."

Are they supporting Bristol? How do we know that? Did Bristol decide to go forward with the pregnancy and marry the presumptive father, or was it a decision made for her? Would the Palin's have "supported" their daughter if she had decided to ... not marry the father and raise the child on her own; not marry the father and give the child up for adoption; terminate the pregnancy? We don't know what freedom of choice Bristol Palin had, nor the real "supportiveness of her parents," and likely never will.

Underneath the situation of Bristol Palin (and even her mother Sarah) is the "pro life" ideology. Within that ideology is not just the "evils" of abortion, but the control of women's lives and bodies. For the ideologues and believers, it is not just abortion that is the issue. It is birth control and sex education. They are against both. The only birth control option is abstinence. As Bristol Palin's situation shows, that works better in ideological debates than in real teen's lives.

Lost in the so-called "abortion" argument is the reality of women having the RIGHT to control our own bodies. It has always been about this. Those rights include the right to determine if we have sex or not - and with whom; whether we use available birth control or not; whether we have access to credible and safe reproductive health services (including education) - or not; and whether we will bear a - or not.

Under the onslaught of the so-called "pro life" movement, we have seen the erosion of each of those rights.

Sarah and Todd Palin, obviously have decided to not use birth control - or abstinence - within their marriage. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that at 44 Sarah Palin would have decided to get pregnant with a fifth child. Even pro lifers know that this is a danger zone for reproduction. It is therefore not too surprising that Bristol (and her boy friend) did not use birth control either.

Then we come to Bristol's (supposed) "decision" to continue the pregnancy. Within the ideology of pro life, this is "bearing the consequences" of one's actions. It is the punishment for breaking the rules of abstinence. It is the punishment for the sin of a woman having sex outside of marriage. It is all the more a punishment for Bristol because her humiliation and restitution is taking place before the eyes of the world. The perfect public shaming and object lesson.

From an ideologue's pro life position, the situation of the Palin's is an integrity verification. I am sure that Sarah Palin's "stock" went way up with the release of the information Bristol's pregnancy and shotgun wedding.

Pro life is not about life, and pro choice is not simply pro abortion. The real battleground is the right of women to have control of our own sexual and reproductive lives. That decision is interwoven with a number of other life issues. It is this larger battleground that poses the "threat" that women might actually be acknowledged as full human beings with full human rights.

There is no "choice' when there are no options.

Links of Interest

McCain picks Alaska governor Sarah Palin for VP slot. Alex Blaze. The Bilerico Project. 8/29/08.

Anti-gay:
Same-sex benefits ban gets Palin veto. Hopkins. ADN. 12/29/08.
While standing against granting healthcare benefits to safe-sex partners, Palin complied with an Alaskan Supreme Court ruling that to deny them was unconstitutional.

Pro creationism - Intelligent Design and the Alaska Governor's Race. Afarensis. 10/27/06.

Anti-abortion - McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate. NARAL.

Palin, a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life, said during her campaign for governor that she is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor's Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.]

Sarah Palin Develops Strong Pro-Life Record on Abortion as Alaska Governor. LifeNews. 8/29/08.

For Opening ANWR - Palin on Oil & Energy. On the Issues.

Sarah Palin On The Issues
Of the issues she has voted on:
Pro-Life
Anti-gay : same sex marriage and partner benefits
Favors the death penalty
Absolute right to gun ownership
Supports more federal funding for health care
Supports retaining social security
Opposes alternatives to oil.

BIO Gov. Sarah Palin (R). National Journal. 8/29/08

There was a lump in my throat as I watched Obama accept the nomination at the DNC. This is truly an historic moment for the United States. It remains to be seen if the people will actually elect an African American president.

Obama balances on a tightrope in a high wind as he at once acknowledges race and racial inequality, and calms white fears about him be a racial radical. At the convention, efforts were made to let people get to know the Obamas. The repeated message of "just like you" (meaning "average white person") was clear. The most striking example (for me) was Michelle Obama's brother - Craig Robinson, head coach of the Oregon State basketball team - saying that as a child Michelle had memorized every episode of the Brady Bunch. While, I don't doubt the veracity, and don't mean to demean the show, The Brady Bunch?!

Perhaps I am overly sensitive to the "we're just like you" argument because I have spent decades listening to the arguments from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movements of "we are just like you." In the civil rights community it goes, we work normal jobs, share financial struggles, have families and children, go to church ... "We are 'normal' folks." While, all that is true, we are NOT just like heterosexuals. Our life experiences are different, and challenged by both law and social sanctions.

The same is true for the Obamas. Because racism - like homophobia - is an institutionalized aspect of society in the United States, day to day existence faces challenges that are definitely outside the experience of "normal white folks." The Obamas (and I include Michelle in this) are anything but "average" or "normal." For me, they are not an example of the "American" dream of intergenerational advancement. They are an example of the courage, tenacity, and love of their families and support networks, and their own exceptional abilities and tenacity.

Each of them are exceptionally talented above the "norm." They had parents and family who nurtured and encouraged them. Somewhere along the line, they got "grit." They each triumphed in a society where the deck is stacked against them.

I felt punched with each stoking of the myth that the "American Dream" had been "real," and that somehow it had gotten lost, but we could reclaim it. The reality is that the "American Dream" has never been real, though one can hope (and work towards a day) it can be real. The adage that if you work hard that you will be rewarded with success, and that anybody can be what their highest aspirations, talent, and effort allow them to be, is simply not true. Further, it is not true even for white "Americans." U.S. society is not structured as a meritocracy. The boundaries of race, sex, and social class have always interlaced with the meritocratic ideal. Structurally, those differences have created high boundaries for the majority of the population.

Harking to the so-called reality of the "American Dream" actually reinforces the myth that it exists - or ever existed - in the U.S. Further, it paints exceptionalism as the 'norm." The veracity of the "you can be anything myth," is continuously supported by pointing at the exception and claiming it represents the rule. Virtually all of the speakers at the DNC did this over and over again.

Our social system is not structured for everybody (or even most people) to "win." A few people do navigate the obstacles (and get a bit of luck) and become touted examples of the truth of meritocracy. While my personal "success" is relatively modest in the scheme of things, people have attempted to paint me as proof-of-the-pudding of the myth.

The flip side of the "you can go as far as your talents and effort will take you" argument is that if you aren't successful "it is your own fault." Failure to advance socially and economically is a personal failure - a personal "character" flaw. This then gets extrapolated to entire populations - women, racial and ethnic minorities, the working and lower classes - as some sort of shared character flaw.

The meritocracy myth is central to keeping the structural and embedded social boundaries invisible, and reinforcing those very same inequalities. It makes me more than nervous that the Democrats, and the Obama campaign, continue to burnish the myth.

The use of "exception is the rule" applies to race (and sex, orientation, ability) as well as to social class. The selection of Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate runs that risk. There are those (and I assume the majority of people) who will point to this exceptional event, and this exceptional man, and saying "See, racism doesn't exist in the United States" (at least not in any significant way). We have already heard this from the political right in a variety of forms.

Even before the Obama chose to run for president, the anti-affirmative action, anti-civil rights, welfare reform advocates have consistently argued that "race is not an issue." The selection of Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate will certainly be used to bolster this argument.

What I am arguing here is that the Democratic party's broad scale use of "the exception is the rule" may dramatically undermine efforts to actually lessen inequality within the United States. This will become one (of the many) challenges that Barack Obama will face in the coming campaign - and in the presidency if he should be elected. While the selection of Barack Obama is a major advance in our society, it does not mark the end of personal, cultural, and structural racism of the United States.

To be clear, I support Barack Obama and will be voting for him in November. I am deeply impacted by the historic nature of having a mixed race person (labeled as African American) being a primary candidate for the presidency. This truly IS a special accomplishment for the nation.

While delegates and party leadership go about their "business," they are buffered as much as the current administration was from any "sour" notes. The demonstrators in Denver are in the ubiquitous "free speech zones" far from where their voices will be heard, and far from where delegates will be exposed to critical and challenging arguments.

The picture being painted at the DNC is that of siding with the "working people" to restore the greatness of the United States. Smattered throughout the numerous speeches have been fops to the corporate world that they will also profit in this new era. The demonstrators voice a different vision and well know that corporations (and corporate influence) are not the friends and supporters of either "the people" or "democracy."

It disheartens me that the leaders of the Democratic party have not drawn the cameras to the free speech zones. There have been no trips that I know of to rub shoulders with those who are trying to get real concerns into the mix of party platforms. I do not believe that one leader, including Dennis Kucinich, has even mentioned the demonstrators whose voices are being leashed.

But invisibility is what free speech zones are about.

Of course the use of free speech zones has the impact of dramatically decreasing the number of people who come forward,and energy of those who do.

The demonstrators in Denver certainly do not lack organization even if the impact is being muted behind guarded fences. Here is the schedule of protests during the convention.

If the Democrats want to protect the Constitution and our sacred rights, then abolishing free speech zones would be a good place to start.

One thing we do know about irradiation, and why the big agriculture has pushed it for so long, is that it improves the shelf life of products. It does not necessarily make food "safe," and it does not deal with the issue of dangerous contamination happening in fields, processing plants, or transport and storage.

The concerns regarding long term effects of eating irradiated foods aside, there are other safety issues to think about. For example, the risk to workers and communities, and the proliferation of radioactive materials across the country. A "Fact Sheet" tries to calm fears by stating:

"The use and transportation of radioactive materials, including the facilities in which they are used and the equipment in those facilities, is closely monitored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, state agencies and the Department of Transportation.

The radioactive material itself is sealed within two layers of metal that prevent corrosion and oxidation. When shipped, it is placed within brick layers of lead that prevent gamma rays from escaping.

Facilities must include many safety features to prevent both environmental and worker exposure. For example, when radioactive cobalt is in the storage position in an irradiator, it is under water and otherwise shielded. The irradiator is operated by remote control, and many other protections are required to prevent workers form entering the irradiation enclosure."

Somehow I don't have a lot of faith in the efficacy of government agencies to keep us safe after watching the undermining, and under-funding, of government agencies (the FDA being one). The thought of "heavy water" at processing facilities doesn't cheer me either.

When I saw that the FDA had approved irradiation, I immediately wondered "What happened to ozone processing?" Ozone processing is relatively simple and safe (particularly when compared against irradiation), and does not damage either the food or the environment.

Several years ago I saw a news clip on the process. The vegetables (I believe it was heads of lettuce) were put in a vat of water and the water was electrified. This increased the ozone level in the water and killed harmful bacteria. When the electricity was removed, the water returned to just water. "Wow!" I thought, "What a great solution."

How did irradiation make it through the gate when ozone seemed to straight forward? Why expose vegetables to radiation, when washing them with ozone rich water would do the trick? Why transport hazardous waste around the country in its lead and brick lined containers, and have to deal with radioactive water storage, when you could just use fresh water and a little electricity?

I do not know why radiation won and ozone processing lost, but I can make some guesses.

- The ozone processing is most effective if the produce is cleaned of debris first. I suspect that irradiation doesn't care if the is organic or inorganic material involved.

- The "energy" companies control radioactive material, so irradiation creates a new market for them.

- Irradiation creates collateral needs - transport, containment, maintenance, disposal.

Of course, the issue not addressed at all is that the problem of industrial agriculture. The industrial level production and processing of the food supply has numerous problems. Among those is contamination and the safety of the food supply.

Irradiation further concentrates control of the food supply in the hands of corporate agriculture. It is risky on a number of levels even if it is considered "safe" by the FDA. It increases the need for cooperation and information sharing across multiple state and federal government agencies. This increases the likelihood of foul up.

With the food supply, the best bet is still to stay as localized as possible. The benefits are numerous and include food safety, global warming and energy benefits, strengthening local economies and food security, and a higher quality of food.

Resources of Interest
FDA approves irradiating spinach, lettuce to kill germs. 8/22/08.

Ozone can clean fruits and vegetables. USA Today. 2003.

Ozone in Fruit & Vegetable Storage. Ozone Industries.

Basics of Ozone Applications for Postharvest Treatment of Vegetables. UC Davis, Vegetable Research Center draft report.

The big exchange banks all had their hands in the Ponzi scheme that is still crashing around the heads of the United States and the rest of the world. Now, one by one they are "settling" with regulators and shareholders while still drawing preferred rates from the Federal Reserve. Perhaps this unlikely "justice" is because they are considered "too big to fail."

The JPMorgan settlement is reported to be $25 million, with an undisclosed (several billion dollar) buy back of part of shareholders' "risky" investments. What is left out of the reports (conveniently) is the $30 billion the Federal Reserve fronted JP Morgan to swallow up Bear Stearns - another investment bank caught with both hands in the "risky investments."

The Fed fronts JPMorgan $30 billion to take over a competitor. JP pays out a $25 million fine and a few billion to shareholders (read other banks, government agencies, and very rich folks). That seems to leave a tidy profit and virtually no consequences to me. Of course, the other banks offering settlements are also taking in discount front money from the Fed.

So spin the wheels of "justice" where the criminal can get the means for restitution of injured parties and still make a massive profit. I guess it does look like the "justice," and that the "watchdog" Securities and Exchange Commission" is protecting us from the graft and greed of big players. However, "looks like" is all that seems to be happening.

The dejure reference for the region of conflict is "South" Ossetia. North Ossetia lies within Russian boundaries and South within Georgian boundaries. However, this was one region, and they have voted for independence and to be joined. That joined nation is Ossetia-Alania. It was one region prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union. With that breakup came North and South Ossetia.

Georgia, on the other hand, would prefer to not do the North-South naming as it implies the historic (and ongoing) connection within the divided region. We get this explanation from the BBC Regions and Territories: South Ossetia (emphases mine):

As far as Georgia is concerned, the use of the word "north" in the title North Ossetia is misleading. In Tbilisi's eyes, the region of Russia which bears that name is the only Ossetia. It prefers to call South Ossetia, which is part of the Georgian province of Shida Kartli, by the ancient name of Samachablo or, more recently, Tskhinvali region.