From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Aug 1 08:33:02 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:33:02 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The 100-Mile Diet Message-ID: <20090801233302.f286ef07.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> In 2005, Alisa Smith and J B MacKinnon began a one-year experiment in local eating. Their 100-Mile Diet struck a deeper chord than anyone could have predicted, inspiring thousands of individuals, and even whole communities, to change the way they eat. Locally raised and produced food has been called "the new organic" - better tasting, better for the environment, better for local economies, and better for your health. From reviving the family farm to reconnecting with the seasons, the local foods movement is turning good eating into a revolution. FAQs: An Interview with James and Alisa * Why the '100-Mile' Diet? * How difficult is the 100-Mile Diet? * Was it mostly fun, or mostly frustration? * Is this some kind of foodie cult? * Did you feel malnourished? * Were your meals repetitive and boring? * Was it expensive? * Did it take a lot of time? * What did you miss the most? * Are you still on the 100-Mile Diet? * Will local eating save the world? * Will I lose weight while I save the world? * Can this be done in New York City/Alaska/the desert? * Did you cheat? Why the '100-Mile' Diet? It's an easy way to start thinking local. A 100-mile radius is large enough to reach beyond a big city and small enough to feel truly local. And it rolls off the tongue more easily than the '160-Kilometre Diet'. How difficult is the 100-Mile Diet? We walked into the diet cold turkey for a full year, and it was hard. For example, we live on the West Coast, so it took us seven months to find a rogue local farmer who actually grows wheat. Meanwhile, we ate an unbelievable number of potatoes. Doing the diet the hard way taught us a lot about the current food system, but it isn't for everybody. A more realistic approach is to plan a single, totally 100-mile meal with friends or family, and see where you want to go from there. Was it mostly fun, or mostly frustration? The 100-Mile Diet is about learning by doing. Getting to know the seasons. Understanding where our food comes from, and at what risk to our health and to the environment. Sorting out how we all ended up eating apples that taste like cardboard and cakes made with petrochemicals. It was a challenge, but a good one - a genuine adventure. Is this some kind of foodie cult? Do we think the world would be a better place if more people ate local food more often? Yes. Do we want to pick fights or lose friends about it? No. Did you feel malnourished? For one year we ate only the freshest food that had traveled the shortest possible distances and was eaten or preserved at its seasonal peak. Most of it was organic, and everything we ate was prepared from scratch and nothing came out of a box. Does that answer that question? Were your meals repetitive and boring? At first, yes. As we found more and more local food sources, though, our meals became more interesting than ever before. Farmers and farmers' markets introduced us to foods and flavors we'd never tried before. We discovered the seasons, and the micro-seasons, and the micro-micro-seasons. What's available is always changing. Was it expensive? Again, only in the beginning. Most of us pay a big premium for out-of-season foods like cherries in winter or prepared foods like spaghetti sauce, usually with a long list of ingredients we might prefer not to have in our bodies. Eating locally, we bought fresh ingredients in season and direct from the farmer - and we were often buying bulk. We preserved enough food for the winter that we rarely had to buy groceries. Our bet? Most people eating a typical diet could save money by eating locally. Did it take a lot of time? We won't lie - it takes time to find local food sources, to make food from scratch, to do canning for winter, and so on. But it also raises interesting questions about how we're spending our time. What if we spent more time on self-sufficiency and less time at the office? What did you miss the most? Every region has foods that are hard - or impossible - to find. We went without wheat for seven months. We missed pasta. We missed bread. We missed pancakes. Then we found our wheat farmer, and we pigged out. Are you still on the 100-Mile Diet? Yes - more or less. We lived a year on the 100-Mile Diet as an experiment. Now we're committed to eating locally, but certain long-distance favorites have made it back into the larder. Like olives. And chocolate. And beer. Will local eating save the world? Check out our Twelve Reasons for Eating Locally (see below). Will I lose weight while I save the world? The world of weight-loss diets is a weird and not-so-wonderful place. Let's put it this way: a local diet is likely to involve lots of fresh produce and homemade meals, and not a lot of junk food, processed fats, additives and sugar. You're also far more likely to know where your food came from, and what's in it. Can this be done in New York City/Alaska/the desert? We recently ate a 100-Mile Meal in New York, and we'd only been there for one day. We've also managed totally local eating at 55 degrees north latitude and on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. There are places where it's easier and places where it's harder, but with a little planning, local eating is never impossible. And yes, that's a direct challenge to scientists in Antarctica and astronauts in the International Space Station. Did you cheat? Read our tell-all book about a year on the 100-Mile Diet: http://100milediet.org/book _____ Twelve Reasons for Eating Locally 1. Taste the difference. At a farmers' market, most local produce has been picked inside of 24 hours. It comes to you ripe, fresh, and with its full flavor, unlike supermarket food that may have been picked weeks or months before. Close-to-home foods can also be bred for taste, rather than withstanding the abuse of shipping or industrial harvesting. Many of the foods we ate on the 100-Mile Diet were the best we'd ever had. 2. Know what you're eating. Buying food today is complicated. What pesticides were used? Is that corn genetically modified? Was that chicken free range or did it grow up in a box? People who eat locally find it easier to get answers. Many build relationships with farmers whom they trust. And when in doubt, they can drive out to the farms and see for themselves. 3. Meet your neighbors. Local eating is social. Studies show that people shopping at farmers' markets have ten times more conversations than their counterparts at the supermarket. Join a community garden and you'll actually meet the people you pass on the street. 4. Get in touch with the seasons. When you eat locally, you eat what's in season. You'll remember that cherries are the taste of summer. Even in winter, comfort foods like squash soup and pancakes just make sense - a lot more sense than flavorless cherries from the other side of the world. 5. Discover new flavors. Ever tried sunchokes? How about purslane, quail eggs, yerba mora, or tayberries? These are just a few of the new (to us) flavors we sampled over a year of local eating. Our local spot prawns, we learned, are tastier than popular tiger prawns. Even familiar foods were more interesting. Count the types of pear on offer at your supermarket. Maybe three? Small farms are keeping alive nearly 300 other varieties - while more than 2,000 more have been lost in our rush to sameness . 6. Explore your home. Visiting local farms is a way to be a tourist on your own home turf, with plenty of stops for snacks. 7. Save the world. A study in Iowa found that a regional diet consumed seventeen times less oil and gas than a typical diet based on food shipped across the country. The ingredients for a typical British meal, sourced locally, traveled 66 times fewer "food miles". Or we can just keep burning those fossil fuels and learn to live with global climate change, the fiercest hurricane seasons in history, wars over resources ? 8. Support small farms. We discovered that many people from all walks of life dream of working the land - maybe you do too. In areas with strong local markets, the family farm is reviving. That's a whole lot better than the jobs at Wal-Mart and fast-food outlets that the globalized economy offers in North American towns. 9. Give back to the local economy. A British study tracked how much of the money spent at a local food business stayed in the local economy, and how many times it was reinvested. The total value was almost twice the contribution of a dollar spent at a supermarket chain . 10. Be healthy. Everyone wants to know whether the 100-Mile Diet worked as a weight-loss program. Well, yes, we lost a few pounds apiece. More importantly, though, we felt better than ever. We ate more vegetables and fewer processed products, sampled a wider variety of foods, and ate more fresh food at its nutritional peak. Eating from farmers' markets and cooking from scratch, we never felt a need to count calories. 11. Create memories. A friend of ours has a theory that a night spent making jam - or in his case, perogies - with friends will always be better a time than the latest Hollywood blockbuster. We're convinced. 12. Have more fun while traveling. Once you're addicted to local eating, you'll want to explore it wherever you go. On a trip to Mexico, earth-baked corn and hot-spiced sour oranges led us away from the resorts and into the small towns. Somewhere along the line, a mute magician gave us a free show over bowls of lime soup in a little cantina. _____ Alisa Smith is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in Reader's Digest, Outside, Utne Reader, and many other publications. Based in Vancouver, she spends her summers in a wilderness cabin in northern British Columbia. J B MacKinnon is the author of the acclaimed Dead Man in Paradise (2005), which won the 2006 Charles Taylor Prize for Literary Nonfiction. He is the winner of three national magazine awards as a freelance writer, and is a former senior editor at Adbusters. He lives with his co-author in Vancouver. http://100milediet.org/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 09:03:54 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:03:54 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Mark Weisbrot on Honduras Message-ID: Regrettably, so far there has been no large protest in the US to pressure the USG to reverse the coup in Honduras. Such protests as have happened in the US on this issue appear to have been even smaller than the Iranian Green protests in the US, which have largely consisted of Iranian immigrants of various political persuasions, from leftists to liberals to monarchists and the Iranian Mojahedin (from which most non-Iranian leftists, including vocal Green Movement supporters, have abstained). There is such a resounding political vacuum on the US front in the struggle against the Honduran coup that Mark Weisbrot now suggests that the solution has to come from Latin America, without the US. This shouldn't be impossible, as long as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, the key powers, act forcefully together with El Salvador and Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. U.S.-Brokered Mediation Has Failed -- It's Time for Latin America to Take Charge by Mark Weisbrot The mediation effort that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged to try to resolve the Honduran crisis, which began when a military coup removed Honduran President Mel Zelaya more than four weeks ago, has failed. It is now time -- some would say overdue -- for the Latin American governments to play their proper role. They should take the necessary steps to implement the unanimous mandate from the Organization of American States: "the immediate and unconditional return" of President Zelaya to his elected office. This can be done with or without the help of the Obama administration. It is important to note that the last two political crises in the region were resolved without any significant input from Washington. The first was in March of last year, when Colombia bombed and invaded Ecuadorian territory, in an operation targeting Colombian FARC guerillas. Latin America was united in its response, condemning the violation of Ecuador's sovereignty. The crisis was resolved at a Rio Group meeting on March 7, where President Uribe of Colombia apologized and pledged not to violate the sovereignty of any country again. In the summer of last year, right-wing Bolivians opposed to the government of President Evo Morales engaged in a series of violent actions that raised the specter of a separatist civil war. The heads of state of UNASUR -- the Union of South American Nations -- met in Santiago and unanimously declared their support for the Morales government. This unified regional response, and the ensuing investigations of right-wing violence sponsored by UNASUR, helped put an end to the insurrectionary hopes of the Bolivian right. It was too much to expect that a mediation process set up by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would resolve the Honduran crisis. The U.S. government has too many interests that conflict with what the rest of the region wants and needs. First, there is the U.S. military base in Honduras, the only such base in Central America. The constitutional reform process that President Zelaya hoped to set in motion could easily lead to voters' rejection of foreign troops on their soil. However much our government may prefer democracy as a political system, when there is a choice between democracy and a military base, Washington's track record is not a good one. Brazil's foreign minister Celso Amorim complained to Clinton that the mediation process should be within the framework of the OAS resolution, and therefore should not impose conditions on Zelaya's return -- especially, he said, a coalition government with the people who overthrew the government. This was one of the conditions proposed by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, whom Clinton recruited to mediate. Amorim also noted that any negotiated solution that was seen as rewarding the coup perpetrators would increase the threat of military coups in other countries. These concerns reflect Latin America's strong and unambiguous interest in a complete reversal of the coup. They will have to live with the consequences of failure. In Washington, by contrast, we have a muddle of conflicting interests: powerful lobbyists such as Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff, who are close to Clinton and are leading the coup government's strategy; the Republican right, including Members of Congress who openly support the coup; and "New Cold Warriors" of both parties in the Congress, State Department, and White House who see Zelaya as a threat because of his cooperation with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and other left governments. No wonder Washington's response to the coup has sent so many mixed signals. The first White House statement did not even criticize the coup, and the State Department still won't officially call it a coup. And Clinton has repeatedly refused to say that "restoring the democratic order" in Honduras means bringing Zelaya back -- much less unconditionally. It took three weeks for the administration to threaten a foreign aid cutoff, and Washington is alone in keeping its ambassador in place. Latin America gave Washington a chance to use its influence with the Honduran elite to restore democracy there. It didn't work. Now it is Latin America's turn to take the lead. Hopefully, Washington will follow. Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. This article was first published by the Guardian on 30 July 2009. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 1 13:01:33 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] No bailout can stop the sinking Message-ID: <1481981652.250361249153293835.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Globe and Mail August 1, 2009 Book excerpt No bailout can stop the sinking The U.S.S. America is not fit to sail, argues author Chris Hedges Chris Hedges In his seventh book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, veteran U.S. war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges systematically attacks what he sees as the self-deluding and corrupt character of American society, economics and global influence today. In this excerpt from the final chapter, he ties his analysis to the recent bailouts of banks and other corporations. Democracy is not an outgrowth of free markets. Democracy and capitalism are antagonistic entities. Democracy, like individualism, is based not on personal gain but on self-sacrifice. A functioning democracy must often defy the economic interests of elites on behalf of citizens, but this is not happening. The corporate managers and government officials trying to fix the economic meltdown are pouring money and resources into the financial sector because they are trained only to manage and sustain the established system, not change it. John Ralston Saul writes that the first three aims of the corporatist movement in Germany, Italy, and France during the 1920s, those that went on to become part of the fascist experience, were ?to shift power directly to economic and social interest groups, to push entrepreneurial initiative in areas normally reserved for public bodies? and to ?obliterate the boundaries between public and private interest ? that is, challenge the idea of the public interest.? It sounds depressingly familiar. The working class, which has desperately borrowed money to stay afloat as real wages have dropped, now faces years, maybe decades, of stagnant or declining incomes without access to new credit. The national treasury, meanwhile, is being drained on behalf of speculative commercial interests. The government ? the only institution citizens have that is big enough and powerful enough to protect their rights ? is becoming weaker, more anemic, and increasingly unable to help the mass of Americans who are embarking on a period of deprivation and suffering unseen in this country since the 1930s. Creative destruction, as the economist Joseph Schumpeter understood, is the essential fact about unfettered capitalism. ?You are going to see the biggest waste, fraud, and abuse in American history,? Ralph Nader told me when I asked him about the bailout. ?Not only is it wrongly directed, not only does it deal with the perpetrators instead of the people who were victimized, but they don't have a delivery system of any honesty and efficiency. ?The Justice Department is overwhelmed. It doesn't have a tenth of the prosecutors, the investigators, the auditors, the attorneys needed to deal with the previous corporate crime wave before the bailout started last September. It is especially unable to deal with the rapacious ravaging of this new money by these corporate recipients,? Nader said. ?You can see it already. The corporations haven't lent [out the bailout money]. They have used some of it for acquisitions or to preserve their bonuses or their dividends. As long as they know they are not going to jail, and they don't see many newspaper reports about their colleagues going to jail, they don't care. It is total impunity. If they quit, they quit with a golden parachute. Even [General Motors CEO Rick] Wagoner is taking away $21-million.? There are a handful of former executives who have conceded that the bailouts are a waste. The former chairman of American International Group Inc. (AIG), Maurice R. Greenberg, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the effort to prop up the firm with $170-billion has ?failed.? He said the company should be restructured. AIG, he said, would have been better off filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection instead of seeking government help. ?These are signs of hyper-decay,? Nader said from his office in Washington. ?You spend this kind of money and do not know if it will work. ?Bankrupt corporate capitalism is on its way to bankrupting the socialism that is trying to save it,? he added. ?That is the end stage. If they no longer have socialism to save them, then we are into feudalism. We are into private police, gated communities, and serfs with a 21st-century nomenclature.? The United States will not be able to raise another $3- or $4-trillion, especially with our commitments now totalling more than $12-trillion, to fix the mess. It was not long ago that such profligate government spending was unthinkable. There was an $800-billion limit placed on the Federal Reserve. The economic stimulus and the bailouts will not bring back our casino capitalism. And as the meltdown shows no signs of abating, and the bailouts show no sign of working, the recklessness and desperation of our capitalist overlords have increased. The cost to the working and middle class is becoming unsustainable. The Fed reported that households lost $5.1-trillion, or 9 per cent, of their wealth in the last three months of 2008, the most ever in a single quarter in the 57-year history of record-keeping by the central bank. For the full year, household wealth dropped $11.1-trillion, or about 18 per cent. These figures did not record the decline of investments in the stock market, which has probably erased trillions more in the country's collective net worth. The bullet to our head, inevitable if we do not radically alter course, will be sudden. We have been borrowing at the rate of more than $2-billion a day over the last 10 years, and at some point it has to stop. The moment China, the oil-rich states, and other international investors stop buying U.S. Treasury Bonds, the dollar will become junk. Inflation will rocket upward. We will become Weimar Germany. A furious and sustained backlash by a betrayed and angry populace, one unprepared intellectually and psychologically for collapse, will sweep aside the Democrats and most of the Republicans. A cabal of proto-fascist misfits, from Christian demagogues to simpletons like Sarah Palin to loudmouth talk-show hosts, whom we na?vely dismiss as buffoons, will find a following with promises of revenge and moral renewal. The elites, the ones with their Harvard Business School degrees and expensive vocabularies, will retreat into their sheltered enclaves of privilege and comfort. We will be left bereft, abandoned outside the gates, and at the mercy of the security state. Lenin said that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch its currency. As our financial crisis unravels, and our currency becomes worthless, there will be a loss of confidence in the traditional mechanisms that regulate society. When money becomes worthless, so does government. All traditional standards and beliefs are shattered in a severe economic crisis. The moral order is turned upside down. The honest and industrious are wiped out while the gangsters, profiteers, and speculators walk away with millions. There are signs that this has begun. Look at Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld. Many of his investors lost everything and yet he pocketed $485-million. An economic collapse does not mean only the degradation of trade and commerce, food shortages, bankruptcies, and unemployment. It also means the systematic dynamiting of the foundations of a society. I watched this happen in Yugoslavia. I watch it now in the United States. The free market and globalization, promised as routes to worldwide prosperity, have been exposed as two parts of a con game. But this exposure does not mean our corporate masters will disappear. Totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out, is not so much an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. ?A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial,? Orwell wrote. ?That is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.? They have engaged in massive fraud. Force is all they have left. There are powerful corporate entities, fearful of losing their influence and wealth, arrayed against us. They are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them, in the name of national security and moral renewal, to take complete control. The tools are in place. These antidemocratic forces, which will seek to make an alliance with the radical Christian Right and other extremists, will use fear, chaos, the hatred for the ruling elites, and the spectre of left-wing dissent and terrorism to impose draconian controls to extinguish our democracy. And while they do it, they will be waving the American flag, chanting patriotic slogans, promising law and order, and clutching the Christian cross. By then, exhausted and broken, we may have lost the power to resist. Excerpted from Empire of Illusion. ? 2009 Chris Hedges. Published by Knopf Canada. Reproduced by arrangement with the Publisher. All rights reserved. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 1 13:05:22 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Cuba suffers through austerity measures Message-ID: <776423533.250601249153522477.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Globe and Mail August 1, 2009 Cuba suffers through austerity measures Will Weissert Havana ? It's hard to find a spare tire in Cuba these days, or a cup of yoghurt. Air conditioners are shut off in the dead heat. Factories close at peak hours, and workers go without their government-subsidized lunches. Cuba has ordered austere energy savings this summer to cope with rising budget deficits and plummeting export profits, and the Communist Party Central Committee yesterday lowered 2009 economic growth projections by nearly a full percentage point. The committee also announced that it was suspending plans for the first Communist Party congress in 12 years in order to deal with the financial crisis. A report in official Cuban newspapers cited President Raul Castro as saying the island is struggling through a "very serious" crisis and hinted that further belt-tightening is on the way. The government already has imposed conservation measures even as it continues to get free oil for services from Venezuela, fuelling rumours that Cuba is selling President Hugo Chavez's crude on the side to raise cash. More likely, the shortages result from a global recession that hit an already struggling economy still reeling from last year's hurricanes. President Castro scolded Cubans in a recent national address to work harder because they have no one to blame but themselves. "The only thing I know is that this is lousy," said one 27-year-old, who asked not to be identified because he sells cement and housing materials on the black market. "I don't work. I find a way to survive." Every bit of belt-tightening stings in a country where almost everyone works for the state and average wages are less than $20 (U.S.) a month. The price of nickel, Cuba's chief export, is down more than 50 per cent from last year, according to Toronto-based Sherritt International Co-operation, Cuba's largest energy partner. The company's oil production on the island was down 19 per cent last quarter compared with the second quarter of 2008, mainly because Sherritt suspended drilling earlier this year when Cuba fell behind on its payments. The government and Sherritt have worked out a plan to pay down the debt, and the company says Cuba has been sticking to it. The situation could have spurred the mandatory energy savings. Neither Sherritt nor the Cuban government would provide more details. Beginning June 1, the government ordered energy conservation measures as part of a broader plan to cut the national budget by 6 per cent. Central planners also announced yesterday they were revising their economic growth projections downward, to 1.7 per cent from 2.5 per cent. The island's economic woes began in earnest with three hurricanes last summer that caused more than $10-billion in damage and wiped out some of the food and grains the government had stockpiled to insulate itself from rising commodities prices. Associated Press From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 1 13:07:12 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] U.S. generals to demand thousands of additional soldiers for Afghanistan In-Reply-To: <1826477332.249561249152758742.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1280967436.250791249153632635.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Watch Waist Deep in the Big Muddy by Pete Seger, then read this article: ------------------------------- Globe and Mail August 1, 2009 U.S. generals to demand thousands of additional soldiers for Afghanistan Paul Koring Washington ? Tens of thousands more U.S. soldiers may soon be needed in Afghanistan to quell the raging Taliban insurgency, top American generals are preparing to tell President Barack Obama. A spate of apparently deliberate leaks - seemingly aimed at preparing public opinion for a second "surge" involving as many as three or four more brigades or 20,000-plus soldiers and Marines - culminated yesterday with several reports saying General Stanley McChrystal, who took command of U.S. and NATO forces in June, wants lots more troops. The politically unpalatable news comes at the end of the bloodiest month in the bloodiest year since 2001 for U.S. and other foreign forces battling a resurgent Taliban, and on the same day the United Nations grimly warned that civilian casualties among war-weary Afghans soared this year. As U.S. soldiers and Marines continue to pour into Helmand and Kandahar provinces, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, Gen. McChrystal also wants a fundamental shift in strategy. Instead of the intermittent patrolling from static bases, the general, who played a major role in U.S. counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, wants small units to stay and live in Afghan villages and hamlets. That will require vastly greater numbers of forces - both foreign and Afghan - than have been deployed since the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban from power in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. But Gen. McChrystal's counter-insurgency needs may face tough political hurdles in Washington. After approving more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, Mr. Obama said, "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops." However, Gen. McChrystal, sent to Afghanistan in June, was given clear marching orders to both make some quick progress in winning the war and - equally importantly - to curtail air strikes. Although tactically vital to allied troops, the few air strikes that go wrong and kill Afghan civilians - sometimes scores of them - become widely known and disproportionately damage the image of U.S. and allied forces among ordinary Afghans. Afghanistan remains a potential quagmire for the new President. Mr. Obama - who has made Afghanistan his war - has already nearly doubled U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan to nearly 70,000. Coupled with more than 30,000 NATO forces - including more than 2,000 Canadians embattled in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar - there are now roughly the same number of allied foreign forces in Afghanistan as there were Soviet forces during Moscow's failed 10-year war to subjugate Afghanistan. However, sending even more troops to Afghanistan will be a tough political sell for the President, especially as there is a stubborn perception in Congress and among ordinary Americans that many of the NATO allies are shirking the fight by keeping their troops far from the combat zones in southern and eastern Afghanistan. Preparing the political ground for an expected additional troop request from Gen. McChrystal began earlier this week when several key Washington analysts publicly suggested another surge would be needed. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggested several more brigades - he declined to be more specific - might be needed. A U.S. army brigade numbers between 4,000 and 5,000 soldiers and includes air support. "This war has been fought without resources, but above all without realism," said Mr. Cordesman, whose comments carried even greater than usual weight because he was just back from Afghanistan, where he had been part of a specially assembled team called in to advise the new commander. He also called for a doubling of the size of Afghan forces - currently targeted to reach 140,000, although still far short of that in actual combat-capable numbers. "We, the United States, are going to have to provide the resources if we want to win," Mr. Cordesman said. Some military analysts have suggested that more than half a million soldiers and police - including U.S., NATO and Afghan forces - will be needed to defeat the Taliban insurgency and provide a modicum of security across Afghanistan, a country of 23 million that is larger, more rugged and remote, and far less developed than Iraq. Another of the experts who recently toured Afghanistan at Gen. McChrystal's invitation was Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations. He too believes more troops will be needed but stressed that the corrupt and inept Afghan government must also change. "We can keep the patient on life support by providing security assistance indefinitely, but if you don't get an improvement in governance, you'll never be able to take the patient off the ventilator," he said in an interview posted by the council. Meanwhile, as pressure for more U.S. troops mounts, the Obama administration is facing the reality that several NATO allies - including Canada and Holland - have already set exit dates for their combat commitments, irrespective of whether the war is over. In Ottawa, Alain Pellerin, a retired army colonel and executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, said he expected the Americans might send another "three to five extra brigades" to Afghanistan. Mr. Pellerin said the Canadian government's often-repeated pledge that the Canadian combat mission will end in 2011 is likely to be kept, but added that there will be a "new debate about the Canadian role, not necessarily because of American pressure." He suggested as many as 1,000 Canadian troops might remain in Kandahar, perhaps as trainers or to provide security for the provincial reconstruction team, long after the 2011 exit date for combat operations. "I think the Americans would want the Canadians to remain in Kandahar, which is vital ground to any victory or success." From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 1 13:07:48 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Obama=E2=80=99s_empire?= In-Reply-To: <1339679468.154911249082264772.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <985134823.250891249153668487.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2009/07/military-bases-world-war-iraq The New Statesman 30 July 2009 Obama?s empire Catherine Lutz The 44th president of the United States was elected amid hopes that he would roll back his country?s global dominance. Today, he is commander-in-chief of an unprecedented network of military bases that is still expanding. In December 2008, shortly before being sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama pledged his belief that, "to ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad", it was vital to maintain "the strongest military on the planet". Unveiling his national security team, including George Bush's defence secretary, Robert Gates, he said: "We also agree the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of diplomacy, and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security." Unfortunately, many of the Obama administration's diplomatic efforts are being directed towards maintaining and garnering new access for the US military across the globe. US military officials, through their Korean proxies, have completed the eviction of resistant rice farmers from their land around Camp Humphreys, South Korea, for its expansion (including a new 18-hole golf course); they are busily making back-room deals with officials in the Northern Mariana Islands to gain the use of the Pacific islands there for bombing and training purposes; and they are scrambling to express support for a regime in Kyrgyzstan that has been implicated in the murder of its political opponents but whose Manas Airbase, used to stage US military actions in Afghanistan since 2001, Obama and the Pentagon consider crucial for the expanded war there. The global reach of the US military today is unprecedented and unparalleled. Officially, more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in approximately 900 military facilities in 46 countries and territories (the unofficial figure is far greater). The US military owns or rents 795,000 acres of land, with 26,000 buildings and structures, valued at $146bn (?89bn). The bases bristle with an inventory of weapons whose worth is measured in the trillions and whose killing power could wipe out all life on earth several times over. The official figures exclude the huge build-up of troops and structures in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, as well as secret or unacknowledged facilities in Israel, Kuwait, the Philippines and many other places. In just three years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, $2bn was spent on military construction. A single facility in Iraq, Balad Airbase, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles, with an additional 12 square mile "security perimeter". From the battle zones of Afghanistan and Iraq to quiet corners of Cura?ao, Korea and Britain, the US military domain consists of sprawling army bases, small listening posts, missile and artillery testing ranges and berthed aircraft carriers (moved to "trouble spots" around the world, each carrier is considered by the US navy as "four and a half acres of sovereign US territory"). While the bases are, literally speaking, barracks and weapons depots, staging areas for war-making and ship repairs, complete with golf courses and basketball courts, they are also political claims, spoils of war, arms sale showrooms and toxic industrial sites. In addition to the cultural imperialism and episodes of rape, murder, looting and land seizure that have always accompanied foreign armies, local communities are now subjected to the ear-splitting noise of jets on exercise, to the risk of helicopters and warplanes crashing into residential areas, and to exposure to the toxic materials that the military uses in its daily operations. The global expansion of US bases - and with it the rise of the US as a world superpower - is a legacy of the Second World War. In 1938, the US had 14 military bases outside its continental borders. Seven years later, it had 30,000 installations in roughly 100 countries. While this number was projected to shrink to 2,000 by 1948 (following pressure from other nations to return bases in their own territory or colonies, and pressure at home to demobilise the 12 million-man military), the US continued to pursue access rights to land and air space around the world. It established security alliances with multiple states within Europe (Nato), the Middle East and south Asia (Cento) and south-east Asia (Seato), as well as bilateral agreements with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Status of Forces Agreements (Sofas) were crafted in each country to specify what the military could do, and usually gave US soldiers broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed and environmental damage caused. These agreements and subsequent base operations have mostly been shrouded in secrecy, helped by the National Security Act of 1947. New US bases were built in remarkable numbers in West Germany, Italy, Britain and Japan, with the defeated Axis powers hosting the most significant numbers (at one point, Japan was peppered with 3,800 US installations). As battles become bases, so bases become battles; the sites in east Asia acquired during the Spanish-American war in 1898 and during the Second World War - such as Guam, Thailand and the Philippines - became the primary bases from which the US waged war on Vietnam. The number of raids over north and south Vietnam required tons of bombs unloaded at the naval station in Guam. The morale of ground troops based in Vietnam, as fragile as it was to become through the latter part of the 1960s, depended on R&R (rest and recreation) at bases outside the country, which allowed them to leave the war zone and yet be shipped back quickly and inexpensively for further fighting. The war also depended on the heroin the CIA was able to ship in to the troops on the battlefield in Vietnam from its secret bases in Laos. By 1967, the number of US bases had returned to 1947 levels. Technological changes in warfare have had important effects on the configuration of US bases. Long-range missiles and the development of ships that can make much longer runs without resupply have altered the need for a line of bases to move forces forward into combat zones, as has the aerial refuelling of military jets. An arms airlift from the US to the British in the Middle East in 1941-42, for example, required a long hopscotch of bases, from Florida to Cuba, Puerto Rico, Barbados, Trinidad, British Guiana, north-east Brazil, Fernando de Noronha, Takoradi (now in Ghana), Lagos, Kano (now in Nigeria) and Khartoum, before finally making delivery in Egypt. In the early 1970s, US aircraft could make the same delivery with one stop in the Azores, and today can do so non-stop. On the other hand, the pouring of money into military R&D (the Pentagon has spent more than $85bn in 2009), and the corporate profits to be made in the development and deployment of the resulting technologies, have been significant factors in the ever larger numbers of technical facilities on foreign soil. These include such things as missile early-warning radar, signals intelligence, satellite control and space-tracking telescopes. The will to gain military control of space, as well as gather intelligence, has led to the establishment of numerous new military bases in violation of arms-control agreements such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. In Colombia and Peru, and in secret and mobile locations elsewhere in Latin America, radar stations are primarily used for anti-trafficking operations. Since 2000, with the election of George W Bush and the ascendancy to power of a group of men who believed in a more aggressive and unilateral use of military power (some of whom stood to profit handsomely from the increased military budget that would require), US imperial ambition has grown. Following the declaration of a war on terror and of the right to pre-emptive war, the number of countries into which the US inserted and based troops radically expanded. The Pentagon put into action a plan for a network of "deployment" or "forward operating" bases to increase the reach of current and future forces. The Pentagon-aligned, neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century stressed that "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of ?Saddam Hussein". The new bases are designed to operate not defensively against particular threats but as offensive, expeditionary platforms from which military capabilities can be projected quickly, anywhere. The Global Defence Posture Review of 2004 announced these changes, focusing not just on reorienting the footprint of US bases away from cold war locations, but on remaking legal arrangements that support expanded ?military activities with other allied countries and prepositioning equipment in those countries. As a recent army strategic document notes, "Military personnel can be transported to, and fall in on, prepositioned equipment significantly more quickly than the equivalent unit could be transported to the theatre, and prepositioning equipment overseas is generally less politically difficult than stationing US military personnel." Terms such as facility, outpost or station are used for smaller bases to suggest a less permanent presence. The US department of defence currently distinguishes between three types of military facility. "Main operating bases" are those with permanent personnel, strong infrastructure, and often family housing, such as Kadena Airbase in Japan and Ramstein Airbase in Germany. "Forward operating sites" are "expandable warm facilit[ies] maintained with a limited US military support presence and possibly prepositioned equipment", such as Incirlik Airbase in Turkey and Soto Cano Airbase in Honduras. Finally, "co-operative security locations" are sites with few or no permanent US personnel, maintained by contractors or the host nation for occasional use by the US military, and often referred to as "lily pads". These are cropping up around the world, especially throughout Africa, a recent example being in Dakar, Senegal. Moreover, these bases are the anchor - and merely the most visible aspect - of the US military's presence overseas. Every year, US forces train 100,000 soldiers in 180 countries, the presumption being that beefed-up local militaries will help to pursue US interests in local conflicts and save the US money, casualties and bad publicity when human rights abuses occur (the blowback effect of such activities has been made clear by the strength of the Taliban since 9/11). The US military presence also involves jungle, urban, desert, maritime and polar training exercises across wide swathes of landscape, which have become the pretext for substantial and permanent positioning of troops. In recent years, the US has run around 20 exercises annually on Philippine soil, which have resulted in a near-continuous presence of US soldiers in a country whose people ejected US bases in 1992 and whose constitution forbids foreign troops to be based on its territory. Finally, US personnel work every day to shape local legal codes to facilitate US access: they have lobbied, for example, to change the Philippine and Japanese constitutions to allow, respectively, foreign troop basing and a more-than-defensive military. Asked why the US has a vast network of military bases around the world, Pentagon officials give both utilitarian and humanitarian arguments. Utilitarian arguments include the claim that bases provide security for the US by deterring attack from hostile countries and preventing or remedying unrest or military challenges; that bases serve the national economic interests of the US, ensuring access to markets and commodities needed to maintain US standards of living; and that bases are symbolic markers of US power and credibility - and so the more the better. Humanitarian arguments present bases as altruistic gifts to other nations, helping to liberate or democratise them, or offering aid relief. None of these humanitarian arguments deals with the problem that many of the bases were taken during wartime and "given" to the US by another of the war's victors. Critics of US foreign policy have dissected and dismantled the arguments made for maintaining a global system of military basing. They have shown that the bases have often failed in their own terms: despite the Pentagon's claims that they provide security to the regions they occupy, most of the world's people feel anything but reassured by their presence. Instead of providing more safety for the US or its allies, they have ?often provoked attacks, and have made the communities around bases key targets of other nations' missiles. On the island of Belau in the Pacific, the site of sharp resistance to US attempts to instal a submarine base and jungle training centre, people describe their experience of military basing in the Second World War: "When soldiers come, war comes." On Guam, a joke among locals is that few people except for nuclear strategists in the Kremlin know where their island is. As for the argument that bases serve the national economic interest of the US, the weapons, personnel and fossil fuels involved cost billions of dollars, most coming from US taxpayers. While bases have clearly been concentrated in countries with key strategic resources, particularly along the routes of oil and gas pipelines in central Asia, the Middle East and, increasingly, Africa, from which one-quarter of US oil imports are expected by 2015, the profits have gone first of all to the corporations that build and service them, such as Halliburton. The myth that bases are an altruistic form of "foreign aid" for locals is exploded by the substantial costs involved for host economies and polities. The immediate negative effects include levels of pollution, noise, crime and lost productive land that cannot be offset by soldiers' local spending or employment of local people. Other putative gains tend to benefit only local elites and further militarise the host nations: elaborate bilateral negotiations swap weapons, cash and trade privileges for overflight and land-use rights. Less explicitly, rice imports, immigration rights to the US or overlooking human rights abuses have been the currency of exchange. The environmental, political, and economic impact of these bases is enormous. The social problems that accompany bases, including soldiers' violence against women and car crashes, have to be handled by local communities without compensation from the US. Some communities pay the highest price: their farmland taken for bases, their children neurologically damaged by military jet fuel in their water supplies, their neighbours imprisoned, tortured and disappeared by the autocratic regimes that survive on US military and political support given as a form of tacit rent for the bases. The US military has repeatedly interfered in the domestic affairs of nations in which it has or desires military access, operating to influence votes and undermine or change local laws that stand in the way. Social movements have proliferated around the world in response to the empire of US bases, ever since its inception. The attempt to take the Philippines from Spain in 1898 led to a drawn-out guerrilla war for independence that required 126,000 US occupation troops to stifle. Between 1947 and 1990, the US military was asked to leave France, Yugoslavia, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Vietnam, Indonesia, Peru, Mexico and Venezuela. Popular and political objection to the bases in Spain, the Philippines, Greece and Turkey in the 1980s gave those governments the grounds to negotiate ?significantly more compensation from the US. Portugal threatened to evict the US from important bases in the Azores unless it ceased its support for independence for its African colonies. Since 1990, the US has been sent packing, most significantly, from the Philippines, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Vieques and Uzbekistan. Of its own accord, for varying reasons, it decided to leave countries from Ghana to Fiji. Persuading the US to clean up after itself - including, in Panama, more than 100,000 rounds of unexploded ordnance - is a further struggle. As in the case of the US navy's removal from Vieques in 2003, arguments about the environmental and health damage of the military's activities remain the centrepiece of resistance to bases. Many are also concerned by other countries' overseas bases - primarily European, Russian and Chinese - and by the activities of their own militaries, but the far greater number of US bases and their weaponry has understandably been the focus. The sense that US bases represent a major injustice to the host community and nation is very strong in countries where US bases have the longest standing and are most ubiquitous. In Okinawa, polls show that 70 to 80 per cent of the island's people want the bases, or at least the marines, to leave. In 1995, the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by two US marines and one US sailor led to demands for the removal of all US bases in Japan. One family in Okinawa has built a large peace museum right up against the edge of the Futenma Airbase, with a stairway to the roof that allows busloads of schoolchildren and other visitors to view the sprawling base after looking at art depicting the horrors of war. In Korea, the great majority of the population feels that a reduction in US presence would increase national security; in recent years, several violent deaths at the hands of US soldiers triggered vast candlelight vigils and protests across the country. And the original inhabitants of Diego Garcia, evicted from their homes between 1967 and 1973 by the British on behalf of the US for a naval base, have organised a concerted campaign for the right to return, bringing legal suit against the British government, a story told in David Vine's recent book Island of Shame. There is also resistance to the US expansion plans into new areas. In 2007, a number of African nations baulked at US attempts to secure access to sites for military bases. In eastern Europe, despite well-funded campaigns to convince Poles and Czechs of the value of US bases and much sentiment in favour of accepting them in pursuit of closer ties with Nato and the EU, and promised economic benefits, vigorous pro?tests have included hunger strikes and led the Czech government, in March, to reverse its plan to allow a US military radar base to be built in the country. The US has responded to action against bases with a renewed emphasis on "force protection", in some cases enforcing curfews on soldiers, and cutting back on events that bring local people on to base property. The department of defence has also engaged in the time-honoured practice of renaming: clusters of soldiers, buildings and equipment have become "defence staging posts" or "forward operating locations" rather than military bases. Regulating documents become "visiting forces agreements", not "status of forces agreements", or remain entirely secret. While major reorganisation of bases is under way for a host of reasons, including a desire to create a more mobile force with greater access to the Middle East, eastern Europe and central Asia, the motives also include an attempt to prevent political momentum of the sort that ended US use of the Vieques and Philippine bases. The attempt to gain permanent basing in Iraq foundered in 2008 on the objections of forces in both Iraq and the US. Obama, in his Cairo speech in June, may have insisted that "we pursue no bases" in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but there has been no sign of any significant dismantling of bases there, or of scaling back the US military presence in the rest of the world. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, recently visited Japan to ensure that it follows through on promises to provide the US with a new airfield on Okinawa and billions of dollars to build new housing and other facilities for 8,000 marines relocating to Guam. She ignored the invitation of island activists to come and see the damage left by previous decades of US base activities. The myriad land-grabs and hundreds of billions of dollars spent to quarter troops around the world persist far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, and too far from the headlines. Catherine Lutz is a professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University and editor of "The Bases of Empire: the Global Struggle against US Military Posts" (Pluto Press, ?17.99) From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 1 13:07:29 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody In-Reply-To: <305517001.155561249082307187.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <542975153.250841249153649587.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/top-ten-ways-tell-your-president-his-party-arent-fighting-health-care-everybody Black Agenda Report July 31, 2009 Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody With the corporate media relentlessly distorting the public discussion around health care reform, it time for some clear, bright lines to help us tell who is doing what to whom, and whether any of it leads to health care for all of us. Here are ten of them. by Bruce Dixon Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate were swept into office on a promise they would deliver affordable and accessible health care for all Americans. But the corporate media journalism limits the national health care conversation to what insurance companies, drug companies, for-profit health care professionals, their executives, lobbyists and politicians of both parties and other hirelings have to say. So it isn't as easy as it ought to be to tell what the politicians are doing about accomplishing health care for everybody. Hence we offer these ten points. This is how you can tell whether your president and his party are fighting for the health care you deserve. Their plan doesn't cover the uninsured till at least 2013 . 2013 isn't "day one." It's not even after the midterm election. It's clear after the president's second term, if he gets one. Congress passed Medicare in 1965 and president Lyndon Johnson rolled out coverage for millions of seniors in eleven months, back in the days before they even had computers. 22,000 Americans now perish each year because they can't get or can't afford medical care, and this year three quarter million personal bankruptcies will be triggered by unpayable medical bills. Why this president and these Democrats are in such a hurry to pass health care now that doesn't take effect till two elections down the road doesn't make sense in any kind of good way. Their "public option" isn't Medicare, won't bring costs down and will only cover about 10 million people. The "public option" was sold to the American people as Medicare-scale plan open to anybody who wants in that would compete with the private insurers and drive their costs downward. But in their haste not to bite the hands that feed them millions in campaign contributions each hear, the president and his party have scaled the public option back from a Medicare-sized 130 million to a maximum of 10 million, too small to put cost pressure in private insurers . Worse still, the president and his party are playing bait-and-witch, not telling the public they have reduced the public option, to nearly nothing. This remnant of a public option is not Medicare, as Howard Dean insists, and it will not lead to the sort of everybody-in-nobody-out health care system that most Americans, whenever they are surveyed say they want. Some Senate and House Democrats want to ditch even the pretense of a "public option" in favor of something they're calling a private insurance " co-op ", which as near as anybody can tell has the same relationship to an actual cooperative that clean coal has to actual coal. The president and his party have already caved in to the drug companies on reimporting Canadian drugs, on negotiating drug prices downward and on generics. This explains why Big Pharma, the same people who ran the devastatin g series of anti-reform "Harry and Louise" ads to spike the Clinton-era drive to fix health care are spending $100 million to run Obama ads using the president's language about "bipartisan" solutions to health care reform. The president and his party have received more money from private insurers and the for-profit health care industry than even Republicans, with the president alone taking $19 million in the 2008 election cycle alone, more than all his Repubican, Democratic and independent rivals combined. Democratic senator Max Bacaus got $1.1 million in 2008. Democratic senators Harkin, Landreau and Rockerfeller each got over half a million, and Senator Durbin got just under half a million. Other Democratic senators got a little less. Four Democrats in the House, Rangel, Dinglell, Udall and Hoyer got over half a million apiece in 2008, with other Democrats not far behind. Is there any wonder that the insurance companies, like the drug companies are also running "bipartisan health care reform" commercials using the president's exact language? The president's plan, and those of Republicans and Democratic blue dogs too, will require families to purchase health insurance policies from private insurers. This is something the policy wonks call an ' individual mandate ", under which Individuals will be "mandated" to purchase affordable insurance, though companies would not be required to offer it. In Massachusetts, the prototype state for the Obama plan, a family with an income of $33,000 can be required to spend $9,000 in deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses before the insurance company is obligated to pay a dime. As in Massachusetts, public money is used to purchase private insurance for the very poorest citizens. With the revenues of insurance companies on the decline, individual mandate programs are a welcome bailout for the private insurance industry. The president's plan, and those of Republicans and Democratic blue dogs too, could force you to buy junk insurance . Think about an insurance policy that costs a lot, but is full of loopholes, exceptions and steep deductibles and co-payments. That's junk insurance, and for many it's the only insurance companies offer. Even more pernicious is the widespread practice among insurance companies of "recission" in which claimants are routinely investigated and disqualified in the event that they finally make a claim. Insurance companies admit they do this to half of one percent of policies per year. That means if you hold a health insurance policy twenty years, you don;t have insurance - you have a ninety percent chance of having insurance. The president's plan, as well as those of Democratic "blue dogs" and Republicans, are to be funded in part with cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Private insurance companies have always hated Medicare because it is far more efficient than they are. Medicare's administrative expenses are under five percent, as compared with the one third of every health care dollar taken by the for-profit insurance companies for their advertising, bad investments, billing and denial machinery, executive salaries and bonuses. Private insurers have, over the years, purchased enough influence in Congress and previous White Houses to restrict Medicare's payment rates and partially privatize it. But president Obama's plan, perhaps the most friendly to Medicare and Medicaid, calls for over $300 billion in cuts to the programs that now provide medical care to those with the fewest options, while failing to guarantee that care will come from elsewhere. In Massachusetts right now, hospitals are turning away poor people they used to be able to provide care for because funding that used to go to those institutions is now plowed into the state's "individual mandate" system. The president, with the cooperation of corporate media and the Republicans is trying to make the argument about himself instead of a discussion on the merits of his policy. The president and his critics are happy to talk about whether this will be " his Waterloo ", or his Dien Bien Phu, as if that matters more than the 22,000 Americans who die each year from lack of medical care, or the three quarter million who will go bankrupt because of unpayable medical bills. The concentration on whether the president looks good or bad takes up air, ink, and coverage time that might otherwise be spent explaining what is and isn't in the various proposals, and why. If the president were not afraid of his own supporters publicly examining the merits and demerits of his proposals, he would mobilize those 13 million emails and phone numbers collected during the campaign. The reason he has not sone so already is that most of his own supporters favor a Medicare-For-All single payer health care system, HR 676. The president and his party, and the corporate media have spent more time and energy silencing and excluded the advocates of single payer health care, mostly the president's own supporters, than they have fighting blue dogs and Republicans. But no matter how diligently the spokespeople for single payer are excluded from media coverage and invitations to Obama's policy forums and round tables, no matter how many times the White House cuts their questions from transcripts and video of public events, the calls, emails and letters keep pouring into Congress and the White House demanding the creation of a publicly funded, everybody-in-nobody-out system, a Medicare-for-All kind of single payer health care plan. Despite the president's own admission that only a single payer health care system will deliver what Americans want, he and the leaders of his party insist that Medicare For All, HR 676, us utterly off the table. Before he became a presidential candidate, Barack Obama identified himself as a proponent of a single payer health care system. All we had to do, he told us, was elect a Democratic congress and senate, and a different president. Now that this has been done, he insists that "change" is just not possible, and we have to settle for less. The president continues to admit that only a single payer health care system will cover everybody, but insists that America just can't handle that much change. The truth is that Barack Obama campaigned as the candidate of change, and a health care system that covers everybody from day one with no exceptions is what people imagined they voted for when they swept him and an overwhelming number of Democrats into office. A single payer Medicare-For-All system will eliminate 500,000 insurance company jobs and replace them with 3.2 million new jobs in health care for a net gain of 2.6 million new jobs according to a study by the National Nurses Organization. That's as many jobs as the US economy lost in all of 2007. Single payer will create hundreds of billions in annual wages and local and state tax revenues for cash strapped cities and towns. It will lift the shadow of bankruptcy for medical reasons from two thirds of a million American families yearly. It's what we deserve. It's what we voted for, and we won't stop demanding it. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 1 13:15:02 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Say_it_ain=E2=80=99t_Zog_=E2=80=93_Israeli_hawk_w?= =?utf-8?q?ho_praised_Strangelove_has_=E2=80=98close_friend=E2=80=99_on_Ob?= =?utf-8?q?ama=E2=80=99s_Iran_team?= Message-ID: <882119604.251651249154102106.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://mondoweiss.net/2009/08/help-israeli-hawk-who-praises-strangelove-on-nukes-has-close-friend-in-white-house.html Say it ain?t Zog ? Israeli hawk who praised Strangelove has ?close friend? on Obama?s Iran team by Scott McConnell on August 1, 2009 Post image for Say it ain?t Zog?Israeli hawk who praised Strangelove has ?close friend? on Obama?s Iran team I read here in Haaretz that Obama?s team in discussions with Israel about what to do about Iran included Gary Seymour, the White House honcho on arms proliferation, described as a "close friend" of Uzi Arad (above), Netanyahu?s national security advisor. Arad, you remember, is supposedly not allowed even to enter the United States because of his role in the Franklin spy case , besides being an uber-hawk. Perhaps someone can explain how is that his "close friend" has a top White House position?one that will be crucial to be determining whether or not we go to war with Iran. I don?t like to overstate the influence of "The Lobby"? but how is that Israel gets to have a "close friend" of Arad in the White House? [Weiss adds: Is Seymour "partner, lover or donor"? Here is Arad o n limited nuclear war feasibility, and wh y Israel is always pretty-much alone : Herman Kahn [late, of Hudson Institute] is the original Dr. Strangelove. He was a Jewish-American genius who was a salient nuclear hawk and dealt with the planning and feasibility of nuclear wars. Kahn was a towering figure. He was a beacon of intelligence, knowledge and pioneering thought. He combined conceptual productivity, humor and informality. He attracted a group of devotees of whom I was one in the 1970s. But he also had bitter rivals who criticized him for even conceiving of the idea of a nuclear war. In the Cold War it was precisely those who talked about defense and survival who were considered nuclear hawks. The doves talked about "mutual assured destruction," which blocks any possibility of thinking about nuclear weapons. Like Kahn, I was one of the hawks. One of my projects was a paper for the Pentagon on planning a limited nuclear war in Central Europe? We are always alone. Sometimes we have partners and lovers and donors of money, but no one is in our shoes. I still remember Roosevelt and all the wise and enlightened types of the American security hierarchy in the period of Auschwitz, and I have retained the lesson. In Jewish history and fate there is a dimension of unfairness toward us. We have already been alone once, and even the good and the enlightened did not protect us. Accordingly, we must not be militant, but we must entrench our defense and security prowess and act with wisdom and restraint and caution and sangfroid. Never again.] From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 15:24:23 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:24:23 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Truth and Reconciliation for Iran Message-ID: The following is an extremely good and timely statement, signed by Iranian patriots, some of whom have taken one side or the other regarding the presidential election and post-election conflicts, and others of whom have taken a neutral stand on them. I encourage non-Iranian leftists to support this attempt and others like it. -- Yoshie Truth and Reconciliation for Iran We are a group of university educators and antiwar activists with diverse political views who are based in Europe and North America. During the past few years we have been active in defending Iran's national rights -- particularly those relating to the peaceful use of nuclear energy -- against the pervasive deception created by western and Israeli-influenced media and official statements. We have consistently taken a stand against the policies of the United States and its allies, including the improper submission of Iran's nuclear file to the United Nations security council, the imposition of sanction resolutions against Iran, covert destabilisation inside the country and repeated threats of military intervention and bombing of nuclear centres on the part of US and Israel. At the same time, we have advocated the human rights of individuals and democratic rights for various groups and constituencies in Iran. We have emphasised that the guarantee of such rights is necessary not only for Iran's social and political advancement, but also for the vital unity of our people against foreign pressures. In the current post-election crisis, we see it as our duty to share our views based on years of defending Iran's national rights, and to help develop realistic solutions for the benefit of all our compatriots of whatever political persuasion. The background to the current situation is the longstanding belligerent policies of the US and its allies, encouraged by the neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby, which peaked during eight years of Republican rule in the White House. Despite President Khatami's conciliatory approach, exemplified by his promotion of "Dialogue Among Civilisations", and despite Iran's co-operation in the overthrow of the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan, the administration of George W Bush labelled the Islamic Republic a member of the "axis of evil". Following the illegal invasion of Iraq, Bush pushed for regime change in Iran. These provocative and confrontational policies played a key role in the defeat of Iranian reformists in the parliamentary elections of 2003 and the presidential election of 2005. During the past four years, a whole series of policies have targeted Iran's right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful energy, including illegitimate UN/US sanctions, repeated implicit and overt threats of military attack by the United States and Israel, overt and covert well-funded US destabilisation operations, and aid to terrorist forces seeking to overthrow the government of Iran. These policies have created fears of an externally-instigated "velvet revolution" in the leadership ranks of the Islamic Republic. These fears were used to justify restrictions of civil and political freedoms promoted by the reformist administration of Khatami and, as a result, civil society and non-governmental organisations suffered a setback. According to critics, these social and political pressures, along with government mismanagement caused by the removal of competent technocrats, have negatively impacted the public interest and put enormous pressure on the middle class, the educated class, journalists and artists. These people must be allowed a more open and free environment in order to fulfil their instrumental roles in service of the country. On the external front, the Obama administration, facing neoconservative pressure and keeping many of his predecessor's policies against Iran, has nevertheless declared its readiness for unconditional negotiations with Iran. He has for the first time referred to Iran as the "Islamic Republic" and indicated that he is not pursuing regime change in Iran. Furthermore, shortly before the Iranian elections, in a first for an American president, Obama admitted the role of his country in the 1953 coup that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister Muhammad Mossadegh. These changes in US politics have created room for active and constructive diplomacy for the purpose of solving conflicts and disagreements between Iran and the United States, and for creating a nuclear-free Middle East. This year, there was in Iran a record level of participation in the elections, unprecedented television debates and, most important of all, widespread participation in election campaigns. Despite some restrictions, the elections took place in an overall constructive climate, perhaps making Iran a model democracy among Islamic nations of the region. A day before the elections, Senator John Kerry, a key US statesman, was so impressed that he dismissed as "ridiculous" Bush's policy of denying Iran peaceful nuclear energy, which in itself exposes the baseless nuclear accusations levelled against Iran and proves the illegitimacy of security council resolutions against Iran. However, in the view of a considerable number of Iranians who are discontented and frustrated with the restrictions on civil and political freedoms, there were various irregularities in the elections, including the suspension of reformist newspapers and mobile telephone SMS service on election day. This caused mass public demonstrations in support of nullifying the election. The unrest has created a major rift between the supporters of Ahmadinejad, who deem Iran's national sovereignty to be of the highest priority, and the supporters of the two reform candidates Karroubi and Mousavi, who demand increased civil and political freedoms above all. Each of these two major wings of the body politic includes millions of people and both play a vital role in Iran's progress. The rift between these two must heal in an environment of calm, without agitation and mudslinging, for the sake of Iran's future. This healing must be pursued through the path of constructive dialogue and reconciliation, so that the unity of our people for safeguarding national rights can be achieved. Unfortunately, a large number of our protesting fellow countrymen have been attacked and injured and even more regrettably, a significant number of them have been killed. Also, a large group of reformist activists and leaders have been arrested and imprisoned after the elections. Both Mousavi and Karroubi have stressed that all protests must remain within the law. Following the request of the reformist and Green leaders, almost all protesters rallied completely peacefully, and in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi, condemned all types of violence, calling the Basijis and Revolutionary Guards their own brothers. Extremist elements who used the opportunity to create chaos and engaged in the destruction of public property were condemned by Mousavi. The western media, by their one-sided coverage of the post-election developments, portrayed the street demonstrations protesting the election results as the start of a "velvet" revolution against the Islamic Republic. Regime-change advocates also tried to piggy-back on the protests outside Iran for their own purposes. The British government, which claims to follow a policy of non-interference in Iran's internal affairs, did its part by confiscating nearly ?1bn of Iranian assets. To make matters worse, the neoconservatives demanded a re-evaluation of the Obama administration's policy of unconditional negotiations with Iran. The US state department also used this crisis to justify its continuation of Bush-era policies of financing anti-Iranian government organisations for the purposes of "spreading democracy, human rights and a government of law and order". For "security reasons" they refused to release the identities of the recipients of the funds. The Iranian government, for their part, deported two British diplomats, accusing them of interference in Iranian affairs and pointing to western governments as the root of the post-election unrest. Whatever the role of the western media, governments, and regime change forces, it cannot detract from the legitimacy of the massively popular protests. In fact, Mousavi has emphasised his complete loyalty to the Islamic Republic and admonished his supporters abroad to stay away from the anti-Islamic Republic groups. To attribute the roots of the demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of Iranians to external interference or to regime-change groups amounts to questioning the independence of the country which has been gained and consolidated by the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands. In the opinion of millions of Iranians, the current crisis has been caused by restrictions on political freedoms, particularly freedom of the press, economic discontent, and deficiencies in transparency and accountability on the part of government institutions. Although these issues have been aggravated by the US political, military and economic encirclement and the CIA's destabilisation programmes, in the view of this segment of society the problems are ultimately rooted in the government's own policies. After their unprecedented participation in the elections, millions of Iranians have lost their confidence in the system. Awareness of this reality was expressed by the speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani, who indicated on live national television that some members of the Guardian Council openly supported a certain candidate, instead of being neutral during the investigation of the election complaints. He also added that the large segments of society who distrust the declared election results should not be regarded in the same manner as the rioters. On the basis of the above assessment, and in the interest of resolving the present crisis, we direct all officials and fellow countrymen to the following proposals: 1) Arrests and assaults of reformist and Green movement activists and any use of deadly weapons against the protesters are against the national interest and must be stopped and condemned by the authorities. Of the government of the Islamic Republic, we demand, in accordance with the constitution and for the preservation of national unity, that it release the reformist leaders from detention and observe freedom of the press and other civil rights. Iranian state television and radio must provide time to the protesters to express their views. Permits for nonviolent assembly must be given to the protesters. The government must guarantee the safety of the demonstrators against any violence and those responsible for battering and murdering students and demonstrators must be identified and prosecuted. 2) The current division among the people that separates government supporters and dissenters, under conditions of economic, military and political encirclement, must be reconciled with calm and patient negotiations and reasoning, by condemning any kind of violence and by renouncing name-calling and inflammatory rhetoric. We call on the political forces of both sides to move toward building such a constructive climate and toward creation of an economic, political, and cultural agenda that can respond to all social needs. 3) Of the government of the Islamic Republic, we request that in view of the distrust on the part of a great segment of the country's population, it form an independent truth and national reconciliation commission with representation from all candidates, such that it can gain the trust of the people of Iran and find a reasonable solution for the conflict. The votes of a great portion of the Iranian society for both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi show that the best solution is negotiations for reconciliation and creation of a government of national unity from the ranks of Principalists and the Green movement and reformists. With a comprehensive programme based on Iran's national rights and on people's civil rights, such a government of national unity must address the current challenges facing the country and mobilise in an effective way the totality of human resources and expertise for national development. 4) Of western governments, we request that they cease any and all interference in Iranian affairs and end all their illegitimate economic, political and military pressures aimed at the internal destabilisation of Iran. They need to cease any support for the anti-Islamic Republic opposition and lift the economic and scientific sanctions. The Obama administration should emphasise unconditional negotiations and take steps toward creating a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. Only under these conditions, without any foreign threats, can the Iranian people reach their aspirations of freedom and establish their unity in a framework of independence and national sovereignty. 5) To the leaders of the reformists and the Green movement, we suggest that in order to prevent exploitation of the current crisis by western propaganda and opportunist groups, they unambiguously oppose all sanctions and condemn regime change operations and any foreign support for the anti-Islamic Republic opposition. Signed: Dr Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, SOAS, University of London Professor the Baroness Afshar, York University Mojtaba Aghamohammadi, researcher, University of Arizona Professor Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Task Force Esfandiar Bakhtiar, Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Abbas Edalat, Imperial College London Javad Fakharzadeh, Iran Heritage Dr Farideh Farhi, University of Hawaii at Manoa Massy Homayouni, independent antiwar activist Dr Mehri Honarbin-Holliday, Canterbury Christ Church University Mojgan Janani, independent antiwar activist Mohammad Kamaali, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran Fareed Marjaee, writer and democracy activist Masoud Modarres, independent activist Professor Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, Tarbiyat Modarres University Daniel Pourkesali, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran Rostam Pourzal, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran Dr Mohammad Purqurian, LaaL.org Manijeh Saba, independent human rights activist Professor Mehdi Shariati, Kansas College Professor Nader Sadeghi, George Washington University Hospital Shirin Saeidi, University of Cambridge Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, independent antiwar activist Reza Shirazi, Goftogoo TV Safa Shoaee, Imperial College London Saeed Soltanpour, Iranian TV Canada Dr Alireza Rabi, Middle-East Citizens Assembly Dr Elaheh Rostami, SOAS, University of London Professor Rahmat Tavakol, Rutgers University Professor Farzin Vahdat, Harvard University Leila Zand, Fellowship of Reconciliation This open letter was first published by the Guardian on 31 July 2009; it is reproduced here for educational purposes. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Aug 1 16:22:18 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 07:22:18 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Private Coinage Message-ID: <20090802072218.ae5c5aee.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> This article is excerpted from Chapter Seven of What Has Government Done to Our Money? (1963) by Murray N Rothbard The idea of private coinage seems so strange today that it is worth examining carefully. We are used to thinking of coinage as a "necessity of sovereignty". Yet, after all, we are not wedded to a "royal prerogative", and it is the American concept that sovereignty rests, not in government, but in the people. How would private coinage work? In the same way, we have said, as any other business. Each minter would produce whatever size or shape of coin is most pleasing to his customers. The price would be set by the free competition of the market. The standard objection is that it would be too much trouble to weigh or assay bits of gold at every transaction. But what is there to prevent private minters from stamping the coin and guaranteeing its weight and fineness? Private minters can guarantee a coin at least as well as a government mint. Abraded bits of metal would not be accepted as coin. People would use the coins of those minters with the best reputation for good quality of product. We have seen that this is precisely how the "dollar" became prominent - as a competitive silver coin. Opponents of private coinage charge that fraud would run rampant. Yet, these same opponents would trust government to provide the coinage. But if government is to be trusted at all, then surely, with private coinage, government could at least be trusted to prevent or punish fraud. It is usually assumed that the prevention or punishment of fraud, theft, or other crimes is the real justification for government. But if government cannot apprehend the criminal when private coinage is relied upon, what hope is there for a reliable coinage when the integrity of the private marketplace operators is discarded in favor of a government monopoly of coinage? If government cannot be trusted to ferret out the occasional villain in the free market in coin, why can government be trusted when it finds itself in a position of total control over money and may debase coin, counterfeit coin, or otherwise with full legal sanction perform as the sole villain in the marketplace? It is surely folly to say that government must socialize all property in order to prevent anyone from stealing property. Yet the reasoning behind abolition of private coinage is the same. Moreover, all modern business is built on guarantees of standards. The drug store sells an eight-ounce bottle of medicine; the meat packer sells a pound of beef. The buyer expects these guarantees to be accurate, and they are. And think of the thousands upon thousands of specialized, vital industrial products that must meet very narrow standards and specifications. The buyer of a 1/2 inch bolt must get a 1/2 inch bolt and not a mere 3/8 inch. Yet, business has not broken down. Few people suggest that the government must nationalize the machine-tool industry as part of its job of defending standards against fraud. The modern market economy contains an infinite number of intricate exchanges, most depending on definite standards of quantity and quality. But fraud is at a minimum, and that minimum, at least in theory, may be prosecuted. So it would be if there were private coinage. We can be sure that a minter's customers, and his competitors, would be keenly alert to any possible fraud in the weight or fineness of his coins. {1} Champions of the government's coinage monopoly have claimed that money is different from all other commodities, because "Gresham's Law" proves that "bad money drives out good" from circulation. Hence, the free market cannot be trusted to serve the public in supplying good money. But this formulation rests on a misinterpretation of Gresham's famous law. The law really says that "money overvalued artificially by government will drive out of circulation artificially undervalued money". Suppose, for example, there are one-ounce gold coins in circulation. After a few years of wear and tear, let us say that some coins weigh only 0.9 ounces. Obviously, on the free market, the worn coins would circulate at only ninety percent of the value of the full-bodied coins, and the nominal face value of the former would have to be repudiated. {2} If anything, it will be the "bad" coins that will be driven from the market. But suppose the government decrees that everyone must treat the worn coins as equal to new, fresh coins, and must accept them equally in payment of debts. What has the government really done? It has imposed price control by coercion on the "exchange rate" between the two types of coin. By insisting on the par ratio when the worn coins should exchange at ten percent discount, it artificially overvalues the worn coins and undervalues new coins. Consequently, everyone will circulate the worn coins, and hoard or export the new. "Bad money drives out good money", then, not on the free market, but as the direct result of governmental intervention in the market. Despite never-ending harassment by governments, making conditions highly precarious, private coins have flourished many times in history. True to the virtual law that all innovations come from free individuals and not the state, the first coins were minted by private individuals and goldsmiths. In fact, when the government first began to monopolize the coinage, the royal coins bore the guarantees of private bankers, whom the public trusted far more, apparently, than they did the government. Privately minted gold coins circulated in California as late as 1848. {3} Notes {1} See Herbert Spencer, Social Statics (New York: D Appleton 1890), page 438. [2] To meet the problem of wear-and-tear, private coiners might either set a time limit on their stamped guarantees of weight, or agree to recoin anew, either at the original or at the lower weight. We may note that in the free economy there will not be the compulsory standardization of coins that prevails when government monopolies direct the coinage. [3] For historical examples of private coinage, see B W Barnard, "The use of Private Tokens for Money in the United States", Quarterly Journal of Economics (1916?17): 617?26; Charles A Conant, The Principles of Money and Banking (New York: Harper Brothers, 1905), volume I, 127?32; Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland (Boston: B R Tucker, 1886), page 79; and J Laurence Laughlin, A New Exposition of Money, Credit and Prices (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931), volume I, pages 47?51. On coinage, also see Mises, Theory of Money and Credit, pages 65?67; and Edwin Cannan, Money, eighth edition (London: Staples Press, 1935), pages 33 ff. _____ Murray N Rothbard (1926 - 1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State (1962), Conceived in Liberty (1975-79), What Has Government Done to Our Money (1963), For a New Liberty (1973, 1978), The Case Against the Fed (1994), and many other books and articles. He was also the editor - with Lew Rockwell - of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Copyright (c) 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute. All rights reserved. Murray Rothbard Archives: http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=299 http://mises.org/story/3158 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Aug 2 07:44:01 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:44:01 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Taking Money Back: Part One Message-ID: <20090802224401.897b622f.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Murray N Rothbard The Freeman (September 1995) Money is a crucial command post of any economy, and therefore of any society. Society rests upon a network of voluntary exchanges, also known as the "free-market economy"; these exchanges imply a division of labor in society, in which producers of eggs, nails, horses, lumber, and immaterial services such as teaching, medical care, and concerts, exchange their goods for the goods of others. At each step of the way, every participant in exchange benefits immeasurably, for if everyone were forced to be self-sufficient, those few who managed to survive would be reduced to a pitiful standard of living. Direct exchange of goods and services, also known as "barter", is hopelessly unproductive beyond the most primitive level, and indeed every "primitive" tribe soon found its way to the discovery of the tremendous benefits of arriving, on the market, at one particularly marketable commodity, one in general demand, to use as a "medium" of "indirect exchange". If a particular commodity is in widespread use as a medium in a society, then that general medium of exchange is called "money". The money-commodity becomes one term in every single one of the innumerable exchanges in the market economy. I sell my services as a teacher for money; I use that money to buy groceries, typewriters, or travel accommodations; and these producers in turn use the money to pay their workers, to buy equipment and inventory, and pay rent for their buildings. Hence the ever-present temptation for one or more groups to seize control of the vital money-supply function. Many useful goods have been chosen as moneys in human societies. Salt in Africa, sugar in the Caribbean, fish in colonial New England, tobacco in the colonial Chesapeake Bay region, cowrie shells, iron hoes, and many other commodities have been used as moneys. Not only do these moneys serve as media of exchange; they enable individuals and business firms to engage in the "calculation" necessary to any advanced economy. Moneys are traded and reckoned in terms of a currency unit, almost always units of weight. Tobacco, for example, was reckoned in pound weights. Prices of other goods and services could be figured in terms of pounds of tobacco; a certain horse might be worth eighty pounds on the market. A business firm could then calculate its profit or loss for the previous month; it could figure that its income for the past month was 1,000 pounds and its expenditures 800 pounds, netting it a 200 pound profit. Gold or Government Paper Throughout history, two commodities have been able to outcompete all other goods and be chosen on the market as money - two precious metals, gold and silver (with copper coming in when one of the other precious metals was not available). Gold and silver abounded in what we can call "moneyable" qualities, qualities that rendered them superior to all other commodities. They are in rare enough supply that their value will be stable, and of high value per unit weight; hence pieces of gold or silver will be easily portable, and usable in day-to-day transactions; they are rare enough too, so that there is little likelihood of sudden discoveries or increases in supply. They are durable so that they can last virtually forever, and so they provide a safe "store of value" for the future. And gold and silver are divisible, so that they can be divided into small pieces without losing their value; unlike diamonds, for example, they are homogeneous, so that one ounce of gold will be of equal value to any other. The universal and ancient use of gold and silver as moneys was pointed out by the first great monetary theorist, the eminent fourteenth-century French scholastic Jean Buridan, and then in all discussions of money down to money and banking textbooks until the Western governments abolished the gold standard in the early 1930s. Franklin D Roosevelt joined in this deed by taking the United States off gold in 1933. There is no aspect of the free-market economy that has suffered more scorn and contempt from "modern" economists, whether frankly statist Keynesians or allegedly "free market" Chicagoites, than has gold. Gold, not long ago hailed as the basic staple and groundwork of any sound monetary system, is now regularly denounced as a "fetish" or, as in the case of Keynes, as a "barbarous relic". Well, gold is indeed a "relic" of barbarism in one sense; no "barbarian" worth his salt would ever have accepted the phony paper and bank credit that we modern sophisticates have been bamboozled into using as money. But "gold bugs" are not fetishists; we don't fit the standard image of misers running their fingers through their hoard of gold coins while cackling in sinister fashion. The great thing about gold is that it, and only it, is money supplied by the free market, by the people at work. For the stark choice before us always is: gold (or silver), or government. Gold is market money, a commodity which must be supplied by being dug out of the ground and then processed; but government, on the contrary, supplies virtually costless paper money or bank checks out of thin air. We know, in the first place, that all government operation is wasteful, inefficient, and serves the bureaucrat rather than the consumer. Would we prefer to have shoes produced by competitive private firms on the free market, or by a giant monopoly of the federal government? The function of supplying money could be handled no better by government. But the situation in money is far worse than for shoes or any other commodity. If the government produces shoes, at least they might be worn, even though they might be high-priced, fit badly, and not satisfy consumer wants. Money is different from all other commodities: other things being equal, more shoes, or more discoveries of oil or copper benefit society, since they help alleviate natural scarcity. But once a commodity is established as a money on the market, no more money at all is needed. Since the only use of money is for exchange and reckoning, more dollars or pounds or marks in circulation cannot confer a social benefit: they will simply dilute the exchange value of every existing dollar or pound or mark. So it is a great boon that gold or silver are scarce and are costly to increase in supply. But if government manages to establish paper tickets or bank credit as money, as equivalent to gold grams or ounces, then the government, as dominant money-supplier, becomes free to create money costlessly and at will. As a result, this "inflation" of the money supply destroys the value of the dollar or pound, drives up prices, cripples economic calculation, and hobbles and seriously damages the workings of the market economy. The natural tendency of government, once in charge of money, is to inflate and to destroy the value of the currency. To understand this truth, we must examine the nature of government and of the creation of money. Throughout history, governments have been chronically short of revenue. The reason should be clear: unlike you and me, governments do not produce useful goods and services that they can sell on the market; governments, rather than producing and selling services, live parasitically off the market and off society. Unlike every other person and institution in society, government obtains its revenue from coercion, from taxation. In older and saner times, indeed, the king was able to obtain sufficient revenue from the products of his own private lands and forests, as well as through highway tolls. For the State to achieve regularized, peacetime taxation was a struggle of centuries. And even after taxation was established, the kings realized that they could not easily impose new taxes or higher rates on old levies; if they did so, revolution was very apt to break out. Controlling the Money Supply If taxation is permanently short of the style of expenditures desired by the State, how can it make up the difference? By getting control of the money supply, or, to put it bluntly, by counterfeiting. On the market economy, we can only obtain good money by selling a good or service in exchange for gold, or by receiving a gift; the only other way to get money is to engage in the costly process of digging gold out of the ground. The counterfeiter, on the other hand, is a thief who attempts to profit by forgery, for example, by painting a piece of brass to look like a gold coin. If his counterfeit is detected immediately, he does no real harm, but to the extent his counterfeit goes undetected, the counterfeiter is able to steal not only from the producers whose goods he buys. For the counterfeiter, by introducing fake money into the economy, is able to steal from everyone by robbing every person of the value of his currency. By diluting the value of each ounce or dollar of genuine money, the counterfeiter's theft is more sinister and more truly subversive than that of the highwayman; for he robs everyone in society, and the robbery is stealthy and hidden, so that the cause-and-effect relation is camouflaged. Recently, we saw the scare headline: "Iranian Government Tries to Destroy US Economy by Counterfeiting $100 Bills". Whether the ayatollahs had such grandiose goals in mind is dubious; counterfeiters don't need a grand rationale for grabbing resources by printing money. But all counterfeiting is indeed subversive and destructive, as well as inflationary. But in that case, what are we to say when the government seizes control of the money supply, abolishes gold as money, and establishes its own printed tickets as the only money? In other words, what are we to say when the government becomes the legalized, monopoly counterfeiter? Not only has the counterfeit been detected, but the Grand Counterfeiter, in the United States the Federal Reserve System, instead of being reviled as a massive thief and destroyer, is hailed and celebrated as the wise manipulator and governor of our "macroeconomy", the agency on which we rely for keeping us out of recessions and inflations, and which we count on to determine interest rates, capital prices, and employment. Instead of being habitually pelted with tomatoes and rotten eggs, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, whoever he may be, whether the imposing Paul Volcker or the owlish Alan Greenspan, is universally hailed as Mr Indispensable to the economic and financial system. Indeed, the best way to penetrate the mysteries of the modern monetary and banking system is to realize that the government and its central bank act precisely as would a Grand Counterfeiter, with very similar social and economic effects. Many years ago, the New Yorker magazine, in the days when its cartoons were still funny, published a cartoon of a group of counterfeiters looking eagerly at their printing press as the first $10 bill came rolling off the press. "Boy", said one of the team, "retail spending in the neighborhood is sure in for a shot in the arm". And it was. As the counterfeiters print new money, spending goes up on whatever the counterfeiters wish to purchase: personal retail goods for themselves, as well as loans and other "general welfare" purposes in the case of the government. But the resulting "prosperity" is phony; all that happens is that more money bids away existing resources, so that prices rise. Furthermore, the counterfeiters and the early recipients of the new money bid away resources from the poor suckers who are down at the end of the line to receive the new money, or who never even receive it at all. New money injected into the economy has an inevitable ripple effect; early receivers of the new money spend more and bid up prices, while later receivers or those on fixed incomes find the prices of the goods they must buy unaccountably rising, while their own incomes lag behind or remain the same. Monetary inflation, in other words, not only raises prices and destroys the value of the currency unit; it also acts as a giant system of expropriation of the late receivers by the counterfeiters themselves and by the other early receivers. Monetary expansion is a massive scheme of hidden redistribution. When the government is the counterfeiter, the counterfeiting process not only can be "detected"; it proclaims itself openly as monetary statesmanship for the public weal. Monetary expansion then becomes a giant scheme of hidden taxation, the tax falling on fixed income groups, on those groups remote from government spending and subsidy, and on thrifty savers who are naive enough and trusting enough to hold on to their money, to have faith in the value of the currency. Spending and going into debt are encouraged; thrift and hard work discouraged and penalized. Not only that: the groups that benefit are the special interest groups who are politically close to the government and can exert pressure to have the new money spent on them so that their incomes can rise faster than the price inflation. Government contractors, politically connected businesses, unions, and other pressure groups will benefit at the expense of the unaware and unorganized public. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/taking-money-back-part-i/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Aug 2 10:03:05 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 09:03:05 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Zalmay Khalilzad Wades into Iraq's Oil Message-ID: <3896409C-A24B-4A18-8D1C-3E763CFA351C@shaw.ca> http://www.webofdemocracy.org/neo-con_sighting_near_iraqi.html From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 2 15:17:59 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Helen Thomas: Obama Ignores Torture In-Reply-To: <1177770679.5047381248974168084.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1132649911.339751249247879516.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23148.htm Obama Ignores Torture By Helen Thomas July 28, 2009 "Times Union" -- Secrecy is endemic in all governments. It goes with the turf, especially if their leaders hope to hide illegal or immoral behavior, such as torture of foreign prisoners. Many Americans heaved a sigh of relief last January when President Barack Obama banned the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It made the administration look more humane than the Bush-Cheney team. But that is not the whole story. Obama left unaddressed the possibility of torture in secret foreign prisons under our control as in Abu Ghraib in Iraq or Bagram in Afghanistan, not to mention the 'black sites" sponsored by our foreign clients in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Thailand and other countries. "The United States will not torture," Obama said in his directive. But he has been silent on the question of whether the U.S. would help others do the torturing. Members of Congress knew a lot about U.S. torture practices. But Republicans loyal to the Bush administration and Democrats, too, played along and kept silent at the horror of it all. Why did no bells ring for the U.S. lawmakers -- particularly those privy to the brutality -- when briefed on the abusive treatment of the captives. Did they owe more allegiance to the CIA than to the honor of our country? There are hair-raising reports of methods that Americans -- including private contractors -- have used to coerce information from our prisoners. They include slamming a prisoner against a wall; denying him sleep and food; waterboarding him under so-called enhanced interrogation; and keeping him in a crate filled with insects. I remember when President Ronald Reagan, marveling at the courage of American soldiers, used to say: "Where do we get such men?" And I have to ask: "Where did we get such people who would inflict so much pain and ruthlessness on others?" William Rivers Pitt, a best-selling author who wrote "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," recently raised the emotional question of whether U.S. adoption of torture has debased the international standards for treatment of prisoners and that our enemies may now feel that they can torture Americans. Pitt specifically expressed concern about Army Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan last month. American military leaders had warned President Bush over and over that U.S. torture of prisoners could boomerang against our troops. But he would not listen. Obama has blocked publication of pictures of the harsh treatment of prisoners from our two ongoing wars -- in Iraq and Afghanistan -- but the word still gets around. Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent at hearstdc.com. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 2 15:16:54 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Could the great recession lead to a great revolution? In-Reply-To: <4A75B573.5080701@uregina.ca> Message-ID: <1703246062.339521249247814458.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0730/p09s01-coop.html Christian Science Monitor July 30, 2009 Could the great recession lead to a great revolution? A look at mass protests during the past 500 years reveals surprising clues. By Immanuel Ness Brooklyn, N.Y. - For the first time in generations, people are challenging the view that a free-market order ? the system that dominates the globe today ? is the destiny of all nations. The free market's uncanny ability to enrich the elite, coupled with its inability to soften the sharp experiences of staggering poverty, has pushed inequality to the breaking point. As a result, we live at an important historical juncture ? one where alternatives to the world's neoliberal capitalism could emerge. Thus, it is a particularly apt time to examine revolutionary movements that have periodically challenged dominant state and imperial power structures over the past 500 years. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which laid the foundation for liberal democratic elections and the expansion of the free-market system throughout the world, revolution and protest seemed to lose some of their potency. Leading historians believed that a new age had appeared in which revolutionary movements would no longer challenge the status quo. Defenders of the contemporary system were suspicious of nearly all forms of popular expression and contestation for power outside the electoral arena. But remarkably, this entire discourse sidestepped the major impulses of human emancipation of the past 500 years ? equality, democracy, and social rights. Proponents of neoliberalism are indifferent to this history and dismiss the notion that "another world is possible" that could alleviate grinding misery and poverty around the world. But in opposition to the contemporary individualistic system of capitalism, evidence of a new global movement dedicated to social justice and human rights has sprung from the ashes of the past. Just in the past decade, we have witnessed the expansion of worker insurgencies, peasant and indigenous uprisings, ecological protests, and democracy movements. Historians frequently view revolutions as extraordinary and unanticipated interruptions of state social regulation of everyday life. This isn't the case. In my work as editor of a new encyclopedia of revolution and protest, I've reviewed 500 years' worth of revolutionary actions. And the surprising pattern I've found is the regularity of volatile and explosive conflicts, commonly revealed as waves of protest from within civil society to confront persistent inequality and oppression. While historians cannot forecast the time and place of revolutions, the past has a sustained, if disjointed, record of popular resistance to injustice. History shows that revolutions must have political movement and a socially compelling goal, with strategic and charismatic leadership that inspires majorities to challenge a perception of fundamental injustice and inequality. A necessary feature is the development of a political ideology rooted in a narrative that legitimates mass collective action, which is indispensable to forcing dominant groups to address social grievances ? or to overturning those dominant groups altogether. Unresponsive rulers risk possible overthrow of their governments. For example, the vision and struggle of a multiracial South Africa was a guiding principle that put an end to the entrenched white-dominated apartheid system. A second essential element is what Italian philosopher Antonio Negri calls constituent power, the expression of the popular will for democracy ? a common theme in nearly all revolutions ? through what he calls the multitude. Mr. Negri counterpoises the concepts of constituent power and constituted power to demonstrate the oppositional forces in society. Thus, following the American Revolution, the ruling elite created a second Constitution establishing a national government with fewer democratic safeguards. In response to challenges from popular movements, modern states have concentrated power in constitutions and centralized authority structures to suppress mass demands for democracy and equality. Few democratic revolutionary movements have gained popular power as new states almost always consolidate control, often resorting to repression of the masses that initially brought them to power. Still, virtually all revolutions during the past 500 years have created enduring consequences that, in evolving form, remain forces for justice to this day. Revolutionary movements must recognize the durability and overwhelming inertia of state power. They must acknowledge that they are highly unlikely to seize power from unjust regimes, even when their objectives have moral force and are deeply popular among the masses. And yet, history is full of exceptions to this rule, so we must conclude that while revolutionary transformation is improbable, it is always a possibility. At a lecture to Young Socialists in Zurich just one month before the February 1917 Revolution, Vladimir Lenin said: "We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution." Less than a year later, Lenin and the Bolsheviks gained power over the Soviet state with the initial support of workers, peasants, and most of the military. In the last century, the opponents of the failed bureaucratic statism in the Soviet sphere and free-market capitalism in the West have struggled to find a discourse of resistance. While democratic opponents defeated Soviet Russia in the early 1990s, opponents of free-market capitalism have yet to gain traction, in part due to the general consensus among global rulers in defense of neoliberalism. As such, revolutionary movements have had to redefine themselves outside territorial borders as powerful tools of the global collective to petition for human rights and social justice for all. People are inherently cautious and take extraordinary action only when they have little to lose and something to gain. The current economic crisis has pushed more people into poverty and despair than at any time since the early 20th century, to the point where alternatives to the current system can be considered. Today, throughout the world, peasants, workers, indigenous peoples, and students are galvanized into movements that are challenging state power rooted in global norms of neoliberalism. New movements have gained greater traction with the legitimacy and strength of a global collective behind them, rather than as isolated protests. The oppressed are framing new narratives of liberation to contest power on a state and international level: whether peasants in Latin America or India struggling for land reform; indigenous peoples mobilizing resistance for official recognition of their rights; or workers and students throughout the world waging unauthorized strikes and sit-ins, and taking to the streets in support of democracy and equality. Immanuel Ness is a professor of political science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, and editor of "The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the Present." From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 2 15:17:18 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] California's Budget Fiasco In-Reply-To: <748824738.5339151249059084926.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1755538332.339581249247838868.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.truthout.org/072909X?n The Guardian 27 July 2009 California's Budget Fiasco by Sasha Abramsky California's new budget ends months of political gridlock, but the cuts to state services are hardly cause for celebration. Now, nearly a year after the fiscal collapse, get ready for structural readjustment. California, the richest state in America, finally passed an emergency budget revision on Friday that bears shocking similarities to the budgets foisted on third world countries by the World Bank and IMF in decades past. Seeking to close a $26bn budget gap, legislators dithered for months, as California's credit rating collapsed, as its finances sunk so low that it had to start issuing IOUs to vendors, as its school funding withered. They seemed to be waiting for a miracle (read: a Washington bailout), and when the miracle didn't materialise, they seemed to hope they could run the clock down with endless debates and little action. The Republican minority blocked all tax increases, and the Democratic majority stood in the way of all meaningful service cuts. As revenues collapsed, Sacramento's political leadership gave new meaning to "gridlock". Finally, they've had to act. And, as everyone knew it would be, it's horribly ugly. The new budget, overwhelmingly, is about cuts rather than tax and revenue increases, and, not surprisingly, an awful lot of vulnerable people will be battered. The highlights: billions of dollars in spending cuts to already cash-strapped schools. A sharp contraction in welfare, healthcare and in-home services to the poor and sick, with an estimated 40,000 Californians immediately losing in-home aid. A wave of closures of state parks. A forced borrowing of billions of dollars from cities and counties. An indefinite three-day a month furlough (equivalent to a 14% pay cut) for all state employees. And a huge, and likely irreversible, reduction in the state's commitment to its once-vaunted public university and community college system. Already, California State University faculty has voted to accept furloughs. And, soon, pay cuts will be implemented throughout the University of California system that range from 4% to 10% salary reductions. Prisons, too, have been cut, but by less than other agencies. The Republicans, with the backing of crime victims' groups, threatened to torpedo the entire budget deal unless some of the deeper prison funding cuts were withdrawn. The only good news: the assembly prevented the state from raiding $1bn in transportation funds controlled by local governments, and they also blocked oil drilling off the beautiful Santa Barbara coast - a plan Republicans argued would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in leasing revenues. Exhausted state politicians, who had been working around the clock to pass this budget, congratulated each other Friday afternoon as the last of the many bills cleared the assembly. But, truth be told, this is a budget to weep about rather than one to toast. While the cuts were unavoidable given the utterly blinkered failure of Republicans to countenance tax increases, it represents a catastrophic and shameful failure of governance. It's a failure that has been expanding in fairly open view like an infected boil for years now. The ingredients of the failure: too many special interests feeding off the public trough, at least in part through pushing spending proposals via the initiative process. A public willing to mandate a generous array of programmes into existence but unwilling to cough up tax revenues to fund it. A political culture that follows public opinion rather than seeking to lead. An initiative process that almost guarantees political incoherence. A tax-and-budget process that guarantees annual political stalemate. And a term-limits system, passed in the heyday of anti-government rhetoric in the 1990s, that discourages expertise and too often discourages high-calibre personnel from seeking public office. The past couple year's economic turmoil brought all of these crises to a head. 24 July 2009 marks the day that the boil was lanced. Will things get better now? Or will the lanced boil grow infected, creating an evermore toxic political climate and an evermore brutal fight for diminished spoils? Already, cities are muttering about suing the state to prevent it from forcibly "borrowing" their money. Already, the public service employees' union, representing nearly 100,000 of the state's nearly quarter-million workers, is talking about a strike ballot. Morale at every level of the public sector in California has collapsed. It reminds me of that old curse: "May you live in interesting times." The Golden State's imploding. But, hell, the stock market's soaring, and the big banks are posting profits again, so things must be going in the correct direction again, right? *** From: John Johnson From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 2 15:17:44 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Peak Oil and the Remaking of Iraq In-Reply-To: <1077994430.5182131248991083259.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <224809568.339721249247864252.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175095/michael_klare_peak_oil_and_the_remaking_of_iraq Tom Dispatch 2009-07-14 Tomgram: Michael Klare, Peak Oil and the Remaking of Iraq Anthony Shadid has, without a doubt, been the finest American mainstream journalist to cover Iraq in the period after the 2003 invasion. He's now back in Baghdad for the Washington Post , telling the saddest story of all ( "In the City of Cement" ). Here's part of what he wrote just after American troops largely withdrew to the outskirts of town: "Augustus boasted that he found Rome a city of bricks and made it a city of marble. Baghdad was another city of bricks, and a coterie of American generals turned it into a city of cement. Their concrete is everywhere -- from the sprawling Green Zone to the barriers and blast walls that line almost every street -- reorienting the physical, spiritual and social geography that for more than a millennium was dictated by the lazy bends in the Tigris River. "In time, though, those walls may matter less than the deeper forces that six years of an American presence hastened. Baghdad is now a city divided from itself. Shiite neighborhoods rarely have Sunnis. Sunni ones, far less numerous today, no longer have Shiites. Christians have all but left. Potentates seek refuge in fortresses, and the poor fend for themselves... The Americans created none of it, but facilitated all of it, giving space to the region's worst impulses." In what follows, Michael Klare, energy expert and author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet , offers another, quite different version of this same sad tale: what if, after all the sound and fury, what happened really did signify next to nothing, despite the devastation of Iraq and the loss of so many lives? What if the new Iraq is now fated to be, as Klare suggests, just another service station at a rest stop on the global road to... well, where? Tom Will Iraq Be a Global Gas Pump? The (Re)Making of a Petro-State By Michael T. Klare Has it all come to this? The wars and invasions, the death and destruction, the exile and torture, the resistance and collapse? In a world of shrinking energy reserves, is Iraq finally fated to become what it was going to be anyway, even before the chaos and catastrophe set in: a giant gas pump for an energy-starved planet? Will it all end not with a bang, but with a gusher? The latest oil news out of that country offers at least a hint of Iraq's fate. For modern Iraq, oil has always been at the heart of everything. Its very existence as a unified state is largely the product of oil. In 1920, under the aegis of the League of Nations, Britain cobbled together the Kingdom of Iraq from the Ottoman provinces of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul in order to better exploit the holdings of the Turkish Petroleum Company, forerunner of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). Later, Iraqi nationalists and the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein nationalized the IPC, provoking unrelenting British and American hostility. Hussein rewarded his Sunni allies in the Baath Party by giving them lucrative positions in the state company, part of a process that produced a dangerous rift with the country's Shiite majority. And these are but a few of the ways in which modern Iraqi history has been governed by oil. Iraq is, of course, one of the world's great hydrocarbon preserves. According to oil giant BP, it harbors proven oil reserves of 115 billion barrels -- more than any country except Saudi Arabia (with 264 billion barrels) and Iran (with 138 billion). Many analysts, however, believe that Iraq has been inadequately explored, and that the utilization of modern search technologies will yield additional reserves in the range of 45 to 100 billion barrels. If all its reserves, known and suspected, were developed to their full potential, Iraq could add as much as six to eight million barrels per day to international output, postponing the inevitable arrival of peak oil and a contraction in global energy supplies. Nailing Down the Energy Heartland of the Planet Iraq 's great hydrocarbon promise has been continually thwarted by war, foreign intervention, sanctions, internal disorder, corruption, and plain old ineptitude. Saddam Hussein did succeed for a time in elevating oil output, in the process raising national income and creating a well-educated middle class. However, his ill-conceived invasions of Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990 led to devastating attacks on Iraqi oil facilities, as well as trade embargoes and crippling debt, erasing much of his country's previous economic gains. The trade sanctions imposed by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in the wake of the First Gulf War only further eroded the country's oil-production capacity. When President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, his overarching goals all revolved around the geopolitics of oil. He and his top officials were intent on replacing Saddam Hussein's regime with one that would prove friendly to American oil interests. They also imagined that, greeted as liberators by a grateful population, they would preside over a radical upgrading of Iraq's petroleum capacity, thereby ensuring adequate supplies for American consumers at an affordable price. Finally, by building and manning a constellation of major military bases in a grateful Iraq, they saw themselves ensuring continued American dominance over the oil-soaked Persian Gulf region, and so the energy heartland of the planet. All of this, of course, proved to be a mirage. The U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation policies provoked a bitter Sunni insurgency that quickly overshadowed all other American concerns, including oil. As a result, no matter how much money they poured into the task, the Bush administration and its Baghdad agents found themselves incapable of boosting petroleum output even to the levels of the worst days of Saddam Hussein's regime -- and so their plans to use oil revenues to pay for the war, the occupation, and the reconstruction of the country all vanished into thin air. The data provided by BP on yearly production tallies cannot be starker when it comes to the impact on oil output of the insurgency, rampant corruption, the loss of the nation's oil professionals (many of whom fled into exile amid sectarian warfare), and other related factors. Prior to the American invasion, Iraq was pumping 2.6 million barrels of oil per day, already significantly below its pre-invasion peak of 3.5 million barrels per day. In the first year of the ill-starred U.S. occupation, production quickly plunged to a paltry 1.3 million barrels per day. Only in 2007 did it finally top the two million mark and, with improved security, 2.4 million in 2008. Assuming conditions continue to improve, Iraqi output could, for the first time, exceed pre-invasion levels, though barely, in 2009 or 2010 -- six years or more after Baghdad fell to American forces. A Sea Change in Iraqi Oil Production? Until recently, most analysts assumed that Iraq would continue, at best, to make modest progress in its efforts to increase daily output. There were too many obstacles, it was argued, to achieve dramatic breakthroughs. These included continued insurgent attacks on pipelines and production facilities; corruption in the Oil Ministry and major energy production enterprises; the failure of parliament to adopt a national hydrocarbons law; differences between the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and the central government over who has the right to award what sort of oil contracts in Kurdish-controlled territories; and the reluctance of major foreign oil firms to venture into, or invest in a major way in such a dangerous and unstable place. Recently, however, the Oil Ministry has made noticeable progress in overcoming at least some of these obstacles. Under the leadership of Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani , a former nuclear scientist who was jailed and tortured by Saddam Hussein for refusing to assist in the development of nuclear weapons, corruption has been substantially reduced and various production bottlenecks eliminated. Shahristani has also won support from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for the participation of foreign firms in the development of Iraqi oil fields, even though this has alienated many in Iraq who oppose any such involvement. Once derided for ineptitude, the Oil Ministry is beginning to be viewed as a functioning, professional operation. As a result, there are clear indications that Iraq's oil industry could be poised for a major turnaround. Among the most significant recent developments: * Late last year, Iraq's state-owned North Oil Company signed a $3.5 billion, 20-year service contract with the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to develop the Adhab oil field in Wasit province, southeast of Baghdad. Originally negotiated under the Saddam Hussein regime, the deal was put on hold after the 2003 invasion and only given final approval in November 2008. This is the first major contract the government in Baghdad has signed with a foreign oil firm since the Iraq Petroleum Company was nationalized in the 1970s. It also represents the first significant investment by a company from China in Iraq. Under the agreement, CNPC and its partners will develop the Adhab field and deliver all resulting crude oil to state refineries; as the field's main operator, CNPC will be paid a fee by the Iraqi government for its engineering work and all delivered petroleum. * In May, the Oil Ministry reached an accord with the Kurdistan Regional Government that, for the first time, will allow the Kurds to export oil from fields under their control. Previously, the Baghdad government had refused to recognize any contracts signed by the KRG with private oil firms to develop fields in their territory and had prevented the Kurds from exporting oil from these fields through pipelines controlled by the central government. Under the accord, the KRG will initially be allowed to export 100,000 barrels per day from the Tawke and Taq Taq fields, with higher rates expected in the future; 73% of the resulting revenues will go to the central government, 15% to the Kurds, and 12% to the foreign oil companies that signed production contracts directly with the KRG, bypassing the central government in Baghdad. This agreement paves the way for a significant increase in output from Kurdish-controlled areas, which are thought to hold substantial reserves of untapped petroleum. * In June, the Oil Ministry conducted its first auction of rights to operate existing fields in the country's major producing areas. This represented a major -- even staggering -- shift in policy, opening the door for the first time in three decades to the participation of major international oil companies in the operation -- if not the ownership -- of the country's nationalized oil fields. Although opposed by many key groups in Iraq, ranging from the oil workers' union to significant factions in parliament, the move was taken to secure outside expertise in modernizing and upgrading the country's crumbling oil infrastructure, thereby boosting output in a country that still relies on oil for more than 75% of its gross domestic product and about 95% of its revenues. In fact, many foreign companies chose not to bid in the auction's opening round, finding the returns being offered insufficiently attractive. Nevertheless, one Western firm, BP, won the right (in partnership with CNPC) to operate the giant Rumaila field, Iraq's largest. The Oil Ministry has since indicated that it will conduct additional auctions, including one for the right to explore for oil, on terms as yet unrevealed, in the country's undeveloped south and west -- possibly laying the groundwork for significantly more intrusive participation by foreign firms. Taken together, these steps -- aimed at securing the necessary external financing and expertise to achieve a significant boost in production -- represent a genuine sea change in the way the Oil Ministry has been overseeing the country's hydrocarbons industry. If all goes as planned, it intends to increase output by 1.5 million barrels per day, and another four to five million barrels by 2017. These efforts, if successful (and given recent history, that remains a big "if"), would place Iraq among the world's top four or five oil producers, along with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States. A New Petro-State Servicing the Global Economy? No one should underestimate the potential obstacles in the way of this objective. Any number of factors -- a rise in opposition to giving away any part of the national "patrimony" to foreigners, a significant increase in insurgent violence, heightened factional fighting in Baghdad, a sharpening of tension between Baghdad and the Kurds, an increase in corruption -- could prevent the realization of these ambitious goals. Moreover, pending the passage of a national oil and gas law (a goal pursued by U.S. officials for years), the major foreign oil companies will remain reluctant to sink too much money into Iraq, fearful that their assets will not be protected. Nevertheless, it appears that, for the first time since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, the stars in the energy firmament are aligning in ways that may favor Iraq's reemergence as a major oil producer. Whereas the major powers once competed among themselves for influence in Iraq or backed one or another of Iraq's local rivals in efforts to weaken or contain that country, all now seem inclined to invest in, and benefit from, the reconstruction of its energy infrastructure. The Bush administration, which looked with alarm at Saddam Hussein's growing ties to Russia and China, invaded the country in part to reassert American dominance in the Persian Gulf region and diminish the role played by Moscow and Beijing. Today, Washington appears to welcome the growing role of Chinese and Russian firms in the rehabilitation of Iraq's dilapidated energy infrastructure. It's a reasonable assumption that behind this unprecedented shift lies an acknowledgement of the inescapable reality of peak oil . As things stand now, the world will soon reach a maximum level of sustainable daily oil output, followed by an inevitable contraction in available supplies. Many experts believe that the peak in conventional (liquid) oil output is likely to occur in the very near future, perhaps in the 2010-2015 timeframe, with global output topping out about 5 to 10 million barrels per day higher than today's 85 million barrels. Hitting the peak moment in that timeframe, and at that level, would prove devastating to the world economy, as global energy demand is expected to climb far higher, thanks to rising consumption patterns in China, India, and other dynamos of the developing world. It's not hard, then, to do the math. An addition of perhaps six million supplemental barrels per day from Iraq would make a striking difference in the energy equation. In fact, it might prove the difference between squeaking by and a catastrophic worldwide shortage. Under such circumstances, it is understandable that -- no matter what their governments felt about the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq -- the major powers now share a common interest in facilitating that country's recovery as a major oil exporter. For devastated Iraq, of course, these last years were a disaster and real reconstruction of the country still remains a long way off. For the United States, gone are expectations of converting Iraq into a model Middle Eastern democracy, or of inserting a Western-trained, pro-U.S. regime in Baghdad. Nor is there any expectation that the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company will be completely privatized -- once the dream of Bush-era neocons. Nonetheless, the (re)emergence of a functioning Iraqi petro-state working closely with foreign energy firms to boost global oil supplies (with American troops, whether based in Iraq or neighboring countries, providing ultimate security) would be an outcome that could be sold to Congress and, presumably, a majority of the American public. Within Iraq itself, conditions may favor such an outcome. Although various Iraqi factions have enormous differences, all recognize that their future prosperity rests on the successful development of the nation's hydrocarbon reserves. While Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds may each hope to benefit disproportionately from this great treasure, they all realize that some degree of cooperation -- for example, in the construction and maintenance of export facilities -- is essential to their ambitions, however disparate. While the bargaining over the terms of cooperation may seem endless, and violence may sometimes accompany these negotiations, it is likely that some sort of collaborative structure will, in the end, emerge. A gradual drawdown, if not total departure, of American forces will, in all likelihood, only accelerate this process. So it has finally come to this dismal possible end point: after all the blood and tears, all the death and destruction, almost all interested parties seem to be returning to the only vision of the country, however depressing, that has demonstrated any viability. In the future, Iraq is likely to be an oil-fueled petro-state with no function other than to service global markets and enrich local elites as well as the technocrats that assist them. This may be not be an inspiring vision -- especially for Iraqis who have suffered so much -- but it might possibly be the only reality available that will circumvent the horrific bloodletting of the past 30 years. Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. He is the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Henry Holt). A documentary movie of his previous book, "Blood and Oil," is available at bloodandoilmovie.com . From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 2 15:18:50 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Obama and Hillary Nix Change in Honduras In-Reply-To: <1790332781.4020871248731386036.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1951622126.339811249247930005.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> 27 July 2009 Obama and Hillary Nix Change in Honduras The growing conflict represents a failure of the Obama administration to reshape US policy towards Latin America in spite of its early rhetoric directed at the leaders of the region. US policy towards Honduras since the coup indicates that the Obama administration does not represent ?change you can believe in.? Rather it is bent on imposing its will and propping up the status quo in Latin America, just as previous US administrations did. By Roger Burbach The situation in Honduras and Central America is growing increasingly tumultuous with each passing day as deposed President Manuel Zelaya confronts the de facto regime of Roberto Micheletti with thousands of partisans mobilizing in the border areas. While Honduran army officers in Washington and the capital of Tegucigalpa issue statements indicating they may accept Zelaya?s return?if the civilian coup leaders concur--military and police units continue to fire on and even murder demonstrators. It is impossible to predict the outcome of this confrontation. But one thing is increasing clear--the growing conflict represents a failure of the Obama administration to reshape US policy towards Latin America in spite of its early rhetoric directed at the leaders of the region. On June 29, the day after the coup, Barack Obama declared it ?not legal? and said ?we don?t want to go back to a dark past.? This was in keeping with his remarks at the Summit of the Americas in April when, in alluding to the US history of backing military regimes, he stated, ?The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.? But US policy towards Honduras since the coup indicates that the Obama administration does not represent ?change you can believe in.? Rather it is bent on imposing its will and propping up the status quo in Latin America, just as previous US administrations did. Over the past decade a popular upsurge has swept Latin America comprised of indigenous movements, impoverished urban dwellers, peasants, environmentalists, feminists, and human rights advocates. They are demanding a more equitable distribution of the wealth of their countries and an end to political systems dominated by oligarchs, corrupt politicians and business interests allied with the United States. A string of New Left governments has emerged beginning with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 1999 followed by Luis Inacio ?Lula? da Silva in Brazil in 2003. They have been joined by the election of left of center presidents in Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Paraguay and El Salvador. This block of progressive forces spearheaded the international opposition to the coup in Honduras. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, reflecting the common sentiment around the continent, noted that the coup was a throwback to ?the worst years in Latin America?s history.? The Organization of American States, which has historically been dominated by the United States, voted 34 to 0 to call for the restoration of Manuel Zelaya as president. This unified opposition in Latin America left the Obama administration with no alternative but to call for the resignation of the de facto government. However, what it has done in the aftermath of the coup is to search for a way to undermine the reformist agenda advocated by Zelaya and to prop up the traditional interests aligned with the United States both within Honduras and in Latin America at large. This commitment to the old order is symbolized by the fact that Alvaro Uribe, the conservative president of Colombia, was in the White House meeting with Obama on June 29 as he issued his statement opposing the coup in Honduras. One of the points Uribe and Obama discussed was US access to three airfields and two naval bases in Colombia. Allegedly for use in the drug war in the Andean region, they are also aimed at counteracting the growing influence of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who called the expanded US military presence ?a threat against us? that could even lead ?to a war.? The US obsession with Venezuela is at the heart of its policy towards Zelaya. Philip Crowley, Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs at the US State Department, stated that the coup should serve as a ?lesson? for the deposed president who had signed trade and petroleum accords with Venezuela: ?We certainly think that if we were choosing a model government and a model leader for countries of the region to follow, that the current leadership in Venezuela would not be a particular model. If that is the lesson that President Zelaya has learned from this episode, that would be a good lesson.? Even before the coup, the Obama administration made known its opposition to the reformist policies of the Zelaya government. At a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in early June in Tegucigalpa Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Zelaya in a private meeting that he should back off from trying to put a referendum on the ballot that would provide for the convening of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution for the country. The election of constituent assemblies was the vehicle used by Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to overturn entrenched interests and to ?refound? their political institutions. The main diplomatic gambit used by the Obama administration in an effort to reign in Manuel Zelaya was to get President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica to broker an agreement with the coup leaders in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Arias had served US interests well in the 1980s during his first presidential term, using regional negotiations to undermine the revolutionary government of Nicaragua and the guerrilla movements in El Salvador and Guatemala while nurturing pseudo-democratic governments that adopted the neo-liberal economic policies then coming into vogue with the ?Washington Consensus.? This time however, Arias failed, primarily because the OAS and most of the governments of Latin America made it clear that they would not recognize any government in Tegucigalpa other than one led by Zelaya. As President Luis Inacio da Silva of Brazil declared, ?we cannot compromise? on the restoration of Zelaya. In the end Arias issued a mediation proposal that called for the restitution of Zelaya as head of a national government of reconciliation with weakened executive powers. Micheletti?s de facto regime rejected the proposal. It is worth noting that one of the clauses in the proposed accord calls for Zelaya to refrain from promoting a constituent assembly, a clause that has been angrily denounced by leaders of the social movements in Honduras. U.S. efforts to restore Zelaya have been quite tepid compared to other countries. While many ambassadors have been withdrawn, the US head diplomat Hugo Llorens, appointed by George W. Bush, remains in place. There are reports that he may have even given the green light to the coup plotters, or at least did nothing to stop them. And while the World Bank has suspended assistance, the State Department merely warns that $180 million in US economic aid may be in jeopardy. Most importantly the United States refuses to freeze the bank accounts and cancel the visas of the coup leaders, measures that Zelaya and other Latin American governments have urged Washington to do. The Obama presidency probably hoped that like the years of the Bush administration Latin America would require only marginal attention in the grand scheme of world affairs. This may turn out not to be the case however if Honduras, the last of the banana republics, erupts in a civil conflict that draws in neighboring countries. ?Change? may be the catch word for the new administration, but here an old French phrase may be more indicative of what is really occurring: ?Plus ca change, plus c?est la meme chose,? the more things change the more they remain the same. Roger Burbach is the author of ?The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice,? and the Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas based in Berkeley, CA From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 2 15:25:55 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Whither Fateh? In-Reply-To: <1464984813.340071249248264247.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1557149915.340201249248355084.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://thefastertimes.com/Palestine/2009/07/28/whither-fateh/ Faster Times July 28, 2009 Palestine Whither Fateh? Toufic Haddad The most significant political development currently taking place in the Palestinian political arena is not between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, or between Fateh and Hamas. It is the struggle within Fateh over the movement's identity, history and political program. August 4, 2009 will mark the first time Fateh holds a party conference in 20 years. The movement is set to assess the movement's recent history, elect its leadership and vote on its political platform. The last time Fateh held a conference in August 1989, political conditions were far more optimistic. The first Intifada -- a popular civil disobedience campaign against Israeli occupation forces who were in the heart of Palestinian cities and refugee camps -- had swept across the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) for over a year. Images of rock-throwing children confronting armed Israeli troops generated international attention and support for the Palestinian cause. The Intifada provided a lifeline to the exiled Palestinian leadership hunkered down far away in Tunis since its expulsion from Lebanon in 1982. In July 1988, Jordan abandoned its claims to represent the Palestinians in negotiations ? a victory for the independence of the national cause, at the expense of the Jordanian monarchy, which had formerly clung to territorial and political ambitions over Palestine. In November 1988, the PLO also declared an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, even if the Israeli occupation continued in force on the ground. The declaration was a symbolic expression of the will for Palestinian self-determination and statehood, and was a show of strength given that the number of countries which recognized the PLO and the state of Palestine, rivaled if not surpassed those which recognized Israel. But today the atmosphere is far more reserved, if not depressing. In many ways, Fateh has been forced to hold its conference ? its sixth since its founding in 1965 ? because the national movement it has led for the last 40 years is in shambles. So is the party itself. Fateh lost the January 2006 elections to Hamas because the movement?s political program embodied in the Oslo Accords ? the ?peace process? failed to yield Palestinian national rights ? to independence, to the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, to release political prisoners, even to ending Israeli settlements whose populations doubled between 1993 and 2000. Fateh was also accused of corruption and nepotism, and Hamas offered a reformist alternative to Palestinian affairs, and a harder line regarding negotiations with Israel. But Fateh?s woes didn?t stop there. After loosing the elections, its most corrupt elements attempted to organize a coup with CIA backing in Gaza, against Hamas. The former were trounced by the more popular and dynamic Hamas, and the coup?s backers had to flee under Israeli protection to the West Bank. There are other outstanding questions the party needs to resolve. Damning allegations of corruption are rife within the party, including accusations that some party bigwigs sold Israel cement to build its enormous 724 kilometer wall. Then there are questions over how Arafat died and whether anyone within the movement should be implicated in what many believe was an assassination. Thousands of Fateh prisoners also languish in Israeli prisons and feel abandoned by the leadership. Internal democracy in the movement has be stifled for so long that two generations of party leaders have never been able to exercise control over the party?s organs. The task before Fateh is indeed daunting, and it is by no means certain that the movement, led by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) ? the same leader in charge during many of Fateh?s worst moments ? will be able to take the challenges head on. The significance of the Fateh conference thus lies not only in what will come of Fateh, its leadership and its political trajectory, but what will be its implications on the movement?s relations with Hamas, and the national movement?s approach to Israel, and its Likud-led government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. To gain a sense for the dynamics going on in Fateh in the run up to the conference, I decided to translate a large excerpt from an article published in the Pan-Arab daily, Al Sharq al Awsat, which comes out of London, written by Bilal al Hassan. Hassan was a member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and a former editor of the journal Shu?un Filasteeniya (Palestine Affairs), the seminal journal of the Palestinian national movement in the late 1960s up until the 1980s. He is also the brother of Hani al Hassan, a former close political adviser to Yasser Arafat, and a ranking member of Fateh. Bilal has been around long enough to understand the dynamics of Fateh, and he also has the contacts to be able to write with credibility on what is going on in the movement, as it prepares for its moment of truth with itself. His conclusions are not very optimistic I?m afraid. It seems that many of the ploys and power games used by Fateh throughout the years to manipulate and control other factions within the Palestinian national movement, have now been turned inward against Fateh, thereby setting the stage for the movements final demise. Excerpts from ?The Moment for the Curtain to Fall on the Unity of Fateh Has Arrived? Bilal Al Hasan Al Sharq al Awsat July 19, 2009 Unofficial translation by Toufic Haddad Meetings held by the ?Preparatory Committee for Fateh?s Sixth Conference? were taking place in a successive manner, and witnessed various differences and agreements revolving around three [main] issues: the place in which the conference would be held ? either in areas beneath the Palestinian Authority [in the OPT] or in an Arab capital; the delegates to the conference ? who are they? how many would there be? and the criteria for choosing them?; and finally, the documents to be presented at the conference, and which political tack they would take - one that confronted the Israeli occupation, or one that saw the end of this discourse, and instead emphasized the need to engage in building the [Palestinian] Authority. As is always the case with Fateh, the Committee witnessed different currents and opinions [as to how to resolve these matters]. Until something strange happened, when Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the movement announced in an individual manner, the [Preparatory] Committee?s dissolution, which was headed by Mohammed Ghenim (Abu Maher), a member of Fateh?s Higher Committee. Mahmoud Abbas also announced in an individual manner, that he was calling upon a number of Fateh cadres located in the West Bank to an emergency meeting in the presidential compound. The meeting ? the majority of whose attendees derived from one political stripe ? took absolute and binding decisions regarding all three issues that had been debated in the dissolved ?Preparatory Committee.? It was decided that the conference would take place inside [i.e. in the OPT] and that the delegates would be open to 1200-1600 [members of Fateh], so as to give the opportunity to change and exchange [members]. As for the [conference's preparatory] documents [and their political line], discourse would head towards ending armed confrontation with the occupation. It [armed struggle] will remain mentioned in [the movement's] general principles, but will be removed from the operational program. This is what happened in the face of the Preparatory Committee, and against it. A coup by all meanings of the term. A coup inside Fateh, led and implemented by the head of the government, that aims in the end at controlling it organizationally, intellectually, and politically, and with the support of a group that represents one stream inside Fateh with respect to its political coloration. One stream [as well] as far as its membership. Everyone was aware that what took place in Ramallah was an actual introduction to the splitting of Fateh ? a split between one current on the inside [in the OPT] that brings with it from outside those who resemble it [a reference to inviting diasporic members supportive of Abu Mazen to the conference in Bethlehem], and the exclusion of any other current that might be in opposition. All were also aware that matters would not be confined to the level of mere opinion and [political] approach but would also result in a leadership of the same coloration, within the Fateh Central Committee as well as within Fateh's Revolutionary Assembly ? the principle two bodies of the movement. Some time passed on the decisions taken by Fateh president Mahmoud Abbas, and an atmosphere of silent protest overcame the movement, were it not for two leaflets published in the name of Fateh?s fighting cadre [its armed wing.] [The leaflets] failed to mention names, [but] announced their opposition to what took place, and accused those behind what happened with a host of matters. Then Farouq al Qaddoumi (Abu Lutf) called for a press conference in Amman in which he detonated a bombshell more powerful than Abbas?. He [Qaddoumi] is the only one capable of doing this. Qaddoumi said, ?so and so from Fateh conspired with Ariel Sharon to kill Yasser Arafat.? Qaddoumi is a founder of Fateh, a member of its Central Committee, the Secretary General of its Central Committee (Higher Committee), the head of the politburo of the PLO, and the Foreign Minister of the state of Palestine, as declared in 1988 [when the PLO declared independence.] Behind the detonation of his political bombshell, stands Qaddoumi?s political credibility. It is thus possible to say that the splits inside Fateh are no longer a question of analysis or conclusion [made from the outside], but have become a reality ? with one wing led by a big Fateh leader in Ramallah [Abu Mazen] and the second led by a Fateh heavy weight in Amman ? and in Tunis [the cities Qaddoumi has largely resided in since the Oslo Accords of 1993.] Now it remains to be seen what the position of the cadre and membership of the movement will be, and to whom they will declare allegiance, whether for one wing or the other. They could even express indifference [to both] in which case matters [inside Fateh] will collapse even faster. Observers of Fateh, and those familiar with its atmosphere, currents and issues, expect that nothing from here on in is going to be smooth or simple. Developments will also not be solely determined on the basis of ideas or logic. That is, the Fateh wing enthroned in Ramallah, owns the money through which it guarantees the salaries of tens ? actually, hundreds ? of members on its payrolls. It also owns the money that guarantees the paychecks of those heading into retirement, once they turn 60, or after 45 if they [the leadership] so desire. The paying of these salaries takes place by way of the budget of the Ministry of Finance in the Palestinian Authority, or from the budget of the Palestinian National Trust, which for years has had the political task of exiling the generation of resistance from Fateh and the like, into the world of retirement [a reference to a PLO practice of marginalizing former guerillas and nationalist figures (many from the early days of the Palestinian revolution) by forcibly retiring them and giving them a salary.] It is then, a war of money, a war of hunger, which we might be witnessing in the coming months, which could result in the hunger of some who in turn seek an outlet for themselves. Or, it will result in the silencing of some, who refrain from declaring their opinion so as to secure their daily bread for their families. This is a pitiful state, in which the path of fighters, strugglers, cadre and their qualifications ? those who worked for many years to create what is termed the history of ?the Palestinian Revolution? will end. Rather than giving them praise and thanks [for their sacrifices], they face the terror of silence, the terror of hunger, or the tragedy of life on the margins. But if Fateh splits, it won?t just split in two. There could be successive splits ? one splitting off independently in an Arab country, another in Europe [etc.] so that we find ourselves before a series of Fateh splinters. Moreover these splits will not result in anything inevitable [such as the reform of the movement], but could bring about the gradual diminishing of the movements membership [overall], such that its [Fateh's] body, presence and influence atrophy day after day, until one day the only part of Fateh within them is a piece of its history. These splits point to the end and failure of the Palestinian national project that was led by Fateh, by way of the PLO, and its declared political program. They also point to the end of the revolution and the failure of the revolution. The question here is what comes after the end of a revolution and its failure? From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Aug 2 16:29:13 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 07:29:13 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Street Farmer Message-ID: <20090803072913.149573f8.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Elizabeth Royte The New York Times (July 05 2009) Will Allen, a farmer of Bunyonesque proportions, ascended a berm of wood chips and brewer's mash and gently probed it with a pitchfork. "Look at this", he said, pleased with the treasure he unearthed. A writhing mass of red worms dangled from his tines. He bent over, raked another section with his fingers and palmed a few beauties. It was one of those April days in Wisconsin when the weather shifts abruptly from hot to cold, and Allen, dressed in a sleeveless hoodie - his daily uniform down to twenty degrees, below which he adds another sweatshirt - was exactly where he wanted to be. Show Allen a pile of soil, fully composted or still slimy with banana peels, and he's compelled to scoop some into his melon-size hands. "Creating soil from waste is what I enjoy most", he said. "Anyone can grow food". Like others in the so-called good-food movement, Allen, who is sixty, asserts that our industrial food system is depleting soil, poisoning water, gobbling fossil fuels and stuffing us with bad calories. Like others, he advocates eating locally grown food. But to Allen, local doesn't mean a rolling pasture or even a suburban garden: it means fourteen greenhouses crammed onto two acres in a working-class neighborhood on Milwaukee's northwest side, less than half a mile from the city's largest public-housing project. And this is why Allen is so fond of his worms. When you're producing a quarter of a million dollars' worth of food in such a small space, soil fertility is everything. Without microbe- and nutrient-rich worm castings (poop, that is), Allen's Growing Power farm couldn't provide healthful food to 10,000 urbanites - through his on-farm retail store, in schools and restaurants, at farmers' markets and in low-cost market baskets delivered to neighborhood pickup points. He couldn't employ scores of people, some from the nearby housing project; continually train farmers in intensive polyculture; or convert millions of pounds of food waste into a version of black gold. With seeds planted at quadruple density and nearly every inch of space maximized to generate exceptional bounty, Growing Power is an agricultural Mumbai, a supercity of upward-thrusting tendrils and duct-taped infrastructure. Allen pointed to five tiers of planters brimming with salad greens. "We're growing in 25,000 pots", he said. Ducking his six-foot-seven frame under one of them, he pussyfooted down a leaf-crammed aisle. "We grow a thousand trays of sprouts a week; every square foot brings in $30". He headed toward the in-ground fish tanks stocked with tens of thousands of tilapia and perch. Pumps send the dirty fish water up into beds of watercress, which filter pollutants and trickle the cleaner water back down to the fish - a symbiotic system called aquaponics. The watercress sells for $16 a pound; the fish fetch $6 apiece. Onward through the hoop houses: rows of beets and chard. Out back: chickens, ducks, heritage turkeys, goats, beehives. While Allen narrated, I nibbled the scenery - spinach, arugula, cilantro. If inside the greenhouse was Eden, outdoors was, as Allen explained on a drive through the neighborhood, "a food desert". Scanning the liquor stores in the strip malls, he noted: "From the housing project, it's more than three miles to the Pick'n Save. That's a long way to go for groceries if you don't have a car or can't carry stuff. And the quality of the produce can be poor." Fast-food joints and convenience stores selling highly processed, high-calorie foods, on the other hand, were locally abundant. "It's a form of redlining", Allen said. "We've got to change the system so everyone has safe, equitable access to healthy food". Propelled by alarming rates of diabetes, heart disease and obesity, by food-safety scares and rising awareness of industrial agriculture's environmental footprint, the food movement seems finally to have met its moment. First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack have planted organic vegetable gardens. Roof gardens are sprouting nationwide. Community gardens have waiting lists. Seed houses and canning suppliers are oversold. Allen, too, has achieved a certain momentum for his efforts to bring the good-food movement to the inner city. In the last several years, he has become a darling of the foundation world. In 2005, he received a $100,000 Ford Foundation leadership grant. In 2008, the MacArthur Foundation honored Allen with a $500,000 "genius" award. And in May, the Kellogg Foundation gave Allen $400,000 to create jobs in urban agriculture. Today Allen is the go-to expert on urban farming, and there is a hunger for his knowledge. When I visited Growing Power, Allen was conducting a two-day workshop for forty people: each paid $325 to learn worm composting, aquaponics construction and other farm skills. "We need fifty million more people growing food", Allen told them, "on porches, in pots, in side yards". The reasons are simple: as oil prices rise, cities expand and housing developments replace farmland, the ability to grow more food in less space becomes ever more important. As Allen can't help reminding us, with a mischievous smile, "Chicago has 77,000 vacant lots". Allen led the composting group to a pair of wooden bins and instructed his students to load them with hay. "Okay, you've got your carbon", he said. "Where are you going to get your nitrogen?" "Food waste", a young man offered, wiping his brow. Allen pointed him toward a mound of expired asparagus collected from a wholesaler. As the participants layered the materials in a bin, Allen drilled them: "How much of that food is solid versus water weight?" "Why do we water the compost?" The farmers in training hung on every word. If Allen at times seems a bit weary - he recites his talking points countless times a day - he comes alive when he's digging, seeding and watering. His body straightens, and his face brightens. "Sitting in my office isn't a very comfortable thing for me", he told me later, seated in his office. "I want to be out there doing physical stuff". Which includes basic research. Warned by experts that his red wrigglers would freeze during Milwaukee's long winter, Allen studied the worms for five years, learning their food and shelter preferences. "I'd run my experiments over and over and over - just like an athlete operates". Then he worked out systems for procuring wood chips from the city and food scraps from markets and wholesalers. Last year, he took in six million pounds of spoiled food, which would otherwise rot in landfills and generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Every four months, he creates another 100,000 pounds of compost, of which he uses a quarter and sells the rest. Uncannily, Allen makes such efforts sound simple - fun even. When he mentions that animal waste attracts soldier flies, whose larvae make terrific fish and chicken feed, a dozen people start imagining that growing grubs in buckets of manure might be a good project for them too. "Will has a way of persuading people to do things", Robert Pierce, a farmer in Madison, Wisconsin, told me. "There's a spirit in how he says things; you want to be part of his community". Allen owes part of his Pied Piper success to his striking physicality and part to his athlete's confidence - he's easeful in his skin and, when not barking about nitrogen ratios, incongruously gentle. He told me about his life one afternoon as we drove in his truck, which was sticky with soda and dusted with doughnut powder, to Merton, a suburb of Milwaukee where Growing Power leases a thirty-acre plot. "My father was a sharecropper in South Carolina", Allen said. "He was the eldest boy of thirteen children, and he never learned to read". In the 1930s, he moved near Bethesda, Maryland. "My mother did domestic work, and my father worked as a construction laborer. But he rented a small plot to farm." A talented athlete, Allen wasn't allowed to practice sports until he finished his farm chores. "I had to be in bed early, and I thought, There's got to be something better than this". For a while, there was. Allen accepted a basketball scholarship from the University of Miami. There, he married his college sweetheart, Cyndy Bussler. After graduating, he played professionally, briefly in the American Basketball Association in Florida and then for a few seasons in Belgium. In his free time, Allen would drive around the countryside, where he couldn't help noticing the compost piles. "I started hanging out with Belgian farmers", Allen said. "I saw how they did natural farming", much as his father had. Something clicked in his mind. He asked his team's management, which provided housing for players, if he could have a place with a garden. Soon he had 25 chickens and was growing the familiar foods of his youth - peas, beans, peanuts - outside Antwerp. "I just had to do it", he said. "It made me happy to touch the soil". On holidays, he cooked feasts for his teammates. He gave away a lot of eggs. After retiring from basketball in 1977, when he was 28, Allen settled with his wife and three children in Oak Creek, just south of Milwaukee, where Cyndy's family owned some farmland. "No one was using that land, but I had the bug to grow food", Allen said. As his father did, Allen insisted that his children contribute to the household income. "We went right to the field at the end of the school day and during summer breaks", recalled his daughter, Erika Allen, who now runs Growing Power's satellite office in Chicago. "And let's be clear: This was farm labor, not chores". Allen grew food for his family and sold the excess at Milwaukee's farmers' markets and in stores. Meanwhile, he worked as a district manager for Kentucky Fried Chicken, where he won sales awards. "It was just a job", he said. "I was aware it wasn't the greatest food, but I also knew that people didn't have a lot of choice about where to eat: there were no sit-down restaurants in that part of the city". In 1987, Allen took a job with Procter & Gamble, where he won a marketing award for selling paper goods to supermarkets. "The job was so easy I could do it in half a day", he says now. That left more time to grow food. By now, Allen was sharing his land with Hmong farmers, with whom he felt some kinship after concluding that white shoppers were spurning their produce at the farmers' market. Allen was also donating food to a local food pantry. "I didn't like the idea of people eating all that canned food, that salty stuff". When he brought in his greens, he said, "it was the Number One item selected off that carousel - it was like you couldn't keep them in". After a restructuring in 1993, P&G shifted Allen to analyzing which products sold best in supermarkets. He was good at that too: "I won sales awards six times in one year". Driving across his Merton field, Allen smiled. Suddenly, I got it: Allen was a genius at selling - fried chicken, Pampers, arugula, red wrigglers, you name it. He could push his greens into corporate cafeterias, persuade the governor to help finance the construction of an anaerobic digester, wheedle new composting sites from urban landlords, persuade Milwaukee's school board to buy his produce for its public schools and charm the blind into growing sprouts. ("I was cutting sprouts in the dark one night", Allen said, "and I realized you don't need sight to do this".) After parking his truck at the field's edge, Allen made an arthritic beeline for a mound of compost. "Oh, this is good", he said, digging in with his hands. "Unbelievable". He saluted a few volunteers, whom he had appointed to pluck shreds of plastic from the compost under the hot noonday sun. He turned to scan the field, dotted with large farm-unfriendly rocks. The rocks gave me pause: didn't millions of Americans leave farms for good reason? The work is hard, nature can be cruel and the pay is low; most small farmers work off-farm to make ends meet. The appeal of such labor to people already working low-wage, long-hour jobs - the urban dwellers Allen most wants to reach - is not immediately apparent. And there is something almost fanciful in exhorting a person to grow food when he lives in an apartment or doesn't have a landlord's permission to garden on the roof or in an empty lot. "Not everyone can grow food", Allen acknowledged. But he offers other ways of engaging with the soil: "You bring thirty people out here, bring the kids and give them good food", he said, "and picking up those rocks is a community event". Of course, if rock picking or worm tending - either here or in a community garden - doesn't attract his Milwaukee neighbors, it's easy enough for them to order a market basket or shop at his retail store, which happens to sell fried pork skin as well as collard greens. "Culturally appropriate foods", Allen calls them. And the doughnuts in his truck? "I'm no purist about food, and I don't ask anyone else to be", he said, laughing. "I work seventeen hours a day; sometimes I need some sugar!" This nondogmatic approach may be one of Allen's most appealing qualities. His essential view is that people do the best they can: if they don't have any better food choices than KFC, well, okay. But let's work on changing that. If they don't know what to do with okra, Growing Power stands ready to help. And if their great-grandparents were sharecroppers and they have some bad feelings about the farming life, then Allen has something to offer there too: his personal example and workshops geared toward empowering minorities. "African-Americans need more help, and they're often harder to work with because they've been abused and so forth", Allen said. "But I can break through a lot of that very quickly because a lot of people of color are so proud, so happy to see me leading this kind of movement". If there's no place in the food movement for low- and middle-income people of all races, says Tom Philpott, food editor of Grist.org and co-founder of the North Carolina-based Maverick Farms, "we've got big problems, because the critics will be proven right - that this is a consumption club for people who've traveled to Europe and tasted fine food". In 1993, Allen, looking to grow indoors during the winter and to sell food closer to the city, bought the Growing Power property, a derelict plant nursery that was in foreclosure. He had no master plan. "I told the city I'd hire kids and teach them about food systems", he said. Before long, community and school groups were asking for his help starting gardens. He rarely said no. But after years of laboring on his own and beginning to feel burned out, he agreed to partner with Heifer International, the sustainable-agriculture charity. "They were looking for youth to do urban agriculture. When they learned I had kids and that I had land, their eyes lit up." Heifer taught Allen fish and worms, and together they expanded their training programs. Employing locals to grow food for the hungry on neglected land has an irresistible appeal, but it's not clear yet whether Growing Power's model can work elsewhere. "I know how to make money growing food", Allen asserts. But he's also got between thirty and fifty employees to pay, which makes those foundation grants - and a grant-writer - essential. Growing Power also relies on large numbers of volunteers. All of which perhaps explains why other urban farmers have not yet replicated Growing Power's scale or its unique social achievements. So no, Growing Power isn't self-sufficient. But neither is industrial agriculture, which relies on price supports and government subsidies. Moreover, industrial farming incurs costs that are paid by society as a whole: the health costs of eating highly processed foods, for example, or water pollution. Nor can Growing Power be compared to other small farms, because it provides so many intangible social benefits to those it reaches. "It's not operated as a farm", said Ian Marvy, executive director of Brooklyn's Added Value farm, which shares many of Growing Power's core values but produces less food. "It has a social, ecological and economic bottom line". That said, Marvy says that anyone can replicate Allen's technical systems - the worm composting and aquaponics - for relatively little money. Finished with his business in Merton, Allen sang out his truck window to his plastic-picking volunteers, "Don't y'all work too hard now". The future farmers laughed. Allen predicts that because of high unemployment and the recent food scares, ten million people will plant gardens for the first time this year. But two million of them will eventually drop out, he said, when the potato bugs arrive or the rain doesn't cooperate. Still, he was sanguine. "The experience will introduce those folks to what a tomato really tastes like, so next time they'll buy one at their greenmarket. And when we talk about farm-worker rights, we'll have more advocates for them." At a red light on Silver Spring Drive, Allen stopped and eyed the construction equipment beached in front of a dealership. "Look at that front-end loader", he said admiringly. "That thing isn't going to sell". He shook his head and added: "Maybe we can work something out with them. We could make some nice compost with that." _____ Elizabeth Royte is the author of Bottlemania: Big Business, Local Springs, and the Battle over America's Drinking Water (2008). Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/magazine/05allen-t.html?em TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Aug 3 04:30:01 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:30:01 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Economics of Entropy Message-ID: <20090803193001.b4a66cba.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (July 29 2009) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society Over the last few weeks, my posts here on The Archdruid Report have tried to sketch out a way of understanding economics that doesn't contradict the laws of physics or the evidence of history. Perhaps the central concept I've been developing along these lines is the sense that there is no such thing as "the" economy in any human society; there are, rather, three economies, each of which follows distinctive rules. The primary economy, in this way of looking at things, is the natural world itself, which produces something like three-quarters of the goods and services on which human beings rely for survival. The secondary economy, which depends on the primary one, is the collocation of labor, capital plant, and resources extracted from the primary economy that produces the other quarter or so of the goods and services human beings use. The tertiary economy, finally, is the system of social processes by which the products of the first two economies are allocated to people. This can take many different forms, of which the one most familiar to us is money. The differences between these three economies run deep, and so do the differences in the way they are treated in conventional economic thinking. Unfortunately these two sets of differences do not run in parallel. One way to explore the resulting mismatch is to look at how the three economies, in reality and theory, are affected by the least popular of all the laws of physics: the second law of thermodynamics, more popularly known as the law of entropy. To call this law unpopular is not to say that it suffers from any lack of recognition by scientists. The comment of Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the twentieth century's greatest physicists, is typical: "If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation" - a summing-up so useful that it probably deserves to be called Eddington's Law. Entropy is the gold standard of physics, the one thing you can count on even when the rest of the cosmos seems to be going haywire. What makes it unpopular, rather, is that it stands in stark conflict with some of the most deeply and passionately held convictions of modern industrial humanity. For all that, it's a simple concept to grasp. Pour a cup of hot coffee on a cold morning and you can watch entropy in action. The coffee will gradually get colder and the air around it will get very slightly warmer. All energy everywhere, left to itself, always moves from higher to lower concentrations: that's the second law of thermodynamics. On the way from higher to lower, the energy can be made to do useful work, and you can even force some energy to a higher concentration by allowing a larger amount of energy to go to a lower one, but one way or another entropy's price must be paid. We don't like thinking in these terms, and for the last three hundred years, most of us in the industrial world haven't had to. The eighteenth-century breakthroughs that allowed coal to be turned into steam power, and gave human beings command over amounts of highly concentrated energy never before wielded by our species, convinced most people in the western world that energy was basically free for the taking. In the halcyon days of industrialism, it was all too easy to forget that this vast abundance of energy was a cosmic rarity, a minor and finite backwash in the flow of energies on a scale almost too great for human beings to comprehend. As far as we know, there are two and only two phenomena in the cosmos that naturally produce high concentrations of energy. The first is gravity. Unlike most physical phenomena, gravity has robust positive feedback: the more mass a body has, the more gravitational attraction it exerts, the more additional mass it can attract, and the more its gravitational attraction increases. This is why what starts as an eddy in an interstellar cloud of hydrogen gas, set in motion perhaps by the shockwave from a distant supernova, can attract steadily more hydrogen to itself until its gravity is strong enough to achieve the fantastic pressures needed for nuclear fusion, and a newborn star flares into life. Even so, entropy still rules; the light and heat that flows out from our Sun over the course of its ten billion year lifespan is still only a fraction of the potential energy of the gravitational collapse that brought it into being and keeps it going. The second phenomenon that produces concentrated energy is biological life. Life combines positive and negative feedback loops, and so it's much more fitful and fragile than gravity, but it can still surf the entropy of its neighboring star, tapping a small part of the vast streams of energy that flow entropically from the Sun's core to the near-absolute-zero cold of interstellar space to concentrate chemical energy for its own use. Over the ages, the resulting concentrations of energy have transformed our planet, pumping oxygen into its atmosphere and burying trillions of tons of carbon underneath the ground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Once that carbon was buried, gravity got to work on it, concentrating it further through heat and pressure. The energy stored in today's fossil fuel deposits, in turn, is still only a fraction of the energy lost to entropy in the long slow process that brought those deposits into being. This is why, as I've tried to point out in previous posts, those who expect to get some new and even more concentrated energy source to replace our dwindling reserves of fossil fuels are basically smoking their shorts. It took an extraordinarily complex series of processes, more time than the human mind has evolved the ability to grasp, and an equally unimaginable amount of energy lost to entropy, to produce the highly concentrated fossil fuels we've wasted so profligately over the last three hundred years. There are plenty of diffuse energy sources left, but raising them to concentrations that will allow them to power our current civilization would require huge amounts of additional energy to be sacrificed to entropy - and once you subtract the entropy costs of concentration from the modest energy supplies available to a deindustrial world, there isn't much left. Try telling that to most people, though, and you'll get a blank look, because we've lived with abundant concentrated energy for so long that very few people recognize just how rare it is in the broader picture. Economics, once again, feeds this blindness. Most economic models, interestingly enough, admit entropy into what I've called the secondary economy: there's a clear sense that producing goods and services consumes resources and produces waste, and that energy fed into the process is lost to entropy in one way or another. Most of them, however, explicitly reject the role of entropy in the primary economy, insisting that resources are always available by definition if you only invest enough labor and capital. As for the tertiary economy, most economic theories accept it as given that money is anti-entropic - it produces a steady increase in value over time, which is the theoretical justification for interest. In the real world, by contrast, the primary economy is just as subject to entropy as the secondary one. Oil that has been pumped out of the ground and burned is no longer available to use as an energy resource, and if enough of it has been pumped out, the oil field runs dry and it stops being a resource too. Natural cycles can keep some resources available at a steady level by surfing the entropy of the Sun, but only if human action doesn't mess up those cycles - something we are doing a great deal too much of just now. By ignoring the reality of entropy in the primary economy of nature, we are setting ourselves up for a very awkward future. And the tertiary economy? This is where things get interesting, because the anti-entropic nature of money posited by mainstream economic theories has been accepted even by most critics of those theories. There's accordingly been a flurry of proposals for changing the way money works so that it loses value over time. This is understandable, but it's also unnecessary, because money as it exists today has an exquisitely subtle mechanism for losing value over time. The only difficulty is that mainstream economists and the general public alike treat it with the same shudder of dread and indignation their Victorian ancestors directed toward sex. We're talking, of course, about inflation. I've come to think of inflation as the primary way that the tertiary economy resolves the distortions caused by the mismatch between the limitless expansion of the tertiary economy and the hard limits ecology and entropy place on the primary and secondary economies. When the amount of paper wealth in the tertiary economy outstrips the production of actual, nonfinancial goods and services in the other two economies, inflation balances the books by making money lose part of its value. I suspect - though it would take a good econometrician to put this to the test - that in the long run, the paper value lost to inflation equals the paper value manufactured by interest on money, once the figures are adjusted for actual increases or decreases in the production of goods and services. It's instructive to note what happens when governments attempt to stop the natural balancing process of inflation. In American economic history, there are two good examples - between the Civil War and the First World War, on the one hand, and between 1978 and 2008 on the other. In the first of these periods, the US treasury reacted against the inflation of the Civil War years by imposing a strict gold standard on the currency, and since the pace at which new gold entered the economy was less than the rate at which the production of goods and services expanded. The result was the longest sustained bout of deflation in the history of the country. Despite the claims of precious-metal advocates today, this did not produce economic stability and prosperity. Quite the contrary, the economic terrain of the second half of the nineteenth century was a moonscape cratered by disastrous stock market collapses and recurrent depressions. The resulting bank and business failures probably eliminated as much paper value from the economy as inflation would have, but did so in a chaotic and unpredictable way: instead of everybody's corporate bonds losing five percent of their value due to inflation, for example, some bonds were paid in full while others became worthless when the companies backing them went out of existence. The same calculus has come into play since the beginning of the Volcker era at the Federal Reserve Board, when "fighting inflation" became the mantra of the day; since then we've had a succession of crashes as colorful as anything the 19th century produced. Thirty years of economic policy dedicated to minimizing inflation have guaranteed a sizable second helping of economic collapse in the years to come - it's only in the imaginations of politicians and publicists that the recent "dead cat bounce" in the stock market, and various modest decreases in the rate at which economic statistics are getting worse, add up to a recovery of any kind, much less a return to the unsustainable pseudoprosperity of the years just past. Still, in the longer term, I suspect inflation will also play a major role in the unraveling of the current mess. With the end of the age of cheap abundant fossil fuels, the world faces a very substantial decrease in the amount of primary and secondary wealth in the world, and the notional wealth of the tertiary economy will have to lose value even faster to make up for that decline. Just how this will play out is anyone's guess, but one way or another it's unlikely to be pretty. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/07/economics-of-entropy.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 3 11:06:28 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] On BDS and freedom of speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2120157211.422541249319188015.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Enuga S. Reddy , director of the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, in 1984 responded to criticism that the cultural boycott of South Africa infringed the freedom of expression, saying: ?It is rather strange, to say the least, that the South African regime which denies all freedoms ... to the African majority ... should become a defender of the freedom of artists and sportsmen of the world. We have a list of people who have performed in South Africa because of ignorance of the situation or the lure of money or unconcern over racism. They need to be persuaded to stop entertaining apartheid, to stop profiting from apartheid money and to stop serving the propaganda purposes of the apartheid regime.? From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 3 11:27:39 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan: US up to its ears in trouble & More U.S. Troops Heading to Afghanistan? In-Reply-To: <22554115.340861249248746241.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1922927350.424941249320459494.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> donate to The Real News logo News stories August 1, 2009 More from The Real News Watch more news stories on the economy, US politics and the climate change crisis from around the world view Afghanistan: US up to its ears in trouble Margolis: The US is not just fighting the Taliban, they are fighting the Pashtun people view Afghan civilian death toll rises UN report says the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan has jumped by 24 per cent view More U.S. Troops Heading to Afghanistan? Gen. Stanley McChrystal expected to ask for more troops for Afghanistan view The Promise '09 What you have been seeing on TRNN is just a taste of what's to come; we need your support now view Make www.therealnews.com your homepage and see the latest stories as soon as they're posted. Help promote The Real News Network on YouTube by making our videos your favourites, rate them and add comments. Promoting our YouTube channel builds our community and helps spread the word about our development. If you use the Miro media player subscribe to the TRNN channel Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a web page instead. You received this message because you or someone using this email address requested it via a form at therealnews.com or via some other communication with The Real News Network. If you do not want to receive further updates from us, unsubscribe here . From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Aug 3 16:53:56 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:53:56 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Fractional Reserve Banking: Part Two Message-ID: <20090804075356.59d350ea.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Murray N Rothbard The Freeman (October 1995) We have already described one part of the contemporary flight from sound, free-market money to statized and inflated money: the abolition of the gold standard by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, and the substitution of fiat paper tickets by the Federal Reserve as our "monetary standard". Another crucial part of this process was the federal cartelization of the nation's banks through the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Banking is a particularly arcane part of the economic system; one of the problems is that the word "bank" covers many different activities, with very different implications. During the Renaissance era, the Medicis in Italy and the Fuggers in Germany, were "bankers"; their banking, however, was not only private but also began at least as a legitimate, noninflationary, and highly productive activity. Essentially, these were "merchant-bankers", who started as prominent merchants. In the course of their trade, the merchants began to extend credit to their customers, and in the case of these great banking families, the credit or "banking" part of their operations eventually overshadowed their mercantile activities. These firms lent money out of their own profits and savings, and earned interest from the loans. Hence, they were channels for the productive investment of their own savings. To the extent that banks lend their own savings, or mobilize the savings of others, their activities are productive and unexceptionable. Even in our current commercial banking system, if I buy a $10,000 CD ("certificate of deposit") redeemable in six months, earning a certain fixed interest return, I am taking my savings and lending it to a bank, which in turn lends it out at a higher interest rate, the differential being the bank's earnings for the function of channeling savings into the hands of credit-worthy or productive borrowers. There is no problem with this process. The same is even true of the great "investment banking" houses, which developed as industrial capitalism flowered in the 19th century. Investment bankers would take their own capital, or capital invested or loaned by others, to underwrite corporations gathering capital by selling securities to stockholders and creditors. The problem with the investment bankers is that one of their major fields of investment was the underwriting of government bonds, which plunged them hip deep into politics, giving them a powerful incentive for pressuring and manipulating governments, so that taxes would be levied to pay off their and their clients' government bonds. Hence, the powerful and baleful political influence of investment bankers in the 19th and 20th centuries: in particular, the Rothschilds in Western Europe, and Jay Cooke and the House of Morgan in the United States. By the late 19th century, the Morgans took the lead in trying to pressure the US government to cartelize industries they were interested in - first railroads and then manufacturing: to protect these industries from the winds of free competition, and to use the power of government to enable these industries to restrict production and raise prices. In particular, the investment bankers acted as a ginger group to work for the cartelization of commercial banks. To some extent, commercial bankers lend out their own capital and money acquired by CDs. But most commercial banking is "deposit banking" based on a gigantic scam: the idea, which most depositors believe, that their money is down at the bank, ready to be redeemed in cash at any time. If Jim has a checking account of $1,000 at a local bank, Jim knows that this is a "demand deposit", that is, that the bank pledges to pay him $1,000 in cash, on demand, anytime he wishes to "get his money out". Naturally, the Jims of this world are convinced that their money is safely there, in the bank, for them to take out at any time. Hence, they think of their checking account as equivalent to a warehouse receipt. If they put a chair in a warehouse before going on a trip, they expect to get the chair back whenever they present the receipt. Unfortunately, while banks depend on the warehouse analogy, the depositors are systematically deluded. Their money ain't there. An honest warehouse makes sure that the goods entrusted to its care are there, in its storeroom or vault. But banks operate very differently, at least since the days of such deposit banks as the Banks of Amsterdam and Hamburg in the 17th century, which indeed acted as warehouses and backed all of their receipts fully by the assets deposited, for example, gold and silver. This honest deposit or "giro" banking is called "100 percent reserve" banking. Ever since, banks have habitually created warehouse receipts (originally bank notes and now deposits) out of thin air. Essentially, they are counterfeiters of fake warehouse receipts to cash or standard money, which circulate as if they were genuine, fully backed notes or checking accounts. Banks make money by literally creating money out of thin air, nowadays exclusively deposits rather than bank notes. This sort of swindling or counterfeiting is dignified by the term "fractional reserve banking", which means that bank deposits are backed by only a small fraction of the cash they promise to have at hand and redeem. (Right now, in the United States, this minimum fraction is fixed by the Federal Reserve System at ten percent.) Fractional Reserve Banking Let's see how the fractional-reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I "lend out" $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the "fraction" in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr Jones. Why does Jones borrow from me? Well, for one thing, I can charge a lower rate of interest than savers would. I don't have to save up the money myself, but can simply counterfeit it out of thin air. (In the 19th century, I would have been able to issue bank notes, but the Federal Reserve now monopolizes note issues.) Since demand deposits at the Rothbard Bank function as equivalent to cash, the nation's money supply has just, by magic, increased by $10,000. The inflationary, counterfeiting process is under way. The 19th-century English economist Thomas Tooke correctly stated that "free trade in banking is tantamount to free trade in swindling". But under freedom, and without government support, there are some severe hitches in this counterfeiting process, or in what has been termed "free banking". First, why should anyone trust me? Why should anyone accept the checking deposits of the Rothbard Bank? But second, even if I were trusted, and I were able to con my way into the trust of the gullible, there is another severe problem, caused by the fact that the banking system is competitive, with free entry into the field. After all, the Rothbard Bank is limited in its clientele. After Jones borrows checking deposits from me, he is going to spend that money. Why else pay for a loan? Sooner or later, the money he spends, whether for a vacation, or for expanding his business, will be spent on the goods or services of clients of some other bank, say the Rockwell Bank. The Rockwell Bank is not particularly interested in holding checking accounts on my bank; it wants reserves so that it can pyramid its own counterfeiting on top of cash reserves. And so if, to make the case simple, the Rockwell Bank gets a $10,000 check on the Rothbard Bank, it is going to demand cash so that it can do some inflationary counterfeit pyramiding of its own. But, I, of course, can't pay the $10,000, so I'm finished. Bankrupt. Found out. By rights, I should be in jail as an embezzler, but at least my phoney checking deposits and I are out of the game, and out of the money supply. Hence, under free competition, and without government support and enforcement, there will only be limited scope for fractional-reserve counterfeiting. Banks could form cartels to prop each other up, but generally cartels on the market don't work well without government enforcement, without the government cracking down on competitors who insist on busting the cartel, in this case, forcing competing banks to pay up. Central Banking Hence the drive by the bankers themselves to get the government to cartelize their industry by means of a central bank. Central banking began with the Bank of England in the 1690s, spread to the rest of the Western world in the 18th and 19th centuries, and finally was imposed upon the United States by banking cartelists via the Federal Reserve System of 1913. Particularly enthusiastic about the central bank were the investment bankers, such as the Morgans, who pioneered the cartel idea, and who by this time had expanded into commercial banking. In modern central banking, the central bank is granted the monopoly of the issue of bank notes (originally written or printed warehouse receipts as opposed to the intangible receipts of bank deposits), which are now identical to the government's paper money and therefore the monetary "standard" in the country. People want to use physical cash as well as bank deposits. If, therefore, I wish to redeem $1,000 in cash from my checking bank, the bank has to go to the Federal Reserve, and draw down its own checking account with the Fed, "buying" $1,000 of Federal Reserve Notes (the cash in the United States today) from the Fed. The Fed, in other words, acts as a bankers' bank. Banks keep checking deposits at the Fed and these deposits constitute their reserves, on which they can and do pyramid ten times the amount in checkbook money. Here's how the counterfeiting process works in today's world. Let's say that the Federal Reserve, as usual, decides that it wants to expand (that is, inflate) the money supply. The Federal Reserve decides to go into the market (called the "open market") and purchase an asset. It doesn't really matter what asset it buys; the important point is that it writes out a check. The Fed could, if it wanted to, buy any asset it wished, including corporate stocks, buildings, or foreign currency. In practice, it almost always buys US government securities. Let's assume that the Fed buys $10,000,000 of US Treasury bills from some "approved" government bond dealer (a small group), say Shearson Lehman on Wall Street. The Fed writes out a check for $10,000,000, which it gives to Shearson Lehman in exchange for $10,000,000 in US securities. Where does the Fed get the $10,000,000 to pay Shearson Lehman? It creates the money out of thin air. Shearson Lehman can do only one thing with the check: deposit it in its checking account at a commercial bank, say Chase Manhattan. The "money supply" of the country has already increased by $10,000,000; no one else's checking account has decreased at all. There has been a net increase of $10,000,000. But this is only the beginning of the inflationary counterfeiting process. For Chase Manhattan is delighted to get a check on the Fed, and rushes down to deposit it in its own checking account at the Fed, which now increases by $10,000,000. But this checking account constitutes the "reserves" of the banks, which have now increased across the nation by $10,000,000. But this means that Chase Manhattan can create deposits based on these reserves, and that, as checks and reserves seep out to other banks (much as the Rothbard Bank deposits did), each one can add its inflationary mite, until the banking system as a whole has increased its demand deposits by $100,000,000, ten times the original purchase of assets by the Fed. The banking system is allowed to keep reserves amounting to ten percent of its deposits, which means that the "money multiplier" - the amount of deposits the banks can expand on top of reserves - is ten. A purchase of assets of $10 million by the Fed has generated very quickly a tenfold ($100,000,000) increase in the money supply of the banking system as a whole. Interestingly, all economists agree on the mechanics of this process even though they of course disagree sharply on the moral or economic evaluation of that process. But unfortunately, the general public, not inducted into the mysteries of banking, still persists in thinking that their money remains "in the bank". Thus, the Federal Reserve and other central banking systems act as giant government creators and enforcers of a banking cartel; the Fed bails out banks in trouble, and it centralizes and coordinates the banking system so that all the banks, whether the Chase Manhattan, or the Rothbard or Rockwell banks, can inflate together. Under free banking, one bank expanding beyond its fellows was in danger of imminent bankruptcy. Now, under the Fed, all banks can expand together and proportionately. "Deposit Insurance" But even with the backing of the Fed, fractional reserve banking proved shaky, and so the New Deal, in 1933, added the lie of "bank deposit insurance", using the benign word "insurance" to mask an arrant hoax. When the savings and loan system went down the tubes in the late 1980s, the "deposit insurance" of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) was unmasked as sheer fraud. The "insurance" was simply the smoke-and-mirrors term for the unbacked name of the federal government. The poor taxpayers finally bailed out the S&Ls, but now we are left with the formerly sainted Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for commercial banks, which is now increasingly seen to be shaky, since the FDIC itself has less than one percent of the huge number of deposits it "insures". The very idea of "deposit insurance" is a swindle; how does one insure an institution (fractional reserve banking) that is inherently insolvent, and which will fall apart whenever the public finally understands the swindle? Suppose that, tomorrow, the American public suddenly became aware of the banking swindle, and went to the banks tomorrow morning, and, in unison, demanded cash. What would happen? The banks would be instantly insolvent, since they could only muster ten percent of the cash they owe their befuddled customers. Neither would the enormous tax increase needed to bail everyone out be at all palatable. No: the only thing the Fed could do - and this would be in their power - would be to print enough money to pay off all the bank depositors. Unfortunately, in the present state of the banking system, the result would be an immediate plunge into the horrors of hyperinflation. Let us suppose that total insured bank deposits are $1,600 billion. Technically, in the case of a run on the banks, the Fed could exercise emergency powers and print $1,600 billion in cash to give to the FDIC to pay off the bank depositors. The problem is that, emboldened at this massive bailout, the depositors would promptly redeposit the new $1,600 billion into the banks, increasing the total bank reserves by $1,600 billion, thus permitting an immediate expansion of the money supply by the banks by tenfold, increasing the total stock of bank money by $16 trillion. Runaway inflation and total destruction of the currency would quickly follow. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/fractional-reserve-banking-part-ii/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Aug 4 03:15:30 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:15:30 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Slow Down Message-ID: <20090804181530.86939ab9.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> How Our Fast-Paced World Is Making Us Sick by Linda Buzzell, AlterNet AlterNet (July 02 2009) Not so very long ago, humans - like the rest of the animals and plants on earth - moved through our natural cycles at nature's pace. Time was marked by the passing of the seasons, the life cycles of human, animal and plant life and the yet grander cycles of the moon and the other celestial bodies. Homo sapiens, a late-appearing species in the long history of our unimaginably ancient planet and universe, evolved during the recent (as the universe views these things!) Pleistocene era, adapted for a life intimately connected with and expressive of our natural surroundings on the African savannah and beyond. And this is how we lived for millennia. In the last 150 years, however, the human relationship with time has radically changed. Some say the problems started earlier, with the development of agriculture or writing, but it was really the Industrial Revolution - the rise of the Machine - that put humans in thrall to mechanical processes and machine time. And the recent exponential speeding up into Cybertime has accelerated the process still further. Industrial time was bad enough (Charlie Chaplin did a wonderful job of visualizing that "cog in the wheel" feeling in his 1936 film Modern Times) but Cybertime can be dizzyingly discombobulating for a Pleistocene primate. And that's how many modern people feel - completely frazzled and out of synch with our deepest selves. The results of this disconnection from nature and nature's pace show up in therapists' and doctors' offices every day. Living under unnatural time pressures causes a myriad of psychological, social and physical ailments. Delinked from the natural rhythms of our bodies and the rest of the planet, we struggle with diminishing success to adapt to the strange mechanical and disembodied world we have created. As a practicing psychotherapist and ecotherapist, when I see patients who are suffering from depression or anxiety I ask them to keep a time-journal in which they record the hours and minutes spent each day outside, as well as the hours spent inside in front of a screen. My clients are often shocked to realize how disassociated they have become from nature and our species' natural ways of living, and the effect this disconnection is having on their psyche. In fact, a 2007 study from the University of Essex shows that a daily "dose" of walking outside in nature can be as effective at treating mild to moderate depression as expensive antidepressant medications that can sometimes have negative side-effects. Time poverty is now a recognized psychological and social stressor. In a speeded-up, highly complex society, there just isn't enough time for everything: our demanding jobs, our interlocking bureaucratic responsibilities (taxes, insurance, legal issues), our loved one, kids, our community (including the rest of nature), plus commuting and keeping up with traditional media and endless 24/7 online communications. Constantly rushing to keep up as we inevitably fall further behind, we find ourselves destroying not only our own health, but our habitat and the habitat of the people, plants and animals with whom we share the planet. In my recently published book, Ecotherapy: Healing with Nature in Mind (Sierra Club Books, 2009) therapists and experts from many backgrounds discuss some of the ways that nature can help to heal problems like stress and anxiety. What suggestions can ecotherapists offer to help us slow down to a more natural pace of living? Here are a few simple things that can make a difference: * Reconnect with place. We can learn to resist the constant rushing around and settle into and tend a beloved location, taking time to learn its secrets and hear its whisperings. * Reconnect with companion and wild animals. Animals slow us down to our natural animal rhythms, which is why animal-assisted therapy works so well at lowering blood pressure and healing psychological ills of many kinds. The simple act of petting a cat or watching the birds flit through the trees is profoundly healing. * Reconnect with plants. A simple pot on a windowsill slows us down to the pace of a seed, a seedling, a leaf and a flower. A tree on the street, if contemplated and touched, offers its blessings during a busy day. * Reconnect with the cycles of human life. Instead of demanding that we remain in perpetual-teenager mode (the preferred state in our society, it seems), allowing ourselves to become true initiated adults and then elders honors the natural pace of human life rather than fighting it. Nature teaches us that seeds emerge, plants flourish, bloom, fruit and then wither and slip away - valuable wisdom for our own lives when we encounter the inevitable transitions in our own and others' lives. * Reconnect with our wild bodies. Untamed nature is to be found not only in far-away wilderness but in the wilds of our bloodstream, our digestive processes, our breath. Any practice that brings our attention back to our bodies is wilderness ecotherapy. Yoga and ecstatic dance offer release from the controlling modern ego and access to what ecopsychologists call "the ecological self". And once we reach peace with our animal bodies, our souls naturally open up to the larger Spirit in which we are embedded. * Spend more time outdoors in wild nature. Most of us are indoors most of the time. Our bodies and souls cry out for long walks on a beach, contemplation in a forest or a few minutes in a nearby vacant lot near a stream. These times slow life down to a healing, natural pace. Making just a few of these simple changes can radically shift how we feel. Ecopsychological research is now proving that reconnecting with nature and more natural living performs a host of psychological miracles, including lowering depression, improving our sense of well being, calming our anxieties, raising self-esteem and giving us a sense of belonging to the great whole of which we are a part. _____ Linda Buzzell, MA, MFT is the co-editor with Craig Chalquist of the new anthology Ecotherapy: Healing with Nature in Mind, just released by Sierra Club Books (May 2009). She is a psychotherapist and ecotherapist in Santa Barbara. (c) 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/140994/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Aug 4 07:56:23 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:56:23 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Chickens to lead anti-GM Movement Message-ID: <78394F9623B742638723F2CC9FEC64A7@agingCHS072729> Smart chickens weren't to be duped by foul play August 02 2009 at 11:20AM By Eleanor Momberg Chickens refusing to eat the maize they had been fed has led to the discovery that their feed had been genetically modified to include a well-known weed and insect killer. Strilli Oppenheimer was recently approached by Dawid Klopper, the head gardener at the family estate, Brenthurst, informing her that her indigenous African chickens were refusing to eat the mealies in the chicken feed bought from a large supplier. Concerned that the birds may be ingesting genetically modified maize, she instructed Klopper to have the maize tested. The chickens' diet was immediately changed to include organic vegetables, Oppenheimer stopped consuming the home-grown eggs and the maize was sent to the GMO testing facility at the University of the Free State for analysis. The results confirmed Oppenheimer's initial suspicion - the maize had been genetically engineered to produce proteins that are toxic to certain insects and weeds. "It contained BT1 which makes the maize insect resistant, as well as Roundup which makes it weed resistant. This is the first report we have had of chickens not eating GM feed," said a GM expert. While small quantities of BT1 and Roundup weed killer were found in the seeds, the concern remained with the cumulative effect of GM feed, not only on the chickens, but also on the eggs they produced for the family. "This is of serious concern. Do you know that 96 percent of soya-based foods are genetically modified and that maize in South Africa is contaminated," asked Oppenheimer, pointing out that research by well-known scientist Dr Arpad Pusztai had shown that rats fed on GM potatoes suffered from a weakened immune system and stunted growth of their internal organs, including the liver, kidneys and brain. Pusztai was fired by the Rowett Research Institute in the UK in 1998 after his research into the human nutritional consequences of GM. His findings had far-reaching implications for the biotech industry, which had contended that GM crops and products would not adversely affect human health. International research has shown a direct link between certain types of genetic engineering and cancer. Gundula Azeez and Coilin Nunan of The Soil Association, a UK environmental charity, stated in their paper, "GM Crops - the health effects", that international research had shown that milk, eggs and meat from GM-fed animals contained GM crop DNA, concluding that it was likely that people were frequently being exposed to GM DNA. They concluded that because of the lapses in extensive safety assessments, there were "very good scientific reasons for being concerned about the safety of GM crops". Rose Williams, acting director of Biowatch, said globally there was great concern that GM products had not been adequately tested in terms of their effect on people, animals and the environment. "There has been no testing on humans, very limited testing on animals and very little research on environmental impacts. This is the case globally, but in South Africa even less work has been done, even though the commercial release of GM maize, GM soya and GM cotton has been approved." Williams said concerns by NGOs such as Biowatch, the African Centre for Biosafety and SAFeAGE about the lack of control over GM crops and contamination of non-GM crops had largely been ignored. "Government has not done enough to protect the public from the potential threats of GM foods. There is also the matter of liability - who will take responsibility for people's losses and any health problems relating to consumption of GM foods, whether they are for people or for animals." Williams said the contamination of non-GM crops was a real problem, with the biotech industry leading people to believe that co-existence of GM and non-GM crops was possible. "But it is not," she said. While the recently implemented Consumer Protection Act called for the labelling of GM foods, the regulations linked to the measure had yet to be finalised. About her chickens' refusal to eat their maize, Oppenheimer said: "They're smart." _______________________________________________ FreshInk mailing list FreshInk at booksinternationale.info http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 2 15:29:47 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] (On resistance to neoliberalism) Sit-in and arrests protest oakland eviction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <474781845.340601249248587701.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> From: "David Bacon" To: dbacon at igc.org Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2009 2:08:56 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: sit-in and arrests protest oakland eviction sit-in and arrests protest oakland eviction OAKLAND, CA - 31JULY09 - Home Defender activists sit in on the steps of the home of Tosha Alberty, her husband, four children and two grandchildren, who were evicted after First Franklin Mortgage Services, owned by Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, foreclosed on the home. Community activists in the Home Defenders campaign of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) sat in on the house steps behind the padlocked gate in an act of civil disobedience, and were arrested for trespassing by the Oakland Police. Just given the C.L.R. James Award for best book of 2007-2008 by the Working Class Studies Association: Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 4 14:32:03 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Truth and reconciliation for Iran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1255854363.693141249417923667.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/31/iran-truth-reconciliation-commission The Guardian 31 July 2009 Truth and reconciliation for Iran We are a group of university educators and antiwar activists with diverse political views who are based in Europe and North America . During the past few years we have been active in defending Iran 's national rights -- particularly those relating to the peaceful use of nuclear energy -- against the pervasive deception created by western and Israeli-influenced media and official statements. We have consistently taken a stand against the policies of the United States and its allies, including the improper submission of Iran's nuclear file to the United Nations security council, the imposition of sanction resolutions against Iran , covert destabilisation inside the country and repeated threats of military intervention and bombing of nuclear centres on the part of US and Israel. At the same time, we have advocated the human rights of individuals and democratic rights for various groups and constituencies in Iran . We have emphasised that the guarantee of such rights is necessary not only for Iran 's social and political advancement, but also for the vital unity of our people against foreign pressures. In the current post-election crisis, we see it as our duty to share our views based on years of defending Iran 's national rights, and to help develop realistic solutions for the benefit of all our compatriots of whatever political persuasion. The background to the current situation is the longstanding belligerent policies of the US and its allies, encouraged by the neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby, which peaked during eight years of Republican rule in the White House. Despite President Khatami's conciliatory approach, exemplified by his promotion of "Dialogue Among Civilisations" , and despite Iran 's co-operation in the overthrow of the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan , the administration of George W Bush labelled the Islamic Republic a member of the "axis of evil". Following the illegal invasion of Iraq , Bush pushed for regime change in Iran . These provocative and confrontational policies played a key role in the defeat of Iranian reformists in the parliamentary elections of 2003 and the presidential election of 2005. During the past four years, a whole series of policies have targeted Iran 's right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful energy, including illegitimate UN/US sanctions, repeated implicit and overt threats of military attack by the United States and Israel , overt and covert well-funded US destabilisation operations, and aid to terrorist forces seeking to overthrow the government of Iran . These policies have created fears of an externally-instigated "velvet revolution" in the leadership ranks of the Islamic Republic. These fears were used to justify restrictions of civil and political freedoms promoted by the reformist administration of Khatami and, as a result, civil society and non-governmental organisations suffered a setback. According to critics, these social and political pressures, along with government mismanagement caused by the removal of competent technocrats, have negatively impacted the public interest and put enormous pressure on the middle class, the educated class, journalists and artists. These people must be allowed a more open and free environment in order to fulfil their instrumental roles in service of the country. On the external front, the Obama administration, facing neoconservative pressure and keeping many of his predecessor's policies against Iran , has nevertheless declared its readiness for unconditional negotiations with Iran . He has for the first time referred to Iran as the "Islamic Republic" and indicated that he is not pursuing regime change in Iran . Furthermore, shortly before the Iranian elections, in a first for an American president, Obama admitted the role of his country in the 1953 coup that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister Muhammad Mossadegh . These changes in US politics have created room for active and constructive diplomacy for the purpose of solving conflicts and disagreements between Iran and the United States , and for creating a nuclear-free Middle East . This year, there was in Iran a record level of participation in the elections, unprecedented television debates and, most important of all, widespread participation in election campaigns. Despite some restrictions, the elections took place in an overall constructive climate, perhaps making Iran a model democracy among Islamic nations of the region. A day before the elections, Senator John Kerry, a key US statesman, was so impressed that he dismissed as "ridiculous" Bush's policy of denying Iran peaceful nuclear energy , which in itself exposes the baseless nuclear accusations levelled against Iran and proves the illegitimacy of security council resolutions against Iran . However, in the view of a considerable number of Iranians who are discontented and frustrated with the restrictions on civil and political freedoms, there were various irregularities in the elections, including the suspension of reformist newspapers and mobile telephone SMS service on election day. This caused mass public demonstrations in support of nullifying the election. The unrest has created a major rift between the supporters of Ahmadinejad, who deem Iran 's national sovereignty to be of the highest priority, and the supporters of the two reform candidates Karroubi and Mousavi, who demand increased civil and political freedoms above all. Each of these two major wings of the body politic includes millions of people and both play a vital role in Iran 's progress. The rift between these two must heal in an environment of calm, without agitation and mudslinging, for the sake of Iran 's future. This healing must be pursued through the path of constructive dialogue and reconciliation, so that the unity of our people for safeguarding national rights can be achieved. Unfortunately, a large number of our protesting fellow countrymen have been attacked and injured and even more regrettably, a significant number of them have been killed. Also, a large group of reformist activists and leaders have been arrested and imprisoned after the elections. Both Mousavi and Karroubi have stressed that all protests must remain within the law. Following the request of the reformist and Green leaders, almost all protesters rallied completely peacefully, and in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi, condemned all types of violence, calling the Basijis and Revolutionary Guards their own brothers. Extremist elements who used the opportunity to create chaos and engaged in the destruction of public property were condemned by Mousavi. The western media, by their one-sided coverage of the post-election developments, portrayed the street demonstrations protesting the election results as the start of a "velvet" revolution against the Islamic Republic. Regime-change advocates also tried to piggy-back on the protests outside Iran for their own purposes. The British government, which claims to follow a policy of non-interference in Iran 's internal affairs, did its part by confiscating nearly ?1bn of Iranian assets. To make matters worse, the neoconservatives demanded a re-evaluation of the Obama administration's policy of unconditional negotiations with Iran . The US state department also used this crisis to justify its continuation of Bush-era policies of financing anti-Iranian government organisations for the purposes of "spreading democracy, human rights and a government of law and order". For "security reasons" they refused to release the identities of the recipients of the funds. The Iranian government, for their part, deported two British diplomats, accusing them of interference in Iranian affairs and pointing to western governments as the root of the post-election unrest. Whatever the role of the western media, governments, and regime change forces, it cannot detract from the legitimacy of the massively popular protests. In fact, Mousavi has emphasised his complete loyalty to the Islamic Republic and admonished his supporters abroad to stay away from the anti-Islamic Republic groups. To attribute the roots of the demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of Iranians to external interference or to regime-change groups amounts to questioning the independence of the country which has been gained and consolidated by the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands. In the opinion of millions of Iranians, the current crisis has been caused by restrictions on political freedoms, particularly freedom of the press, economic discontent, and deficiencies in transparency and accountability on the part of government institutions. Although these issues have been aggravated by the US political, military and economic encirclement and the CIA's destabilisation programmes , in the view of this segment of society the problems are ultimately rooted in the government's own policies. After their unprecedented participation in the elections, millions of Iranians have lost their confidence in the system. Awareness of this reality was expressed by the speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani, who indicated on live national television that some members of the Guardian Council openly supported a certain candidate, instead of being neutral during the investigation of the election complaints. He also added that the large segments of society who distrust the declared election results should not be regarded in the same manner as the rioters. On the basis of the above assessment, and in the interest of resolving the present crisis, we direct all officials and fellow countrymen to the following proposals: 1) Arrests and assaults of reformist and Green movement activists and any use of deadly weapons against the protesters are against the national interest and must be stopped and condemned by the authorities. Of the government of the Islamic Republic, we demand, in accordance with the constitution and for the preservation of national unity, that it release the reformist leaders from detention and observe freedom of the press and other civil rights. Iranian state television and radio must provide time to the protesters to express their views. Permits for nonviolent assembly must be given to the protesters. The government must guarantee the safety of the demonstrators against any violence and those responsible for battering and murdering students and demonstrators must be identified and prosecuted. 2) The current division among the people that separates government supporters and dissenters, under conditions of economic, military and political encirclement, must be reconciled with calm and patient negotiations and reasoning, by condemning any kind of violence and by renouncing name-calling and inflammatory rhetoric. We call on the political forces of both sides to move toward building such a constructive climate and toward creation of an economic, political, and cultural agenda that can respond to all social needs. 3) Of the government of the Islamic Republic, we request that in view of the distrust on the part of a great segment of the country's population, it form an independent truth and national reconciliation commission with representation from all candidates, such that it can gain the trust of the people of Iran and find a reasonable solution for the conflict. The votes of a great portion of the Iranian society for both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi show that the best solution is negotiations for reconciliation and creation of a government of national unity from the ranks of Principalists and the Green movement and reformists. With a comprehensive programme based on Iran 's national rights and on people's civil rights, such a government of national unity must address the current challenges facing the country and mobilise in an effective way the totality of human resources and expertise for national development. 4) Of western governments, we request that they cease any and all interference in Iranian affairs and end all their illegitimate economic, political and military pressures aimed at the internal destabilisation of Iran . They need to cease any support for the anti-Islamic Republic opposition and lift the economic and scientific sanctions. The Obama administration should emphasise unconditional negotiations and take steps toward creating a nuclear weapons-free Middle East . Only under these conditions, without any foreign threats, can the Iranian people reach their aspirations of freedom and establish their unity in a framework of independence and national sovereignty. 5) To the leaders of the reformists and the Green movement, we suggest that in order to prevent exploitation of the current crisis by western propaganda and opportunist groups, they unambiguously oppose all sanctions and condemn regime change operations and any foreign support for the anti-Islamic Republic opposition. Signed: Dr Arshin Adib-Moghaddam , SOAS, University of London Professor the Baroness Afshar , York University Mojtaba Aghamohammadi , researcher, University of Arizona Professor Mohammad Ala , Persian Gulf Task Force Esfandiar Bakhtiar, Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Abbas Edalat , Imperial College London Javad Fakharzadeh, Iran Heritage Dr Farideh Farhi , University of Hawaii at Manoa Massy Homayouni, independent antiwar activist Dr Mehri Honarbin-Holliday , Canterbury Christ Church University Mojgan Janani, independent antiwar activist Mohammad Kamaali , Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran Fareed Marjaee , writer and democracy activist Masoud Modarres, independent activist Professor Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh , Tarbiyat Modarres University Daniel Pourkesali , Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran Rostam Pourzal , Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran Dr Mohammad Purqurian, LaaL.org Manijeh Saba , independent human rights activist Professor Mehdi Shariati , Kansas College Professor Nader Sadeghi , George Washington University Hospital Shirin Saeidi , University of Cambridge Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich , independent antiwar activist Reza Shirazi, Goftogoo TV Safa Shoaee , Imperial College London Saeed Soltanpour , Iranian TV Canada Dr Alireza Rabi , Middle-East Citizens Assembly Dr Elaheh Rostami , SOAS, University of London Professor Rahmat Tavakol , Rutgers University Professor Farzin Vahdat , Harvard University Leila Zand, Fellowship of Reconciliation (Posted on MR Zine website: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/iran010809.html .) From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 4 14:57:34 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] The Real News Network - Progressive Democrats take a stand on health care In-Reply-To: <1248087286.702151249419388355.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <143500028.702591249419454247.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Progressive Democrats take a stand on health care Some members of Congress are going to fight for a robust public option and a single-payer amendment http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4070 From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 4 16:04:00 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Pay to Play Is Washington's Sport of Kings In-Reply-To: <280126668.730791249423319637.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1409870606.731731249423440518.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.truthout.org/080109Z?n Pay to Play Is Washington's Sport of Kings Michael Winship "....This week, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in the second quarter of this year alone, the pharmaceuticals and health product industries spent $67,959,095 on lobbying, and the insurance industry $39,760,477. Another $25,552,088 was spent by lobbyists for hospitals and nursing homes. That's a total of $133,271,660 in just three months, and that's not even counting the lobbying money spent to fight health care reform by professional associations like the US Chamber of Commerce...." From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 4 16:10:23 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] As Obama's Support Erodes, the Right is Resurgent In-Reply-To: <33340196.730271249423258407.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1054713808.735921249423823083.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23179.htm Information Clearing House August 1, 2009 As Obama's Support Erodes, the Right is Resurgent Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President? By Danny Schechter The tide of public opinion may be turning against the President. Pollsters report growing skepticism about health care reform, and more active hostility on racial matters, thanks to that "uncalibrated" expression of opinion on the arrest of Professor Gates in his own home. That remark turned him, in the eyes of some, from a small b black President into a militant Black Panther, or at least someone who can bashed as such. These are the new controversial issues with no one right answer, and a noisy debate everywhere, but something else is also going on. With Democrats fussing among themselves, with Obamacrats forced to rely on corporate media, the right-wing TV and radio stations close ranks behind the most self-righteously-correct ranters having a filed day poking, prodding, pummeling, and peeing into cups of their own resentment, hate and venom. There is no smear that is beneath them, no inference or insult out of bounds. Lou Dobbs blesses the birthers while that Elmer Gantry of demagoguery, Glenn Beck, meditates on his mountain and pronounces Obama a racist. An Israeli settler refers to our President as "that Arab," and worse. These are the nattering nabobs of negativity of our times, to resurrect an old canard once aimed at the left. The Yes We Can advocates seem to be taking refuge in the No We Won't center. The next thing you know, the removal of a democratically elected President that worked in Honduras might be attempted here at home. Some of us are still singing "We Shall Overcome" when our adversaries are chanting "We Shall Overthrow." If Barack's legitimacy as a citizen won't bring him down, his actions---moderate if not reactionary as they are--- unites the crazies against him and drives them even more beserk. The contentious Congressman who vowed to "break him," should be taken seriously This relentless riposte is having an effect on a demoralized and economically challenged population that is not well informed in the first place -- except perhaps about Michael Jackson's dubious doctor who may have done the dirty deed. Sensing possible victory -- whatever that means--- the Angeroid microfactions that lost the election are now seeking to polarize the public to topple the Administration with an electronic coup d'media. It is all that serious. Only Jon Stewart seems to be calling them on their game, while at the same time despairing about the obvious missteps and mistakes that the White House is making. They may be a garden outside the Oval Office but there is a minefield inside it. At the same time, another enemy is mounting a counterattack, perhaps in a more stealth manner, not by what it says, but by what it does The banks are deploying regiments of lobbyists and PR firms to defeat proposed new financial rules and an agency to protect consumers. They are escalating the gouging of the public. Emboldened by billions in bailout monies, and funds from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, the Bankster are in full loot mode. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reports that extravagant bonuses at some banks now outstrip revenues. The financial elite takes our money--and tells us to shove it. As a new wave of foreclosures threatens, the banks are not willing to modify most mortgages -- even those sold fraudulently, because they make more money forcing families out and reselling their homes. The pace of regulatory reform, meanwhile is a slow-go, with few calls for more radical measures like a moratorium on foreclosures of the kind declared by FDR during the last Depression. Are you aware that outside of the government, a not for profit called NACA (The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) is touring the country mobilizing homeowners to demand financial relief. I was at their original "Save The Deam" event in Washington last summer where members of Congress and officials like FDIC chairman Sheila Bair pledged support, but little happened. Government help as only reached 200,000 of the more than 12 million families in need. If you are not familiar with this issue or the role of devious mortgage servicers like Litton, owned by Goldman Sachs, see these You Tube videos on the PACFILM Channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVyahxDc5OU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mov0AVLsvQg According to FEED News, NACA is doing better -- even though they are not getting the national publicity they deserve, perhaps because media outlets don't want to send the few staffers they have to the heartland, "About 50,000 people attended the second Save the Dream event in Chicago. This is a dramatic increase over the 25,000 people who attended NACA's first two Save the Dream events last year in Columbia, SC, and Washington, DC. "One of the reasons why turnout has increased this year is NACA's use of optimized press releases, blog outreach, and YouTube videos to let people know that the national non-profit community advocacy and homeownership organization offers unprecedented solutions for homeowners caught up in the current mortgage and economic crisis. During the Save the Dream events, borrowers can get mortgages restructured the same day." If the Obama Administration is to survive an ongoing assault still building steam, it needs a grass roots action-oriented army like the one NACA is building. They can't just rely on the Netroots activists who prefer emails to organizing. They can't rely on that co-opted in-house DNC arm, Organizing for America either. That is there only to rally support for the White House. A new movement has to develop outside the Democratic party in the same way that the right acts outside the GOP, and has built a capacity for independent action with echo chambers, message points and personalities. Their ideas may be backward but their dedication can't be denied. We can defend Obama's ideals, and also press for more action. As Jeff Cohen reminds us, we have a "president whose instinct is toward conciliation and splitting the difference with big business and the right wing. Sure, Obama was a community organizer once. That was decades ago when Russia was still our mortal enemy, Nelson Mandela was still an official State Department terrorist threat and the White House was still funding Islamist fanatics in Afghanistan. For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician -- and a consummate compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice?" Can progressives fight a three front war---against the vicious right, against the slippery center, and for a more comprehensive and empowering agenda? Can they finally realize that all politics does not occur in DC, and that being tethered to the denizens on the Hill can be a liability at a time when most political chameleons enjoy so little respect. Will they ever realize that they have to get into the economic trenches and fight the power of the banks with groups like A New Way Forward? Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact millions? Knock, Knock, anyone there? Mediachannel's News Dissector Danny Schechter investigates the origins of the economic crisis in his new book Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal (Cosimo Books via Amazon). Comments to dissector at mediachannel.org From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 4 16:15:11 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] On the current right-wing backlash in Latin America and how Hillary and co. relate to it In-Reply-To: <2089127154.736951249423960394.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <974339120.738371249424111171.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> On the current right-wing backlash in Latin America and how Hillary and co. relate to it: Observations from Venezuela Miguel Tinker-Salas I would submit that events in Honduras are not isolated, but rather part of a right wing counterattack taking shape in Latin America. I have been arguing for some time that the right is rebuilding in Latin America; hosting conferences, sharing experiences, refining their message, working with the media, and building ties with allies in the United States. This is not the lunatic right fringe, but rather the mainstream right with powerful allies in the middle class that used to consider themselves center, but have been frightened by recent left electoral victories and the rise of social movements. With Obama in the White House and Clinton in the State Department they have now decided to act. Bush/Cheney and company did not give them any coverage and had become of little use to them. A ?liberal? in the White House, gives conservative forces the kind of coverage they had hoped for. It is no coincidence that Venezuelan right wing commentators applauded the naming of Clinton to the State Department claiming that they now had an ally in the administration. The old cold-warrior axiom that the best antidote against the left is a liberal government in Washington gains new meaning under Obama with Clinton at the State Department. Coup leaders in Honduras and their allies continue to play for time. Washington?s apparent vacillation is allowing them to exhaust this option, but so are Colombia, Mexico, Panama and others. After all, this coup is not just about Honduras but also about left success in Latin America, of which Honduras was the weakest link. It is increasingly becoming obvious that there is no scenario under which they will accept Zelaya back. I do not think that they have a plan ?B? on this matter and this speaks to the kind of advise they are getting from forces in the U.S. and the region. If Zelaya comes back, the Supreme Court, the Congress, the military and the church all-lose credibility and it opens the door for the social and political movements in Honduras to push for more radical change that these forces would find more difficult to resist. But Honduras is only part of the equation. Colombia?s decision to accept at least 3 new U.S. military bases or Forward Operating Locations, (including Palanquero), dramatically expand the U.S. role in the country and throughout the region. The U.S. military has been eyeing Palanquero with its complex infrastructure and extensive runway for some time. This is a very troubling sign and speaks volumes about how the Obama administration plans to respond to change in Latin America. A possible base on the coast would also offer the recently reactivated US Fourth Fleet, a convenient harbor on the on the South American mainland. In short, Venezuela would be literally encircled. However, Venezuela is not the only objective. It also places the Brazilian Amazon and all its resources within striking distance of the U.S. military, as well as the much sought after Guarani watershed. The recent media war launched by Alvaro Uribe against Ecuador and Correa once again claiming financing of the FARC and the more recent offensive against Venezuela concerning 30 year old Swedish missiles, that like, the Reyes computers, cannot be verified, have filled the airwaves in Venezuela, Colombia and the region. The current Colombian media campaign was preceded by Washington?s own efforts to condemn Venezuela for supposed non-compliance in the war against drug trafficking. Lost in all this, is the fact that Uribe is still considering a third term in office and his party has indicated it will push for a constitutional reform. So conflicts with Ecuador and Venezuela serves to silence critics in Colombia and keep Uribe?s electoral competitors at bay. All we need now is for Uribe to ask the Interpol to verify the missiles origins and director Ron Noble to give another press conference in Bogota. D?j? vu all over again! The right and its allies in the U.S. are also emboldened by the electoral victory in Panama and the very real prospects of leftist defeats this year in Chile and even Uruguay. Obviously they are also encouraged by the humiliating defeat of the Fern?ndez / Kirchner?s in Argentina. These developments could begin to redraw the political map of the region. Bolivia will undoubtedly come under intense pressure as they are also preparing for an election later this year. All this is occurring with an increased U.S. military commitment in Mexico with Plan M?rida which seeks to build on the lessons of Colombia; maintain in power a president whose economic and social policy are highly unpopular, but who relies on conflict, in this case the so-called war on the drug cartels, to maintain popularity. Parts of Mexico are literally under siege including, Michoac?n, Ciudad Juarez, and Tijuana. The backdrop for this is a divided left, the PRD was the biggest looser in recent midterm elections, and social movements remains localized and unable to mount a national challenge. None of these developments are forgone conclusions, but rather speak to a concerted counter attack by the right wing in Latin America and its allies in the U.S. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 4 16:23:16 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] A Jeremiad Message-ID: <1991104368.742051249424596221.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1249169057/ Uri Avnery 01/08/09 A Jeremiad ?Therefore I, a 95 year old Sabra [native born Israeli Jew], ?.declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad vision? ? Dov Yermiya Dear Dov Yermiya, I have received the distressing letter that you recently sent to a limited number of friends. You paint the Israeli reality in dark ? but true ? colors, and end by cutting your ties with it. ?Therefore I, a 95 year old Sabra (native born Israeli Jew), who has plowed its fields, planted trees, built a house and fathered sons, grandsons and great-grandsons, and also shed his blood in the battle for the founding of the State of Israel, ?Declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions, that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem, that I shall stand at attention only on the days of mourning for those fallen on both sides in the wars, and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and raised in it.? SINCE I first met you, Dov, some fifty years ago, I have always considered you the salt of the earth. You were born in a village, the son of a farmer, were a fighter in the 1948 war and later a Colonel in the army, a modest man, a moral person in every fiber. In the first Lebanon War, you exposed the atrocities committed against the Palestinian refugees in the Tyre-Sidon area, and your courageous report shocked me no less than those of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. You did not hesitate to break the silence, as the ?Breaking the Silence? youngsters are doing now, knowing full well that your peers in the officers? corps would excommunicate you. You are a man of my heart, Dov. That is why your words distress me so much. I think it important to share the statement of a man of your caliber with those in our camp who spend sleepless nights worrying about the situation of our state. YOU START your letter by mentioning the founders of the Zionist movement. ?If Herzl could come to life again and see what those who claim to carry the flag of Zionism are doing, he would flee at once, miserable and shocked, back to his grave. So would Chaim Weizmann and most of the pioneers, the fathers and mothers of my generation. They were people of conscience and morality, who held to the axiom that human beings are decent and honest.? Most of your fierce accusations concern Israel ?s treatment of the Palestinians. ?And thus, for 42 years, Israel turned what should have been Palestine into a giant detention camp, and is holding a whole people captive under an oppressive and cruel regime, with the sole aim of taking away their country, come what may!!! ?The IDF eagerly suppresses their efforts at rebellion, with the active assistance of the settlement thugs, by the brutal means of a sophisticated Apartheid and a choking blockade, inhuman harassment of the sick and of women in labor, the destruction of their economy and the theft of their best land and water. ?Over all this there is waving the black flag of the frightening contempt for the life and blood of the Palestinians. Israel will never be forgiven for the terrible toll of blood spilt, and especially the blood of children, in hair-raising quantities.? But I believe that the abysmal despair echoed in your words has other roots, too. It is a feeling that troubles the heart of many of your and my generation, the feeling that ?they have stolen our state?, that there is no resemblance between the state which we dreamed of and fought for and the thing that has taken its place. WHEN I think of our youth, yours and mine, one scene is never far from my mind: the 1947 Dalia festival. Tens of thousands of young men and women were sitting on the slope of a hill in the natural amphitheater near Kibbutz Dalia on Mount Carmel . Ostensibly it was a festival of folk dancing, but in reality it was much more ? a great celebration of the new Hebrew culture which we were then creating in the country, in which folk dancing played an important role. The dancing groups came mainly from the kibbutzim and the youth movements, and the dances were original Hebrew creations, interwoven with Russian, Polish, Yemenite and Hassidic ones. A group of Arabs danced the Debka in ecstasy, dancing and dancing and dancing on. In the middle of the event, the loudspeakers announced that members of the UN Commission of Inquiry, which had been sent by the international organization to decide upon the future of the country, were joining us. When we saw them entering the amphitheater, the tens of thousands spontaneously rose to their feet and started to sing the ?Hatikva?, the national anthem, with a holy fervor that reverberated from the surrounding mountains. We did not know then that within half a year the great Hebrew-Arab war would break out - our War of Independence and their Naqba. I believe that most of the 6000 young people who fell in the war on our side, as well as the thousands that were wounded ? like you and me ? were present at that moment in Dalia, seeing each other and singing together. What state did we think of then? What state did we set out to create? What has happened to the Hebrew society, the Hebrew culture, the Hebrew morality that we were so proud of then? YES, WE did create a state. As the old song goes: ?On the battlefield, a town is now standing?. We have brought millions of people to this country. From a Hebrew community of 650 thousand we have grown into a population of 7.5 million. A fourth and fifth generation speaks Hebrew as their mother tongue. Our economy is large and solid, even in these times of crisis. In several fields we are in the first rank of human endeavor. But is this the society, is this the state, which we saw in our mind?s eye on the day it was set up? Is this the army that you and I swore allegiance to on the day it was founded? Did we dream of this corrupt society, a society without compassion, where a handful of the very rich live off the fat of the land, with a large band of politicians and media people and other lackeys groveling in the dust at their feet? Did we dream of a state that is an isolated and shunned ghetto in the region, lording it over an oppressed Palestinian ghetto-within-a-ghetto? There were days when we could stand up anywhere in the world and proudly declare ?I am an Israeli?. No one can do that now. The name of Israel has become mud. Since the Gaza War, in which our army poured molten lead onto men, women and children, many Israelis avoid speaking Hebrew in the streets of foreign cities and the IDF has ordered the faces of some of its officers ? those whose rank equals yours ? be obscured in pictures published in the media. WHY DID this happen? When did this happen? My aim is not to start a discussion with you about the fundamentals of Zionism, both positive and negative. We might not agree. Nor shall I enter into the question of whether everything really started in 1967, with the intoxicating and corruptive victory, or whether the seeds of disaster were sown earlier. On one thing I agree with you entirely: that the fatal step was taken then, on the morrow of that war, when we had the choice between the shining gold of peace and the base metal of annexation, and stretched our hands out towards the latter. My personal conscience is clean. I am proud that I was one of the few in the country, and the sole voice in the Knesset, who proposed even during the war to turn over the occupied territories to the Palestinian people, so as to enable them to set up their state. This unique opportunity was missed, as you point out in your letter, because of the greed of the founders of the settlement movement, the champions of a Greater Israel. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Aug 4 18:30:52 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:30:52 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Solution Message-ID: <20090805093052.d72b02a1.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Murray N Rothbard The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty thefreemanonline.org (November 1995) To save our economy from destruction and from the eventual holocaust of run away inflation, we the people must take the money-supply function back from the government. Money is far too important to be left in the hands of bankers and of Establishment economists and financiers. To accomplish this goal, money must be returned to the market economy, with all monetary functions performed within the structure of the rights of private property and of the free-market economy. It might be thought that the mix of government and money is too far gone, too pervasive in the economic system, too inextricably bound up in the economy, to be eliminated without economic destruction. Conservatives are accustomed to denouncing the "terrible simplifiers" who wreck everything by imposing simplistic and unworkable schemes. Our major problem, however, is precisely the opposite: mystification by the ruling elite of technocrats and intellectuals, who, whenever some public spokesman arises to call for large-scale tax cuts or deregulation, intone sarcastically about the dimwit masses who "seek simple solutions for complex problems". Well, in most cases, the solutions are indeed clear-cut and simple, but are deliberately obfuscated by people whom we might call "terrible complicators". In truth, taking back our money would be relatively simple and straightforward, much less difficult than the daunting task of denationalizing and decommunizing the Communist countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Our goal may be summed up simply as the privatization of our monetary system, the separation of government from money and banking. The central means to accomplish this task is also straightforward: the abolition, the liquidation of the Federal Reserve System - the abolition of central banking. How could the Federal Reserve System possibly be abolished? Elementary: simply repeal its federal charter, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Moreover, Federal Reserve obligations (its notes and deposits) were originally redeemable in gold on demand. Since Franklin Roosevelt's monstrous actions in 1933, "dollars" issued by the Federal Reserve, and deposits by the Fed and its member banks, have no longer been redeemable in gold. Bank deposits are redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes, while Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable in nothing, or alternatively in other Federal Reserve Notes. Yet, these Notes are our money, our monetary "standard", and all creditors are obliged to accept payment in these fiat notes, no matter how depreciated they might be. In addition to cancelling the redemption of dollars into gold, Roosevelt in 1933 committed another criminal act: literally confiscating all gold and bullion held by Americans, exchanging them for arbitrarily valued "dollars". It is curious that, even though the Fed and the government establishment continually proclaim the obsolescence and worthlessness of gold as a monetary metal, the Fed (as well as all other central banks) clings to its gold for dear life. Our confiscated gold is still owned by the Federal Reserve, which keeps it on deposit with the Treasury at Fort Knox and other gold depositaries. Indeed, from 1933 until the 1970s, it continued to be illegal for any Americans to own monetary gold of any kind, whether coin or bullion or even in safe deposit boxes at home or abroad. All these measures, supposedly drafted for the Depression emergency, have continued as part of the great heritage of the New Deal ever since. For four decades, any gold flowing into private American hands had to be deposited in the banks, which in turn had to deposit it at the Fed. Gold for "legitimate" non-monetary purposes, such as dental fillings, industrial drills, or jewelry, was carefully rationed for such purposes by the Treasury Department. Fortunately, due to the heroic efforts of Congressman Ron Paul it is now legal for Americans to own gold, whether coin or bullion. But the ill-gotten gold confiscated and sequestered by the Fed remains in Federal Reserve hands. How to get the gold out from the Fed? How privatize the Fed's stock of gold? Privatizing Federal Gold The answer is revealed by the fact that the Fed, which had promised to redeem its liabilities in gold, has been in default of that promise since Roosevelt's repudiation of the gold standard in 1933. The Federal Reserve System, being in default, should be liquidated, and the way to liquidate it is the way any insolvent business firm is liquidated: its assets are parceled out, pro rata, to its creditors. The Federal Reserve's gold assets are listed, as of October 30 1991, at $11.1 billion. The Federal Reserve's liabilities as of that date consist of $295.5 billion in Federal Reserve Notes in circulation, and $24.4 billion in deposits owed to member banks of the Federal Reserve System, for a total of $319.9 billion. Of the assets of the Fed, other than gold, the bulk are securities of the US government, which amounted to $262.5 billion. These should be written off posthaste, since they are worse than an accounting fiction: the taxpayers are forced to pay interest and principle on debt which the Federal Government owes to its own creature, the Federal Reserve. The largest remaining asset is Treasury Currency, $21.0 billion, which should also be written off, plus $10 billion in SDRs, which are mere paper creatures of international central banks, and which should be abolished as well. We are left (apart from various buildings and fixtures and other assets owned by the Fed, and amounting to some $35 billion) with $11.1 billion of assets needed to pay off liabilities totalling $319.9 billion. Fortunately, the situation is not as dire as it seems, for the $11.1 billion of Fed gold is a purely phoney evaluation; indeed it is one of the most bizarre aspects of our fraudulent monetary system. The Fed's gold stock consists of 262.9 million ounces of gold; the dollar valuation of $11.1 billion is the result of the government's artificially evaluating its own stock of gold at $42.22 an ounce. Since the market price of gold is now about $350 an ounce, this already presents a glaring anomaly in the system. Definitions and Debasement Where did the $42.22 come from? The essence of a gold standard is that the monetary unit (the "dollar", "franc", "mark", et cetera) is defined as a certain weight of gold. Under the gold standard, the dollar or franc is not a thing-in-itself, a mere name or the name of a paper ticket issued by the State or a central bank; it is the name of a unit of weight of gold. It is every bit as much a unit of weight as the more general "ounce", "grain", or "gram". For a century before 1933, the "dollar" was defined as being equal to 23.22 grains of gold; since there are 480 grains to the ounce, this meant that the dollar was also defined as .048 gold ounce. Put another way, the gold ounce was defined as equal to $20.67. In addition to taking us off the gold standard domestically, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal "debased" the dollar by redefining it, or "lightening its weight", as equal to 13.714 grains of gold, which also defined the gold ounce as equal to $35. The dollar was still redeemable in gold to foreign central banks and governments at the lighter $35 weight; so that the United States stayed on a hybrid form of international gold standard until August 1971, when President Nixon completed the job of scuttling the gold standard altogether. Since 1971, the United States has been on a totally fiat paper standard; not coincidentally, it has suffered an unprecedented degree of peace-time inflation since that date. Since 1971, the dollar has no longer been tied to gold at a fixed weight, and so it has become a commodity separate from gold, free to fluctuate on world markets. When the dollar and gold were set loose from each other, we saw the closest thing to a laboratory experiment we can get in human affairs. All Establishment economists - from Keynesians to Chicagoite monetarists - insisted that gold had long lost its value as a money, that gold had only reached its exalted value of $35 an ounce because its value was "fixed" at that amount by the government. The dollar allegedly conferred value upon gold rather than the other way round, and if gold and the dollar were ever cut loose, we would see the price of gold sink rapidly to its estimated non-monetary value (for jewelry, dental fillings, et cetera) of approximately $6 an ounce. In contrast to this unanimous Establishment prediction, the followers of Ludwig von Mises and other "gold bugs" insisted that gold was undervalued at 35 debased dollars, and claimed that the price of gold would rise far higher, perhaps as high as $70. Suffice it to say that the gold price never fell below $35, and in fact vaulted upward, at one point reaching $850 an ounce, in recent years settling at somewhere around $350 an ounce. And yet since 1973, the Treasury and Fed have persistently evaluated their gold stock, not at the old and obsolete $35, to be sure, but only slightly higher, at $42.22 an ounce. In other words, if the US government only made the simple adjustment that accounting requires of everyone - evaluating one's assets at their market price - the value of the Fed's gold stock would immediately rise from $11.1 to $92.0 billion. From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 19:02:52 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:02:52 -0400 Subject: [R-G] EU to Participate in the Inauguration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Message-ID: Financial Times Deutschland reports that both the EU Presidency and individual EU member states will have their diplomatic representatives attend the inauguration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Despite the rhetoric, the actual diplomatic behavior of the EU states, FTD reporters say, has become conciliatory toward Tehran. -- Yoshie Widerspruch zum harten Kurs Exklusiv EU knickt gegen?ber Iran ein von Benjamin Dierks (Berlin) und Najmeh Bozorgmehr (Teheran) Trotz der Kritik am Umgang Teherans mit seinen Kritikern scheut die EU einen ernsten diplomatischen Konflikt mit dem Iran. Sowohl die schwedische EU-Ratspr?sidentschaft als auch einzelne EU-Staaten nehmen an der Amtseinf?hrung von Pr?sident Mahmud Ahmadinedschad teil. Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel hingegen gab bekannt, sie wolle "angesichts der Begleitumst?nde der umstrittenen Wiederwahl" Ahmadinedschads auf das ?bliche Gl?ckwunschschreiben verzichten. An der offiziellen Best?tigung Ahmadinedschads durch den iranischen F?hrer Ayatollah Ali Chamenei nahm am Montag allerdings auch ein deutscher Vertreter teil. Man habe nach enger Abstimmung mit den EU-Partnern einen niedrigrangigen Diplomaten geschickt, sagte ein Sprecher des Ausw?rtigen Amtes. Schweden schickte seinen Botschafter in Teheran, Magnus Wernstedt. Dieser wird als Vertreter der EU-Ratspr?sidentschaft auch zur Vereidigung Ahmadinedschads am Mittwoch vor dem iranischen Parlament erscheinen. Deutschland ber?t die Teilnahme an der Zeremonie noch mit anderen EU-Staaten. Das Verhalten der EU steht in deutlichem Widerspruch zum harten Kurs, den Br?ssel noch Anfang Juli verfolgt hatte. Damals wurde beschlossen, dass iranische Diplomaten vorerst keine Visa f?r die Einreise in die EU erhalten sollten. Ein formelles Einreiseverbot wurde gepr?ft. Die Bundesregierung und andere EU-L?nder hatten dem Iran mit Konsequenzen gedroht, sollte die Verfolgung iranischer Regimekritiker weitergehen. Hunderttausende Iraner hatten ihrer F?hrung nach dem Urnengang am 12. Juni Wahlf?lschung vorgeworfen. Hunderte wurden festgenommen und zahlreiche Menschen bei Auseinandersetzungen mit Sicherheitskr?ften get?tet. Die EU protestierte mit ihren Schritten gegen Teheran auch gegen die damalige Festnahme iranischer Mitarbeiter der britischen Botschaft in Teheran. Die Beziehungen zwischen London und Teheran hatten sich besonders verschlechtert, weil der Iran den Briten Einmischung in innere Angelegenheiten vorwarf. London zog die Angeh?rigen seiner Diplomaten aus Teheran ab. An der Zeremonie zur Best?tigung Ahmadinedschads nahm nun aber auch der Stellvertreter des britischen Botschafters in Teheran teil. Dennoch skandierten Kleriker, Milit?rangeh?rige und Kabinettsmitglieder bei der Zeremonie: "Nieder mit Gro?britannien." Die EU bef?rchtet, dass eine harte Gangart gegen Teheran die M?glichkeiten schm?lern k?nnte, diplomatisch Einfluss auf die iranische F?hrung zu nehmen. Vor allem wegen des umstrittenen iranischen Atomprogramms will der Westen die Beziehungen nicht vollst?ndig abbrechen lassen. Iranische Regierungskritiker hingegen machten mit einer beispiellosen Aktion ihre Ablehnung der Wiederwahl Ahmadinedschads deutlich. Die ehemaligen Pr?sidenten Mohammed Chatami und Akbar Haschemi Rafsandschani, Vorsitzender des einflussreichen Expertenrats, blieben entgegen fester Regeln der Zeremonie fern. Vor vier Jahren noch hatte Chatami dem neu gew?hlten Ahmadinedschad in seiner Rolle als Amtsvorg?nger der Tradition gem?? ein Schreiben des obersten F?hrers ?bergeben. Am Montag musste Chamenei diese Prozedur selbst vollziehen. Das Fernbleiben der einflussreichen Politiker verdeutlicht den tiefen Riss in der iranischen Elite. Chamenei sagte w?hrend der Zeremonie, dass "Teile der Elite" den "Test" der Wahl nicht bestanden h?tten. Damit nahm er Bezug auf die Politiker, die nicht anwesend waren. Auch der unterlegene Pr?sidentschaftskandidat Mirhossein Mussawi boykottierte die Zeremonie. Tausende seiner Anh?nger protestierten Berichten zufolge in Teheran gegen die Pr?sidentschaftswahl. Polizisten versuchten, die Menge auseinanderzutreiben. Am Wochenende hatte ein umstrittener Prozess gegen hundert prominente Regimekritiker begonnen. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Aug 5 03:01:26 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:01:26 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Hunky Dory Message-ID: <20090805180126.df3fca90.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by James Howard Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (August 03 2009) Whenever the herd mentality lines up along a compass point leading to "permanent prosperity", or a yellow brick road lined with green shoots, or something like that, I tend to see the edge of a cliff up ahead. We are now completely in the grips of the deadly diminishing returns of information technology. The more information comes to us about How Things Are, especially from TV, the more confused or wrong the conventional view gets it. A broad consensus has formed in the news media and among government mouthpieces and even some "bearish" investors on the street that "the worst is behind us" in this tortured economy. This view is completely crazy. It will only lead to massive disappointment a few weeks or months from now, and that disappointment might easily transmute to political trouble. One even might call the situation tragic, except a closer look at the sordid spectacle of what American culture has become - a non-stop circus of the seven deadly sins - suggests that we deserve to be punished by history. The reason behind this mass delusion is not hard to find: it's based on wishing, especially the wish to retain all the comforts, conveniences, luxuries, and leisure that had become normal in American life. These are now ebbing away in big gobs for most of the population - while a tiny fraction of the well-connected pile on ever larger heaps of swag, enjoying ever more privilege. Those in the broad bottom 95 percent were content as long as there was a chance that they, too, could become members of the top five percent - by dint of car-dealing, or house-building, or mortgage-selling, or some other venture enabled by easy credit and a smile. Those days and those ways are now gone. The bottom 95 percent are now left with de-laminating houses they can't make payments on, no prospects for gainful work, re-po men hiding in the bushes to snatch the PT Cruiser, cut-off cable service, Kraft mac-and-cheese (if they're lucky), and Larry Summers telling them their troubles are over. (If I were Larry, I'd start thinking about a move to some place like the Canary Islands.) Too many disastrous things are lined up in the months ahead to insure that we're entering a new phase of history: The Long Emergency. Government at every level is worse than broke. Our currency, the US dollar, is hemorrhaging legitimacy. Inability to service old debt at all levels or incur new debt. Bad (toxic) debt lurking off balance sheets everywhere. The housing bubble fiasco is far from over. Commercial real estate fiasco just getting started. Unemployment rising implacably. So-called "consumers" unable to consume consumables. Crucial energy import supply lines fragile. Food supply subject to energy problems and climate abnormalities. A world full of other societies who would enjoy watching us fail and suffer. When The Long Emergency was published in 2005, I said then that the greatest danger this society faced would be its inclination to gear up a campaign to sustain the unsustainable at all costs - rather than face the need to make new arrangements for daily life. That appears to be exactly what has happened, and it didn't happen under the rule of some backward-facing, right-wing, Jesus-haunted crypto-fascist, but rather a "progressive" party led by a dynamically affable young man unburdened by deep cultural allegiance to Wall Street. Barack Obama has been sucked in and suckered. "Change you can believe in" has morphed into "a status quo you will bend heaven and earth to hold onto". Whatever else you might think or feel about Mr Obama's performance so far, this strategy on the broader question of where we go as a nation pulses with tragedy. What's remarkable to me, to go a step further, is the absence of comprehensive vision - not just in the president, but in all the supposedly able and intelligent people around him, and even those leaders not in government but in business and education and science and the professions. History is clearly presenting us with a new set of mandates: get local, get finer, downscale, and get going on it right away. Prepare for it now or nature will whack you upside the head with it not too long from now. Attempting to maintain anything on the gigantic scale will turn out to be a losing proposition, whether it is military control of people in Central Asia, or colossal bureaucracies run in the USA, or huge factory farms, or national chain store retail, or hypertrophied state universities, or global energy supply networks. These imperatives are so outside-the-box of ordinary experience right now, that to drag them into the arena of politics can only evoke blank stares or nervous giggling. But whether we like it or not, these are the things that will really matter in the years ahead - not whether General Motors can ever make a profit again, or what Target Store's sales figures are next quarter, or whether the latest high-rise condo-and-gambling complex in Las Vegas will be successfully marketed. Here, in the dog days of summer, it seems to me that the situation in the USA is so fundamentally bad, so unpromising, so booby-trapped for failure, that I wonder if there has ever been a society so badly deluded as ours. We're prisoners of our wishes, living in a strange dream-time, oblivious to the forces gathering at the margins of our vision, lost in a wilderness of our own making. Anything can happen now. I certainly wouldn't rule out international mischief as we arc around into fall. The air is so full of black swans that the white swan now seems like the exceptional thing. Whatever else happens, it sure will be interesting to see the public's reaction to Wall Street's announcement of Christmas bonuses. The folks at Rockefeller Center better be thinking about getting a fireproof tree. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/08/hunky-dory.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 5 11:51:24 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Uses and abuses of the charge of anti-semitism In-Reply-To: <795269325.1057091249494594311.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <2113464451.1057881249494684678.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://tinyurl.com/nnqesr y1pyftrb1mqqgdajihgwkrffrx2l5a8iqzxdoems92qhqyvx8ex3io9v2rixrhk3ua9yseqscp7vfarqa7uhos3lg From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 5 13:46:22 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Blackwater founder views himself as Christian crusader whose companies encouraged destruction of Iraqi life In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1267580702.1132741249501582509.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The Nation August 4, 2009 Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder By Jeremy Scahill A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life." In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting "illegal" or "unlawful" weapons into the country on Prince's private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety. These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater's motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department. The former employee, identified in the court documents as "John Doe #2," is a former member of Blackwater's management team, according to a source close to the case. Doe #2 alleges in a sworn declaration that, based on information provided to him by former colleagues, "it appears that Mr. Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct." John Doe #2 says he worked at Blackwater for four years; his identity is concealed in the sworn declaration because he "fear[s] violence against me in retaliation for submitting this Declaration." He also alleges, "On several occasions after my departure from Mr. Prince's employ, Mr. Prince's management has personally threatened me with death and violence." In a separate sworn statement , the former US marine who worked for Blackwater in Iraq alleges that he has "learned from my Blackwater colleagues and former colleagues that one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information about Erik Prince and Blackwater have been killed in suspicious circumstances." Identified as "John Doe #1," he says he "joined Blackwater and deployed to Iraq to guard State Department and other American government personnel." It is not clear if Doe #1 is still working with the company as he states he is "scheduled to deploy in the immediate future to Iraq." Like Doe #2, he states that he fears "violence" against him for "submitting this Declaration." No further details on the alleged murder(s) are provided. "Mr. Prince feared, and continues to fear, that the federal authorities will detect and prosecute his various criminal deeds," states Doe #2. "On more than one occasion, Mr. Prince and his top managers gave orders to destroy emails and other documents. Many incriminating videotapes, documents and emails have been shredded and destroyed." The Nation cannot independently verify the identities of the two individuals, their roles at Blackwater or what motivated them to provide sworn testimony in these civil cases. Both individuals state that they have previously cooperated with federal prosecutors conducting a criminal inquiry into Blackwater. "It's a pending investigation, so we cannot comment on any matters in front of a Grand Jury or if a Grand Jury even exists on these matters," John Roth, the spokesperson for the US Attorney's office in the District of Columbia, told The Nation . "It would be a crime if we did that." Asked specifically about whether there is a criminal investigation into Prince regarding the murder allegations and other charges, Roth said: "We would not be able to comment on what we are or are not doing in regards to any possible investigation involving an uncharged individual." The Nation repeatedly attempted to contact spokespeople for Prince or his companies at numerous email addresses and telephone numbers. When a company representative was reached by phone and asked to comment, she said, "Unfortunately no one can help you in that area." The representative then said that she would pass along The Nation 's request. As this article goes to press, no company representative has responded further to The Nation . Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement "in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice." Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury. The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe": To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades. Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis." Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that "Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq." He states that he personally witnessed weapons being "pulled out" from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that "Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince's private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines," adding that Prince "generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade." Doe #2 states: "Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution." Blackwater "was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department," according to Doe #1. This is not the first time an allegation has surfaced that Blackwater used dog food bags to smuggle weapons into Iraq. ABC News's Brian Ross reported in November 2008 that a "federal grand jury in North Carolina is investigating allegations the controversial private security firm Blackwater illegally shipped assault weapons and silencers to Iraq, hidden in large sacks of dog food." Another former Blackwater employee has also confirmed this information to The Nation . Both individuals allege that Prince and Blackwater deployed individuals to Iraq who, in the words of Doe #1, "were not properly vetted and cleared by the State Department." Doe #2 adds that "Prince ignored the advice and pleas from certain employees, who sought to stop the unnecessary killing of innocent Iraqis." Doe #2 further states that some Blackwater officials overseas refused to deploy "unfit men" and sent them back to the US. Among the reasons cited by Doe #2 were "the men making statements about wanting to deploy to Iraq to 'kill ragheads' or achieve 'kills' or 'body counts,'" as well as "excessive drinking" and "steroid use." However, when the men returned to the US, according to Doe #2, "Prince and his executives would send them back to be deployed in Iraq with an express instruction to the concerned employees located overseas that they needed to 'stop costing the company money.'" Doe #2 also says Prince "repeatedly ignored the assessments done by mental health professionals, and instead terminated those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men." He says Prince and then-company president Gary Jackson "hid from Department of State the fact that they were deploying men to Iraq over the objections of mental health professionals and security professionals in the field," saying they "knew the men being deployed were not suitable candidates for carrying lethal weaponry, but did not care because deployments meant more money." Doe #1 states that "Blackwater knew that certain of its personnel intentionally used excessive and unjustified deadly force, and in some instances used unauthorized weapons, to kill or seriously injure innocent Iraqi civilians." He concludes, "Blackwater did nothing to stop this misconduct." Doe #1 states that he "personally observed multiple incidents of Blackwater personnel intentionally using unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force." He then cites several specific examples of Blackwater personnel firing at civilians, killing or "seriously" wounding them, and then failing to report the incidents to the State Department. Doe #1 also alleges that "all of these incidents of excessive force were initially videotaped and voice recorded," but that "Immediately after the day concluded, we would watch the video in a session called a 'hot wash.' Immediately after the hotwashing, the video was erased to prevent anyone other than Blackwater personnel seeing what had actually occurred." Blackwater, he says, "did not provide the video to the State Department." Doe #2 expands on the issue of unconventional weapons, alleging Prince "made available to his employees in Iraq various weapons not authorized by the United States contracting authorities, such as hand grenades and hand grenade launchers. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal weaponry in Iraq, unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis." Specifically, he alleges that Prince "obtained illegal ammunition from an American company called LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on Iraqis." Blackwater has gone through an intricate rebranding process in the twelve years it has been in business, changing its name and logo several times. Prince also has created more than a dozen affiliate companies, some of which are registered offshore and whose operations are shrouded in secrecy. According to Doe #2, "Prince created and operated this web of companies in order to obscure wrongdoing, fraud and other crimes." "For example, Mr. Prince transferred funds from one company (Blackwater) to another (Greystone) whenever necessary to avoid detection of his money laundering and tax evasion schemes." He added: "Mr. Prince contributed his personal wealth to fund the operations of the Prince companies whenever he deemed such funding necessary. Likewise, Mr. Prince took funds out of the Prince companies and placed the funds in his personal accounts at will." Briefed on the substance of these allegations by The Nation , Congressman Dennis Kucinich replied, "If these allegations are true, Blackwater has been a criminal enterprise defrauding taxpayers and murdering innocent civilians." Kucinich is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has been investigating Prince and Blackwater since 2004. "Blackwater is a law unto itself, both internationally and domestically. The question is why they operated with impunity. In addition to Blackwater, we should be questioning their patrons in the previous administration who funded and employed this organization. Blackwater wouldn't exist without federal patronage; these allegations should be thoroughly investigated," Kucinich said. A hearing before Judge Ellis in the civil cases against Blackwater is scheduled for August 7. Tout ce dont vous avez besoin sur le net et sur votre PC: 100% gratuit ! Windows Live Messenger: Thanks for 10 great years-enjoy free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now Internet Explorer 8 - accelerate your Hotmail. Download Internet Explorer 8 From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 5 13:53:16 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Whistleblower Tells of America's Hidden Health Nightmare for its Sick Poor In-Reply-To: <875444195.749591249425765880.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <84035094.1135241249501994389.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The Observer 26 July 2009 Whistleblower Tells of America's Hidden Health Nightmare for its Sick Poor by Paul Harris When an insurance firm boss saw a field hospital for the poor in Virginia, he knew he had to speak out. Here, he tells Paul Harris of his fears for Obama's bid to bring about radical change. Wendell Potter can remember exactly when he took the first steps on his journey to becoming a whistleblower and turning against one of the most powerful industries in America. It was July 2007 and Potter, a senior executive at giant US healthcare firm Cigna, was visiting relatives in the poverty-ridden mountain districts of northeast Tennessee. He saw an advert in a local paper for a touring free medical clinic at a fairground just across the state border in Wise County, Virginia. Potter, who had worked at Cigna for 15 years, decided to check it out. What he saw appalled him. Hundreds of desperate people, most without any medical insurance, descended on the clinic from out of the hills. People queued in long lines to have the most basic medical procedures carried out free of charge. Some had driven more than 200 miles from Georgia. Many were treated in the open air. Potter took pictures of patients lying on trolleys on rain-soaked pavements. For Potter it was a dreadful realisation that healthcare in America had failed millions of poor, sick people and that he, and the industry he worked for, did not care about the human cost of their relentless search for profits. "It was over-powering. It was just more than I could possibly have imagined could be happening in America," he told the Observer Potter resigned shortly afterwards. Last month he testified in Congress, becoming one of the few industry executives to admit that what its critics say is true: healthcare insurance firms push up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay out when many patients actually get sick. In chilling words he told a Senate committee: "I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick: all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." Potter's claims are at the centre of the biggest political crisis of Barack Obama's young presidency. Obama, faced with 47 million Americans without health insurance, has put reforming the system at the top of his agenda. If he succeeds, he will have pushed through one of the greatest changes to domestic policy of any president. If he fails, his presidency could be broken before it is even a year old. Last week, in a sign of how high the stakes are, he addressed the nation in a live TV news conference. It is the sort of event usually reserved for a moment of deep national crisis, such as a terrorist attack. But Obama wanted to talk about healthcare. "This is about every family, every business and every taxpayer who continues to shoulder the burden of a problem that Washington has failed to solve for decades," he told the nation. Obama's plans are now mired and the opponents of reform are winning. The Republican attack machine has cranked into gear, labelling reform as "socialist" and warning ordinary Americans that government bureaucrats, not doctors, will choose their medicines. The bill's opponents say the huge cost can only be paid by massive tax increases on ordinary Americans and that others will have their current healthcare plans taken away. Many centrist Democratic congressmen, wary of their conservative voters, are wavering. The legislation has failed to meet Obama's August deadline and is now delayed until after the summer recess. Many fear that this loss of momentum could kill it altogether. To Potter that is no surprise. He has seen all this before. In his long years with Cigna he rose to be the company's top PR executive. He had an eagle-eye view of the industry's tactics of scuppering political efforts to get it to reform. "This is a very wealthy industry and they use PR very effectively. They manipulate public opinion and the news media and they have built up these relationships with all these politicians through campaign contributions," Potter said. Potter was witness to the campaign against Michael Moore's healthcare documentary Sicko. The industry slammed the film as one-sided and politically motivated. Secret documents leaked from the American Health Insurance Plans, the industry's lobby group, detailed the plan to paint Moore as a fringe radical. Potter now says the film "hit the nail on the head". "The Michael Moore movie that I saw was full of truth," he admits. Potter was also working for Cigna when it became embroiled in the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, whose family went public after Cigna refused to pay for a liver transplant that it considered "experimental" and therefore not covered by their policy. Cigna reversed this decision only hours before the Californian teenager died. "I wish I could have done more in that case," Potter said. Such sentiments are rare in an industry that has given America a healthcare system that can be cripplingly expensive for patients, but that does not produce a healthier population. The industry is often accused of wriggling out of claims. Firms comb medical records for any technicality that will allow them to refuse to pay. In one recently publicised example, a retired nurse from Texas discovered she had breast cancer. Yet her policy was cancelled because her insurers found she had previously had treatment for acne, which the dermatologist had mistakenly noted as pre-cancerous. They decreed she had misinformed them about her medical history and her double mastectomy was cancelled just three days before the operation. Last month three healthcare executives were grilled about such "rescinding" tactics by a congressional subcommittee. When asked if they would abandon them except in cases of deliberately proven fraud, each executive replied simply: "No." To Potter that attitude has a sad logic. The healthcare industry generates enormous profits and its top executives have a lavish corporate lifestyle that he once shared. Treating patients for their expensive conditions is bad for business as it reduces the bottom line. Kicking out patients who pursue claims makes perfect economic sense. "It is a system that is rigged against the policyholder," Potter said. The congressional probe found that just three firms had rescinded more than 20,000 policyholders between 2003 and 2007, saving hundreds of millions. "That's a lot of money that will now go towards their profits," Potter said. A lot of that money also goes into contributions to politicians of both parties - $372m in the past nine years - and in lobbying groups to run TV ads slamming Obama's plans. Many of these ads deploy naked scare tactics. One report said that the industry was spending $1.4m a day on its campaign. In the face of that, it is perhaps no wonder that the Senate has delayed its vote, dealing a massive blow to Obama. "I have seen how the opponents of healthcare reform go to work... they are trying to delay action. They know that if they keep the process going for months, and turn it into a big mess, then the political impetus behind it will lessen," Potter said. Potter, who now works at the Centre for Media and Democracy in Wisconsin, says the industry is afraid of Obama's reforms and that is why it is fighting so hard. It wants to deal him the same blow as it did Bill Clinton when it scuppered his attempt at reform in the 1990s. Potter admits that he is worried the industry might win again. "I have seen their tactics work. I have been a part of it," he said. He knows he has no chance of ever working again for a major firm. "I am a whistleblower and corporate America does not tend to like that," he said. But there is one thing Potter is not sorry about: leaving the healthcare industry and speaking out. "I have absolutely no regrets. I am doing the right thing," he said. Comprehensive healthcare reform in the US has been an ambition of many presidents since the early part of the 20th century. None has succeeded in creating a system that gives all Americans the right to coverage. Barack Obama, below, is desperate to avoid the same fate. Finding a Cure What is the Current System? It is a complex mish-mash of systems. Millions of Americans have their own private healthcare plans, either individually or through their employer. About 47 million Americans have none. However, systems do exist to cover the very poor and the old. The system is fiendishly complex and full of loopholes, so even those with coverage can have it withdrawn. How Bad is It? US hospitals are the best in the world if you can afford them. Many cannot, and an accident or sudden illness can often bankrupt someone. How Does it Compare With Other Countries? It depends how you measure things. The US spends about 16% of GNP on healthcare, far more than France and Germany, which spend 11 to 12%. Yet those countries provide universal care. What is the Biggest Problem? Critics say the biggest issue is the profit motive that drives US healthcare. This ensures that costs are always rising as the incentive is there to provide expensive treatment. It also gives health insurers the incentive to refuse treatment to claimants, by seeking to withdraw their cover. What is Obama's Solution? Obama has asked Congress to draw up a government option, allowing all Americans to get some sort of cover. The sheer size of the state plan should theoretically allow it to drive down costs by economies of scale. What's Happening Now? Obama has put his reputation on the line to persuade wavering Democrats and moderate Republicans to vote on legislation by August. The Senate has said this will not happen. That's a major blow, as it puts off the debate until September and could see the political momentum stall. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 5 13:53:49 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Alexander Cockburn: The Biden and Clinton Mutinies In-Reply-To: <2141442284.748931249425629261.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1433659241.1135471249502029505.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07312009.html CounterPunch July 31 - August 2, 2009 The Biden and Clinton Mutinies By ALEXANDER COCKBURN Time bombs tossed seemingly casually in the past month by his vice president and his secretary of state disclose president Obama, in the dawn of his first term, already the target of carefully meditated onslaughts by senior members of his own cabinet. At the superficial level Obama is presiding over an undisciplined administration; on a more realistic and sinister construction, he is facing mutiny, publicly conducted by two people who only a year ago were claiming that their qualifications to be in the Oval Office were far superior to those of the junior senator from Illinois . The great danger to Obama posed by Biden's and Clinton's "time bombs" (a precisely correct description if we call them political, not diplomatic time bombs) is not international confusion and ridicule over what precisely are the US government's policies, but a direct onslaught on his presidency by a domestic Israeli lobby that is so out of control that it renders ridiculous Obama's puny attempt to stop settlements--or to curb Israeli aggression in any other way. Take Joe Biden. Three weeks ago he gave Israel the green light to bomb Iran, only to be swiftly corrected by his boss. At the time it seemed yet another, somewhat comical mile marker in a lifetime of gaffes, perpetrated in the cause of self-promotion and personal political advantage. But Biden's subsequent activities invite a darker construction. In the immediate aftermath of Obama's Moscow visit, the air still soft with honeyed words about a new era of trust and cooperation, Biden headed for Ukraine and Georgia, harshly ridiculing Russia as an economic basket case with no future. In Tbilisi he told the Georgian parliament that the U.S. would continue helping Georgia "to modernize" its military and that Washington "fully supports" Georgia's aspiration to join NATO and would help Tbilisi meet the alliance's standards. This elicited a furious reaction from Moscow, pledging sanctions against any power rearming Georgia. Georgia could play a vital, enabling role, in the event that Israel decides to attack Iran's nuclear complex. The flight path from Israel to Iran is diplomatically and geographically challenging. On the other hand, Georgia is perfectly situated as the take-off point for any such raid. Israel has been heavily involved in supplying and training Georgia's armed forces. President Saakashvili has boasted that his Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili and also Temur Yakobashvili , the minister responsible for negotiations over South Ossetia, lived in Israel before moving to Georgia, adding "Both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews." On the heels of Biden's shameless pandering in Tbilisi, Secretary of State Clinton took herself off to Thailand for an international confab with Asian leaders and let drop to a tv chat show that "a nuclear Iran could be contained by a U.S. 'defense umbrella,'" actually a nuclear defense umbrella for Israel and for Egypt and Saudi Arabia too. The Israel lobby has been promoting the idea of a US "nuclear umbrella" for some years, with one of its leading exponents being Dennis Ross, now in charge of Middle Eastern policy at Obama's National Security Council. In her campaign last year Clinton flourished the notion as an example of the sort of policy initiative that set her apart from that novice in foreign affairs, Barack Obama. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 5 14:27:18 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] The Real News Network - Honduras: Where does Washington stand? In-Reply-To: <64A671699D02461983AD7233DCD92BC7@twubby.com> Message-ID: <570882186.1153751249504038237.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Honduras: Where does Washington stand? Hylton: By not taking steps prescribed by US law, US gov't supporting an increasingly repressive regime http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=408 From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 5 14:29:43 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Anti-Empire Report, August 4, 2009 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <167153194.1154671249504183773.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Anti-Empire Report August 4, 2009 http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer72.html From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 5 16:31:24 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] ALERT: Tell Amnesty International that entertaining apartheid Israel deserves no amnesty! In-Reply-To: <61375645.1214151249510908376.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1558977470.1217441249511484115.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> ALERT: Tell Amnesty International that Entertaining Apartheid Israel Deserves No Amnesty! ISSUED BY: The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) , Adalah-NY : The Coalition for Justice in the Middle East, Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from Within (Israel), British Committee for the Universities of Palestine ( BRICUP ), International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network , Jews Against the Occupation-NYC , Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (UK), New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel (NYCBI) , New York City Labor Against the War , Palestine Solidarity Campaign (UK), US Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel August 5, 2009 The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and groups around the world have been calling for months for musician Leonard Cohen to cancel his planned September concert in Israel. With the international community failing to take action to stop Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people, and inspired by the international boycott movement that helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa, Palestinian civil society has launched calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. Ninety-three artists, writers and other cultural workers have signed onto the Palestinian cultural boycott call. Many dignitaries signed the "No Reason to Celebrate" pledge and refused to participate in any artistic or literary event during Israel's year-long 60th anniversary celebrations. Feeling the heat of the protests, Cohen and his PR staff tried to schedule a small concert in Ramallah to ?balance? his concert in Israel. However, Palestinians rejected the Ramallah concert and any claimed symmetry between the occupying power and the people under occupation. Now Cohen and his PR staff are trying to whitewash the concert in Israel by using Amnesty International USA?s good name. According to a July 28th article in the Jerusalem Post , Amnesty International USA will serve as sponsor of a new fund. The fund will launder the money raised at Cohen?s concert in Israel by using it to finance programs for ?peace.? In response, sixteen groups and coalitions issued a July 30 th Open Letter to Amnesty International calling on Amnesty to be true to its values and immediately withdraw support for Leonard Cohen?s ill-conceived concert in Israel. The groups noted that by supporting Cohen?s concert, Amnesty International is undermining a successful effort by Palestinian and international civil society to end Israel's occupation and other violations of international law and human rights principles. Amnesty International also is partnering in the initiative with Israeli institutions that undermine peace, including a bank directly involved in supporting Israeli settlement construction. The only alleged Palestinian partner has announced it is not taking part. TAKE ACTION Please email Amnesty International, calling on Amnesty to withdraw from support for Cohen?s concert. Amnesty International is recognized by many as defending human rights worldwide, so please be respectful and courteous in your message. You can write and email your own letter, or use the sample letter below and email it, or send an editable form letter via the website of the New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel: http://boycottisraelnyc.org/category/629/tell-amnesty-international-entertaining-apartheid-israel-deserves-no-amnesty Further below, for reference, is the full Open Letter to Amnesty International. -If you send your own email, please email your letter to: lcox at aiusa.org , cgoering at aiusa.org , ZJanmohamed at aiusa.org , ikhan at amnesty.org , ccordone at amnesty.org , msmart at amnesty.org , drovera at amnesty.org (Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA ; Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director of Amnesty International USA; Zahir Janmohamed, Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International USA; Irene Khan, Amnesty International Secretary General; Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International (UK) Senior Director, Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International (UK) Middle East Director, Research and Regional Programs; Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International (UK) Researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories) -If you email your own letter, please cc it to: noamnesty4israeliapartheid at gmail.com so that we can keep track of the responses. SAMPLE LETTER TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Dear Amnesty International, I hold Amnesty International?s worldwide work for human rights and international law in high esteem. For this reason, I was very troubled to learn that Amnesty International has agreed to manage a fund that will disburse the proceeds from Leonard Cohen?s planned concert in Israel in September. I call on Amnesty International to be true to your values, distance yourself from efforts to normalize Israel?s occupation and apartheid, and immediately withdraw support for Leonard Cohen?s ill-conceived concert in Israel. By supporting Cohen?s concert, Amnesty International will be subverting the worldwide movement to boycott Israel, a non-violent, effective effort by Palestinian and international civil society to end Israel's violations of international law and human rights principles. Accepting funds from the proceeds of Cohen?s concert in Israel is the equivalent of Amnesty accepting tainted funds from a concert in Sun City in apartheid South Africa. Ninety-three artists, writers and other cultural workers have signed onto the Palestinian cultural boycott call. Many dignitaries signed the "No Reason to Celebrate" pledge and refused to participate in any artistic or literary event during Israel's year-long 60th anniversary celebrations. In his protest resignation from Amnesty International over this issue, Irish author and composer, Raymond Deane, wrote: "By assisting Cohen in his ruse to bypass this boycott, Amnesty International is in fact taking a political stance, in violation of the premise of political neutrality with which it so regularly justifies its failure to side unambiguously with the oppressed. Amnesty is telling us: resistance is futile, the voice of the oppressed is irrelevant, international humanitarian law is a luxury." Furthermore, the Israeli partners in the concert, the Peres Center for Peace and Israel Discount Bank, actively hinder efforts to achieve a just peace. A columnist in Israel?s Ha?aretz Daily called the Peres Center for Peace patronizing and colonial organization that is in the business of training ?the Palestinian population to accept its inferiority and prepare it to survive under the arbitrary constraints imposed by Israel.? According to research by Who Profits, a project of Israel?s Coalition of Women for Peace, Israel Discount Bank is deeply involved in supporting Israel?s settlement enterprise. Israeli settlements violate the very tenets of international law that Amnesty International works to uphold. Finally, the only Palestinian organization falsely reported in the July 28th Jerusalem Post article as being a partner in this project, the Palestinian Happy Child Center, has confirmed that it is not taking part. There is no Palestinian organization participating in this whitewash. Thank you for your attention to this vital human rights issue. I look forward to learning of Amnesty International?s withdrawal of its support for the Leonard Cohen concert in Israel. Sincerely, Your name Your city and country of residence Entertaining Apartheid Israel Deserves No Amnesty! Open Letter to Amnesty International July 30, 2009 In May, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) called on singer/songwriter Leonard Cohen to heed the Palestinian call for a cultural boycott of Israel and avoid complicity with Israel?s violations of international law by cancelling his planned September concert in Israel, particularly in view of Israel?s war crimes in Gaza earlier this year. Sadly, according to a July 28 article in the Jerusalem Post , Amnesty International USA has agreed to cooperate with Cohen in dealing with Israel on the basis of business as usual. Amnesty International USA will serve as sponsor of a new fund that will whitewash the money raised at Cohen?s concert in Israel by using it to finance programs for ?peace.? Being one of the world?s strongest proponents of human rights and international law, you shall thus be subverting a non-violent, effective effort by Palestinian and international civil society to end Israel's violations of international law and human rights principles. We call on you to be true to your values and immediately withdraw support for Leonard Cohen?s ill-conceived concert in Israel. The Jerusalem Post report indicates that Cohen and his PR staff, having been criticized for trying to normalize Israel?s occupation and apartheid, are trying to whitewash the concert in Israel by using Amnesty International USA?s good name. According to the article, ?All of the net proceeds from Leonard Cohen's September 24 concert at Ramat Gan Stadium will be earmarked for a newly established fund to benefit Israeli and Palestinian organizations that are working toward conciliation,? and the fund will be ?sponsored by Amnesty.? Curt Goering, the senior deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA, told the Post , "We saw this as an exciting opportunity with potential to recognize, support and pay tribute to the Israelis and Palestinians who have been working for peace and human rights amid a difficult environment and insurmountable odds. I see our participation as complementary to what we do, even though this initiative is different from Amnesty's ongoing work." WHY WE ARE CALLING ON AMNESTY TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PROJECT By supporting Cohen?s concert in Israel, Amnesty International is actively undermining a particularly successful effort by Palestinian and international civil society to end Israel's occupation and other violations of international law and human rights principles. We find this position by Amnesty particularly frustrating and puzzling given your call for an arms embargo against Israel following its atrocities in Gaza earlier this year, which your organization described as constituting war crimes. Accepting funds from the proceeds of Cohen?s concert in Israel is the equivalent of Amnesty accepting funds from a concert in Sun City in apartheid South Africa. Profits earned through violations of human rights and international law are tainted and should not be accepted by any morally consistent human rights organization, particularly when this money is intended to be used to whitewash the very violations behind those profits. Furthermore, your Israeli partners in this venture actively hinder efforts to achieve a just peace. The Peres Center for Peace, with its multi-million dollar annual budget and fifteen million dollar building , is listed incongruously by the Jerusalem Post as both a beneficiary of the fund and a member of the new fund?s Board of Trustees. The Peres Center has been denounced by leading Palestinian civil society organizations for promoting joint Palestinian-Israeli projects that are ?neither effective in bringing about reconciliation, nor desirable? and that enhance ?Israeli institutional reputation and legitimacy, without restoring justice to Palestinians, in the face of continued Israeli Government violations of international law and fundamental Palestinian human rights, including breaches of the Geneva Conventions.? A columnist in Israel?s Haaretz Daily called the Peres Center patronizing and colonial , explaining that ?Efforts are being made to train the Palestinian population to accept its inferiority and prepare it to survive under the arbitrary constraints imposed by Israel, to guarantee the ethnic superiority of the Jews.? Your other indirect partner in this project, according to the Jerusalem Post, is Israel Discount Bank, a key sponsor of the Cohen concert. Who Profits, a project of Israel?s Coalition of Women for Peace, reports that Israel Discount Bank has branches in the settlements of Beitar Illit and Maale Adumim, has financed construction in the settlements of Har Homa, Beitar llit and Maale Adumim, and is a major shareholder in a factory in a settlement. Amnesty hardly needs any reminder that all Israeli colonial settlements built on occupied Palestinian territory are not only illegal under international law but are considered war crimes in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Your intention to indirectly partner with a bank that profits from the occupation and to oversee a fund that uses some of that legally and morally stained money contradicts Amnesty?s founding principles and commitment to human rights. The latest attempt by the Cohen team to find an alternative Palestinian fig leaf has also failed. The only Palestinian organization falsely reported in the Jerusalem Post article as being a partner in this project, the Palestinian Happy Child Center, has confirmed that it is not taking part. There is no Palestinian organization participating in this whitewash . BACKGROUND ON THE BOYCOTT With the international community failing to take action to stop Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people, and inspired by the international boycott movement that helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa, Palestinian civil society has launched calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. Endorsed by nearly sixty Palestinian cultural and civil society organizations and inspired by the South African anti-apartheid boycotts, PACBI calls on ? the international community to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions as a contribution to the struggle to end Israel?s occupation, colonization and system of apartheid.? These Palestinian calls have inspired a growing international boycott movement which gained added momentum following Israel?s assault on Gaza last winter. In April, the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) and over 100 Israelis called on Leonard Cohen to cancel his planned September concert in Israel. Protests against Cohen?s plans to play in Israel were then held at Cohen?s concerts in New York , Boston , Ottawa and Belfast , among other cities. Feeling the rising heat of the protests, Cohen tried to schedule a small concert in Ramallah to ?balance? his concert in Israel. However, Palestinians rejected the Ramallah concert. The Palestinian group that was supposed to host the Ramallah event cancelled its invitation to Mr. Cohen after realizing the adverse effects this would have on the boycott movement, which is widely supported by Palestinians. Reflecting the general mood in Palestinian society against any claimed symmetry between the occupying power and the people under occupation, a July 12 PACBI statement explained, ?Ramallah will not receive Cohen as long as he is intent on whitewashing Israel?s colonial apartheid regime by performing in Israel. PACBI has always rejected any attempt to ?balance? concerts or other artistic events in Israel--conscious acts of complicity in Israel?s violation of international law and human rights--with token events in the occupied Palestinian territory.? For all the above reasons, we strongly urge you to distance Amnesty International from this discredited project and its tainted money. Signed: The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) , Adalah-NY : The Coalition for Justice in the Middle East, The Alternative Information Center (AIC) , American Jews for a Just Peace (US), Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine (UK) , Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from Within (Israel), British Committee for the Universities of Palestine ( BRICUP ) , Independent Jewish Voices (Canada), International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network , Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign , Jews Against the Occupation-NYC , Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (UK), New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel (NYCBI), New York City Labor Against the War , Palestine Solidarity Campaign (UK) , US Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel Cc : -Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA - Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director of Amnesty International USA -Zahir Janmohamed, Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International USA - Colm ? Cuanach?in, Amnesty International (UK) Senior Director, Campaigns -Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International (UK) Senior Director, Research and Regional Programs -Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International (UK) Researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Aug 5 18:32:38 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:32:38 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Repudiating the National Debt Message-ID: <20090806093238.445c6412.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Murray N Rothbard Chronicles (June 1992) Mises Daily (January 16 2004) In the spring of 1981, conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives cried. They cried because, in the first flush of the Reagan Revolution that was supposed to bring drastic cuts in taxes and government spending, as well as a balanced budget, they were being asked by the White House and their own leadership to vote for an increase in the statutory limit on the federal public debt, which was then scraping the legal ceiling of one trillion dollars. They cried because all of their lives they had voted against an increase in public debt, and now they were being asked, by their own party and their own movement, to violate their lifelong principles. The White House and its leadership assured them that this breach in principle would be their last: that it was necessary for one last increase in the debt limit to give President Reagan a chance to bring about a balanced budget and to begin to reduce the debt. Many of these Republicans tearfully announced that they were taking this fateful step because they deeply trusted their President, who would not let them down. Famous last words. In a sense, the Reagan handlers were right: there were no more tears, no more complaints, because the principles themselves were quickly forgotten, swept into the dustbin of history. Deficits and the public debt have piled up mountainously since then, and few people care, least of all conservative Republicans. Every few years, the legal limit is raised automatically. By the end of the Reagan reign the federal debt was $2.6 trillion; now it is $3.5 trillion and rising rapidly [editor Note: $6.9 trillion, January 13 2004]. And this is the rosy side of the picture, because if you add in "off-budget" loan guarantees and contingencies, the grand total federal debt is $20 trillion. Before the Reagan era, conservatives were clear about how they felt about deficits and the public debt: a balanced budget was good, and deficits and the public debt were bad, piled up by free-spending Keynesians and socialists, who absurdly proclaimed that there was nothing wrong or onerous about the public debt. In the famous words of the left-Keynesian apostle of "functional finance", Professor Abba Lerner, there is nothing wrong with the public debt because "we owe it to ourselves". In those days, at least, conservatives were astute enough to realize that it made an enormous amount of difference whether - slicing through the obfuscatory collective nouns - one is a member of the "we" (the burdened taxpayer) or of the "ourselves" (those living off the proceeds of taxation). Since Reagan, however, intellectual-political life has gone topsy-turvy. Conservatives and allegedly "free-market" economists have turned handsprings trying to find new reasons why "deficits don't matter", why we should all relax and enjoy the process. Perhaps the most absurd argument of Reaganomists was that we should not worry about growing public debt because it is being matched on the federal balance sheet by an expansion of public "assets". Here was a new twist on free-market macroeconomics: things are going well because the value of government assets is rising! In that case, why not have the government nationalize all assets outright? Reaganomists, indeed, came up with every conceivable argument for the public debt except the phrase of Abba Lerner, and I am convinced that they did not recycle that phrase because it would be difficult to sustain with a straight face at a time when foreign ownership of the national debt is skyrocketing. Even apart from foreign ownership, it is far more difficult to sustain the Lerner thesis than before; in the late 1930s, when Lerner enunciated his thesis, total federal interest payments on the public debt were one billion dollars; now they have zoomed to $200 billion, the third largest item in the federal budget, after the military and Social Security: the "we" are looking ever shabbier compared to the "ourselves". To think sensibly about the public debt, we first have to go back to first principles and consider debt in general. Put simply, a credit transaction occurs when C, the creditor, transfers a sum of money (say $1,000) to D, the debtor, in exchange for a promise that D will repay C in a year's time the principal plus interest. If the agreed interest rate on the transaction is ten percent, then the debtor obligates himself to pay in a year's time $1,100 to the creditor. This repayment completes the transaction, which in contrast to a regular sale, takes place over time. So far, it is clear that there is nothing "wrong" with private debt. As with any private trade or exchange on the market, both parties to the exchange benefit, and no one loses. But suppose that the debtor is foolish, gets himself in over his head, and then finds that he can't repay the sum he had agreed on? This, of course is a risk incurred by debt, and the debtor had better keep his debts down to what he can surely repay. But this is not a problem of debt alone. Any consumer may spend foolishly; a man may blow his entire paycheck on an expensive trinket and then find that he can't feed his family. So consumer foolishness is hardly a problem confined to debt alone. But there is one crucial difference: if a man gets in over his head and he can't pay, the creditor suffers too, because the debtor has failed to return the creditor's property. In a profound sense, the debtor who fails to repay the $1,100 owed to the creditor has stolen property that belongs to the creditor; we have here not simply a civil debt, but a tort, an aggression against another's property. In earlier centuries, the insolvent debtor's offense was considered grave, and unless the creditor was willing to "forgive" the debt out of charity, the debtor continued to owe the money plus accumulating interest, plus penalty for continuing nonpayment. Often, debtors were clapped into jail until they could pay - a bit Draconian perhaps, but at least in the proper spirit of enforcing property rights and defending the sanctity of contracts. The major practical problem was the difficulty for debtors in prison to earn the money to repay the loan; perhaps it would have been better to allow the debtor to be free, provided that his continuing income went to paying the creditor his just due. As early as the 17th century, however, governments began sobbing about the plight of the unfortunate debtors, ignoring the fact that the insolvent debtors had gotten themselves into their own fix, and they began to subvert their own proclaimed function of enforcing contracts. Bankruptcy laws were passed which, increasingly, let the debtors off the hook and prevented the creditors from obtaining their own property. Theft was increasingly condoned, improvidence was subsidized, and thrift was hobbled. In fact, with the modern device of Chapter 11, instituted by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, inefficient and improvident managers and stockholders are not only let off the hook, but they often remain in positions of power, debt-free and still running their firms, and plaguing consumers and creditors with their inefficiencies. Modern utilitarian neoclassical economists see nothing wrong with any of this; the market, after all, "adjusts" to these changes in the law. It is true that the market can adjust to almost anything, but so what? Hobbling creditors means that interest rates rise permanently, to the sober and honest as well as the improvident; but why should the former be taxed to subsidize the latter? But there are deeper problems with this utilitarian attitude. It is the same amoral claim, from the same economists, that there is nothing wrong with rising crime against residents or storekeepers of the inner cities. The market, they assert, will adjust and discount for such high crime rates, and therefore rents and housing values will be lower in the inner-city areas. So everything will be taken care of. But what sort of consolation is that? And what sort of justification for aggression and crime? In a just society, then, only voluntary forgiveness by creditors would let debtors off the hook; otherwise, bankruptcy laws are an unjust invasion of the property rights of creditors. One myth about "debtors'" relief is that debtors are habitually poor and creditors rich, so that intervening to save debtors is merely a requirement of egalitarian "fairness". But this assumption was never true: in business, the wealthier the businessman the more likely he is to be a large debtor. It is the Donald Trumps and Robert Maxwells of this world whose debts spectacularly exceed their assets. Intervention on behalf of debtors has generally been lobbied for by large businesses with large debts. In modern corporations, the effect of ever-tightening bankruptcy laws has been to hobble the creditor-bondholders for the benefit of the stockholders and the existing managers, who are usually installed by, and allied with, a few dominant large stockholders. The very fact that a corporation is insolvent demonstrates that its managers have been inefficient, and they should be removed promptly from the scene. Bankruptcy laws that keep prolonging the rule of existing managers, then, not only invade the property rights of the creditors; they also injure the consumers and the entire economic system by preventing the market from purging the inefficient and improvident managers and stockholders and from shifting the ownership of industrial assets to the more efficient creditors. Not only that; in a recent law review article, Bradley and Rosenzweig have shown that the stockholders, too, as well as the creditors, have lost a significant amount of assets due to the installation of Chapter 11 in 1978. As they write, "if bondholders and stockholders are both losers under Chapter 11, then who are the winners?" The winners, remarkably but unsurprisingly, turn out to be the existing, inefficient corporate managers, as well as the assorted lawyers, accountants, and financial advisers who earn huge fees from bankruptcy reorganizations. In a free-market economy that respects property rights, the volume of private debt is self-policed by the necessity to repay the creditor, since no Papa Government is letting you off the hook. In addition, the interest rate a debtor must pay depends not only on the general rate of time preference but on the degree of risk he as a debtor poses to the creditor. A good credit risk will be a "prime borrower", who will pay relatively low interest; on the other hand, an improvident person or a transient who has been bankrupt before, will have to pay a much higher interest rate, commensurate with the degree of risk on the loan. Most people, unfortunately, apply the same analysis to public debt as they do to private. If sanctity of contracts should rule in the world of private debt, shouldn't they be equally as sacrosanct in public debt? Shouldn't public debt be governed by the same principles as private? The answer is no, even though such an answer may shock the sensibilities of most people. The reason is that the two forms of debt-transaction are totally different. If I borrow money from a mortgage bank, I have made a contract to transfer my money to a creditor at a future date; in a deep sense, he is the true owner of the money at that point, and if I don't pay I am robbing him of his just property. But when government borrows money, it does not pledge its own money; its own resources are not liable. Government commits not its own life, fortune, and sacred honor to repay the debt, but ours. This is a horse, and a transaction, of a very different color. For unlike the rest of us, government sells no productive good or service and therefore earns nothing. It can only get money by looting our resources through taxes, or through the hidden tax of legalized counterfeiting known as "inflation". There are some exceptions, of course, such as when the government sells stamps to collectors or carries our mail with gross inefficiency, but the overwhelming bulk of government revenues is acquired through taxation or its monetary equivalent. Actually, in the days of monarchy, and especially in the medieval period before the rise of the modern state, kings got the bulk of their income from their private estates - such as forests and agricultural lands. Their debt, in other words, was more private than public, and as a result, their debt amounted to next to nothing compared to the public debt that began with a flourish in the late 17th century. The public debt transaction, then, is very different from private debt. Instead of a low-time preference creditor exchanging money for an IOU from a high-time preference debtor, the government now receives money from creditors, both parties realizing that the money will be paid back not out of the pockets or the hides of the politicians and bureaucrats, but out of the looted wallets and purses of the hapless taxpayers, the subjects of the state. The government gets the money by tax-coercion; and the public creditors, far from being innocents, know full well that their proceeds will come out of that selfsame coercion. In short, public creditors are willing to hand over money to the government now in order to receive a share of tax loot in the future. This is the opposite of a free market, or a genuinely voluntary transaction. Both parties are immorally contracting to participate in the violation of the property rights of citizens in the future. Both parties, therefore, are making agreements about other people's property, and both deserve the back of our hand. The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract. Any melding of public debt into a private transaction must rest on the common but absurd notion that taxation is really "voluntary", and that whenever the government does anything, "we" are willingly doing it. This convenient myth was wittily and trenchantly disposed of by the great economist Joseph Schumpeter: "The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchases of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind". Morality and economic utility generally go hand in hand. Contrary to Alexander Hamilton, who spoke for a small but powerful clique of New York and Philadelphia public creditors, the national debt is not a "national blessing". The annual government deficit, plus the annual interest payment that keeps rising as the total debt accumulates, increasingly channels scarce and precious private savings into wasteful government boondoggles, which "crowd out" productive investments. Establishment economists, including Reaganomists, cleverly fudge the issue by arbitrarily labeling virtually all government spending as "investments", making it sound as if everything is fine and dandy because savings are being productively "invested". In reality, however, government spending only qualifies as "investment" in an Orwellian sense; government actually spends on behalf of the "consumer goods" and desires of bureaucrats, politicians, and their dependent client groups. Government spending, therefore, rather than being "investment", is consumer spending of a peculiarly wasteful and unproductive sort, since it is indulged not by producers but by a parasitic class that is living off, and increasingly weakening, the productive private sector. Thus, we see that statistics are not in the least "scientific" or "valuefree"; how data are classified - whether, for example, government spending is "consumption" or "investment" - depends upon the political philosophy and insights of the classifier. Deficits and a mounting debt, therefore, are a growing and intolerable burden on the society and economy, both because they raise the tax burden and increasingly drain resources from the productive to the parasitic, counterproductive, "public" sector. Moreover, whenever deficits are financed by expanding bank credit - in other words, by creating new money - matters become still worse, since credit inflation creates permanent and rising price inflation as well as waves of boombust "business cycles". It is for all these reasons that the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians (who, contrary to the myths of historians, were extraordinarily knowledgeable in economic and monetary theory) hated and reviled the public debt. Indeed, the national debt was paid off twice in American history, the first time by Thomas Jefferson and the second, and undoubtedly the last time, by Andrew Jackson. Unfortunately, paying off a national debt that will soon reach $4 trillion would quickly bankrupt the entire country. Think about the consequences of imposing new taxes of $4 trillion in the United States next year! Another way, and almost as devastating, a way to pay off the public debt would be to print $4 trillion of new money - either in paper dollars or by creating new bank credit. This method would be extraordinarily inflationary, and prices would quickly skyrocket, ruining all groups whose earnings did not increase to the same extent, and destroying the value of the dollar. But in essence this is what happens in countries that hyper-inflate, as Germany did in 1923, and in countless countries since, particularly the Third World. If a country inflates the currency to pay off its debt, prices will rise so that the dollars or marks or pesos the creditor receives are worth a lot less than the dollars or pesos they originally lent out. When an American purchased a 10,000 mark German bond in 1914, it was worth several thousand dollars; those 10,000 marks by late 1923 would not have been worth more than a stick of bubble gum. Inflation, then, is an underhanded and terribly destructive way of indirectly repudiating the "public debt"; destructive because it ruins the currency unit, which individuals and businesses depend upon for calculating all their economic decisions. I propose, then, a seemingly drastic but actually far less destructive way of paying off the public debt at a single blow: out-right debt repudiation. Consider this question: why should the poor, battered citizens of Russia or Poland or the other ex-Communist countries be bound by the debts contracted by their former Communist masters? In the Communist situation, the injustice is clear: that citizens struggling for freedom and for a free-market economy should be taxed to pay for debts contracted by the monstrous former ruling class. But this injustice only differs by degree from "normal" public debt. For, conversely, why should the Communist government of the Soviet Union have been bound by debts contracted by the Czarist government they hated and overthrew? And why should we, struggling American citizens of today, be bound by debts created by a past ruling elite who contracted these debts at our expense? One of the cogent arguments against paying blacks "reparations" for past slavery is that we, the living, were not slaveholders. Similarly, we the living did not contract for either the past or the present debts incurred by the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington. Although largely forgotten by historians and by the public, repudiation of public debt is a solid part of the American tradition. The first wave of repudiation of state debt came during the 1840s, after the panics of 1837 and 1839. Those panics were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States. Riding the wave of inflationary credit, numerous state governments, largely those run by the Whigs, floated an enormous amount of debt, most of which went into wasteful public works (euphemistically called "internal improvements"), and into the creation of inflationary banks. Outstanding public debt by state governments rose from $26 million to $170 million during the decade of the 1830s. Most of these securities were financed by British and Dutch investors. During the deflationary 1840s succeeding the panics, state governments faced repayment of their debt in dollars that were now more valuable than the ones they had borrowed. Many states, now largely in Democratic hands, met the crisis by repudiating these debts, either totally or partially by scaling down the amount in "readjustments". Specifically, of the 28 American states in the 1840s, nine were in the glorious position of having no public debt, and one (Missouri's) was negligible; of the eighteen remaining, nine paid the interest on their public debt without interruption, while another nine (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida) repudiated part or all of their liabilities. Of these states, four defaulted for several years in their interest payments, whereas the other five (Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida) totally and permanently repudiated their entire outstanding public debt. As in every debt repudiation, the result was to lift a great burden from the backs of the taxpayers in the defaulting and repudiating states. Apart from the moral, or sanctity-of-contract argument against repudiation that we have already discussed, the standard economic argument is that such repudiation is disastrous, because who, in his right mind, would lend again to a repudiating government? But the effective counterargument has rarely been considered: why should more private capital be poured down government rat holes? It is precisely the drying up of future public credit that constitutes one of the main arguments for repudiation, for it means beneficially drying up a major channel for the wasteful destruction of the savings of the public. What we want is abundant savings and investment in private enterprises, and a lean, austere, low-budget, minimal government. The people and the economy can only wax fat and prosperous when their government is starved and puny. The next great wave of state debt repudiation came in the South after the blight of Northern occupation and Reconstruction had been lifted from them. Eight Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) proceeded, during the late 1870s and early 1880s under Democratic regimes, to repudiate the debt foisted upon their taxpayers by the corrupt and wasteful carpetbag Radical Republican governments under Reconstruction. So what can be done now? The current federal debt is $3.5 trillion. Approximately $1.4 trillion, or forty percent, is owned by one or another agency of the federal government. It is ridiculous for a citizen to be taxed by one arm of the federal government (the IRS), to pay interest and principal on debt owned by another agency of the federal government. It would save the taxpayer a great deal of money, and spare savings from further waste, to simply cancel that debt outright. The alleged debt is simply an accounting fiction that provides a mask over reality and furnishes a convenient means for mulcting the taxpayer. Thus, most people think that the Social Security Administration takes their premiums and accumulates it, perhaps by sound investment, and then "pays back" the "insured" citizen when he turns 65. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no insurance and there is no "fund", as there indeed must be in any system of private insurance. The federal government simply takes the Social Security "premiums" (taxes) of the young person, spends them in the general expenditures of the Treasury, and then, when the person turns 65, taxes someone else to pay the "insurance benefit". Social Security, perhaps the most revered institution in the American polity, is also the greatest single racket. It's simply a giant Ponzi scheme controlled by the federal government. But this reality is masked by the Social Security Administration's purchase of government bonds, the Treasury then spending these funds on whatever it wishes. But the fact that the SSA has government bonds in its portfolio, and collects interest and payment from the American taxpayer, allows it to masquerade as a legitimate insurance business. Canceling federal agency-held bonds, then, reduces the federal debt by forty percent. I would advocate going on to repudiate the entire debt outright, and let the chips fall where they may. The glorious result would be an immediate drop of $200 billion in federal expenditures, with at least the fighting chance of an equivalent cut in taxes. But if this scheme is considered too Draconian, why not treat the federal government as any private bankrupt is treated (forgetting about Chapter 11)? The government is an organization, so why not liquidate the assets of that organization and pay the creditors (the government bondholders) a pro-rata share of those assets? This solution would cost the taxpayer nothing, and, once again, relieve him of $200 billion in annual interest payments. The United States government should be forced to disgorge its assets, sell them at auction, and then pay off the creditors accordingly. What government assets? There are a great deal of assets, from TVA to the national lands to various structures such as the Post Office. The massive CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, should raise a pretty penny for enough condominium housing for the entire work force inside the Beltway. Perhaps we could eject the United Nations from the United States, reclaim the land and buildings, and sell them for luxury housing for the East Side gliterati. Another serendipity out of this process would be a massive privatization of the socialized land of the Western United States and of the rest of America as well. This combination of repudiation and privatization would go a long way to reducing the tax burden, establishing fiscal soundness, and desocializing the United States. In order to go this route, however, we first have to rid ourselves of the fallacious mindset that conflates public and private, and that treats government debt as if it were a productive contract between two legitimate property owners. _____ Murray N Rothbard (1926 - 1995) was professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and vice-president for academic affairs at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. This article ran in the June 1992 issue of Chronicles (pages 49 - 52). http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard198.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From mstainsby at resist.ca Wed Aug 5 23:08:37 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:08:37 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [R-G] "Environmental organisations on the take" Message-ID: <93042e3ba7cc1e4c5e52f36c3ef9adf8.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> The following email was sent to the OilSandsTruth.org anonymous contact email address. The name is unknown to myself. The text raises important questions, ones which I thought I would place here. Quote: Environmental organisations on the take "I recently sent the following message to the climate action network. This seems to be the umbrella group for climate change action. If none of the environmental organisations want to push for real change,or worse are being essentially paid off, what do you think we should do? "Currently this terrible government that Canada now has is one of the key parties holding up progress at the climate change talks heading into Copenhagen. The decisions made in Copenhagen may determine whether human societies collapse and if the natural world will be damaged beyond recognition or not. Given these facts I think that the climate action network should take a serious look at their "what you can do" suggestions. Do you not think that writing letters to politicians and newspapers is, to put it extremely mildly, a bit of a measured response? We have been writing letters for years and look at where we are. It is time to call for civil disobedience. People must be out in the streets demanding change, we need to block roads, take over constituency offices. I agree that writing letters is something we need to do, but it is clearly not enough. As the umbrella group for climate change action in Canada I think that you may be hurting the hope of real change by making people who would like to do something beleive that they can force the change that is neccessary simply by writing letters. Thank you for your consideration." -- Macdonald Stainsby Co-ordinator, http://oilsandstruth.org -- moderated radical discussion list: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green -- In the contradiction lies the hope. -Bertholt Brecht. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Aug 6 03:30:05 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:30:05 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Dark Side of Climate Change Message-ID: <20090806183005.fddca91c.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> It's Already Too Late, Cap and Trade Is a Scam, and Only the Few Will Survive by Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet AlterNet (July 07 2009) The recent narrow passage of the Waxman-Markey energy bill, better known as cap-and-trade, marks halftime in Congress' first attempt to put a lid on national carbon emissions. The bill's supporters ended the half on top in a squeaker - 219 yeas to 212 nays. But it's far from clear what this lead means, either for the bill or the climate. The legislation's fate remains as uncertain as our own. We can, however, be sure about one thing. Between now and the autumn Senate debate, cap-and-trade's right-wing critics will escalate their all-cannons assault on the idea that climate change is real and demands a response. They will call "crap-and-tax" the mother of all scams, a poorly cloaked state power grab, and a major goose step down the road to eco-fascism. Given the demagogic hyperbole already on display, it can't be long before some conservative howler warns that the bill's green facade shares hues with the Koran. As the fight over cap-and-trade intensifies, human-driven climate change denialists like Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe will draw the lion's share of the media spotlight reserved for the bill's critics. This is unfortunate. The real debate is not between the bill's supporters and the dead-ender climate clown club. It is between cap-and-trade's supporters and its critics within the scientific and environmental activist communities. Groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have science if not politics on their side when they decry Waxman-Markey as an industry diluted half-measure with soft gums that falls far short of what is necessary to avoid cataclysmic climate change later this century. "The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions", said Greenpeace in a statement the day before the House vote. "To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak." This view is shared by leading climate scientists like James Hansen and his peers around the world at leading research centers such as the UK's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, which urge more significant and immediate cuts than the finance-sector friendly cap-and-trade system can deliver. There is another, fourth voice in the debate over cap-and-trade, one ringing out from shadows rarely approached by the media. In these shadows dwell scientists who believe the time has passed for any sort of legislation at all, no matter how radical. The best known of these frightening climate gnomes is the legendary British scientist James Lovelock, father of Gaia Theory and inventor of the instrument allowing for the atmospheric measurements of CFC's. In recent years, Lovelock has emerged as the world's leading climate pessimist, raining scorn on the new fashionable environmentalism and arguing that the time is nigh to accept that a massive culling of the human race is around the corner. "Most of the 'green' stuff is verging on a gigantic scam", Lovelock told the New Scientist shortly before the release of his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia (2009). "Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning." Those who read Lovelock's controversial 2006 book, The Revenge of Gaia, know that hope junkies should keep a safe distance from the ninety-year-old scientist. Lovelock, who has been compared to Copernicus and Darwin, years ago arrived at a disturbingly stark conclusion about Earth's climate future. His prognosis is now starker than ever. The small window of short-term hope he left open in Revenge is closed in this year's Vanishing. In its place is a long-term hope that humanity in some form will survive the present century, though barely. The result is a dark and contrarian work that seeks to demolish the terms of the climate debate while mocking our response to the crisis at the personal, national, and species level. Lovelock has not arrived at his views lightly. They are the product of years spent carefully considering the known science through the revolutionary and frequently misunderstood lens he began developing forty years ago while working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasedena. Gaia Theory holds that Earth possesses a sophisticated planetary intelligence that responds to levels of heat from the sun in such a way as to maintain a climate homeostasis supportive of life. In four decades of research and experiment, the most famous being the "Daisyworld" model, Lovelock has overcome the once-widespread skepticism of his peers to officially move Gaia from a Hypothesis to a Theory. He has established that the various components of the biosphere - plants, animals, minerals, gases, the sun's heat - interact in such a way as to create and maintain a climate amenable to life. Far from a passive collection of independent actors responding to conditions, the biosphere's contents, including humans, form a living web which actively creates and maintains those conditions. Gaia prefers these conditions and will do her best to maintain them. But there is a limit to how much Gaia can do if we keep running over the safety mechanisms - negative feedback loops - she puts in our path. Lovelock believes that we have pushed Gaia beyond the point of return. The cold seas, for example, can only pump down so much of our carbon before they cry mercy and turn to acid. Lovelock argues that Gaia Theory offers a more holistic understanding of what's happening to the climate than does mainstream climate science, stuck as it is in reductionist thinking and fractured into its constituent fields. Using the Gaia lens, he maintains, allows for a more comprehensive, intuitive, and ultimately more predictive approach. He spends much of Vanishing explaining why he thinks our attempts to accurately model climate change with computers is akin to the blind efforts of a 19th century doctor trying to treat diabetes. He notes that the IPCC and its many powerful computers have successfully undershot all of the indicator trends of climate change so far. Most notably, sea-level rise has outpaced IPCC predictions at a rate of two to one. Of all the indicators of climate change, Lovelock maintains sea-level rise is the most important. Given the complexity of the millions of interactions within the Gaia system, Lovelock argues it is best to ignore year-to-year temperature fluctuations and instead watch the oceans. The seas, he says, are the lone trustworthy indicator of the earth's heat balance. "Sea level rise is the best available measure of the heat absorbed by the earth because it comes from only two things", he writes. "[These are] the melting of glaciers and the expansion of water as it warms. Sea level is the thermometer that indicates true global heating." Using Gaia Theory as his lens, Lovelock also examines five dreaded positive feedback loops, those processes now underway that at some point will become ferocious amplifiers of global heating (he finds "warming" too soft a word for the process). Lovelock describes how the most important of these feedback loops already in motion - the loss of reflective ice cover, the death of carbon eating algae as oceans warm, and methane released by thawing permafrost - will soon accelerate the heating trend underway, leading to sudden and dramatic shifts in global climate. Rather than the steady rise predicted by the UN's IPCC, Lovelock is confident the change will resemble economic charts of boom and bust, full of sudden and unexpected discontinuities, dips, and jumps. "The Earth's history and simple climate models based on the notion of a live and responsive Earth suggest that sudden change and surprise are more likely than the smooth rising curve of temperature that modelers predict for the next ninety years", he writes. What this means for us will be familiar to anyone who has been paying attention: cities and farmland lost to rising seas, endless heatwaves, and a drastic reduction of Earth's carrying capacity. "There is no tipping point, just a slope that gets ever steeper", writes Lovelock. "Because of the rapidity of the Earth's change, we will need to respond more like the inhabitants of a city threatened by a flood. When they see the unstoppable rise of water, their only option is to escape to higher ground. We have to make our lifeboats seaworthy now [and] stop pretending there is any way back to that lush, comfortable, and beautiful Earth we left behind sometime in the 20th century." Needless to say, this is not a popular message. Lovelock remains a controversial figure, now more for his politics than his science. In recent years he has become the most prominent green critic of mainstream environmentalism, unleashing his heaviest fire on what he regards as the green movement's irrational fear of nuclear power. Before he lost all hope in an energy silver bullet, Lovelock argued that nuclear represented humanity's best chance of transitioning the current civilization onto another, more sustainable track. But it's not just knee-jerk opposition to nuclear energy that gets Lovelock fuming. He has been ruthless in his attacks on politicians and businessmen who peddle hope in the form of meaningless but potentially profitable gestures like cap-and-trade. This has deeply antagonized his fellow greens still scrambling to generate public support for bold solutions to the climate crisis. Lovelock's impatience with feel-good "Yes, we can" liberal environmentalism borders on contempt. There are passages in Vanishing that, were it not for their eloquence, could have been uttered by Glenn Beck. The delusional rhetoric about "sustainable development" peddled by green politicians and businessmen, writes Lovelock, just shows that we have "weaved the sound of the alarm clock into our dreams". In one of the book's many memorable passages on the green politics of hope, Lovelock compares sustainable development to deathbed snake oil peddled by an alternate-medicine quack. "Just as we as individuals try alternative medicine", writes Lovelock, "our governments have many offers from alternative business and their lobbies of sustainable ways to 'save the planet', and from some green hospice there may come the anodyne of hope". But this "final warning" is more than a long and hectoring doctor's talk about an advanced and inoperable cancer. Lovelock brightens up considerably when looking beyond the looming die-off. And once we assume the author's Darwinian and planetary long view, it's easy to share his cosmic wonder and long-term optimism. Lovelock is cautiously hopeful that as many as several hundred million humans will survive the century and carve pockets of civilization into the coming hot state. Our current global civilization is about to end, but there is every reason to "take hope from the fact that our species is unusually tough and is unlikely to go extinct in the coming climate catastrophe". Here enters Lovelock the playful futurist. Those who survive will be responsible for maintaining a high-tech, low-impact, low-energy society advanced enough to keep the flame of progress alive but small and smart enough to carefully husband what arable land remains. Lovelock guesses the rump human race will cluster around a few temperate islands in the far northern hemisphere, including his native UK. He believes that if emergency preparations are made in time - he compares the present moment to 1939 - and if the worst-case scenarios of geopolitical conflict are avoided - namely resource scrambles leading to global thermonuclear war - then something resembling a modern and even urban lifestyle could await the survivors. There may even be food critics in this future, which need not resemble a Soylent Green scenario of cannibalism and state-rationed crackers. This future civilization will synthesize food from carbpm dioxide, nitrogen, water, and a few minerals. Simple amino acids and sugars, Lovelock cheerfully explains, can be used as feedstock for bulk animal and vegetable tissue created in chemical vats from biopsies. Yum! A quarter century ago, Carl Sagan issued a strange and compelling plea for nuclear disarmament. He urged the superpowers to abolish their thermonuclear arsenals for the sake of mankind's future evolution and eventual colonization of the galaxy. Echoing Sagan, Lovelock believes it is our duty as an intelligent race, the only one in the cosmic neighborhod, to survive. Only by carrying the flame of civilization into the next century will we have a chance to evolve beyond our current tribal-carnivore brains, which are dominated by short-term thinking and thus responsible for our current predicament. Whereas Sagan dreamed of alien contact, Lovelock's promised land is more humble: an evolved species capable of living in balance with Gaia. In the meantime, the Earth will grow and change, as it always has. Life will continue, humans included, even though billions will suffer and die. Gaia, an ageing planet, will roll into the new climate as best she can. In her wise generosity, she will even leave some hospitable land for us, the offending species, "to survive and to live in a way that gives evolution beyond us, into a wiser and more intelligent animal, a chance". _____ Alexander Zaitchik is a Brooklyn-based freelance journalist and AlterNet contributing writer. (c) 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/141081/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 6 07:44:45 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <79804.53876.qm@web111503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "Do not depend on the hope of results. Concentrate on the value and the truth of the work itself." -- Thomas Merton ?????????????????? *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' * White House Alert * Obama is said to read five letters daily from plain ol' folks like us.? So, write a letter.? Mr. President, Free Peltier Now! The address: President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500.? Fax a letter every day: 202-456-2461. * Sleepy Days of Summer * Everyone's nervously awaiting the parole decision, we know.? Well, we've heard it said that the best way to quiet shaking knees is to bounce a baby on them.? Our baby?? The work, always the work. In August, Washington becomes a ghost town.? Members of Congress will be heading back to their home states/districts very soon.? So... Request a meeting with your Member of Congress: --Find your congressional district and senators' and representative's contact information. See . --Send a fax or e-mail to the scheduler requesting a meeting: Include the date and time of day you will be available to meet with the Member, but be flexible about scheduling your visit because Members of Congress have busy calendars; Offer to meet with a staff member if the Member of Congress is not available (i.e., a Legislative Assistant); Include the issue you would like to discuss (a congressional investigation into the Pine Ridge Reign of Terror, for example); Provide a phone number and/or e-mail address where the scheduler can reach you. --Follow up with a phone call in one week's time if you have not heard back from the congressional office. --When the meeting is scheduled, find accurate information as to the physical location for your legislator's office. --Be on time for the meeting. Staff in most Capitol Hill and district offices are busy and work on tight schedules. Remember that their time is valuable. --Establish a rapport. After introductions and handshakes, talk about things or relationships you might have in common. A little bit of research can pay off, so find out all you can about your Members of Congress. For instance, maybe you have a mutual friend, or perhaps you both went to the same elementary school. Thank your senator or representative for all that he or she does on Capitol Hill to represent your state or district. --If several people will attend the meeting, select a spokesperson. If everyone there will have a role, select one person to move the meeting along in a timely manner. --State your purpose. For example, you might say, "Congressman Lee, we are here to talk with you about hearings on the long-term effects of COINTELPRO. Specifically, we would like to have your support for hearings on the Reign of Terror on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the early 1970s." --Make the issue real. Legislators are people; they are sympathetic to stories about real people. For example, humanize the events on the Pine Ridge Reservation during the 1970s by sharing published stories. Offer the member a copy of "Incident at Oglala" for viewing or a copy of Peter Matthiessen's book, "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse". --Make a clear request. Tell your Member of Congress exactly what you would like him or her to do, and do not leave without learning the legislator's position on your issue. For example, you might say that you would like your legislator to sign a letter in support of a congressional investigation into the Pine Ridge Reign of Terror. Then, ask the member or their staff to outline the legislator's current position. --Very soon after the meeting, write a thank you letter to your member for taking the time to visit with you. It's common for some congressional members to view the events of the 1970s as history only and unimportant to today's world. Don't be dissuaded by this. Instead, use some creativity to make the events on Pine Ridge important in light of the issues of the day, as well as the political landscape in Washington, DC. Monitor congressional actions, debates, proposed Bills, etc. Pay attention to current events. Use the opportunities presented to you to couch your comments and concerns about the Reign of Terror in such a way that they compliment your member's legislative priorities. You can identify those priorities by visiting your representative's or senators' Web pages. A congressional contact-whether by phone, letter, and/or face-to-face-should be approached as an ongoing endeavor. Send follow up letters, place additional calls, and plan more congressional visits so as to keep your issue of concern before your representative and senators. * Parole * There is no decision on parole as yet.? We'll let you know as soon as there's news. In the meantime, you may be interested in this video of attorney Eric Seitz following the 28 July hearing: . We also have a link on our home page to a Q&A that may answer your questions about federal parole: . ????????????????? *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'* "Never cease in the fight for peace, justice, and equality for all people. Be persistent in all that you do and don't allow anyone to sway you from your conscience." -- Leonard Peltier ????????????????? *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'* -----? Time to set him free... Because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Friends of Peltier http://www.FreePeltierNow.org From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 08:00:49 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:00:49 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Iran's Revolutionary Guards in Economic Action Message-ID: Reformists question Iran's Revolutionary Guards getting involved in economic development, but, in the short term, the Pasdaran's economic interests and politico-economic-cultural worldview are on balance good for the poorer two third of Iran. Why favor Turkish and Romanian companies when and where Iran's own state and para-state enterprises can do the job? -- Yoshie Low-key opening for Tehran airport reflects political sensitivities By Gareth Smyth in Tehran Published: May 3 2005 03:00 | Last updated: May 3 2005 03:00 The grand opening of Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport was abruptly halted on "security grounds" a year ago when Revolutionary Guards tanks rolled on to the runway. A dispute over foreign management of the airport put the opening on hold until last weekend, when Iran Air Flight 658 from Dubai landed, 28 years after work started on the project. The airport is a gleaming symbol of Iran's international ambitions. But with sensitivities over the project still running high, there were no speeches and no ceremony before the first commercial flight landed. The airport's planners say its 13,400-hectare site makes possible an expansion from one to four terminals, boosting capacity from 6.5m passengers a year to 47m - if Iran's regional status improves. But the new airport not only reflects Iran's desire to improve on the shabby Mehrabad airport, most of whose 9m passengers each year take domestic flights. It is an example of how inextricably interwoven are the country's politics and economy. Work on the airport began under the Shah, but stalled with the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 1980-88 war with Iraq. It then took nine years for work begun in 1995 to be completed on a new design. Last year's botched opening marked a bitter fall-out between the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami and the Revolutionary Guards, who refused to accept its management by Tepe-Akfen-Vie (TAV), a Turkish-led consortium. The hardliners' move to prevent the airport's opening scuppered the government's $193m (?150m, ?100m) deal with TAV, and management is now with a consortium of four local Iranian airlines - Mahan, Aseman, Caspian Air and Kish Air. The ditching of TAV coincided with the Iranian parliament's shift to the right after February's election and the challenging of all foreign contracts agreed by the reformist government. The new parliamentary majority, which includes many former Revolutionary Guards, has gone on to undermine government attempts to privatise state assets and reduce subsidies. Domestic ideology and US sanctions have long combined to give the Iranian economy a level of state direction found usually in wartime economies. Subsidies cost billions of dollars. The bill for keeping down the price of bread reached $2.8bn in the financial year to March, according to Mohammad Shariatmadari, the commerce minister. And in the same period Iran spent $2.5bn importing petrol to meet demand from motorists to fill their tanks at a subsidised level equivalent to 10 US cents a litre. Mr Khatami's government warned the parliament that its attempt to freeze the prices of energy by-products, electricity, water and telecom services for the current year would lead to a budget deficit of IR29,000bn ($3.3bn, ?2.5bn, ?1.7bn) and push up the losses of state-owned companies to IR17,000bn. Parliament's performance and rhetoric have sparked fears in business circles, at home and abroad, of a militant conservative candidate linked to the military winning next month's parliamentary elections, when Mr Khatami must stand down after two terms. A chief motivation for Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, at 70 an influential former president and veteran of the Islamic Revolution, to consider standing again for the presidency is what an ally called "his fear of [the militants'] economic socialism". Mr Rafsanjani's aides are positioning him as the man who can get things done - in talks with the Europeans over Iran's nuclear programme, in the economy and in opening the new airport. Just ahead of the airport's opening, Mr Rafsanjani visited the terminal to meet its managers. He argued for a metro link to the city, which is 30km away, and urged the planting of more trees and shrubs to soften the stark, desert-like surroundings. Just two days before Flight 658 was due to touch down, it was Mr Rafsanjani's presence that gave some assurance that the Revolutionary Guards would not block the runway again. Iranian forces seize Romanian oil rig By Alex Barker in London Published: August 23 2006 03:00 | Last updated: August 23 2006 03:00 Iranian armed forces attacked and forcibly seized a Romanian-owned oil rig operating in the Gulf yesterday, after a contractual dispute with its owners. Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP), an oil services group, said its Orizont rig had come under fire from a gunboat yesterday morning, after the crew refused to allow officials from a subsidiary of the Iranian state oil company on board. The incident, which led to a minor diplomatic dispute between the two countries, marks a violent turn in a contractual wrangle between the Romanian group and a subcontractor. The gunfire is understood to have damaged a crane on board as well as strafing the legs of the rig and accommodation areas for staff. None of the 26-strong crew, including 19 Romanian and seven Indian nationals, was injured. The rig was yesterday under guard by an Iranian naval vessel, although the Iranian soldiers had left. "It is totally crazy," Gabriel Comanescu, president of GSP, a private company that owns six rigs, told the Financial Times. "The Iranians took my men hostage. This must be the first- ever rig to be occupied by force in peacetime." It is unclear who ordered the operation to seize the rig. Hamid-Reza Asefi, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, declined to comment on yesterday's incident. But Iran's Revolutionary Guards, a key element of Iran's armed forces, have substantial involvement in the country's energy sector. GSP has been in a contractual dispute with Oriental Oil Kish, a private Dubai-based drilling contractor that had leased its rigs to drill wells for Petroiran Development Company, a unit of Iran's state-owned oil company. The board of Oriental includes senior Iranian political and military figures, who are believed still to include Cyrus Nasseri, a veteran diplomat who played a leading role in negotiations with Europe over Iran's nuclear programme. Oriental has been the target of a corruption investigation in Iran. GSP says it terminated its contract with Oriental after the group fell behind with payments and after doubts about the legal basis of its contract came to light. Last week the Romanian company towed the Fortuna, its second rig in Iranian waters, to the United Arab Emirates. GSP says it had permission to do so but Iranian oil industry officials later claimed GSP had "hijacked" the rig and they demanded its return. It emerged last year that Oriental had had business dealings with a subsidiary of Halliburton, the US oil services group. Additional reporting by Gareth Smyth in Tehran From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 6 12:08:00 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] The Real News Network - Iran/Russia - a deadly embrace Pt.2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1459772320.1412441249582080042.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The Real News August 5, 2009 Iran/Russia - a deadly embrace Pt.2 Pepe Escobar revisits the New Great Game http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=419 From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 6 12:08:53 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] The Real News Network - Iran/Russia - a deadly embrace Pt1 In-Reply-To: <2109472827.1236341249514344690.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <2112809301.1412931249582133616.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The Real News August 4, 2009 Iran/Russia - a deadly embrace Pt1 Pepe Escobar revisits the New Great Game http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4073 From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 6 12:08:33 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Vested interests within America's medical system promote a caricature of Canada's universal health care In-Reply-To: <1516063131.1250431249515167325.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1880144835.1412761249582113975.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.theprovince.com/health/Guest+column+Vested+interests+within+America+medical+system+promote+caricature+Canada+universal+health+care/1861247/story.html The Province August 5, 2009 Vested interests within America's medical system promote a caricature of Canada's universal health care By Michael M. Rachlis Universal health insurance is on the American policy agenda for the fifth time since the Second World War. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose public coverage for only the elderly and the very poor, while Canada opted for a universal program for hospitals and physicians' services. There are lessons to be learned from studying different approaches in similar jurisdictions. But, as a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them. The United States' and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the world's largest health policy experiment. And the results? On coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also provide for home care, long-term care, drugs and durable medical equipment, although there are co-pays. In the U.S., 46 million people have no insurance, millions are underinsured and health-care bills bankrupt more than one million Americans annually. Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems. Canada spends 10 per cent of its economy on health care; the U.S. spends 16 per cent. The extra 6 per cent of GDP -- more than $800 billion per year -- is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has up to 90 per cent lower administrative costs than private policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer. Lessons No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce the duplication of administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices. Because most of the difference in spending is for nonpatient care, Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more often and take more drugs. We even have more lung-transplant surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20 per cent lower. Lesson No. 4: Single-payer plans can work because their funding goes to services, not overhead. The Canadian system does have its problems, and these also provide important lessons. Notwithstanding a few well-publicized and misleading cases, Canadians needing urgent care get immediate treatment. But we do wait too long for much elective care, including appointments with family doctors and specialists and selected surgical procedures. We also do a poor job managing chronic disease. However, according to the New York-based Commonwealth Fund, both the American and the Canadian systems fare badly in these areas. A U.S. government Accountability Office report noted that U.S. emergency room wait times have increased, and patients who should be seen immediately are now waiting an average of 28 minutes. These problems are largely caused by our shared politico-cultural barriers to quality of care. In 19th-century North America, doctors waged a campaign against quacks and snake-oil salesmen and attained a legislative monopoly on medical practice. In return, they promised to set and enforce standards of practice. By and large, it didn't happen. And perverse incentives like fee-for-service make things even worse. U.S. health policy would be miles ahead if policymakers could learn these lessons. But they seem less interested in Canada's, or any other nation's, experience than ever. That's because U.S. democracy runs on money. Drug and insurance companies have the fuel. Hundreds of billions of premiums are wasted on overhead that could fund care for the uninsured, but industry executives and shareholders see bonuses and dividends. Traditional U.S. ignorance of what happens in Canada makes it easy to mislead people. The U.S. media, legislators and even presidents have claimed our "socialized" system doesn't let us choose our own doctors. In fact, Canadians have free choice of physicians. It's Americans these days who are restricted to "in-plan" doctors. Unfortunately, many Americans won't get to hear the straight goods because vested interests are promoting a caricature of the Canadian experience. Rachlis is a physician, health policy analyst and Toronto author. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 6 12:09:55 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Why California is broke In-Reply-To: <1398871021.1225781249512786760.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1918412424.1413301249582195154.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 6 12:09:07 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Frida Berrigan: Reflections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Our World In-Reply-To: <1476029785.1228481249513202671.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <23004855.1413031249582147580.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.truthout.org/080409G?n For the Sixty-Fourth Time: No More Nuclear War -- Reflections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Our World by Frida Berrigan TomDispatch.com: August 3, 2009 I can't help myself. I still think it's worth bringing up, even for the 64th time. I'm talking, of course, about the atomic obliteration, at the end of a terrible, world-rending war, of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on August 6 and 9, 1945, whose anniversaries - if that's even the appropriate word for it - are once again upon us. In this, at least, I know I'm not a typical American: Hiroshima and Nagasaki still seem all too real to me. As the child of anti-nuclear activists, I was raised to pay attention to two significant dates in American history - the day when the Enola Gay, a B-29 Superfortress bomber named after the pilot's mother, dropped Little Boy, a five-ton uranium explosion bomb, on Hiroshima; and the moment, three days later, when another plane, jokingly named Bock's Car (after the plane's original pilot), dropped Fat Man (a moniker supposedly given it in honor of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill), a more complex plutonium implosion bomb, on Nagasaki. When I was little, in preparation for those dates - and in this we were truly a minority of a minority in this country - we showed films documenting the aftermath of the atomic bombings. To this day, I can remember threading our old 16mm projector and then watching the shocking, shaky, grainy, black-and-white footage of ruined cities and ruined bodies filling the living room wall as one of those somber male over-voices narrated the facts. So now, as the 64th anniversary of so many deaths approaches and thinking the unthinkable remains incomprehensibly in vogue, it seems worth the bother to recall one more time just what it means for the unthinkable to become reality. The Death Count In Hiroshima, Little Boy's huge fireball and explosion killed 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly. Another 70,000 were seriously injured. As Joseph Siracusa, author of Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction, writes: "In one terrible moment, 60% of Hiroshima... was destroyed. The blast temperature was estimated to reach over a million degrees Celsius, which ignited the surrounding air, forming a fireball some 840 feet in diameter." Three days later, Fat Man exploded 1,840 feet above Nagasaki, with the force of 22,000 tons of TNT. According to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered," a web resource on the bombings developed for young people and educators, 286,000 people lived in Nagasaki before the bomb was dropped; 74,000 of them were killed instantly and another 75,000 were seriously injured. In addition to those who died immediately, or soon after the bombings, tens of thousands more would succumb to radiation sickness and other radiation-induced maladies in the months, and then years, that followed. In an article written while he was teaching math at Tufts University in 1983, Tadatoshi Akiba calculated that, by 1950, another 200,000 people had died as a result of the Hiroshima bomb, and 140,000 more were dead in Nagasaki. Dr. Akiba was later elected mayor of Hiroshima and became an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament. Surviving Hiroshima Those who somehow managed to survive call themselves Hibakusha, which literally means "those who were bombed." Most of the inhabitants of those two cities who miraculously made it through those hot and terrible August days are, if alive, now in their seventies or eighties, and they continue to tell their unique stories of horror, destruction, and survival. Their urgent pleas for peace, disarmament, and atonement often go unheard by a twenty-first century American culture that often seems to barely recall what happened last week, much less 64 years ago. Many of them have, over the years, traveled to the United States to tell their stories and show their scars, demanding that we never forget and that the world work towards nuclear disarmament. Akihiro Takahashi is 77 years old now, but part of him will always be the 14-year-old boy standing in line with his classmates on August 6, 1945, less than a mile from where Little Boy detonated. He still recalls how he and his classmates were knocked off their feet by the blast. When he stood up again, he "felt the city of Hiroshima had disappeared all of a sudden. Then I looked at myself and found my clothes had turned into rags due to the heat. I was probably burned at the back of the head, on my back, on both arms and both legs. My skin was peeling and hanging." Since that time, Takahashi has endured many operations and spent countless hours in the hospital to repair the damage wrought in that single instant. On that August morning, he began to walk home - though there were few homes left in the leveled city - stopping to relieve the terrible heat and pain of his burns in the Ota River that flows through Hiroshima. Along the way, he encountered injured friends, including a boy with terrible burns on the bottoms of his feet whom he half carried along with him. "When we were resting because we were so exhausted," he related in an oral history, "I found my grandfather's brother and his wife, in other words, great uncle and great aunt, coming toward us. That was quite [a] coincidence... [W]e have a proverb about meeting Buddha in Hell. My encounter with my relatives at that time was just like that. They seem[ed] to be the Buddha to me wandering in the living hell." Jigoku de hotoke ni au you is the phrase. In English, the equivalent would be "an oasis in the desert," something rare that provides great relief. There were not many such oases in Hiroshima that day. Imagining Nagasaki Akihiro Takahashi's story (of which the above was but a small part) is just one of so many thousands - and hardly one of the grimmest. Of course, 80,000 to 140,000 stories went with their potential tellers to their graves that day. Along with the stories that could be told, there were also the photographs to help us imagine the unimaginable. Yosuke Yamahata was 28 years old and working for the Japanese News Information Bureau in August 1945. Along with Eiji Yamada, a painter, and Jun Higashi, a writer, he was dispatched to devastated Nagasaki by the Japanese military just hours after Fat Man exploded and instructed to "photograph the situation so as to be as useful as possible for military propaganda." Their train arrived at the outskirts of the ruined city in the middle of the night. Here's how Yamahata describes the scene: "I remember vividly the cold night air and the beautiful starry sky... A warm wind began to blow. Here and there in the distance I saw many small fires, like elf fires, smoldering. Nagasaki had been completely destroyed." By the time the sun rose, Yamahata had made his way to the center of what was no longer a city. As the day went on, he retraced his steps, along the way taking photographs of the carnage and destruction until he was back at the train station. All in all, he took 119 photographs that day, capturing some of the most haunting and enduring images of the atomic age. In one, a bloodied boy holding a rice ball stares, his head covered with an air raid hood (a dark cloth that the Japanese military handed out to civilians telling them it would protect them from American bombs); in another, an exhausted-looking woman nurses a badly burnt baby. In almost every image, the ground is littered with burnt bodies and unattached limbs, household items, rubble, and timbers. As he walked through the missing city, people cried out for water or for help uncovering bodies buried in the rubble. "It is perhaps unforgiveable," reflected Yamahata, "but in fact at the time I was completely calm and composed. In other words, perhaps it was just too much, too enormous to absorb." Returning to Tokyo, Yamahata took advantage of the general confusion that surrounded the Japanese surrender to the Americans and managed to hold on to his negatives, rather than turning them over to his superiors. A handful of his images were published in Japanese newspapers at the end of August 1945, before the American army arrived and the U.S. occupation began. In October 1945, occupation authorities imposed a ban on photographing the atomic sites and on the publication of all atomic-related stories (and the images that went with them). Most of Yamahata's photographs from Nagasaki were not seen until 1952, after Japan was once again an independent nation and Life Magazine published a few of his Nagasaki photos. That same year almost all the Nagasaki photographs were published in Japan under the title: Atomized Nagasaki: The Bombing of Nagasaki, A Photographic Record. The book includes sketches by Eiji Yamada and an essay by Jun Higashi, his two companions in Nagasaki that day. In the introduction, Yamahata wrote: "Human memory has a tendency to slip and critical judgment to fade with the years and with changes in life style and circumstance... These photographs will continue to provide us with an unwavering testimony to the realities of that time." Remembering When I was young, to keep memory from "slipping," our family and friends marked the anniversary of those terrible days in a distant land with a demonstration or vigil. Often, we ended with a ceremony of remembrance, setting paper lanterns afloat on water in honor of those who died. Admittedly, this would not pass for a carefree American summer evening, but even as a little girl I came to feel as if I knew some of the A-bomb survivors personally - the experience of Akihiro Takahashi, the photographs of Yosuke Yamahata, and perhaps closest to my heart, the story of Sadako Sasaki. The children's book, Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes, written by Eleanor Coerr, brought me close to one girl whose life was cut short by my government's A-bomb long before I was born. I was then a chubby, sedentary kid, and so found myself strangely intrigued and confused by Sadako's deep love of running. She was just two years old when Little Boy exploded above her city, but eight or nine as the book begins, impatient and uncomfortable with all the obligatory ceremonies surrounding the anniversary of the bomb in Hiroshima. She did not like to look at the survivors or care to hear the terrible stories. All she wanted to do was run. Lithe, athletic, and popular, Sadako joined a footrace on the very anniversary of the destruction of her city and, when she found herself unable to finish, was taken to the doctor only to discover that she had "atom bomb sickness" - in her case, leukemia. In the hospital, a friend reminded her of an ancient Japanese belief: if you fold 1,000 paper cranes, the Gods will grant you a wish. So with the help of her classmates, she began to do just that. Scrap paper, candy wrappers, fancy printed paper: all become tiny origami birds of hope. With her as an inspiration, I learned to fold paper cranes, practicing until I could do so with my eyes closed and fold them as small as a pea. Childhood being childhood, what may have impressed me most was a friend of mine who could fold those origami birds with her toes. On October 25, 1955, with 356 birds left to go (as Coerr tells it), Sadako died. Since 1958, a statue of Sadako holding a golden folded crane has stood in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, draped with small paper birds sent from children all over the world, a symbol of peace. Hiroshima and Nagasaki Today Sixty-four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we need more than symbols of peace. Folding paper cranes alone cannot, unfortunately, end the threat of nuclear war. Memories of the destruction fade, the hibakusha grow even older and die, the haunting pictures end up in books stored spine out on bookshelves. Meanwhile, the terror of nuclear annihilation - so keen at certain moments during the long superpower Cold War stand-off - seems to have worn off almost completely. That's too bad, since the actual threat of nuclear war remains hidden but potent. The nine nuclear powers - the United States, Russia, France, England, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea - have more than 27,000 operational nuclear weapons among them, enough to destroy several Earth-sized planets. And in May, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned that the number of nuclear powers could double in a few years unless new disarmament is a priority. Is it any wonder then that, according to a recent Rasmussen opinion poll, one in five Americans believe nuclear war "very likely" in this century, and more than half, "likely"? The unthinkable is still under consideration - even as the Obama administration takes its first steps in the right direction. In an April speech in Prague, President Obama publicly embraced the goal of seeking "the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." In its wake, his administration has begun taking still quite modest but potentially important steps towards that goal, including: renewed talks with Russia over mutual nuclear reductions, conversations initiated in the Senate about jump-starting the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban, stalled these last 10 years, and of negotiations for the also stalled Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, imagined as an internationally verified ban on the production of nuclear materials for weapons. Right now, however, the American nuclear landscape - little acknowledged or discussed - remains grimly potent. According to the authoritative Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the United States still maintains a nuclear stockpile estimated at 5,200 warheads - of which approximately 2,700 are operational (with the rest in reserve), while the Obama administration will spend more than $6 billion on the research and development of nuclear weapons this year alone. At some point early next year, the administration will complete a Nuclear Posture Review outlining the role it believes nuclear weapons should play in the American pantheon of power, and, if the president follows through on his anti-nuclear statements, perhaps that document will at least begin to limit the scenarios in which such weapons could be used. In the meantime, the policy of the United States remains no different than it was in 2004, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed the Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy. It said, in part, that the United States possesses nuclear weapons for the purposes of "destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world." Read that sentence again, and think, under such a doctrine, what might the United States not bomb? Keep in mind as well that the bombs which annihilated two Japanese cities and ended so many lives 64 years ago this week were puny when compared to today's typical nuclear weapon. Little Boy was a 15 kiloton warhead. Most of the warheads in the U.S. arsenal today are 100 or 300 kilotons - capable of taking out not a Japanese city of 1945 but a modern megalopolis. Bruce Blair, president of the World Security Institute and a former launch-control officer in charge of Minutemen Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles armed with 170, 300, and 335 kiloton warheads, pointed out a few years ago that, within 12 minutes, the United States and Russia could launch the equivalent of 100,000 Hiroshimas. It is unthinkable. It seems unimaginable. It sounds like hyperbole, but consider it an uncomfortable and necessary truth. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the children of our future need us to understand this and act upon it - 64 years too late... and not a minute too soon. -------- Frida Berrigan, a Senior Program Associate at the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative, is the eldest daughter of peace activists Liz McAlister and Philip Berrigan. The two met during the Vietnam War, founded the Jonah House community in the early 1970s and spent eleven years of their marriage separated by prison sentences stemming from their anti-nuclear and peace activities. Phil Berrigan died in 2002 at the age of 79. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 6 13:18:20 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Sanitizing war's horror In-Reply-To: <877447874.4023801248731762546.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <95455637.1443941249586300794.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/bill_kaufmann/2009/07/24/10244346-sun.html Calgary Sun July 24/09 Sanitizing war's horror By BILL KAUFMANN Countries waging unpopular and dubious conflicts engage in social engineering. Whether that's through manipulating facts and perceptions at the front or at home, governments consider it essential in countering the erosion of public confidence that comes naturally from ill-considered and conceived wars or occupations. Perhaps I was naive to be surprised at seeing for the first time military hardware at a Calgary Stampede caravan breakfast a few years ago. I recall wondering what the Armed Forces had to do with pancake breakfasts and I don't recall any unloading of syrup from the back of the army-green truck. On the grounds this year, the military exhibit seemed bigger than ever, with fewer holds barred than before. The usual weapons were there -- armoured vehicles, small arms and anti-tank rocket launcher. But now they're showing off the heavier lethal ordnance like evil-nosed and finned air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles. A lanky, torpedo-like projectile hugging the asphalt was perfect to re-create a suicidal Dr. Strangelovian bareback ride, cowboy hat thrust aloft. There's something compelling about the hardware that empowers humankind in its extremity and I'm a sucker for it nearly every time. That's precisely the idea: Curious, shiny, happy people clambering over death machines in their summer fun duds is a fine disinfectant. It's part of the normalization when the sight of such equipment becomes increasingly routine. No headless bodies, burned babies or scattered entrails, just gleaming steel and smiling soldiers. We're at war and it's all about self-defence is the message, even when it's meddling in a civil war beyond our understanding . Maybe I'm naive in being surprised by a tour of the grounds and the khaki toy carnival this month by military attaches from nearly two dozen countries. They were officially pegged as visiting to savour the local "culture," which was cute. These are people who gather intelligence on the warlike proclivities of allies and drum up support for military activity. Some of those visiting were from countries whose militaries are infamous for their activities -- Indonesia, Algeria, Turkey and oh, yeah, the U.S. The grounds have become a laundromat for a lot more than cowboy threads caked with infield mud. Wandering through all the cool gear and sunscreened PR flacks, the brutal absurdities being windowdressed seem all the more distant. The prisoners tortured and murdered by our allies in Afghanistan aren't on any recruitment brochure. Neither is the $500 million from the international community -- mainly the U.S. -- being spent to ensure the "re-election" of the president and government Afghans recognize and detest as puppets. Reports this month of how the Afghan police we're training have so sullied themselves that some villagers have welcomed the Taliban as liberators is tough to square with all the blinding sunbeams. Given the history of the West's duplicity in backing every side of the Afghan mess at one time or another, is it a stretch we'll be fighting alongside the Taliban a decade from now? Our men and women serving their country deserve better than that. And they deserve more than their political leaders, soured enough on it all to pull the plug in 18 months while demanding they sacrifice right up until then. At least that's what we're being told for now -- the best case scenario. It's cynicism as political blood sport. Amid it all, the conditioning not only goes on, it's ratcheted up. When a government is determined to ignore the majority of its own anti-war citizenry while proclaiming it is spreading democracy through force, it hasn't a choice. BILL.KAUFMANN at SUNMEDIA.CA From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Aug 6 15:50:59 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 06:50:59 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Terror America Wrought Message-ID: <20090807065059.fecc0790.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> A Truthdig Classic by Robert Scheer Truthdig (August 05 2009) Note: This column was originally published in August 2007. During a week of mayhem in Iraq, in which terrorists have rightly been condemned for targeting schoolchildren, it is sobering to recall that this week is also the 62nd anniversary of a US attack that deliberately took the lives of thousands of children on their way to school in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As noted in the Strategic Bombing Survey conducted at President Harry Truman's request, when the bomb hit Hiroshima on April 6 1945, "nearly all the school children ... were at work in the open", to be exploded, irradiated or incinerated in the perfect firestorm that the planners back at the University of California-run Los Alamos lab had envisioned for the bomb's maximum psychological impact. The terror plot worked all too well, as Hiroshima's Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba recalled this week: "That fateful summer, 8:15 am. The roar of a B-29 breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a flash, an enormous blast - silence - hell on Earth. The eyes of young girls watching the parachute were melted. Their faces became giant charred blisters. The skin of people seeking help dangled from their fingernails ... Others died when their eyeballs and internal organs burst from their bodies - Hiroshima was a hell where those who somehow survived envied the dead." Like most of the others killed by the two American bombs, neither the children nor the adults had any role in Japan's decision to go to war, but they were picked as the target instead of an isolated but fortified military base whose antiaircraft fire posed a higher risk. The target preferred by US atomic scientists - a patch in the ocean or unpopulated terrain - was rejected, because the effect of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying would be all the more dramatic. The victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were available soft targets, much like the children playing in Iraq, suddenly caught in the crossfire of battles waged beyond their control. In "White Light/Black Rain", a devastating HBO documentary released this week, there is an interview with the sole survivor of a Japanese elementary school of 620 students. The murder of the other 619, and the 370,000 overall deaths attributed to the bombings, 85 percent of which were civilian deaths, has never compelled a widespread examination of the "end justifies the means" morality of our own state-sanctioned acts of terror. Indeed, the horrifying footage taken by Japanese and American cameramen soon after the devastation, and shown in the HBO film, was long kept secret by the US government for fear that an informed American public might question this nation's incipient nuclear arms race. Just exactly what distinguishes the United States' use of the ever-so-cutely-named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" atomic bombs on cities in Japan from the car bombs of Baghdad or the planes that smashed into the World Trade Center? To even raise the question, as was found in one recent university case, can be a career-ending move. Of course, we had our justifications, as terrorists always do. Truman defended his decision to drop the atomic bombs on civilians over the objection of leading atomic scientists on the grounds that it was a necessary military action to save lives by forcing a quick Japanese surrender. He insisted on that imperative despite the objections of top military figures, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who contended that the war would end quickly without dropping the bomb. The subsequent release of formerly secret documents makes a hash of Truman's rationalization. His White House was fully informed that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, and their surrender was made all the more likely by the Soviets' imminent entry into the fight. At most, the Japanese were asking for the face-saving gesture of retaining their emperor, and even that modest demand would likely have been abandoned with the shift of massive numbers of Allied troops and firepower from the battlefront of a defeated Germany to a confrontation with its deeply wounded Asian ally. Instead, the US played midwife to the birth of the nuclear monster, the ultimate terrorist weapon that presents a continuing and growing threat to the survival of human life on Earth. This is a lesson to be pondered at a time when President Bush plays power games with a nuclear-equipped Russia while coddling Pakistan, the main proliferator of nuclear weapons to rogue regimes, and Congress authorizes an expansion of the US nuclear program to better fight the war on terror by "improving" the ultimate weapon of terror, which the US alone stands guilty of using. Click here to go to HBO's site for "White Light/Black Rain": http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/whitelightblackrain/ _____ A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Copyright (c) 2009 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090805_truthdig_classic_the_terror_america_wrought/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 6 16:35:31 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 15:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Structural problems facing American health care can't be fixed by approach in legislation's current form In-Reply-To: <778285970.1529821249597920159.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <35960009.1531451249598131530.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/faint-praise_b_249635.html American Prospect August 2, 2009 Faint Praise The structural problems facing the American healthcare system cannot be fixed by what is likely to be approved by Congress as the Obama plan. By Robert Kuttner President Obama wanted health insurance reform in the worst way. And at the rate things are going, he is likely to get it. Let's review the bidding -- first the substance, then the politics. America spends 15 percent of its GDP covering far less than the entire population, while other wealthy nations cover everyone, more effectively, for about nine percent. We under-insure tens of millions of others by leaving big loopholes in what's covered. More than half of Americans who file medical bankruptcy nominally have insurance. Why is our system so massively inefficient? Because it is run by and for private insurers, aided and abetted by for-profit drug companies and hospitals. Even if we insure more people, as President Obama hopes to, a fragmented, profit-oriented system dominated by these interests simply cannot yield the most efficient use of health outlays. By contrast, a comprehensive system with a national health budget naturally looks for the most efficient way to spend health dollars. That means much greater investment in prevention, and in the comprehensive use of proven treatment protocols for the easy stuff that makes a big difference in heading off more expensive treatments later on, such as childhood asthma, high blood pressure, and diabetes. It means a more sensible breakdown of primary care doctors and specialists. It means not saddling med school grads with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, which turns them into profit machines rather than healers. Private health insurers cannot get us to this outcome because they maximize their profits by targeting the young and the healthy, and avoiding the sick, the old, and the risky. They invent preposterous concepts such as exclusion of people with "pre-existing conditions." Hendrik Hertzberg recently observed that we are all born with a pre-existing condition -- mortality. In theory, HMOs were supposed to increase prevention and collaboration. But they rapidly deteriorated into merely a system where large panels of doctors are approved providers if they accept the HMO's fee schedule, and physicians are under pressure to cut costs and see ever more patients in ever shorter appointments if they wish to maintain their incomes. The "staff model" group practice -- where doctors are salaried and a medical team of generalists and specialists works in close collaboration -- is our closest equivalent of national health insurance, but it is being crowded out by the cherry-picking practices of the insurance industry. The exceptions invariably provide the best and most efficient care, such as the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic. The press commentary on the cause and cure of medical inflation has largely missed the point. The problem is not that "hospitals" and "doctors" in general make or charge too much money. The problem is feast coexisting with famine. The current system gives hospitals incentives to target the services that produce the most reimbursement at the least cost, such as complex cardiac interventions. So cardiology departments are gold-plated, while money-losing emergency rooms are threadbare. To make matters worse, specialty day-surgery hospitals, often owned by doctor-entrepreneurs, divert profitable patients from hard-pressed local general hospitals. There is also a misallocation of resources according to medical specialty. As reimbursements are cut by insurers and by Medicare, primary care doctors are squeezed; likewise OB/GYNs, psychiatrists, and pediatricians. Meanwhile, some specialists such as oncologists (who are permitted to personally profit from the sale of cancer drugs), surgeons, dermatologists, and others, are still making out just fine. And standard practices and charges wildly vary by region. The bottom line is that these structural problems cannot be fixed by what is likely to be approved by Congress as the Obama plan. Obama hopes that heavy reliance on new electronic record-keeping can somehow reduce medical inflation. But this is not where the problem (or the solution) lies -- because the plan builds on the existing insurance industry, with all of its inefficiencies. The candid Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, recently testified that the design of the Obama approach did nothing that would fundamentally change the pattern of medical cost inflation. Putting the best possible gloss on Obama's approach, its inclusion of a public option will gradually move more and more people to a Medicare-style system; its much tougher regulation of private insurers will yield at least some of the efficiencies that we could get through true national health insurance, it will ban some of the worst practices such as exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and its "play-or-pay" feature for employers and subsidy of the near-poor will bring insurance to most Americans. That is the best possible outcome. But it is not the likely one. That brings us to the politics. President Obama set the terms of this legislative battle by proposing to work with, not against the insurance and drug industries. That added one lead weight to his feet. Then he added a second lead weight by trying to make the affair bipartisan, inviting Republicans to collude to produce an unacceptably weak plan. (Let's seek what kind of bastard child emerges from the collaboration between the unreliable Democrat Max Baucus of the Senate Finance Committee and his Republican counterpart, Chuck Grassley.) Obama also waited until very late in the game to take his case to the country. The result? The insurance and drug industry lobbies say they support Obama. They just happen to oppose all of the details that would make the reform meaningful. The bill that (barely) cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Friday keeps alive a somewhat stripped down public option. It bans exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And it requires employers to provide at least standard insurance or pay a tax. But the proposed tax is far less than the cost of the insurance, shifting some costs onto government. And it remains to be seen whether the remaining teeth in the House bill can survive what will surely be a weaker Senate bill. The Democratic Blue Dogs remain sunshine patriots on health reform if there is a risk of increasing costs to business; and the Republicans have defined defeat of health reform as a strategy of handing Obama a disabling symbolic defeat. Given the partial progress by the House, it seems almost churlish to criticize Obama for not having set the bar higher in the first place. The liberal commentariat has bent over backwards to find things in the bill to like. The estimable Hertzberg writes, "The American health-care system is bloated, wasteful, and cruel. Under the health-insurance-reform package now being bludgeoned into misshapen shape on Capitol Hill, it will still be bloated, wasteful, and cruel -- but markedly less so." Yes, but the consequence will be that medical inflation will likely drive us to further cuts in care, further speed-ups on primary care doctors, and further cost-shifting to patients and taxpayers. The New York Times, in another classic of faint praise, editorialized, "It seems hard to believe that over the long haul the introduction of electronic medical records will not save substantial money." Actually, it is quite easy to believe. This editorialist must be extremely healthy. If he or she has been to the doctor lately, the medical records are already computerized and "charts" are electronic, not hand written. The problem is not the technology but the insurer-dominated system in which it reposes. The behavior of Harry & Louise, the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats is so odious that it's hard not to put in a kind word for Obama. Paul Krugman was never a fan of the Obama approach. His latest column is a general tutorial on why we should thank government for the fact that health insurance functions at all. He declines to say anything nice about the Obama bill, but concludes, very graciously, with more faint praise: "Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That's not radical; it's as American as, well, Medicare." In my book, Obama's Challenge, I argued that our new president should devote all his effort in his first year to getting the economy back on track. Then, armed with the gratitude of the people and an increased majority in Congress, he should offer a much more robust health reform such as single payer after the first mid-term election. It would be a huge mistake, I contended, to tackle the Mount Everest of domestic reform as a novice. Well, President Obama didn't take my advice (not the first time.) I can only join my fellow progressive journalists in hoping that something like the House version of the bill survives. But the likelihood is that whatever finally makes it through this session of Congress will reinforce and further bloat the current disaster of a health insurance system rather than fundamentally changing it. And if the decent elements of the plan are blocked, Obama should have the courage to pull the bill and take his case to the people. As Shakespeare wrote, "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." The satisfaction of a Rose Garden signing ceremony is not worth it, if the plan is more thorn than rose. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect, a senior fellow at Demos, and author of Obama's Challenge. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Aug 7 03:20:33 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 18:20:33 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Hiroshima Day Message-ID: <20090807182033.c0e4a87b.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> America Has Been Asleep at the Wheel for 64 Years by Daniel Ellsberg Truthdig (August 05 2009) It was a hot August day in Detroit. I was standing on a street corner downtown, looking at the front page of The Detroit News in a news rack. I remember a streetcar rattling by on the tracks as I read the headline: A single American bomb had destroyed a Japanese city. My first thought was that I knew exactly what that bomb was. It was the U-235 bomb we had discussed in school and written papers about, the previous fall. I thought: "We got it first. And we used it. On a city." I had a sense of dread, a feeling that something very ominous for humanity had just happened. A feeling, new to me as an American, at fourteen, that my country might have made a terrible mistake. I was glad when the war ended nine days later, but it didn't make me think that my first reaction on August 6th was wrong. Unlike nearly everyone else outside the Manhattan Project, my first awareness of the challenges of the nuclear era had occurred - and my attitudes toward the advent of nuclear weaponry had formed - some nine months earlier than those headlines, and in a crucially different context. It was in a ninth-grade social studies class in the fall of 1944. I was thirteen, a boarding student on full scholarship at Cranbrook, a private school in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Our teacher, Bradley Patterson, was discussing a concept that was familiar then in sociology, William F Ogburn's notion of "cultural lag". ____________________ After Labor Day, Daniel Ellsberg's Web site, http://www.ellsberg.net, and some other sites including Truthdig, will start regular installments of his insider's memoir of the nuclear era - "The American Doomsday Machine" - an Internet book reflecting his earlier classified work and forty years of research. In the article here, Ellsberg says: "To understand the urgency of radical changes in our nuclear policies that may truly move the world toward abolition of nuclear weapons, we need a new understanding of the real history of the nuclear age ... I plan over the next year, before the 65th anniversary of Hiroshima, to do my part in unveiling this hidden history". ____________________ The idea was that the development of technology regularly moved much further and faster in human social-historical evolution than other aspects of culture: our institutions of government, our values, habits, our understanding of society and ourselves. Indeed, the very notion of "progress" referred mainly to technology. What "lagged" behind, what developed more slowly or not at all in social adaptation to new technology was everything that bore on our ability to control and direct technology and the use of technology to dominate other humans. To illustrate this, Mr Patterson posed a potential advance in technology that might be realized soon. It was possible now, he told us, to conceive of a bomb made of U-235, an isotope of uranium, which would have an explosive power 1,000 times greater than the largest bombs being used in the war that was then going on. German scientists in late 1938 had discovered that uranium could be split by nuclear fission, in a way that would release immense amounts of energy. Several popular articles about the possibility of atomic bombs and specifically U-235 bombs appeared during the war in magazines like The Saturday Evening Post. None of these represented leaks from the Manhattan Project, whose very existence was top-secret. In every case they had been inspired by earlier articles on the subject that had been published freely in 1939 and 1940, before scientific self-censorship and then formal classification had set in. Patterson had come across one of these wartime articles. He brought the potential development to us as an example of one more possible leap by science and technology ahead of our social institutions. Suppose, then, that one nation, or several, chose to explore the possibility of making this into a bomb, and succeeded. What would be the probable implications of this for humanity? How would it be used, by humans and states as they were today? Would it be, on balance, bad or good for the world? Would it be a force for peace, for example, or for destruction? We were to write a short essay on this, within a week. I recall the conclusions I came to in my paper after thinking about it for a few days. As I remember, everyone in the class had arrived at much the same judgment. It seemed pretty obvious. The existence of such a bomb - we each concluded - would be bad news for humanity. Mankind could not handle such a destructive force. It could not control it, safely, appropriately. The power would be "abused": used dangerously and destructively, with terrible consequences. Many cities would be destroyed entirely, just as the Allies were doing their best to destroy German cities without atomic bombs at that very time, just as the Germans earlier had attempted to do to Rotterdam and London. Civilization, perhaps our species, would be in danger of destruction. It was just too powerful. Bad enough that bombs already existed that could destroy a whole city block. They were called "block-busters": ten tons of high explosive. Humanity didn't need the prospect of bombs a thousand times more powerful, bombs that could destroy whole cities. As I recall, this conclusion didn't depend mainly on who had the Bomb, or how many had it, or who got it first. And to the best of my memory, we in the class weren't addressing it as something that might come so soon as to bear on the outcome of the ongoing war. It seemed likely, the way the case was presented to us, that the Germans would get it first, since they had done the original science. But we didn't base our negative assessment on the idea that this would necessarily be a Nazi or German bomb. It would be a bad development, on balance, even if democratic countries got it first. After we turned in our papers and discussed them in class, it was months before I thought of the issues again. I remember the moment when I did, on a street corner in Detroit. I can still see and feel the scene and recall my thoughts, described above, as I read the headline on August 6th. I remember that I was uneasy, on that first day and in the days ahead, about the tone in President Harry Truman's voice on the radio as he exulted over our success in the race for the Bomb and its effectiveness against Japan. I generally admired Truman, then and later, but in hearing his announcements I was put off by the lack of concern in his voice, the absence of a sense of tragedy, of desperation or fear for the future. It seemed to me that this was a decision best made in anguish; and both Truman's manner and the tone of the official communiques made unmistakably clear that this hadn't been the case. Which meant for me that our leaders didn't have the picture, didn't grasp the significance of the precedent they had set and the sinister implications for the future. And that evident unawareness was itself scary. I believed that something ominous had happened; that it was bad for humanity that the Bomb was feasible, and that its use would have bad long-term consequences, whether or not those negatives were balanced or even outweighed by short-run benefits. Looking back, it seems clear to me my reactions then were right. Moreover, reflecting on two related themes that have run through my life since then - intense abhorrence of nuclear weapons, and more generally of killing women and children - I've come to suspect that I've conflated in my emotional memory two events less than a year apart: Hiroshima and a catastrophe that visited my own family eleven months later. On the Fourth of July, 1946, driving on a hot afternoon on a flat, straight road through the cornfields of Iowa - on the way from Detroit to visit our relatives in Denver - my father fell asleep at the wheel and went off the road long enough to hit a sidewall over a culvert that sheared off the right side of the car, killing my mother and sister. My father's nose was broken and his forehead was cut. When a highway patrol car came by, he was wandering by the wreckage, bleeding and dazed. I was inside, in a coma from a concussion, with a large gash on the left side of my forehead. I had been sitting on the floor next to the back seat, on a suitcase covered with a blanket, with my head just behind the driver's seat. When the car hit the wall, my head was thrown against a metal fixture on the back of the driver's seat, knocking me out and opening up a large triangular flap of flesh on my forehead. I was in coma for 36 hours. My legs had been stretched out in front of me across the car and my right leg was broken just above the knee. My father had been a highway engineer in Nebraska. He said that highway walls should never have been flush with the road like that, and later laws tended to ban that placement. This one took off the side of the car where my mother and sister were sitting, my sister looking forward and my mother facing left with her back to the side of the car. My brother, who came to the scene from Detroit, said later that when he saw what was left of the car in a junkyard, the right side looked like steel wool. It was amazing that anyone had survived. My understanding of how that event came about - it wasn't entirely an accident, as I heard from my father, that he had kept driving when he was exhausted - and how it affected my life is a story for another time. But looking back now, at what I drew from reading the Pentagon Papers later and on my citizen's activism since then, I think I saw in the events of August 1945 and July 1946, unconsciously, a common message. I loved my father, and I respected Truman. But you couldn't rely entirely on a trusted authority - no matter how well-intentioned he was, however much you admired him - to protect you, and your family, from disaster. You couldn't safely leave events entirely to the care of authorities. Some vigilance was called for, to awaken them if need be or warn others. They could be asleep at the wheel, heading for a wall or a cliff. I saw that later in Lyndon Johnson and in his successor, and I've seen it since. But I sensed almost right away, in August 1945 as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated, that such feelings - about our president, and our Bomb - separated me from nearly everyone around me, from my parents and friends and from most other Americans. They were not to be mentioned. They could only sound unpatriotic. And in World War Two, that was about the last way one wanted to sound. These were thoughts to be kept to myself. Unlikely thoughts for a fourteen-year-old American boy to have had the week the war ended? Yes, if he hadn't been in Mr Patterson's social studies class the previous fall. Every member of that class must have had the same flash of recognition of the Bomb, as they read the August headlines during our summer vacation. Beyond that, I don't know whether they responded as I did, in the terms of our earlier discussion. But neither our conclusions then or reactions like mine on August 6th stamped us as gifted prophets. Before that day perhaps no one in the public outside our class - no one else outside the Manhattan Project (and very few inside it) - had spent a week, as we had, or even a day thinking about the impact of such a weapon on the long-run prospects for humanity. And we were set apart from our fellow Americans in another important way. Perhaps no others outside the project or our class ever had occasion to think about the Bomb without the strongly biasing positive associations that accompanied their first awareness in August 1945 of its very possibility: that it was "our" weapon, an instrument of American democracy developed to deter a Nazi Bomb, pursued by two presidents, a war-winning weapon and a necessary one - so it was claimed and almost universally believed - to end the war without a costly invasion of Japan. Unlike nearly all the others who started thinking about the new nuclear era after August 6th, our attitudes of the previous fall had not been shaped, or warped, by the claim and appearance that such a weapon had just won a war for the forces of justice, a feat that supposedly would otherwise have cost a million American lives (and as many or more Japanese). For nearly all other Americans, whatever dread they may have felt about the long-run future of the Bomb (and there was more expression of this in elite media than most people remembered later) was offset at the time and ever afterward by a powerful aura of its legitimacy, and its almost miraculous potential for good which had already been realized. For a great many Americans still, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are regarded above all with gratitude, for having saved their own lives or the lives of their husbands, brothers, fathers or grandfathers, which would otherwise have been at risk in the invasion of Japan. For these Americans and many others, the Bomb was not so much an instrument of massacre as a kind of savior, a protector of precious lives. Most Americans ever since have seen the destruction of the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary and effective - as constituting just means, in effect just terrorism, under the supposed circumstances - thus legitimating, in their eyes, the second and third largest single-day massacres in history. (The largest, also by the US Army Air Corps, was the firebombing of Tokyo five months before on the night of March 9th, which burned alive or suffocated 80,000 to 120,000 civilians. Most of the very few Americans who are aware of this event at all accept it, too, as appropriate in wartime. To regard those acts as definitely other than criminal and immoral - as most Americans do - is to believe that anything - anything - can be legitimate means: at worst, a necessary, lesser, evil. At least, if done by Americans, on the order of a president, during wartime. Indeed, we are the only country in the world that believes it won a war by bombing - specifically by bombing cities with weapons of mass destruction - and believes that it was fully rightful in doing so. It is a dangerous state of mind. Even if the premises of these justifications had been realistic (after years of study I'm convinced, along with many scholars, that they were not; but I'm not addressing that here), the consequences of such beliefs for subsequent policymaking were bound to be fateful. They underlie the American government and public's ready acceptance ever since of basing our security on readiness to carry out threats of mass annihilation by nuclear weapons, and the belief by many officials and elites still today that abolition of these weapons is not only infeasible but undesirable. By contrast, given a few days' reflection in the summer of 1945 before a presidential fait accompli was framed in that fashion, you didn't have to be a moral prodigy to arrive at the sense of foreboding we all had in Mr Patterson's class. It was as easily available to thirteen-year-old ninth-graders as it was to many Manhattan Project scientists, who also had the opportunity to form their judgments before the Bomb was used. But the scientists knew something else that was unknown to the public and even to most high-level decision-makers. They knew that the atomic bombs, the uranium and plutonium fission bombs they were preparing, were only the precursors to far more powerful explosives, almost surely including a thermonuclear fusion bomb, later called the hydrogen bomb, or H-bomb. That weapon - of which we eventually came to have tens of thousands - could have an explosive yield much greater than the fission bombs needed to trigger it. A thousand times greater. Moreover, most of the scientists who focused on the long-run implications of nuclear weapons, belatedly, after the surrender of Germany in May 1945 believed that using the Bomb against Japan would make international control of the weapon very unlikely. In turn that would make inevitable a desperate arms race, which would soon expose the United States to adversaries' uncontrolled possession of thermonuclear weapons, so that, as the scientists said in a pre-attack petition to the president, "the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation". (In this they were proved correct.) They cautioned the president - on both moral grounds and considerations of long-run survival of civilization - against beginning this process by using the Bomb against Japan even if its use might shorten the war. But their petition was sent "through channels" and was deliberately held back by General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project. It never got to the president, or even to Secretary of War Henry Stimson until after the Bomb had been dropped. There is no record that the scientists' concerns about the future and their judgment of a nuclear attack's impact on it were ever made known to President Truman before or after his decisions. Still less, made known to the American public. At the end of the war the scientists' petition and their reasoning were reclassified secret to keep it from public knowledge, and its existence was unknown for more than a decade. Several Manhattan Project scientists later expressed regret that they had earlier deferred to the demands of the secrecy managers - for fear of losing their clearances and positions, and perhaps facing prosecution - and had collaborated in maintaining public ignorance on this most vital of issues. One of them - Eugene Rabinowitch, who after the war founded and edited the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (with its Doomsday Clock) - had in fact, after the German surrender in May, actively considered breaking ranks and alerting the American public to the existence of the Bomb, the plans for using it against Japan, and the scientists' views both of the moral issues and the long-term dangers of doing so. He first reported this in a letter to The New York Times published on June 28 1971. It was the day I submitted to arrest at the federal courthouse in Boston; for thirteen days previous, my wife and I had been underground, eluding the FBI while distributing the Pentagon Papers to seventeen newspapers after injunctions had halted publication in the Times and The Washington Post. The Rabinowitch letter began by saying it was "the revelation by The Times of the Pentagon history of US intervention in Vietnam, despite its classification as 'secret' " that led him now to reveal: "Before the atom bomb-drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I had spent sleepless nights thinking that I should reveal to the American people, perhaps through a reputable news organ, the fateful act - the first introduction of atomic weapons - which the US Government planned to carry out without consultation with its people. Twenty-five years later, I feel I would have been right if I had done so." I didn't see this the morning it was published, because I was getting myself arrested and arraigned, for doing what Rabinowitch wishes he had done in 1945, and I wish I had done in 1964. I first came across this extraordinary confession by a would-be whistle-blower (I don't know another like it) in Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial by Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell (New York, 1995, page 249). Rereading Rabinowitch's statement, still with some astonishment, I agree with him. He was right to consider it, and he would have been right if he had done it. He would have faced prosecution and prison then (as I did at the time his letter was published), but he would have been more than justified, as a citizen and as a human being, in informing the American public and burdening them with shared responsibility for the fateful decision. Some of the same scientists faced a comparable challenge four years after Hiroshima, addressing the possible development of an even more terrible weapon, more fraught with possible danger to human survival: the hydrogen bomb. This time some who had urged use of the atom bomb against Japan (dissenting from the petitioners above) recommended against even development and testing of the new proposal, in view of its "extreme dangers to mankind". "Let it be clearly realized", they said, "that this is a super weapon; it is in a totally different category from an atomic bomb" (Herbert York, The Advisors [California, 1976], page 156). Once more, as I learned much later, knowledge of the secret possibility was not completely limited to government scientists. A few others - my father, it turns out, was one - knew of this prospect before it had received the stamp of presidential approval and had become an American government project. And once again, under those conditions of prior knowledge (denied as before to the public), to grasp the moral and long-run dangers you didn't have to be a nuclear physicist. My father was not. Some background is needed here. My father, Harry Ellsberg, was a structural engineer. He worked for Albert Kahn in Detroit, the "Arsenal of Democracy". At the start of the Second World War, he was the chief structural engineer in charge of designing the Ford Willow Run plant, a factory to make B-24 Liberator bombers for the Air Corps. (On June 1st this year, GM, now owner, announced it would close the plant as part of its bankruptcy proceedings.) Dad was proud of the fact that it was the world's largest industrial building under one roof. It put together bombers the way Ford produced cars, on an assembly line. The assembly line was a mile and a quarter long. My father told me that it had ended up L-shaped, instead of in a straight line as he had originally designed it. When the site was being prepared, Ford comptrollers noted that the factory would run over a county line, into an adjacent county where the company had less control and local taxes were higher. So the design, for the assembly line and the factory housing it, had to be bent at right angles to stay inside Ford country. Once, my father took me out to Willow Run to see the line in operation. For as far as I could see, the huge metal bodies of planes were moving along tracks as workers riveted and installed parts. It was like pictures I had seen of steer carcasses in a Chicago slaughterhouse. But as Dad had explained to me, three-quarters of a mile along, the bodies were moved off the tracks onto a circular turntable that rotated them ninety degrees; then they were moved back on track for the last half mile of the L. Finally, the planes were rolled out the hangar doors at the end of the factory - one every hour: It took 59 minutes on the line to build a plane with its 100,000 parts from start to finish - filled with gas and flown out to war. Click here for sources and photographs: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=73&category=locations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Run_Bomber_Plant It was an exciting sight for a thirteen-year-old. I was proud of my father. His next wartime job had been to design a still larger airplane engine factory - again the world's largest plant under one roof - the Dodge Chicago plant, which made all the engines for B-29s. When the war ended, Dad accepted an offer to oversee the buildup of the plutonium production facilities at Hanford, Washington. That project was being run by General Electric under contract with the Atomic Energy Commission. To take the job of chief structural engineer on the project, Dad moved from the engineering firm of Albert Kahn, where he had worked for years, to what became Giffels & Rossetti. Later he told me that engineering firm had the largest volume of construction contracts in the world at that time, and his project was the world's largest. I grew up hearing these superlatives. The Hanford project gave my father his first really good salary. But while I was away as a sophomore at Harvard, he left his job with Giffels & Rossetti, for reasons I never learned at the time. He was out of work for almost a year. Then he went back as chief structural engineer for the whole firm. Almost thirty years later, in 1978, when my father was 89, I happened to ask him why he had left Giffels & Rossetti. His answer startled me. He said, "Because they wanted me to help build the H-bomb". This was a breathtaking statement for me to hear in 1978. I was in full-time active opposition to the deployment of the neutron bomb - which was a small H-bomb - that President Jimmy Carter was proposing to send to Europe. The N-bomb had a killing radius from its output of neutrons that was much wider than its radius of destruction by blast. Optimally, an airburst N-bomb would have little fallout nor would it destroy structures, equipment or vehicles, but its neutrons would kill the humans either outside or within buildings or tanks. The Soviets mocked it as "a capitalist weapon" that destroyed people but not property; but they tested such a weapon too, as did other countries. I had opposed developing or testing that concept for almost twenty years, since it was first described to me by my friend and colleague at the Rand Corporation, Sam Cohen, who liked to be known as the "father of the neutron bomb". I feared that, as a "small" weapon with limited and seemingly controllable lethal effects, it would be seen as usable in warfare, making US first use and "limited nuclear war" more likely. It would be the match that would set off an exchange of the much larger, dirty weapons which were the bulk of our arsenal and were all that the Soviets then had. In the year of this conversation with Dad, I was arrested four times blocking the railroad tracks at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Production Facility, which produced all the plutonium triggers for H-bombs and was going to produce the plutonium cores for neutron bombs. One of these arrests was on Nagasaki Day, August 9th. The "triggers" produced at Rocky Flats were, in effect, the nuclear components of A-bombs, plutonium fission bombs of the type that had destroyed Nagasaki on that date in 1945. Every one of our many thousands of H-bombs, the thermonuclear fusion bombs that arm our strategic forces, requires a Nagasaki-type A-bomb as its detonator. (I doubt that one American in a hundred knows that simple fact, and thus has a clear understanding of the difference between A- and H-bombs, or of the reality of the thermonuclear arsenals of the last fifty years. Our popular image of nuclear war - from the familiar pictures of the devastation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - is grotesquely misleading. Those pictures show us only what happens to humans and buildings when they are hit by what is now just the detonating cap for a modern nuclear weapon. The plutonium for these weapons came from Hanford and from the Savannah River Site in Georgia and was machined into weapons components at Rocky Flats, in Colorado. Allen Ginsberg and I, with many others, blockaded the entrances to the plant on August 9 1978, to interrupt business as usual on the anniversary of the day a plutonium bomb had killed 58,000 humans (about 100,000 had died by the end of 1945). I had never heard before of any connection of my father with the H-bomb. He wasn't particularly wired in to my anti-nuclear work or to any of my activism since the Vietnam War had ended. I asked him what he meant by his comment about leaving Giffels & Rossetti. "They wanted me to be in charge of designing a big plant that would be producing material for an H-bomb". He said that DuPont, which had built the Hanford Site, was to have the contract from the Atomic Energy Commission. That would have been for the Savannah River Site. I asked him when this was. "Late 1949". I told him, "You must have the date wrong. You couldn't have heard about the hydrogen bomb then, it's too early." I'd just been reading about that, in Herb York's recent book, The Advisors (1976). The General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the AEC - chaired by Robert Oppenheimer and including James Conant, Enrico Fermi and Isidor Rabi - were considering that fall whether or not to launch a crash program for an H-bomb. That was the "super weapon" referred to earlier. They had advised strongly against it, but President Truman overruled them. "Truman didn't make the decision to go ahead till January 1950. Meanwhile the whole thing was super-secret. You couldn't have heard about it in 1949." My father said, "Well, somebody had to design the plant if they were going to go ahead. I was the logical person. I was in charge of the structural engineering of the whole project at Hanford after the war. I had a Q clearance." That was the first I'd ever heard that he'd had had a Q clearance - an AEC clearance for nuclear weapons design and stockpile data. I'd had that clearance myself in the Pentagon - along with close to a dozen other special clearances above top-secret - after I left the Rand Corporation. for the Defense Department in 1964. It was news to me that my father had had a clearance, but it made sense that he would have needed one for Hanford. I said, "So you're telling me that you would have been one of the only people in the country, outside the GAC, who knew we were considering building the H-bomb in 1949?" He said, "I suppose so. Anyway, I know it was late 1949, because that's when I quit." "Why did you quit?" "I didn't want to make an H-bomb. Why, that thing was going to be 1,000 times more powerful than the A-bomb!" I thought, score one for his memory at 89. He remembered the proportion correctly. That was the same factor Oppenheimer and the others predicted in their report in 1949. They were right. The first explosion of a true H-bomb, five years later, had a thousand times the explosive power of the Hiroshima blast. At fifteen megatons - the equivalent of fifteen million tons of high explosive - it was over a million times more powerful than the largest conventional bombs of World War Two. That one bomb had almost eight times the explosive force of all the bombs we dropped in that war: more than all the explosions in all the wars in human history. In 1961, the Soviets tested a 58-megaton H-bomb. My father went on: "I hadn't wanted to work on the A-bomb, either. But then Einstein seemed to think that we needed it, and it made sense to me that we had to have it against the Russians. So I took the job, but I never felt good about it. "Then when they told me they were going to build a bomb 1,000 times bigger, that was it for me. I went back to my office and I said to my deputy, 'These guys are crazy. They have an A-bomb, now they want an H-bomb. They're going to go right through the alphabet till they have a Z-bomb.' " I said, "Well, so far they've only gotten up to N". He said, "There was another thing about it that I couldn't stand. Building these things generated a lot of radioactive waste. I wasn't responsible for designing the containers for the waste, but I knew they were bound to leak eventually. That stuff was deadly forever. It was radioactive for 24,000 years." Again he had turned up a good figure. I said, "Your memory is working pretty well. It would be deadly a lot longer than that, but that's about the half-life of plutonium." There were tears in his eyes. He said huskily, "I couldn't stand the thought that I was working on a project that was poisoning parts of my own country forever, that might make parts of it uninhabitable for thousands of years". I thought over what he'd said; then I asked him if anyone else working with him had had misgivings. He didn't know. "Were you the only one who quit?" He said yes. He was leaving the best job he'd ever had, and he didn't have any other to turn to. He lived on savings for a while and did some consulting. I thought about Oppenheimer and Conant - both of whom had recommended dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima - and Fermi and Rabi, who had, that same month Dad was resigning, expressed internally their opposition to development of the superbomb in the most extreme terms possible: It was potentially "a weapon of genocide ? carries much further than the atomic bomb itself the policy of exterminating civilian populations ? whose power of destruction is essentially unlimited ? a threat to the future of the human race which is intolerable ? a danger to humanity as a whole ? necessarily an evil thing considered in any light" (York, The Advisors, pages 155-159). Not one of these men risked his clearance by sharing his anxieties and the basis for them with the American public. Oppenheimer and Conant considered resigning their advisory positions when the president went ahead against their advice. But they were persuaded - by Dean Acheson - not to quit at that time, lest that draw public attention to their expert judgment that the president's course fatally endangered humanity. I asked my father what had made him feel so strongly, to act in a way that nobody else had done. He said, "You did". That didn't make any sense. I said, "What do you mean? We didn't discuss this at all. I didn't know anything about it." Dad said, "It was earlier. I remember you came home with a book one day, and you were crying. It was about Hiroshima. You said, 'Dad, you've got to read this. It's the worst thing I've ever read.' " I said that must have been John Hersey's book Hiroshima (1946). (I read it when it came out as a book. I was in the hospital when it filled The New Yorker in August 1946.) I didn't remember giving it to him. "Yes. Well, I read it, and you were right. That's when I started to feel bad about working on an atomic bomb project. And then when they said they wanted me to work on a hydrogen bomb, it was too much for me. I thought it was time for me to get out." I asked if he had told his bosses why he was quitting. He said he told some people, not others. The ones he told seemed to understand his feelings. In fact, in less than a year, the head of the firm called to say that they wanted him to come back as chief structural engineer for the whole firm. They were dropping the DuPont contract (they didn't say why), so he wouldn't have to have anything to do with the AEC or bomb-making. He stayed with them till he retired. I said, finally, "Dad, how could I not ever have heard any of this before? How come you never said anything about it?" My father said, "Oh, I couldn't tell any of this to my family. You weren't cleared." Well, I finally got my clearances, a decade after my father gave his up. And for some years, they were my undoing, though they turned out to be useful in the end. A decade later they allowed me to read the Pentagon Papers and to keep them in my "Top Secret" safe at the Rand Corporation, from which I eventually delivered them to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and later to nineteen newspapers. We have long needed and lacked the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers on the subject of nuclear policies and preparations, nuclear threats and decision-making: above all in the United States and Russia but also in the other nuclear-weapons states. I deeply regret that I did not make known to Congress, the American public and the world the extensive documentation of persistent and still-unknown nuclear dangers that was available to me forty to fifty years ago as a consultant to and official in the executive branch working on nuclear war plans, command and control and nuclear crises. Those in nuclear-weapons states who are in a position now to do more than I did then to alert their countries and the world to fatally reckless secret policies should take warning from the earlier inaction of myself and others: and do better. That I had high-level access and played such a role in nuclear planning is, of course, deeply ironic in view of the personal history recounted above. My feelings of revulsion and foreboding about nuclear weapons had not changed an iota since 1945, and they have never left me. Since I was fourteen, the overriding objective of my life has been to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war. There was a close analogy with the Manhattan Project. Its scientists - most of whom hoped the Bomb would never be used for anything but as a threat to deter Germany - were driven by a plausible but mistaken fear that the Nazis were racing them. Actually the Nazis had rejected the pursuit of the atomic bomb on practical grounds in June 1942, just as the Manhattan Project was beginning. Similarly, I was one of many in the late 1950s who were misled and recruited into the nuclear arms race by exaggerated, and in this case deliberately manipulated, fears of Soviet intentions and crash efforts. Precisely because I did receive clearances and was exposed to top-secret intelligence estimates, in particular from the Air Force, I, along with my colleagues at the Rand Corporation, came to be preoccupied with the urgency of averting nuclear war by deterring a Soviet surprise attack that would exploit an alleged "missile gap". That supposed dangerous US inferiority was exactly as unfounded in reality as the fear of the Nazi crash bomb program had been, or, to pick a more recent example, as concern over Saddam Hussein's supposed WMDs and nuclear pursuit in 2003. Working conscientiously, obsessively, on a wrong problem, countering an illusory threat, I and my colleagues distracted ourselves and helped distract others from dealing with real dangers posed by the mutual and spreading possession of nuclear weapons - dangers which we were helping make worse - and from real opportunities to make the world more secure. Unintentionally, yet inexcusably, we made our country and the world less safe. Eventually the Soviets did emulate us in creating a world-threatening nuclear capability on hair-trigger alert. That still exists; Russian nuclear posture and policies continue, along with ours, to endanger our countries, civilization and much of life itself. But the persistent reality has been that the nuclear arms race has been driven primarily by American initiatives and policies and that every major American decision in this 64-year-old nuclear era has been accompanied by unwarranted concealment, deliberate obfuscation, and official and public delusions. I have believed for a long time that official secrecy and deceptions about our nuclear weapons posture and policies and their possible consequences have threatened the survival of the human species. To understand the urgency of radical changes in our nuclear policies that may truly move the world toward abolition of nuclear weapons, we need a new understanding of the real history of the nuclear age. Using the new opportunities offered by the Internet - drawing attention to newly declassified documents and to some realities still concealed - I plan over the next year, before the 65th anniversary of Hiroshima, to do my part in unveiling this hidden history. Copyright (c) 2009 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090805_hiroshima_day_america_has_been_asleep_at_the_wheel_for_64_years/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From suzannedk at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 07:39:58 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:39:58 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Jobles Numbers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM Subject: Jobles Numbers To: squawkboxeurope at cnbc.com The carefully controlled United States media regularly manipulates it's numbers. Pure alternative news, such as directly translated Arabic al-Jazeera, is not to be ever allowed on U S owned or rented media sites The CNN news this day is a 9.3 % jobless rate in the US. On a par with say, Germany. For Empire, image is everything. Napolean with his awesome jackets, dripping gold, the useless small arm thrust into an authorative angle in that emperial suit. Mirroring is a sociological term. How individuals comunicate a positive message, or how countries show a closeness that may or may not be actual. Germany and Angela have sent many messages to the US that worry, greatly. A stubborn, brilliant group of careful people of great integrety. The Empire believes it's numbers, the rest of the world has increasing questions that are literally unanswerable. Changing the world currency to other than the dollar is a constant murmur in the background, A change never ever mentioned, CNN sings with positive words, smiles, numbers, beautifully coiffed and dressed young enthusiasms. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 7 18:17:49 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Ed herman reply to Barbara Epstein on the problems of the left In-Reply-To: <36CEB595FECB054CB55D7C9A8A6D14828746B92F22@KITE.wharton.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <146937125.1825521249690669863.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Unimagining the Left Edward S. Herman While she has a number of useful things to say about left history and problems in her article "Why the US Left Is Weak -- and What to Do About It " (Reimagining Society, ZNet, July 14, 2009), in the end Barbara Epstein?s analysis and recommendations themselves illustrate why the left is weak and weakening, as I will describe below. Epstein writes her article in the context of the dispute on the left about the proper treatment of Iran and its election, and the essence of her stance, and criticism of the left she doesn?t like, is laid out in this key paragraph: The term US imperialism has come to be widely used though with a somewhat different meaning than in the sixties. Many people, not only in the left, recognize that the US has sought to impose its will on the rest of the world, and that this is not good for those whom the US seeks to dominate or for the US itself. But it has become glaringly obvious that movements and states that oppose the US are as likely to be reactionary as progressive. Those who twist themselves into knots trying to find reasons to support Ahmadinejad, or Al Queda, only discredit themselves and the left. It has also become obvious that the world is too complex to fit into a simple opposition between the US, or the West generally, and everyone else. There are dictatorships that are opposed to the US, and there are liberation movements that identify with the West. The US continues to do a great deal of damage in the world, as in the case of the US occupation of Iraq. But as the ability of the US to determine world events declines, it becomes less and less convincing to portray US imperialism as the source of all evil. This tendentious set of remarks is dubious at a number of levels, and its tone is clearly apologetic as regards the threat of US imperialism. The US is ?not the source of all evil,? but who said it was? But a genuine US left would recognize that it is the source of a great deal of evil and not just ?in the case of the US occupation of Iraq.? It would recognize that even in decline it is immensely dangerous, its huge military budget still growing, Obama asking for $6 billion more for nuclear arms improvement, escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, still supporting Israeli ethnic cleansing, still threatening Iran, expanding military bases in Colombia (see Miguel Tinker-Salas, "On the Current Right-Wing Backlash in Latin America ," Mostly Water, August 5, 2009), and with NATO, under strong U.S. influence, still expanding despite the fall of the Soviet Union, stimulating an arms race, and continuing to encircle and threaten Russia (to follow the NATO expansion process, see Rick Rozoff?s valuable StopNato web site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages). What kind of left, in this context, would explicitly downplay the threat of imperialism? With U.S. influence--?ability to determine world events??supposedly declining, Epstein tells us we have to focus more on our ?core principles,? listed later in her article, which include ?anti-militarism? among other matters, but not ?anti-imperialism.? In short, any focus on the U.S. and its power projection must give way to other matters, including the need to recognize that there are ?dictatorships that are opposed to the US, and there are liberation movements that identify with the West.? Epstein?s stress on the fact that some dictatorships are ?opposed? to the United States is deceptive, ignoring that a great many of them love and are supported by the US and failing to note that those that are opposed may be in opposition because the United States threatens them although they don?t threaten the United States (e.g., Cuba, Ho Chi Minh?s Vietnam). Equally dubious is the implication that it may be our business and that of the ?left? to support intervention in those ?dictatorships? that are opposed to the US. There is a strand of the left, or ex-left, that goes in for ?democracy promotion? in distant places. And how often those democracy promoters latch on to dictatorships or alleged dictatorships that are targets of U.S. foreign policy! With imperialism in a supposed decline and many dictatorships ?opposed to the US,? what a goldmine of opportunities for doing good by aligning with US foreign policy in bringing democracy to the benighted! And what a tremendous basis for a further splintering of the left. Barbara Epstein says that ?Those who twist themselves into knots trying to find reasons to support Ahmadinejad, or Al Queda, only discredit themselves and the left.? But those who combine Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda are doing a bit of twisting, and what leftists support Al Qaeda? Those who oppose expanding the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan? Isn?t it a bit of a twister to fail to distinguish between those who ?support Ahmadinejad? and those who oppose focusing all their ?left? energies on discrediting the Iran election, or are simply worried about its use, even if unintended, in the ongoing destabilization of another US target? Isn?t it a bit devious to deny any link between the huge focus on the Iran election and the longstanding U.S.-Israeli campaign for regime change in Iran? Don?t the democracy promoters who are so engaged and passionate about the Iran election but pay little or no attention to the closer events in Honduras, also discredit themselves and the left? Epstein mentions the great left surge in opposition to the Vietnam war, but she ignores the fact that at that time a segment of the left assailed the peace movement and its support of the Vietcong ?terrorists? and Ho Chi Minh?s ?dictatorship,? and that in each subsequent case of U.S. aggression a segment of the left peeled off to denounce the extremist left?s support of some demonized dictator or another. The moderates could never understand or acknowledge the difference between opposing aggression and supporting a demonized villain under attack. Epstein?s ?reimagining? of the left does a creditable job in helping along the realignment of the left to a world of supposedly declining US influence and dictatorships needing constructive intervention, but God save the left! From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 7 18:26:40 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Krugman: The Town Hall Mob In-Reply-To: <823150922.1827011249691172341.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <2009186079.1827091249691200617.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?th&emc=th New York Times August 7, 2009 The Town Hall Mob By PAUL KRUGMAN There's a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled "Freedom of Speech," depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.'s "Four Freedoms," shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don't like what he's saying, but they're letting him speak his mind. That's a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters - some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting "This is America!" - have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform. Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there's no comparison. I've gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can't find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds. And I can't find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received. So this is something new and ugly. What's behind it? Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, has compared the scenes at health care town halls to the "Brooks Brothers riot" in 2000 - the demonstration that disrupted the vote count in Miami and arguably helped send George W. Bush to the White House. Portrayed at the time as local protesters, many of the rioters were actually G.O.P. staffers flown in from Washington. But Mr. Gibbs is probably only half right. Yes, well-heeled interest groups are helping to organize the town hall mobs. Key organizers include two Astroturf (fake grass-roots) organizations: FreedomWorks, run by the former House majority leader Dick Armey, and a new organization called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. The latter group, by the way, is run by Rick Scott, the former head of Columbia/HCA, a for-profit hospital chain. Mr. Scott was forced out of that job amid a fraud investigation; the company eventually pleaded guilty to charges of overbilling state and federal health plans, paying $1.7 billion - yes, that's "billion" - in fines. You can't make this stuff up. But while the organizers are as crass as they come, I haven't seen any evidence that the people disrupting those town halls are Florida-style rent-a-mobs. For the most part, the protesters appear to be genuinely angry. The question is, what are they angry about? There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they "oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care." Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands. Now, people who don't know that Medicare is a government program probably aren't reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they're probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they've heard about what he's doing, than to who he is. That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that's behind the "birther" movement, which denies Mr. Obama's citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don't know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn't be surprising if it's a substantial fraction. And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers. Does this sound familiar? It should: it's a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites. Many people hoped that last year's election would mark the end of the "angry white voter" era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate. But right now Mr. Obama's backers seem to lack all conviction, perhaps because the prosaic reality of his administration isn't living up to their dreams of transformation. Meanwhile, the angry right is filled with a passionate intensity. And if Mr. Obama can't recapture some of the passion of 2008, can't inspire his supporters to stand up and be heard, health care reform may well fail. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 7 18:34:01 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] A Coup for Lobbyists at the White House Message-ID: <476475766.1827911249691641721.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_coup_for_lobbyists_at_the_white_house/ Truthdig August 5, 2009 A Coup for Lobbyists at the White House By Amy Goodman Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, ousted in the middle of the night just over a month ago, enjoys global support for his return, with the exception of the Obama White House. Though Barack Obama first called the Honduran military's removal of Zelaya a coup, his administration has backpedaled. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Zelaya's attempt to cross the Nicaraguan border into Honduras "reckless." Could well-placed lobbyists in Washington be forging U.S. foreign policy? Lanny Davis was special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996 to 1998, functioning as lawyer, crisis manager and spokesman through Clinton's various scandals. Davis has developed a lucrative specialty as a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, offering a "unique 'Legal Crisis Communications' practice," helping people embroiled in investigations or scandal. According to recent congressional filings, Davis is lobbying for the Honduran chapter of the Latin American Business Council. Zelaya had recently increased the Honduran minimum wage. Davis testified before Congress on July 10, saying his clients "believe the best chance for a solution is the dialogue between Mr. Zelaya and President [Roberto] Micheletti, mediated by President [Oscar] Arias, that is now ongoing in Costa Rica." That is, until the Arias sessions resulted in a call for the return of Zelaya. Coup spokesman Cesar Caceres said, "The mediation has been declared a failure." Davis continued before Congress, "No one wants bloodshed, and nobody should be inciting violence." Yet a number of Zelaya supporters have been killed, and there has been a crackdown on independent media, making information hard to obtain. I reached Zelaya by phone in Nicaragua, near the Honduran border, and asked about Obama's reluctance to use the word coup. He told me, "Everyone in the world--governments, international organizations, all the lawyers and judges in the world--have called the fact of capturing a president at 5 a.m. without trying him, shooting arms, that's a coup d'etat. No one doubts that that's a coup d'etat." Bennett Ratcliff, another Clinton White House connection, was a key adviser to the coup leader, Micheletti, during the Costa Rica negotiations. According to Ratcliff's firm's bio, he "created TV and radio advertisements for President Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaigns." Firm partner Melissa Ratcliff "worked as communications strategist for The White House during the Clinton Administration." Their firm promises "access to key decision makers and influencers." With similar anti-Zelaya goals comes lobbyist Roger Noriega, George W. Bush's assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs and former staff member of Sen. Jesse Helms. Noriega is lobbying on behalf of the Honduran Association of Maquiladoras, owners of low-wage factories that export goods, principally to the U.S. Both Noriega and Davis represent business interests that benefit from "free trade" with the U.S. Zelaya, elected originally with the support of the Honduran business community, has shifted to more populist policies. He recently joined the emerging Latin American trade bloc ALBA, organized by countries like Venezuela and Bolivia to counter the economic dominance of the United States. During Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Davis repeated the charge that Obama would not be capable of handling a crisis "call at 3 a.m." In his recent visit to Africa, Obama declared the importance of democracy. Yet here in his own backyard is a genuine coup d'etat that his administration has done little to reverse. Obama will be in Mexico to meet President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada on Aug. 9. Honduras is expected to be on the agenda. The 3 a.m. call has come-who will have Obama's ear? Democracy, or the special interests' hired guns, against whom Obama promised change? Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column. Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 750 stations in North America. She is the co-author of "Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times," recently released in paperback. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 7 18:42:24 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] The White House Deal with Big PhRMA In-Reply-To: <893596694.1827751249691488447.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <363565811.1829001249692144912.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-white-house-deal-with_b_252696.html Huffington Post August 6, 2009 The White House Deal with Big Pharma by James Love The front page of today's New York Times has an article by David Kirkpatrick, confirming more details of the White House deal with big pharma. (Be sure to read the original, and support the NYT) For anyone who didn't notice earlier, this description by PhRMA CEO Billy Tauzin spells out the dynamics: Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion. . . "We were assured: 'We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,' " Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. "Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don't keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead." Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. "They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else," he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. "80 billion is the max, no more or less," he said. "Adding other stuff changes the deal." Some elements of the deal have been reported earlier in the NY Times and other newspapers, as well as in this report in the LA Times by Tom Hamburger, but experts following pharmaceutical issues doubt that the full extent of the dealings between big pharma, the White House and Senator Baucus are known. The crushing defeat of the proposals by Senator Brown and Representative Waxman to speed entry of generic biologic medicines (known as biosimilars), was partly due to the hands-off approach taken by the White House, which was been widely read as a green light for Democrats to side with big pharma on a hugely important issue that will be extremely difficult to fix later. (More on this issue here). The so-called cost savings from big pharma of $8 billion per year for 10 years are a joke for an industry that generates more than $300 billion in US sales from products that mostly replicate but do not significantly improve therapeutic benefits over existing medicines. Moreover, the "savings" will likely take the form of lower consumer co-payments for medicines or small discounts of reimbursements for expanded government backed insurance programs. PhRMA and its members are also getting mandatory insurance coverage, and increased legal obligations to buy their expensive drugs. The White House has abandoned any real effort to control costs in the pharma sector. Unreported by the press are the favors that the White House and Baucus are doing in the international arena. The White House has slapped and pressured Thailand for issuing compulsory licenses on medicine patents, killed an industry-opposed medical R&D treaty at the WHO (here and here), opposed a PAHO resolution on transparency of pharmaceutical economics, and collaborated on a disastrous manipulation of a WHO Expert Working Group on R&D Financing that is embracing industry norms for intellectual property protection. The Administration has refused to answer questions from the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) on intellectual property aspects of pandemics. The White House won't release the negotiating text of the so-called "Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement," or even the names of the documents they are withholding, claiming they are state secrets. (More details here) Senator Baucus is also working on proposals to mandate high drug prices in all but the poorest developing countries. Senator Baucus asked that Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler (a frequent White House guest these days) work out the details with the late Professor John Barton, in secret negotiations attended mostly by pharma industry lobbyists, and Microsoft officials. Tauzin asks who can trust a White House that does not keep it's promises. Good question. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 7 18:45:50 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Lessons From Hard Times Past In-Reply-To: <1881934248.1221911249512251366.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <787877158.1829401249692350480.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.truthout.org/072209R?n t r u t h o u t 22 July 2009 Lessons From Hard Times Past by Jeremy Brecher, Tim Costello and Brendan Smith, We're all struggling with how to think - and what to do - in the face of the "great recession." An initial progressive response was to advocate better regulation; then Keynesian economic stimulus; now nationalization; perhaps in the future some kind of socialism. One theme that has reverberated through periods of "hard times" in the past is the idea of "production for use." It has appeared in the form of public works job creation; worker-run enterprises; self-help mutual aid; and efforts to push the envelope on property rights that prevent people from using the resources that are available to meet their needs. Today production for use may find new applications - including working to save the planet from climate destruction. What are recessions, depressions and economic "hard times"? According to conventional economics, markets guide companies and investors to bring together labor and means of production to produce the goods and services that people need. Notwithstanding numerous "market failures," something like that happens in capitalist economies during normal times. But in times of economic crisis, recession and depression, it doesn't work like that. Instead, people lose their livelihoods, homes and health care and slash their budgets for food and other necessities - even while workers who want to work are unemployed and underemployed and offices, factories and construction sites lie idle. As a result, people often begin thinking and doing things that they didn't think and do before. Since 1900, the US experienced depressions and recessions in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1914, 1921, the whole decade of the 1930s, 1949, 1954, 1957, 1961, 1970, 1982, 1990, and 2002. We don't know how severe the current "great recession" will be. One thing we know from hard times past, however, is that they are almost always declared over when they have barely begun. Prosperity is always just around the corner. True to form, as early as April, headlines like "Top U.S. officials offered reassurances that the worst of the economic downturn is likely over," began appearing in media outlets around the country. Maybe so. But what should we do if it is not? Production for Use A reverberating theme that emerges in hard times is the idea of "production for use," rather than production only if production is profitable in the market. This requires actions - whether by government or by ordinary community members - that attempt to meet needs directly, rather than through the failing process of production for the market. Remarkably, President Obama laid out this precise this idea - rarely heard in public discourse in The United States since the 1930's - in advocating his economic stimulus legislation. His plan, he said, recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment - the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work, even as, all around the country, there is so much work to be done. That's why we'll invest in priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century. Such an approach has a long history. In every major U.S. recession since 1808, unemployed people and allies have organized to demanded job creation through public works at local, state national and even international levels. (Franklin Folsom offers a history of these efforts in his book, "Impatient Armies of the Poor.") And in an earlier post we described how the international labor movement proposed international public works as a way to overcome the mass unemployment of the Great Depression - and to combat the fascist movements it was engendering. This expressed an intuitive - and at times explicit - sense that if there are things that need to be done and people who need work, why shouldn't those people be put to work doing what needs to be done? New Deal public works programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) employed millions and substantially reduced unemployment until Roosevelt cut them back in the face of conservative hostility. The WPA was notable for its emphasis on putting people to work doing things that utilize their existing skills. In 1973, in the midst of a deep recession, the Carter administration created the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act - CETA. It provided the unemployed, the poor and high school students full-time jobs for one to two years in public agencies or private not-for-profit organizations. CETA provided 750,000 jobs at its peak in 1978. It, too, became a bete noire for those who saw it as government interference with the private labor market. But the idea has come back with the Obama stimulus plan. Worker-Run Enterprises Another feature that often emerges is the combination of production for use with some kind of cooperative self-management. For example, in 1934 the Ohio State Relief Commission used relief funds to support a dozen factories in which unemployed men and women made clothing, furniture and stoves for the unemployed. The Ohio Plan became a model for programs in several other states and was incorporated in the Federal relief agencies. It became the basis for Upton Sinclair's sensational "end poverty in California " (EPIC ) campaign for governor - and the bete noire of those who feared the U.S. was on the road to red revolution. The massive deindustrialization of the 1980's led to the emergence of efforts throughout the "rust belt" to save and create jobs through worker and community ownership. For example, the Ecumenical Coalition to Save the Mahoning Valley conducted a three-year campaign, ultimately defeated, to preserve Youngstown's steel plants through labor and community ownership. Another such effort, the Naugatuck Valley Project in western Connecticut, helped workers buy and for seven years run a threatened brass mill dubbed Seymour Specialty Wire: An Employee-Owned Company and create an community-worker-owned home health care cooperative. These groups developed a strategy based on networks designed to give early warning of threatened plant closings, coordinated efforts to save threatened plants, employee buyouts, new cooperative enterprises, and other locally-initiated economic development. Fifteen of these organizations came together in 1988 to form the Federation for Industrial Retention and Renewal. Self-Help Mutual Aid In the early years of the Great Depression of the 1930's, the unemployed in many cities tried to create a counter-economy. A Seattle Unemployed Citizens' League, for example, established 22 locals throughout the city, each with its own commissary at which donated food and firewood were exchanged for the services of barbers, seamstresses, carpenters and doctors. By the end of 1932 there were 330 such self-help mutual aid organizations in 37 states, with membership over 300,000. (For an account of this movement see Strike! by Jeremy Brecher who is one of the authors of this post.) Unfortunately, commissaries needed food and carpenters required wood: when the materials that could be begged, borrowed or stolen petered out, so did self-help mutual aid. Much more sophisticated versions of such mutual aid self-help are being developed today. Much of it is occurring through bartering web sites - Craiglist.org reports that traffic is up 100 percent in a year on its bartering boards. About a dozen communities have now established local currencies. The BerkShares currency in western Massachusetts can be used in 370 local businesses. These alternative systems of exchange all help bring resources together to do something useful that isn't happening in the mainstream economy. Transgressing Property Rights When things get desperate, people often find they have to ignore established property relations. In the early 1930's, unemployed organizations used direct action to halt evictions. Journalist Charles Walker described how a local branch of the Unemployed Council in Chicago responded when it received word that a neighbor was to be evicted. The sheriff arrives and in the face of protest does his work. The MacNamaras' bed, bureau stove, and children are transported to the street. Then the Council acts. With great gusto the bed, bureau, stove and children are put back in the house. Then the neighbors proceed to the local relief bureau, where a Council spokesman displays the children, presents the facts, and demands that the Relief Commission pay the rent or find another flat for the MacNamaras.... If the Commission is adamant, he leaves and reappears at general headquarters with a hundred Council members instead of fifty. Usually the Commission digs up the $6 a month rent or the landlord throws up his hands, and Mrs. MacNamara's children have a roof over their heads. Such direct action halted many evictions and forced the authorities in Chicago and other cities to halt them entirely. During the 1980's, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN) developed a movement in which squatters occupied and set out to renovate thousands of abandoned city-owned buildings in New York, Philadelphia, Detroit and other cities. In 2009, Acorn has started a new campaign called Home Defenders to use civil disobedience to support families who refuse orders to vacate their homes. According to The New York Times, in cities like Orlando, Boston, Houston, Baltimore, Oakland and Tucson, Acorn organizers have been creating networks to alert a homeowner's neighbors when an eviction has been scheduled or deputies are on the way. Some volunteers will summon friends and relatives to converge at the home, while others will be in charge of notifying news media. Organizers are also recruiting lawyers willing to defend for no fee those who are arrested. On March 12, as real estate investors waited to bid foreclosed properties at the Alameda County Courthouse, dozens of "home defenders" carried signs saying Stop Evictions Now! and Save Our Home. Among them were Fernanda Cardenas and her husband Armando Ramos, whose home in East Oakland was up for auction. In the face of the protest, the auction of their home was temporarily postponed. In addition, in a growing number of cities across the country, activists are moving homeless families into empty foreclosed homes. Perhaps the most dramatic example of action pushing the limits of property relations was the wave of "sitdown strikes" - factory occupations - of 1936-37. The sitdown had developed as a vehicle to exert rank-and-file labor power in the rubber plants in Akron. But when, in the midst of a union organizing campaign, General Motors started removing production equipment from its plants in Flint, auto workers began a massive occupation. They organized an orderly daily life, guarded the plant, and even spread the occupation to adjoining plants. Tens of thousands of workers mobilized outside to protect the plants from attack. After more than a month, GM agreed to recognize the union. Seeing what the sitdown could accomplish, 400,000 workers occupied their workplaces during 1937. During the recession of 1974, workers seized the Rheingold breweries in New York City when management decided to close them down. The occupation led to political intervention which successfully kept the company, a local icon, in business. At the end of 2008, 240 workers at the Republic Window and Door factory in Chicago were told they would lose their jobs in three days, without the advance notice legally required by the WARN act, and not even get the money they were owed. After intense discussions with their union, the United Electrical Workers (UE), they decided that at the end of their final work day they would not leave the plant. Their sitdown received instant media coverage and huge public support. The governor of Illinois came to the plant to show support. Even President-Elect Obama weighed in: "When it comes to the situation here in Chicago with the workers who are asking for their benefits and payments they have earned, I think they are absolutely right ... what's happening to them is reflective of what's happening across this economy," Obama said. By the sixth day of the occupation, the company and its chief creditor, the Bank of America (which had just received a major federal subsidy), agreed to a $1.75 million settlement that provided workers pay owned under the WARN Act and the union contract. The plant has been purchased by the California-based Serious Materials, which has promised the union it will call back workers over the next few months. Very often such actions challenge existing property rights - but often rights that have some degree of ambiguity. In the early days of the sitdown strikes, it wasn't clear that the occupations were illegal since the companies were in violation of the newly passed Wagner Act. The same was true of the recent Republic Window and Door occupation in Chicago, where the employer was in violation of the WARN act. Due to the securitization and tranching of so much of capital over recent years, there is reason to think the entire American property system is somewhat up for grabs. So there should be a lot of opportunity to utilize such ambiguities, most obviously in housing, but also in the rest of the economy as well. Today's "Great Recession" Each period of hard times is unique, both in the character of the economic downturn and in the changing character of national and global society. Today's "great recession" is differentiated from previous downturns by globalization and the massive financialization of the U.S. Deindustrialization has transformed the majority of the American workforce from blue-collar to white-collar. Outsourcing has divided that workforce into "core" employees with job security and benefits and a "ring" of contingent workers with neither. Unions have shrunk and the social safety net has been dismantled - less than half of those without work and who are actively seeking a new job were receiving unemployment compensation in early 2009. Meanwhile, new means of communication - think smart phones and web 2 - are making new ways of organizing possible. And behind it all, the crisis of human-induced climate change threatens to disrupt all social life and cause economic dislocation greater than the Great Depression and World War I and II combined. The fundamental problem underlying today's "great recession," however, is the same as in past periods of hard times - Obama's paradox that "there are millions of Americans trying to find work, even as, all around the country, there is so much work to be done." The pursuit of profit through the market does not lead to production of what people need. The solution can be summed up in the phrase "production for use." The range of unmet needs - nationally and globally - is enormous. All - education, health care, food security, infrastructure, childcare - can be spheres for putting people to work doing the work we need to have done. These all represent what economists call "market failures." And according to the British government's Stern report, the greatest market failure of all history is the destruction of the planet by greenhouse gases. While current "cap and trade" programs attempt to create a market solution to this problem by creating a market to buy and sell pollution permits, we cannot wait for the market to fix the market. Instead, we need to create a rapidly growing "green" sector in which production is for use - specifically, for climate protection - not just for profit. We must reconstruct society on a low carbon basis regardless of whether or not it is profitable to do so. It is often pointed out that it took mobilization for World War II to end the Depression. Today we need, in William James' magnificent phrase, a "moral equivalent to war." We don't expect an army to make a profit. It has other responsibilities and other means of support. During World War II, for example, public policy mandated the production that was necessary: tanks and airplanes. At the same time, public policy forbade much production that was unnecessary; as a popular song about wartime mobilization put it, "put those plans for pleasure cars away." Today's equivalent would be mandated reductions every year in carbon-emitting production and consumption, combined with employment of all available people and resources for green transformation. Obama's stimulus package actually provides a first step in the right direction: To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced - jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain. Like previous forms of production for use, this plan is a bete noir for those who think "production for use" is a crime against capitalism. They are already mobilizing against it, tea bag by tea bag. But there is another lesson from hard times past: Economic adversity creates an intense social dynamic in which people become less and less willing to wait for "pie in the sky." That is why they demand jobs, take over and run their enterprises, pursue self-help mutual aid, and transgress the established boundaries of private property. The unemployed movement of the 1930's used the slogan: "Don't starve - fight." Who knows what the result will be if we combine that with the slogan, "Don't let the planet burn - let us get to work." -------- This article was previously published on ZNet.org. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 7 18:44:58 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Siding With The Generals: The Independent On Honduras In-Reply-To: <758995415.1521761249596718703.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <191518737.1829241249692298779.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/siding-with-the-generals-the-independent-on-honduras/ Media Lens August 5th, 2009 Siding With The Generals: The Independent On Honduras Iran ?s June 12 presidential elections have been widely criticised, both domestically and abroad, as lacking credibility. During the popular protests that followed, some 30 people were killed by government forces with hundreds more arrested. These events have been subject to intense and continuous US-UK media scrutiny. Also in June, a military coup overthrew the democratically-elected government of Honduras. President Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped and deported to Costa Rica on June 28. Initial clashes between troops loyal to the coup plotters and Zelaya supporters left at least one person dead and 30 injured. On July 30, as many as 150 people were arrested, with dozens injured, when soldiers and police attacked demonstrators with tear gas, water cannon, clubs and gunfire. One of the wounded, a 38-year-old teacher, was left fighting for his life after being shot in the head. Journalists reporting from the scene were also attacked. 1 Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, describes how the Honduran people have been ?risking their lives, confronting the army?s bullets, beatings, and arbitrary arrests and detentions?. And yet the US media has reported this repression ?only minimally, with the major print media sometimes failing even to mention the censorship there.? 2 Our own media database search (August 3) of national UK press editorials mentioning the word ?Iran? over the previous five weeks delivered 26 results. A search for editorials containing the word ?Honduras? delivered 2 results. In fact, there has been a single leading article on the Honduran crisis (in the Independent on June 30 ? see below). Over the same period, a search for UK national press articles mentioning ?Iran? gave 848 results; for ?Honduras? 96 results. This is not hard science, but it does indicate comparative levels of UK media coverage of the two issues. Weisbrot notes that the Honduran coup is ?a recurrent story? in Latin America, pitting ?a reform president who is supported by labor unions and social organizations against a mafia-like, drug-ridden, corrupt political elite who is accustomed to choosing not only the Supreme Court and the Congress, but also the president.? 3 Mainstream outlets claim the coup marks a worrying return to earlier regional trends. A July 23 BBC ?Q&A? on Honduras commented: ?Coups and political upheaval were common in Central America for much of the 20th Century, and until the mid-1980s the military dominated political life in Honduras. Mr Zelaya?s removal is the first in the region since 1993?? 4 This is false. In April 2002, a US-backed military coup briefly ousted Venezuelan president Hugo Ch?vez until mass protests returned him to power. A Guardian article that month reported that the ?US ?gave the nod? to Venezuelan coup.? Several weeks prior to the coup attempt, US government officials had met the business leaders who assumed power after Ch?vez was arrested. General Rincon, the Venezuelan army?s chief of staff, had visited the Pentagon the previous December and met senior officials. 5 A 2004 military coup forced Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to flee to Central Africa. Aristide told the Associated Press that he was forced to leave Haiti by US military forces. 6 Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics at Columbia University, wrote: ?Haiti, again, is ablaze? Almost nobody, however, understands that today?s chaos was made in Washington ? deliberately, cynically, and steadfastly.? 7 The BBC Q&A noted: ?The role of the US is key, as it is Honduras?s biggest trading partner.? Curiously, the article failed to mention that the US has its only Central American military base in Honduras. In fact the Honduran military is armed, trained and advised by Washington in a relationship that is deep and enduring. The two generals who led the coup were both trained at the US School of the Americas (SOA) based in Georgia (SOA is now known as The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHINSEC). Commander-in-chief Romeo Vasquez, head of the Honduran military, received training at SOA between 1976 and 1984. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, head of the air force, studied there in 1996. Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, a Honduran army lawyer who also trained at SOA, has admitted the illegality of the military?s kidnapping of Zelaya. He told the Miami Herald: ?It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That?s impossible.? 2 Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of School of the Americas Watch, described SOA last month as ?this school of assassins, this school of coups, this school with so much blood on its hands.? 8 Weisbrot notes that Washington?s response to the Honduran coup is guided by conflicting interests: ?powerful lobbyists such as Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff, who are close to [Hillary] Clinton and are leading the coup government?s strategy; the Republican right, including members of Congress who openly support the coup; and new cold warriors of both parties in the Congress, the state department and White House who see Zelaya as a threat because of his co-operation with Venezuela?s Hugo Ch?vez and other left governments.? 9 This explains Washington?s ambiguous reaction. The Obama administration?s first statement did not criticise the coup, and the state department continues to refuse to describe it as a coup. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to say that ?restoring the democratic order? in Honduras requires the return of Zelaya. It took three weeks for the White House to threaten to cut off aid. Roger Burbach, Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas, writes: U.S. efforts to restore Zelaya have been quite tepid compared to other countries. While many ambassadors have been withdrawn, the US head diplomat Hugo Llorens, appointed by George W. Bush, remains in place. There are reports that he may have even given the green light to the coup plotters, or at least did nothing to stop them. And while the World Bank has suspended assistance, the State Department merely warns that $180 million in US economic aid may be in jeopardy. Most importantly the United States refuses to freeze the bank accounts and cancel the visas of the coup leaders, measures that Zelaya and other Latin American governments have urged Washington to do. 10 Recently, US Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley, commented: We certainly think that if we were choosing a model government and a model leader for countries of the region to follow, that the current leadership in Venezuela would not be a particular model. If that is the lesson that President Zelaya has learned from this episode, that would be a good lesson. 11 The Independent: Doing Democracy A Service In their June 30 leading article, the Independent ?s editors, led by pro-Iraq war editor Roger Alton (formerly editor of the Observer ), opened with this extraordinary paragraph: The ousting of the Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the country?s military at the weekend has been condemned by many members of the international community as an affront to democracy. But despite a natural distaste for any military coup, it is possible that the army might have actually done Honduran democracy a service. 12 By contrast, many experienced observers have warned that the coup represents an extreme threat to prospects for democracy in Honduras and the region. The Independent explained its reasoning: President Zelaya was planning a referendum to give him power to alter the constitution. But the proposed alterations were perilously vague, with opponents accusing Mr Zelaya of wanting to scrap the four-year presidential term limit. The country?s courts and congress had called the vote illegal. This is an increasingly familiar turn of events in emerging democracies: an elected leader, facing the end of his time in office, decides that the country cannot do without him and resorts to dubious measures to retain power. The Venezuelan President, Hugo Ch?vez, won a referendum in February altering his country?s constitution and abolishing term limits. He now talks about ruling beyond 2030. On the same day, in the same newspaper, Heather Berkman, a Latin America associate at the global political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, wrote: Manuel Zelaya has taken a few unexpected turns to the left during his tenure as President of Honduras, deviating from its political norms. This time, it looks like he may have gone too far? Mr Zelaya can be blamed for staging a coup that, in turn, provoked a counter-coup.? 13 Recall that these articles appeared in the Independent , widely considered to be at the left of the mainstream media spectrum. Weisbrot argues that in fact there was no way for Zelaya to extend his rule even if the referendum had been held and passed: The June 28 referendum was nothing more than a non-binding poll of the electorate, asking whether the voters wanted to place a binding referendum on the November ballot to approve a redrafting of the country?s constitution. If it had passed, and if the November referendum had been held (which was not very likely) and also passed, the same ballot would have elected a new president and Zelaya would have stepped down in January. So, the belief that Zelaya was fighting to extend his term in office has no factual basis ? although most people who follow this story in the press seem to believe it. The most that could be said is that if a new constitution were eventually approved, Zelaya might have been able to run for a second term at some future date. 2 Nikolas Kozloff, journalist and author of Revolution!: South America and the Rise of the New Left , traces the deeper sources of opposition to the Honduran president. Around 2007-2008, the initially conservative Zelaya began to embrace ?the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas.? Kozloff explains: It?s Ch?vez?s answer to the US-imposed free trade agreements in the region. And Zelaya had come out in support of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. And so, this set him at odds with the United States, and there was a history of friction between the US and Zelaya leading up to the coup.? 14 As the Independent editorial makes clear, the mainstream offers a different version of events. Kozloff comments: I think if you were just reading the reports in the mainstream media, you might get the impression that this coup is just about term limits in Honduras and it?s just a conflict over whether Zelaya will be able to extend his constitutional mandate of one four-year term. The BBC, for example, reported: ?Zelaya was sent into exile on 28 June amid a power struggle over his plans for constitutional change.? 4 The Times wrote: ?His opponents say that he wanted to overturn term limits and extend his power like leftist regional allies such as President Ch?vez of Venezuela?? 15 Kozloff comments: ?And my point is that there is an ideological component to this coup? the first salvo against the Honduran elite was his moves to raise the minimum wage by 60 percent? I mean, this is a country where you have these maquiladora assembly plants, and the Honduran elite were, to say the least, displeased by the moves.? In a rare exception to his newspaper?s wretched performance, Johann Hari wrote in the Independent of how Zelaya had ?increased the minimum wage by 60 per cent, saying sweatshops were no longer acceptable and ?the rich must pay their share?. ?The tiny elite at the top ? who own 45 per cent of the country?s wealth ? are horrified. They are used to having Honduras run by them, for them.? 16 As Hari noted: ?It was always inevitable that the people at the top would fight back to preserve their unearned privilege.? Prior to the coup, US multinational Chiquita expressed its concern at Zelaya?s minimum wage decrees, which they said would reduce profits and increase export costs. Chiquita appealed to the Honduran Business Association, which was also opposed to Zelaya?s minimum wage policy. Kozloff told the website Democracy Now! : ?what I find really interesting is that Chiquita is allied to a Washington law firm called Covington, which advises multinational corporations. And who is the vice chairman of Covington? None other than John Negroponte?? 17 Negroponte was US ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, when he played a key role in coordinating US terror attacks on Nicaragua by means of ?the Contras?, a mercenary army. Negroponte is complicit in massive human rights abuses committed by the Honduran military. Throughout the twentieth century, Chiquita, then known as United Fruit Company, was associated with ?some of the most backward, retrograde political and economic forces in Central America and indeed outside of Central America in such countries as Colombia?, Kozloff notes. In 1954, United Fruit played a leading role in the US-backed coup that ousted Jacobo Arbenz, the democratically-elected leader of Guatemala. Kozloff reports that the current US Attorney General, Eric Holder, was Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton. Holder defended Chiquita and its actions in Colombia when Chiquita was allied to right-wing paramilitary death squads in the 1990s and was found guilty of paying off paramilitaries. Holder was Chiquita?s lead counsel. We searched national UK newspapers (August 3) for articles containing the words ?Honduras? and (separately) ?Chiquita,? ?John Negroponte? and ?Eric Holder? since June 28; all searches produced zero results. 1. Bill Van Auken, ? Honduran coup regime launches brutal crackdown ,? August 1, 2009, World Socialist Web Site . [ ? ] 2. Weisbrot, ? Hondurans Resist Coup, Will Need Help From Other Countries ,? ZNet , July 9, 2009. [ ? ] [ ? ] [ ? ] 3. Weisbrot, ? Does the US back the Honduran coup? ? The Guardian , July 1, 2009. [ ? ] 4. ? Q&A: Crisis in Honduras ,? BBC website, July 23, 2009. [ ? ] [ ? ] 5. Julian Borger and Alex Bellos, ? US ?gave the nod? to Venezuelan coup ,? The Guardian , April 17, 2002. [ ? ] 6. Eliott C. McLaughlin, Associated Press, March 1, 2004. [ ? ] 7. Sachs, ? Fanning the flames of political chaos in Haiti ,? The Nation , February 28, 2004. [ ? ] 8. ? Generals Who Led Honduras Military Coup Trained at the School of the Americas ,? Democracy Now! , July 1, 2009. [ ? ] 9. Weisbrot, ? U.S.- Brokered Mediation Has Failed ? It?s Time for Latin America to Take Charge ,? ZNet , August 1, 2009. [ ? ] 10. Burbach, ? Obama and Hillary Nix Change in Honduras ,? ZNet , July 27, 2009. [ ? ] 11. James Suggett, ? Honduras Coup ,? ZNet , July 28, 2009. [ ? ] 12. Leading article, ? Guns and democracy ,? The Independent , June 30, 2009. [ ? ] 13. Berkman, ? Zelaya pushed ,? The Independent , June 30, 2009. [ ? ] 14. ? What?s Behind the Honduras Coup? Tracing Zelaya?s Trajectory ,? Democracy Now! , July 1, 2009. [ ? ] 15. Hannah Strange, ?Deposed President ?can never return?,? The Times , July 3, 2009. [ ? ] 16. Hari, ? The other 9/11 returns to haunt Latin America ,? The Independent , July 3, 2009. [ ? ] 17. ? From Arbenz to Zelaya: Chiquita in Latin America ,? Democracy Now! , July 21, 2009. [ ? ] From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Aug 7 19:45:23 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:45:23 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Parasitic Finance Sector Message-ID: <20090808104523.dc531df4.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Fred Harrison interviews Michael Hudson RenegadeEconomist, London (February 27 2009) Transcript by Peter Myers (July 30 2009) See the video - Hudson at his best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pwAFohWBL4 Fred Harrison: How do we solve the Debt problem today? Michael Hudson: The only way to do it is to wipe out the debts that can't be paid. If a mortgage is $500,000 on a $250,000 house, you've got to write down the mortgage to the market price, and you've got to have the creditors take a loss for their bad loans. FH: Is the bailout of the banks going to solve this financial crisis? MH: No, the bailout of the banks is only paying the creditors, and giving the creditors the money for the bank loans, without giving a penny of debt relief to the actual debtors. All it means is that the government is taking over the creditor position, kicking out the homeowners and throwing the homes on the market. FH: But won't the taxpayers get their money back in the end? MH: If the taxpayers could get their money back, you can be sure that private enterprise would have come in and bought the mortgages. If you have the marketplace NOT buying the mortgages, if you have the banks saying, "These are junk mortgages, and this is toxic waste", how on earth can taxpayers make money off this toxic waste? Is it really a good investment for the taxpayers to come in and bail out the banks that say, "We've made junk mortgages, and this is toxic waste, and we weren't able to sell it, to find a greater fool". There's no way the taxpayers can make money out of that. [And even if they COULD make money, is it a good idea for them to do so by kicking defaulting mortgagees out of their homes?] FH: Ok, now I know you've been an economist in Wall Street, you teach economics in universities, all over the world, actually. You're a consultant to governments around the world, and yet you think there are lessons to be learned from the Ancient World ? that somehow in the Biblical times the debt cancellation was something that we can learn from today. In what way? MH: Well, for 3,000 years, from Sumer to Babylonia to the Jewish lands with the Jubilee law, they had the same policy. When a new ruler would take the throne for the second year in Babylonia and Sumer, he had a three-pronged solution: He would liberate the debt-bondsmen, he would return the lands to people who'd lost them for foreclosure, for homes ? the basic means of self-support - and he would annul the personal debts. By wiping the bad debts off the books, he'd create a clean slate. This was the policy that was taken over in Jewish law, in Leviticus, by the Jubilee Year. FH: So you're now saying that there is a way to translate that history into modern economics, to solve the global financial crisis. MH: Yes. Antiquity managed to last for 3,000 years, without a financial bubble, without an economic bubble, and continually restoring order. And Antiquity realized something that the modern economists don't: they realized that debts tend to grow in excess of the ability to pay. And when the debts did that in Antiquity, the ruler would cancel the debts. Now that was very easy in Antiquity, because most debts were tax debts owed to the Palace ?and it's easy to cancel debts when the debts are owed to you. It's harder to cancel debts once you got to Greece and Rome, and the debts were owed to private creditors; that's where the problem began. FH: So, now, 2,000 years later, we can't just cancel the debts by rule of the Government. MH: Well, you actually can, because the debts are going to be written off already they estimate they've said there are eight trillion dollars worth of bad real estate debts. Now if the Government would have just left market conditions to take their place, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in September, Lehman Brothers mortgages were trading on the market at 22 cents on the dollar. Now at this point, buyers could have come in, bought the mortgages at 22 cents on the dollar, and then gone to the home-owners and the real-estate on this, and said, "OK, we're going to re-negotiate your mortgage at 22 cents, maybe 24 cents on the dollar, or even 25 cents on the dollar" - that would have given them a profit. They would have marked down the debts to the ability to pay, or to the market price. And one way or other the debts are going to have to be written down to the ability to pay, otherwise they're not going to be paid. If people can't pay more debt, they won't pay. The question is, "How won't they pay"? FH: So why aren't Governments doing that, writing off the debts, or allowing the debts to be cancelled today? MH: Very good question. The reason is that the largest contributor to the political campaigns is the Financial Sector, and the Governments have a choice: they can save the economy, or they can save the creditors who made the bad loans. They've said, "We don't care about the economy, we're bailing out the creditors ? that's our constituency". And that's what the Governments are doing today. They're not saving the economy; they're saving their constituency, the creditors: they're saving London City, they're saving Wall Street, and they're saving the bourse, and the economy's left to shrink. And until the Government saves the economy, and writes down the debts to the ability to pay, there's not going to be a recovery. FH: You're saying, then, Governments are acting in bad faith. MH: They're not acting democratically. What the Governments have done has been to turn from a Democracy into an Oligarchy. And we're seeing an Oligarchy, and in fact a Kleptocracy emerge here. And the Governments are not doing what the people expected them to do ? they're not representing the interests of their constituents. FH: But President Obama says he's going to effect a change, it's not business as usual in Washington. MH: When Obama talks about change, he's not talking about financial change; he's not talking about economic change. He's talking about workmen's laws, health reform, racial equality; he's not talking about any economic change at all, because, in fact, he's re-appointed the Bush administrators and the Clinton administrators. He's brought back the same people who brought us the Russian crisis. And if you want to see what their plans are for the United States, look what Obama's team did when they had a free hand in Russia in the 1990s. They brought the biggest inequality and kleptocracy in modern times. FH: So, Michael, you're in London to address a conference here at the University of London. What is it that you're going to tell them? MH: Well, I'm going to tell them that the Finance sector, and the Real Estate and the Insurance sector are not part of the real economy of production and consumption. The asset and wealth sector is different from the production sector. You can think of the financial sector as being wrapped around the real economy, almost like a parasite, and that's why it's been called parasitic for so long. The financial sector extracts interest from the economy, the property sector extracts economic rent, as do monopolies. Now the key thing about parasites, is that it's not simply that they extract nourishment from the host. The parasite takes over the host's brain, to make it think it's part of the economy, to make it think it's part of the host's own body, and, in fact, that's it almost like a child of the host, to be protected. And that's what the financial sector has done today. You have Obama coming out and saying, "We have to save the banks in order to save the real economy". The fact is, you can't serve both the parasite and the host. Now the amazing thing is that we have the economic training tablets from Babylonia, from 2000 BC, and the mathematical models they had of the economy, in 2000 BC, are more sophisticated than any of the mathematical models that they use today for government planning. And the reason is that they calculated how long it takes for a debt to double. Any interest-rate has a doubling time. They knew in 2,000 BC that the debts double; they also knew that the economy grew in an S-curve. They had mathematical models for the growth of herds in an S-curve, for agricultural production, so they knew that the tendency was for debts to grow faster than the economy can grow, and that's why, when every new ruler took the throne, they cancelled the debts. FH: But, look, we've had Nobel-prize-winning economists telling hedge funds how to operate. Are you saying they are clueless on mathematics? MH: Well, that's a very good question. You look at the fact that Long Term Credit Management went broke using the Nobel-prize-winners. The mathematical models that won the Nobel Prize have led to 450 trillion dollars of Derivative contracts that are now junk. So, what they won the Nobel Prize for, is junk mathematics that have led to junk derivatives and junk mortgages. That's what's happened. http://renegadeeconomist.com/ http://michael-hudson.com/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Aug 8 03:13:42 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:13:42 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Thanks to Our Fossil Fuel Addiction ... Message-ID: <20090808181342.83ebeb06.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> We May Be Setting Ourselves Up for a Catastrophic Natural Event by Scott Thill, AlterNet AlterNet (July 03 2009) What is hydrogen sulfide? It smells like farts and rotten eggs. You can find it in swamps, sewers, landfills, volcanic and natural gases, and pretty much everywhere there is a petroleum refinery. Unfortunately, you can also usually find it whenever and wherever you've got mass extinctions. In fact, it is hydrogen sulfide, rather than killer asteroids or some other interstellar death-bringer, that has possibly become the go-to kill-shot of most mass extinctions in Earth's history. "It doesn't take much hydrogen sulfide to kill off anything", Gerry Dickens, professor of earth science and paleoceanography at Rice University, explained to AlterNet by phone. He should know: It was Dickens' work with methane hydrates that completed the puzzle of the Permian-Triassic extinction event, more aptly known as the Great Dying, in the 2002 BBC Horizon documentary The Day the Earth Nearly Died. During the Great Dying, over 250 million years ago, flood basalts in the Siberian and Emeishan traps unleashed hell on Earth, spewing titanic walls of lava, ash, debris and greenhouse gases into the sky, blotting out the sun and surrounding hundreds of thousands of miles in a biblical inferno for which there is no contemporary analogue, at least in reality. But even that wasn't enough to wipe out the 96 percent of Earth's marine, terrestrial and plant species claimed by the Great Dying. A growing scientific consensus explains that the death stroke was probably delivered from Earth's anoxic oceans, whose resultant out-of-whack pH balance, once literally defined as the "power of hydrogen", released catastrophic stores of either methane hydrate or hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere. Whichever one it was, hydrogen had the power to bring Earth to its knees. And it could happen again. "It's unannounced stealth nastiness", Peter Ward, professor of biology and paleontology at the University of Washington, declared by phone to AlterNet. "My new book ends with a hydrogen sulfide extinction". That book, The Medea Hypothesis (2009), posits not one but five hydrogen sulfide extinction events, including the Great Dying, throughout Earth's history. Going further, it flips the Gaia hypothesis on its head by suggesting - with increasing persuasion, given our current climate crisis of too much carbon dioxide in the air and too little oxygen in the oceans - that Earth is not seeking an optimal physical and chemical environment for its life. In fact, Ward argues, its multicellular life is actually suicidal in nature, whose doom will eventually return Earth to the microbes that have dominated most of its history. Although the truth probably lies somewhere between Gaia and Medea, Ward seems to be right about one thing: Hydrogen sulfide is an unheralded executioner. "If ancient volcanism raised carbon dioxide and lowered the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and global warming made it more difficult for the remaining oxygen to penetrate the oceans, conditions would have become amenable for the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria to generate massive upwellings of hydrogen sulfide", Ward wrote in a Scientific American clarion call titled "Impact from the Deep". Virtually no form of life on the earth was safe". Ward - who has also written the books Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future (2008); Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (2009); and the forthcoming Our Flooded World - concludes his Scientific American piece with the obvious question: Could it happen again? All the pieces seem to be moving into place. Global warming is a runaway train, carbon dioxide levels are exponentially rising, and oceans are subsequently losing oxygen. There are even hydrogen sulfide blooms being found in Namibia and other places where industrial pollution is spilling waste into the water. The good news? We know that in the Permian and other mass extinctions that it took levels of around 1,000 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide to rob the oceans of oxygen and kill off most life on Earth. The bad news? We're closer to that devastating concentration than we think. With carbon dioxide hovering around 385 ppm, but increasing at an annual rate of two to three ppm, it doesn't take a math teacher to realize that we could hit 900 ppm by the end of next century. Or earlier, given the exponential nature of climate change. "It's not quite linear", Dickens explained. "As you make the system worse, less carbon gets taken up by the oceans, which are sinks on a global scale. When that has happened in the past, suddenly a whole bunch of carbon has come out of the ocean fast. The magnitude is extraordinary. And there's also a temperature component: As things get warmer, the process amplifies." Currently, it's amplifying at a fearsome rate. For his part, Ward believes we're headed toward a penultimate moment in Earth's history, one we should be ashamed of. "We're way beyond anything from the Pleistocene, and heading towards the Cretaceous", Ward told AlterNet. "If we hit 800 to 1,000 ppm, we're in trouble. The sun is also getting warmer, so 1,000 ppm is really going to be like 2,000 ppm. We're talking about the second-hottest period in the planet's history." Right now, Ward and other scientists who have proposed parallels between the mass extinctions of the past and the one we could be experiencing now, known as the Holocene extinction event, are lost in the wilderness of geopolitical machination and rampant global consumption. But interest in their destabilizing theories are growing. "NASA called me about three months ago, and the administrator at Ames Research Center said, 'You've got to be kidding about this stuff!'" Ward said. "So myself and several other scientists put together a white paper on hydrogen sulfide, because this is a matter of national security. Just because its longer-term than other problems doesn't mean it's any less deadly. Our species is going to be in trouble in a hundred to a thousand years from now. What happens if the oceans go anoxic, within this century or by the end of next century? You'll have conditions that might be irreversible for a very long time." Ward says that the Obama administration has been cool to the possibility of anoxic oceans and the various hydrogen terrors that lie in wait on its floors or its chemical processes. And for his part, even Dickens is not as worried about mass extinction at the hands of climate change as he is about terrors closer to home. "I've got more important things to keep me up at night", the good-natured scientist wisecracked over the phone, "like finding the next grant so I can go study this stuff". But time, and probably not a lot of it, will tell which terror is more worthy of our immediate attention, expense and innovation. But whatever may come and whatever we decide, Ward warned, we better get our lazy asses in gear. The worst that could supposedly happen is that we could be wrong and lose trillions of dollars to saving the planet, and thereby ourselves, rather than throwing them down the black hole of credit-default swaps and hyper-real derivatives. But the worst that could really happen is that anthropogenic global warming could throw the planet's pH balance into chaos, as the combination of carbon dioxide-choked skies and anoxic oceans release the mother of all mass-extinction farts into the atmosphere, a killing joke we could never recover from. And who wants to go out like that? "There's bad stuff before you even get to hydrogen sulfide", Ward concluded. "And there's not much you can do about any of it, in terms of geoengineering. The simple solution is to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions, and do it now. Here's the scary thing that can happen: Human extinction. Let's get serious." _____ Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others. (c) 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/140912/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 8 12:43:02 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Letter to the editor, Globe and Mail, responding to Canadian Jewish Congress charges In-Reply-To: <913696125.1885421249756884613.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <118703671.1885691249756982993.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> "Letters to the Globe and Mail" August 8, 2009 Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber attacks the United Church for considering resolutions supporting boycott, divestment and sanctions resolutions at its upcoming conference in Kelowna. He characterizes the resolutions, which are designed to pressure Israel to abide by international law and to rectify its disregard for Palestinian rights, as anti-Semitic. ( United Church resolution is anti-Semitic, CJC says) Although Mr. Farber and the CJC purport to speak for Canadian Jews, this is not the case. Furthermore, it is not anti-Semitic to debate issues and take actions designed to bring an end to the longstanding crisis in Israel and Palestine. At its recent annual general meeting in Ottawa, our organization ? which represents a growing number of Jews across Canada ? passed its own resolution endorsing boycott, divestment and sanctions as part of a growing international campaign to end the Israeli government?s intransigence. Contrary to Mr. Farber and the CJC, we believe that the United Church is to be commended for having the courage to confront this highly important issue. Sid Shniad Co-chair, Independent Jewish Voices Canada Surrey, BC From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 8 12:44:02 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] United Church resolution is anti-Semitic, CJC says In-Reply-To: <323551458.1875931249749824402.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <64792731.1885791249757042920.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Globe and Mail August 8, 2009 United Church resolution is anti-Semitic, CJC says WENDY COX KELOWNA, B.C. ? The Canadian Jewish Congress says its relationship with Canada's largest Protestant denomination is in jeopardy because of resolutions to be debated at the United Church's general meeting next week. Bernie Farber calls the four proposals anti-Semitic. "Anybody that votes in favour of this, votes in favour of anti-Semitism," Mr. Farber, the group's chief executive officer, said in an interview. Mr. Farber, as well as other congress members, are on their way to the United Church's general council in an effort to lobby the 400 delegates to reject the proposals. The four resolutions are among 105 to be debated at the meeting in Kelowna, B.C. They call on the United Church "to advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions." Another urges the church to "support the international campaign of boycott ... divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination." Mr. Farber said he is most concerned about statements made in the background portion of the resolutions, which in one case refers to "questionable positions of Canadian members of Parliament." The document notes that some MPs have accepted sponsored trips to Israel, "which might be called bribes," and said "some members of Parliament are affiliated with the state of Israel." "Never in my life would I have thought I would see such accusations coming from one of Canada's mainstream church organizations," Mr. Farber said. "It is mind-boggling, really." The church's moderator, Rev. David Giuliano, acknowledged the proposals are controversial, but he noted once they have been brought forward by one of the church's 13 regions, they must be debated. "We're a church that debates these things in the open, and while some people may have put a proposal forward, it by no means says at this point that it is endorsed by the national church," Rev. Giuliano said. "It's something that we're being asked to discuss and consider, and, by some people, approve." Rev. Giuliano acknowledged the proposals "at face value, are quite offensive to some people in the Jewish community because of the implications for Israel and are perceived even as anti-Semitic." He said when the proposals came in, his office recognized there would be concern and alerted the Jewish congress. Mr. Farber said he tried for three weeks to get a meeting with church leaders, but his calls were not returned. Rev. Giuliano said the debate will go ahead. "One of the things that's core to our identity is our willingness to wrestle with hard issues." Three of the proposals were brought forward by the church's Toronto region and the fourth was proposed by the Montreal and Ottawa conference. All decried Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but the Montreal-Ottawa submission also urged the church to publicly state that the Palestinians must acknowledge Israel's right to exist and must stop suicide bombings and other violent attacks on the Israeli people. Among the other 105 resolutions to be debated during the church's general council meeting next week are proposals on the environment, free trade with Colombia, and organ donation. At the end of the meeting, the 400 delegates will choose a new moderator, who will serve as the church's leader for three years. The Canadian Press From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 8 12:46:06 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] A propos Palestine: Desond Tutu's speech to the Ontario Legislature in 1986 In-Reply-To: <1128200777.1884221249755961958.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1929116905.1886151249757166425.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Archbishop Desmond Tutu 30 May 1986 To a packed house in the Ontario Legislature On a trip with Harry Belafonte to open the Arts Against Apartheid Festival in Toronto Help us. Please help us. Our country is burning. Our children are dying. What you do, where you are?counts! It makes a difference? if only to those who have their faces in the dust. http://tinyurl.com/lf5u2k From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 8 12:49:07 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Health Debate Turns Hostile at Town Hall Meetings In-Reply-To: <1671557152.1886281249757269682.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1589707288.1886321249757347920.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> New York Times August 8, 2009 Health Debate Turns Hostile at Town Hall Meetings By IAN URBINA The bitter divisions over an overhaul of the health care system have exploded at town-hall-style meetings over the last few days as members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted by crowds. In several cities, noisy demonstrations have led to fistfights, arrests and hospitalizations. Democrats have said the protesters are being organized by conservative lobbying groups like FreedomWorks. Republicans respond that the protests are an organic response to the Obama administration?s health care restructuring proposals. There is no dispute, however, that most of the shouting and mocking is from opponents of those plans. Many of those opponents have been encouraged to attend by conservative commentators and Web sites. ?Become a part of the mob!? said a banner posted Friday on the Web site of the talk show host Sean Hannity . ?Attend an Obama Care Townhall near you!? The exhortations do not advocate violence, but some urge opponents to be disruptive. ?Pack the hall,? said a strategy memo circulated by the Web site Tea Party Patriots that instructed, ?Yell out and challenge the Rep?s statements early.? ?Get him off his prepared script and agenda,? the memo continued. ?Stand up and shout and sit right back down.? The memo was obtained by the liberal Web site ThinkProgress. Its author, Robert MacGuffie, a founder of the conservative Web site Right Principles, confirmed to The New York Times that the memo was legitimate. In response, liberal groups and the White House have also started sending supporters instructions for countering what they say are the organized disruptions. A volatile mix has resulted. In Mehlville, Mo., St. Louis County police officers arrested six people on Thursday evening, some on assault charges, outside a health care and aging forum organized by Representative Russ Carnahan, a Democrat. Opponents of the proposed changes, organized by the St. Louis Tea Party, apparently clashed with supporters organized by the Service Employees International Union outside a school gym. That same day in Romulus, Mich., Representative John D. Dingell , a long-serving Democrat, was shouted down at a health care meeting by a rowdy crowd of foes of health care overhaul, many crying, ?Shame on you!? A similar scene unfolded in Denver on Thursday when Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California visited a clinic for the homeless there. In a statement Friday, Mr. Dingell, 83, deplored those trying to ?demagogue the discussion,? but said he would not be deterred. ?As long as I have a vote, I will not let shouting, intimidation or misinformation deter me from fighting for this cause,? he said. The tenor of some of the debates has become extreme. Ms. Pelosi has accused people at recent protests of carrying signs associating the Democratic plan with Nazi swastikas and SS symbols, and some photographs showing such signs have been posted on the Web. On Thursday, the talk show host Rush Limbaugh said the administration?s health care logo was itself similar to a Nazi symbol. On Friday, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League released statements criticizing the comparison. ?It is preposterous to try and make a connection between the president?s health care logo and the Nazi Party symbol, the Reichsadler,? said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Wiesenthal center. On Thursday, top White House aides tried to bolster Senate Democrats during a lunch meeting, arming the lawmakers with tips for avoiding disastrous public forums. ?If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,? said Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, according to an official who attended the meeting. Earlier this week, Robert Gibbs , the White House press secretary, compared the scenes at health care forums to the ?Brooks Brothers brigade? in 2000, a reference to the protests that disrupted the vote count in Miami during the presidential election battle between George W. Bush and Al Gore . Portrayed at the time as local protesters, many were actually Republican staff members flown in from Washington. For Representative Steve Kagen, Democrat of Wisconsin, Mr. Gibbs?s criticism rang true. After he faced heckling during a heated discussion about health care at a forum on Thursday, Mr. Kagen was confronted by a vocal opponent named Heather Blish, who identified herself as ?just a mom from a few blocks away? and ?not affiliated with any political party.? When interviewed by the local NBC affiliate, Ms. Blish insisted she was not a member of the Republican Party . But her page on the networking Web site Linked In said she was the vice chairwoman of the Republican Party of Kewaunee County until last year and worked on the campaign of John Gard, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Kagen last year. Ms. Blish?s boss, Scott Detweiler, owner of IdealCampaign.com , which develops political candidate and campaign Web sites, confirmed that she had been active in local Republican politics. But Mr. Detweiler said she was sincere when she said she was not involved in any party, because she ended her activities with the Republican Party a year and a half ago. One of the week?s most raucous encounters occurred Thursday in Tampa, Fla., where roughly 1,500 people attended a forum held by Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Kathy Castor. When the auditorium at the Children?s Board of Hillsborough County reached capacity and organizers had to close the doors, the scene descended into violence. As Ms. Castor began to speak, scuffles broke out as people tried to push their way in. Parts of her remarks were drowned out by chants of ?read the bill, read the bill? and ?tyranny,? as a video recording of the meeting showed. Outside the meeting, there were competing chants of ?Yes we can? and ?Just say no.? Some of the protesters told local reporters they had been urged to come by a local activist group promoted by the conservative radio and television host Glenn Beck . Others said they had received e-mail messages from the Hillsborough County Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points. Elsewhere, there was similar discontent. On Sunday in Morrisville, Pa., Representative Patrick J. Murphy, a Democrat, was forced to scrap plans for a one-on-one, meet-the-congressman session when people in the crowd started shouting, so he agreed to discuss the issue with the entire audience. At an appearance at a grocery store in Austin, Tex., on Aug. 1, Representative Lloyd Doggett , a Democrat, was drowned out as he tried to speak on health care change. One opponent had a mock tombstone with Mr. Doggett?s name on it. Last week, a protester hanged an effigy of Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., Democrat of Maryland, at a rally opposing health care change. This week, Representative Brad Miller, Democrat of North Carolina, said he had received a death threat about his support. Contributing reporting were David M. Herszenhorn and Theo Emery in Washington, Brian Stelter in New York, Sean D. Hamill in Pittsburgh, Carmen Gentile in Miami and Malcolm Gay in St. Louis. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 8 12:51:02 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Are Our Markets Being Manipulated by 'Rogues' or Firms? In-Reply-To: <660739800.906761247692381727.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1341146239.1886541249757462024.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/09-3 CommonDreams.org July 9, 2009 Are Our Markets Being Manipulated by 'Rogues' or Firms? There?s New Evidence to Suggest That Crime in the Financial Markets Is Rife by Danny Schechter Everyone has heard of the Wikipedia but not everyone knows about the Investopedia , a Forbes website, that monitors finance for market players. One of the issues it is concerned about is market manipulation, actions by rogue and not so rogue players who, working alone or together, unduly influence the way our supposed "free" markets function. It is a fascinating source of information for the uninitiated who hear the daily reports on the ups and downs of the Dow and believe that somehow it is all part of the natural order of the universe. It isn't. Thanks to an even more informative web site, Gamingthemarket.com , we learn that in fact markets are subject to, prone to, and characterized by all sorts of manipulative practices. Here's one you may not have heard of. "Ghosting: An illegal practice whereby two or more market makers collectively attempt to influence and change the price of a stock. Ghosting is used by corrupt companies to affect stock prices so they can profit from the price movement. This practice is illegal because market makers are required by law to act in competition with each other. It is known as 'ghosting' because, like a spectral image or a ghost, this collusion among market makers is difficult to detect. In developed markets, the consequences of ghosting can be severe." -Investopedia It looks like we have gone from the age of the trustbuster to the era of the ghost buster as fiction once again turns into "faction." Last week, the price of oil mysteriously shot up. There were reports of yet another "rogue" trader. The New York Times later reported: " Reacting to recent swings in oil prices, federal regulators said they were considering limits on 'speculative' traders in markets for oil and other energy products." Of course, the big banks and Wall Street firms are expected to zealously oppose more oversight. Some things don't change. Anyone remember Nicholas Leeson, a one-man engine of speculation who lost over a billion dollars and brought down his own bank before going to jail? He later gloated on his website: "How could one trader bring down the banking empire that had funded the Napoleonic Wars?" On July 4th, Bloomberg News reported: "Sergey Aleynikov, an ex-Goldman Sachs computer programmer, was arrested July 3 after arriving at Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey, U.S. officials said. Aleynikov, 39, who has dual American and Russian citizenship, is charged in a criminal complaint with stealing the trading software. At a court appearance July 4 in Manhattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Facciponti told a federal judge that Aleynikov's alleged theft poses a risk to U.S. markets. Aleynikov transferred the code, which is worth millions of dollars, to a computer server in Germany, and others may have had access to it, Facciponti said, adding that New York-based Goldman Sachs may be harmed if the software is disseminated." The next sentence is particularly eye-opening: "The bank has raised the possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways," Facciponti said. J.S. Kim who runs an independent investment research and wealth consultancy firm commented on the financial site, Seeking Alpha: "It's curious to note that Goldman Sachs has admitted that it has developed trading software that could be used to, in their own words, 'manipulate markets in unfair ways,' yet nobody in the mainstream media has questioned whether Goldman Sachs was / and is using its proprietary trading platform to manipulate markets in unfair ways. Only extremely naive investors with zero understanding of how global stock markets operate would deny that there has been continual and excessive intervention into US stock markets to prop them up over the past several months." I spoke with Christian Angelich, the founder or GamingtheMarket.com, a former airline pilot turned trader, who told me that in recent years efforts to manipulate markets have become pervasive and, yet, are mostly illegal. He too cited Goldman when I asked how it often works. Without prodding, he came up with one possible scenario involving a firm like Goldman Sachs that had millions of shares of Intel it wanted to offload. So they issue a report predicting it will sell for $50 a share. As a major player at the New York exchange where they do 1 out of every ten shares, and have become even more powerful now that competitors like Bear, Lehman and others are out of business, their recommendations are given lots of weight even though in this case they really want to just dump the shares. "None of this is new," he told me, "it's been going on for years. Even the founding Fathers warned about it, but is more egregious today in part because of all the technology these firms have." He says it is illegal and has been winked at, citing one example: former Senator Phil Gramm attaching a plan to kill the Glass-Steagall act as an amendment to a bill that then sailed through the Congress while his wife was on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. "We will only have a real bottom," he believes, when the masses are out in the streets like they are in parts of Europe. "For change, pressure from below is needed." Sometimes unexpected events can take over markets too, as Michael Jackson's untimely demise's meteoric impact on the music market shows. His sales went from nowhere to everywhere confirming one jaded pundit's cynical comment that "he was more valuable dead than alive." In making a new film on the financial crisis as a crime story, I spoke with Moe Saceriby, a former lawyer and VP of Standard and Poors who went on to become a UN Ambassador. I knew him as a credible analyst of current affairs, an experienced professional. We spoke on Wall Street. He told me: "I think we had a transition from what truly was a free-market system to something now that is out of control and probably what I would define as a predatory system where we are not so much dealing anymore about the notion of fair prices, and the notion of markets that -- that work transparently an open late but in fact frequently markets that are manipulated for the end of maybe a few out there -- a few investors, mega-investors. It's even -- even that's very difficult to tell. " This was new to me -- the whole system being described as predatory, which smacks of criminal. He went on: "And these market movements may not be necessarily reflective of the underlying value of that real asset whether it be a commodity or whether it be in equity. What I mean by that is frequently you see prices wildly fluctuating. As an example: how could oil be at $147 in July of 2008 and all of a sudden fall to below $40 a barrel at the end of that same year? We all knew that in fact the whole economic system was in trouble over a year ago. But the price of oil kept rising sharply. The price of foods kept rising sharply." Question: "Manipulated?" Answer: "I think it was manipulated. There is a lot of debate whether it's about speculation or manipulation but there is an old expression among traders which is ?the trend is your friend.' What that means is that in fact a few people can use significant resources, financial resources, freely as a weapon." Umm, weapons on Wall Street? Already credit default swaps have been compared to financial hydrogen bombs as financial terms merge with military language. Does anyone doubt that these Wall Street manipulations have become form of warfare and that, until now, the wrong side has been ahead. Surely, all this demands a serious investigation and serious regulation. Will it happen? Mediachannel.org's News Dissector Danny Schechter is producing a film on "the Crime of Our Time" as a follow-up to his book PLUNDER; Investigating Our Economic Calamity (Cosimo Book, Amazon.com) Comments to dissector at mediachannel.org From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 8 12:52:43 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Martin Wolf on the recovery In-Reply-To: <172746780.904651247692142993.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1083879879.1886731249757563133.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f7ab9d4-70aa-11de-9717-00144feabdc0.html Financial Times July 14 2009 After the storm comes a hard climb The financial sector that is emerging from the crisis is even more riddled with moral hazard than the one that went into it. Its fundamental weaknesses are not yet redressed. By Martin Wolf Associate Editor Chief Economic Commentator Is the world economy on its way out of the crisis? Has the world been learning the right lessons? The answer to both questions is: up to a point. We have done some of the right things and learnt some of the right lessons. But we have neither done enough nor learnt enough. Recovery will be slow and painful, with substantial danger of relapses. Start, however, with the good news. The financial crisis, narrowly defined, is over: stock markets have rallied; liquidity is returning to markets; banks have been able to raise equity; and the extreme risk spreads in financial markets of last year have disappeared. When addressed powerfully, panics end. In this case, the commitment of the authorities to the rescue of a failing financial system was unprecedented. It has had the desired results. The worst of the economic crisis is also passing. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development noted in its latest Economic Outlook, ?for the first time since June 2007, the projections ... have been revised up for the OECD area as a whole compared with the previous issue?. Similarly, the International Monetary Fund states in its latest World Economic Outlook update that ?economic growth during 2009-10 is now projected to be about half a percentage point higher than forecast by the IMF in April, reaching 2.5 per cent in 2010?. Such a turning point in forecasts is an indicator of pending recovery. It emerges clearly in the successive monthly consensus of forecasts for 2010. Improvements in these forecasts can be seen for the US, Japan and the UK, though, worryingly, not for the eurozone (see chart). China?s forecasts show great resilience. Confidence in India is also rising. Yet we must put this news, welcome though it is, in context. The worst of the financial crisis may be behind us, but the financial system remains undercapitalised and weighed down with an as yet unknown burden of doubtful assets. It is also far from a truly ?private? financial system. On the contrary, it is underpinned by massive explicit and implicit taxpayer support. The probability of mischief down the road is close to 100 per cent. But the current hope is that the road to any such mischief goes via a recovery. Equally, the expected economic ?recovery? is not going to feel like much of one. The latest consensus forecasts for growth in the high-income countries for 2010 are well below potential. Yet this is also at a time when the admittedly uncertain estimates of ?output gaps? (or excess capacity) are at extreme levels. For 2009 the OECD estimates these at 4.9 per cent of potential gross domestic product in the US, 5.4 per cent in the UK, 5.5 per cent in the eurozone and 6.1 per cent in Japan. Given the forecasts for modest growth, excess capacity will be greater at the end of 2010 than at the end of 2009. The risks to inflation ? or rather risks of deflation ? are self-evident. So are the chances of further jumps in unemployment. In keeping with this, the ?breakeven rate? of inflation implied by inflation-indexed and conventional US treasury bonds has fallen again, to close to 1.5 per cent. June?s hysteria over rising yields on conventional bonds looks absurd. [Charts are on the original site.] Behind the excess capacity and the massive increases in fiscal deficits is the disappearance of the high-spending consumer, above all from the US. This is suggested by the huge shifts in the balance between private sector incomes and spending implied by OECD forecasts for current account and fiscal balances. In 2007, the US private sector spent 2.4 per cent of GDP more than income. In 2009, suggests the OECD, it will be spending 7.9 per cent of GDP less than income. This massive shift into prudence ? long called for by critics and so little appreciated now it has come ? largely explains the shift into fiscal deficits: between 2007 and 2009, a 10.3 per cent of GDP shift in the private sector?s balance between income and spending was offset by a 7.3 per cent of GDP fiscal worsening and a 3 per cent of GDP improvement in the current account deficit (see chart). Even as it is, this fiscal offset has not prevented a deep recession. Private sector prudence is likely to endure in a post-bubble world characterised by mountains of debt. In the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, US household borrowing was modestly negative. But at the end of the first quarter of 2009 the ratio of gross household debt to GDP was a mere 2 per cent of GDP lower than at the end of 2007. De-leveraging is a painful process: it has barely begun. If, as is likely, the private sector remains prudent, the public sector will remain profligate. Moreover, so long as this period of retrenchment lasts, the risk will not be inflation, but rather deflation. The lesson from Japan is that fiscal profligacy and deflationary pressure can last longer than anybody imagines. The longer they last, the trickier and more inflationary the exit may prove. Those who expect a swift return to the business-as-usual of 2006 are fantasists. A slow and difficult recovery, dominated by de-leveraging and deflationary risks, is the most likely prospect. Fiscal deficits will remain huge for years. The alternatives ? liquidation of excess debt via either a burst of inflation or mass bankruptcy ? will not be permitted. The persistently high unemployment and low growth may even threaten globalisation itself. Depending heavily on massive monetary expansion and fiscal deficits in erstwhile high-spending countries will ultimately be unsustainable. As I have argued, the stronger is the growth in demand in erstwhile surplus countries, relative to potential GDP, and so the more powerful is global rebalancing, the healthier will be the global recovery. Is this going to happen? I doubt it. If the exit into vigorous recovery seems still so uncertain, has the world at least been learning the right lessons for future management of the world economy? I believe not. The financial sector that is emerging from the crisis is even more riddled with moral hazard than the one that went into it. Its fundamental weaknesses are not yet redressed. Questions also remain about the working of the dollar-based international monetary system, the right targets for monetary policy, the management of global capital flows, the vulnerability of emerging economies, demonstrated in central and eastern Europe, and, not least, the financial fragility demonstrated so often and so painfully over the past three decades. However difficult the recovery may be, we must not ignore these questions. After my summer break, I look forward to addressing them in September. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Aug 8 16:38:15 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 07:38:15 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast Message-ID: <20090809073815.3fef83e8.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy economist by Steve Connor, Science Editor The Independent (August 03 2009) The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned. Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries. In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about ten years - at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated. But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said. In a stark warning to Britain and the other Western powers, Dr Birol said that the market power of the very few oil-producing countries that hold substantial reserves of oil - mostly in the Middle East - would increase rapidly as the oil crisis begins to grip after 2010. "One day we will run out of oil, it is not today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day", Dr Birol said. "The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously", he said. "The market power of the very few oil-producing countries, mainly in the Middle East, will increase very quickly. They already have about forty per cent share of the oil market and this will increase much more strongly in the future", he said. There is now a real risk of a crunch in the oil supply after next year when demand picks up because not enough is being done to build up new supplies of oil to compensate for the rapid decline in existing fields. The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong. "If we see a tightness of the markets, people in the street will see it in terms of higher prices, much higher than we see now. It will have an impact on the economy, definitely, especially if we see this tightness in the markets in the next few years", Dr Birol said. "It will be especially important because the global economy will still be very fragile, very vulnerable. Many people think there will be a recovery in a few years' time but it will be a slow recovery and a fragile recovery and we will have the risk that the recovery will be strangled with higher oil prices", he told The Independent. In its first-ever assessment of the world's major oil fields, the IEA concluded that the global energy system was at a crossroads and that consumption of oil was "patently unsustainable", with expected demand far outstripping supply. Oil production has already peaked in non-Opec countries and the era of cheap oil has come to an end, it warned. In most fields, oil production has now peaked, which means that other sources of supply have to be found to meet existing demand. Even if demand remained steady, the world would have to find the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias to maintain production, and six Saudi Arabias if it is to keep up with the expected increase in demand between now and 2030, Dr Birol said. "It's a big challenge in terms of the geology, in terms of the investment and in terms of the geopolitics. So this is a big risk and it's mainly because of the rates of the declining oil fields", he said. "Many governments now are more and more aware that at least the day of cheap and easy oil is over ... [however] I'm not very optimistic about governments being aware of the difficulties we may face in the oil supply", he said. Environmentalists fear that as supplies of conventional oil run out, governments will be forced to exploit even dirtier alternatives, such as the massive reserves of tar sands in Alberta, Canada, which would be immensely damaging to the environment because of the amount of energy needed to recover a barrel of tar-sand oil compared to the energy needed to collect the same amount of crude oil. "Just because oil is running out faster than we have collectively assumed, does not mean the pressure is off on climate change", said Jeremy Leggett, a former oil-industry consultant and now a green entrepreneur with Solar Century. "Shell and others want to turn to tar, and extract oil from coal. But these are very carbon-intensive processes, and will deepen the climate problem", Dr Leggett said. "What we need to do is accelerate the mobilisation of renewables, energy efficiency and alternative transport. "We have to do this for global warming reasons anyway, but the imminent energy crisis redoubles the imperative", he said. Oil: An unclear future * Why is oil so important as an energy source? Crude oil has been critical for economic development and the smooth functioning of almost every aspect of society. Agriculture and food production is heavily dependent on oil for fuel and fertilisers. In the US, for instance, it takes the direct and indirect use of about six barrels of oil to raise one beef steer. It is the basis of most transport systems. Oil is also crucial to the drugs and chemicals industries and is a strategic asset for the military. * How are oil reserves estimated? The amount of oil recoverable is always going to be an assessment subject to the vagaries of economics - which determines the price of the oil and whether it is worth the costs of pumping it out - and technology, which determines how easy it is to discover and recover. Probable reserves have a better than fifty per cent chance of getting oil out. Possible reserves have less than fifty per cent chance. * Why is there such disagreement over oil reserves? All numbers tend to be informed estimates. Different experts make different assumptions so it is understandable that they can come to different conclusions. Some countries see the size of their oilfields as a national security issue and do not want to provide accurate information. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. A further factor is the expected size of future demand for oil. * What is "peak oil" and when will it be reached? This is the point when the maximum rate at which oil is extracted reaches a peak because of technical and geological constraints, with global production going into decline from then on. The UK Government, along with many other governments, has believed that peak oil will not occur until well into the 21st Century, at least not until after 2030. The International Energy Agency believes peak oil will come perhaps by 2020. But it also believes that we are heading for an even earlier "oil crunch" because demand after 2010 is likely to exceed dwindling supplies. * With global warming, why should we be worried about peak oil? There are large reserves of non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands of Canada. But this oil is dirty and will produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide which will make a nonsense of any climate change agreement. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. If we are not adequately prepared for peak oil, global warming could become far worse than expected. Steve Connor, Science Editor [iCopyright] 2009 Independent News and Media. Permission granted for up to five copies. All rights reserved. You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.7463?icx_id=news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html?service=PrintICopyright into any web browser. Independent News and Media Limited and The Independent logos are registered trademarks of Independent News and Media Limited . The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Aug 9 06:47:59 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 21:47:59 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] From Farm to Pharma Message-ID: <20090809214759.2f589598.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> How Animals Ended Up Living in Confined Feedlots Guzzling Antibiotics Here's the history behind the transition from farm to feedlot and why Big Pharma rules the barn. by Will Allen, Chelsea Green Publishing AlterNet (July 06 2009) We are now living in a post fast-food-awareness reality, riding on the wake of Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser's books (who rode on the wake of Wendell Berry), films like Food, Inc (2008), renegade farmer heros like Joel Salatin and Eliot Coleman, and the ever-increasing popularity of urban gardening and locavores. But awareness, like anything, has its dark side. Perhaps the hardest thing we post fast-food-aware people face now, is actually doing something - apart from reading the book and watching the movie, that is. Because things like slavery were abolished, but racism persists. And women got the vote, but men still make more money in the workplace. So maybe "organic" yogurt is now on Wal-Mart's shelves, but that doesn't mean outdated, inhumane practices like factory farming will not persist. They'll just call it something else. It's a common thing, historically - big business trying to blind the masses with our own beacons. The following is an excerpt from The War on Bugs by Will Allen (2007). It has been adapted for the Web:- The small American farms that raised livestock as well as row or orchard crops and had suffered through depression and war faced even greater challenges shortly after World War Two. Farmers were buffeted by the costs of changing both equipment and practices as farms became more chemically intensive and mechanized. Small farmers struggled in vain to compete with the further consolidation and expansion of the highly integrated farm monopolies, such as Continental Grain, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Richland Rice and Dunavant Enterprises and J G Boswell in cotton. In their struggle to survive, many sought to copy the corporate industrial model of farming and got bigger. Others attempted to sell directly to local outlets as they always had. But following the war, an urban and suburban housing expansion took place near many cities that raised the value and the tax base on millions of acres of farmland. The increased tax base and increased noise and smell ordinances made it more difficult to farm conveniently and profitably close to cities. This cut tens of thousands of growers off from marketing their products directly to consumers. Then, in the early 1950s, chemical researchers threw another technical dagger at family farmers. The chemical-pharmaceutical firms introduced a dramatically new technology that completely transformed the meat, poultry, and dairy industries - antibiotic farming. This miracle technology allowed farmers for the first time to confine large numbers of cows, pigs, and chickens in enclosed areas and still keep them healthy. Advertised as a revolution in animal management, this breakthrough resulted in no small part from the discovery that antibiotics, when added in subtherapeutic dosages to animal feeds, could be used to promote weight gain and prevent diseases. These management practices set in motion the next great reduction of small and diversified family farms in the United States by allowing the creation of huge, intensively managed animal-confinement operations. In 1949 Dr Thomas Jukes, working for Lederle Laboratories, a division of American Cyanamid (the first manufacturer of ammonium cyanide in the Americas), was studying several microorganisms to find which ones could produce quantities of B-12, a vitamin largely absent from the soybean- and corn-dominated livestock diet. One microorganism he studied was the precursor for the antibiotic chlortetracycline, also known as tetracycline. After extensive experimentation, Jukes accidentally found that feeding small amounts of this antibiotic to chicks, piglets, and calves caused them to significantly increase their weight. No one is sure what happened physiologically, but the use of antibiotics somehow suppressed harmful bacteria inside the animal's digestive tract, which enhanced growth. Jukes and the media heavily promoted the immense possibilities of this discovery, calling it one of the most important developments of the century. In March 1950, the New York Times ran a front-page story on Jukes's findings. Word of Jukes's discoveries occupied the attention of the media for weeks. The New York Daily News even ran a political cartoon that showed Harry Truman administering a growth-promoting dose of tetracycline to a pig in an effort to increase pork for Truman's supporters. The confinement strategy for farm animals that the Jukes discovered came to dominate US agricultural practices. The photo at right is from the inside of a "bacon barn" or "hog hotel", as these jails for hogs are variously called. Notice the girth restraints on the hogs, which further confine them to their prison cells. Livestock rancher and journalist Orville Schell studied the meat industry between 1978 and 1984 for his book, Modern Meat: Antibiotics, Hormones and the Pharmaceutical Farm (1984). Schell, who was a cattle rancher as well as an investigative journalist, realized that the use of antibiotics and hormones could be disastrous to farming, to farm animals, and to people who ate the meat. He took on issues of antibiotic abuse and endocrine disruption due to chemical farming practices long before farmers or almost anyone else in the United States realized the dangers. Schell found that by 1954, six years after the discovery of tetracycline's effect on animal growth, US farmers used 490,000 pounds (245 tons) of antibiotic feed additives in livestock feed. In 1977, Jukes boasted that the results produced on farms were so spectacular, especially with pigs, that we could not begin to supply the demand". By 1960, 1.2 million pounds were used annually. By 1985, it was nine million pounds. Schell felt that by 1985 it was the exception rather than the rule to find a farmer who did not use antibiotic feed additives on his livestock. By 2001 more than nineteen million pounds were being used. Pharmaceutical corporations claimed that with antibiotics, the stress of the crowded conditions of confinement could be overcome. Again, the federal agencies did not challenge these claims. So, the path was paved for today's industrial bacon bins, chicken factories, and feedlots where pigs, chickens, and beef cows are raised in cramped conditions and treated with several chemical additives and drugs to keep them from getting sick in crowded cells and pens. However, Schell found that within a decade after the large-scale introduction of antibiotics into feedstocks microbiologists in Japan had discovered that their extensive use had led to the emergence of bacteria that were resistant to the antibiotics themselves. The Japanese scientists called the resistance phenomenon "infectious drug resistance", which means that subsequent generations of bacteria could develop resistance to antibiotic drugs, then transfer that property of resistance to other bacteria as well. Within a few more years, the overmedication of animals to induce weight gain had effectively begun to eliminate any of the benefits that antibiotics offered in terms of weight gain and resistance to disease in crowded pens. By the 1970s, hundreds of generations of bacteria succeeded in developing resistance to the drugs being fed to cattle at low dosages but over a long period of time. As more bacteria became resistant to the same antibiotics that humans depended on, the continued large-scale use of them in chicken, beef, pork, and milk cows threatened the elimination of these antibiotics for human illnesses. It soon became clear to doctors and researchers that antibiotics had to be used only as a last resort in order to preserve their capacity for protecting human health, or they would be lost to medicine. Instead of heeding the warnings of the doctors and medical scientists, however, the drug companies convinced farmers to use antibiotics like vitamins or food supplements. In 1979, Dr Richard Novick of the New York City Public Health Research Institute told Orville Schell that "the only hope of maintaining the usefulness of antibiotics is to use them for specific purposes in a limited and carefully controlled manner, and only against organisms that are known to be sensitive to them". American Cyanamid's promotions in The National Hog Farmer pose these questions: Ask Yourself: Can I afford to finish my hogs with Aureomycin tetracycline during a tight year? Then Ask Yourself: Can I afford slow growth, poor feed efficiency, cervical abscesses, bacterial enteritis, and the drag of atrophic rhinitis during any year? Aureomycin doesn't cost, it pays. Sadly, the problems that the farmer is forced to treat in this ad are the results of confinement hog management. The pigs of farmers who use rotational grazing suffer these ailments either not at all or at least not at anywhere near the same rates as continuously confined pigs. (c) 2009 Chelsea Green Publishing All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/141142/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Aug 9 20:31:20 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:31:20 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Thirst for Profit Message-ID: <20090810113120.0901c12e.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Corporate Control of Water in Latin America Water for Sale: What is called for is an international code for the public's access to a guaranteed supply of water as a basic human right. by Lisa Boscov-Ellen The Corporate Crusade to Commodify Water Council on Hemispheric Affairs (June 20 2009) Water has been characterized as the oil of the 21st century. Blue gold. It is essential to life, and yet humanity faces a growing water crisis as a result of severe mismanagement in water and sanitation, which will be exponentially exacerbated in the coming decades by population growth combined with declining resources. Latin America has the greatest income disparity in the world and the population's access to water reflects this inequality. Over 130 million people living in the region do not have access to potable water in their homes, and sanitation is in even poorer condition, as it is estimated that only one in six persons has adequate sanitation services. According to the 2007 Annual Report from the nonprofit organization Water For People, "Every day, nearly 6,000 people who share our world die from water-related illnesses - more than two million each year - and the vast majority of these are children ? There are more lives lost each year to water-related illnesses than to natural disasters and wars combined". It is clear that lack of access to clean water is a serious issue, one that has only started to gain international attention from a variety of organizations in recent years. The Fifth World Water Forum took place in Istanbul, Turkey, from March 16 to 22 2009, with over 25,000 people attending, representing 182 countries. The World Water Forum, the largest water policy event in the world, is held every three years. It is organized by the World Water Council, a private think-tank based in Marseille, France. The People's Water Forum, a global water justice movement which has referred to the World Water Forum as "false" and "corporate driven", also gathered in Istanbul to protest the Fifth World Water Forum. In the People's Water Forum Declaration, they sharply criticize the World Water Forum, stating that it is motivated by private interests and attempts to create the misleading illusion of an utterly false global consensus on water management. The Declaration also asks that the next water forum be organized by the UN General Assembly, calls for water to be defined as a human right, and denounces all forms of privatization and commercialization of water and sanitation services. Joining the discussion, the International Water Forum, a by-invitation-only Forum sponsored by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, and CIFAL Atlanta will be held on July 9 and 10 of this year to discuss global water scarcity as well as methods for establishing a sustainable water supply. The struggle over water is certainly not a new phenomenon. Wide-scale water privatization began in the 1990s and was often stipulated as a condition for assistance from international financial aid institutions, primarily the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Since then, there has been ongoing conflict over water management, with Latin America at the center of many of the models for resistance and restructuring. These water-related conflicts, popularly referred to as "water wars", gained international attention a decade ago. The expulsion of water giant Bechtel by the citizens of the Bolivian city Cochabamba marked the beginning of a greater resistance to water privatization and commercialization in Latin America. Given the failures of privatization and neoliberal policies in Latin America, it should not come as a surprise that the people are objecting to the commodification of this basic human need. Privatization and Commercialization It is worth noting that privatization and commercialization are distinct processes when discussing their implementation in Latin America. Privatization connotes reorganization and management from a source other than the public sector, and can involve a spectrum of private occupation. Commercialization entails the introduction of management institutions, such as free market competition (albeit simulated, in this case) into the process. However, privatization and commercialization are frequently concurrent processes, as was the case in Cochabamba. There are only a few arguments commonly employed to defend water privatization in Latin America. The primary justification is that the governments of one of these countries have previously failed to adequately provide water, either because of incompetence or corruption. Organizations like the World Bank, which frequently finance privatization projects, dogmatically believe that the open market is more efficient at resource management than the state because the government is "overextended". Furthermore, they think that the competition in private sector development will lead to higher quality and lower cost services. Another common rationale is that making water into a commercial good - thus assigning monetary value to water - makes consumers less likely to waste it. According to this argument, the commercialization of water would prevent its overuse. These assumptions, however, are problematic. The postulation that competition is an inherent element of privatization is misguided. In fact, the corporate monopoly on water in Latin America is part of the reason that prices have been high and quality has been low. It could be wiser to address the concern about wasting water through an expansive educational program that encompasses both fundamental health issues regarding drinking water and sanitation, and information about the importance as well as preferred methods of water conservation. Another possible solution is through government regulation, which could be more effective if it were done transparently and involved community participation. The state could potentially utilize subsidies, a water tax or a credit to promote the sustainable use of water. The greatest problem with the mindset behind privatization is that while it considers water a human need, it is not deemed a human right, which essentially denies the universal right to life. Regardless, the fact is that Latin American countries that have experienced privatization of their water supply have seen little improvement, and in most cases water supply and quality have declined. Bolivia's Water War Bolivia is the classic example of a situation in which the water privatization and commercialization process was disastrous. Two concessions to private, corporate control in Bolivia - part of a condition of a World Bank loan of US$20 million to the Bolivian government in 1997 - have now been rejected through popular uprisings. The first was in Cochabamba in 2000 against Aguas de Tunari, a subsidiary of the enormous US-based Bechtel Corporation (which was the only bidder). The second uprising occurred in La Paz/El Alto, where a subsidiary of the French company Suez, called Aguas de Illimani SA (AISA), was thrown out in 2005. In Cochabamba, after Bechtel was installed, it quickly raised rates by an average of 35% (and in some cases as much as 200%), which was far outside the budget of the city's poor and would have left many without access to water. Licenses were even required for individuals to collect rainwater from their roofs, and people were charged for water taken from their own wells. Protests escalated to the point that the Bolivian government declared a state of martial law, and eventually the company was forced to abandon their operations in the country. Supporters of privatization in Bolivia argue that these tariff increases were necessary to improve the existing infrastructure and expand the service area. Furthermore, some have suggested that antecedent economic and social factors, such as political corruption and pre-existing anti-privatization public sentiment, contributed to the tinderbox complexity of the situation in Cochabamba and were responsible for the failure of water privatization. After Bechtel was driven out by public outrage, the international attention given to Cochabamba's "Water War" faded, although problems still remained. Marcela Olivera, the Latin American Coordinator of Food and Water Watch's Water for All Campaign, writes that, "the other battle that's still going on, that we're fighting now in the form of the struggle over water rights, has to do with our not being able to put together an effective, participatory popular alternative with social controls to serve as a counter to privatization, to private control of resources. This is a battle that's still being waged in Cochabamba, but it's less romantic and not so easy to talk about, because there are a lot of problems with the water company. Things have not been resolved now that the company has been reclaimed. I think this is where the true work lies - work that is harder, unrecognized, and still involves an entrenched battle." The withdrawal of Bechtel left SEMAPA, Bolivia's municipal water service, in charge of distribution. This service was also inadequate and left the poorer southern districts without water. After Evo Morales was elected in 2005, in part due to the social protest ignited by the Cochabamba incident, he created a Ministry of Water in Bolivia with the goal of achieving equal and universal access to water. While Bolivia has approved a new constitution that considers water a fundamental right and bans private appropriation, little progress has been made towards the country's goal, as only US$800,000 was appropriated for the water budget in 2008. Models for Change: Bolivia, Venezuela, and Peru The town of Sebastian Pagador, in southern Bolivia, has become an example of community-based innovation. In 1990, they formed a collective called APAAS (Association of Production and Administration of Water and Sanitation), in which the 390 families in the area formed a committee, and every member family had the monthly responsibility of digging six meters and paying one boliviano for supplies. By 1993 they had built an entire distribution system. It was a long and rigorous process, but today, around 600 houses in the area have access to potable water seventeen hours a day, and each household only has to pay US$3 a month. The members of the water collective are proud of their ability to provide service from a system they built by hand, but also of their management style that gives control to the people rather than to administrators. There are, however, still issues with this system. Financial restrictions make it impossible for them to expand to meet increased demand, they have not been able to construct a water treatment system, and the wells that they currently use are expected to dry up in approximately a decade. Venezuela provides another case study of effective restructuring of water management. Mariela Cruz Salazar of the Technical Water Committee in Camancitos, Venezuela discusses Venezuela's alternative for community management. The Venezuelan government created "technical water committees" and "community water councils" where all of the technical water committees can meet to discuss their problems and ideas. The government helps to finance these projects, and has educated people in environmental issues and in the conservation and administration of water. If an issue concerning water arises in the community, a citizen's assembly convenes to discuss the problem and then communicates with the State Institute for Water Resources. Together, Water Resources and the community plan and prepare future projects. Salazar writes that, "We're managing the water as an organized community, not just by receiving the water, but by training the community in how to use it rationally and conserve it for the future". Although the figures are debatable (the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program and the Andean Development Corporation [CAF] project lower estimates), the Ministry of Environment says that in 2008, 93 percent of the population had access to water supply and sanitation. This would mean that Venezuela is one of the few places to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals for water and sanitation. The circumstances in Peru are very similar to those in many other Latin American countries. In 1992, their constitution was modified so that the country's resources and production were open to multinational corporations and a neoliberal economic agenda. Although they managed to stop water privatization in 2006, Peru continues to struggle with creating an alternative proposal and implementing a system that guarantees more permanent rights to water. Although coverage of the recent protests that began in early April and the violent conflict that occurred on June 5th has focused on the issues of new laws, free trade, and the extraction of oil and natural gas, water is also an important part of this conflict. The series of laws approved by President Alan Garcia would remove indigenous control of land and natural resources. It would also likely lead to substantial amounts of development in the rainforest. According to Reuters reporter Dana Ford, "Law 29833 creates new public agencies to oversee water management and distribution. Small farmers fear the changes will drive up costs, reduce their access to water while giving more of it to corporate growers, and eventually lead to the privatization of the water agencies." Additionally, deforestation that would be part of development in the rainforest contributes to flooding, droughts and the melting of glaciers as a result of global warming. This environmental perspective that is brought to the water issue is distinctive. Nelly Avendano of the Front for the Defense of Water, in Peru's Junin region, expresses a remarkably comprehensive understanding of the necessary action which must be taken: "? it's a question of maintaining, conserving and protecting our water sources, of providing drinking water that is safe for human consumption, of modernizing agricultural irrigation methods. Ultimately, all this needs to be followed by the construction of water treatment plants for sewage and wastewater, so that this develops its own cycle and is converted into clean water for agricultural or industrial use. If our policies don't integrate the issues of water resources, sanitation, and the environment into one, then the system will undoubtedly continue to fail us." The Front for the Defense of Water recognizes that the privatization of water is a complex issue, which concerns both environmental sustainability and the natural rights of humankind. Turning the Tide Civil society has made strides against the runaway process of privatization and commercialization of water, but there is a formidable challenge ahead. While transnational companies have experienced setbacks in their attempts to privatize water in Latin America, they have had to change their strategy, but privatization still persists in the region. Since privatization has become such an anathema, corporations use different terms to describe their ventures. The appropriation of a territory or bioregion, as is the case in Peru, allows for control over the resources in that area. Large companies, with total engineering capacities at hand, can divert whole rivers as part of their production projects, or end up making water unusable for local inhabitants, which essentially is privatization, but through contamination. Bottling water and monopolizing technology for extraction and purification are other forms of privatizing water and vending it to the highest bidder. In addition to using these methods to gain control of water, corporations normally see to it that they benefit from the wording and intent of free trade agreements. NAFTA considers water to be an "investment", the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services and the proposed FTAA call it a "service", and in both NAFTA and the WTO it is regarded as a "good". Privatizing and commercializing water guarantees that the focus on its management and distribution will be profit, not what is best for people or, for that matter, the planet. Profits from the bottled water industry are so high that the infrastructure necessary to provide the world's population with potable water could be created by applying the profits accumulated over just one year. The US$100 billion that people spent on bottled water in 2005 is three times what would be needed to achieve the UN goal of making water available to everyone by 2015. The terrible situation that the lack of a proper water supply and sanitation creates for so many is avoidable and, as of now, is largely a product of poor resource management. A NACLA report by Maude Barlow and Tony Clark states that, "While the region's available resources could provide each person with close to 110,500 cubic feet of water every year, the average resident has access to only 1,010 cubic feet per year. This compares to North America's annual average of 4,160 cubic feet and Europe's 2,255.6." To ensure equality, water must be considered a human right and not just a need, privilege or commodity. However, the issue requires a broader vision that goes beyond simply an evaluation of the failures of privatization and includes a consideration of alternatives. The community-based programs that have included village-based education have been very successful in making water available to the communities they serve. While this is a valuable model, it has limitations when applied in bigger cities. Even though there have been problems with government management in the past, advocates of public access insist that privatization is not the answer. A water management system that includes public and community cooperation has great potential when combined with a more comprehensive educational program and increased transparency. However, the focus must shift to include not only alternative models, but also preventative planning. As the world population increases and water sources grow more scarce, the World Bank expects that by 2025, more than two-thirds of humanity will not have a reliable source of potable water, and adequate sanitation will probably become even less common. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the figure of those without water in Latin America would include somewhere between seven million and 77 million people. The growing movement surrounding water rights must tackle these predictions by addressing the less immediate, yet equally important concerns of restructuring agriculture and irrigation, minimizing pollution, and working to protect the environment before providing this vital resource becomes an issue of true scarcity rather than mismanagement, as now is the case. ____ This analysis was prepared by Research Associate Lisa Boscov-Ellen (c) 2009 Council on Hemispheric Affairs http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/20-3 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From mstainsby at resist.ca Sun Aug 9 23:47:37 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 23:47:37 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [R-G] Is a trucker responsible for missing women on Highway of Tears? Message-ID: Is a trucker responsible for missing women on Highway of Tears? By Keith Bonnell, Canwest News Service August 9, 2009 http://www.theprovince.com/news/trucker%20responsible%20missing%20women%20Highway%20Tears/1875808/story.html A stretch of highway between Smithers and Burns Lake along Highway 16, known as the "Highway of Tears" because many women have gone missing while travelling it. A stretch of highway between Smithers and Burns Lake along Highway 16, known as the "Highway of Tears" because many women have gone missing while travelling it. Photograph by: File photo by Mikael Kjellstrom, Canwest News Service/Calgary Herald Police investigating the disappearance of missing and murdered women across this country are being urged to take a long, hard look at the trucking industry, following an FBI investigation that has linked serial killings to long-haul truck drivers in the U.S. It's a call that Angela Marie MacDougall is taking across Western Canada ? and one that's being echoed by an international expert on serial killers. MacDougall is the executive director of Battered Women's Support Services in British Columbia, and she has been touring the Prairie provinces for the last two weeks, speaking with women's support groups, sex-trade workers and relatives left shattered by the disappearance of their loved ones. She's trying to form a coalition to bring forward a report this fall on the disappearance of women in Canada. Some have placed the national numbers in the hundreds. "There is a sickness within our society that grinds down the lives of aboriginal women," said MacDougall. It's a problem that has plagued the Prairies, with advocacy groups saying the streets in cities such as Winnipeg are no longer safe ? as others question whether serial killers are to blame. B.C. police have the Missing Women's Task Force; Alberta police have the Project Kare task force; and Mounties in Manitoba announced last week they will review decades' worth of cold cases where the victims were women, looking for any possible links. On her tour, MacDougall is taking with her a report released earlier this year by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, explaining the work done in the U.S. to link truck drivers to serial killings. Analysts have compiled a list of more than 520 homicide victims who have been found along or near highways in more than 40 states, as well as a list of 200 potential suspects. "The suspects are predominantly long-haul truck drivers," the FBI said this spring in its report publicizing the Highway Serial Killings initiative. It said the victims, many of them drug addicts and prostitutes, are often picked up at truck stops, sexually assaulted, murdered, then dumped along a highway. So far, 10 suspects believed to be responsible for 30 killings are in custody, the FBI said. The FBI uses a massive database for violent crimes. A unit of 23 analysts goes through the system, looking for links among crimes that have been submitted by state investigators. Last year, the FBI took the program online, making it available to law-enforcement agencies across the U.S. But participation is still voluntary, so much of the agency's work is convincing police forces across the country to use the program. FBI unit chief Michael Harrigan said there's no systemic problem with the trucking industry. "It's an honourable profession," he told Canwest News Service. "These are a very, very small minority of individuals." Still, MacDougall said the report should serve as a wake-up call in Canada, a country where there are roughly half a million licensed truckers on the road. Thoughts immediately come to mind of the so-called Highway of Tears, a 700-kilometre stretch of road that runs between Prince George and Prince Rupert, B.C. RCMP say 18 women are missing from the area, while Amnesty International attributes 32 missing persons cases to the area, all women, most of them aboriginal. "A truck driver can pick up a woman in one state and take them to another state and dump them," MacDougall said, adding the FBI report shows predators could find the industry's working conditions ideal for committing their crimes. If long-haul truck drivers are behind any of the missing-women cases, it would instantly reframe the issue as a Canada-wide problem, rather than a province-by-province phenomenon. "It's our intention to encourage law enforcement, and encourage the (trucking) industry to take some responsibility for ensuring women's safety," she said. "We're also talking about women who got away from long-haul truck drivers," MacDougall said, adding she knows of eight B.C. women who she said have been attacked, but escaped. The RCMP in Manitoba have said there is no evidence to support the theory that the province's unsolved homicides are linked, let alone that truckers are behind any of them. The RCMP also analyze violent crimes with the help of a database The VICLAS database, or Violent Crime Linkage System, is meant to help officers search for possible serial criminals ? including killers. "All law-enforcement agencies in Canada contribute to this VICLAS," said Sgt. Line Karpish. "Right now, we have no reasons to believe that our homicides are linked to other cases," she said, adding: "I'm not going to get into the specific occupations of those that could be travelling criminals." But, if they haven't already, Canadian police should at least consider a link between long-haul truck drivers and the disappearance of women, said Steven Egger, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Houston-Clear Lake. "It's something they should look at," said Egger, author of The Killers Among Us, a exploration of serial murder, who consulted with the Alberta task force on missing women. "It's something they might want to check with the FBI and check if it has any fit with what they're looking at," Egger said, adding it was very possible the force has already considered such a scenario. The group that represents the trucking industry in Canada said it hadn't heard of the FBI report. "Like any population, could there be a serial killer (among) truck drivers? Sure," said Doug Switzer, a spokesman for the Canadian Trucking Alliance. "Who am I to argue with the FBI?" But he stressed that, just because there could be killers among the ranks of Canada's truck drivers, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the industry itself. "It's not that truck drivers are by nature serial killers," said Switzer. "Serial killers are dysfunctional people. . . . There's something very wrong with them that makes them serial killers." He said he wasn't aware of his organization being approached about potential serial killers by police. "There's no particular efforts that are made within the trucking industry to look for serial killers," he said. The Manitoba RCMP's decision to review cold cases stretching back to the 1960s has raised speculation that one or more serial killers could be responsible. But MacDougall, who has spent two decades working with abused women, including sex-trade workers, said the truth may be something less sensational, far more prevalent, and just as dark. "We like to think that there's some abhorrent individual who's out there killing women," she said. "It's much harder for us as a society to understand that hatred of women . . . is deeply entrenched in our society. "There are men who seek out young aboriginal women to beat and rape and pay them." ? Copyright (c) The Province -- Macdonald Stainsby Co-ordinator, http://oilsandstruth.org -- moderated radical discussion list: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green -- In the contradiction lies the hope. -Bertholt Brecht. From tchilds at resist.ca Mon Aug 10 01:13:17 2009 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:13:17 +0000 Subject: [R-G] NYTimes: Climate Change Seen As Threat To US Security Message-ID: <1458925011-1249888333-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1782961978-@bxe1032.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Well, I'll be dipped in shit.....: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.xml Tom www.pasifik.ca Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry From suzannedk at gmail.com Mon Aug 10 07:04:51 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:04:51 +0200 Subject: [R-G] NYTimes: Climate Change Seen As Threat To US Security In-Reply-To: <1458925011-1249888333-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1782961978-@bxe1032.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1458925011-1249888333-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1782961978-@bxe1032.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: I assume that the draconian Empire, habeous corpusless Military laws and plans for military regualtion of a host of everything anticipates the chaos, coming. In fact I think that was factored into the immediate push for Empire response to the 9/11. With the world facing climate change at every door, finacial crisis would open all locks just before the weather debacle and present energ poor, resourse poor half very ill( 60% diabetes),and so poor population. Of course steal enough to survive the debacle and then move into the devastated rest of the world as conquerors. Read "War on Liberty" by Paye. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:13 AM, wrote: > Well, I'll be dipped in shit.....: > > http://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.xml > > > Tom > www.pasifik.ca > > > Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Aug 10 07:29:32 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:29:32 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Purloining the People's Property Message-ID: <20090810222932.1349b615.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Ralph Nader nader.org (August 03 2009) Every week, Marcia Carroll collects examples of privatization (that is, corporatization of the peoples' assets). Looking at her website, privatizationwatch.org, will either make you laugh helplessly or make your blood boil. The "off the wall" giveaways at bargain-basement prices of what you and other Americans own eclipses imagination. The latest escapes from responsible government are called "public-private partnerships" and are designed to enable the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to take over highways, meter-collecting, and public buildings in deals that are loaded with complex tax advantages for the investors. Here are two of her latest entries. Arizona lawmakers and Governor Jan Brewer are moving to fill a $3.4 billion budget shortfall by selling state-owned buildings. These include not only prisons, but also the House and Senate buildings. That's the state legislature, fellow Americans! Metaphor becomes reality! The proposed sale has bipartisan support and will require a leaseback by the buying corporation to the lawmakers with the right to repurchase the premises within twenty years. The Arizona Republic reports that the deal, which includes 32 state properties, would bring in $735 million in upfront money and entail state lease payments totaling $60 to $70 million a year. "We need the money", State Minority Whip Linda Lopez, a Tuscon Democrat said, adding, "You've got to find it somewhere". Well, why not rent out the backs of the state legislators to their favorite corporate funders? At least the public would get full disclosure of ownership. "I look at it as taking out a mortgage", practical Arizona House Majority Leader John McCormish, a Republican, told the Wall Street Journal. The second item comes from the Denver Post, which reports that the foreign consortium, auto-estradas de Portugal (Brisa), operating the toll road Northwest Parkway under a 99-year lease, objected to improvements on a nearby public road. Under the complex leasing contract, the company could cite the improvements as an "adverse action" reducing toll revenue and the number of vehicles using the parkway. This action would presumably entitle this foreign company to compensation from Colorado taxpayers. Last year, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell tried to push through the legislature a complex, 75-year lease of the storied Pennsylvania Turnpike in exchange for $12.8 billion up front. All kinds of tax breaks and trap-door evasions filled the 686 page lease. The Governor was prepared, for example, to agree to pay the consortium of foreign investors if new safety measures or emergency vehicles entered the toll road and affected the flow of traffic. Fortunately, the legislature rebelled and blocked the deal. The Indiana Toll Road was turned over to private companies in 2006. The 75-year lease was for $3.8 billion, which is a little more than the cost to repair the Woodrow Wilson bridge over the Potomac River between Virginia and Washington, DC. Tolls on the Indiana Toll Road have already doubled and are expected to double again within ten years, according to the Dallas Morning News. Last year, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago privatized the city's parking meters. Chicago's inspector general concluded that the meters were worth nearly twice as much to the city as the $1.15 billion that the city received under an agreement rushed through the City Council with no civic input. A fourfold increase in meter rates this year has driven many motorists to residential neighborhoods in search of free parking spaces. Indiana, a leader in outsourcing governmental functions to private corporations, gave the servicing of the state's welfare program to IBM. According to the Indianapolis Star, error rates since corporatization have risen 17.5 percent last November and 21.4 percent in December. The myth that corporatization is "better, faster, and cheaper" is falling apart. This year, the IRS announced that it will end the use of private tax collectors after consumer groups argued that taxpayers were subjected to immediate payment demands by private collectors while IRS employees would offer citizens an array of options to help pay their tax debt. Then there are the corporatized water systems where the companies deliver poorer service at higher cost. Since the 19th century, privatizing public functions has opened the doors to kickbacks, price fixing, and collusive bidding. New depths of corruption were reached in Pennsylvania recently when two state judges pleaded guilty to taking bribes in return for sending youths to privately-owned jails. After reading report after report about the vast, relentless waste, fraud, and abuse arising out of corporate contractors to the Pentagon in Iraq, why should readers be surprised at this domestic scene whereby taxpayers pay through the nose for corporations to govern them? So, you're not surprised. But are you indignant? Are you ready to make sure the politicians hear from you in no uncertain terms, hear from you to stop this recklessness and restore public control of the public infrastructure under accountable government? If the state politicos try to pull a fast one, demand public hearings with thorough reviews of the proposed contracts or leasebacks. Better yet, in states like Arizona or Colorado, require any such proposals go through the open, state-wide referendum voting process. Corporatizations such as the above just pass on to our children the burdens that our generation should have assumed itself to run government within its means funded by fair taxation. http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2131-Purloining-the-Peoples-Property.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Aug 10 13:26:23 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:26:23 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Foster: `Transition to socialism and to an ecological society are one' Message-ID: <80500A7CD3C34394B04EE528AD991218@agingCHS072729> http://links.org.au/node/1193 John Bellamy Foster: `The transition to socialism and the transition to an ecological society are one' [watch video of John Bellamy Foster's keynote address to the Climate Change, Social Change conference (organised by Green Left Weekly), Sydney, Australia, April 12, 2008. This talk is the basis of the last chapter of The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet.] Read an exclusive excerpt from Foster's The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet at http://links.org.au/node/1066. Links readers are also encouraged to purchase a copy of this important new book HERE. * * * The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet By John Bellamy Foster Monthly Review Press, 2009 328 pages. Review by Simon Butler Karl Marx and Frederick Engels famously urged the world's workers to unite because they had a world to win, and nothing to lose but their chains. Today, the reality of climate change and worsening environmental breakdowns globally adds a further vital dimension to this strident vision of human liberation. We still have a world to win - but we also have a world to lose. The ecological crisis is not simply the result of poor planning or bad decisions. Nor is it an unforeseeable accident. It's the inevitable outcome of an unjust economic and social system that puts business profits before all else - even as it undermines the natural basis of life itself. With his previous books, such as Marx's Ecology and The Vulnerable Planet, and as the editor of the US-based Marxist journal Monthly Review, John Bellamy Foster has established a well-earned reputation as one of the world's most persuasive voices arguing for fundamental social change to tackle the looming ecological catastrophe. His new book, The Ecological Revolution, could not have been published at a more timely moment. It argues a solution to the ecological crisis "is now either revolutionary or it is false". Foster draws on the warnings from leading environmentalists such as Bill McKibben, James Hansen and Lester Brown among others. McKibben has said we have now entered the "Oh Shit" era of global warming - it's already too late to stop the harsh impacts of climate change entirely. NASA scientist Hansen has said the rapid pace of climate change amounts to a "planetary emergency". In his 2008 book Plan 3.0 Brown said: "We are crossing natural thresholds that we cannot see and violating deadlines that we do not recognise. Nature is the time keeper, but we cannot see the clock ... We are in a race between tipping points in the earth's natural systems and those in the world's political systems. Which will tip first?" The Ecological Revolution is a call for urgent action and an intervention into the debates about the kind of action needed to win this "race". The dwindling band of climate change deniers aside, general awareness of the extent of environmental decay is more widespread than ever - even among the world's elites. The upshot is that two distinct visions of ecological revolution have emerged. The first tries to paint business as usual economics green. The second, following Che Guevara's maxim, holds it must be a genuine eco-social revolution or it's a make-believe revolution. "The conflict between these two opposing approaches to ecological revolution", writes Foster, "can now be considered the central problem facing environmental social science today". The economics of exterminism The dominant view says the a new ``green industrial revolution'' can unleash the technological changes to allow sustainable capitalist development and end environmental destruction. In its typical variations, the driving force of sustainable change are not the goals of preserving life, improving society or allowing for the full development of human potential, but the profit motive. It assumes new market opportunities will arise on the back of ecological innovations, spurring on further developments. Apart from an explosion in clean technology, virtually nothing else in the structure of society is expected to change. Foster looks at the work of some of the most well-known promoters of a green industrial revolution such as the US economist William Nordhaus, British economist Nicholas Stern (author of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change) and the conservative New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. The Australian government's main advisor on the economics of climate change, Ross Garnaut, also fits into this broad category. All assume that economic growth, the expansion of markets and the unlimited accumulation of capital can continue. Paul Hawkin, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins, the author's of the 1999 book Natural Capitalism, even say outright hostility to ecological outcomes is no barrier, as long as money can be made. They say: "Because there are practical ways to mitigate climatic concerns and save money than such measures cost, it almost doesn't matter whether you believe that climate change is a problem or not. These steps should be taken because they make money." Yet at the same time, this vision of a green capitalist industrial revolution also rules out ecological measures that don't return a profit in the short term. The framework is to sustain capitalist economic growth, rather than the planet's damaged ecosystem. As a result, Stern and Nordhaus, for example, have argued against strong greenhouse gas emissions cuts based on climate science because it would be "economically unsupportable". As a way to deal with the planetary emergency, such market-based responses are absurd, irrational, dangerous, self-defeating and destined to fail. They have also been warmly welcomed by the world's capitalist governments and provide much of the basis of false responses to climate change such as carbon trading and "clean coal". John Bellamy Foster aptly sums up the capitalist economics of a market-based green industrial revolution as "the economics of exterminism". He advances an alternative approach that puts ecological concerns above capital accumulation. We need "a more radical, eco-social revolution, which draws on alternative technologies where necessary, but emphasises the need to transform the human relation to nature and the constitution of society at its roots". The goal of such as revolution must be "to return to a more organic, sustainable social-ecological relations [requiring] a civilisational shift based on a revolution in culture, as well as economy and society". He argues that a key point of difference between ecological revolution and a green industrial revolution is the involvement and mobilisation of ordinary people in the process of change. Green industrial revolution is conceived ... as a top-down attempt at a technological shift ... The goal of the vested interests is to keep social change in relation to the environmental challenge contained within the limits acceptable to the system, even at the risk of endangering the entire planet ... In contrast, a genuine ecological revolution ... would be associated with a wider social, not merely industrial, revolution, emanating from the great mass of the people. Many environmentalists who recognise the need to break from business-as-usual responses to global warming still hesitate to draw this more radical conclusion. Changing the whole system seems too big a task. The shrinking timeframe we have left to prevent runaway climate change has led some activists to try to separate climate change from social change. The idea is that we can fix the environment first and then, as long as we succeed, move on to broader social goals. In many ways, this strategy reflects a mistaken hope that the world's elites will ultimately decide to change course as the evidence of ecological distress becomes undeniable and the climate movement grows. In contrast, Foster argues that if we are to make peace with the planet we have to take political and economic power away from the privileged minority who now hold it. Otherwise, they will lead us all to oblivion in a vain attempt to preserve their system. Sustainable development is only viable if we open the road to sustainable human development as well. "A revolutionary turn in human affairs many seem improbable", he says. "But the continuation of the present capitalist system for any length of time will prove impossible - if human civilisation and the web of life as we know it are to be sustained." Ecological imperialism Leaving aside the ecological crisis, capitalism condemns millions to extreme poverty, starvation and inequality. The money spent on the military by the world's capitalist governments, for example, would be more than enough to secure adequate food, shelter, clean water and basic health and education for all. The latest Forbes magazine ``rich list'' said there were 793 billionaires worldwide with a combined wealth of more than US$4 trillion. Meanwhile, the World Bank estimated in 2005 that more than half the world's population lived on less than $2 a day. The world's malnourished topped 1 billion for the first time in 2009 even though the two largest total cereal yields occurred in 2008 and 2009. The cause and extent of environmental breakdowns worldwide cannot be fully grasped without an understanding of how a system of global inequality drives and worsens the problems. Foster decribes modern capitalism as a system of ``ecological imperialism''. At the planetary level, ecological imperialism has resulted in the appropriation of the global commons (i.e. the atmosphere and the oceans) and the carbon absorption capacity of the biosphere, primarily to the benefit of a relatively small number of countries at the centre of the capitalist world economy. He predicts that as the ecological crisis mounts and natural resources become more scarce, the system will become even more barbarous. The relentless drive to increase profits is incompatible with humane, people-centred responses. Already, the nearness of a peak in world oil production is driving what Foster calls a new energy imperialism. The new energy imperialism of the United States is already leading to expanding wars, which could become truly global, as Washington attempts to safeguard the existing capitalist economy and stave of its own hegemonic decline... [Oil] consumption [is] built into the structure of the present world capitalist economy. The immediate response of the system to the end of easy oil has been, therefore, to turn to ... a strategy of maximum extraction by any means possible. The US-led invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq is one horrendous outcome of this response. The British medical journal the Lancet estimated that more than 1 million Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion. Foster examines how the US government is already drawing up plans for a ``military response'' to the ecological crisis. The administration of US President George Bush was notorious for its climate change denialism. Yet behind the scenes the US military was taking it very seriously. In a 2003 report the Pentagon said global warming was accelerating and urged it be "elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern". Rather than act to cut greenhouse gas emissions urgently and preserve life, US imperialism is preparing to "safeguard Fortress America at all costs", Foster warns. Along with the stark prospect of new wars and invasions, imperialism's response to climate change has been to try to push more of the costs of climate change onto the global South. Without drastic change the poorest countries, who are least responsible for carbon pollution, will face the worst consequences of climate change. This analysis is important for environmental movements in the developed world. The politics of the movement against climate change must be anti-imperialist, anti-war and demand the repayment of the ecological debt to the Third World, if it is to succeed. Any attempt to impose the main burden for global warming on underdeveloped countries in accordance with past imperialist policies, will inevitably fail. To the extent that the United States and other advanced capitalist nations promote such a strategy, they will only push the world into a state of barbarism, while catastrophically undermining the human relation to the biosphere. Marxism and ecology In the landmark work Marx's Ecology Foster explored Marx's often neglected contributions to ecological thought. The Ecological Revolution includes several chapters that further build on an understanding of Marx as one of the most perceptive environmental thinkers of the 19th century. Marx's insights are of lasting significance today. Far from ignoring ecological questions, celebrating unbridled economic growth or uncritically embracing a belief in inevitable scientific progress, Marx warned that production for profit had devastating consequences for humankind and the natural world. In his works he commented frequently on the connections between capitalism and the major ecological problems of his day. The two core ecological concepts in Marx's writings are the ``treadmill of production'' and the ``metabolic rift''. The treadmill of production refers to capitalism's core impulse to expand production without regard to natural limits to growth set by the biosphere. This impulse makes the process of capital accumulation inherently unsustainable and anti-ecological. Were the entire world to consume as much as the average Australian, we would need the resources of five planet Earths. Were the entire world to live like a North American then seven planets would be required. The advanced capitalist economies are so unsustainable because production is locked into this capitalist treadmill of never-ending expansion and growth for growth's sake. This is a key element in the ecosocialist explanation of the ecological crisis. The metabolic rift refers to Marx's theory that capitalist production necessarily creates a sharp break in the relationship - the metabolism - between nature and human society. Marx used the concept of metabolism to describe the complex and co-dependent union between humanity and the environment. In Marx's time the rift was most apparent in the biggest ecological crisis of the 19th century: the depletion of soil fertility by large-scale capitalist agriculture. On this basis he drew wider conclusions about how capitalist agriculture deprived both the soil and the workers of nourishment and sustenance. In Capital Volume 3 Marx wrote: Large landed property reduces the agricultural population to an ever decreasing minimum and confronts it with an ever growing industrial population crammed together in large towns; in this way it produces conditions that provoke an irreparable rift in the interdependent process of the social metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself. The result of this is a squandering of the vitality of the soil, which is carried by trade far beyond the bounds of a single country. He concluded: Large scale industry and industrially pursued large-scale agriculture, have the same effect ... since the industrial system applied to agriculture also [weakens] the workers there, while industry and trade for their part provide agriculture with the means of exhausting the soil. In Capital Volume 1 Marx passed a scathing assessment of the "progress" of capitalist-based agricultural methods: All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time is a progress toward ruining the more long-lasting sources of that fertility ... Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the techniques and the degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of wealth - the soil and the worker. Foster argues Marx used the concept of the metabolic rift more broadly than just agriculture. Capitalist production for profit progressively alienates human society from all spheres of nature - even though a stable relationship with nature is essential for human existence. The task of healing the rift and building a truly sustainable society was a central goal in Marx's vision of a democratic socialist future. In Capital Marx said: Freedom ... can only consist in this, that socialised [humans], the associated producers, govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their own collective control rather than being dominated by it as a blind power; accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature. Unlike mainstream economic approaches, Marxists hold that private ownership of natural resources is the major barrier to dealing with environmental problems. In the third volume of Capital Marx even compared the relationship between nature and humanity under capitalism to slavery. From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private property of particular individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations. Marx's co-thinker Frederick Engels said capitalism was incapable of a sustainable relationship with the natural world because "in relation to nature, as to society, the present mode of production is predominately concerned only about the immediate, the most tangible result". One revolution The entire thrust of The Ecological Revolution is that "the transition to socialism and the transition to an ecological society are one". Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has advanced what he calls an "elementary triangle of socialism" to explain the goals of 21st century socialism. These are: 1) social ownership 2) social production organised by workers and 3) the satisfaction of communal needs. Fosters says an "elementary triangle of ecology" must also lie at the root of this revolutionary outlook. He summarises these as: 1) social use, not private ownership, of nature 2) democratic and rational regulation of the metabolism between nature and human beings, and 3) the satisfaction of communal needs - of present and future generations. "The goal", Foster says, "must be the creation of sustainable communities geared to the development of human needs and powers, removed from the all-consuming drive to accumulate wealth." He underscores the responsibility that lies with movements for social and ecological justice in the advanced capitalist countries, such as Australia and US, to make a revolutionary transition to a just and sustainable society in time: It is only through fundamental change at the center of the system, from which the pressures on the planet principally emanate, that there is any genuine possibility of avoiding ultimate ecological destruction. The Ecological Revolution is an extremely valuable and important contribution towards this essential task. [Simon Butler is a Sydney-based climate activist. He is a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist organisation affiliated to the Socialist Alliance of Australia.] ============== Join our free alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" Subscribe: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Aug 10 13:27:11 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:27:11 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Amin: Capitalism's ecological footprint condemns South to poverty Message-ID: <2C40FA1226B5405E8C6AE13702B80586@agingCHS072729> http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/57940 Capitalism's ecological footprint condemns South to poverty Samir Amin 2009-07-23, Issue 443 The expansion of capitalism is destroying the planet and placing the future of people in the South in jeopardy, writes Samir Amin in this week's edition of Pambazuka News. Consumption levels in Europe, North America and Japan are four times higher than the per capita global average, a figure which already outstrips the earth's ecological carrying capacity. If this pattern continues, says Amin, its logical conclusion is 'either the actual genocide of the peoples of the South - as "over-population" - or at least keeping them in ever increasing poverty.' 1) The work of Wackernagel and Rees (first publication in English, 1996) instigated a major strand in radical social thinking about construction of the future. The authors not only defined a new concept - that of an 'ecological footprint' - they also developed a metric for it. Its units are defined in terms of 'global hectares', comparing the biological capacity of societies/countries (their capacity to produce and reproduce the conditions for life on the planet) with their consumption of resources made available to them by this bio-capacity. The authors' conclusions are worrying. At the global level, the bio-capacity of our planet is 2.1 global hectares (gha) per capita (ie 13.2 billion gha per 6.3 billion inhabitants). In contrast, the global average for consumption of resources was already - in the mid-1990s - 2.7 gha. This 'average' masks a gigantic imbalance, the average for the Triad[1] (Europe, North America and Japan) having already reached a multiple of the order of four magnitudes of the global average. A good proportion of the bio-capacity of societies in the South is taken up by and to the advantage of these centres. In other words, the current expansion of capitalism is destroying the planet and humanity and this expansion's logical conclusion is either the actual genocide of the peoples of the South - as 'over-population' - or at least keeping them in ever increasing poverty. An eco-fascist strand of thought is being developed which gives legitimacy to this type of solution to the problem. 2) The interest of this work goes beyond its conclusions. For it is a question of a calculation (I use the term 'calculation' deliberately, rather than 'discourse') put in terms of the use value of the planet's resources, illustrated through their measurement in global hectares (gha), not in dollars. The proof is therefore given that social use value can be the subject of perfectly rational calculation. This proof is decisive in its import, since socialism is defined in terms of a society founded on use value and not on exchange value. And defenders of capitalism have always held that socialism is an unreal utopia because - according to them - use value is not measurable, unless it is conflated with exchange value (defined in terms of 'utility' in vulgar economics). Recognition of use value (of which the measurement of economic footprints is but one good example) implies that socialism should be 'ecological', indeed can only be ecological, as Altvater proclaims ('Solar socialism' or 'no socialism'). But it also implies that this recognition is impossible in any capitalist system, even a 'reformed' one, as we shall see. 3) In his time, Marx not only suspected the existence of this problem. He had already expressed it through his rigorous distinction between use value and wealth, conflated in vulgar economics. Marx explicitly said that the accumulation of capital destroys the natural bases on which it is built: Man (the alienated, exploited, dominated and oppressed worker) and the earth (symbol of natural riches at the disposal of humanity). And whatever might be the limitations of this way of putting it, trapped within its own era, it nonetheless remains an illustration of a clear consciousness of the problem (beyond intuition) that deserves to be recognised. It is regrettable, therefore, that the ecologists of our time, including Wackernagel and Rees, have not read Marx. This would have allowed them to take their own proposals further, to grasp their revolutionary import, and, of course, to go further than Marx himself on this topic. 4) This deficiency in modern ecology facilitates its capture by the ideology of vulgar economics from its dominant position in contemporary society. This capture is already under way and, indeed, considerably advanced. Political ecology (such as that proposed by Alain Lipietz) was located from the beginning within the gamut of the 'pro-socialist', political Left. Subsequently, 'green' movements (and then political parties) located themselves in the Centre Left, through their expressed sympathy with social and international justice, their critique of 'waste', their concern with the fate of workers and 'poor' peoples. But, apart from the diversity of these movements, we should note that none of them had established a rigorous relationship between the authentic socialist dimension necessary to rise to the challenge and a recognition, no less necessary, of the ecological dimension. To achieve this, we should not ignore the wealth/value distinction originated by Marx. Capture of ecology by vulgar ideology operates on two levels: On the one hand by reducing measurement of use value to an 'improved' measurement of exchange value, and on the other by integrating the ecological challenge with the ideology of 'consensus'. Both these manoeuvres undermine the clear realisation that ecology and capitalism are, by their nature, in opposition. 5) This capture of ecological measurement by vulgar economics is making huge strides. Thousands of young researchers, in the United States, and, imitating them, in Europe, have been mobilised in this cause. The 'ecological costs' are, in this way of thinking, assimilated to external economies. The vulgar method of measuring cost/benefit in terms of exchange value (itself conflated with market price) is then used to define a 'fair price' integrating external economies and diseconomies. And Bob's your uncle. It goes without saying that the work - reduced to mathematical formulas - done in this traditional area of vulgar economics does not say how the 'fair price' calculated could become that of the actual current market. It is presumed therefore that fiscal and other 'incentives' could be sufficiently effective to bring about this convergence. Any proof that this could really be the case is entirely absent. In fact, as can already be seen, oligopolies have seized hold of ecology to justify the opening up of new fields to their destructive expansion. Francois Houtart provides a conclusive illustration of this in his work on biofuels. Since then, 'green capitalism' has been part of the obligatory discourse of men/women in positions of power, on both the Right and the Left, in the Triad (of Europe, North America and Japan), and of the executives of oligopolies. The ecology in question, of course, conforms to the vision known as 'weak sustainability' (in the usual jargon), in other words, marketisation of the 'rights of access to the planet's resources'. In the report of the United Nations commission which he chaired, presented to the United Nations General Assembly of 24-26 June 2009, Joseph Stiglitz openly embraced this position, proposing 'an auction of the world's resources (fishing rights, licences to pollute etc)'. This proposal quite simply comes down to sustaining the oligopolies in their ambition to mortgage further the future of the people of the South. 6) The capture of ecological discourse by the political culture of the consensus (a necessary expression of the conception of capitalism as the end of history) is equally well advanced. This capture has an easy ride, as it is responding to the alienation and illusion that feed the dominant culture - that of capitalism. An easy ride because this culture is actual, and holds a dominant place in the minds of the majority of human beings, in the South as well as in the North. In contrast, the expression of the demands of the socialist counter-culture is fraught with difficulty. Because socialist culture is not there in front of our eyes. It is part of a future to be invented, a project of civilisation, open to the creativity of the imagination. Slogans - such as 'socialisation through democracy and not through the market'; 'the transfer of the decisive level for decision making from the economic and political levels to that of culture' - are not enough, despite their power to pave the way for the historical process of transformation. For what is at stake is a long 'secular' process of societal reconstruction based on principles other than those of capitalism, in both the North and the South, which cannot be supposed to take place 'rapidly'. But construction of the future, however far away, begins today. BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS * Samir Amin has been the director of IDEP (the United Nations African Institute for Planning), the director of the Third World Forum in Dakar, Senegal, and a co-founder of the World Forum for Alternatives. * Samir Amin is a contributor to Aid to Africa: Redeemer or Coloniser?, available to order from the Pambazuka Press website. Pambazuka News readers can get 20% off the recommended retail price of ?12.95 - simply enter 95641284 as the discount code when ordering online. * Please send comments to editor at pambazuka.org or comment online at Pambazuka News. NOTES [1] Translator's note: 'La Triade' (The Triad) is a term used in French for the three dominant economic areas in globalization, Europe, North America and Japan. ============== Join our free alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" Subscribe: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Aug 10 13:27:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:27:46 -0500 Subject: [R-G] IRAQ: Disastrous and Shocking Official Statistics Message-ID: <3127D320B655453698476242A10EC684@agingCHS072729> http://kanaanonline.org/ebulletin-en/ IRAQ: Disastrous and Shocking Official Statistics August 1st, 2009 by Sabah al-Baghdadi Translated and adapted by Khalil Nakhleh Kana'an eBulletin - Volume IX - Issue 1975 The following official governmental statistics, up to December 2008, show the disastrous conditions prevalent in Iraq since the American invasion and occupation of that country. 1. One million widowed Iraqi women (according to Iraqi Ministry of Women Affairs). 2. Four million orphaned Iraqi children (according to estimates by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning). 3. Two and a half million (2,500,000) Iraqis killed (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health and Forensic Medicine). 4. 800,000 Iraqis have disappeared in secret holding places connected with the different ruling parties (according to registered complaints at the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior). 5. 340,000 Iraqi prisoners, detained without charge, in U.S. army prisons, the prisons of the Iraqi government, and the prisons in the Kurdistan District (according to Iraqi, Arab, international and UN human rights organizations and agencies). US occupying forces admit officially that the number of Iraqi detainees in their prisons is about 120,000. 6. Four and a half million (4,500,000) Iraqis are refugees outside Iraq (according to statistics of those seeking passports (category C) from the General Directorate of Passports. 7. Two and a half million (2,500,000) Iraqis are refugees inside Iraq (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Refugees). 8. 76,000 registered Iraqi cases of AIDS; this number did not exceed 114 cases before the invasion and occupation of Iraq (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health). 9. Frightening spread of the use of addictive drugs imported from Iran, among youth (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the Center for Combating Drugs and Addictions). I have written a series of well-researched articles about the various methods used to smuggle drugs, some of which are highly toxic, and how they are collected in different storage places in the southern districts, under the total control of some of the parties and the militias participating in the government, and how the profits from these drugs are used to buy (pay off) government officials, in order to gain their support and silence, and to finance their election campaigns. 10. Three out of every four marriages end up in divorce since the invasion and occupation of Iraq (according to Iraqi Ministry of Health). 11. More than 40% of the Iraqi people are under the poverty line (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights). I believe, however, that the actual percentage is much higher, and surpasses 55%. 12. Decline in the level and quality of basic and tertiary education, according to statements made by officials in UNESCO, which led this organization to refuse to recognize university degrees issued by Iraqi tertiary institutions (universities and colleges). 13. Tens of thousands of forged university degrees are granted to high government officials, high ranking officers, directors generals, and senior officials of political parties (according to statements and statistics from the Iraqi Honesty and Transparency Commission). 14. There exist about 550 political bodies and party coalitions (according to the Iraqi Independent Public Elections Commission), and, as of today, there is no law regulating this large number of political bodies. 15. There exist about 11,400 civil society organizations (according to the Iraqi ministries of the Interior, Justice and Social Welfare). These organizations have public and secret objectives, and it is not clear what these are, and how they are financed. 16. There are 126 security companies controlled by foreign secret service agencies, and registered at the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The declared objective of these companies is to protect foreign embassies, foreign diplomats, and visiting VIPs. However, their hidden objectives are unknown. In this case, what is the value of having today one million persons under arms in Iraq, distributed among the Ministries of Defense, the Interior, the various governmental security agencies, in addition to the security agencies of the various ruling parties. 17. There are 43 officially registered armed militias connected to parties. 18. There are 220 newspapers and media publications financed by foreign secret service agencies (according to Iraqi Journalist Union). The specific objectives of these publications is to do brainwashing of Iraqis, to remove their thinking about the various projects aiming at fragmenting Iraq into sectarian, regional, and ethnic mini-states, and to destroy their national identity. 19. There are 45 TV channels financed by foreign secret service agencies (according to statements by the Management of Nilesat and Arabsat satellite service providers). 20. There are 67 radio stations financed by foreign secret service agencies (according to statements by the Iraqi Information Commission). 21. There are 4 networks of digital communications, the estimated value of each is 12 billion dollars, financed in favor of party leaders. Among which are the following companies: - Kork Company owned exclusively by Mas'aoud Barazani (the President of the Kurdistan District); - Assia Company owned exclusively by Jalal Talbani (the President of Iraq); - Zein Company (Kuwaiti), 50% is owned by Ahmad Jalabi and the Islamic Da'wah Party; - Atheer Company owned exclusively by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. 22. There are more than 11,400 official and unofficial party headquarters. These could be the offices of fake contracting company, or an NGO, or a political group. However, these headquarters in reality are public premises for the Iraqi government that were taken over from their legitimate owners after they were eliminated, or forced to vacate and seek refuge somewhere else. All are paid for from the Iraqi national budget. This is only the tip of the iceberg of what's happening in "their new democratic Iraq", since the American invasion and occupation of the country. ::::: The article appeared originally in Arabic in www.kanaanonline.org, no. 1973, on 30 July 2009. Sabah al-Baghdadi is an independent Iraqi journalist and researcher; he may be reached at sabahalbaghdadi at maktoob.com. Translated and adapted by Dr. Khalil Nakhleh: Dr. Khalil Nakhleh is an independent Palestinian researcher and development consultant; he may be reached at abusama at palnet.com. ============== Join our free alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" Subscribe: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Aug 10 13:28:57 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:28:57 -0500 Subject: [R-G] From Farm to Pharma Message-ID: <729CECFAF88A40B4A06AC111CDADAF02@agingCHS072729> http://www.alternet.org/story/141142/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Aug 10 13:31:28 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:31:28 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Military Analysts: Afghan Campaign Will Last at Least a Decade, Eclipse Costs of Iraq War Message-ID: Analysts Expect Long-Term, Costly U.S. Campaign in Afghanistan By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, August 9, 2009 As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war. Since the invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago, the United States has spent $223 billion on war-related funding for that country, according to the Congressional Research Service. Aid expenditures, excluding the cost of combat operations, have grown exponentially, from $982 million in 2003 to $9.3 billion last year. The costs are almost certain to keep growing. The Obama administration is in the process of overhauling the U.S. approach to Afghanistan, putting its focus on long-term security, economic sustainability and development. That approach is also likely to require deployment of more American military personnel, at the very least to train additional Afghan security forces. Later this month, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is expected to present his analysis of the situation in the country. The analysis could prompt an increase in U.S. troop levels to help implement President Obama's new strategy. Military experts insist that the additional resources are necessary. But many, including some advising McChrystal, say they fear the public has not been made aware of the significant commitments that come with Washington's new policies. "We will need a large combat presence for many years to come, and we will probably need a large financial commitment longer than that," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the "strategic assessment" team advising McChrystal. The expansion of the Afghan security force that the general will recommend to secure the country "will inevitably cost much more than any imaginable Afghan government is going to be able to afford on its own," Biddle added. "Afghan forces will need $4 billion a year for another decade, with a like sum for development," said Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine who has chronicled the Iraq and Afghan wars. Bing said the danger is that Congress is "so generous in support of our own forces today, it may not support the aid needed for progress in Afghanistan tomorrow." Some members of Congress are worried. The House Appropriations Committee said in its report on the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill that its members are "concerned about the prospects for an open-ended U.S. commitment to bring stability to a country that has a decades-long history of successfully rebuffing foreign military intervention and attempts to influence internal politics." The Afghan government has made some political and military progress since 2001, but the Taliban insurgency has been reinvigorated. Anthony H. Cordesman, another member of McChrystal's advisory group and a national security expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told reporters recently that even with military gains in the next 12 to 18 months, it would take years to reduce sharply the threat from the Taliban and other insurgent forces. The task that the United States has taken on in Afghanistan is in many ways more difficult than the one it has encountered in Iraq, where the U.S. government has spent $684 billion in war-related funding. In a 2008 study that ranked the weakest states in the developing world, the Brookings Institution rated Afghanistan second only to Somalia. Afghanistan's gross domestic product in 2008 was $23 billion, with about $3 billion coming from opium production, according to the CIA's World Factbook. Oil-producing Iraq had a GDP of $113 billion. Afghanistan's central government takes in roughly $890 million in annual revenue, according to the World Factbook. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pointed out that Afghanistan's national budget cannot support the $2 billion needed today for the country's army and police force. Dutch Army Brig. Gen. Tom Middendorp, commander of the coalition task force in Afghanistan's southern Uruzgan province, described the region as virtually prehistoric. "It's the poorest province of one of the poorest countries in the world. And if you walk through that province, it's like walking through the Old Testament," Middendorp told reporters recently. "There is enormous illiteracy in the province. More than 90 percent cannot write or read. So it's very basic, what you do there. And they have had 30 years of conflict." Unlike in Iraq, where Obama has established a timeline for U.S. involvement, the president has not said when he would like to see troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. White House officials emphasize that the burden is not that of the United States alone. The NATO-led force in the country has 61,000 troops from 42 countries; about 29,000 of those troops are American. Still, military experts say the United States will not be able to shed its commitment easily. The government has issued billions of dollars in contracts in recent years, underscoring the vast extent of work that U.S. officials are commissioning. Among other purposes, contractors have been sought this summer to build a $25 million provincial Afghan National Police headquarters; maintain anti-personnel mine systems; design and build multimillion-dollar sections of roads; deliver by sea and air billions of dollars worth of military bulk cargo; and supervise a drug-eradication program. One solicitation, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, is aimed at finding a contractor to bring together Afghan economic, social, legal and political groups to help build the country's infrastructure. The contractor would work with Afghan government officials as well as representatives from private and nongovernmental organizations to establish a way to allocate resources for new projects. "We are looking at two decades of supplying a few billion a year to Afghanistan," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution, adding: "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget." He described the price as reasonable, given that it may cost the United States $100 billion this year to continue fighting. "We are creating a [long-term military aid] situation similar to the ones we have with Israel, Egypt and Jordan," he said. ============== Join our free alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" Subscribe: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Aug 10 13:32:52 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:32:52 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Setting Ourselves Up for a Catastrophic Natural Event Message-ID: <79E14A27C41E4C13B2EB8121FF23ACF6@agingCHS072729> http://www.alternet.org/story/140912/ Thanks to Our Fossil Fuel Addiction, We May Be Setting Ourselves Up for a Catastrophic Natural Event By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted July 3, 2009. Too much CO2 in the air and not enough oxygen in the oceans may release a toxic dose of hydrogen sulfide -- an unheralded executioner. What is hydrogen sulfide? It smells like farts and rotten eggs. You can find it in swamps, sewers, landfills, volcanic and natural gases, and pretty much everywhere there is a petroleum refinery. Unfortunately, you can also usually find it whenever and wherever you've got mass extinctions. In fact, it is hydrogen sulfide, rather than killer asteroids or some other interstellar death-bringer, that has possibly become the go-to kill-shot of most mass extinctions in Earth's history. "It doesn't take much hydrogen sulfide to kill off anything," Gerry Dickens, professor of earth science and paleoceanography at Rice University, explained to AlterNet by phone. He should know: It was Dickens' work with methane hydrates that completed the puzzle of the Permian-Triassic extinction event, more aptly known as the Great Dying, in the 2002 BBC Horizon documentary The Day the Earth Nearly Died. During the Great Dying, over 250 million years ago, flood basalts in the Siberian and Emeishan traps unleashed hell on Earth, spewing titanic walls of lava, ash, debris and greenhouse gases into the sky, blotting out the sun and surrounding hundreds of thousands of miles in a biblical inferno for which there is no contemporary analogue, at least in reality. But even that wasn't enough to wipe out the 96 percent of Earth's marine, terrestrial and plant species claimed by the Great Dying. A growing scientific consensus explains that the death stroke was probably delivered from Earth's anoxic oceans, whose resultant out-of-whack pH balance, once literally defined as the "power of hydrogen," released catastrophic stores of either methane hydrate or hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere. Whichever one it was, hydrogen had the power to bring Earth to its knees. And it could happen again. "It's unannounced stealth nastiness," Peter Ward, professor of biology and paleontology at the University of Washington, declared by phone to AlterNet. "My new book ends with a hydrogen sulfide extinction." That book, The Medea Hypothesis, posits not one but five hydrogen sulfide extinction events, including the Great Dying, throughout Earth's history. Going further, it flips the Gaia hypothesis on its head by suggesting -- with increasing persuasion, given our current climate crisis of too much carbon dioxide in the air and too little oxygen in the oceans -- that Earth is not seeking an optimal physical and chemical environment for its life. In fact, Ward argues, its multicellular life is actually suicidal in nature, whose doom will eventually return Earth to the microbes that have dominated most of its history. Although the truth probably lies somewhere between Gaia and Medea, Ward seems to be right about one thing: Hydrogen sulfide is an unheralded executioner. "If ancient volcanism raised CO2 and lowered the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and global warming made it more difficult for the remaining oxygen to penetrate the oceans, conditions would have become amenable for the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria to generate massive upwellings of hydrogen sulfide," Ward wrote in a Scientific American clarion call titled "Impact from the Deep."Virtually no form of life on the earth was safe." Ward -- who has also written the books Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future; Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe; and the forthcoming Our Flooded World -- concludes his Scientific American piece with the obvious question: Could it happen again? All the pieces seem to be moving into place. Global warming is a runaway train, carbon dioxide levels are exponentially rising, and oceans are subsequently losing oxygen. There are even hydrogen sulfide blooms being found in Namibia and other places where industrial pollution is spilling waste into the water. The good news? We know that in the Permian and other mass extinctions that it took levels of around 1,000 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide to rob the oceans of oxygen and kill off most life on Earth. The bad news? We're closer to that devastating concentration than we think. With CO2 hovering around 385 ppm, but increasing at an annual rate of 2 to 3 ppm, it doesn't take a math teacher to realize that we could hit 900 ppm by the end of next century. Or earlier, given the exponential nature of climate change. "It's not quite linear," Dickens explained. "As you make the system worse, less carbon gets taken up by the oceans, which are sinks on a global scale. When that has happened in the past, suddenly a whole bunch of carbon has come out of the ocean fast. The magnitude is extraordinary. And there's also a temperature component: As things get warmer, the process amplifies." Currently, it's amplifying at a fearsome rate. For his part, Ward believes we're headed toward a penultimate moment in Earth's history, one we should be ashamed of. "We're way beyond anything from the Pleistocene, and heading towards the Cretaceous," Ward told AlterNet. "If we hit 800-1,000 ppm, we're in trouble. The sun is also getting warmer, so 1,000 ppm is really going to be like 2,000 ppm. We're talking about the second-hottest period in the planet's history." Right now, Ward and other scientists who have proposed parallels between the mass extinctions of the past and the one we could be experiencing now, known as the Holocene extinction event, are lost in the wilderness of geopolitical machination and rampant global consumption. But interest in their destabilizing theories are growing. "NASA called me about three months ago, and the administrator at Ames Research Center said, 'You've got to be kidding about this stuff!' " Ward said. "So myself and several other scientists put together a white paper on hydrogen sulfide, because this is a matter of national security. Just because its longer-term than other problems doesn't mean it's any less deadly. Our species is going to be in trouble in a hundred to a thousand years from now. What happens if the oceans go anoxic, within this century or by the end of next century? You'll have conditions that might be irreversible for a very long time." Ward says that the Obama administration has been cool to the possibility of anoxic oceans and the various hydrogen terrors that lie in wait on its floors or its chemical processes. And for his part, even Dickens is not as worried about mass extinction at the hands of climate change as he is about terrors closer to home. "I've got more important things to keep me up at night," the good-natured scientist wisecracked over the phone, "like finding the next grant so I can go study this stuff." But time, and probably not a lot of it, will tell which terror is more worthy of our immediate attention, expense and innovation. But whatever may come and whatever we decide, Ward warned, we better get our lazy asses in gear. The worst that could supposedly happen is that we could be wrong and lose trillions of dollars to saving the planet, and thereby ourselves, rather than throwing them down the black hole of credit-default swaps and hyper-real derivatives. But the worst that could really happen is that anthropogenic global warming could throw the planet's pH balance into chaos, as the combination of CO2-choked skies and anoxic oceans release the mother of all mass-extinction farts into the atmosphere, a killing joke we could never recover from. And who wants to go out like that? "There's bad stuff before you even get to hydrogen sulfide," Ward concluded. "And there's not much you can do about any of it, in terms of geoengineering. The simple solution is to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions, and do it now. Here's the scary thing that can happen: Human extinction. Let's get serious." ============== Join our free alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" Subscribe: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshin ============== From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 10 13:55:01 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Church braces for debate about boycott, divestment and sanctions Message-ID: <1678442097.2156531249934101990.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Kelowna Daily Courier 2009-08-10 Church braces for debate J.P. Squire The pounding of aboriginal drums, the chanting of First Nation children, song, dance and prayers launched the United Church of Canada?s 40th general council Sunday morning while a storm of controversy brewed. More than 400 delegates from across Canada, plus hundreds of spectators, assembled in the gymnasium of UBC Okanagan for an official opening followed by a church service. This wasn?t the traditional worship rituals of your mom and dad?s era: Bible readings, a choral performance and the congregation singing in unison from a hymn book. At this service, the Vernon Immersion School Singers beat native drums and chanted; four young people did an interpretive dance; two potters worked with clay to the retelling of a parable and a musical group led mass singing with the words on overhead video screens. The proceedings were watched with interest by Sid Shnaid, co-chairman of the Independent Jewish Voices, and Karin Brothers of the Holy Land awareness and action task group of the Southwest Presbytery Toronto Conference. Their two displays on the mezzanine above the gym were located at the very end of a long line of tables filled with brochures, something they tried not to take personally as the debate raged over four conference resolutions ? labelled anti-Semetic by the Canadian Jewish Congress. The four proposals deal with matters related to bringing peace to Israel and Palestine. ?Our organization is adamantly opposed to the position that the Canadian Jewish Congress is taking,? said Shnaid. ?We think it is very appropriate that the national conference of a church of this stature discuss the issue openly and freely without being browbeaten, threatened and castigated for doing what it should be doing.? His said his organization thinks it is ?outrageous? that Bernie Farber, CEO of the CJC, will attend the conference ?to try to shut down this debate,? he said. ?Our organization has passed its own boycott-divestment sanctions resolution. We?re here to say we have already supported this issue and we would like to see the church support it but it?s not for us to tell the church. We are here to provide resources to people who are interested in discussion on the underlying issues and how it relates to the church?s overall values.? The CJC is playing the anti-Semetic card ?because they don?t have a lot else,? he said. ?They want to intimidate; they want to shut (the debate) down. They want people to avert their eyes when it comes to the ongoing crisis there to allow them to do what they have been doing. And we?re trying to change that.? The CJC is using the same tactics on university campuses which have anti-apartheid weeks targeting Israel, he added, ?not come up with a counter argument, not to participate to say this is wrong but to shut it down. They are trying to ban the use of the term, apartheid, in relation to Israel. ?They are playing a losing game. They?re placing themselves on the wrong side of the issue of free speech. It can?t be won. You don?t win people?s hearts and minds by telling them to shut up and go away.? Brothers added: ?We?re here to try and educate people to support the proposals that came from the Toronto conference.? The CJC response ?means we?re relevant,? she said. ?Our church is looking for relevance, and if they want to see how to be relevant, this is standing up. And standing up to end our complicity with what?s going on in the Middle East. It?s not politics; it?s about human rights and it?s about international law. Every other part of our society is afraid to deal with this. It?s left to the faith community.? Under international law, the Canadian government is criminally complicit in its support for seige of Gaza, she said. A recent survey found one-half of the children in Gaza have lost the will to live, Brothers said. ?Things are really awful; it?s as bad as that a recent UN report said the latest attack was hardest on the children; it was an attack on the children. About 1,855 children were injured; over 900 are permanently disabled. This is really horrendous, so I?m hoping the faith community will respond.? The seige is still underway with medical assistance barred from Gaza, and residents not getting enough food and rebuilding supplies, Brothers said. ?They are being kept on their knees,? she said. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Aug 10 16:39:17 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:39:17 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Banks Make $38bn from Overdraft Fees Message-ID: From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 10 17:57:27 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] The Amman Call (World Council of Churches) Message-ID: <283430030.2254451249948647066.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/public-witness-addressing-power-affirming-peace/middle-east-peace/20-06-07-the-amman-call.html The World Council of Churches The WCC is a fellowship of churches, now 349 in more than 110 countries in all continents from virtually all Christian traditions The Amman Call issued at WCC International Peace Conference "Churches together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East" Amman, Jordan, 18-20 June 2007 Amman imperatives: 1. Almost sixty years have passed since the Christian churches first spoke with one voice about Arab-Israeli peace. For the last forty years the Christian churches have called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In the very place where Jesus Christ walked upon the earth, walls now separate families and the children of God - Christian, Muslim and Jew -- are imprisoned in a deepening cycle of violence, humiliation and despair. The Palestinian Christians from Gaza to Jerusalem and to Nazareth, have called out to their brothers and sisters in Christ with this urgent plea: "Enough is enough. No more words without deeds. It is time for action." 2. We welcome the timely and prophetic statement of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem. We affirm that "the Churches are part of the conflict, because the Churches cannot remain silent while there is still suffering. The role of the Churches is to heal and to bring all sides to reconciliation." Our belief in God reminds us "that all God's children of all religions and political parties are to be respected." We assure the Churches of Palestine and Israel of our prayers, collaboration and resources. 3. Thus, in Amman, Jordan 18-20 June 2007, days that have witnessed a deepening of the crisis in the occupied Palestinian territories, and also includes the United Nations World Refugee Day, we representatives of Christian churches and church-related organizations from every corner of the earth, affirm the decision of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches and launch the "Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum" as an instrument to " catalyze and co-ordinate new and existing church advocacy for peace, aimed at ending the illegal occupation in accordance with UN resolutions, and demonstrate its commitment to inter-religious action for peace and justice that serves all the peoples of the region." 4. This action has been taken in response to three fundamental imperatives that call us to action: ? The ethical and theological imperative for a Just Peace ? The ecumenical imperative for unity in action ? The Gospel imperative for costly solidarity 5. The premises of this action are the following: 5.1. That UN resolutions are the basis for peace and the Geneva conventions are applicable to the rights and responsibilities of the affected people. 5.2. That Palestinians have the right of self-determination and the right of return. 5.3. That a two-state solution must be viable politically, geographically economically and socially. 5.4 That Jerusalem must be an open, accessible, inclusive and shared city for the two peoples and three religions. 5.5 That both Palestine and Israel have legitimate security needs. 5.6. That the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal, and constitute an obstacle to peace. 5.7. That the "Separation Barrier" constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories is a grave breach of international law and must be removed from the occupied territory. 5.8. That there is no military solution for this conflict. Violence in all its forms cannot be justified whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians. 5.9. That comprehensive regional peace is indivisible from a just peace in Israel and Palestine. 5.10. That the life and witness of local churches is at the center of worldwide church advocacy for a just peace. 6. We understand the mandate of the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum to be a space where we will develop comprehensive strategic approaches to the two processes of peace making and peace building. An inclusive core group convened urgently by the WCC should be mandated to facilitate this and also ensure improved coordination between all actors. The core group will be informed by the reports of the working groups of the Amman conference, and that its composition and mechanism be designed and announced by the WCC. 7. Peace building will include the following : 7.1. Furthering theological and biblical perspectives and Christian education resources around those issues central to the conflict. 7.2. Developing strategies that will support the processes of justice and reconciliation, including inter-religious dialogue and cooperation. 7.3. Strengthening the churches' responses to the occupation. 7.4. Recognizing, encouraging and cooperating with all efforts of Israeli and Palestinian civil society that are in accord with the vision and goals of the PIEF. 8. Peace making will include the following: 8.1. Defining and promoting measures, including economic ones, that could help end the occupation and enhance sustainable growth and development. 8.2. Strengthening existing efforts and identifying new models of church solidarity in action. Supporting local churches and church related organizations not only to survive and continue their powerful ministries, including educational, health, cultural and social services, but also to thrive and be witnesses of hope. 8.3. Developing a long-term advocacy strategy in order to mobilize all of our constituencies and influence change. Amman challenges: 9. We have heard the voices of the Christian churches of Palestine and Israel challenging and saying to us: 9.1. Act with us to liberate all peoples of this land from the logic of hatred, mutual rejection and death, so that they see in the other the face and dignity of God. 9.2. Pray with us in our efforts to resist evil in all of its guises. 9.3. Raise your voices along with ours as we speak "truth to power" and name with courage the injustices we see and experience. The illegal occupation has stolen two generations of lives in this tortured place, and threatens the next with hopelessness and rage. 9.4. Risk the curses and abuse that will be aimed at you and stand in solidarity with us and with our Palestinian brothers and sisters of all faiths as we defiantly reject the possibility that occupation will continue. 9.5. Help us to tear down walls and build and rebuild bridges among all peoples in the region. Extremism on all sides produces chaos. It threatens to divide us and to destroy bridges among peoples that would lead to reconciliation and peace. 9.6. Add your hope to ours in the knowledge that evil and despair have been overcome through the death of our Lord on the Cross and through His Resurrection. 9.7. Insist with us that all dispossessed peoples, all refugees, have the right to return. 9.8. Partner with us as we seek peace and pursue it. Peace is possible. Christians and Muslims and Jews have, can and will understand one another and live together as neighbors. 10. And we representatives of Christian churches and church-related organizations from every corner of the earth, we respond: 11. Yes, we will. Together we will act and pray and speak and work and risk reputations and lives to build with you bridges for an enduring peace among the peoples of this tortured and beautiful place -Palestine and Israel- to end these decades of injustice, humiliation and insecurity, to end the decades of living as refugees and under occupation. We will work with you to seek peace and pursue it. We have allowed too much time to pass. Time has not served the cause of peace but has served the cause of extremism. This is our urgent cause that cannot wait. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 10 17:58:42 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Letter to the United Church of Canada (World Council of Churches) Message-ID: <1280019795.2254631249948722083.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/general-secretary/messages-and-letters/letter-to-the-united-church-of-canada.html The World Council of Churches The WCC is a fellowship of churches, now 349 in more than 110 countries in all continents from virtually all Christian traditions http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/templates/wcc-main/images/ornament.gif Letter to the United Church of Canada Geneva, 10 August 2009 Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ: Grace to you and peace in the name of the Prince of Peace. We pray for you and for the deliberations before you as the United Church of Canada commences its 2009 General Conference in Kelowna, Canada. May God grant the participants wisdom and strength, and renew your spirits daily. We are writing at this time to share and manifest ecumenical and international support for the UCC in its on-going work for peace with justice in Israel-Palestine. This is a cause the UCC has faithfully supported. It is one in which your efforts to speak truth to power and to discern just solutions with love have inspired other member churches of the World Council of Churches. On behalf of churches in many lands we commend to you the words of the Amman Call adopted by the World Council of Churches International Peace Conference in 2007 in Jordan. Its challenges to the whole international ecumenical communities include: ? Hearing the voices of the Christian churches of Palestine and Israel. ? Mobilizing more and more constituencies in each church to influence change toward peace with justice. ? Risking curses and abuse for standing in solidarity with Palestinian brothers and sisters of all faiths and rejecting the possibility that occupation will continue. ? Working to tear down walls and to build up bridges of reconciliation and peace between peoples in the region. ? Sharing the hope that evil and despair have been overcome through the death of our Lord on the Cross and through His Resurrection. The Amman Call lifts up the Gospel imperative for costly solidarity in seeking peace. It challenges us to stand together in common witness and service for a just peace. With shared concern for Palestinians, Israelis and all peoples affected by this interminable conflict, we send you this sign of solidarity, of partnership and of hope. Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia General secretary World Council of Churches From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Aug 10 19:39:42 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:39:42 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <20090811103942.9b031b2a.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Blum www.killinghope.org (August 04 2009) Keeping Track of the Empire's Crimes If you catch the CIA with its hand in the cookie jar and the Agency admits the obvious - what your eyes can plainly see - that its hand is indeed in the cookie jar, it means one of two things: (a) the CIA's hand is in several other cookie jars at the same time which you don't know about and they hope that by confessing to the one instance they can keep the others covered up; or (b) its hand is not really in the cookie jar - it's an illusion to throw you off the right scent - but they want you to believe it. There have been numerous news stories in recent months about secret CIA programs, hidden from Congress, inspired by former vice-president Dick Cheney, in operation since the September 11 terrorist attacks, involving assassination of al Qaeda operatives or other non-believers-in-the-Empire abroad without the knowledge of their governments. The Agency admits to some sort of program having existed, but insists that it was canceled; and if it was an assassination program it was canceled before anyone was actually assassinated. Another report has the US military, not the CIA, putting the plan - or was it a different plan? - into operation, carrying out several assassinations including one in Kenya that proved to be a severe embarrassment and helped lead to the quashing of the program. {1} All of this can be confusing to those following the news. And rather irrelevant. We already know that the United States has been assassinating non-believers, or suspected non-believers, with regularity, and impunity, in recent years, using unmanned planes (drones) firing missiles, in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, if not elsewhere. (Even more victims have been produced from amongst those who happened to be in the same house, car, wedding party, or funeral as the non-believer.) These murders apparently don't qualify as "assassinations", for somehow killing "terrorists" from 2000 feet is morally and legally superior to doing so from two feet away. But whatever the real story is behind the current rash of speculation, we should not fall into the media's practice of at times intimating that multiple or routine CIA assassination attempts would be something shocking or at least very unusual. I've compiled a list of CIA assassination attempts, successful and unsuccessful, against prominent foreign political figures, from 1949 through 2003, which, depending on how you count it, can run into the hundreds (targeting Fidel Castro alone totals 634 according to Cuban intelligence) {2}; the list can be updated by adding the allegedly al Qaeda leaders among the drone attack victims of recent years. Assassination and torture are the two things governments are most loath to admit to, and try their best to cover up. It's thus rare to find a government document or recorded statement mentioning a particular plan to assassinate someone. There is, however, an abundance of compelling circumstantial evidence to work with. The list can be found here: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/assass.htm For those of you who collect lists about splendid US foreign policy post-World War Two, here are a few more that, lacking anything better to do, I've put together "Attempts to overthrow more than fifty foreign governments, most of which had been democratically-elected": http://killinghope.org/bblum6/overthrow.htm After his June 4 Cairo speech, President Obama was much praised for mentioning the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. But in his talk in Ghana on July 11 he failed to mention the CIA coup that ousted Ghanian president Kwame Nkrumah in 1963 {3}, referring to him only as a "giant" among African leaders. The Mossadegh coup is one of the most well-known CIA covert actions. Obama could not easily get away without mentioning it in a talk in the Middle East looking to mend fences. But the Nkrumah ouster is one of the least known; indeed, not a single print or broadcast news report in the American mainstream media saw fit to mention it at the time of the president's talk. Like it never happened. And the next time you hear that Africa can't produce good leaders, people who are committed to the welfare of the masses of their people, think of Nkrumah and his fate. And think of Patrice Lumumba, overthrown in the Congo 1960-61 with the help of the United States; Agostinho Neto of Angola, against whom Washington waged war in the 1970s, making it impossible for him to institute progressive changes; Samora Machel of Mozambique against whom the CIA supported a counter-revolution in the 1970s and 1980s period; and Nelson Mandela of South Africa (now married to Machel's widow), who spent 28 years in prison thanks to the CIA. {4} * Gross interference in democratic elections in at least thirty countries {5} * Waging war/military action, either directly or in conjunction with a proxy army, in some thirty countries: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/us-action.html * Dropping bombs on the people of more than thirty countries: http://killinghope.org/superogue/bomb.htm * Attempts to suppress dozens of populist/nationalist movements in every corner of the world {6} The Myths of Afghanistan, Past and Present On the Fourth of July, Senator Patrick Leahy declared he was optimistic that, unlike the Soviet forces that were driven from Afghanistan twenty years ago, US forces could succeed there. The Democrat from Vermont stated: "The Russians were sent running as they should have been. We helped send them running. But they were there to conquer the country. We've made it very clear, and everybody I talk to within Afghanistan feels the same way: they know we're there to help and we're going to leave. We've made it very clear we are going to leave. And it's going to be turned back to them. The ones that made the mistakes in the past are those that tried to conquer them." {7] Leahy is a long-time liberal on foreign-policy issues, a champion of withholding US counter-narcotics assistance to foreign military units guilty of serious human-rights violations, and an outspoken critic of robbing terrorist suspects of their human and legal rights. Yet he is willing to send countless young Americans to a living hell, or horrible death, or maimed survival. And for what? Every point he made in his statement is simply wrong. The Russians were not in Afghanistan to conquer it. The Soviet Union had existed next door to the country for more than sixty years without any kind of invasion. It was only when the United States intervened in Afghanistan to replace a government friendly to Moscow with one militantly anti-communist that the Russians invaded to do battle with the US-supported Islamic jihadists; precisely what the United States would have done to prevent a communist government in Canada or Mexico. It's also rather difficult for the United States to claim that it's in Afghanistan to help the people there when it's killed tens of thousands of them simply for resisting the American invasion and occupation or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time; not a single one of the victims has been identified as having had any kind of connection to the terrorist attack in the US of September 11 2001, the event usually cited by Washington as justification for the military intervention. Moreover, Afghanistan is now permeated with depleted uranium, cluster bombs-cum-landmines, white phosphorous, a witch's brew of other charming chemicals, and a population, after thirty years of almost non-stop warfare, of physically and mentally mutilated human beings, exceedingly susceptible to the promise of paradise, or at least relief, sold by the Taliban. As to the US leaving ... utterly meaningless propaganda until it happens. Ask the people of South Korea - 56 years of American occupation and still counting; ask the people of Japan - 64 years. And Iraq? Would you want to wager your life's savings on which decade it will be that the last American soldier and military contractor leaves? It's not even precise to say that the Russians were sent running. That was essentially Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev's decision, and it was more of a political decision than a military one. Gorbachev's fondest ambition was to turn the Soviet Union into a West-European style social democracy, and he fervently wished for the approval of those European leaders, virtually all of whom were cold-war anti-communists and opposed the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan. There Has Been as Much of the Same "Causes" for Wars That Did Not Happen as For Wars That Did. Henry Allingham died in Britain on July 18 at age 113, believed to have been the world's oldest man. A veteran of World War One, he spent his final years reminding the British people about their service members killed during the war, which came to about a million: "I want everyone to know", he said during an interview in November. "They died for us". {8} The whole million? Each one died for Britain? In the most useless imperialist war of the twentieth century? No, let me correct that - the most useless imperialist war of any century. The British Empire, the French Empire, the Russian Empire, and the wannabe American Empire joined in battle against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire as youthful bodies and spirits sank endlessly into the wretched mud of Belgium and Germany, the pools of blood of Russia and France. The wondrous nobility of it all is enough to make you swallow hard, fight back the tears, light a few candles, and throw up. Imagine, by the middle of this century Vietnam veterans in their nineties and hundreds will be speaking of how each of their 58,000 war buddies died for America. By 2075 we'll be hearing the same stirring message from ancient vets of Iraq and Afghanistan. How many will remember that there was a large protest movement against their glorious, holy crusades, particularly Vietnam and Iraq? Supreme Nonsense Senate hearings to question a nominee for the Supreme Court are a supreme bore. The sine qua non for President Obama choosing Sonia Sotomayor appears to be that she's a woman with a Hispanic background. A LATINA! How often that word was used by her supporters. She would be the first LATINA on the Supreme Court! Dios mio! Who gives a damn? All anyone should care about are her social and political opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas is a black man. A BLACK MAN! And he's as conservative as they come. Supreme Court nominees, of all political stripes, typically feel obliged to pretend that their social and political leanings don't enter into their judicial opinions. But everyone knows this is rubbish. During her Senate hearing, Sotomayor declared: "It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law." The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Charles Evan Hughes, would not agree with her. "At the constitutional level where we work", he said, "ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." {9} By Sotomayor's own account, which echos news reports, she was not asked about her position on abortion by either President Obama or his staff. But what if she is actually anti-abortion? What if she turns out to be the swing vote that overturns Roe versus Wade? What if she's a proud admirer of the American Empire and its perpetual wars? American dissidents, civilian and military, may depend on her vote for their freedom from imprisonment. What does she think about the "War on Terror"? The civil liberties and freedom from torture of various Americans and foreigners may depend on her attitude. In his 2007 trial, Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was found guilty of aiding terrorists. "The jury did seem to be an oddly cohesive group", the Washington Post reported. "On the last day of trial before the Fourth of July holiday, jurors arranged to dress in outfits so that each row in the jury box was its own patriotic color - red, white or blue". {10} No one dared to question this blatant display of patriotism in the courtroom; neither the defense attorney, nor the prosecutor, nor the judge. How can we continue to pretend that people's legal positions exist independently of their political sentiments? In the 2000 Supreme Court decision stopping the presidential electoral count in Florida, giving the election to George W Bush, did the politics of the five most conservative justices play a role in the five to four decision? Of course. Judges are essentially politicians in black robes. But should we care? Don't ask, don't tell. Sonia Sotomayor is a LATINA! Given the large Democratic majority in the Senate, Sotomayor was in very little danger of being rejected. She could have openly and proudly expressed her social and political positions - whatever they may be - and the Democratic senators could have done the same. How refreshing, maybe even educational if a discussion ensued. Instead it was just another political appointment by a president determined to not offend anyone if he can help it, and another tiresome ritual hearing. The Republican senators were much less shy about revealing how they actually felt about important issues. It didn't have to be that way. As Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun.org pointed out during the hearings: "Democratic Senators could use their time to ask questions and make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court". NATO and Eastern Europe Resource No one chronicles the rise of the supra-government called NATO like Rick Rozoff in his "Stop NATO" mailings. NATO has become an ever-expanding behemoth, making war and interfering in political controversies all over Europe and beyond. The United States is not the world's only superpower; NATO is another, as it surrounds Russia and the Caspian Sea oil reserves, although the distinction between the two superpowers is little more than a facade. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the NATO/US 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia. On April 23 1999 missiles slammed into Radio Television Serbia (RTS) in downtown Belgrade, killing sixteen employees. The station, NATO claimed, was a legitimate military target because it broadcast propaganda. (Certainly a novel form of censorship; not to mention the fact that NATO could simply have taken out the station's transmitter.) What apparently bothered the Western powers was that RTS was reporting the horrendous effects of NATO's bombing as well as passing footage of the destruction to Western media. To mark the anniversary, Amnesty International recently issued a demand that NATO be held accountable for the sixteen deaths. Amnesty asserts that the bombing was a deliberate attack on a civilian object (one of many during the 78 days) and as such constitutes a war crime, and called upon NATO to launch a war crimes probe into the attack to ensure full accountability and redress for victims and their families. Readers might consider signing up for the "Stop NATO" mailing list. Just write to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com. Rozoff scours the East European press each day and comes up with numerous gems ignored by the mainstream media. But a warning: The amount of material you'll receive is often considerable. You'll have to learn to pick and choose. You can get an idea of this by reading previous reports at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages. Notes 1. The Guardian (London) July 13 2009 2. Fabian Escalante, Executive Action: 634 Ways to Kill Fidel Castro (Ocean Press, 2006) 3. William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 32 4. William Blum, Rogue State, chapter 23 5. Ibid, chapter 18 6. Rogue State, chapter 17, intermixed with other types of US interventions 7. Vermont TV station WCAX, July 4 2009, WCAX.com 8. Washington Post, July 19 2009 9. William O Douglas, The Court Years, 1939-1975 (1980), page 8 10. Washington Post, August 17 2007 William Blum is the author of:- Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two (Common Courage Press, 1995) Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Zed Books, 2002) West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir (Soft Skull Press, 2002) Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (Common Courage Press, 2004) Portions of the books can be read, and copies purchased, at http://www.killinghope.org and previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website. To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area. Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite. Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer72.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Aug 11 05:40:34 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:40:34 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Fog of Numbers Message-ID: <20090811204034.b29cb053.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by James Howard Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (August 10 2009) There's something happenin' here What it is ain't exactly clear ... -- Buffalo Springfield One of main reasons behind the vast confusion now reigning in the USA, our failure to construct a coherent consensus about what is happening to us (or what to do about it), is our foolish obsession with econometrics - viewing the world solely through the "lens" of mathematical models. We think that just because we can measure things in numbers, we can make sense of them. For decades we measured the health of our economy (and therefore of our society) by the number of "housing starts" recorded month-to-month. For decades, this translated into the number of suburban tract houses being built in the asteroid belts of our towns and cities. When housing starts were up, the simple-minded declared that things were good; when down, bad. What this view failed to consider was that all these suburban houses added up to a living arrangement with no future. That's what we were so busy actually doing. Which is why I refer to this monumentally unwise investment as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. Even this interpretation - severe as it is - does not encompass the sheer damage done by the act itself, on-the-ground and to our social and cultural relations. Suburbia destroyed the magnificent American landscape as effectively as it destroyed the social development of children, the worth of public space, the quality of civic life, and each person's ability to really care about the place they called home. It's especially ironic that given our preoccupation with numbers, we have arrived at the point where numbers just can't be comprehended anymore. This week, outstanding world derivatives were declared to have reached the one quadrillion mark. Commentators lately - for example, NPR's "Planet Money" broadcast - have struggled to explain to listeners exactly what a trillion is in images such as the number of dollar bills stacked up to the planet Venus or the number of seconds that add up to three ice ages plus two warmings. A quadrillion is just off the charts, out of this world, not really subject to reality-based interpretation. You might as well say "infinity". We have flown up our own collective numeric bung-hole. The number problems we face are now hopeless. America will never be able to cover its current outstanding debt. We're effectively finished at all three levels: household, corporate, and government. Who, for instance, can really comprehend what to do about the number problems infesting Fannie Mae and the mortgages associated with her? There's really only one way out of this predicament: to get ready for a much lower standard of living and much different daily living arrangements. We can't wrap our minds around this, so the exercise du jour is to play games with numbers to persuade ourselves that we don't have to face reality. We're entertaining ourselves with shell games, musical chairs, Chinese fire drills, Ponzi schemes, and Polish blanket tricks (where, to make your blanket longer, you cut twelve inches off the top and sew it onto the bottom). Now that Newsweek Magazine - along with the mendacious cretins at CNBC - have declared the "recession" officially over, it's a sure thing that we are entering the zone of greatest danger. Some foul odor rides the late summer wind, as of a rough beast slouching toward the US Treasury. The stock markets have gathered in the critical mass of suckers needed to flush all remaining hope out of the system. The foreign holders of US promissory notes are sharpening their long knives in the humid darkness. The suburban householders are watching sharks swim in their driveways. The REIT executives are getting ready to gargle with Gillette blue blades. The Goldman Sachs bonus babies are trying to imagine the good life in Paraguay or the archepelego of Tristan da Cunha. While extremely allergic to paranoid memes and conspiracy theories, I begin to wonder about the impressive volume of World Wide Web chatter about an upcoming bank holiday - meaning that the US government might find itself constrained to shut down the banking system for a period of time to deal with a rapidly developing emergency that might prompt the public to make a run on reserves. God knows, there are enough black swans crowding the skies these days to blot out the sun. I hesitate to suggest that readers who are able to should consider stealthily withdrawing a month's worth of walking-around money from their accounts. The week past, some so-called "conservative" political action groups (read: brownshirts pimped by corporate medical interests) trumped up a few incidents of civil unrest at "town meetings" around the country, ostensibly to counter health care reform ideas. The people behind these capers may be playing with dynamite. It's one thing to yell at a congressman over "single payer" abstractions. It'll be another thing when the dispossessed and repossessed Palin worshippers, Nascar morons, and Jesus Jokers haul the ordnance out of their closets and start tossing Molotov cocktails into the First National Bank of Chiggerville. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/08/the-fog-of-numbers.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 17:13:31 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:13:31 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Japanese Lesson for the Iranian Left Message-ID: The wind of populism blows in Japan, in rhetoric if not in policy, raising a hope of finally putting an end to the world's longest-standing one-party state. Alas, the wind has not filled the sail of the Communist Party, but that of the social liberal party on the center left. Still and all, it ought to be an object lesson to leftists in Iran, the only leftists in the world to line up behind a loser upholding an anti-Keynesian banner in the midst of a global economic crisis. -- Yoshie Hatoyama Pledges Not to Visit Yasukuni Shrine DPJ chief hits at ?US-led? globalism By Mure Dickie in Tokyo Published: August 10 2009 19:39 | Last updated: August 10 2009 19:39 Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of Japan's opposition Democratic party who is strongly placed to become prime minister after elections this month, has condemned ?US-led market fundamentalism? and vowed to shield his nation from the effects of untrammelled globalisation. With the era of US unilateralism ending and worries about the dollar?s future role growing, Japan should also work towards regional currency union and political integration in an ?East Asian Community?, Mr Hatoyama wrote in an essay published Monday in the Japanese magazine Voice. Mr Hatoyama offered a robust defence of his political philosophy of yuai ? fraternity ? which critics have derided as wishy-washy wishful thinking, but which he declared a ?strong, combative concept? and ?banner of revolution?. With opinion polls giving the DPJ a clear lead over the long-ruling Liberal Democratic party ahead of an August 30 general election, Mr Hatoyama could soon have a chance to implement his philosophy. A poll released by the Kyodo news agency on Monday found nearly half the respondents thought Mr Hatoyama most suited to be prime minister, compared with 20 per cent for Taro Aso, the LDP incumbent. In his essay, Mr Hatoyama said the global economy had ?damaged traditional economic activities? while market fundamentalism had destroyed ?local communities?, citing the decision by Junichiro Koizumi, former LDP prime minister, to privatise Japan's post office. ?Under the principle of fraternity, we will not implement policies that leave economic activities in areas relating to human lives and safety, such as agriculture, the environment and medicine, at the mercy of the tides of globalism,? Mr Hatoyama wrote. Analysts say that wide policy differences within the often fractious DPJ make it difficult to predict how such statements of principle might be put into practice. Mr Hatoyama highlighted the need for better welfare, more child support and wealth redistribution. He made clear that while security ties with the US would remain a ?diplomatic cornerstone?, Japan must do much more to tighten links with Asian neighbours such as China and South Korea. ?As a result of the failure of the Iraq war and the financial crisis, the era of the US-led globalism is coming to an end and ?we are moving away from a unipolar world led by the US towards an era of multipolarity,? the DPJ leader said, adding that fears about China's military rise were a big factor in ?accelerating regional integration?. Japan should "aspire to the move towards regional currency integration" and "spare no effort" in building the security frameworks needed to make union possible, he wrote, adding that the example of European Union showed that integration itself could be the best way of defusing territorial disputes often seen as an impediment to closer ties. Mr Hatoyama also emphasised the DPJ's campaign pledge to push devolution of power to local governments within Japan as embodying his fraternal values, again approvingly citing European examples.Dismissing the ?Ministry of Finance-led theory? of trying to rebuild Japan's state finances through welfare cuts and tax rises, he said he would aim to reform bureaucracy, regain trust in the pension system and give regions fiscal autonomy. ?Resolving our fiscal problems is impossible without comprehensively rebuilding Japan's political systems,? Mr Hatoyama wrote. Business chiefs snub DPJ overtures By Jonathan Soble and Michiyo Nakamoto in Tokyo Published: August 6 2009 17:56 | Last updated: August 6 2009 17:56 A troop of politicians from Japan?s opposition Democrats called this week at the headquarters of the Keidanren, the country?s big-business lobby, to sell the DPJ?s economic policies to the executives. Buyers were scarce: the head of the Keidanren, Fujio Mitarai of Canon, dismissed the party?s plans to improve economic growth as ?weak?. The prospect of a victory by the DPJ in elections scheduled for August 30 has made many business leaders nervous. The centre-left party is ahead by 10-20 points in opinion polls and looks likely to grab power from Taro Aso, premier, and his long-ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP). Backing from business is a big reason the LDP has held power for 52 of the past 53 years. Since 2004, when the Keidanren began an annual review of LDP and opposition policies, its members? donations to the LDP have exceeded those to the DPJ more than 30-fold. The Democrats, in turn, have said they will ban political donations from companies after 2012, should they win power. ?With such a long history [of LDP rule], there has naturally been a relationship between the ruling party and business,? says Fumio Ohtsubo, chief executive of Panasonic. He too is wary of a shift in government. ?If politicians and policies keep changing, it?s hardly good for company management.? DPJ candidates rarely sound anti-business on the stump. The party prefers instead to attack Japan?s overweening bureaucracy, another source of LDP support. Still, executives have been frightened by DPJ plans to tighten labour and environmental standards, and fret that a DPJ administration would run up Japan?s already sky-high debt, making big tax increases necessary. Two DPJ policies in particular soured the atmosphere at the Keidanren meeting. One was a pledge to reduce Japan?s emissions of greenhouse gases by 25 per cent against 1990 levels by 2020. The target is far more ambitious than Mr Aso?s promise of an 8 per cent cut. A second source of contention is the DPJ?s promise to restore a ban on the use of temporary contract workers in manufacturing. The number of such workers surged after the ban was lifted in 2004, but many have lost their jobs during the recession. The DPJ, for its part, has been trying to sound conciliatory. Katsuya Okada, its secretary-general, told the Keidanren its emissions promise would apply only if the US, China and India made strong commitments of their own. He said a DPJ administration would stand by a target of 2 per cent economic growth set by Mr Aso. The party has meanwhile wooed smaller businesses that have weaker ties to the LDP. It has promised to cut corporate taxes for small and mid-sized enterprises from 18 to 11 per cent. The fundamental issue for executives, says Yutaka Harada, chief economist at the Daiwa Institute of Research, may be the DPJ?s vision of an economic policy focused on helping small companies and consumers rather than blue-chip groups. ?The LDP provides [funds] to institutions but the DPJ funds individuals,? he says. Additional reporting by Mure Dickie in Tokyo Japan?s DPJ pledges radical social reform By Mure Dickie in Tokyo Published: July 27 2009 19:24 | Last updated: July 27 2009 19:24 Riding high in opinion polls ahead of next month?s general election, Japan?s opposition Democratic party on Monday launched a campaign manifesto promising dramatic administrative reform and generous social spending. The DPJ, which appears likely to win a historic victory over the long-ruling Liberal Democratic party on August 30, said that in government it would pay parents a Y312,000 ($3,273) a year child allowance; revamp and increase pensions; scrap school fees and road tolls; cut taxes on small companies; and increase regional autonomy. Japan opposition softens policy stance By Mure Dickie in Tokyo Published: July 23 2009 22:43 | Last updated: July 23 2009 22:43 Japan?s opposition Democratic party has dropped its call for ?radical? change to an agreement governing US forces in the country, reversed its opposition to current overseas military missions and softened its stance on a territorial dispute with Russia. The changes ? seen by local analysts as an embrace of foreign policy ?realism? ahead of the DPJ?s expected victory in next month?s general election ? should help to ease US concerns that the likely end of the Liberal Democratic party?s long rule could upset a US-Japan alliance that is a cornerstone of east Asian security. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Aug 11 19:30:09 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:30:09 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Washington is Playing a Deeper Game with China Message-ID: <20090812103009.f5da7894.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by F William Engdahl Global Research (July 11 2009) After the tragic events of July 5 in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China, it would be useful to look more closely into the actual role of the US Government's "independent" NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). All indications are that the US Government, once more acting through its "private" Non-Governmental Organization, the NED, is massively intervening into the internal politics of China. The reasons for Washington's intervention into Xinjiang affairs seems to have little to do with concerns over alleged human rights abuses by Beijing authorities against Uyghur people. It seems rather to have very much to do with the strategic geopolitical location of Xinjiang on the Eurasian landmass and its strategic importance for China's future economic and energy cooperation with Russia, Kazakhastan and other Central Asia states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The major organization internationally calling for protests in front of Chinese embassies around the world is the Washington, DC-based World Uyghur Congress (WUC). The WUC manages to finance a staff, a very fancy website in English, and has a very close relation to the US Congress-funded NED. According to published reports by the NED itself, the World Uyghur Congress receives $215,000 annually from the National Endowment for Democracy for "human rights research and advocacy projects". The president of the WUC is an exile Uyghur who describes herself as a "laundress turned millionaire", Rebiya Kadeer, who also serves as president of the Washington DC-based Uyghur American Association, another Uyghur human rights organization which receives significant funding from the US Government via the National Endowment for Democracy. The NED was intimately involved in financial support to various organizations behind the Lhasa "Crimson Revolution" in March 2008, as well as the Saffron Revolution in Burma/Myanmar and virtually every regime change destabilization in eastern Europe over the past years from Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgystan to Teheran in the aftermath of the recent elections. Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in a published interview in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA". The NED is supposedly a private, non-government, non-profit foundation, but it receives a yearly appropriation for its international work from the US Congress. The NED money is channelled through four "core foundations". These are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, linked to Obama's Democratic Party; the International Republican Institute tied to the Republican Party; the American Center for International Labor Solidarity linked to the AFL-CIO US labor federation as well as the US State Department; and the Center for International Private Enterprise linked to the US Chamber of Commerce. The salient question is what has the NED been actively doing that might have encouraged the unrest in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and what is the Obama Administration policy in terms of supporting or denouncing such NED-financed intervention into sovereign politics of states which Washington deems a target for pressure? The answers must be found soon, but one major step to help clarify Washington policy under the new Obama Administration would be for a full disclosure by the NED, the US State Department and NGO's linked to the US Government, of their involvement, if at all, in encouraging Uyghur separatism or unrest. Is it mere coincidence that the Uyghur riots take place only days following the historic meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Uyghur exile organizations, China and Geopolitics On May 18 this year, the US-government's in-house "private" NGO, the NED, according to the official WUC website, hosted a seminal human rights conference entitled East Turkestan: Sixty Years under Communist Chinese Rule, along with a curious NGO with the name, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO). The Honorary President and founder of the UNPO is one Erkin Alptekin, an exile Uyghur who founded UNPO while working for the US Information Agency's official propaganda organization, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as Director of their Uygur Division and Assistant Director of the Nationalities Services. Alptekin also founded the World Uyghur Congress at the same time, in 1991, while he was with the US Information Agency. The official mission of the USIA when Alptekin founded the World Uyghur Congress in 1991 was "to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics in promotion of the [USA] national interest ?" Alptekin was the first president of WUC, and, according to the official WUC website, is a "close friend of the Dalai Lama". Closer examination reveals that UNPO in turn to be an American geopolitical strategist's dream organization. It was formed, as noted, in 1991 as the Soviet Union was collapsing and most of the land area of Eurasia was in political and economic chaos. Since 2002 its Director General has been Archduke Karl von Habsburg of Austria who lists his (unrecognized by Austria or Hungary) title as "Prince Imperial of Austria and Royal Prince of Hungary". Among the UNPO principles is the right to 'self-determination' for the 57 diverse population groups who, by some opaque process not made public, have been admitted as official UNPO members with their own distinct flags, with a total population of some 150 million peoples and headquarters in the Hague, Netherlands. UNPO members range from Kosovo which "joined" when it was fully part of then Yugoslavia in 1991. It includes the "Aboriginals of Australia" who were listed as founding members along with Kosovo. It includes the Buffalo River Dene Nation indians of northern Canada. The select UNPO members also include Tibet which is listed as a founding member. It also includes other explosive geopolitical areas as the Crimean Tartars, the Greek Minority in Romania, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (in Russia), the Democratic Movement of Burma, and the gulf enclave adjacent to Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and which just happens to hold rights to some of the world's largest offshore oil fields leased to Condi Rice's old firm, Chevron Oil. Further geopolitical hotspots which have been granted elite recognition by the UNPO membership include the large section of northern Iran which designates itself as Southern Azerbaijan, as well as something that calls itself Iranian Kurdistan. In April 2008 according to the website of the UNPO, the US Congress' NED sponsored a "leadership training" seminar for the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) together with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Over fifty Uyghurs from around the world together with prominent academics, government representatives and members of the civil society gathered in Berlin Germany to discuss "Self-Determination under International Law". What they discussed privately is not known. Rebiya Kadeer gave the keynote address. The suspicious timing of the Xinjiang riots The current outbreak of riots and unrest in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang in the northwest part of China, exploded on July 5 local time. According to the website of the World Uyghur Congress, the "trigger" for the riots was an alleged violent attack on June 26 in China's southern Guangdong Province at a toy factory where the WUC alleges that Han Chinese workers attacked and beat to death two Uyghur workers for allegedly raping or sexually molesting two Han Chinese women workers in the factory. On July 1, the Munich arm of the WUC issued a worldwide call for protest demonstrations against Chinese embassies and consulates for the alleged Guangdong attack, despite the fact they admitted the details of the incident were unsubstantiated and filled with allegations and dubious reports. According to a press release they issued, it was that June 26 alleged attack that gave the WUC the grounds to issue their worldwide call to action. On July 5, a Sunday in Xinjiang but still the USA Independence Day, July 4, in Washington, the WUC in Washington claimed that Han Chinese armed soldiers seized any Uyghur they found on the streets and according to official Chinese news reports, widespread riots and burning of cars along the streets of Urumqi broke out resulting over the following three days in over 140 deaths. China's official Xinhua News Agency said that protesters from the Uighur Muslim ethnic minority group began attacking ethnic Han pedestrians, burning vehicles and attacking buses with batons and rocks. "They took to the street ... carrying knives, wooden batons, bricks and stones", they cited an eyewitness as saying. The French AFP news agency quoted Alim Seytoff, general secretary of the Uighur American Association in Washington, that according to his information, police had begun shooting "indiscriminately" at protesting crowds. Two different versions of the same events: The Chinese government and pictures of the riots indicate it was Uyghur riot and attacks on Han Chinese residents that resulted in deaths and destruction. French official reports put the blame on Chinese police "shooting indiscriminately". Significantly, the French AFP report relies on the NED-funded Uyghur American Association of Rebiya Kadeer for its information. The reader should judge if the AFP account might be motivated by a US geopolitical agenda, a deeper game from the Obama Administration towards China's economic future. Is it merely coincidence that the riots in Xinjiang by Uyghur organizations broke out only days after the meeting took place in Yakaterinburg, Russia of the member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as Iran as official observer guest, represented by President Ahmadinejad? Over the past few years, in the face of what is seen as an increasingly hostile and incalculable United States foreign policy, the major nations of Eurasia - China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan have increasingly sought ways of direct and more effective cooperation in economic as well as security areas. In addition, formal Observer status within SCO has been given to Iran, Pakistan, India and Mongolia. The SCO defense ministers are in regular and growing consultation on mutual defense needs, as NATO and the US military command continue provocatively to expand across the region wherever it can. The Strategic Importance of Xinjiang for Eurasian Energy Infrastructure There is another reason for the nations of the SCO, a vital national security element, to having peace and stability in China's Xinjiang region. Some of China's most important oil and gas pipeline routes pass directly through Xinjiang province. Energy relations between Kazkhstan and China are of enormous strategic importance for both countries, and allow China to become less dependent on oil supply sources that can be cut off by possible US interdiction should relations deteriorate to such a point. Kazak President Nursultan Nazarbayev paid a State visit in April 2009 to Beijing. The talks concerned deepening economic cooperation, above all in the energy area, where Kazkhastan holds huge reserves of oil and likely as well of natural gas. After the talks in Beijing, Chinese media carried articles with such titles as "Kazakhstani oil to fill in the Great Chinese pipe". The Atasu-Alashankou pipeline to be completed in 2009 will provide transportation of transit gas to China via Xinjiang. As well Chinese energy companies are involved in construction of a Zhanazholskiy gas processing plant, Pavlodar electrolyze plant and Moynakskaya hydro electric station in Kazakhstan. According to the US Government's Energy Information Administration, Kazakhstan's Kashagan field is the largest oil field outside the Middle East and the fifth largest in the world in terms of reserves, located off the northern shore of the Caspian Sea, near the city of Atyrau. China has built a 613-mile-long pipeline from Atasu, in northwestern Kazakhstan, to Alashankou at the border of China's Xinjiang region which is exporting Caspian oil to China. PetroChina's ChinaOil is the exclusive buyer of the crude oil on the Chinese side. The pipeline is a joint venture of CNPC and Kaztransoil of Kazkhstan. Some 85,000 barrels per day of Kazakh crude oil flowed through the pipeline during 2007. China's CNPC is also involved in other major energy projects with Kazkhstan. They all traverse China's Xinjiang region. In 2007 CNPC signed an agreement to invest more than $2 billion to construct a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to China. That pipeline would start at Gedaim on the border of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and extend 1,100 miles through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Khorgos in China's Xinjiang region. Turkmenistan and China have signed a thirty-year supply agreement for the gas that would fill the pipeline. CNPC has set up two entities to oversee the Turkmen upstream project and the development of a second pipeline that will cross China from the Xinjiang region to southeast China at a cost of some $7 billion. As well, Russia and China are discussing major natural gas pipelines from eastern Siberia through Xinjiang into China. Eastern Siberia contains around 135 trillion cubic feet of proven plus probable natural gas reserves. The Kovykta natural gas field could give China with natural gas in the next decade via a proposed pipeline. During the current global economic crisis, Kazakhstan received a major credit from China of $10 billion, half of which is for oil and gas sector. The oil pipeline Atasu-Alashankou and the gas pipeline China-Central Asia, are an instrument of strategic 'linkage' of central Asian countries to the economy China. That Eurasian cohesion from Russia to China across Central Asian countries is the geopolitical cohesion Washington most fears. While they would never say so, growing instability in Xinjiang would be an ideal way for Washington to weaken that growing cohesion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization nations. _____ William Engdahl is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (2009). _____ Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F William Engdahl Global Research (2007) ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2 This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. "Control the food and you control the people". This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. The author cogently reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is. Engdahl's carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World peace. What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything - science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds - have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland) If you want to learn about the socio-political agenda - why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World - you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist ... (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia) The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence ... (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria). To order Seeds of Destruction click here: http://globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright F William Engdahl, Global Research, 2009 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14327 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 11 20:39:11 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Who profits from Israeli occupation? In-Reply-To: <1416218915.2579781250044074062.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1623534014.2581131250044751046.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The Real News August 11, 2009 Who profits from Israeli occupation? Boycotted by activists, the Israeli company AHAVA is backed by one of Israel's most powerful families http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4095 From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 11 20:38:55 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?NY_Times__-_=22The_Two-State_Solution_Doesn?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99t_Solve_Anything=22?= In-Reply-To: <471038650.2580481250044413624.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <160325630.2581101250044735471.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The New York Times August 11, 2009 Op-Ed Contributors The Two-State Solution Doesn?t Solve Anything By HUSSEIN AGHA and ROBERT MALLEY THE two-state solution has welcomed two converts. In recent weeks, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas?s political bureau, have indicated they now accept what they had long rejected. This nearly unanimous consensus is the surest sign to date that the two-state solution has become void of meaning, a catchphrase divorced from the contentious issues it is supposed to resolve. Everyone can say yes because saying yes no longer says much, and saying no has become too costly. Acceptance of the two-state solution signals continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle by other means. Bowing to American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu conceded the principle of a Palestinian state, but then described it in a way that stripped it of meaningful sovereignty. In essence, and with minor modifications, his position recalled that of Israeli leaders who preceded him. A state, he pronounced, would have to be demilitarized, without control over borders or airspace. Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and no Palestinian refugees would be allowed back to Israel. His emphasis was on the caveats rather than the concession. As Mr. Netanyahu was fond of saying, you can call that a state if you wish, but whom are you kidding? As for Hamas, recognition of the state of Israel has always been and remains taboo. Until recently, the movement had hinted it might acquiesce to Israel?s de facto existence and resign itself to establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This sentiment has now grown from hint to certitude. President Obama?s June address in Cairo provoked among Hamas leaders a mixture of anticipation and apprehension. The American president criticized the movement but did not couple his mention of Hamas with the term terrorism, his recitation of the prerequisites for engagement bore the sound of a door cracked open rather than one slammed shut, and his acknowledgment that the Islamists enjoyed the support of some Palestinians was grudging but charitable by American standards. All of which was promising but also foreboding, prompting reflection within the Hamas movement over how to escape international confinement without betraying core beliefs. The result of this deliberation was Hamas?s message that it would adhere to the internationally accepted wisdom ? a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967, the year Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas also coupled its concession with caveats aplenty, demanding full Israeli withdrawal, full Palestinian sovereignty and respect for the refugees? rights. In this, there was little to distinguish its position from conventional Palestinian attitudes. The dueling discourses speak to something far deeper than and separate from Palestinian statehood. Mr. Netanyahu underscores that Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state ? and recalls that the conflict began before the West Bank or Gaza were occupied. Palestinians, in turn, reject recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, uphold the refugees? rights and maintain that if Israel wants real closure, it will need to pay with more than mere statehood. The exchange, for the first time in a long while, brings the conflict back to its historical roots, distills its political essence and touches its raw emotional core. It can be settled, both sides implicitly concur, only by looking past the occupation to questions born in 1948 ? Arab rejection of the newborn Jewish state and the dispossession and dislocation of Palestinian refugees. Both positions enjoy broad support within their respective communities. Few Israelis quarrel with the insistence that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. It encapsulates their profound aspiration, rooted in the history of the Jewish people, for a fully accepted presence in the land of their forebears ? for an end to Arab questioning of Israel?s legitimacy, the specter of the Palestinian refugees? return and any irredentist sentiment among Israel?s Arab citizens. Even fewer Palestinians take issue with the categorical rebuff of that demand, as the recent Fatah congress in Bethlehem confirmed. In their eyes, to accept Israel as a Jewish state would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy. It would render the Palestinian national struggle at best meaningless, at worst criminal. Their firmness on the principle of their right of return flows from the belief that the 1948 war led to unjust displacement and that, whether or not refugees choose or are allowed to return to their homes, they can never be deprived of that natural right. The modern Palestinian national movement, embodied in the Palestine Liberation Organization, has been, above all, a refugee movement ? led by refugees and focused on their plight. It?s easy to wince at these stands. They run against the grain of a peace process whose central premise is that ending the occupation and establishing a viable Palestinian state will bring this matter to a close. But to recall the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian clash is not to invent a new battle line. It is to resurrect an old one that did not disappear simply because powerful parties acted for some time as if it had ceased to exist. Over the past two decades, the origins of the conflict were swept under the carpet, gradually repressed as the struggle assumed the narrower shape of the post-1967 territorial tug-of-war over the West Bank and Gaza. The two protagonists, each for its own reason, along with the international community, implicitly agreed to deal with the battle?s latest, most palpable expression. Palestinians saw an opportunity to finally exercise authority over a part of their patrimony; Israelis wanted to free themselves from the burdens of occupation; and foreign parties found that it was the easier, tidier thing to do. The hope was that, somehow, addressing the status of the West Bank and Gaza would dispense with the need to address the issues that predated the occupation and could outlast it. That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews. For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees? rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel. Hussein Agha is a co-author, with Ahmed S. Khalidi, of ?A Framework for a Palestinian National Security Doctrine.? Robert Malley, the director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group, was a special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. From tchilds at resist.ca Tue Aug 11 23:10:54 2009 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:10:54 +0000 Subject: [R-G] Tomgram: Mark Engler, Protesting at Climate Ground Zero Message-ID: <1056223784-1250053783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-532462380-@bxe1032.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175105 Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Aug 12 03:05:49 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:05:49 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Hidden Story Behind Rwanda's Tragedy Message-ID: <20090812180549.1ec65c0c.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Christopher Black blackstarnews.com (July 03 2009) Editor's Note: The Op-Ed is written by a Canadian attorney who represents a defendant before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania, on war crimes charges. The attorney offers a counter-view to the one-sided representation of the Rwanda narrative. Readers are encouraged to submit their comments and reactions. Rwanda before 1990 was considered the Switzerland of Africa, a model of social development. The result of the 1959 social revolution that deposed the Tutsi monarchy and aristocracy and freed the majority Hutu population from serfdom and a lifetime of humiliation was the establishment of a collective society in which both Hutus, and Tutsis as well as Twas lived together in relative harmony. Tutsis were members of the government, its administration, present in large numbers in the education system, the judiciary and controlled most of the large private commercial companies in Rwanda. The Rwandan army was a multiethnic army composed of both Hutus and Tutsis and it stayed a multiethnic force even when the Rwandan Army was forced by the invaders from Uganda to retreat into the Congo forest in July 1994 because it ran out of ammunition due to the Western embargo on arms and supplies. Rwanda descended into chaos in 1990 when the self-described Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) forces launched a surprise attack on October 1 1990 from Uganda. In fact, every one of the men and officers of that invasion force were members of the Ugandan national Army. It was an invasion by Uganda disguised as an independent force of "liberation". Liberation from what, has never been stated. Initially the justification put out by the RPF was that of attaining the return of Tutsi "refugees" from Uganda to Rwanda. However, that problem had been resolved by an agreement between the RPF, Uganda, Rwanda, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the OAU a few weeks earlier. The Rwandan government had agreed to the return of all those Tutsis in Uganda who wanted to return to Rwanda. That accord required that Tutsi representatives of the refugees travel to Kigali for a meeting to determine the mechanics of that population movement, and how to accommodate all those people in a small country. They were expected at the end of September 1990. They never arrived. Instead of civilians returning in peace, Rwanda was viciously attacked on October 1 1990 by a force that unleashed unbridled savagery. During that invasion the RPF forces of the Ugandan Army slaughtered everyone in their path, Hutu or Tutsi. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians, the majority Hutu, were butchered. These crimes have never been accounted for. The RPF's favorite method was the bayonet or knife with which they disembowelled men and women or to tied their hands behind their backs and smashed their skulls with hoes, the farm tool iconic of the Hutu peasantry. After several weeks of intense fighting, the RPF forces were destroyed by the small Rwandan Army and the remnants fled, on US instructions, back into Uganda to regroup and reorganize. The RPF still never justified this aggression and the needless slaughter of civilians in a peaceful country. Individual Tutsis had always been allowed to return to Rwanda from the early 1960s and several times the Rwandan government invited them all to return. However the Tutsi aristocracy, jealous of its lost power and which viewed the Hutus as nothing but subhuman, refused to return unless their absolute power was restored. This the people of Rwanda, even the Tutsis who remained in the country, refused. In the 1960s and early 1970s various Tutsi groups in Uganda and elsewhere had organized terrorist raids into Rwanda in which they murdered without pity anyone they caught. These raids were repelled by Rwanda's tiny armed forces. The years that followed were a period of development and peace for Rwandans. Even though one of the smallest and poorest countries in the world it had the best road system, healthcare, and education systems in Africa. Until the late 1980s it prospered and received help from both the socialist countries of the USSR, North Korea and China and West Germany, France and Israel and others. Some Tutsis in Uganda became involved in the civil wars there between the socialist Milton Obote and the US and UK puppet Yoweri K Museveni who was supported by the West to get rid of socialism in Uganda. By 1990 Tutsis composed a large section of the Ugandan Army and all the senior officers of the RPF were high officers in the Ugandan Army, the National Resistance Army. Paul Kagame himself was one of the highest-ranking officers in the intelligence services of the Ugandan army and was notorious for enjoying torturing prisoners. Rwanda until 1990 was a one party socialist state. The ruling party the National Movement For revolutionary Development (MRND) was not considered a party as such but rather a social movement in which everyone in society took part through local elections and the mechanism of consensus much like the system in Cuba. The fall of the Soviet Union led to pressure from the West, notably the United States and France to dismantle the one party state system and permit multiparty democracy. The President, Juvenal Habyarimana, instead of resisting, agreed to a change in the constitution and in 1991 Rwanda became a multiparty democracy. The fact the Rwandan government did this in the middle of a war is more than remarkable. It was also an offer of peace. The RPF, since its abject failure in 1990, had changed its strategy from a frontal assault to the tactics of terrorism. The RPF likes to refer to this phase as the guerrilla. However, it was not the guerrilla of a liberation struggle like the FLMN in Vietnam or the FARC in Colombia. It was instead a mirror image of the Contras campaign of terrorism conducted against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Its purpose was not to make revolution. Its purpose was to overthrow the 1959 revolution. And, like the contras, the RPF was supported by the United States. This was clear from the beginning of the war. When the RPF launched their attack, President Juvenal Habyarimana was in Washington, lured out of the way, by the State Department. The evidence that the US was aware of and supported the October surprise attack was the US Administration's offer to Habyarimana of asylum in the United States if he surrendered power to the RPF. Habyarimana refused and immediately flew back home. There was no condemnation of the Ugandan-RPF aggression by the United States, a matter which France raised at the United Nations, or any of its allies despite the big noise they made at the same time about the advance of Iraqi forces into Kuwait. Further, the Rwanda ambassador to the UN, then on the Security Council, filed a protest in the Security Council but the US had it taken off the agenda. In fact the US and its allies supported the aggression against Rwanda from the beginning and US Special Forces operated with the RPF from the beginning. Recently, while former president Bill Clinton was in Toronto, he denied any involvement in Rwanda - this is one of the big lies of the century. Clinton and George W Bush are up to their necks in the blood of the Rwandan and Congolese people. With the arrival of multiparty democracy in 1991, the RPF took full advantage and created several front parties to take away support from the popular MRND. These parties though claiming to represent different political views in fact were, in the main front parties for the RPF. The press was expanded and many of the new papers were financed by and acted as mouthpieces for the RPF. At the same time as these parties sprang up, criticizing the government, the RPF continued its terror campaign: planting mines on roads that killed Hutu and Tutsi alike; assassinating politicians and officials; and, blaming it, with the help of various NGOs funded by western intelligence agencies, on the government. In 1992 a coalition government was formed with the RPF or its front parties seizing control of key ministries and appointing the prime minister. Through these agents they also controlled the civilian intelligence services that they then began to dismantle. The RPF engaged in a "talk and fight" strategy. Always agreeing to a ceasefire, pressing for more power, then launching new attacks on civilians. The most egregious was their breaking of the ceasefire and their major offensive in February 1993 in which they seized the major town of Ruhengeri in the process murdering 40,000 civilians most of them Hutu. The Rwandan Army, even though hamstrung by the civilian ministries that were controlled by the RPF, managed to drive the RPF back. Finally in August 1993 the Arusha Accords were signed under pressure from the United States and its allies in which the RPF obtained major concessions in return to the formation of a broad-based transition government to be followed by general elections. However, they knew they could not win such elections as the RPF was not only unpopular with the majority Hutu population it did not even enjoy the support of many internal Tutsis whose lives and businesses had been destroyed by the war they did not see a need for. Instead of preparing for elections the RPF prepared for their final offensive. As far back as December 1993, UN reports document the massive build-up of men and weapons coming in from Uganda. The UN force that was deployed supposedly to ensure a peaceful transition; in fact, it was a cover for the US and its allies to assist in this build up. General Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general in charge of the UN force hid this build up from the Rwandan army and the President. The build-up was accompanied by death threats against the president. According to an account of Habyarimana's last conversation with president Mobutu Sese Seko of what was then Zaire, just two days before he was murdered, Assistant US Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman Cohen had, in October 1993, told Habyarimana, that unless he ceded all power to the RPF they were going to kill him and drag his body through the streets. These threats were punctuated by the murder of the first Hutu president of neighboring Burundi, Melchior Ndadaye, by Tutsi officers in October 1993 in which Kagame and the RPF also had a hand; the officers who committed the murder, including Lieutenant Paul Kamana, later fled to Uganda. Ndadaye was in office a mere four months, having won the country's first free elections. In the aftermath of that murder 250,000 Hutus were massacred by the Tutsi army of Burundi and hundreds of thousands of Hutus fled to Rwanda. The result of the 1993 offensive was that one million Hutus fled the terror of the RPF in northern Rwanda towards the capital, Kigali, so that by April 1994 over a million refugees were encamped close to the capital and hundreds thousands more in camps in the south all fleeing RPF terror. The RPF did all it could in 1994 to paralyse the functioning of the government, to exacerbate racial tensions, and prepare for war. Then on April 6 1994 they launched their final surprise attack by shooting down the presidential plane returning from a meeting in Tanzania that Uganda's Museveni had arranged. In fact it is known that Museveni's half-brother general Salim Saleh was at the final meeting at which the date for the shoot down was agreed. The missile attack killed Habyarimana, as well as Burundi's new Hutu president Cyprien Ntayamire, and Rwanda's military chief of staff, and others on board. This was the first massacre of 1994 and it was a massacre of Hutus by the RPF. The RPF then immediately launched attacks across Kigali and the north of the country. In the sector of Kigali known as Remera they killed everyone on the night of the sixth and the seventh, wiped out the Gendarme camp there, wiped out the military police camp at Kami and launched a major attack against Camp Kanombe, Camp Kigali and the main gendarme camp at Kacyriu. The Rwandan government and army called for a ceasefire the same night and next day. The RPF rejected the call. The Rwandan government asked for more UN help to control the situation. Instead, the US arranged that the main UN force be pulled out while flying in men and supplies to the RPF using C130 Hercules aircraft. The Rwandan Army, short of ammunition and unable to contain the RPF advances even offered an unconditional surrender on April 12th. The RPF rejected even this offer and instead shelled the Nyacyonga refugee camp where the one million Hutu refugees were located provoking their flight into the capital. The effect of one million people flooding into a small city that itself was under bombardment cannot be described. The RPF used this flood of people to infiltrate its men behind army lines. This created panic among the Hutu population that began killing anyone they did not recognize. It was clear that the RPF was not interested in saving lives, even Tutsis, but in seizing total power and did not want to negotiate at all. The late Dr Alison Des Forges, the American who was considered a noted scholar on Rwanda, in her testimony in the Military II trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in 2006 testified that the RPF claim that they attacked to stop a "genocide" was a myth; just propaganda to justify their attempt to seize power by force of arms. She also testified that the Rwandan government did not plan and execute genocide. This accords with the testimony of General Dallaire who also confirmed an earlier statement that there was no planned genocide by the government as did the deputy head of Belgian Army intelligence, Colonel Vincent, who also testified at the ICTR that the idea of a genocide was a fantasy. The fighting in Kigali was intense. UN officers - confirming what has been said by Rwandan and RPF officers who have testified - state that the RPF was launching hundreds of Katyusha rockets every hour round the clock while the Rwandan Army ran out of hand grenades in the first few days and was reduced to fighting the RPF with hand made explosives. The vaunted RPF could not take Kigali. The siege of Kigali lasted three months and only ended when the Rwandan Army literally ran out of ammunition and ordered a general retreat into the Congo forest. RPF officers have stated that the RPF killed up to two million Hutus in those twelve weeks in a deliberate campaign to eliminate the Hutu population. The Akagera River, the length of which was under RPF control throughout, ran red with the blood of the Hutus massacred on its banks. The RPF claimed these were Tutsis but there were no Tutsis in that area and only the RPF had access to that area. Robert Gersony, of USAID in a report to the UNHCR in October 1994, filed as an exhibit at the ICTR, stated that the RFP carried out a systematic and planned massacre of the Hutu population. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gersony As the Rwandan Army, including Tutsi officers within that army and men retreated into the Congo forest, the Hutu population, in fear for their lives fled with them in their millions. In local villages, Hutu neighbours attacked Tutsis in revenge for the murder of Hutus or fearing death at their hands. Tutsis also attacked Hutus. It was total war just as the RPF wished. The RPF later pursued the Hutus through the Congo forest between 1996 to 1998 and killed hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. They were shelled, machine gunned, raped, cut to pieces with knives. Accounts of that trek are difficult to bear. The RPF was assisted in its offensive by the United States. The UN Rwanda Emergency office in Nairobi was in fact manned by US Army officers and acted as the operational headquarters of the RPF and gave them intelligence on Rwandan Army movements and actions and directions. Prudence Bushnell the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs telephoned the Rwandan Army chief of staff in May 1994 and told him that unless he surrendered he must know that he was fighting the United States of America and would be defeated. US Special Forces fought with the RPF. There is also evidence that Belgian forces of the UN were involved as an intercepted radio message from Kagame to his forces in the field refers to the help they had received from the Belgians. There is also evidence that Canadian forces were also involved and Atoine Nyetera a Tutsi prince, who was in Kigali in that period testified for the defense in the Military II trial and stated that not only were there no massacres committed against Tutsis by the Rwandan Army but that it was the RPF that began the massacres after they took Kigali and began killing Hutus. Nyetera testified that despite the claim by the RPF of being a Tutsi liberation group, when he saw their long columns enter the capital he saw that most of them were Sudanese, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Tanzanians and others speaking Swahili or Sudanese languages, in other words, mercenaries. Several RPF officers have testified at the ICTR and stated that they fled the Kagame regime as they had been promised that they fought for liberation of the Tutsis. However, when they wanted to take over the streets of Kigali to stop reprisals against Tutsis by Hutu civilians the junior officers were forbidden to do so, putting the lie to Kagame's claim that he attacked to save Tutsis. These officers testified that Kagame wanted deaths to justify his war. The RPF could have controlled large parts of Kigali as they had at least 15,000 men in or near the capital opposed to 5,000 Rwandan Army forces. Instead Kagame used his men to ethnically cleanse the rest of the country of the Hutu population. The Rwanda War was a total war. All means were used to destroy that country and the Hutu people. The ultimate objective, the resources of the Congo. The US agreed to support the RPF in return for the RPF acting as a US proxy force to invade the Congo and seize its resources. The US now has several military bases in Rwanda and the country is nothing more than a US and UK colony run by thugs who keep control of the majority of the people by intimidation, murder and disinformation. None of this could have happened if those in the UN such as Kofi Anan, then in charge of the Department of peacekeeping operations, had done his job. None of this could have happened without the connivance of the NATO countries and Uganda, from where the invasion was launched. Ultimately, the prime responsibility rests with the United States of America and in particular the regimes of Bill Clinton and George W Bush and now President Barack Obama. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then UN Secretary General, stated to Canadian historian Robin Philpot in 2004: "The United States is one hundred percent responsible for what happened in Rwanda". _____ Toronto-based Christopher Black is a Barrister and International Criminal Lawyer. He is Lead Counsel, General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwandan Gendarmerie. International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda (ICTR). http://www.blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5831/2009-07-03.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 07:45:20 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:45:20 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Open Letter from Iranians for Peace + Statement by Gilbert Achcar, Tariq Ali, Mohssen Massarrat, Muhammad Sahimi, et al. Message-ID: A couple of statements by Iranians for reconciliation in Iran, the latter also signed by a few notable non-Iranian Marxists such as Gilbert Achcar and Tariq Ali. Worthy of support and circulation. -- Yoshie Open Letter to Iranian Authorities and World Community by Iranians for Peace As members of the Board of Iranians For Peace (IFP), we are deeply concerned about the events following June 12 election in Iran particularly the street violence, loss of life, and widespread arrests. One of the detainees, Dr Bijan Khajehpour Khoei, is a supporter of the IFP. We appeal to the Iranian authorities to help resolve the current crisis by promoting dialogue through reconciliation, respect for human life, and seeking consensus based on the aspirations of the Iranian people. If not healed, the current conflict could cause a rift in the Iranian society leaving the country vulnerable to serious destabilizing threats. We also appeal to the Iranian authorities for the immediate release of Dr Khajehpour Khoei and all those detainees who are not in violation of Iranian laws. Respect for the constitution and acknowledging peaceful expressions of grievance can only promote justice and strengthen the country. Last but not least, we consider the current conflict an internal matter to be resolved by Iranians in an environment free of outside threats. For this reason, we call on the United Nations for the removal of all existing sanctions on Iran and for imposition of no further sanctions. Similarly, any threat of military intervention by Israel or any other country is unjustified and should be condemned by the world community. We look forward to a speedy resolution of these conflicts allowing Iran to continue its strong and peaceful presence in the region and the world. Dr. Akbar Etemad, Honorary Co-Chair Dr. Fatemeh Keshavarz, Honorary Co-Chair Golriz Kolahi (Coordinator) Haleh Karimi Sahba Lajevardi Sara Ruebelt Safa Shoaee Leila Zand This open letter was first published on the Web site of Iranians for Peace: . "Human Beings Are Members of a Whole": Protecting the Iranian Civil Society Statement by 40 Engaged Scholars Human beings are members of a whole, In creation of one essence and soul. If one member is afflicted with pain, Other members uneasy will remain. If you have no sympathy for human pain, The name of human you cannot retain. -- A poem by the Persian poet Sa'adi (1210-1290) gracing the entrance of the Hall of Nations of the United Nations building in New York City If we speak out against the threat of force against Iran (regarding the nuclear conflict) and warn against a military strike, we cannot be silent on the use of force in Iran itself against its own civil society. For solidarity with the civil society and a peaceful order in the region constitute the primary concern of our efforts. If we condemn foreign sanctions against the Iranian people, we deplore all the more domestic sanctions directed at peaceful demonstrators, journalists, trade unionists, professors, students and others. Thereby the government deprives itself of the domestic basis needed against foreign threats. Not only as individuals but also conjointly as a group of engaged scholars, we want to announce our resolute protest against the brutal clampdown of demonstrators and against the mass arrests, and strongly advise a peaceful dialogue with the civil society. We call upon the government to release all political prisoners of the last few weeks -- amongst them many professors -- and to seek dialogue with precisely those persons as moderators of the civil society. Freedom of opinion and the right to demonstrate -- cornerstones of the UN Charter of Human Rights to which Iran is a signatory -- are being massively violated in today's Iran. We strongly remind that the state of siege and the continuing threat of force that have emanated from foreign governments once again fatally demonstrate how thereby the spaces for a democratic development in Iran are being reduced. At the same time, we deplore the slanted and misleading depictions of the recent events in Iran in some international media. As supporters of the Iranian civil society, we stress the genuine nature of the protests by the Iranian democracy movement. Composed of various societal strata, the demonstrators first and foremost have advocated free elections and freedom of expression. Also, it is astonishing that precisely those who have supported crippling sanctions and pushed for preventive strikes against Iran, whereby civilians have been and would be harmed, suddenly speak about solidarity with the Iranian people. They only will be convincing when they stand up against sanctions and the threat of force and advocate a peaceful dialogue in the region. Signed by: 1. Dr. Behrooz Abdolvand, Free University of Berlin & Academic Advisory Board of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) 2. Prof. Gilbert Achcar, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London 3. Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London 4. Prof. Ahmad Ahgary, Association of Iranian Scientists and Engineers in Germany (VINI) 5. Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Task Force & Iran Heritage 6. Tariq Ali, writer, London 7. Dr. Katajun Amirpur, Jesuit School of Philosophy in Munich 8. Dr. Matin Baraki, University of Marburg & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 9. Angelika Beer, Co-Chair of the EastWest Institute's Parliamentarian Network for Conflict Prevention and Human Security, Brussels 10. Dr. Bettina Bouresh, Archive of the Regional Authority (Landschaftsverband) Rhineland, Germany 11. Reiner Braun, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 12. Prof. Hamid Dabashi, Columbia University 13. Prof. Hans-Peter D?rr, Right Livelihood Award 1987 14. Prof. Abbas Edalat, Imperial College London & Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) 15. Ali Fathollah-Nejad, University of M?nster & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 16. Prof. Sasan Fayazmanesh, California State University, Fresno 17. Prof. Ali Gorji, University of M?nster 18. Foaad Khosmood, University of California at Santa Cruz & CASMII International Steering Committee 19. Prof. Mohssen Massarrat, University of Osnabr?ck & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 20. Naz Massoumi, convenor of Campaign Iran, London 21. Prof. Georg Meggle, University of Leipzig 22. Prof. Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran & Urosevic Research Foundation, London 23. Tobias Pfl?ger, former MEP (German Left Party) & Information Agency Militarization (IMI), T?bingen (Germany) 24. Daniel M. Pourkesali, U.S. Board of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) 25. Prof. Ahad Rahmanzadeh, University of Bonn & & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 26. Sanaz Raji, University of Leeds & London School of Economics and Political Science 27. Lieutenant Colonel J?rgen Rose, German Air Force, Munich 28. Prof. Werner Ruf, University of Kassel & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 29. Prof. Dr. Nader Sadeghi, George Washington University, Washington D.C. 30. Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 31. Dr. Sabine Schiffer, Institute for Media Responsibility (IMV), Erlangen (Germany) 32. Dr. Yvonne Schmidt, University of Graz & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 33. Prof. Ursula Schumm-Garling, Frankfurt/Main 34. Miriam Shabafrouz, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Hamburg 35. Siba Shakib, author & filmmaker 36. Prof. Albert Stahel, University of Zurich & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 37. Dr. Rainer Werning, political scientist and author 38. Bernhard Trautvetter, Peace Forum Essen (EFF), Germany 39. Kaveh Yazdani, University of Osnabr?ck 40. Azadeh Zamirirad, University of Potsdam Translated from German by Ali Fathollah-Nejad From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 10:12:10 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:12:10 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Egypt: Tax Collectors' Sit-in Message-ID: Not getting any play in the Western media, but the struggle in Egypt is incomparably more promising for the advancement of the Left than whatever is going on in Iran. BTW, have I mentioned that Hossam el-Hamalawy, referenced below, is very handsome (and about four decades younger than Mousavi who is even older than Ahmadi) in case any of you is looking for a cute Middle Eastern youth to back, the fashion in this political season? He's a revolutionary Marxist, too (unlike probably 99.99999% of the Green protesters in Iran, no matter how cute they are) if that means anything to you. :-> -- Yoshie 11 August, 2009 Tax Collectors Repeat Historical Sit-in Egypt's real estate tax collectors have begun a strike in defense of their independent union. Hossam el-Hamalawy is twittering from their sit-in in Hussein Hegazy street outside the cabinet, where hundreds are chanting against the state-controlled unions - just like they did for 11 days some 20 months ago. This reminds me of a remark made by Kamal Abu Eita, the head of the free union, during a conference organized by Tadamon just before I left Egypt in June: "Everyone is saying that we created the first independent union in Egypt since 1957. But every union is independent, and controlled by it's members - if it isn't, it's not a union. So we have in fact established the first union in Egypt since the 50' Given the extent of state manipulation and control of the Egyptian Trade Union Federation I believe this statement was correct. When security intervenes to purge "radical" workers from even the lowest levels of the union hierarchy, which often happened in the last union elections in 2006, unions cease to be unions and turn into branches of the state. This is why this is probably going to be an intense confrontation, where more is at stake than the fight over who is going to control the social fund - the final outcome this struggle may determine the viability of the future existence of the only real union in Egypt. UPDATE: Hossam uploaded some pics here, and will post continuous updates and links (English and Arabic) here. Posted by Per Bjorklund at 14:42 10 August, 2009 Egypt's State-Controlled Unions Under Pressure The state-controlled trade union federation has been coming under increasing pressure lately, as the wave of wildcat strikes continues - especially in the textile sector - and different groups of workers and state employees attempt to organize independently. The isolation of the state-controlled unions is underlined by two important developments, unfolding as I'm writing this (check out Hossam Al-Hamalawy's blogg for updates): First, the threat by the tax collectors' independent union to go on national strike on Tuesday to defend their union, secondly the refusal of the workers at Tanta Flax and Oils to suspend their strike (which just entered its third month) despite orders to do so from the state-controlled union. Since I'm not in Egypt I can't report on these events directly, but perhaps some (very brief) history would be in place - for those not familiar with the background of the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) and its relation to the state. As Egypt emerged from the post-WWII economic crisis, strike wave and struggle for national liberation, a vibrant trade union movement had developed. In the early 50's experienced unionists and political activists on the left sought to establish a national federation of trade unions - but their founding conference was banned by the Free Officers after the coup of July 1952. Instead, the federation was founded only in 1957 under the tutelage of the new regime. During the Nasser era, workers were granted a number of benefits, with one of the most important probably being the strenghtening of employment security, but faced new restrictions on the right to strike and organize independently. This "social contract," as some social scientists would call it, was broken - or made irrelavant - in the 70's. As the neo-liberal wave hit Egypt and Sadat introduced his "intifah" policies, the rapidly increasing gulf between working people and more affluent classes led to an upsurge of the left and a new wave of wildcat strikes around the years 1974 and 1975. One of the results of this upsurge of the left and the workers movement was that more than 4000 "leftists" - including both socialists or communists and Nasserists - were elected to positions within the unions in 1976. Many of them were dedicated to strenghtening the independence of the trade union federation, but more importantly they - and many non-ideological unionists - were hard opponents of the politics of liberalization and privatization, which was then only starting to take shape. (I recommend Marsha Pripstein Posusney's Labour and the State in Egypt for a detailed analysis of this period). The regime responded to this upsurge of workers' militancy and leftist politics in two ways. First, Sadat encouraged islamic movements on the universities (some of which would later turn into militant jihadist groups) to counter the left. Second, the regime cracked down on the radical elements of the trade union movement. The bread riots in January 1977, a spontaneous revolt led by workers and the urban poor against an IMF-sponsored decision to cut bread subsidies, was used as a pretext to arrest hundreds of leftists and radical workers. New laws passsed during this period introduced hard labour as punishment for striking workers and imposed hard restrictions on who could enter trade union elections - anyone considered a member of a group that opposed the "divine laws" of the state was banned. As a consequence, only a little more than a hundred "leftists" won positions in the unions in the 1979 elections - and many of them were jailed in the continued crackdown on the left and labour movement in the following years. In this way, the unions were purged from virtually anyone considered a radical - from communists to non-ideological but comitted unionists - paving the way for the continued push towards economic restructuring along neo-liberal free market-principles. It should be noted that during the repression of the left during the 70's, some "leftists" decided to break with their past to avoid arrest and save their careers. While some did this out of fear, the more opportunistic ones even joined the NDP. Among the latter we find Aisha abdel Hady, a former member of the socialist Tagammu party that "switched sides" in order to climb through the trade union structure and eventually become minister of manpower - a position she has recently used to denounce strikes as being "incited by the Muslim Brootherhood" and attack the independent press for giving them coverage... This is something to bear in mind whenever anyone says that Egyptian workers are only raising economic demands and don't care about politics. With the authoritarian state excerting such efforts to manipulate and control the unions - by suspending all resemblance of internal democracy - the line between economic and political demands grows very thin. Any worker raising his or her voice against bad working conditions of low salaries is also engaging in a political act. And when workers feel betrayed by their unions, their anger is quickly directed against the state - since the difference between them is almost non-existent anyway. And when they eventually try and form their own unions that truly represent them, they do so fully aware that the regime will perceive this a serious political challenge that has to be crushed. Posted by Per Bjorklund at 17:02 From suzannedk at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 12:55:33 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:55:33 +0200 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Washington is Playing a Deeper Game with China In-Reply-To: <20090812103009.f5da7894.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <20090812103009.f5da7894.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: I knew the riots of th Uigurs was set up, as they share Islam and Washington has based it's World War Empire on destroying all of Islam, just as Germany based it's World War Empire on destroying all the Jews. But I did not know how it was done. Much like Honduras and Georgia! Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Bill Totten wrote: > > by F William Engdahl > > Global Research (July 11 2009) > > > After the tragic events of July 5 in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in > China, it would be useful to look more closely into the actual role of the > US Government's "independent" NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy > (NED). All indications are that the US Government, once more acting > through its "private" Non-Governmental Organization, the NED, is massively > intervening into the internal politics of China. > > The reasons for Washington's intervention into Xinjiang affairs seems to > have little to do with concerns over alleged human rights abuses by > Beijing authorities against Uyghur people. It seems rather to have very > much to do with the strategic geopolitical location of Xinjiang on the > Eurasian landmass and its strategic importance for China's future economic > and energy cooperation with Russia, Kazakhastan and other Central Asia > states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. > > The major organization internationally calling for protests in front of > Chinese embassies around the world is the Washington, DC-based World > Uyghur Congress (WUC). > > The WUC manages to finance a staff, a very fancy website in English, and > has a very close relation to the US Congress-funded NED. According to > published reports by the NED itself, the World Uyghur Congress receives > $215,000 annually from the National Endowment for Democracy for "human > rights research and advocacy projects". The president of the WUC is an > exile Uyghur who describes herself as a "laundress turned millionaire", > Rebiya Kadeer, who also serves as president of the Washington DC-based > Uyghur American Association, another Uyghur human rights organization > which receives significant funding from the US Government via the National > Endowment for Democracy. > > The NED was intimately involved in financial support to various > organizations behind the Lhasa "Crimson Revolution" in March 2008, as well > as the Saffron Revolution in Burma/Myanmar and virtually every regime > change destabilization in eastern Europe over the past years from Serbia > to Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgystan to Teheran in the aftermath of the > recent elections. > > Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was > quite candid when he said in a published interview in 1991: "A lot of what > we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA". > > The NED is supposedly a private, non-government, non-profit foundation, > but it receives a yearly appropriation for its international work from the > US Congress. The NED money is channelled through four "core foundations". > These are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, > linked to Obama's Democratic Party; the International Republican Institute > tied to the Republican Party; the American Center for International Labor > Solidarity linked to the AFL-CIO US labor federation as well as the US > State Department; and the Center for International Private Enterprise > linked to the US Chamber of Commerce. > > The salient question is what has the NED been actively doing that might > have encouraged the unrest in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and what > is the Obama Administration policy in terms of supporting or denouncing > such NED-financed intervention into sovereign politics of states which > Washington deems a target for pressure? The answers must be found soon, > but one major step to help clarify Washington policy under the new Obama > Administration would be for a full disclosure by the NED, the US State > Department and NGO's linked to the US Government, of their involvement, if > at all, in encouraging Uyghur separatism or unrest. Is it mere coincidence > that the Uyghur riots take place only days following the historic meeting > of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? > > > Uyghur exile organizations, China and Geopolitics > > On May 18 this year, the US-government's in-house "private" NGO, the NED, > according to the official WUC website, hosted a seminal human rights > conference entitled East Turkestan: Sixty Years under Communist Chinese > Rule, along with a curious NGO with the name, the Unrepresented Nations > and Peoples Organisation (UNPO). > > The Honorary President and founder of the UNPO is one Erkin Alptekin, an > exile Uyghur who founded UNPO while working for the US Information > Agency's official propaganda organization, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty > as Director of their Uygur Division and Assistant Director of the > Nationalities Services. > > Alptekin also founded the World Uyghur Congress at the same time, in 1991, > while he was with the US Information Agency. The official mission of the > USIA when Alptekin founded the World Uyghur Congress in 1991 was "to > understand, inform, and influence foreign publics in promotion of the > [USA] national interest ?" Alptekin was the first president of WUC, and, > according to the official WUC website, is a "close friend of the Dalai > Lama". > > Closer examination reveals that UNPO in turn to be an American > geopolitical strategist's dream organization. It was formed, as noted, in > 1991 as the Soviet Union was collapsing and most of the land area of > Eurasia was in political and economic chaos. Since 2002 its Director > General has been Archduke Karl von Habsburg of Austria who lists his > (unrecognized by Austria or Hungary) title as "Prince Imperial of Austria > and Royal Prince of Hungary". > > Among the UNPO principles is the right to 'self-determination' for the 57 > diverse population groups who, by some opaque process not made public, > have been admitted as official UNPO members with their own distinct flags, > with a total population of some 150 million peoples and headquarters in > the Hague, Netherlands. > > UNPO members range from Kosovo which "joined" when it was fully part of > then Yugoslavia in 1991. It includes the "Aboriginals of Australia" who > were listed as founding members along with Kosovo. It includes the Buffalo > River Dene Nation indians of northern Canada. > > The select UNPO members also include Tibet which is listed as a founding > member. It also includes other explosive geopolitical areas as the Crimean > Tartars, the Greek Minority in Romania, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria > (in Russia), the Democratic Movement of Burma, and the gulf enclave > adjacent to Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and which > just happens to hold rights to some of the world's largest offshore oil > fields leased to Condi Rice's old firm, Chevron Oil. Further geopolitical > hotspots which have been granted elite recognition by the UNPO membership > include the large section of northern Iran which designates itself as > Southern Azerbaijan, as well as something that calls itself Iranian > Kurdistan. > > In April 2008 according to the website of the UNPO, the US Congress' NED > sponsored a "leadership training" seminar for the World Uyghur Congress > (WUC) together with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. > Over fifty Uyghurs from around the world together with prominent > academics, government representatives and members of the civil society > gathered in Berlin Germany to discuss "Self-Determination under > International Law". What they discussed privately is not known. Rebiya > Kadeer gave the keynote address. > > > The suspicious timing of the Xinjiang riots > > The current outbreak of riots and unrest in Urumqi, the capital of > Xinjiang in the northwest part of China, exploded on July 5 local time. > > According to the website of the World Uyghur Congress, the "trigger" for > the riots was an alleged violent attack on June 26 in China's southern > Guangdong Province at a toy factory where the WUC alleges that Han Chinese > workers attacked and beat to death two Uyghur workers for allegedly raping > or sexually molesting two Han Chinese women workers in the factory. On > July 1, the Munich arm of the WUC issued a worldwide call for protest > demonstrations against Chinese embassies and consulates for the alleged > Guangdong attack, despite the fact they admitted the details of the > incident were unsubstantiated and filled with allegations and dubious > reports. > > According to a press release they issued, it was that June 26 alleged > attack that gave the WUC the grounds to issue their worldwide call to > action. > > On July 5, a Sunday in Xinjiang but still the USA Independence Day, July > 4, in Washington, the WUC in Washington claimed that Han Chinese armed > soldiers seized any Uyghur they found on the streets and according to > official Chinese news reports, widespread riots and burning of cars along > the streets of Urumqi broke out resulting over the following three days in > over 140 deaths. > > China's official Xinhua News Agency said that protesters from the Uighur > Muslim ethnic minority group began attacking ethnic Han pedestrians, > burning vehicles and attacking buses with batons and rocks. "They took to > the street ... carrying knives, wooden batons, bricks and stones", they > cited an eyewitness as saying. The French AFP news agency quoted Alim > Seytoff, general secretary of the Uighur American Association in > Washington, that according to his information, police had begun shooting > "indiscriminately" at protesting crowds. > > Two different versions of the same events: The Chinese government and > pictures of the riots indicate it was Uyghur riot and attacks on Han > Chinese residents that resulted in deaths and destruction. French official > reports put the blame on Chinese police "shooting indiscriminately". > Significantly, the French AFP report relies on the NED-funded Uyghur > American Association of Rebiya Kadeer for its information. The reader > should judge if the AFP account might be motivated by a US geopolitical > agenda, a deeper game from the Obama Administration towards China's > economic future. > > Is it merely coincidence that the riots in Xinjiang by Uyghur > organizations broke out only days after the meeting took place in > Yakaterinburg, Russia of the member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation > Organization, as well as Iran as official observer guest, represented by > President Ahmadinejad? > > Over the past few years, in the face of what is seen as an increasingly > hostile and incalculable United States foreign policy, the major nations > of Eurasia - China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan > have increasingly sought ways of direct and more effective cooperation in > economic as well as security areas. In addition, formal Observer status > within SCO has been given to Iran, Pakistan, India and Mongolia. The SCO > defense ministers are in regular and growing consultation on mutual > defense needs, as NATO and the US military command continue provocatively > to expand across the region wherever it can. > > > The Strategic Importance of Xinjiang for Eurasian Energy Infrastructure > > There is another reason for the nations of the SCO, a vital national > security element, to having peace and stability in China's Xinjiang > region. Some of China's most important oil and gas pipeline routes pass > directly through Xinjiang province. Energy relations between Kazkhstan and > China are of enormous strategic importance for both countries, and allow > China to become less dependent on oil supply sources that can be cut off > by possible US interdiction should relations deteriorate to such a point. > > Kazak President Nursultan Nazarbayev paid a State visit in April 2009 to > Beijing. The talks concerned deepening economic cooperation, above all in > the energy area, where Kazkhastan holds huge reserves of oil and likely as > well of natural gas. After the talks in Beijing, Chinese media carried > articles with such titles as "Kazakhstani oil to fill in the Great Chinese > pipe". > > The Atasu-Alashankou pipeline to be completed in 2009 will provide > transportation of transit gas to China via Xinjiang. As well Chinese > energy companies are involved in construction of a Zhanazholskiy gas > processing plant, Pavlodar electrolyze plant and Moynakskaya hydro > electric station in Kazakhstan. > > According to the US Government's Energy Information Administration, > Kazakhstan's Kashagan field is the largest oil field outside the Middle > East and the fifth largest in the world in terms of reserves, located off > the northern shore of the Caspian Sea, near the city of Atyrau. China has > built a 613-mile-long pipeline from Atasu, in northwestern Kazakhstan, to > Alashankou at the border of China's Xinjiang region which is exporting > Caspian oil to China. PetroChina's ChinaOil is the exclusive buyer of the > crude oil on the Chinese side. The pipeline is a joint venture of CNPC and > Kaztransoil of Kazkhstan. Some 85,000 barrels per day of Kazakh crude oil > flowed through the pipeline during 2007. China's CNPC is also involved in > other major energy projects with Kazkhstan. They all traverse China's > Xinjiang region. > > In 2007 CNPC signed an agreement to invest more than $2 billion to > construct a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and > Kazakhstan to China. That pipeline would start at Gedaim on the border of > Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and extend 1,100 miles through Uzbekistan and > Kazakhstan to Khorgos in China's Xinjiang region. Turkmenistan and China > have signed a thirty-year supply agreement for the gas that would fill the > pipeline. CNPC has set up two entities to oversee the Turkmen upstream > project and the development of a second pipeline that will cross China > from the Xinjiang region to southeast China at a cost of some $7 billion. > > As well, Russia and China are discussing major natural gas pipelines from > eastern Siberia through Xinjiang into China. Eastern Siberia contains > around 135 trillion cubic feet of proven plus probable natural gas > reserves. The Kovykta natural gas field could give China with natural gas > in the next decade via a proposed pipeline. > > During the current global economic crisis, Kazakhstan received a major > credit from China of $10 billion, half of which is for oil and gas sector. > The oil pipeline Atasu-Alashankou and the gas pipeline China-Central Asia, > are an instrument of strategic 'linkage' of central Asian countries to the > economy China. That Eurasian cohesion from Russia to China across Central > Asian countries is the geopolitical cohesion Washington most fears. While > they would never say so, growing instability in Xinjiang would be an ideal > way for Washington to weaken that growing cohesion of the Shanghai > Cooperation Organization nations. > > _____ > > William Engdahl is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian > Democracy in the New World Order (2009). > > _____ > > Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation > > by F William Engdahl > > Global Research (2007) ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2 > > > This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political > American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human > survival: the provision of our daily bread. "Control the food and you > control the people". > > This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the > reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science > labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. > > The author cogently reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political > intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation > and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over > food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should > come as no surprise. For that is what it is. > > Engdahl's carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar > controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a > scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those > committed to the causes of social justice and World peace. > > > What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is > so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in > this new age of "free markets", everything - science, commerce, > agriculture and even seeds - have become weapons in the hands of a few > global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve > world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All > they need is to control food production. (Dr Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, > formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland) > > > If you want to learn about the socio-political agenda - why biotech > corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World - you should > read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations > want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist ... > (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia) > > The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which > four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to > use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence ... (Anton > Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria). > > To order Seeds of Destruction click here: > http://globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html > > > Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole > responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the > Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of > sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on > Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or > incorrect statements contained in this article. > > To become a Member of Global Research: > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership > > The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles > on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. > The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication > of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial > internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com > > www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has > not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are > making such material available to our readers under the provisions of > "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, > economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed > without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving > it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted > material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission > from the copyright owner. > > For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com > > (c) Copyright F William Engdahl, Global Research, 2009 > > (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14327 > > > TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click > on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this > essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Aug 12 18:18:09 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:18:09 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Public Option in Banking Message-ID: <20090813091809.e5b079b1.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> How We Can Beat Wall Street At Its Own Game by Ellen Brown www.webofdebt.com (August 05 2009) President Obama has repeated his call for a public option in health care, in order to create some competition for the insurance companies and keep them honest. We the people need to call for a public option in banking, in order to create some competition for the private banks and keep them honest. In Wall Street's latest affront to the public trust, the nine mega-banks graced with $125 billion in taxpayer bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were reported last week to be paying out billions of dollars in bonuses to their executives. At least 4,793 bankers and traders received more than $1 million each in bonus payments, although it was one of Wall Street's worst years on record. After months of investigating banker compensation, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said on July 30, "The repeated explanation from bank executives that bonuses are tied to performance in a manner designed to promote (national economic) growth does not appear to be accurate". To say that it was an understatement would be an understatement. The bonuses paid to executives not only were not tied to national economic growth but were not even tied to some reasonable percentage of company profits. In fact they were generally greater than the net income of the banks. Morgan Stanley, for example, had $1.7 billion in earnings and paid $4.5 billion in bonuses. Goldman Sachs had $2.3 billion in earnings and paid $4.8 billion in bonuses. JP Morgan Chase had $5.6 billion in earnings and paid $8.7 billion in bonuses. JP Morgan's largesse involved showering 1,626 of its favorite execs and traders with bonuses of $1 million or more. For most people, a "bonus" is a few hundred dollars at Christmastime. A million dollars is what you work a lifetime to try to save, and few people reach that goal. Even Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, which have been called zombie banks, paid $5.3 billion and $3.6 billion in bonuses, respectively - although they lost more than $27 billion each in earnings. The bar for merit is apparently so low that you're entitled to a bonus if your zombie bank simply keeps breathing! These blatantly inflated bonuses are just the last in a litany of abuses by those same profligate banks that nearly destroyed our economic system. If the derivatives on their books were "marked to market" (valued at what they would fetch on the market), the banks would be bankrupt, and their employees would be out of a job. Instead, they have been allowed to inflate the value of their "toxic" assets - and sell them to the US government at the inflated value. Then they have taken the money they got from the government at these inflated prices and paid back the TARP money they received - allowing them to post inflated earnings and reward themselves with inflated bonuses! Many people feel that these bankers are thieves stealing from the public till who should be looking at jail time. But who is there to stop their parade of outrages? No one in Congress, the White House, or the news media is calling them on the carpet for it. As Senator Dick Durbin said recently, Wall Street owns Congress; and that is also true of the major media. We may not be able to stop them, but we can join them. We the people need to play the bankers' game ourselves. Even corporate giants such as General Motors and WalMart have now gotten into the banking game and are easing their credit problems by forming their own banks. The US public sector is late to the party. States, counties, public universities could take the lucrative system the private banking industry has created for itself and turn it to productive use in the public interest. Keeping the Banks Honest with Some Public Competition In President Obama's July 17 weekly address, he repeated his call for a public option in health care, in order to "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" and to "put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry". The same call needs to be made for a public option in banking. In some countries, publicly-owned banks have operated alongside privately-owned banks for decades; and in those countries, the current crisis has served to show that public banks generally do a better job of serving the people and protecting their interests than their private counterparts. In Canada, the trendsetter in public banking is the province of Alberta. Alberta's publicly-owned banking system, called Alberta Treasury Branches or ATB, was initiated during the Great Depression to give the private banks a run for the public's money. According to a government publication titled "These Are the Facts: An Authentic Record of Alberta's Progress, 1935-1948": "The Treasury Branch system enables the people to pool their financial resources and to use these resources for their mutual benefit thereby enabling them to progressively free themselves from the stranglehold of the existing financial monopoly. These Treasury Branches provide effective competition for chartered banks thereby ensuring banking services at reasonable rates." From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 20:30:26 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:30:26 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Iran calls for ban on striking nuke facilities Message-ID: I'm with the Iranian government on this one. -- Yoshie Iran calls for ban on striking nuke facilities By GEORGE JAHN (AP) ? 5 hours ago VIENNA, Austria ? Iran, whose nuclear facilities are under threat of possible Israeli military strikes, proposed Wednesday that a 150-nation conference convening in the fall ban such attacks. Iran says the proposal, revealed to The Associated Press by diplomats and confirmed by a senior Iranian envoy, is not linked to veiled threats by Israel of an attack as a last resort if the international community fails to persuade Tehran to freeze its nuclear activities. Instead, all of the diplomats said the Iranian initiative seeks support for a generally worded document prohibiting all armed attacks against nuclear installations anywhere, when 150 nations convene for the September general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We are not worried about Israel," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief envoy to the IAEA. "Nobody dares to do anything against Iran." He said an Iranian resolution will seek a worldwide ban on such attacks as "a matter of principle." "I think this is an urgent concern for all of the international community," he said. "All member states will support the idea." He said his country submitted a proposal that a resolution specifying such a ban be put forward for a vote at the meeting, which begins Sept. 14. The IAEA's general conference already passed a resolution in September 1990 entitled "Prohibition of All Armed Attacks Against Nuclear Installations Devoted to Peaceful Purposes Whether Under Construction or in Operation." But Soltanieh, who said his country was a key architect of that document, said a fresh resolution was called for because "nuclear installations all over the world are increasing and any sort of threatening attacks ... will have radiological consequences all over the world." But Israeli warplanes have attacked nuclear sites before, and Iran appeared to be trying to ramp up diplomatic pressure on the Jewish state in hopes of reducing the chances of an attack. The country's war planes crippled Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 to prevent Saddam Hussein from the means of developing nuclear weapons. More recently, an Israeli air attack nearly two years ago destroyed what the U.S. says was a nearly finished nuclear reactor in Syria that would have been able to produce plutonium when completed. Israel, which is considered to have nuclear weapons, has been quiet publicly regarding its military intentions but has sent several signals to Iran. Most recently, an Israeli submarine believed to have the capability of carrying nuclear-tipped missiles last month returned to the Mediterranean after crossing to the Red Sea in the direction of Iran, a mission seen as a warning. Also, Israel has held air force maneuvers that were described unofficially in Israel as mock attacks on Iranian targets. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last month suggested on a talk show that the United States would not stand in Israel's way if it chose to attack Iran to scuttle its nuclear ambitions. And the administration of President Barack Obama itself has not taken the Bush era option of a such a strike by U.S. forces off the table. Still, Israeli strategists face far more formidable odds than they did against Iraq or Syria if contemplating any attack on Iran. Its main known nuclear site at Natanz, a city about 300 miles (500 kilometers) south of Tehran, is far underground in a cavernous fortified hall where thousands of centrifuges churn out enriched uranium, a potential core for nuclear warheads. Its above ground facilities ? the Bushehr light-water reactor and the Arak heavy water reactor under construction - are ringed by anti-aircraft defenses. And IAEA officials, speaking privately, have not ruled out the chance that Tehran is hiding other nuclear sites in areas in the sprawling country that are not known to Israeli intelligence. Iran has defied three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions aimed at pressuring it to mothball uranium enrichment. It also is resisting an IAEA probe of intelligence-based information that it had drafted plans and conducted experiments for a weapons program. Tehran denies such charges and insists its enrichment program is geared only toward generating the fuel to produce nuclear energy. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 21:10:25 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:10:25 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Ban Ki-moon's Mysterious Letter to Ahmadinejad Message-ID: Fars News claims that Ban Ki-moon sent a letter of congratulation to Ahmadinejad. Asked about it, Ban's spokeswoman Marie Okabe (who must be a Japanese American) first said, yes, indeed, Ban did, and then beat a hasty retreat, so as not to get too out of line with the Western powers. What's really interesting (to me, anyway) is that Japan broke with the West on this one. Way to go! Way overdue, though. It should have broken with the West when Iran offered a great Azadegan deal to a Japanese consortium, but at that time Tokyo bowed to Washington (as it almost always does on every issue where there is a difference of opinion or interest between the two) and the deal was off. Among the industrialized nations, Japan is the most dependent on oil from the Middle East. The Japanese (as well as Europeans) do NOT have convenient gas stations located to their north and south, unlike the US of A which has Canada and Mexico, so Japan must have its own independent Middle East policy, to counteract the adventurist US policy that contributes to destabilization of the whole region. -- Yoshie ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????????: ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ??? U.N. says Ban didn't congratulate Iran's Ahmadinejad Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:24pm IST By Louis Charbonneau UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations said on Wednesday that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon did not congratulate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his contested re-election, reversing a previous statement. Asked on Tuesday if Ban had sent a congratulatory letter to Ahmadinejad, U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said "yes." But when reporters asked her for details on Wednesday, she said it could not be construed in any way as congratulating Ahmadinejad. "It is not accurate to refer to this as a congratulatory letter," she said, adding the United Nations would not release the contents of the letter. Okabe said Ban's letter "takes advantage of the occasion of the inauguration to express the hope that Iran and the United Nations will continue to cooperate closely in addressing regional and global issues." A spokesman for Iran's U.N. mission could not be reached for comment. The results of Iran's June 12 election plunged the country into its biggest internal crisis since the 1979 Islamic revolution, exposed deepening divisions in its ruling elite and set off a wave of protests that left 26 people dead. Western leaders, already upset by Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric, Holocaust denial and uncompromising nuclear line, refused to congratulate the president on his inauguration last week, although their counterparts in Japan and Turkey did so. Among those leaders who withheld their congratulations were U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Aug 13 03:14:37 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:14:37 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Bernanke's Shell Game Message-ID: <20090813181437.20ddda1b.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Isn't Anyone Watching the Fed? by Mike Whitney CounterPunch (August 04 2009) Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a man who knows how Washington works and uses that knowledge to great effect. His appearences on Capital Hill are always worth watching. He sits politely with his hands folded in front of him playing the bashful professor while one preening congressman after another makes a fool out of himself. In contrast, Bernanke looks modest and thoughtful, faithfully upholding the public's trust. But things aren't always as they seem. The Fed chief is sticking it to the American people big-time and no one seems to have any idea of what's really going on. Former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler sums it up in a recent Wall Street Journal article, "The Bernanke Market". Here's a clip: "By buying U.S. Treasuries and mortgages to increase the monetary base by $1 trillion, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke didn't put money directly into the stock market but he didn't have to. With nowhere else to go, except maybe commodities, inflows into the stock market have been on a tear. Stock and bond funds saw net inflows of close to $150 billion since January. The dollars he cranked out didn't go into the hard economy, but instead into tradable assets. In other words, Ben Bernanke has been the market." What does it mean? It means the revered professor Bernanke figured out a way to circumvent Congress and dump more than a trillion dollars into the stock market by laundering the money through the big banks and other failing financial institutions. As Kessler suggests, Bernanke knew the liquidity would pop up in the equities market, thus, building the equity position of the banks so they wouldn't have to grovel to Congress for another TARP-like bailout. Bernanke's actions demonstrate his contempt for the democratic process. The Fed sees itself as a government-unto-itself. Over at Zero Hedge, Tyler Durden did the math and figured that the recent 45 per cent surge in the S&P 500 had nothing to do with the fictional economic "recovery", but was just more of the Fed's hanky panky. Durden noticed that the money that's been sluicing into stocks hasn't (correspondingly) depleted the money markets. That's the clue that led him to the truth about Bernanke's six month stock rally. Zero Hedge: "Most interesting is the correlation between Money Market totals and the listed stock value since the March lows: a $2.7 trillion move in equities was accompanied by a less than $400 billion reduction in Money Market accounts! "Where, may we ask, did the balance of $2.3 trillion in purchasing power come from? Why the Federal Reserve of course, which directly and indirectly subsidized US banks (and foreign ones through liquidity swaps) for roughly that amount. Apparently these banks promptly went on a buying spree to raise the all important equity market, so that the US consumer whose net equity was almost negative on March 31, could regain some semblance of confidence and would go ahead and max out his credit card. Alas, as one can see in the money multiplier and velocity of money metrics, US consumers couldn't care less about leveraging themselves any more." So, the magical "Green Shoots" stock market rally was fueled by a mere $400 billion from the money markets. The rest ($2.3 trillion) was main-lined into the market via Bernanke's quantitative easing (QE) program, of which Krugman and others speak so highly. Wouldn't you like to know if Bernanke sat down with Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan executives and mapped out the details of this swindle before the printing presses ever started rolling? So, how long can this kind of fakery go on before our creditors grow weary of dealing with chiselers and stop buying US Treasuries altogether? Here's a piece from Friday's Wall Street Journal on that very topic: "Shaky auctions of Treasury notes this week reignited concerns about whether the government can attract buyers from China and elsewhere to soak up trillions in new debt. "A fuse was lit this week when traders noted China's apparent absence from direct participation in two Treasury bond auctions. While China may have bought Treasurys just before the auctions, market participants read the country's actions as a worrying sign that China and other foreign investors may be ratcheting back purchases at a time when the US is seeking to fund a $1.8 trillion budget deficit. "This week alone, the US deluged the bond market with more than $200 billion in record-size sales. The US has had little trouble finding buyers in recent months. But that demand is fading, and the Treasury market has become volatile." Uncle Sam is goosing the bond market just like he is the stock market. Take a look at Treasury's latest bit of chicanery which was stuffed in the back pages of the Wall Street Journal back in June: "The sudden increase in demand by foreign buyers for Treasurys, hailed as proof that the world's central banks are still willing to help absorb the avalanche of supply, mightn't be all that it seems. "When the government sells bonds, traders typically look at a group of buyers called indirect bidders, which includes foreign central banks, to divine overseas demand for US debt. That demand has been rising recently, giving comfort to investors that foreign buyers will continue to finance the US's budget deficit. "But in a little-noticed switch on June 1, the Treasury changed the way it accounts for indirect bids, putting more buyers under that umbrella and boosting the portion of recent Treasury sales that the market perceived were being bought by foreigners." ("Is foreign Demand as Solid as it Looks", Min Zeng) Nice touch, eh? So, someone doesn't want you and me to know when foreign demand drops off a cliff, so they just bend-and-twist the definitions so they meet the Fed's requirements. How's that for transparency? Apparently, Bernanke et al don't believe the Chinese have translators who can make sense of all this subterfuge. That may be a miscalculation, however, given recent rumblings from the Orient. But, perhaps, Bernanke knows that foreign demand for Treasuries will dry up and has made other plans to stabilize the dollar already. Maybe he worked out an agreement with the banks that if he pumped up the stock market - which he has -and built up the banks equity position - which he has - the banks would return the favor by buying up the lion's-share of Treasuries. This is from Bloomberg (August 3): "US lenders bailed out by the government are returning the favor by stepping up purchases of Treasuries, helping to temper a rise in borrowing costs. "Bank holdings of US government securities are up 15.6 per cent from a year ago, almost double the average annual growth rate of about eight per cent since the Federal Reserve began tracking the data in 1973, according to the Greenwich, Connecticut-based trading and research firm MKM Partners LP. Purchases may accelerate as lenders look for places to park rising deposits as sales of federal agency debt of companies such as Fannie Mae and corporate bonds slow." (Bloomberg) One hand washes the other. Funny how that works. So, the bottom line is that the dollar is increasingly balanced on the rotting scaffolding of Bernanke's buyback programs (Quantitative Easing) and the circular purchases from collaborating banks that are concealing their backroom dealings with the Fed. To keep this game going, Bernanke will have to keep juicing the market while the banks use the $850 billion in reserves (which the Fed has provided in the last year) to keep purchasing US sovereign debt. Is anyone in Congress watching or is this shell game going to go on forever? _____ Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney at msn.net http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08042009.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 11:24:36 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Bill Clinton to speak at CNE In-Reply-To: <621ACC2309F1479AAD083C916A0279A4@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1124885737.2972341250184276997.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Former U.S. president Bill Clinton is going to be paide $175,000 to make a speech at the Canadian National Exhibition: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/newspaper/20090813/cartoon-400.png From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 12:37:17 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Interview on CBC Radio's The Early Edition In-Reply-To: <3692FBDA13BC462A8DE9CAB18BB0DFF5@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1639014436.3006271250188637542.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Early Edition CBC Radio Thursday August 13, 2009 Anti-semitism or red herring? Sid Shniad, co-chair of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, tells why he's in favour of the United Church's resolutions calling for a boycott of Israel. Download this interview. (runs 6:26 | mp3) http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/bcearlyedition_20090813_19081.mp3 From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 12:59:46 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Right-wing militias on the rise in US: report Message-ID: <1035804942.3016401250189986841.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Agence France Presse August 12, 2009 Right-wing militias on the rise in US: report By Alex Ogle WASHINGTON ? Incensed by the election of the first black US president, right-wing militia groups in the United States are rising again after a decade of decline, according to new research on extremist groups. Ideologically driven by racism and a virulent anti-government, anti-taxation and anti-immigrant agenda, the homegrown groups that thrived in the 1990s and spurred numerous deadly terrorist attacks are expanding, said the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). "This is the most significant growth we've seen in 10 to 12 years," said a law enforcement official quoted by the SPLC in its special report "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias." "All it's lacking is a spark," said the official, adding it is "only a matter of time before you see threats and violence." Attacks continued in the last decade after the 1995 bombing of a government building in Oklahoma , killing 168 people -- the deadliest domestic terrorist attack on US soil. Such violent movements mostly subsided in the 2000s, however, following prosecutions and the election of the highly conservative George W. Bush as president, said the SPLC's Mark Potok. A key difference today, the Center said, is that "the federal government -- the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy -- is headed by a black man," tapping into the latent rage of white supremacist culture. According to SPLC research in February, there has been a 54-percent rise in race-based hate groups in the United States since 2000, from 602 then to 926 in 2008. Their study Wednesday also draws direct correlations between Barack Obama's presidency and numerous murders of law-enforcement officials this year. "One man 'very upset' with the election of America 's first black president was building a radioactive 'dirty bomb'... Another angry at the election and said to be interested in joining a militia killed two sheriff's deputies in Florida ," said Larry Keller at the SPLC. A key component for the rise of militias is a vibrant world of unsubstantiated yet widely publicized conspiracies. "The current political environment is awash with seemingly absurd but nonetheless influential conspiracy theories, hyperbolic claims and demonized targets... This creates a milieu where violence is a likely outcome," said the Center, citing longtime analyst of radical right-wing movements Chip Berlet. The other major factor for militia recruitment and acceptance is their ideology being aped and championed by mainstream media commentators and politicians, the report said. Commentators on cable news were singled out for airing and promoting conspiracy theories -- notably Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, who has described Obama alternatively as a "fascist," a "Nazi" and a "Marxist." Beck, who has a regular audience of some 2.5 million viewers on his nightly show, has even "re-floated militia conspiracy theories of the 1990s alleging a secret network of government-run concentration camps," said the SPLC. Earlier this year Texas Governor Rick Perry raised the prospect of his state's secession; US Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said she feared Obama was planning "reeducation camps for young people." In April, an internal government report also warned of right-wing extremists exploiting worries spawned by the economic downturn and Obama's election as recruiting tools, which could lead "to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violence attacks." Greater Internet access has also boosted access to bomb-making know-how and the ability to reach a vast audience of like-minded people, said the Department of Homeland Security -- later criticized by conservatives and veterans groups for singling out returning soldiers. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 13:02:13 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] British docs hit back at U.S. health-care critics Message-ID: <1533399068.3017481250190133658.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The Province August 13, 2009 British docs hit back at U.S. health-care critics LONDON -- British health professionals Wednesday defended Britain 's government-run National Health Service after the organization was cited by conservatives in the United States as a reason why President Barack Obama's plans for government-controlled medical care must be opposed. Politicians and right-wing organizations have seized on a series of alarmist statements about the NHS to rally opposition to what they call "ObamaCare" -- the president's effort to ensure that all Americans gain access to health care within a decade at a cost of up to $1.5 trillion. Obama described the attacks as scaremongering by critics who feared that they would have to pay higher insurance premiums to support the extension of care to poorer Americans. Experts within the NHS condemned the allegations made in speeches and television advertisements as half-truths and distortions. "The NHS does a damn fine job," said Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health. "These claims are complete and utter rubbish. The horrific thing about the American system is that there are tens of millions of people without health insurance. "We spend less on health in terms of GDP than America but if you look at health indices, especially for life expectancy, we have better figures than they do in America ." Democrats have received rowdy receptions at town hall meetings. Some have even had death threats. Anna Dixon, the director at the King's Fund, the independent think tank, described allegations as "stereotypes of the NHS from problems in the 1980s and 1990s when there were really long waiting lists." Maryon-Davis conceded that U.S. health care was more advanced at the highest levels but said patients in Britain quickly gained access to most treatments. "Most people do not need the very hi-tech stuff," he said. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 13:06:07 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Is US Going Insane over Health Care? Message-ID: <1767054218.3019171250190367809.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/08/10/HealthCareCrazy/ The Tyee Is US Going Insane over Health Care? Town halls 'gone wild' part of right's well-oiled fake freakout against reform. By Center for American Progress Staff , 10 August 2009, AlterNet.org [ Editor's note: Canadians might understandably despair over the state of U.S. political culture, seeing the wild claims and public tantrums there against Obama-supported reforms that would move the United States toward the kind of universal health care enjoyed in this country. But this report unveils how the far right is faking the freak-out. ] With U.S. federal lawmakers returning home last week to begin their month-long recess, the far right is welcoming them with large, angry throngs at "town halls gone wild." "Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops [and] congressmen fearful for their safety" have marked the ugly scenes that have become the rule in recent days, as normally respectful meetings between representatives and their constituents have been inundated with right-wing protesters focused on killing health care reform. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) became one of the more widely publicized victims, when a mob of protesters chanting "just say no" to health care followed him out of an event. These encounters are being orchestrated by the same lobbyist-run groups -- Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks -- that brought together the tax-day tea parties in April. While trying to give the appearance of a "grassroots" uprising, the demonstrations are cover for a corporate-lobbyist engineered harassment strategy that encourages participants to "yell," "stand up and shout," and "rattle" elected officials in favor of reforming health care. Their goal -- recently outlined by an influential lobbyist as "delay" then "kill" -- is apparent: Having successfully delayed a vote until after the August recess, lobbyists are seizing on town halls to ambush lawmakers in an attempt to fool them and the greater public into thinking there is wide opposition to health care reform. Last week, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs took a "hard line against the Tea-Party organized disruptions," labelling them a "Brooks Brothers Brigade," a reference to GOP staffers staging protests during the 2000 Florida recount. The memos As with the tea parties, these town halls are "lessons in how political interests enlist human and technological resources to build political pressure while those responsible remain safely behind the curtain." Last week, The Progress Report obtained a leaked memo from a volunteer with Tea Party Patriots, a website sponsored by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) (led by a former associate of Jack Abramoff) and FreedomWorks (led by former Republican majority leader and current lobbyist Dick Armey). The memo detailed how town hall goers should infiltrate meetings and harass Democratic members of Congress. The memo said activists should "stand up and shout out and sit right back down" so the representative is "made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington ." The overall goal, said the memo, is to "rattle" the elected official. Earlier this week, a FreedomWorks volunteer, who doubles as a Tea Party protester, published another memo that outlined a strategy "for his fellow activists -- a playbook of sorts for protesters seeking to disrupt and harass members of Congress during town hall forums in their districts." A broad strategy Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has endorsed the strategy of staged protests, telling Politico the days of civil town halls are now "over." In a memo to House Republicans, minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised "anger" during the August recess: "Americans' anger will be on full display in the weeks ahead as members of Congress leave Washington and travel the nation listening to the voices of their constituents." The published memos are similar to talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks that push an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by AFP, is busing people all over the country to protest health care reform. America 's Health Insurance Plans, the trade group and lobbying juggernaut representing the health insurance industry, is also sending staffers to monitor town halls in 30 states. Meanwhile, Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), led by disgraced hospital executive Rick Scott, is running a national campaign against a public health care option. Last week, the group took credit for "helping gin up the sometimes-rowdy outbursts targeting House Dems at town hall meetings around the country, raising questions about their spontaneity." Earlier in the week, a representative of CPR "sent an e-mail to a list-serve (called the Tea Party Patriots Health Care Reform Committee) containing a spreadsheet that lists more than 100 congressional town halls from late July into September." And last weekend, CPR announced it will send staff to "confront" lawmakers at town halls and then transition to negative ads. Town halls gone wild In one incident of right-wing outrage, protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), forcing police to escort him to his car. In another, anti-health-care protesters hung up an effigy of Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) outside his district office in Salisbury , MD. The city was the site of a recent symposium on the dangers of "government-run health care," sponsored by a group called "Patients First," a project of AFP. Two nights ago, Reps. Steve Kagen (D-WI) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH) had to face down angry mobs. Kagen, whose town hall was targeted by the Wisconsin chapter of AFP, was "repeatedly disrupted" by "incomprehensible" shrieks and shouts from conservatives. On Aug. 4, Fox's local Houston affiliate reported that at a rowdy town hall hosted by Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), some attendees admitted "they don't live in the district." Still, Democrats are vowing not to let the disruptions stop health care reform. "I hope my colleagues won't fall for a sucker punch like this," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told The Progress Report. "These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town halls for visual impact on television." Doggett agreed. After his town hall was ambushed, he declared, "I am more committed than ever to win approval of legislation to offer more individual choice to access affordable health care. An effective public plan is essential to achieve that goal." Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised Democrats wouldn't waiver: "In spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings and just throw a monkey wrench into everything, we're going to continue to be positive and work hard." [Tyee] This report was compiled by by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ian Millhiser and Nate Carlile of The Progress Report, the daily policy newsletter of the Center for American Progress Action Fund . From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 13:07:28 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] New statement on solidarity with Iran In-Reply-To: <335539691.2974811250184602987.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1451883341.3019631250190448485.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/iran050809.html "Human Beings Are Members of a Whole": Protecting the Iranian Civil Society Statement by 40 Engaged Scholars Human beings are members of a whole, In creation of one essence and soul. If one member is afflicted with pain, Other members uneasy will remain. If you have no sympathy for human pain, The name of human you cannot retain. -- A poem by the Persian poet Sa'adi (1210-1290) gracing the entrance of the Hall of Nations of the United Nations building in New York City If we speak out against the threat of force against Iran (regarding the nuclear conflict) and warn against a military strike, we cannot be silent on the use of force in Iran itself against its own civil society. For solidarity with the civil society and a peaceful order in the region constitute the primary concern of our efforts. If we condemn foreign sanctions against the Iranian people, we deplore all the more domestic sanctions directed at peaceful demonstrators, journalists, trade unionists, professors, students and others. Thereby the government deprives itself of the domestic basis needed against foreign threats. Not only as individuals but also conjointly as a group of engaged scholars, we want to announce our resolute protest against the brutal clampdown of demonstrators and against the mass arrests, and strongly advise a peaceful dialogue with the civil society. We call upon the government to release all political prisoners of the last few weeks -- amongst them many professors -- and to seek dialogue with precisely those persons as moderators of the civil society. Freedom of opinion and the right to demonstrate -- cornerstones of the UN Charter of Human Rights to which Iran is a signatory -- are being massively violated in today's Iran. We strongly remind that the state of siege and the continuing threat of force that have emanated from foreign governments once again fatally demonstrate how thereby the spaces for a democratic development in Iran are being reduced. At the same time, we deplore the slanted and misleading depictions of the recent events in Iran in some international media. As supporters of the Iranian civil society, we stress the genuine nature of the protests by the Iranian democracy movement. Composed of various societal strata, the demonstrators first and foremost have advocated free elections and freedom of expression. Also, it is astonishing that precisely those who have supported crippling sanctions and pushed for preventive strikes against Iran, whereby civilians have been and would be harmed, suddenly speak about solidarity with the Iranian people. They only will be convincing when they stand up against sanctions and the threat of force and advocate a peaceful dialogue in the region. Signed by: 1. Dr. Behrooz Abdolvand , Free University of Berlin & Academic Advisory Board of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) 2. Prof. Gilbert Achcar , School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London 3. Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam , School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London 4. Prof. Ahmad Ahgary, Association of Iranian Scientists and Engineers in Germany ( VINI ) 5. Mohammad Ala , Persian Gulf Task Force & Iran Heritage 6. Tariq Ali , writer, London 7. Dr. Katajun Amirpur , Jesuit School of Philosophy in Munich 8. Dr. Matin Baraki , University of Marburg & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 9. Angelika Beer , Co-Chair of the EastWest Institute's Parliamentarian Network for Conflict Prevention and Human Security, Brussels 10. Dr. Bettina Bouresh , Archive of the Regional Authority (Landschaftsverband) Rhineland, Germany 11. Reiner Braun , International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 12. Prof. Hamid Dabashi , Columbia University 13. Prof. Hans-Peter D?rr , Right Livelihood Award 1987 14. Prof. Abbas Edalat , Imperial College London & Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) 15. Ali Fathollah-Nejad , University of M?nster & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 16. Prof. Sasan Fayazmanesh , California State University, Fresno 17. Prof. Ali Gorji , University of M?nster 18. Foaad Khosmood , University of California at Santa Cruz & CASMII International Steering Committee 19. Prof. Mohssen Massarrat , University of Osnabr?ck & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 20. Naz Massoumi , convenor of Campaign Iran, London 21. Prof. Georg Meggle , University of Leipzig 22. Prof. Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh , Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran & Urosevic Research Foundation, London 23. Tobias Pfl?ger , former MEP (German Left Party) & Information Agency Militarization (IMI), T?bingen (Germany) 24. Daniel M. Pourkesali , U.S. Board of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) 25. Prof. Ahad Rahmanzadeh , University of Bonn & & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 26. Sanaz Raji , University of Leeds & London School of Economics and Political Science 27. Lieutenant Colonel J?rgen Rose , German Air Force, Munich 28. Prof. Werner Ruf , University of Kassel & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 29. Prof. Dr. Nader Sadeghi , George Washington University, Washington D.C. 30. Prof. Muhammad Sahimi , University of Southern California, Los Angeles 31. Dr. Sabine Schiffer, Institute for Media Responsibility (IMV), Erlangen (Germany) 32. Dr. Yvonne Schmidt , University of Graz & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 33. Prof. Ursula Schumm-Garling , Frankfurt/Main 34. Miriam Shabafrouz , German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Hamburg 35. Siba Shakib , author & filmmaker 36. Prof. Albert Stahel , University of Zurich & Academic Advisory Board of CASMII 37. Dr. Rainer Werning , political scientist and author 38. Bernhard Trautvetter, Peace Forum Essen ( EFF ), Germany 39. Kaveh Yazdani , University of Osnabr?ck 40. Azadeh Zamirirad , University of Potsdam From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 15:23:19 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] United Church: No to national boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: <412418EFF6A34B1DAEFFC421E1757998@twubby.com> Message-ID: <706736460.3077821250198599677.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> United Church: No to national boycott of Israel The United Church Commission has voted no to a call for a national economic boycott of Israel but encourages all levels of the church to study ways to end the occupation of the disputed Palestinian territories: http://gc40.united-church.ca/en/node/677 From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 13 16:49:33 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] United Church of Canada said "No" to national boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: <1860256180.3116301250203707691.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <648364954.3116701250203773406.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> I just talked to a Toronto UCC minister who has been one of our staunchest allies. She says the tone of the video clip has it all wrong and that everyone who was involved in organizing for what ultimately transpired (about which I have little detail) is delighted with how the ultimate decision moved the church forward significantly on the issue. I'll keep you posted. Sid From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Aug 13 17:11:13 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:11:13 +0200 Subject: [R-G] United Church of Canada said "No" to national boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: <648364954.3116701250203773406.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <1860256180.3116301250203707691.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <648364954.3116701250203773406.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: Thanks for letting me know! I am not suprised. That is how Hitler got under the radar. They kept turnng it off on demand. Moving the church forward is not enough any more. Years too late. Genocides too late. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Sid Shniad wrote: > I just talked to a Toronto UCC minister who has been one of our staunchest > > allies. She says the tone of the video clip has it all wrong and that > everyone who > was involved in organizing for what ultimately transpired (about which I > have little > detail) is delighted with how the ultimate decision moved the church > forward > significantly on the issue. > > I'll keep you posted. > > Sid > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Aug 13 17:13:21 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:13:21 +0200 Subject: [R-G] United Church: No to national boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: <706736460.3077821250198599677.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <412418EFF6A34B1DAEFFC421E1757998@twubby.com> <706736460.3077821250198599677.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: How to say yes while your whole body says NO! suzannedk at gmail On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > United Church: No to national boycott of Israel > > > The United Church Commission has voted no to a call for a national > economic boycott of Israel but encourages all levels of the church to > study ways to end the occupation of the disputed Palestinian territories: > http://gc40.united-church.ca/en/node/677 > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Aug 13 18:35:18 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:35:18 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Expiring Economy Message-ID: <20090814093518.0b4684ac.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Tent City America by Paul Craig Roberts CounterPunch (August 06 2009) Global Research (August 06 2009) Tent cities springing up all over America are filling with the homeless unemployed from the worst economy since the 1930s. While Americans live in tents, the Obama government has embarked on a $1 billion crash program to build a mega-embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, to rival the one the Bush government built in Baghdad, Iraq. Hard times have now afflicted Americans for so long that even the extension of unemployment benefits from six months to eighteen months for 24 high unemployment states, and to 46 - 72 weeks in other states, is beginning to run out. By Christmas 1.5 million Americans will have exhausted unemployment benefits while unemployment rolls continue to rise. Amidst this worsening economic crisis, the House of Representatives just passed a $636 billion "defense" bill. Who is the United States defending against? Americans have no enemies except those that the US government goes out of its way to create by bombing and invading countries that comprise no threat whatsoever to the US and by encircling others - Russia for example - with threatening military bases. America's wars are contrived affairs to serve the money laundering machine: from the taxpayers and money borrowed from foreign creditors to the armaments industry to the political contributions that ensure $636 billion "defense" bills. President George W Bush gave us wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are entirely based on lies and misrepresentations. But Obama has done Bush one better. Obama has started a war in Pakistan with no explanation whatsoever. If the armaments industry and the neoconservative brownshirts have their way, the US will also be at war with Iran, Russia, Sudan and North Korea. Meanwhile, America continues to be overrun, as it has been for decades, not by armed foreign enemies but by illegal immigrants across America's porous and undefended borders. It is more proof of the Orwellian time in which we live that $636 billion appropriated for wars of aggression is called a "defense bill". Who is going to pay for all of this? When foreign countries have spent their trade surpluses and have no more dollars to recycle into the purchase of Treasury bonds, when US banks have used up their "bailout" money by purchasing Treasury bonds, and when the Federal Reserve cannot print any more money to keep the government going without pushing up inflation and interest rates, the taxpayer will be all that is left. Already Obama's two top economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers, are floating the prospect of a middle class tax increase. Will Obama be maneuvered away from his promise just as Bush Senior was? Will Americans see the disconnect between their interests and the interests of "their" government? In the small town of Vassalboro, Maine, a few topless waitress jobs in a coffee house drew 150 applicants. Women in this small town are so desperate for jobs that they are reduced to undressing for their neighbors' amusement. Meanwhile, the Obama government is going to straighten out Afghanistan and Pakistan and build marble palaces to awe the locals half way around the world. The US government keeps hyping "recovery" the way Bush hyped "terrorist threat" and "weapons of mass destruction". The recovery is no more real than the threats. Indeed, it is possible that the economic collapse has hardly begun. Let's look at what might await us here at home while the US government pursues hegemony abroad. The real estate crisis is not over. More home foreclosures await as unemployment rises and unemployment benefits are exhausted. The commercial real estate crisis is yet to hit. More bailouts are coming, and they will have to be financed by more debt or money creation. If there are not sufficient purchasers for the Treasury bonds, the Federal Reserve will have to purchase them by creating checking accounts for the Treasury, that is, by debt monetization or the printing of money. More debt and money creation will put more pressure on the US dollar's exchange value. At some point import prices, which include offshored goods and services of US corporations, will rise, adding to the inflation fueled by domestic money creation. The Federal Reserve will be unable to hold down interest rates by buying bonds. No part of US economic policy addresses the systemic crisis in American incomes. For most Americans real income ceased to grow some years ago. Americans have substituted second jobs and debt accumulation for the missing growth in real wages. With most households maxed out on debt and jobs disappearing, these substitutes for real income growth no longer exist. The Bush-Obama economic policy actually worsens the systemic crisis that the US dollar faces as reserve currency. The fact that there might be no alternative to the dollar as reserve currency does not guarantee that the dollar will continue in this role. Countries might find it less risky to settle trade transactions in their own currencies. How does an economy based heavily on consumer spending recover when so many high-value-added jobs, and the GDP and payroll tax revenues associated with them, have been moved offshore and when consumers have no more assets to leverage in order to increase their spending? How does the US pay for its imports if the dollar is no longer used as reserve currency? These are the unanswered questions. _____ Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington (1985), Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1999), Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy (1990), and is the co-author with Lawrence M Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice (2008). Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct: http://www.vdare.com/pb/death_of_due_process.htm Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright Paul Craig Roberts, counterpunch.org, 2009 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08062009.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROB20090806&articleId=14676 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:24:55 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:24:55 -0500 Subject: [R-G] United Church: No to national boycott of Israel References: <412418EFF6A34B1DAEFFC421E1757998@twubby.com> <706736460.3077821250198599677.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <0991E9F89E534F489B5DCD320EA86391@agingCHS072729> > How to say yes while your whole body says NO! suzannedk at gmail Your comment seems a bit removed from reality. As churches/religions go, recent history (last few decades anyway) of the United Church in Canada has actually been on the progressive side (in terms of First Nations, GLBT movement, and various other social justice issues), so I'm not sure what you're intimating here. And no, I'm not a church-goer.... Richard Menec ============== Join our alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:26:12 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:26:12 -0500 Subject: [R-G] What's really in your shampoo Message-ID: <10F7AEB77592495DA4D1279626C5B566@agingCHS072729> http://www.salon.com/env/good_life/2009/08/13/shampoo/ Salon.com `Aug. 13, 2009 What's really in your shampoo Sure, a couple ingredients clean your hair. But the rest are a veritable toxic dump on your head By Bill Bunn There are two types of ingredients in shampoo. One type cleans your hair. The other type strokes your emotions. I'm holding a bottle of Pantene Pro V, one of the world's most popular shampoos. Of the 22 ingredients in this bottle of shampoo, three clean hair. The rest are in the bottle not for the hair, but for the psychology of the person using the shampoo. At least two-thirds of this bottle, by volume, was put there just to make me feel good. The world spends around $230 billion on beauty products every year. Of this figure, $40 billion go to shampoo purchases. North Americans blow almost $11 billion on shampoo and conditioner each year. So most soap manufacturers aren't willing to rely on a product that merely works. The bigger job is convincing the consumer that their soap is adding value to the consumer's life. So shampoo bottles include an extra concoctions aimed at convincing the man or woman in the shower that the soap is more "luxurious" or "effective." Because beautiful hair doesn't just happen. Have you got the greasies? One shampoo ingredient is all you need: detergent. Detergents are chemicals designed to bond to both water and grease. When the shampooer massages shampoo into the scalp, the detergent adheres to the grease. The detergent attaches to the rinse water and leaves, taking the grease (sebum) with it. The most common shampoo detergents are ammonium lauryl sulphate and one of its molecular sidekicks, ammonium laureth sulphate. These viscous, yellow liquids, with the water of a shower, are enough to make your hair clean. They help stop the greasies. Shampoo tends to use five factors to help the user feel good about it: shine, thickeners, lather, color, smell, coatings and exotic ingredients. Those ingredients, though they have nothing to do with cleansing, are part of the sell to convince you that something beautiful happens to your hair. Consumers value shininess in nearly everything, including hair. For hair to shine, the cuticles of the hair must lay flat. Imagine a strand of hair as a stack of flimsy paper cups. When all the lips of the cup, called imbrications, lay flat, hair shines. Dull hair has the cups' lips sticking up. To get imbrications to lay flat, hair needs to be exposed to mildly acidic substances, so substances like citric acid are added to make the imbrications lay down and give hair that shiny look and to let yourself glow. Consumers believe that thick is better. Which may explain why George Bush was a two-termer. Shampooers trust the velvet heft of the shampoo in the palms of their hands. So five of the 20 ingredients on the list are there because they help thicken the soap. Thickness also guarantees that people use more shampoo than necessary. There's salt, glycol distearate, cetyl alcohol, ammonium xylene sulfonate and others: body on tap. And where would we be without suds? Cleaning agents do tend to foam a little when they're used, but the bubbles don't affect the cleansing much. However, the extra lather helps convince the shampooer that the soap is working. Lathering agents are added to boost the suds, chemicals like cocamide MEA. This little devil, besides being toxic in a few ways, also helps the lather to stay once it's been raised, a sudsy Viagra, with the help of known associates like the plastic PEG-7M. Great lather for great-looking hair. Consumers tend to believe that good things must also be pretty. So shampoo manufacturers add colors, like purple and green, with reflective particulates to form blossoming clouds. Colors are often a problem either for humans or for the environment, like good old red dye no. 3, banned in 1990, eight years after a number of reliable studies revealed its cancer-causing tendency. Don't hate it for being beautiful. Smell is important, because after the bathers have washed their hair, smell reminds them that the soap has done its job. Gee, some hair smells terrific. Smell is often associated with a brand, and smell helps to form the most intimate psychological connection a soap can make with its user. But the more "natural" the smell, the less natural the machinations behind it. That lovely apple smell has about as much to do with apples as Dick Cheney with world peace. And fragrance can be particularly dangerous because it's not specifically labeled. It's a combination of ingredients that could be harmless, on one hand or, on the other, noxious. Once the natural oils have been removed from scalp and hair, shampoo often replaces them with conditioners derived from animals or plants. These conditioners coat the air and smooth its surface. The bottle of shampoo I'm holding uses dimethicone to coat the hair (it also helps to thicken the shampoo). It's a silicone-based chemical that coats hair and skin. You'll also find it in caulking, Silly Putty, and herbicides. No more tears. No more tangles. Some shampoo sounds more like chicken marinade than shampoo, boasting of vitamins, minerals, protein and herbs. But, the vitamins and minerals and exotic extras play a useless role. So whether the shampoo brags that it is "infused" with real beer, exotic proteins, vitamins, antioxidants, or extracts from some fabulously endangered species, the additive saturates the users' minds, not their hair. All these ingredients would go bad were it not for preservatives, a chemical equivalent of the right to bear arms. Sodium benzoate, for example, is handy because it kills nearly every living thing that might start to grow in a shampoo bottle. Ironically, in most cases the detergents won't go bad. It's the psychological ingredients that need preservation. And these chemicals are tough to track down because tracking chemical names, it turns out, is a little like tracking criminals. Most have several aliases and fake IDs, play a role in many different products, and are shifty when caught and questioned. Some have long toxicity records; others are suspects in a range of problems. Of the 22 shampoo ingredients in my hand, all except three have proved to contribute, or are suspected of contributing, to health or environmental problems. Most of these ingredients, though known toxins, are permitted for use, because the small quantities limit human and environmental exposure. Most of the ingredients in shampoo "may" cause health concerns. The word "may" is used because most chemicals have never been tested. Of the more than 80,000 chemicals registered and used in the U.S. since World War II, fewer than 500 have ever been properly studied for their effects on humans and the environment. So it's hard to say exactly how dangerous it is to use shampoo every day. In May, 2008, Jane Houlihan, director of research for the Environmental Working Group, reported on the dangers of cosmetics and personal care products to a House subcommittee. She believes that these products, including shampoo, are the biggest source of human exposure to dangerous chemicals. According to Houlihan, "companies are free to use almost any ingredient they choose in personal care products, with no proof of safety required." Consumers are not properly warned of possible dangers because of a "lack of standards and labeling loopholes." Let's just say that the less you hang out with any of these chemicals, the better off you are, we all are. Mount Sinai Hospital reports that 2.5 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released in the U.S. each year, the equivalent of 37,100 tanker trucks of noxious chemicals. A lot of these chemicals are released from homes every day. Daily, 45 billion gallons of wastewater go down the drain to be treated at one of the 16,000 water treatment plants in the U.S. But wastewater plants are designed to handle only the major pollutants. They can't remove the diversity of chemicals that humans flush every day. This is the big problem with the shampoo ingredients: When a man rinses his hair, all the ingredients wash down the drain, carrying the grease to boot. And as one man's shampoo travels down the pipe, it meets up with a woman's, and so on, and so on, and so on. At least 350 million gallons of shampoo and its unregulated ingredients flow down U.S. drains every year. And many of these chemicals flow straight into our freshwater systems. Shampoo, for example, contributes to high levels of estrogen and estrogen-like substances (endocrine disrupters) in freshwater downstream of sewage treatment plants that damage fish populations and cause male fish to grow ovaries, a sort of liquid feminism. My hometown of Calgary, Canada, studied the fish downstream of where we add our treated sewage to the river and discovered that female fish outnumber male fish 9 to 1. Estrogen runs through it. One study identifies more than 200 chemicals that are still present in wastewater after treatment. But the problem is likely much larger: environmental damage is difficult to estimate because we're dumping chemicals into the environment that have never been studied. As we get to know some of these chemicals better, we discover that they should not be trusted. Health Canada banned two common shampoo ingredients a while ago, siloxanes D4 and D5, aka octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, respectively. D4 and D5 did make hair silky soft, easier to dry and easier to work with. They're also handy in making plastics and paint. Sometimes you need a little D4 or D5. Sometimes you need a lot. But Health Canada strongly suspects that D4 and D5 are significantly affecting fish and aquatic organisms. But, oh, how hair shines. So I can live without the bottled psychology. My new shampoo, Sunlight Dish Detergent, has just four ingredients. It's runny and slightly acidic, smells vaguely lemony, doesn't foam excessively and looks anemic. It's not perfect, just better. I need to apply it only once when I shampoo. With each shampoo, I use a 10th of the volume that regular shampoo requires. The bottle will last at least a year, as my last one did. And though its ingredients aren't worth celebrity endorsement, my hair gets clean and I expose my body and the environment to less risk. ............... About the writer Bill Bunn lives in Calgary, Alberta. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:27:05 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:27:05 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Factory in the Hands of Workers Message-ID: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3951 Factory in the Hands of Workers August, 14 2009 By Marie Trigona Zanon belongs to the people: FASINPAT wins definitive expropriation The workers at Argentina's occupied ceramics factory FASINPAT won a major victory this week, the factory now definitively belongs to the people in legal terms. The provincial legislature voted in favor of expropriating the ceramics factory and handing it over to the workers cooperative to manage legally and indefinitely. Since 2001, the workers at Zanon have fought for legal recognition of worker control at Latin America's largest ceramics factory which has created jobs, spearheaded community projects, supported social movements world-wide and shown the world that workers don't need bosses. "This is incredible, we are happy. The expropriation is an act of justice," said Alejandro Lopez the General Secretary of the Ceramists Union, overwhelmed by the emotion of the victory. "We don't forget the people who supported us in our hardest moments, or the 100,000 people who signed the petition supporting our bill." Hundreds of workers from the FASINPAT factory, factory without a boss, waited anxiously until the late hours of the night for the legislature's decision. The expropriation law passed 26 votes in favor and 9 votes against the bill. Thousands of supporters from other workers' organizations, human rights groups and social movements, along with entire families and students, joined the workers as they waited outside the provincial legislature in the capital city of Neuqu?n. Enduring the Patagonian winter weather, activists played drums and shouted: "here they are the workers of Zanon, workers without a boss." FASINPAT has operated under worker control since 2001 when Zanon's owners decided to close its doors and fire the workers without paying months of back pay or severance pay. Leading up to the massive layoffs and plant's closure, workers went on strike in 2000. The owner, Luis Zanon, with over 75 million dollars in debt to public and private creditors (including the World Bank for over 20 million dollars), fired en masse most of the workers and closed the factory in 2001-a bosses' lockout. In October 2001, workers declared the plant under worker control. The workers subsequently camped outside the factory for four months, pamphleteering and partially blocking a highway leading to the capital city of Neuqu?n. While the workers were camping outside the factory, a court ruled that the employees could sell off remaining stock. After the stock ran out, on March 2, 2002, the workers' assembly voted to start up production without a boss. Since the occupation, the workers renamed the factory FASINPAT (Factory without a Boss). The workers set up a stage with a giant screen for the thousands of supporters to view the legislative vote. As the decision was read, workers embraced one another in tears in disbelief that after 8 years of struggle they finally won legal control of the factory. "This decision reflects an organized struggle that won the support all of society," said Veronica Hullipan from the Confederation of Mapuche. She said that the network of Mapuche indigenous communities in the Patagonia have supported the Zanon workers' struggle and said legal decision is a "political triumph of workers' organization." Zanon workers reminded their supporters that the struggle of Zanon, was also the struggle of Carlos Fuentealba, a public school teacher from the province of Neuqu?n killed by a police officer during a peaceful protest in defense of public education. The Zanon workers have not only created jobs, but they have supported workers struggles locally, nationally and internationally. Workers from FASINPAT were present at the protest where Fuentealba was shot point blank in the head with a tear gas canister, in police repression ordered by the conservative ruling coalition of Neuqu?n MPN, which has ruled the Patagonian province since the 1976-1983 military dictatorship. "This is an important chapter in the struggle of the Zanon workers, who have been fighting in the streets for more than 9 years. First they tried to evict us in order to auction off the factory, the workers' struggle and the community pressured the government to expropriate the factory," Raul Godoy, Zanon worker told the national news daily P?gina/12. Today, the plant exports ceramics to 25 countries. Many legislative representatives wanted to demand that the workers at the self-managed factory "guarantee a pact for social peace." But for the workers, the pact for social peace is broken when businessmen fraudulently go bankrupt and throw hundreds of workers out into the street. "The capitalists are constantly declaring war with tariff increases, by privatizing public companies and with firings. Before this situation, the workers must defend themselves; and the workers at Zanon commit to defending ourselves, in the street, however we have to." According to the legislation passed, the FASINPAT cooperative which employs 470 workers and exports ceramics to more than 25 countries, will remain under the control of the cooperative. The state would pay off 22 million pesos (around $7 million) to the creditors. One of the main creditors is the World Bank - which gave a loan of 20 million dollars to Luis Zanon for the construction of the plant, which he never paid back. The other major creditor is the Italian company SACMY that produces state of the art ceramics manufacturing machinery and is owed over $5 million. However, the workers have resisted the state pay-off, saying that courts have proven that the creditors participated in the fraudulent bankruptcy of the plant in 2001, because the credits went directly to the owner Luis Zanon and not investments into the factory. "If someone should pay, Luis Zanon should pay, who is being charged with tax evasion," said Omar Villablanca from FASINPAT. Victory, then an eviction While the victory of FASINPAT brings hope to many of the 200 occupied factories currently operated under worker self-management in Argentina, many are still facing legal attacks. Early yesterday morning, just hours after the Zanon victory, a police operative evicted the factory Textil Quilmes, a thread factory occupied in the new wave of factory occupations in 2009. The four workers on night guard were evicted violently. The Buenos Aires provincial government is currently debating an expropriation bill for Textil Quilmes and several other new occupations in the Buenos Aires province. The textile workers are resisting the eviction at the factory's doors, rallying support to re-enter the factory despite police presence. They also had temporary legal protection, following an expropriation bill that was approved unanimously by the lower house in the provincial legislature. The workers occupied the plant on February 11, 2009. "We camped outside the plant to avoid the bosses' liquidation of the machinery. And the workers decided to take a direct action, occupy and form a cooperative," said Eduardo Santill?n, a Quilmes textile worker. With the remaining cotton left in the plant, the workers immediately began to produce cotton thread. At the time of the firing, more than 80 worked at the plant. In a common practice for business owners who file bankruptcy despite an increased demand for their product, the owner Ruben Ballani of Febatex owed the workers months of unpaid salaries, unpaid vacation time and social security. The workers also reported that the owner would force his employees to work 12 hour shifts, a practice outlawed nearly 100 years ago. Six months after the workers were fired and the union (Sindicato Textil - AOT) failed to intervene, the workers at Textil Quilmes started up production. They claim that the union, who turned their backs on the workers once they were fired, is now negotiating on behalf of the bosses. The occupations in Argentina continue to rise as the global economic crisis hits the South American nation. The Arrufat chocolate factory, Disco de Oro empanada pastry manufacturer, Indugraf printing press, Febatex thread producer and Lidercar meat packing plant joined the ranks of the worker occupied factory movement from 2008 to 2009. Textil Quilmes has fought along with workers from other factories occupied since the onset of the global economic crisis to demand expropriation laws; none have a definitive legal future. Many independent analysts expect the global recession to hit Argentina's real economy. Unemployment rates have gone up and industry growth has halted, while the financial sector remains unaffected because it already took a major blow in 2001. Those who benefited from Argentina's economic recovery of course are now those who are using this crisis as an excuse to downsize and lay-off workers with the promise of public bailout packages and government credits. The phenomenon of worker occupations continues to grow as the world falls deeper into the current recession. Nearly 20 new factories in Argentina were occupied since 2008. This may be a sign that workers are confronting the current global financial crisis with lessons and tools from previous worker occupied factories post-2001 economic collapse and popular rebellion. Today, some 250 worker occupied enterprises are up and running, employing more than 13,000. Many of these sites have been producing under worker self-management since 2002, providing nearly a decade of lessons, experiments, strategies and mistakes to learn from. Zanon and others from the occupied factory movement have proven that they are capable of doing what bosses aren't interested in doing: creating jobs and work with dignity. This may be why government representatives, industry leaders and factory owners have remained silent and often times reacted with hostility on this issue; they are afraid of these sites multiplying and the example they have set. At Zanon, workers constantly use the slogan: "Zanon es del pueblo" or Zanon belongs to the people. The workers have adopted the objective of producing not only to provide jobs and salaries for more than 470 people, but also to create new jobs, make donations in the community and to support other social movements. For many at the recuperated enterprises, the occupation of their workplace meant much more than safe-guarding their jobs, it also became part of a struggle for a world without exploitation. While the Zanon victory is a step in the right direction, many of the occupations are facing eviction orders. FASINPAT can now operate legally and focus their attention to producing ceramics in a faltering economy. The Zanon collective has expressed their continued commitment to defending workers' rights and self-management, which means defending all worker occupations with slogan: "si nos tocan a uno, nos tocan a todos" "if they mess with one of us, they mess with all of us." Marie Trigona is a writer, radio producer and filmmaker based in Argentina. She is currently writing a book on Worker Self-Management in Latin America forthcoming by AK Press. She can be reached at mtrigona at msn.com From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:27:56 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:27:56 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Cracks Emerging In NAFTA Message-ID: http://www.countercurrents.org/cooke120809.htm Countercurrents.org 12 August, 2009 Cracks Emerging In NAFTA By Shamus Cooke The once-solid North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) is starting to show its age. The 1994 trade agreement that laid the foundation for the economic/political integration of North America is encountering serious internal ruptures, threatening future "progress." The problems are numerous: fights over trade, immigration, and military cooperation are all issues that Obama recently discussed in Mexico with his NAFTA partners, Mexico and Canada. The annual meeting that usually delivers plans for additional integration was instead used to remedy these heated issues, none of which were fully solved. Both Mexico and Canada are angry with the U.S. for the "buy American" provision in Obama's stimulus bill, which they label correctly as "protectionist." The bill is explicit that many of the raw materials used in construction projects must be bought from U.S. corporations only, in violation of NAFTA. Mexico soon retaliated with taxes (tariffs) on dozens of U.S. goods entering Mexico, a spat that was hoped to have been solved with Obama's visit. Other conflicts involve immigration - between all three countries - and the transportation of goods. Although NAFTA was written with U.S. corporations first in mind, many of them have been out-competed by companies in Canada or Mexico. It was these U.S. corporations that pressured Obama into promising to "re-negotiate" NAFTA. A danger for U.S. workers, however, is to think that any re-negotiation of NAFTA is intended to help them. Some "fair trade" and anti-free-trade groups - many with connections to labor unions - used Obama's promise to re-negotiate NAFTA as proof that he should be supported. Since being elected, EVERY significant policy implemented under Obama has been anti-worker - bank bailouts, wars, killing EFCA, etc. The issue of "trade" will not be a progressive exception. This is because being "against free-trade" is not automatically progressive. The many U.S. corporations that hope to re-negotiate NAFTA to shut-out foreign competitors should not be admired for their actions. They are for the opposite of free-trade, protectionism, and instead of looking for low wages and poor working conditions abroad, seek to further implement them in the U.S. Some of these companies have codified their intentions in the TRADE Act, a U.S. congressional bill yet to be passed. Although the TRADE Act has a number of progressive statements concerning worker and environmental standards, it immediately contradicts itself by advocating specific pro-corporate polices, including: assessing how NAFTA has affected the "competitiveness" of U.S. corporations; "protecting intellectual property rights," protecting the "right to hold clear title to property" (for mega-corporations abroad); and wording that protects the "investments" of trans-national corporations and rich investors. This is the real reason that many Democrats feel compelled to pass the bill. Many Canadian and Mexican corporations are similarly miffed by NAFTA, threatening the plans of some corporations - the best market competitors - to further unify North America. These ideas find expression in the North American Union, a think tank plan to essentially turn the NAFTA countries into one nation, or at least to erase specific economic/political boundaries similar to what has happened in the European Union. Tension between feuding corporations, however, will keep the North American Union purely theoretical. Similar corporate conflicts are threatening further unification of the European Union, while also driving the World Trade Organization into an indefinite coma. The New World Order that many are predicting will emerge through agreements with various governments and international mega-corporations to exploit the world's labor force and resources - using a common currency, military, etc. - is unlikely to materialize. Internationally, conflicts between nations are on the rise; the world political situation has not been this tenuous for decades, with the threat of further regional wars being obvious (for example, in Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Georgia, and the U.S. meddling in Latin America, etc.). The world recession is further exacerbating these tensions, driving governments to off-load the economic crisis affecting their native corporations onto other governments through currency manipulation, state subsidies (bailouts, stimulus plans), tariffs (protectionism), etc. The New World Order theory is not new - long-ago referred to as "Ultra-Imperialism," a theory that took World War I to disprove. The corporations directing government policy in various nations cannot agree to live peacefully together; the bigger ones use their markets and military advantages to drive up profits at the expense of the smaller corporations residing in weaker countries. Capitalism is organically competitive and vicious, not cooperative. Another guarantee against New World Order integration is the phenomena of nationalism. The deeper the recession becomes, the more nationalistic/patriotic our government officials act. They will blame foreign countries and immigrants for the country's problems, but never the corporations inside their countries. Nationalistic sentiments were in part what led to disagreements at the recent NAFTA summit. One point of agreement, however, was the militarization of Mexico. The billion plus dollars that the U.S. has given Mexico under "Plan Mexico" to beef up "border security" and wage a "drug war," has thus far "led to more than 12,000 drug-related deaths, hundreds of allegations of human-rights violations against the military." (Washington Post, August 9, 2009). This "drug war" was conveniently begun when social movements in Mexico were at their peak, and many movement leaders have "accidentally" fallen victim to the military state. These human rights abuses include kidnapping, torture, murder, "disappearances," etc. Obama's reaction to these tragedies is to dismiss them, along with U.S. law. The law states that Plan Mexico aid must be restricted if human rights abuses continue. To skirt the law Obama merely used a false interpretation as to what was happening in Mexico - the Associated Press explains: "Obama told Calderon that human rights is a major priority for him, but also assured him that the State Department is working to prepare a report that recognizes all Mexico's efforts to prevent abuses." (August 9, 2009). This tweaking of the facts would apply equally to the above-mentioned TRADE Act, which says that the U.S. will sign free trade agreements with countries that have respectable human and labor rights records. If the current administration is to judge what constitutes a "violation" of rights, such an agreement will of course mean nothing. The U.S. government cannot be relied on to be a neutral enforcer of anything, especially in trade-related issues. For workers, taking sides on trade issues is itself a dangerous game to play, since one can be unwillingly drawn into an international market turf war between global corporations. Neither side deserves our support. The whole debate over free-trade versus protectionism is an argument between these corporate forces: the best competitors want free-trade and the other mega-corporations want protection from free-trade. Until these corporations are brought under the control of the people - something that cannot be done under the two party system - the issue of trade will remain a battle for market dominance. Free-trade, however, does contain a progressive element. All the countries in the world would benefit from a free exchange of goods, services, raw materials, ideas, etc. But under a capitalistic free-trade, the concept of cooperation gets soiled by the profit motive, which means a ruthless competitive battle over the international market. To win one must reduce prices to a minimum, especially by lowering labor costs, by any means necessary. Protectionism is anti-cooperation. The international goods and raw materials that were once freely traded become inaccessible, except by force. Protectionism helps speed the march to war, a fact recognized by the post World War II Bretton Woods agreement that helped create the World Trade Organization (then called G.A.T.T). Under capitalism, free-trade is a necessity, whereas protectionism signifies a descent into trade wars and military wars. In consequence, workers need a completely independent position. The notion that we can entrust our government to promote sane trade policies is unwarranted. Indeed, certain labor leaders love the issue of trade because it means they can sit back and do nothing, aside from encourage their members to vote Democrat. Before workers can encourage U.S. policy to be pushed abroad, it must first undergo drastic, progressive change domestically. Such a change has already happened in Latin America, where a progressive vision around trade has emerged in miniature form. A bloc of countries in Latin America have formed a trade agreement (ALBA), based on the principles of social welfare, bartering, and mutual economic aide - concepts that lie outside of the limits of capitalism. Because these Latin American countries are still semi or majority capitalistic, they cannot arrange agreements that are wholly cooperative, but their example shows what is possible on a small scale. Achieving a similar policy in the U.S. will first require the abandonment of the corporate-dominated two party capitalist system, and its replacement by an organization that is able to pursue the interests of workers. Such a party can only come into existence through a struggle that involves organized labor, community organizations, students, and all those interested in fighting for social justice. Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook at yahoo.com From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:28:27 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:28:27 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Congressmembers Call on Obama to Act on Honduras Message-ID: <87FA12771141474E93B08DE62C7A551A@agingCHS072729> August 11, 2009 Congressmembers Call on Obama to Act on Honduras Grijalva, Members of Congress call on President Obama to take further measures against Honduran coup regime Tucson, AZ Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ), together with 16 other members of Congress, recently delivered a letter to President Obama urging him to denounce human rights violations in Honduras and take further measures against the Honduran coup regime. Over a month has now passed since democratically elected president Manuel Zelaya was deposed and deported to Costa Rica by the Honduran military and, despite widespread international condemnation and diplomatic sanctions, the de facto regime remains firmly in place. As time wears on, the human rights situation in Honduras grows increasingly worrying, with a growing quantity of reports of violent repression of anti-coup protests, extrajudicial killings reminiscent of the death squad era of the early 80s and arbitrary arrests of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators. These violations have been accompanied by far-reaching media censorship and the beating, arrest and intimidation of independent journalists by military and police. The U.S. administration has taken important measures against the coup regime, such as halting military aid and other forms of non-humanitarian assistance to Honduras, but it is clear that further action is necessary to ensure that democracy is restored and the civil rights of Honduras??T citizens are respected. The co-signers of the letter to president Obama believe, therefore, that it is time for the U.S. administration to send a clear signal that the human rights violations that are being perpetrated under the coup regime in Honduras are unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. The letter also considers that the U.S. administration should take measures that directly target those responsible for the coup. Revoking the A-1 diplomatic visas of a few key coup officials, as the State Department did on July 29th, is a step in the right direction, but clearly not sufficient as this does not prevent those targeted by the decision from continuing to travel to the U.S. on tourist and other visas. The letter strongly urges president Obama to deny those involved in the coup entry to the United States and immediately instruct the Treasury Department to freeze their U.S.-based assets. Letter: From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:29:09 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:29:09 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Colombia: U.S. Bases Stoke the Flames of Regional Conflict Message-ID: https://nacla.org/node/6058 North American Congress on Latin America Aug 10, 2009 Colombia: U.S. Bases Stoke the Flames of Regional Conflict Roque Planas It was a moment that promised to define a new era in U.S.-Latin American relations: Obama greeted Hugo Ch?vez at the Summit of the Americas with a smile and a handshake, and Ch?vez responded with a gift and a heavily accented "I wanna be your friend." The Cold War-style chasm between Washington and the leftist leaders of the Andes that had widened during the Bush administration finally seemed to be narrowing a bit. But a nearly completed agreement between Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the Obama administration to grant the U.S. military access to Colombian bases is rapidly undermining whatever diplomatic progress was made in that fleeting moment. The Uribe administration announced on July 12 that it had nearly reached an agreement on the terms of a decade-long lease to allow U.S. military personnel to use Colombian military bases to conduct anti-drug trafficking and anti-terrorism operations. No draft of the agreement has yet been made public. The increased access would serve to replace the U.S. lease at Manta, Ecuador, the only U.S. base of operations in South America until the lease was allowed by the Correa administration to expire this month. President Uribe defended the agreement as a necessary step in his administration's fight against drug traffickers and Marxist guerrillas at a public event in Santa Marta last week. "This agreement guarantees continuity in the era of an improved Plan Colombia," he said, referring to the pact that has funneled $6 billion in U.S. aid to the Colombian government and military. The lease agreement has drawn criticism from Colombian congressmen across the political spectrum, who argue that the executive does not have the authority to allow foreign troops into the country. Liberal Senator Juan Manuel Gal?n claimed that the Uribe administration "bypassed the Senate." Senator Jairo Clopatofsky, an uribista of the right-wing Partido de la U, echoed Gal?n's criticisms. Senator Jorge Robledo of the left-wing Polo Democr?tico Alternativo Article 173 which states that the decision to "Permit the transit of foreign troops through the territory of the Republic" falls to the Senate. Colombian and U.S. authorities have sought to calm critics by reassuring them that the agreement will not constitute the creation of an autonomous zone of U.S. military operation. "Any activity performed within the framework of the agreement has to be coordinated and authorized by the Colombian authorities," said Minister of Defense General Freddy Padilla de Le?n. U.S. Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield has reiterated the same point and has emphasized that the increased U.S. presence should not be misconstrued as a foreign military base. "They have their bases. This is a question of access," he said. The national controversy provoked by the possibility of an increased U.S. military presence in Colombia pales in comparison to the international dispute it has caused. As a neoliberal island in a Bolivarian sea, Colombia's decision to host more U.S. military personnel has been interpreted by neighboring Ecuador and Venezuela as a security threat. Consequently, Colombia's diplomatic and commercial relations with its neighbors are crumbling faster than a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Colombia's relations with Ecuador have remained tense since March 2008, when the Colombian military attacked an encampment of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) located along the border, killing rebel leader Ra?l Reyes and 16 other guerrillas. The Correa administration recalled its ambassador to Colombia in protest against the violation of Ecuador's sovereignty. The latent conflict erupted once more in June, when Ecuador filed an arrest warrant with Interpol against former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos for the murder of an Ecuadoran citizen killed during the March 2008 offensive. Santos is a close ally of president Uribe and rumored to be a presidential contender in 2010 if Uribe does not seek re-election. The Uribe administration responded by releasing a video of FARC commander Jorge Brice?o claiming that the FARC contributed $100,000 to Corrrea's presidential campaign. The video, which the Colombian government says was recovered from the computer of alleged FARC member Adela P?rez last May, was submitted to Interpol and leaked to the media. Correa denies any support of illegal armed groups in Colombia and has demanded that the FARC "say if they have donated money and to whom." The Economist reports that Ecuador's electoral commission has certified his campaign contributions. Colombia's relations with Ecuador were further soured by Uribe's invitation of more U.S. troops, since Correa had only recently expelled U.S. military personnel from the Ecuadoran base at Manta. Correa promised in his presidential campaign to shut down the only U.S. military base in South America, although he later offered to renew it if the U.S. agreed to let Ecuador establish a military base in Miami. "If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadoran base in the United States," he said. Correa has announced that any further aggressions from Colombia will invite a military response. An increased U.S. military presence in Colombia promises to ratchet up tensions with Ecuador. The U.S. president, in his first major statement on Latin America policy, said that "In an Obama administration, we will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders." Venezuela's Ch?vez has also characterized the increased U.S. military presence as a threat to his country's national security. Ch?vez maintains that the United States supported an abortive coup in Venezuela in April of 2002-a charge that U.S. officials deny, though the Bush administration did not join the 19 Latin American countries who condemned the illegal seizure of power. Largely in response to the Colombian government's decision to increase the U.S. military presence there, an indignant Ch?vez ordered the withdrawal of the Venezuelan ambassador to Colombia on July 27 and has threatened to freeze imports from Colombia and nationalize Colombian companies if he perceives "one more act of aggression." Venezuela is Colombia's second largest trading partner, followed by the United States. The crisis in Colombia-Venezuela relations was stoked by allegations from the Uribe administration that the Venezuelan government supplied Swiss anti-aircraft rocket launchers to the FARC. The Colombian military seized the weapons in question at La Macarena in October of 2008, but did not notify the Venezuelan government until early this month, according to a press release. The Swiss government has requested an explanation from the Ch?vez government. Ch?vez denied the allegations, saying "Anyone can take a rifle [sic] and put a Venezuelan seal and a serial number on it." Colombia's more distant neighbors have also taken a keen interest in the military agreement. Brazilian President Lula da Silva commented that "An American base in Colombia doesn't please me." Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, who was tortured along with her father by the Pinochet government following a military coup supported clandestinely by Washington, has called a meeting of the Union of South American Nations on August 10 in Quito, Ecuador, to discuss the issue. President Uribe is not expected to attend. Far from the smiles and handshakes of April, the Obama administration now finds itself at the center of Latin America's most explosive inter-state crisis. The "New Partnership in the Americas" promised by Obama on the campaign trail and at the Summit of the Americas looks increasingly elusive. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:29:57 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:29:57 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Climate Disobedience: Is a New "Seattle" in the Making? Message-ID: <19583904349144DB87C8AB9839D1E661@agingCHS072729> TomDispatch August 11, 2009 Climate Disobedience Is a New "Seattle" in the Making? By Mark Engler In the early morning of October 8, 2007, a small group of British Greenpeace activists slipped inside a hulking smokestack that towers more than 600 feet above a coal-fired power plant in Kent, England. While other activists cut electricity on the plant's grounds, they prepared to climb the interior of the structure to its top, rappel down its outside, and paint in block letters a demand that Prime Minister Gordon Brown put an end to plants like the Kingsnorth facility, which releases nearly 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each day. The activists, most of them in their thirties and forties, expected the climb to the top of the smokestack would take less than three hours. Instead, scaling a narrow metal ladder inside took nine. "It was the most physically exhausting thing I have ever done," 35-year-old Ben Stewart said later. "It was like climbing through a huge radiator -- the hottest, dirtiest place you could imagine." In the end, the fatigued, soot-covered climbers were only able to paint the word "Gordon" on the chimney before, facing dizzying heights, police helicopters, and a high court injunction, they were compelled to abandon the attempt and submit to arrest. They could hardly have known then that their botched attempt at signage would help transform British debate about fossil-fuel power plants -- and that it would send tremors through an emerging global movement determined to use direct action to combat the depredations of climate change. The case took on historic weight only after the Kingsnorth Six went to court, where they presented to a jury what is known in the United States as a "necessity" defense. This defense applies to situations in which a person violates a law to prevent a greater, imminent harm from occurring: for example, when someone breaks down a door to put out a fire in a burning building. In the Kingsnorth case, world-renowned climate scientist James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, flew to England to testify. According to the Guardian, he presented evidence that the Kingsnorth plant alone could be expected to cause sufficient global warming to prompt "the extinction of 400 species over its lifetime." Citing a British government study showing that each ton of released carbon dioxide incurs $85 in future climate-change costs, the activists contended that shutting the plant down for the day had prevented $1.6 million in damages -- a far greater harm to society than any rendered by their paint -- and that their transgressions should therefore be excused. What surprised both Greenpeace and the prosecution was that 12 ordinary Britons agreed. The jury returned with an acquittal, and the freed defendants made the front pages of newspapers throughout the country. The tumult also produced political results. In April, British energy and climate change minister Ed Miliband announced a reversal in governmental policy on power stations, declaring, "The era of new unabated coal has come to an end." Discussing Kingsnorth, Daniel Mittler, a long-time environmental activist in Germany, told me recently, "it was probably one of the most impactful civil disobedience cases the world has ever seen, because it was the right action at the right time." If Not Now... The idea that now is the right time for more resolute action to address the climate crisis is spreading fast enough to dot the global map with hot spots of disobedience. As it turns out, the Kingsnorth Six are part of a rapidly growing population. Joining them are the Dominion 11, arrested after forming a human blockade to stop the construction of a coal plant in Wise County, Virginia, in November 2008, and the Drax 29, who went on trial this summer for boarding and stopping a train delivering coal to a power plant in North Yorkshire, England, last year. In fact, arrests are piling up quicker than journalists can coin name-and-number nicknames. The Coal Swarm website keeps track of an ever- lengthening list of protests. New headlines now appear weekly: "Activists scale 20-story dragline at mountaintop removal site in Twilight, WV" "14 Arrested at TVA headquarters in Knoxville, TN" "10 activists board coal ship in Kent, England" "Activists shut down Collie Power Station, Western Australia" In August 2007, Al Gore, Nobel-prize-winning author of An Inconvenient Truth, told Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants." By the time Gore made that statement, some young people had already started blocking bulldozers, and many more, young and old, would soon follow. Still, Gore can be excused for feeling that such measures were overdue. With global warming, perhaps more than any other issue, there is a disjuncture between a widespread acknowledgment of the gravity of the situation we face and a social willingness to respond in any proportionate way. The landmark 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested that a two degree Celsius rise in average temperature, likely by 2050, would create severe water shortages for as many as two billion people and place between 20% to 30% of all plant and animal species at risk of extinction. It gets worse from there. An April 2009 Guardian poll reported: "Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed." More probable, they believe, is "an average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century," a level that could create hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing areas afflicted by desertification, depleted food supplies, or coastal flooding. That these consensus predictions may feel remote and improbable to much of the American public does not reflect a real scientific debate, but rather a common reluctance to face unpleasant facts -- and also the considerable success of the coal and oil lobbies in dampening the electorate's sense of urgency about the issue. Those two realities are precisely what direct action intends to confront. An Inconvenient Politics When Vice President Gore started endorsing civil disobedience, Abigail Singer, an activist with Rising Tide, a leading network of grassroots climate groups, noted, "It'd be more powerful if he put his body where his mouth is." She had a point. As it happens, 68-year-old James Hansen, arguably the most famous climate scientist alive, has been less reticent about putting himself on the line. His involvement has furnished a great deal of mainstream respectability to those turning to more confrontational means of expressing dissent, and the trajectory of his political engagement catches an important trend. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Hansen published many groundbreaking papers demonstrating the reality of a warming planet. Just as the work scientists had done in the early 1980s proving that human activity was creating a hole in the ozone layer had resulted in a 1987 treaty against chlorofluorocarbons, Hansen assumed that the work of those documenting climate change would result in swift legislative remedy. "He's very patient," Hansen's wife Anniek told Elizabeth Kolbert of the New Yorker. "And he just kept on working and publishing, thinking that someone would do something." This time around, however, industrial interests proved far more entrenched. In order to help move glacially slow climate negotiations forward, Hansen started speaking out and, more recently, has begun risking arrest at demonstrations. Of course, there is never a shortage of people who will question the tactics of civil disobedience and direct action. "We're every bit as worried about climate change as the protestors," a spokesperson for the E.On corporation, the energy company that runs Kingsnorth, said upon the announcement of the famous verdict, "but there are ways and means to protest and we would suggest their demonstration was not the way to do it." There are far less compromised skeptics, too. Many harbor a distaste for social-movement theatrics or operate on the belief that, sooner or later, science will speak loudly enough to force the political situation to sort itself out. Harvard University oceanographer James McCarthy expressed such a view when the IPCC released its 2007 report. "The worst stuff is not going to happen," he said, "because we can't be that stupid." Sadly, the latent hope that politicians will eventually come to their senses cannot suffice as a political strategy. The stark facts of segregation in the American South never put an end to that longstanding injustice; it took an unruly civil rights movement to force change. In this case, presumably less farsighted and more profit-hungry energy companies than the climate-concerned E.On have invested tens of millions of dollars in convincing elected officials and newspaper editorial boards that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is neither practical nor particularly needed. The operative force at work here is not stupidity, but political power. Hansen and others motivated to confront the industry head on have concluded that, unless there is a public counterbalance to the organized money of those who profit from the status quo, what science has to say will be largely irrelevant, no matter how theoretically convincing it may be. Unless citizens themselves become inconvenient, the truth will remain a minor consideration. The Disaster You Can See It is no accident that, on June 23rd, when Hansen was arrested for his first time, it was in West Virginia, the heart of coal country. Because coal is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States and worldwide, and because there is enough coal left in the ground to heat the planet to catastrophic levels, that fossil fuel has been the focus of much new protest. As long as U.S. and European power plants continue spewing coal smoke, their governments will have absolutely no credibility in trying to influence the policies of rising economies such as China and India. Nonetheless, current U.S. legislation ensures that coal burning will continue largely unchecked for decades to come. In West Virginia, concerns about coal's impact on the atmosphere have intersected with a local environmental atrocity known as mountaintop-removal mining, a practice that Senators John McCain and Barack Obama both claimed to oppose in the presidential campaign, but which continues today. This has made Appalachia the heart of direct action on the climate-change issue in the U.S. -- or, as a blog tracking area protests puts it, "Climate Ground Zero." "You stand at the edge of one of these mountaintop removal sites and you'll never feel the same way again," says Mat Louis-Rosenberg, a staffer at Coal River Mountain Watch in southern West Virginia. The practice turns rolling mountains and valleys into flat, desolate moonscapes. Locals regularly hear the blasts of surface mines from their homes and then drink the resulting contaminants in their well water. When newly created lakes of toxic coal waste give way -- as happened last December as a billion gallons of sludge flooded 300 acres of land near Harriman, Tennessee -- they are the ones whose homes stand immediately downstream. These dangers have given organizers a chance to create campaigns that connect the abstractions of climate change to specific sites of environmental ruin. "You can get a visceral and immediate sense of how bad this is," says Louis-Rosenberg. "It's not an invisible gas and a bunch of science that most people don't understand." This year, in a series of escalating initiatives, environmentalists in the area have chained themselves to rock trucks, obstructed coal roads, and climbed up a huge crane-line mining machine to halt its work. A delegation of concerned citizens, including Hansen, crossed a police line onto the property of Massey Energy, a company responsible for mountaintop removals. Louis-Rosenberg places such direct action alongside a raft of other activities: community organizing, research for environmental impact statements, and gathering co- sponsors for a Congressional ban on filling valleys with mining waste. "Ultimately, things will have to see their resolution in some sort of federal regulation or legislation," he says. "But at this point there is not the political will to deal with the crisis. I see it as my role as an activist to create that political will." The Next "Seattle Moment"? When the Kingsnorth decision was announced, an E.On representative said the company was "worried that this ruling will encourage other protestors to engage in similar actions at power plants across the country." The worry was justified. The diverse local protests taking place internationally are starting to feel like part of something larger, especially since they are already beginning to have an impact. Of the 214 new coal plants proposed in the United States since the year 2000, more than half have been cancelled, abandoned, or put on hold. The website Coal Moratorium Now, which tracks public campaigns, shows that citizen dissent played a critical role in many of the cancellations or delays. Other results have been less obvious but no less real. Facing greater resistance, and the prospect of costly public relations battles, power companies are simply proposing to build fewer coal plants than was once the case. Environmental organizers are planning for still larger mobilizations. In March, hundreds of people, including Hansen and 350.org campaign organizer Bill McKibben, joined in human chains to block the entrances to a target of enticing symbolic importance: Washington, D.C.'s Capitol Power Plant, a coal-burning facility built in 1910 that provides steam and refrigeration power to Capitol Hill. Police avoided making arrests, which could have easily exceeded highs for any previous act of civil disobedience around climate issues in American history. Nonetheless, the gathering produced a desired effect: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers requesting that the plant switch to natural gas. On a global level, activists are starting to envision an international day of action that might launch disparate local campaigns into the mainstream spotlight and create a more unified global movement. A buzz of expectation and organizing now surrounds a December U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, where environmental ministers and other officials will gather to create a new treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol. The conference is taking place almost exactly 10 years after the 1999 Seattle protests which overwhelmed the ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organization and altered the shape of globalization debates for years after. Hopes for recreating an event of that magnitude are based on more than just a coincidental anniversary year. Before Seattle, localized activity by global justice advocates had similarly swelled -- with a wave of student anti-sweatshop drives, environmental boot camps, organic food gatherings, corporate ad spoofs, indigenous rights battles, and cross-border labor campaigns already simmering. Seattle united these into a recognized "movement of movements" more potent than the sum of its parts. Organizers have suggested that as many as 100,000 people might take to the streets in Copenhagen. Among those planning around the Denmark conference, there is currently a debate about whether to converge on the conference itself or to target a heavily polluting company somewhere nearby as an example of bad climate- change behavior. Likewise, in the United States, where events will be timed to take place in solidarity with the demonstrations in Copenhagen, there is a debate about whether to try to work with the Obama administration or turn up the heat on it. In the end, a range of tactics will no doubt be deployed in Copenhagen and in other cities around the world. A coalition of groups, including the normally satiric Yes Men, is managing a site called BeyondTalk.net, which allows people to sign a pledge expressing their willingness to join in nonviolent civil disobedience as the conference date nears. As of this writing, 3,210 people have signed on. Compared with the numbers of people who will ultimately have to be persuaded of the need to act in order to force meaningful solutions to climate change, that remains a modest tally. In terms of the growing levels of dedication and personal sacrifice it represents, its significance is far greater. After all, that's more than 3,000 people willing to take the chance that a determined action, even a botched one, might ultimately reverberate far and wide. It's more than 3,000 people who may just be willing to climb for hours through a huge radiator in order to stop the planet from becoming one in all too short a time. ................ Mark Engler, a writer based in New York City, is a senior analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Nation Books, 2008). He can be reached via the website DemocracyUprising.com. (An audio interview with him on climate-change activism is available by clicking here.) Research assistance for this article was provided by Sean Nortz. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:30:59 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:30:59 -0500 Subject: [R-G] 'Every member an organizer' - Press Editors Respond to Postal Service Closings Message-ID: <0A060782E8784CF0A223202D4F40EB1A@agingCHS072729> EVERY CRISIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY Peter Rachleff St. Paul, Minnesota August 10, 2009 This year's Postal Press Association Editors Conference was abuzz with discussion of the Postal Service's threats to close hundreds of' stations. Virtually every editor present knew of one or more stations at risk in her or his own jurisdiction. The wolf which has loomed at the APWU's door for years - plant closings, job losses, disruptive excessing, economic insecurity, to be followed by the wage and benefit cuts and attacks on retirees' benefits which workers in other industries have experienced - is now huffing and puffing for real. In my workshop, "Learning From the Past to Conquer the Challenges of Today," we discussed ways to turn this crisis into an opportunity to revitalize the union, to secure its role not only in the workplace and at the bargaining table but also in the community, and to lead the fight to preserve - if not expand - public service. Our workshop revolved around three historical moments: (1) the revitalization of unions in the Great Depression era of the 1930s, using the Minneapolis teamsters as an example; (2) the incorporation and weakening of unions in World War II, the late 1940s, and 1950s; and (3) the attack on unions and their members by business' and government's turn to economic "neoliberalism" in the 1980s. We then discussed what we can learn from these historical moments that we can use in this crisis that we face now, so that we can turn it into an opportunity to rebuild the labor movement and redirect society as a whole. The architects of the Minneapolis teamsters' struggles picked the right context in which to act. They could feel the energy and hope of working people who had organized the summer 1932 Bonus Army protest in Washington, had elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt president in November 1932, and had begun a militant unemployed movement in city upon city, demanding an end to mortgage foreclosures and evictions and an expansion of relief. In February of 1934, at the depths of a Minnesota winter, they realized that coal delivery workers could hold an upper hand over their employer. Their victory in a three day strike sent a message to all Minneapolis workers - that with the right strategy and tactics, workers could defeat anti-union employers. Having decided that the time was right to act, the activists who built Local 574 from one hundred members in February of 1934 to 15,000 by August, paid particular attention to the roles of rank-and-file members, to the union's relationship with other unions and the community, and to its relationship to the government. The union asked each rank-and-file member to function as an organizer. Unionized drivers and helpers refused to allow their trucks to be loaded or unloaded at non-union warehouses, while unionized warehouse workers refused to load or unload non-union trucks. The union also reached out to other unions, offering them solidarity and receiving support in return. The Minneapolis teamsters became known for their refusal to cross picket lines, and they helped unions like the International Ladies Garment Workers win their own strikes. The union also reached out to the community, helping the unemployed organize in order to receive relief, participating in protests against foreclosures and evictions, and supporting farmers in establishing farmers' markets in the city. The union also pressed the government, at the local, state, and federal levels, to create jobs, to raise minimum wages, and to protect workers' rights to organize. Teamsters Local 574 experienced phenomenal growth not only in numbers but also in power and respect, based on the involvement of their own members, their supportive relationships with other unions and in the wider community, and their demands upon the government. Their experience typified much of what happened to American unions in the 1930s, as they grew from about two million members to fourteen million. This kind of organization and culture were eaten away in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, as unions became integrated into a social contract with employers and the government. The latter, rather than opposing unions outright (since they really couldn't), developed rules, regulations, and institutions which limited union power. The dues check-off removed considerable day-to-day contact between stewards and workers. The great strike wave of 1945-1946 ended by allowing corporations to raise prices despite unions' initial demands that wage increases not be passed along to consumers. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed the two most important expressions of solidarity, the sympathy strike and the secondary boycott. Unions began to practice "productivity bargaining" in which they granted management authority to control the shopfloor and the introduction of new technologies, as long as workers got raises. By the merger of the AFL and the CIO in 1955, the labor movement had ceased growing and individual unions were adopting a business model in which a gap grew between officers and staff, on the one hand, and rank-and-file members, on the other. When corporations and their political allies turned to economic neoliberalism in the late 1970s - globalization, free trade, deregulation, privatization, the cutting of taxes on the rich, the cutting of services to the poor - they launched an attack on unions. Most unions, unfortunately, had neither the internal strength nor the community support to withstand such an attack. Beginning with President Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981, employers and the government attacked one union after another. And one union after another fell. But now this system itself is in crisis, from Wall Street to Main Street. In big cities and small towns, we know how serious this crisis is. Workers, middle class women and men, people of color and white folks, put their shoulders to the wheel to elect Barack Obama in 2008. But as the congressional struggles over executive salaries, bank and stock market regulation, the uses of the stimulus packages, health care reform, and the Employee Free Choice Act reveal, President Obama cannot save us - our jobs, our futures, our unions, our way of life - by himself. We must learn the lessons of the 1934 Minneapolis teamsters - to make every member an organizer, to build support with other unions, to seek support in the community, and to make clear demands together upon the government. If we want the Postal Service to survive this crisis, if we want our union to survive this crisis, if we want our jobs to survive this crisis, we must turn it into an opportunity to rebuild and revitalize our union. We must once again make the expressions "organized" labor and labor "movement" ring true. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Aug 13 21:32:22 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:32:22 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Thousands Line Up for Promise of Free Health Care Message-ID: <5B04EB4D1B044BECB99D111032B1821D@agingCHS072729> Thousands Line Up for Promise of Free Health Care http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/13clinic.html?hpw ============== Join our free alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" Subscribe: http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From suzannedk at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 00:55:22 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:55:22 +0200 Subject: [R-G] United Church: No to national boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: <0991E9F89E534F489B5DCD320EA86391@agingCHS072729> References: <412418EFF6A34B1DAEFFC421E1757998@twubby.com> <706736460.3077821250198599677.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <0991E9F89E534F489B5DCD320EA86391@agingCHS072729> Message-ID: Thanks, just commenting that the continueing 'no' responses to really take critical positions of large powerful groups on the Israeli/Palestinina. US favored ongoing disaster, is or seems a fixed enabling response to continuing the carnage until Palestinians are gone, a response that has enough 'we are trying to stand against this' to seem to the waverers they are changing something really. Sorry, I see the 'sucess' of the destruction of Palestine as a political statement of Empire, not right or wrong, a fact that is rolling quickly to it's finish. Having alot of clinical homocidal madness contained in it that as these big blocks of protesting groups do nothing in actual fact, increases such fascism far beyond what Hitler promoted and effected. Millions joined that group, everyone knew for years and years exactly what was going on in the hundreds if not thousands of camps. As all of us know Gaza. Time is of the essence, progressive directions do not cut genocides. The blowback from Gaza will be awesome and totally unexpected by the west. I think. My sentences, two? came from this. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Richard Menec wrote: > > How to say yes while your whole body says NO! suzannedk at gmail > > Your comment seems a bit removed from reality. > > As churches/religions go, recent history (last few decades anyway) of the > United Church in Canada has actually been on the progressive side (in terms > of First Nations, GLBT movement, and various other social justice issues), > so I'm not sure what you're intimating here. > > And no, I'm not a church-goer.... > > Richard Menec > ============== > Join our alternative news service - "Fresh Ink" > http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink > ============== > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From suzannedk at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 00:59:35 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:59:35 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Colombia: U.S. Bases Stoke the Flames of Regional Conflict In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That is why the bases are there at enormous cost. To cause destabilizing trouble. Divide and conquer> suzannedk at gmail.com On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Richard Menec wrote: > https://nacla.org/node/6058 > > North American Congress on Latin America Aug 10, 2009 > > Colombia: U.S. Bases Stoke the Flames of Regional Conflict > > Roque Planas > > It was a moment that promised to define a new era in U.S.-Latin American > relations: Obama greeted Hugo Ch?vez at the Summit of the Americas with a > smile and a handshake, and Ch?vez responded with a gift and a heavily > accented "I wanna be your friend." The Cold War-style chasm between > Washington and the leftist leaders of the Andes that had widened during the > Bush administration finally seemed to be narrowing a bit. > > But a nearly completed agreement between Colombian President Alvaro Uribe > and the Obama administration to grant the U.S. military access to Colombian > bases is rapidly undermining whatever diplomatic progress was made in that > fleeting moment. > > The Uribe administration announced on July 12 that it had nearly reached an > agreement on the terms of a decade-long lease to allow U.S. military > personnel to use Colombian military bases to conduct anti-drug trafficking > and anti-terrorism operations. No draft of the agreement has yet been made > public. The increased access would serve to replace the U.S. lease at > Manta, > Ecuador, the only U.S. base of operations in South America until the lease > was allowed by the Correa administration to expire this month. > > President Uribe defended the agreement as a necessary step in his > administration's fight against drug traffickers and Marxist guerrillas at a > public event in Santa Marta last week. "This agreement guarantees > continuity > in the era of an improved Plan Colombia," he said, referring to the pact > that has funneled $6 billion in U.S. aid to the Colombian government and > military. > > The lease agreement has drawn criticism from Colombian congressmen across > the political spectrum, who argue that the executive does not have the > authority to allow foreign troops into the country. Liberal Senator Juan > Manuel Gal?n claimed that the Uribe administration "bypassed the Senate." > Senator Jairo Clopatofsky, an uribista of the right-wing Partido de la U, > echoed Gal?n's criticisms. > > Senator Jorge Robledo of the left-wing Polo Democr?tico Alternativo Article > 173 which states that the decision to "Permit the transit of foreign troops > through the territory of the Republic" falls to the Senate. > > Colombian and U.S. authorities have sought to calm critics by reassuring > them that the agreement will not constitute the creation of an autonomous > zone of U.S. military operation. "Any activity performed within the > framework of the agreement has to be coordinated and authorized by the > Colombian authorities," said Minister of Defense General Freddy Padilla de > Le?n. U.S. Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield has reiterated the > same > point and has emphasized that the increased U.S. presence should not be > misconstrued as a foreign military base. "They have their bases. This is a > question of access," he said. > > The national controversy provoked by the possibility of an increased U.S. > military presence in Colombia pales in comparison to the international > dispute it has caused. As a neoliberal island in a Bolivarian sea, > Colombia's > decision to host more U.S. military personnel has been interpreted by > neighboring Ecuador and Venezuela as a security threat. Consequently, > Colombia's diplomatic and commercial relations with its neighbors are > crumbling faster than a UNESCO World Heritage Site. > > Colombia's relations with Ecuador have remained tense since March 2008, > when > the Colombian military attacked an encampment of the Fuerzas Armadas > Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) located along the border, killing rebel > leader Ra?l Reyes and 16 other guerrillas. The Correa administration > recalled its ambassador to Colombia in protest against the violation of > Ecuador's sovereignty. > > The latent conflict erupted once more in June, when Ecuador filed an arrest > warrant with Interpol against former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos > for > the murder of an Ecuadoran citizen killed during the March 2008 offensive. > Santos is a close ally of president Uribe and rumored to be a presidential > contender in 2010 if Uribe does not seek re-election. The Uribe > administration responded by releasing a video of FARC commander Jorge > Brice?o claiming that the FARC contributed $100,000 to Corrrea's > presidential campaign. The video, which the Colombian government says was > recovered from the computer of alleged FARC member Adela P?rez last May, > was > submitted to Interpol and leaked to the media. Correa denies any support of > illegal armed groups in Colombia and has demanded that the FARC "say if > they > have donated money and to whom." The Economist reports that Ecuador's > electoral commission has certified his campaign contributions. > > Colombia's relations with Ecuador were further soured by Uribe's invitation > of more U.S. troops, since Correa had only recently expelled U.S. military > personnel from the Ecuadoran base at Manta. Correa promised in his > presidential campaign to shut down the only U.S. military base in South > America, although he later offered to renew it if the U.S. agreed to let > Ecuador establish a military base in Miami. "If there's no problem having > foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an > Ecuadoran base in the United States," he said. > > Correa has announced that any further aggressions from Colombia will invite > a military response. An increased U.S. military presence in Colombia > promises to ratchet up tensions with Ecuador. The U.S. president, in his > first major statement on Latin America policy, said that "In an Obama > administration, we will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who > seek safe-haven across its borders." > > Venezuela's Ch?vez has also characterized the increased U.S. military > presence as a threat to his country's national security. Ch?vez maintains > that the United States supported an abortive coup in Venezuela in April of > 2002-a charge that U.S. officials deny, though the Bush administration did > not join the 19 Latin American countries who condemned the illegal seizure > of power. > > Largely in response to the Colombian government's decision to increase the > U.S. military presence there, an indignant Ch?vez ordered the withdrawal of > the Venezuelan ambassador to Colombia on July 27 and has threatened to > freeze imports from Colombia and nationalize Colombian companies if he > perceives "one more act of aggression." Venezuela is Colombia's second > largest trading partner, followed by the United States. > > The crisis in Colombia-Venezuela relations was stoked by allegations from > the Uribe administration that the Venezuelan government supplied Swiss > anti-aircraft rocket launchers to the FARC. The Colombian military seized > the weapons in question at La Macarena in October of 2008, but did not > notify the Venezuelan government until early this month, according to a > press release. The Swiss government has requested an explanation from the > Ch?vez government. Ch?vez denied the allegations, saying "Anyone can take a > rifle [sic] and put a Venezuelan seal and a serial number on it." > > Colombia's more distant neighbors have also taken a keen interest in the > military agreement. Brazilian President Lula da Silva commented that "An > American base in Colombia doesn't please me." Chilean President Michelle > Bachelet, who was tortured along with her father by the Pinochet government > following a military coup supported clandestinely by Washington, has called > a meeting of the Union of South American Nations on August 10 in Quito, > Ecuador, to discuss the issue. President Uribe is not expected to attend. > > Far from the smiles and handshakes of April, the Obama administration now > finds itself at the center of Latin America's most explosive inter-state > crisis. The "New Partnership in the Americas" promised by Obama on the > campaign trail and at the Summit of the Americas looks increasingly > elusive. > > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From suzannedk at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 01:16:55 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:16:55 +0200 Subject: [R-G] What's really in your shampoo In-Reply-To: <10F7AEB77592495DA4D1279626C5B566@agingCHS072729> References: <10F7AEB77592495DA4D1279626C5B566@agingCHS072729> Message-ID: this is one of te easiest of the Climate Crisis changes to make and will be the hardest nut to crack The giant companies that make these feeel good detergents for pennies never want to lose the trillions they make worlwide on them, poisoning al the seas all the waters. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Richard Menec wrote: > http://www.salon.com/env/good_life/2009/08/13/shampoo/ > > Salon.com `Aug. 13, 2009 > > What's really in your shampoo > > Sure, a couple ingredients clean your hair. But the rest are a veritable > toxic dump on your head > > By Bill Bunn > > There are two types of ingredients in shampoo. One type cleans your hair. > The other type strokes your emotions. I'm holding a bottle of Pantene Pro > V, > one of the world's most popular shampoos. Of the 22 ingredients in this > bottle of shampoo, three clean hair. The rest are in the bottle not for the > hair, but for the psychology of the person using the shampoo. At least > two-thirds of this bottle, by volume, was put there just to make me feel > good. The world spends around $230 billion on beauty products every year. > Of > this figure, $40 billion go to shampoo purchases. North Americans blow > almost $11 billion on shampoo and conditioner each year. So most soap > manufacturers aren't willing to rely on a product that merely works. The > bigger job is convincing the consumer that their soap is adding value to > the > consumer's life. So shampoo bottles include an extra concoctions aimed at > convincing the man or woman in the shower that the soap is more "luxurious" > or "effective." Because beautiful hair doesn't just happen. > > Have you got the greasies? One shampoo ingredient is all you need: > detergent. Detergents are chemicals designed to bond to both water and > grease. When the shampooer massages shampoo into the scalp, the detergent > adheres to the grease. The detergent attaches to the rinse water and > leaves, > taking the grease (sebum) with it. > > The most common shampoo detergents are ammonium lauryl sulphate and one of > its molecular sidekicks, ammonium laureth sulphate. These viscous, yellow > liquids, with the water of a shower, are enough to make your hair clean. > They help stop the greasies. Shampoo tends to use five factors to help the > user feel good about it: shine, thickeners, lather, color, smell, coatings > and exotic ingredients. Those ingredients, though they have nothing to do > with cleansing, are part of the sell to convince you that something > beautiful happens to your hair. > > Consumers value shininess in nearly everything, including hair. For hair to > shine, the cuticles of the hair must lay flat. Imagine a strand of hair as > a > stack of flimsy paper cups. When all the lips of the cup, called > imbrications, lay flat, hair shines. Dull hair has the cups' lips sticking > up. To get imbrications to lay flat, hair needs to be exposed to mildly > acidic substances, so substances like citric acid are added to make the > imbrications lay down and give hair that shiny look and to let yourself > glow. > > Consumers believe that thick is better. Which may explain why George Bush > was a two-termer. Shampooers trust the velvet heft of the shampoo in the > palms of their hands. So five of the 20 ingredients on the list are there > because they help thicken the soap. Thickness also guarantees that people > use more shampoo than necessary. There's salt, glycol distearate, cetyl > alcohol, ammonium xylene sulfonate and others: body on tap. And where would > we be without suds? Cleaning agents do tend to foam a little when they're > used, but the bubbles don't affect the cleansing much. However, the extra > lather helps convince the shampooer that the soap is working. Lathering > agents are added to boost the suds, chemicals like cocamide MEA. This > little > devil, besides being toxic in a few ways, also helps the lather to stay > once > it's been raised, a sudsy Viagra, with the help of known associates like > the > plastic PEG-7M. Great lather for great-looking hair. > > Consumers tend to believe that good things must also be pretty. So shampoo > manufacturers add colors, like purple and green, with reflective > particulates to form blossoming clouds. Colors are often a problem either > for humans or for the environment, like good old red dye no. 3, banned in > 1990, eight years after a number of reliable studies revealed its > cancer-causing tendency. Don't hate it for being beautiful. > > Smell is important, because after the bathers have washed their hair, smell > reminds them that the soap has done its job. Gee, some hair smells > terrific. > Smell is often associated with a brand, and smell helps to form the most > intimate psychological connection a soap can make with its user. But the > more "natural" the smell, the less natural the machinations behind it. That > lovely apple smell has about as much to do with apples as Dick Cheney with > world peace. And fragrance can be particularly dangerous because it's not > specifically labeled. It's a combination of ingredients that could be > harmless, on one hand or, on the other, noxious. > > Once the natural oils have been removed from scalp and hair, shampoo often > replaces them with conditioners derived from animals or plants. These > conditioners coat the air and smooth its surface. The bottle of shampoo I'm > holding uses dimethicone to coat the hair (it also helps to thicken the > shampoo). It's a silicone-based chemical that coats hair and skin. You'll > also find it in caulking, Silly Putty, and herbicides. No more tears. No > more tangles. > > Some shampoo sounds more like chicken marinade than shampoo, boasting of > vitamins, minerals, protein and herbs. But, the vitamins and minerals and > exotic extras play a useless role. So whether the shampoo brags that it is > "infused" with real beer, exotic proteins, vitamins, antioxidants, or > extracts from some fabulously endangered species, the additive saturates > the > users' minds, not their hair. > > All these ingredients would go bad were it not for preservatives, a > chemical > equivalent of the right to bear arms. Sodium benzoate, for example, is > handy > because it kills nearly every living thing that might start to grow in a > shampoo bottle. Ironically, in most cases the detergents won't go bad. It's > the psychological ingredients that need preservation. > > And these chemicals are tough to track down because tracking chemical > names, > it turns out, is a little like tracking criminals. Most have several > aliases > and fake IDs, play a role in many different products, and are shifty when > caught and questioned. Some have long toxicity records; others are suspects > in a range of problems. Of the 22 shampoo ingredients in my hand, all > except > three have proved to contribute, or are suspected of contributing, to > health > or environmental problems. Most of these ingredients, though known toxins, > are permitted for use, because the small quantities limit human and > environmental exposure. > > Most of the ingredients in shampoo "may" cause health concerns. The word > "may" is used because most chemicals have never been tested. Of the more > than 80,000 chemicals registered and used in the U.S. since World War II, > fewer than 500 have ever been properly studied for their effects on humans > and the environment. So it's hard to say exactly how dangerous it is to use > shampoo every day. > > In May, 2008, Jane Houlihan, director of research for the Environmental > Working Group, reported on the dangers of cosmetics and personal care > products to a House subcommittee. She believes that these products, > including shampoo, are the biggest source of human exposure to dangerous > chemicals. According to Houlihan, "companies are free to use almost any > ingredient they choose in personal care products, with no proof of safety > required." Consumers are not properly warned of possible dangers because of > a "lack of standards and labeling loopholes." Let's just say that the less > you hang out with any of these chemicals, the better off you are, we all > are. Mount Sinai Hospital reports that 2.5 billion pounds of toxic > chemicals > are released in the U.S. each year, the equivalent of 37,100 tanker trucks > of noxious chemicals. A lot of these chemicals are released from homes > every > day. Daily, 45 billion gallons of wastewater go down the drain to be > treated > at one of the 16,000 water treatment plants in the U.S. But wastewater > plants are designed to handle only the major pollutants. They can't remove > the diversity of chemicals that humans flush every day. > > This is the big problem with the shampoo ingredients: When a man rinses his > hair, all the ingredients wash down the drain, carrying the grease to boot. > And as one man's shampoo travels down the pipe, it meets up with a woman's, > and so on, and so on, and so on. At least 350 million gallons of shampoo > and > its unregulated ingredients flow down U.S. drains every year. And many of > these chemicals flow straight into our freshwater systems. > > Shampoo, for example, contributes to high levels of estrogen and > estrogen-like substances (endocrine disrupters) in freshwater downstream of > sewage treatment plants that damage fish populations and cause male fish to > grow ovaries, a sort of liquid feminism. My hometown of Calgary, Canada, > studied the fish downstream of where we add our treated sewage to the river > and discovered that female fish outnumber male fish 9 to 1. Estrogen runs > through it. One study identifies more than 200 chemicals that are still > present in wastewater after treatment. But the problem is likely much > larger: environmental damage is difficult to estimate because we're dumping > chemicals into the environment that have never been studied. > > As we get to know some of these chemicals better, we discover that they > should not be trusted. Health Canada banned two common shampoo ingredients > a > while ago, siloxanes D4 and D5, aka octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and > decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, respectively. D4 and D5 did make hair silky > soft, easier to dry and easier to work with. They're also handy in making > plastics and paint. Sometimes you need a little D4 or D5. Sometimes you > need > a lot. But Health Canada strongly suspects that D4 and D5 are significantly > affecting fish and aquatic organisms. But, oh, how hair shines. > > So I can live without the bottled psychology. My new shampoo, Sunlight Dish > Detergent, has just four ingredients. It's runny and slightly acidic, > smells > vaguely lemony, doesn't foam excessively and looks anemic. It's not > perfect, > just better. I need to apply it only once when I shampoo. With each > shampoo, > I use a 10th of the volume that regular shampoo requires. The bottle will > last at least a year, as my last one did. And though its ingredients aren't > worth celebrity endorsement, my hair gets clean and I expose my body and > the > environment to less risk. > > ............... > About the writer > Bill Bunn lives in Calgary, Alberta. > > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Aug 14 04:52:06 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:52:06 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Economy on a Scaffold Message-ID: <20090814195206.8e261dd5.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> When "Not Bad" is the New "Good" by Mike Whitney CounterPunch (August 7 - 9 2009) We're making this way too complicated. It's simple really. The Fed has only one tool at its disposal; to create more money. Typically, the way the Fed adds to the money supply is by lowering interest rates. When the Fed lowers rates below the rate of inflation; they're basically selling dollars for less than a buck. That's a good deal, so, naturally, speculators jump on it and trigger a credit expansion. What follows is a frenzy of market activity that ends in a housing, credit, tech or equity bubble. Eventually, the bubble bursts and the economy goes into a tailspin. Then, after a period of digging-out, the process resumes again. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's always the same. The moral is: Cheap money creates bubbles; and bubbles move wealth from workers to rich motherporkers. It's as simple as that. That's why the wealth gap is wider now than anytime since the Gilded Age. The rich own everything. The Federal Reserve is the policy arm of the big banks and brokerage houses. Period. Ostensibly, its mandate is to maintain "price stability and full employment". Right. Anyone notice how many jobs the Fed has created lately? How about the dollar? Is it really supposed to zig-zag like it has been for the last decade? The central task of the Fed is to shift wealth from one class to another. And it succeeds at that task admirably. The Fed's "mandate" is public relations claptrap. Bernanke hasn't lifted a finger for homeowners, consumers or ordinary working stiffs. All the cash is flowing upwards ... according to plan. The Fed is a social engineering agency designed to serve as the de facto government behind the smokescreen of democratic institutions. Does anyone think that a black, two year senator with no background in foreign policy or economics is calling the shots? Obama is a public relations invention who's used to cut ribbons, consoling the unemployed, and convincing Americans they live in a "post racial" society. Right. (Just take a look at that footage from Katrina again.) The Fed has complete control over monetary policy and, thus, the country's economic future. Bernanke doesn't even pretend to defer to Congress anymore. Why bother? After Lehman caved in, Bernanke invoked the "unusual and exigent" clause in the Fed's charter and declared himself czar. Now he has absolute power over the nation's purse-strings. The $13 trillion the Fed has committed to the financial system since the beginning of the crisis - via loans and outright purchases of mortgage-backed garbage and US sovereign debt - was never authorized by Congress. In fact, the Fed stubbornly refuses to even identify which institutions got the "loans", how much the loans were worth, what kind of collateral was accepted for the loans, or when the loans have to be repaid. In truth, the loans are not loans at all, but gifts to the industry to keep asset prices artificially high so that the entire financial system does not come crashing down. Check this out: "In an analysis written by economist Gary Gorton for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta?s 2009 Financial Markets Conference titled, "Slapped in the Face by the Invisible Hand; Banking and the Panic of 2007", the author shows that mortgage-related securities ballooned from $493 billion in 1996 to $3,071 billion in 2003, while asset backed securities (ABS) jumped from $168 billion in 1996 to $1,253 billion in 2006. All told, more than $20 trillion in securitized debt was sold between 1997 to 2007." $20 trillion! How much of that fetid paper is sitting on the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions just waiting to blow up as soon as the Fed asks for its money back? And the Fed will never get its money back because the prices of complex securities and derivatives will never regain their pre-crisis values. Why? Because these derivatives are linked to underlying collateral (mortgages) which have already declined 33% from their peak and are headed lower still. Also, these toxic assets were sold as risk-free (many of them were rated triple A) and have now been exposed as extremely risky or fraudulent. Because these assets were heaped together in bundles to strip out their interest rates, they cannot be easily separated which means that they are worth considerably less than the 33% that has been lost on the underlying collateral (mortgages) The securitization markets are not expected to rebound for a decade or more, which means that the Fed will have to find other more-creative way to goose the credit system to avoid a downward spiral. But how? Zero percent interest rates haven't worked because qualified borrowers are cutting spending and saving their disposable income, while people who need to borrow, no longer meet the banks' tougher lending standards. Bank credit is shrinking even though excess bank reserves are nearly $900 billion. When banks stop lending, the economy contracts, business activity slows, unemployment soars and growth sputters. Presently, the economy is still contracting, but at a slower pace than before. "Less bad" is the new "good". All the recession indicators are still blinking red - income, employment, sales, and production - all down big! But it doesn't matter because it's a "Green Shoots" rally; plenty of cheap liquidity for the markets and a freeway off-ramp (for sleeping) for the unemployed. The Fed's lending facilities are designed to pump liquidity into the system and inflate another bubble by generating more debt. Unfortunately, most people accept Bernanke's feeble defense of these corporate-welfare programs and fail to see their real purpose. An example may help to explain how they really work: Say you bought a house at the peak of the bubble in 2005 and paid $500,000. Then prices dropped forty percent (as they have in California) and your house is now worth $300,000. If you only put five percent down, ($25,000) then you are underwater by $175,000. Which means that you own more on the mortgage than your house is currently worth. (This is essentially what has happened to the entire financial system. The equity has vaporized, so institutions are using dodgy accounting tricks instead of reporting their real losses.) So Bernanke comes along and gives you $175,000 no interest, rotating loan to you so that no one knows that you are really busted and you can continue spending just as you had before. Not bad, eh? This is what the lending facilities are all about. It is a charade to conceal the fact that a large portion of the nation's financial institutions are insolvent and propped up by state largess. But there's more, too. Now that Bernanke has given you $175,000 no interest, rotating loan; you expect that eventually he will ask for his money back. Right? So your only hope of saving your home, in the long run, is to engage in risky behavior, like dabbling the stock market. It's like playing roulette, except you have nothing to lose since you are underwater anyway. This is exactly what the financial institutions are doing with the Fed's loans. They're betting on equities and hoping they can avoid the Grim Reaper. Here's how former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler summed it up last week in the Wall Street Journal: "By buying US Treasuries and mortgages to increase the monetary base by $1 trillion, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke didn't put money directly into the stock market but he didn't have to. With nowhere else to go, except maybe commodities, inflows into the stock market have been on a tear. Stock and bond funds saw net inflows of close to $150 billion since January. The dollars he cranked out didn't go into the hard economy, but instead into tradable assets. In other words, Ben Bernanke has been the market". (Andy Kessler, "The Bernanke Market" Wall Street Journal) Only a small portion of the money that has gone into the stock market in the last six months (since the March lows) has come from money markets. The fed's loans are being laundered into stocks via financial institutions that are rolling the dice for their own survival. The uptick in the markets has helped insolvent banks raise equity in the capital markets so they don't have to grovel to Congress for another TARP bailout. Everybody's elated with Bernanke's latest bubble except working people who have seen their wages slashed by 4.5%, their credit lines cut, the home values plunge, and their living standards sink to third world levels. And the Fed's spending-spree is not over yet; not by a long shot. The next wave of home foreclosures (already 1.9 million in the first half of 2009) is just around the corner - the Alt-As, option arms, prime loans. The $3.5 trillion commercial real estate market is capsizing. The under-capitalized banking system will need more assistance. And there will have to be another round of fiscal stimulus for ailing consumers, otherwise, foreign holders of US Treasurys will see that the US can no longer provide 25% of global demand and head for the exits. Bernanke's back is against the wall. The only thing he can do is print more money, shove though the back door of the stock exchange and keep his fingers crossed. The rest is up to CNBC and the other media cheerleaders. The Fed chief has committed $13 trillion to maintain the appearance of solvency, but the system is bankrupt. The commercial paper market, money markets, trillions of dollars of toxic debt instruments, and myriad shyster investment banks and insurance companies are now backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US Treasury. The financial system is now a ward of the state. The "free market" has deteriorated into state capitalism; a centralized system where all the levers of power are controlled by the Central Bank. If Bernanke's Politburo withdraws its loans - or even if he raises interest rates too soon - the system will collapse. The economy is now balanced on the rickety scaffolding of the dollar. As the Obama stimulus wears off, the rot in the economy will become more apparent. Household red ink is at record highs, so personal consumption will not rebound. That means US assets and US sovereign debt will become less attractive. Foreign capital will flee. The dollar will fall. The world needs a breather from the US. And they'll get it sooner than many think. _____ Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney at msn.net http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08072009.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 11:25:13 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:25:13 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Mahmoud & Esfandiar's Excellent Adventure Message-ID: Khanome Yoshie finds Mahmoud & Esfandiar very trippy. Mahmoud & Esfandiar's Excellent Adventure MRZine Editor Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, whose daughter is married to a son of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the President's Chief of Staff. Mr. Mashaei is known for actions that have appalled certain conservative quarters of the Iranian political establishment, such as attending a ceremony in Turkey where women danced and hosting a ceremony in Tehran where women drumming dafs brought out the Qur'an (don't ask me why this is controversial). He is also known for making such fascinating remarks as the following, according to Etemaad: * "The age of Islamism is over. It's not that Islamism doesn't exist or isn't growing. Islam exists but its time is up. The age of horseback riding is over now, though horses exist, and so do riders. . . . Of course, it isn't completely finished, but it's getting there." * "Iran today is a friend of the American and Israeli peoples. No nation in the world is an enemy of Iran, though, of course, we have enemies, in fact, faced with the most dastardly enemies in the world." After the controversial 2009 presidential election, the first thing the President of Iran did was to appoint Mr. Mashaei as First Vice President, causing uproar in the aforementioned conservative quarters, which the president initially ignored. Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Revolution, had to write a letter telling the president to cancel the appointment of Mr. Mashaei, characterizing it as "contrary to your interests as well the interests of the government." Eventually, Mr. Mashaei was compelled to resign from the post, after more than a week's resistance on the part of the president, who then defied the disapproval of the conservative establishment to appoint Mr. Mashaei to his present post. Mr. Mashaei is apparently incorrigible, however. Here's his latest bombshell, according to Etemad-e Melli today: "Of the 24 million Ahmadinejad voters, 20 million are critical of the system. These 20 million people are even more critical of the system than the 13 million Mousavi voters, since those 13 million only question the Ahmadinejad administration, whereas these 20 million are saying No to all the past years before Ahmadinejad." Whoa! Iran's reformist media have assiduously followed Mr. Mashaei's excellent adventure, a few episodes of which have also been briefly carried by some of the Western media. Both the Western and Iranian-reformist media fail to ask an obvious question, though: is the man who has stood loyally by Mr. Mashaei throughout his wild ideological trip the kind of guy for whom the guardians of the system, lay and clerical, military and civilian, would work in disciplined cooperation to pull off a massive conspiracy for a massively rigged election? From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 14 11:24:53 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Has Saul Alinsky become a right-wing zealot? In-Reply-To: <21999946.3252721250268956650.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <780593770.3263681250270693156.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> From: "CODEPINK" Sent: Friday, 14 August, 2009 09:29:48 GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Has Saul Alinsky become a right-wing zealot? August 14, 2009 It's so frustrating watching angry voters at town hall meetings spouting ridiculous accusations like Obama wants to euthanize the elderly and turn this country into Russia. And it's ironic to see the right contorting leftist tactics. In a memo Rocking the Town Halls, a group called Right Principles urges its members to "Use the Alinsky playbook," referring to Saul Alinsky, the guru of 1960s grassroots organizing whose work influenced community organizer Barack Obama. Let's not be out-organized by violent, right-wing tools of insurance corporations incited by Fox News. It's time to get out from behind our computers and get into town halls, rallies, Congressional offices, the streets. Let's not cut off debate with senseless shouting and threats, but open the debate to include calls for Healthcare Not Warfare and Medicare for All. Find a townhall near you and bring your peaceful, educated voice to the debate--be the change you want to see Listen to Medea on NPR's "Tell Me More": What Happened To Polite Protest? Discussion with Medea Benjamin Share Jodie Evans' piece: Pelosi is an expert on 'drowning out opposing views' TWEET IT ! FACEBOOK IT ! Tell your rep we need $$ for healthcare not warfare One woman who tried to open the single-payer debate was Dr. Carol Paris. At a Senate hearing on May 5 where Medicare for All was not even on the table, Dr. Paris stood up to demand a debate on the single-payer option l. She was charged with disorderly conduct but was proud that she had stood up to the insurance industry. We need hundreds like Dr. Paris at town hall meetings around the country! Let's take inspiration from that great woman who--in the 1920s--was denounced on the Senate floor as the "grandmother of all agitators": Mother Jones. Mother Jones always had sound advice for her union members: "Don't Mourn, Organize." Here's to a healthy debate! Dana, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Janet, Jean, Jodie, Medea, Nancy K, Paris, and Rae P .S. Upcoming travel opportunities with CODEPINK : ? Join our upcoming Peace Delegation to Kabul! ? You also have one more week to sign up for our September 16-22 delegation to Gaza . Jodie Evans: Pelosi is an expert on 'drowning out opposing views' Tweet It Share It on Facebook Find your local townhall--go be the peace & change we want to see! Tell your rep we need $$ for healthcare not warfare SUSTAIN PEACE! CHECK OUT OUR ONLINE STORE FOR SUMMER SPECIALS! unsubscribe from this list From suzannedk at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 13:02:22 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:02:22 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Mahmoud & Esfandiar's Excellent Adventure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Really funy and good. On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi < critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote: > Khanome Yoshie finds Mahmoud & Esfandiar very trippy. > > > Mahmoud & Esfandiar's Excellent Adventure > MRZine Editor > > Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, whose daughter is married to a son of Mahmoud > Ahmadinejad, is the President's Chief of Staff. Mr. Mashaei is known > for actions that have appalled certain conservative quarters of the > Iranian political establishment, such as attending a ceremony in > Turkey where women danced and hosting a ceremony in Tehran where women > drumming dafs brought out the Qur'an (don't ask me why this is > controversial). He is also known for making such fascinating remarks > as the following, according to Etemaad: > > * "The age of Islamism is over. It's not that Islamism doesn't > exist or isn't growing. Islam exists but its time is up. The age of > horseback riding is over now, though horses exist, and so do riders. . > . . Of course, it isn't completely finished, but it's getting there." > > * "Iran today is a friend of the American and Israeli peoples. No > nation in the world is an enemy of Iran, though, of course, we have > enemies, in fact, faced with the most dastardly enemies in the world." > > After the controversial 2009 presidential election, the first thing > the President of Iran did was to appoint Mr. Mashaei as First Vice > President, causing uproar in the aforementioned conservative quarters, > which the president initially ignored. Ali Khamenei, the Leader of > the Revolution, had to write a letter telling the president to cancel > the appointment of Mr. Mashaei, characterizing it as "contrary to your > interests as well the interests of the government." Eventually, Mr. > Mashaei was compelled to resign from the post, after more than a > week's resistance on the part of the president, who then defied the > disapproval of the conservative establishment to appoint Mr. Mashaei > to his present post. > > Mr. Mashaei is apparently incorrigible, however. Here's his latest > bombshell, according to Etemad-e Melli today: "Of the 24 million > Ahmadinejad voters, 20 million are critical of the system. These 20 > million people are even more critical of the system than the 13 > million Mousavi voters, since those 13 million only question the > Ahmadinejad administration, whereas these 20 million are saying No to > all the past years before Ahmadinejad." > > Whoa! > > Iran's reformist media have assiduously followed Mr. Mashaei's > excellent adventure, a few episodes of which have also been briefly > carried by some of the Western media. Both the Western and > Iranian-reformist media fail to ask an obvious question, though: is > the man who has stood loyally by Mr. Mashaei throughout his wild > ideological trip the kind of guy for whom the guardians of the system, > lay and clerical, military and civilian, would work in disciplined > cooperation to pull off a massive conspiracy for a massively rigged > election? > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 14 13:07:37 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Taliban Now Winning - American commander (WSJ) Message-ID: <770949225.3306351250276857343.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986154654218153.html WALL STREET JOURNAL AUGUST 10, 2009 Taliban Now Winning U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Warns of Rising Casualties By YOCHI J. DREAZEN in Kabul and PETER SPIEGEL in Washington The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan , the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar , the insurgency's spiritual home. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that means U.S. casualties, already running at record levels, will remain high for months to come. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the commander offered a preview of the strategic assessment he is to deliver to Washington later this month, saying the troop shifts are designed to better protect Afghan civilians from rising levels of Taliban violence and intimidation. The coming redeployments are the clearest manifestation to date of Gen. McChrystal's strategy for Afghanistan , which puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants. Gen. McChrystal said the Taliban are moving beyond their traditional strongholds in southern Afghanistan to threaten formerly stable areas in the north and west. The militants are mounting sophisticated attacks that combine roadside bombs with ambushes by small teams of heavily armed militants, causing significant numbers of U.S. fatalities, he said. July was the bloodiest month of the war for American and British forces, and 12 more American troops have already been killed in August. "It's a very aggressive enemy right now," Gen. McChrystal said in the interview Saturday at his office in a fortified NATO compound in Kabul . "We've got to stop their momentum, stop their initiative. It's hard work." In an effort to regain the upper hand, Gen. McChrystal said he will redeploy some troops currently in sparsely populated areas to areas with larger concentrations of Afghan civilians, while some of the 4,000 American troops still to arrive will be deployed to Kandahar. The Obama administration is in the midst of an Afghan buildup that will push U.S. troop levels here to a record 68,000 by year end. There are roughly an additional 30,000 troops from North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and other allies. Gen. McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, had a request outstanding for 10,000 more troops. Gen. McChrystal said he hadn't decided whether to request additional U.S. forces. "We're still working it," he said. Several officials who have taken part in Gen. McChrystal's 60-day review of the war effort said they expect him to ultimately request as many as 10,000 more troops -- a request many observers say will be a tough sell at the White House, where several senior administration officials have said publicly that they want to hold off on sending more troops until the impact of the initial influx of 21,000 reinforcements can be gauged. The U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is costing American taxpayers about $4 billion a month. Gen. McChrystal also said he would direct a "very significant" expansion of the Afghan army and national police -- which would double in size under the plans being finalized by senior U.S. military officers here -- and import a tactic first used in Iraq by moving U.S. troops onto small outposts in individual Afghan neighborhoods and villages. Outside experts are giving Gen. Stanley McChrystal an assessment of what the war in Afghanistan looks like on the ground, as WSJ's Peter Spiegel reports. One person briefed on the assessment said it will call for boosting the Afghan army to 240,000 from 135,000 and the Afghan police to 160,000 from 82,000. One official noted the emerging plans to double the size of the Afghan army and police will require thousands of additional U.S. trainers. The U.S. will also need more troops if security conditions in north and west Afghanistan continue to deteriorate, the official said. "At the end of the day, it's all about the math," he said. "The demand and the supply don't line up, even with the new troops that are coming in." In earlier phases of the assessment process, Gen. McChrystal's staff conducted a "troop-to-task" analysis that weighed increasing U.S. troop levels by two brigades -- each such unit has 3,500 to 5,000 troops -- or by as many as eight brigades, according to officials familiar with the matter. A middle option of four to six brigades was also considered, these people said. The prospect of more troops rankles some of Gen. McChrystal's advisers, who worry the American military footprint in Afghanistan is already too large. "How many people do you bring in before the Afghans say, 'You're acting like the Russians'?" said one senior military official, referring to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. "That's the big debate going on in the headquarters right now." Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said publicly during his campaign for the approaching Aug. 20 elections that he wants to negotiate new agreements giving the Afghan government more control over the conduct of the foreign troops currently in the country. Gen. McChrystal, however, says too many troops aren't a concern. "I think it's what you do, not how many you are. It's how the force conducts itself." Regardless of how he resolves the internal debate on troop numbers, Gen. McChrystal's coming report won't include any specific requests for more U.S. troops. Those numbers would instead be detailed in a follow-on document that is set to be delivered to Washington a few weeks after the assessment. The timing of Gen. McChrystal's primary assessment remains in flux. It was initially due in mid-August, but the commander was summoned to a secret meeting in Belgium last week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told to take more time. Military officials say the assessment will now be released sometime after the Aug. 20 vote. The shift came amid signs of growing U.S. unease about the direction of the war effort. Initial assessments delivered to Gen. McChrystal last month warned that the Taliban were strengthening their control over Kandahar , the largest city in southern Afghanistan . American forces have been waging a major offensive in the neighboring southern province of Helmand , the center of Afghanistan 's drug trade. Some U.S. military officials believe the Taliban have taken advantage of the American preoccupation with Helmand to infiltrate Kandahar and set up shadow local governments and courts throughout the city. " Helmand is a sideshow," said the senior military official briefed on the analysis. " Kandahar is the capital of the south [and] that's why they want it." Gen. McChrystal said in the interview that he planned to shift more U.S. troops to Kandahar to bolster the Canadian forces that currently have primary security responsibility for the region. Hundreds of American troops equipped with mobile armored vehicles known as Strykers are already in the province. "It's important and so we're going to do whatever we got to do to ensure that Kandahar is secure," he said. "With the arrival of the new U.S. forces we'll have the ability to put some more combat power in the area." View Slideshow U.S. soldiers took position near Sari Ghundi village as they patroled near the Pakistani border, about 60 miles southeast of Kandahar Monday. Regional Violence View Interactive Despite the mounting concern about the Taliban's infiltration of Kandahar , there are clear limits to how soon additional U.S. forces can be sent to the city. Moving forces from neighboring Helmand is nearly impossible, because those troops have already set up forward bases and recruited help from local tribal leaders, who have been promised American backing. As a result, the additional American troop deployments to Kandahar have only begun in recent days, with the arrival of new reinforcements that will continue into the fall. Gen. McChrystal defended the decision to focus first on Helmand . The current operation, one of the largest since the start of the war in 2001, was meant to disrupt the Taliban's lucrative drug operations there, he said. The armed group reaps tens of millions of dollars annually from the sale of opium from Helmand , and the commander said he wants to have troops on the ground before local farmers start to plant their next batch of poppies in November. The U.S. is working to persuade Helmand 's farmers to replace their poppy fields with wheat and fruit. The roughly 4,000 Marines in Helmand have been charged with putting Gen. McChrystal's thinking about counterinsurgency into practice. They are trying to build local relationships by launching small development and reconstruction projects. Gen. McChrystal said his new strategy had to show clear results within roughly 12 months to prevent public support for the war from evaporating in both the U.S. and Afghanistan . "This is a period where people are really looking to see which way this is going to go," he said. "It's the critical and decisive moment." Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen at wsj.com and Peter Spiegel at peter.spiegel at wsj.com From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 14 13:07:58 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] His future in doubt, Afghan president cuts ceasefire deals to get the vote out In-Reply-To: <1956251123.3274621250272135974.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <212099781.3306411250276878304.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Globe and Mail August 14, 2009 His future in doubt, Karzai cuts ceasefire deals to get the vote out The Afghan president has lost momentum since the start of the race as public anger mounts over corruption, the slow pace of reconstruction and the high civilian toll of the war. Sonia Verma Kandahar ? Afghan President Hamid Karzai is showing signs he fears losing his grip on power, ordering his security forces to respect an election-day ceasefire so that his supporters will turn out, and promising his leading rivals posts in a new government should he win. The President's announcements coincided with a report that his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the controversial and powerful head of Kandahar's provincial council, had brokered a series of secret ceasefire deals with Taliban commanders in some of the country's most violent districts in the south to ensure voter turnout in the President's favour. Although the latest polls suggest Mr. Karzai remains poised for ultimate victory, the co-ordinated moves reflect his campaign's deeper concerns over possible challenges to the election's legitimacy and, consequently, to Mr. Karzai's legitimacy should he win a second term. Mr. Karzai's camp worries that if he fails to secure the 50-per-cent vote needed next week to avoid a run-off, fighting could erupt that would challenge his authority and bolster support for his opponents in a second ballot. However, if the Karzais' calls for a ceasefire fail, the consequences could be doubly disastrous for the President, indicating that he has no control over his own security forces and was unable to contain the Taliban threat on the most crucial day of his rule. The new ceasefires with the Taliban have not been officially announced, but were reported by The Guardian newspaper, which quoted a NATO spokesperson to confirm them. Meanwhile, Mr. Karzai's offer to share power was rejected by his leading challengers, Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani. ?Don't think that this is finished. Don't listen to what others might tell you, this election is very close,? Dr. Abdullah, Mr. Karzai's main contender, told a rally Thursday in Mazar-i-Sharif, his ethnic stronghold. The former finance minister in Mr. Karzai's first cabinet has stepped up his campaign in recent days, brazenly attempting to cross Afghanistan's ethnic divide with an earlier rally in Kandahar, the President's Pashtun heartland and Taliban stronghold. Mr. Karzai has lost momentum since the start of the race as public anger mounts over corruption, the slow pace of reconstruction and the high civilian toll of the war. ?I will invite Dr. Abdullah, I will invite Ashraf Ghani, give them food and tea and give them jobs, as I did last time when I won,? Mr. Karzai said Thursday. Reaching out to his opponents is true to Mr. Karzai's political style. During his first term as president, he often cast himself as a conciliator between rival factions, a strategy that was credited for ensuring his political survival but also criticized for breeding damaging alliances with warlords and alleged drug traffickers ? including his brother Wali. Meanwhile, violence continued to surge ahead of next week's elections, underscored by a string of attacks Thursday. Two bomb blasts in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar killed more than a dozen people, including several children at play. Three British solders were also killed in a bomb blast Thursday morning while on a foot patrol in Helmand province, taking the toll of Britain's military dead in the country to 199. Two U.S. soldiers were killed in a separate attack. Former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, one of Dr. Abdullah's chief supporters, also survived a Taliban ambush in northern Kunduz province, where militants clashed with police for a second straight night. Undermining reports of a ceasefire with Taliban commanders, insurgents continued their campaign of intimidation with threats to disrupt the vote through violence. In Kandahar, the warnings are everywhere, posted on the walls of local mosques and schools meant to serve as polling stations. Local radio stations are also running announcements warning that anybody who votes will be ?strongly punished.? One poster on the wall of a mosque read, ?Do not participate in the election because we will target polling stations. If anyone participates in this election, we will give them strong punishment.? The Taliban has also threatened to ?block? roads leading to the polling stations. Some insurgents have registered to vote, even though they have no intention of doing so, presumably to gain access to polling stations to stage attacks. However, Afghan authorities expressed continued confidence that voters will turn out in sufficient numbers to produce a credible result. Mohammad Qaher Wassifi, election co-ordinator of Kandahar, told The Globe and Mail, ?Nobody from our staff is under direct threat and neither are the voters.? However, he would not reveal the precise number of polling stations, nor would he elaborate where the ballots would be counted. He maintained that voting would take place in various schools and mosques across Kandahar, save in two districts, which he would not name, because ?they are not currently under our control.? From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 14 13:08:38 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Addicted to War: America's Brutal Pipe Dream in Afghanistan In-Reply-To: <452209712.3138391250207309230.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1651248341.3306551250276918248.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1814-addicted-to-war-americas-brutal-pipe-dream-in-afghanistan.html 11 August 2009 Addicted to War: America's Brutal Pipe Dream in Afghanistan by Chris Floyd Looks like the "Good War" in Afghanistan is morphing even more directly into the "Drug War" that the U.S. government has been waging all over the world -- and especially against its own people -- for almost 40 years now, with all the attendant aggrandizement of authoritarian powers and degradation of civil liberties and human rights. As The Times reports , and Pentagon brass confirmed, the "continuity government" of the Obama Administration has drawn up yet another "hit list" of people to be arbitrarily assassinated: 50 "drug lords" allegedly associated with the Taliban. No doubt the many drug lords associated with the American-installed Afghan government -- and those cooperating directly with the Western occupation -- are exempt from this dirty laundry list. Of course, the runaway cultivation of opium in Afghanistan -- which is now flooding not only the West but also vast swathes of Central Asia with cheap heroin -- is a direct result of the American invasion in 2001: an operation ostensibly designed to capture Osama bin Laden, who somehow curiously slipped away from the Americans' curiously porous encirclement, never to be seen again (except of course for a few curiously timed transmission that seemed, curiously enough, to be geared to the domestic political needs of America's militarist factions). Of course, before the invasion, the Taliban had largely -- if ruthlesssly -- eliminated the cultivation of opium in the areas under its control. But the American military -- and its gung-ho CIA operatives ("We're killing people!" as one CIAer exulted to the Boston Globe ) -- instead empowered the Northern Alliance: the Russian-backed conglomerate of warlords and druglords who were freely growing opium in their territories. Now the Afghan insurgents -- themselves a loose conglomeration of factions given the conveniently misleading monolithic moniker of "the Taliban" -- have taken up the opium trade to help finance their operations as well. Meanwhile, poor Afghans are dependent on the opium trade, which fetches prices far above anything else they can grow. After all, their society and economy have been systematically destroyed by 30 years of savage war, kicked off not by the Soviet intervention in 1980 but by a terrorist campaign by religious extremists armed, funded and encouraged by the good Christian administration of Jimmy Carter, whose "national security" honcho, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wanted to draw the Soviets into "their own Vietnam" in support of their client regime in Kabul. Now, as Jason Ditz ? an indispensible chronicler of the Terror War in Central Asia ? points out , the Americans are adopting the Soviets' own failed strategy in Afghanistan: death-dealing military "surges" combined with wads of cash thrown blindly into the economic chaos caused by the military action. But you can't "build" a state while you are simultaneously waging war inside it. And you certainly can't build it by killing cucumber farmers , as U.S. forces did the other day. Expect even more of this as the Pentagon gears up its "Drug War" weaponry to eliminate the rivals of its favored criminals ? sorry, I mean to wipe out the scourge of Afghanistan's Taliban drug lord devils. If all of this seems grimly familiar, that's because it is. I've been writing about the merging of the Terror War and the Drug War in Afghanistan since? November 2001 , a few scant weeks after the Bush Administration sent the "carpet of bombs" they promised the Taliban ? back in June 2001; yes, before "the whole world changed" on 9/11 ? if they didn't play ball on the oil pipelines that Western consortiums were looking to lay across Afghanistan. It was obvious even then where we were going, as I noted in the Moscow Times , in that long-ago November: Among the isolated, out-of-step losers who dare open their mouths to mutter "doubts" about America's military campaign in Afghanistan, you will sometimes hear the traitorous comment: "This war is just about oil." We take stern exception to such cynical tommyrot. No one who has made a clear and dispassionate assessment of the situation in the region could possibly say the new Afghan war is "just about oil." It's also about drugs. For, although we must now hail the warlords of the Northern Alliance as noble defenders of civilization, the fact is that for some time they have also functioned as one of the world's biggest drug-dealing operations. Indeed, one of the main sticking points between the holy warriors of the alliance and their ideological brethren in the Taliban has been control of the profitable poppy, which by God's grace grows so plentifully in a land otherwise bereft of natural resources. (Always excepting the production of corpses.) In the good old days, when the brethren were united against the Soviet devil, all shared equally in the drug-running trade, under the benevolent eye of that great lubricator of illicit commerce, the CIA. When the Northern Alliance was driven from Kabul ? having killed 50,000 of the city's inhabitants during their civilized rule ? the Taliban seized the lion's share of Afghanistan's opium production. The noble warlords managed to hold on to several prize fields in the north, however, and together with avaricious Talibs, they helped fuel a worldwide rise in heroin traffic. Earlier this year, the Bush administration bribed the Taliban to stop growing opium ? a most effective use of baksheesh, according to the UN, which found that Afghan opium production dropped from 3,300 tons annually to less than 200. But the Northern Alliance leapt manfully into the breach, engineering a threefold rise in opium output on their territory this year. This note of praise for the Bush pay-offs to the Taliban was not ironic; I heartily approve of the notion of large-scale bribery to achieve foreign policy objectives. It is much better ? and in the end, far cheaper to the public purse ? than the murderous ravages of war. Alas, the murderous ravages of war are all too often the actual objective of imperial foreign policy; the profits, power and domination that accrue to the warmakers are far more enticing than the non-violent ends that can be achieved by bribery (or even by, god forbid, actual diplomacy: negotiation, compromise, mutual respect, that kind of thing). Or as Cheritto put it so memorably to his fellow robbers in Heat : "You know, for me, the action is the juice." And so on and on we go. The new head of the army of our Good War ally, Britain, is saying that the mission in Afghanistan " might take as long as 30 or 40 years ." By which time there will not be "tomb enough and continent to hide the slain." From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 14 13:12:03 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Herbert: A Scary Reality; Report from Congressman Schiff's town hall In-Reply-To: <1059623052.3131661250206168994.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <757737157.3307701250277123586.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/opinion/11herbert.html?th&emc=th New York Times August 10, 2009 A Scary Reality By BOB HERBERT Last week was a pretty good one for President Obama. Bill Clinton helped out big time when he returned from North Korea with the American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Sonia Sotomayor was elevated to the Supreme Court. And Friday's unemployment report registered a tiny downward tick in the jobless rate. But for American workers peering anxiously through their family portholes, the economic ship is still sinking. You can put whatever kind of gloss you want on last week's jobs numbers, but the truth is that while they may have been a bit better than most economists were expecting, they were still bad, bad, bad. Some 247,000 jobs were lost in July, a number that under ordinary circumstances would send a shudder through the country. It was the smallest monthly loss of jobs since last summer. And for that reason, it was seen as a hopeful sign. The official monthly unemployment rate ticked down from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent. But behind the official numbers is a scary story that illustrates the single biggest challenge facing the United States today. The American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs - and nowhere near enough good jobs - to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect. The country has lost a crippling 6.7 million jobs since the Great Recession began in December 2007. No one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished in this historic downturn. Analysts at the Economic Policy Institute noted that the economy has fewer jobs now than it had in 2000, "even though the labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then." Two issues that absolutely undermine any rosy assessment of last week's employment report are the swelling ranks of the long-term unemployed and the crushing levels of joblessness among young Americans. More than five million workers - about a third of the unemployed - have been jobless for more than six months. That's the highest number recorded since accurate records have been kept. For those concerned with the economic viability of the American family going forward, the plight of young workers, especially young men, is particularly frightening. The percentage of young American men who are actually working is the lowest it has been in the 61 years of record-keeping, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. Only 65 of every 100 men aged 20 through 24 years old were working on any given day in the first six months of this year. In the age group 25 through 34 years old, traditionally a prime age range for getting married and starting a family, just 81 of 100 men were employed. For male teenagers, the numbers were disastrous: only 28 of every 100 males were employed in the 16- through 19-year-old age group. For minority teenagers, forget about it. The numbers are beyond scary; they're catastrophic. This should be the biggest story in the United States. When joblessness reaches these kinds of extremes, it doesn't just damage individual families; it corrodes entire communities, fosters a sense of hopelessness and leads to disorder. The unemployment that has wrought such devastation in black communities for decades is now being experienced by a much wider swath of the population. We've been in deep denial about this. Way back in March 2007, when the official unemployment rate was a wildly deceptive 4.5 percent and the Bush crowd was crowing about the alleged strength of the economy, I wrote: "People can howl all they want about how well the economy is doing. The simple truth is that millions of ordinary American workers are in an employment bind. Steady jobs with good benefits are going the way of Ozzie and Harriet. Young workers, especially, are hurting, which diminishes the prospects for the American family. And blacks, particularly black males, are in a deep danger zone." The official jobless rate is now more than twice as high - 9.4 percent - and even more wildly deceptive. It ticked down by 0.1 percent last month not because more people found jobs, but because 450,000 people withdrew from the labor market. They stopped looking, so they weren't counted as unemployed. A truer picture of the employment crisis emerges when you combine the number of people who are officially counted as jobless with those who are working part time because they can't find full-time work and those in the so-called labor market reserve - people who are not actively looking for work (because they have become discouraged, for example) but would take a job if one became available. The tally from those three categories is a mind-boggling 30 million Americans - 19 percent of the overall work force. This is, by far, the nation's biggest problem and should be its No. 1 priority. ------------------------- From: Anthony Saidy Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:43 PM Subject: Fw: Congressman Adam Schiff's town-hall Hi, I attended Congressman Adam Schiff's town-hall meeting in Alhambra this evening. I would estimate that the crowd size was 1,000 to 1,200 people. The crowd appeared to be evenly split on the issue, judging from Schiff's first few questions: Who opposed health-care reform? Who supported health-care reform? and Who was there to learn? Very few applauded the last question. For the most part the crowd was well behaved; however, there were a few times at the beginning when the Far-Right tried to disrupt the proceedings. Each speaker spoke for several minutes, and the Far-Righter Wing-nuts (Let's call them them Deathers because the Death Panel theme was a popular sign) shouted and hooted "Questions!" Schiff and the others simply kept talking. If you have ever been to a city council meeting, then you know how boring such discussions can be. Also, more democratically-minded citizens told them to shut up. At one point, "Read the Bill" was chanted loudly. The speaker replied, "I have read the bill." I doubt that many who chanted have actually read the bill. Schiff made several important points regarding his position: He is in favor of health care reform, and, generally, in favor of Obama's plans. The most important answer he made in response to question was that most of his constituents supported health care and that he intends to vote for reform. The most disgusting aspects were some of the signs. To say that some signs were offensive is an understatement. The Lyndon LaRouchers (If misspelled, I don't care.) were there. They equated Obama to Hitler. One poster had Obama looking at himself in a mirror. He wore Hitler's mustache. The cover for a pamphlet that they were handing out took a Nazi picture of Hitler and Photoshopped Obama standing next to him. The most outrageous was an image with white-pancake make-up covering his face ? la Al Jolson. Imagine black face with white make-up. One of people screaming "Questions!" Questions!" was standing next to a man waving this placard. I simply turned around and called them racists. These people are dangerous. They are fanatical and they are organized. I was talking briefly with a woman who pointed out that her husband was over arguing with these goons. She said that he was a director at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The man reported that these goons were from Detroit. I guess that the best news is is that the extreme right-wing did not win this evening. Health-care reform and democracy won. I generally mingled and spoke with health-care reform supporters. I did have a minor encounter with an anti- choicer (Obama wants choice) . A man 60 or older who made it a point to put his face about three inches from my face. In our culture that is very aggressive behavior. I told him that was rude. He backed off a few inches. His story was that while he qualified for VA benefits he preferred to pay his medical bills himself. I told him that I was glad to pay for his VA benefits. Once he realized that he could not get me to scream at him, he walked away mumbling. How could he argue? KCAL reported that the police estimated the crowd at 3,000. That is too high. However, KCAL's conservative bias was show when the reporter only showed one anti-choicer and no pro-health-care reformer. They did follow up with a story about a free clinic downtown LA. The 11:00 o'clock news starts in 20 minutes. I hope I can stay awake to watch the coverage. Arch Miller From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 14 13:12:44 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Rabid Response In-Reply-To: <1516550008.3114581250203492988.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <837063381.3307931250277164182.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25991.html Politico 8/11/09 Over the top and beneath contempt By Roger Simon Today, we live in the age of rabid response. Not rapid response. Rapid response was yesterday. Rapid response was the political tactic of responding quickly to all attacks, no matter how outrageous or unbelievable. Those who did not respond rapidly, those who told themselves the public would not believe outright lies, failed to win higher office. (Thus Democrats still blame John Kerry for not responding rapidly enough in 2004 to the attacks of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.) Rabid response is different. The purpose of rabid response is to scorch the earth, to raise the stakes, to go nuclear in the hope that your opponent will be so shellshocked he can make no response at all. The purpose of rabid response is to grab the public by the throat and not let go. Have concerns over Barack Obama's health care plan? I don't doubt it. The plan is very long and very complicated and still a work in progress. But there is one thing we do know about it: It will establish "death panels." These death panels will determine whether you, your baby, your parents or your grandparents will receive health care or be left to die. In the street. Like a dog. How will the death panels operate? Who will be on them? Will they validate parking? We do not know. We know only that the death panels will judge each individual's "level of productivity in society" and render a life or death judgment. So says Sarah Palin on her Facebook page. In olden times, Palin might have made this claim at a speech or during a news conference where reporters might have asked questions like: "What proof do you have?" or "Aren't you just trying to scare people?" But Palin does not risk that. She takes no questions. She has done her duty as a rabid responder. She has rung the tocsin, sounded the alarm, lit the signal fire. Truth? Accuracy? Responsibility? Not her territory. Glenn Beck is a rabid responder on race. "This president, I think, he has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," Beck says. "This guy is, I believe, a racist." Rush Limbaugh is a rabid responder on Nazis and swastikas. He knows a lot about swastikas. He sees them everywhere. He looks at the Obama health care logo - which incorporates the familiar medical symbol of twin serpents on a staff - and sees it as being "damn close to a Nazi swastika logo." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi muddied the waters - surprise! - by saying those who oppose Obama's health care plan "are carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." But Limbaugh had a rabid response for that: "There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler-like logo." And then, out of left (or right) field, came this: "Ted Kennedy's dad, by the way, Joe Kennedy, sympathetic to Hitler, sympathetic to the Nazis," Limbaugh said. But Limbaugh was not done with the Nazis or Hitler. In the world of rabid response, invoking the ultimate symbols of evil to describe one's political opponents is routine. It doesn't matter what you say, as long as it is over the top and beneath contempt. "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate," Limbaugh said. "Hitler said he didn't need to meet with his Cabinet; he represented the will of the people. He was called the messiah. He said the people spoke through him." Which means, I guess, if Hitler were alive today, he would be a talk show host. Roger Simon is POLITICO's chief political columnist. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 14 13:13:14 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] The Health Insurers Have Already Won In-Reply-To: <713471317.3093591250200611699.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1870919637.3308301250277194055.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm Business Week August 6, 2009 COVER STORY The Health Insurers Have Already Won How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit By Chad Terhune and Keith Epstein As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group ( UNH ), Aetna ( AET ), and WellPoint ( WLP ). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling. Executives from UnitedHealth certainly showed no signs of worry on the mid-July day that Senate Democrats proposed to help pay for reform with a new tax on the insurance industry. Instead, UnitedHealth parked a shiny 18-wheeler outfitted with high-tech medical gear near the Capitol and invited members of Congress aboard. Inside the mobile diagnostic center, which enables doctors to examine distant patients via satellite television, Representative Jim Matheson didn't disguise his wonderment. "Fascinating, fascinating," said the Democrat from Utah. "Amazing." Impressing fiscally conservative Democrats like Matheson, a leader of the House of Representatives' Blue Dog Coalition, is at the heart of UnitedHealth's strategy. It boils down to ensuring that whatever overhaul Congress passes this year will help rather than hurt huge insurance companies. Some Republicans have threatened to make health reform Obama's "Waterloo," as Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has put it. The President has fired back at what he considers GOP obstructionism. Meanwhile, big insurance companies have quietly focused on what they see as their central challenge: shaping the views of moderate Democrats. The industry has already accomplished its main goal of at least curbing, and maybe blocking altogether, any new publicly administered insurance program that could grab market share from the corporations that dominate the business. UnitedHealth has distinguished itself by more deftly and aggressively feeding sophisticated pricing and actuarial data to information-starved congressional staff members. With its rivals, the carrier has also achieved a secondary aim of constraining the new benefits that will become available to tens of millions of people who are currently uninsured. That will make the new customers more lucrative to the industry. Matheson, whose Blue Dogs command 52 votes in the House, can't offer enough praise for UnitedHealth, the largest company of its kind. "The tried and true message of their advocacy," he says, "is making sure the information they provide is accurate and considered." Representative Mike Ross, an Arkansas Democrat who leads the Blue Dogs' negotiations on health reform, also welcomes input from UnitedHealth. "If United has something to offer on cutting costs, we should consider it," says Ross, a former small-town pharmacy owner. "We need more examples that work, and everything should be on the table." DEMOCRATIC WELCOME Fifteen years after the insurance industry helped kill then-President Bill Clinton's health-reform initiative, Ross is frustrating the Obama White House by opposing proposals for a government-run insurance concern that would compete with private-sector companies. The President argues that without a public plan, premiums and medical bills will remain prohibitively high. Ross and Matheson have given strong voice to the industry's contention that such a public insurer would actually reduce competition by undercutting private plans on price and driving them out of business. "We have concerns about a public option if it's not done on a level playing field," Ross says. Obama launched his Administration vowing to extend coverage to all Americans and help pay for it by reining in insurance costs. Seven months later, insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers that appeared vulnerable to a regulatory crackdown have been welcomed to the negotiating table by the President's own party. The several competing bills pending in Congress would guarantee all Americans access to health coverage, addressing the plight of the 47 million who are now uninsured. Congress plans to achieve that by expanding Medicaid, the government program for the poor and disabled; requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health; and mandating that everyone purchase coverage. Government subsidies would make the obligatory coverage more affordable. The legislation would do little, however, to slow spending by Medicare, the public program for senior citizens, or cut overall medical costs. Congress is considering taxes on the wealthy and on benefits now provided to many white-collar workers. During the UnitedHealth road show in July, Democrat after Democrat clambered into the company's promotional vehicle beneath a sign declaring: "Connecting You to a World of Care." Judah C. Sommer, who heads the company's Washington office, looked on with satisfaction. "This puts a halo on us," he explained. "It humanizes us." And that Democratic proposal to tax insurance companies? It seems to be fading after the industry said it would raise rates for workers and their families. UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia illustrates the industry's subtle role. Elected last fall, Warner, a former governor of his state and a wealthy ex-businessman, received a choice assignment as the Senate Democrats' liaison to business. The rookie senator landed in the center of a high-visibility political drama?and in a position to earn the gratitude of a health insurance industry that has donated more than $19 million to federal candidates since 2007, 56% of which has gone to Democrats. UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives. Corporations and trade groups play this role in all kinds of contexts, but few do it with the effectiveness of the insurers. In June, Warner introduced legislation expanding government-backed Medicare and Medicaid coverage for hospice stays for the terminally ill and other treatment in life's final stages. The issue isn't a top UnitedHealth priority. But the corporation wanted to help Warner with his argument that in the long run, better hospice coverage would save money. UnitedHealth prepared a report for lawmakers finding that 27% of Medicare's budget is now spent during the last year of older patients' lives, often on questionable hospital tests and procedures. Expanded hospice coverage and other services could save $18 billion over 10 years, UnitedHealth asserted. When Warner went to the Senate floor on June 15 to offer his bill, he cited those exact figures. He thanked the company for its support and put a letter from UnitedHealth applauding him in the Congressional Record . Warner acknowledges in an interview that he worked on the hospice-care legislation with UnitedHealth executives. But he stresses that he has long experience with health issues and has formed his own views. The senator echoes UnitedHealth's contention that a so-called public option could be a "Trojan horse for a single-payer system," meaning government-run medical care. Warner has heard from some of UnitedHealth's largest employer clients, such as Delta Air Lines ( SWY ). Delta CEO Richard H. Anderson, a former UnitedHealth executive, has told Warner and other lawmakers that big companies don't want government to limit their flexibility in crafting employee health benefits. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTION Obama's promise to boost competition and lower costs by having the government play a much broader role in health coverage has been steadily compromised because of the resistance of such Democrats as Warner. "There are different ways to skin this and get competition" in the insurance market, Warner says. Warner and other opponents of a public plan have relied on an estimate by John Sheils, an actuary who says that 88 million people, or 56% of those with employer-provided coverage, would desert private insurance for a government-run program. That would destabilize the marketplace and potentially kill the private insurance industry, according to Sheils, who works for the Lewin Group, a corporate consulting firm in Falls Church, Va. UnitedHealth lobbyists routinely cite Lewin's work, as do Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House Republican Whip. Left out of these testimonials or buried in the fine print is that a UnitedHealth unit owns the Lewin Group and thus is ultimately responsible for Sheils' paycheck. In an interview, Sheils says UnitedHealth gives him and the Lewin firm complete independence: "We call it like we see it," he adds. Some Democrats differ. Says Representative Pete Stark, the liberal California Democrat who chairs the House Ways & Means health subcommittee: "The Lewin Group's so-called analysis is suspect." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that the Sheils-Lewin figure is far too high. UnitedHealth brings a mixed record to its role helping to guide health reform. The company has repeatedly hit smaller employers and consumers with double-digit rate hikes in recent years, far greater than the overall rate of inflation. An investigation last year by New York's Attorney General will force the company to stop running two huge databases used widely within the insurance industry. By allegedly setting medical reimbursements too low?that is, skewing statistics in favor of insurers by understating "usual and customary" physician fees?the databases had resulted in the overcharging of consumers by billions of dollars nationwide. In January, UnitedHealth agreed to resolve the situation by paying $400 million in a pair of agreements with the New York Attorney General and the American Medical Assn., although it didn't admit any wrongdoing. In a separate case last year, UnitedHealth was forced to stop selling "limited benefit" plans with capped payouts under the imprimatur of the senior citizen group AARP. It turned out that the policies provided very modest coverage, catching many customers off guard, according to Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who helped bring the practice to light. Grassley pointed out that UnitedHealth paid as little as $5,000 toward surgery costing several times as much. Despite such episodes, UnitedHealth is generally well received in legislative circles in Washington. In late May its in-house point man on reform, Simon Stevens, hand-delivered a report to key senators detailing ways to save an estimated $540 billion in federal spending over 10 years. A week later, on June 4, Stevens accompanied UnitedHealth's chief executive, Stephen J. Hemsley, to a meeting with Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), an influential moderate member of the Senate Finance Committee. Conrad has since led an effort to create nonprofit medical cooperatives that would operate much like utility co-ops as a substitute for a federally run plan. With less heft than a proposed national plan, the state medical cooperatives would pose a far weaker competitive threat to private insurers. Conrad says in an interview that the co-op idea evolved independently of any industry input. Skirmishing over the public plan could jeopardize efforts at reform, he warns. Co-ops, he argues, are "the only alternative that's got much of a shot" to gain sufficient votes in the Senate. BRITISH EXPERIENCE UnitedHealth followed up on June 30 with another report for lawmakers pinpointing $332 billion in savings through better use of technology and administrative simplification. If enacted, those changes would potentially benefit UnitedHealth's Ingenix data-crunching unit. Ingenix, with annual revenue of $1.6 billion, is poised to establish a national digital clearinghouse to ensure the accuracy of medical payments and provide a centralized service for checking the credentials of physicians. Stevens, an Oxford-educated executive vice-president at UnitedHealth, once served as an adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In that capacity, Stevens tried to fine-tune the U.K.'s nationally run health system. Today he tells lawmakers that the U.S. need not follow Britain's example. Concessions already offered by the U.S. insurance industry?such as accepting all applicants, regardless of age or medical history?make a government-run competitor unnecessary, he argues. "We don't think reform should come crashing down because of [resistance to] a public plan," Stevens says. Many congressional Democrats have come to the same conclusion. UnitedHealth has traveled an unlikely path to becoming a Washington powerhouse. Its last chairman and chief executive, William W. McGuire, cultivated a corporate profile as an industry insurgent little concerned with goings-on in the capital. From its Minnetonka (Minn.) headquarters, the company grew swiftly by acquisition. McGuire absorbed both rival carriers and companies that analyze data and write software. Diversification turned UnitedHealth into the largest U.S. health insurer in terms of revenue. In 2008 it reported operating profit of $5.3 billion on revenue of $81.2 billion. It employs more than 75,000 people. In 2006, McGuire lost his job after getting caught up in the manipulation, or "backdating," of company stock options. UnitedHealth was forced to restate earnings over a 12-year period to reflect the extra compensation it had granted McGuire and other executives. McGuire's chief lieutenant, Stephen Hemsley, took over as CEO in December 2006. Two independent inquiries concluded that Hemsley wasn't involved with the backdating. Nevertheless he forfeited $190 million in past stock compensation and unrealized gains to resolve the matter. Hemsley, a former chief financial officer of the now-defunct Arthur Andersen accounting firm, generally shuns the spotlight. But when health reform became a central issue in the runup to the last Presidential election, company executives say they realized UnitedHealth needed to go on the offensive. Hemsley met with White House officials on May 15 and May 22 to promote his company's prescription for cutting federal health spending. In August 2007, the company hired Sommer, who previously headed global lobbying for Goldman Sachs ( GS ). He quickly built a new Washington team of former congressional aides and other K Street operatives. One key acquisition: Cory Alexander, former chief of staff for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), an influential moderate Democrat. Alexander had been lobbying for the huge mortgage financier Fannie Mae ( FNM ). Today, Sommer directs a team of nearly 50 people from UnitedHealth's spacious Washington office on Pennsylvania Avenue, equidistant between the Capitol and White House. The company spent more than $3.4 million on in-house and outside lobbying in the first half of 2009. Sommer has retained such influential outsiders as Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Leader who now works for the large law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird. Daschle, a liberal from South Dakota, dropped out of the running to be Obama's Secretary of Health & Human Services after disclosures that he failed to pay taxes on perks given to him by a private client. He advised UnitedHealth in 2007 and 2008 and resumed that role this year. Daschle personally advocates a government-run competitor to private insurers. But he sells his expertise to UnitedHealth, which opposes any such public insurance plan. Among the services Daschle offers are tips on the personalities and policy proclivities of members of Congress he has known for decades. Conceding that he doesn't always agree with his client, Daschle says: "They just want a description of the lay of the land, an assessment of circumstances as they appear to be as health reform unfolds." He says he leaves direct contacts with members of Congress to others at his firm. What people in Washington tend not to discuss, at least on the record, is the open secret that insurers are minimizing their forecasts of the eventual windfall they will enjoy from expanded coverage for Americans. UnitedHealth has given certain key members of Congress details about its finances and tax liability?both historical numbers and figures projected under various cost-sharing scenarios. But some on Capitol Hill are skeptical. "The bottom line," says an aide to the Senate Finance Committee, "is that health reform would lead to increased revenues and profits [for the insurance industry]. ... There will be [added] costs [to the companies], but we're not sure the revenues and profits will be as low as they say." A fundamental question about the health overhaul is what minimum standards will apply to the coverage all Americans will be required to have. UnitedHealth has been exchanging a high volume of information on the topic with members of the Senate Finance Committee and their staff. Stevens, the former British health aide, regularly scans PowerPoint presentations generated by the committee staff that attempt to calculate the actuarial value of proposed benefit packages. Senators stung by the projected $1 trillion price tag are winnowing down the required coverage levels to cut costs. This is good news for UnitedHealth, which benefits when patients pick up more of the tab. In late spring, the Finance Committee was assuming a 76% reimbursement rate on average, meaning consumers would be responsible for paying the remaining 24% of their medical bills, in addition to their insurance premiums. Stevens and his UnitedHealth colleagues urged a more industry-friendly ratio. Subsequently the committee reduced the reimbursement figure to 65%, suggesting a 35% contribution by consumers?more in line with what the big insurer wants. The final figures are still being debated. Stevens says UnitedHealth and its corporate clients want to steer Congress toward benefit levels and cost sharing that can help control overall health spending: "We are providing another resource of actual modeling and advice on how proposals in the committees are structured and some potential unintended consequences of going down certain routes." Perhaps more than any other insurer, UnitedHealth is poised to profit from health reform. Its decade-long series of acquisitions has made the company a coast-to-coast Leviathan enmeshed in the lives of 70 million Americans. United's AmeriChoice unit is the largest government contractor administering state Medicaid programs for the poor and federally sponsored plans for children. AmeriChoice's revenue rose 34% last year, to $6 billion, and it has 2.7 million people enrolled. Those numbers should continue rising under reform since congressional Democrats are proposing an expansion of Medicaid to help achieve universal coverage. More of the working poor would qualify for Medicaid, and AmeriChoice can sell itself to states as the leading service provider. HEALTH COACH AT THE OFFICE Another of the big beneficiaries among UnitedHealth's stable of subsidiaries is OptumHealth. It's the company's one-stop shop for managing the chronically ill, offering wellness programs and guiding consumers on treatment options. Even before the reform debate, these services were growing in demand as big employers, state and local governments, and others tried to curb health-care spending by supervising patients more agg