Conservative Revolutionary American Party III

A call for a Nationwide General Strike!!

2011-03-11T21:55:00.000-08:00

I found this on FaceBook..........the time is right for some national action......please join us on the frontlines of Democracy........

A call for a Nationwide General Strike!!
Share · Public Event.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location From sea to shining sea...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Created By Mike Benedict, Yuri Hall Keegstra

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Info We’re calling for a day of NON-VIOLENT ACTION to show the greedy corporations and their political lackeys that it is WE THE PEOPLE that make this democracy work and this country great. The plan is that we will not go to work or class and instead march, picket, gather in a place that makes sense in our town, city, or county, and non-violently make noise, create excitement, and promote solidarity.

HOW?
This will only work if YOU wor...k to help organize, get the word out (repost, share, invite friends) and participate. We’re calling for ACTION, helping to connect people, and providing other support as needed. You know your community. You know what will work. Leafleting? Picketing? A march? Neither of us can nor should dictate what local actions or activities look like. We ask that if you operate under the auspices of this movement that it be non-violent, but beyond that we want you, your family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues to creatively design and plan what is right for you.

From our group/cause page,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Call-for-a-Nationwide-General-Strike/150601308334693?sk=app_2373072738

click on "Discussions" on the left side. I now have topics for every state! Please check in, and let people know ...what state and city you are in or plan to be in on March 31.

WHY?
The lower 98% in the U.S. are under attack in a way not seen in generations. From union busting to outsourcing to mass layoffs, the working people of this country are being assaulted by corporations and plutocrats. While we lose our jobs, our benefits, and take cuts in pay, the rich are awarded massive tax breaks and amass obscene amounts of wealth. They buy politicians to do their bidding and pull the strings of corporate media to tell us that WE have to make sacrifices.

We believe that the workers, the unemployed, the underemployed, the students, the bottom 98% — have sacrificed ENOUGH and that it is time for us to say NO.

WHEN?
March 31st is the birthday of César Chávez, one of the preeminent labor and civil rights leaders in the U.S. during the 20th century. César Chávez and his incredible work helped to build the US Labor movement and the modern middle class. Our action, on his birthday, will strengthen the labor movement and help ensure that there will be a middle class tomorrow.

If you’re not familiar with him, you can start by reading these two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/César_Chávez
http://www.ufw.org/_page.php?inc=history%2F07.html&menu=research

Who is behind this?
Mike Benedict: Mike works in a vibrations test lab in Erie Pennsylvania and has been a UE (United Electric, Radio and Machine Workers of America) member for nearly 17 years. He has organized, fought for workers rights, single payer healthcare (HR 676) was canvass coordinator for Erie Pennsylvania during the 2004 John Kerry Campaign and ran for Eire city council in 2005. As someone that has studied the history of labor and economic trends, he recognized that we are now at a defining moment and that large scale action is necessary.

Yuri Keegstra: Yuri came across the “A Call For a General Strike” event on Facebook one night while organizing and sharing info regarding protests in Wisconsin and thought “absolutely!”. He works in IT at a Wisconsin university and is a proud union member. He has a strong interest in the civil rights, environmental, universal health care, anti-war, social justice, economic justice, and animal rights movements. He has been an organizer and activist since he was a teenager. More info can be found on his Facebook profile.

Who is behind them?
Nobody. Mike created the event and issued the call. Yuri saw, joined, and offered to help. Two people, a couple states apart, working on their own time with their own equipment. No union money. No political party money. No organization money. Nobody dictating or suggesting what to say or do. Just us — oh, and YOU!
See More

The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

2010-07-11T11:45:00.000-07:00
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the
brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:
"This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to
gather at one time in the White House with the exception of
when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Especially read the last quote from 1802.

When we get piled
upon one another in large cities, as in Europe,
we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every
generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save
one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for
Americans if they can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people under the
pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me
that most bad government results from too much
government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with
his taxes the propagation of ideas which he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that
banking institutions are more dangerous to
our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of their
currency, first by inflation, then by
deflation, the banks and corporations that will
grow up around the banks will deprive the people
of all property - until their children
wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.'

Michael Moore: Why I Had to Hire 9 Bodyguards After Winning an Oscar

2010-07-11T11:18:00.000-07:00
click on title for webpage............ 11 pages total..........

Democracy Now! / By Amy Goodman and Michael Moore

Michael Moore: Why I Had to Hire 9 Bodyguards After Winning an Oscar

In a wide-ranging interview, Moore talks about his controversial career, taking over his local Democratic Party, and unloads on Obama's handling of the Afghan war.
July 7, 2010

Amy Goodman: In this Democracy Now special, we spend the hour with one of the most famous independent filmmakers in the world, Michael Moore. For the past twenty years, Michael has been one of the most politically active, provocative and successful documentary filmmakers in the business. His films include Roger and me; Bowling for Columbine for which he won the Academy Award, Fahrenheit 9/11, SiCkO ; and his latest, Capitalism: A Love Story. I began by asking Michael Moore why he first became a filmmaker.

Michael Moore: I had a newspaper in Flint, Michigan called the Flint Voice, and so it was a, you know, underground, alternative newspaper that I edited and put out for about ten years. And we were always going up against General Motors and the powers that be in town and not getting very far.

And so, there was a magazine out in San Francisco that had been subscribing to my paper and asked me if I would come out and be the editor of this magazine. And so I thought that sounded like a cool idea, to do what I was doing in Flint and do it on a national scale, so I took the job. And right away there were—obviously there were problems with the owner of the magazine and me that we didn’t see eye to eye on a number of things. I wanted the magazine to try and reach more of a working-class audience, and they were more concerned, I think, about reaching more of a, you know, college-educated, liberal group of people, and—which are good people. But so, I was fired on Labor Day, about four months into it, and so I was out of work.

And I had given up everything in Flint. I had sold my paper and the house and everything. I don’t know if you’ve ever been unemployed, but it’s not pleasant, and you don’t know what’s going to happen next. Of course, I just had a high school education, so I wasn’t qualified to do anything or whatever. So I went back to Michigan and just to visit friends and family. And while I was there, there was a news bulletin that came on TV saying that Roger Smith was announcing that he was going to lay off another 30,000 people at GM, 10,000 of which would be at Flint. And Flint had already lost about 20,000 jobs at that point. Now, this is 1986. So I just thought, you know, I should just make a movie about this.

And I didn’t know anything about making a movie, and I hadn’t gone to film school or whatever. But the year before, these people had come to Flint to make a movie about the Klan and the Nazis that were kind of preying upon the unemployed at that time in Michigan, and they asked me if I would help them. And so, I said, "Sure," because, you know, they knew of my paper. And I kind of thought it was kind of cool, you know, how they did this, and I was watching how they did it. And one of them had made a film called The Atomic Cafe, a documentary back in the '80s. Remember that? It was very funny, you know, a cool documentary. And then the second person, Anne Bohlen, had made a film that I think won the Oscar. It was called With Babies and Banners. It was about the women's involvement in the Flint sit-down strike of 1936 and '37. And a third person was Jim Ridgeway, who was a great columnist of the Village Voice.

AMERICA 2.0: INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING & PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

2010-07-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

click on title for webpage............

July 3, 2010
AMERICA 2.0: INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING & PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

VIDEO EXPLAINING INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING

Fair Vote - IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference (i.e. first, second, third, fourth and so on). Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates. First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter’s preferences indicated on the ballot.

The candidate who received the fewest first place choices is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated.

Specifically, voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate will now have their ballots counted for their second ranked candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate. The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters' ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate earns a majority of votes.

Instant runoff voting allows for better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and alleviating the "spoiler effect," which can result in undemocratic outcomes. IRV allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate, while avoiding the fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate. It ensures that the winner enjoys support from a majority, using the same basic logic as traditional runoff elections. Plurality voting, as used in most American elections, does not meet these basic requirements for a fair election system that promotes cost-saving elections.

Rob Richie & Steven Hill, Nation - Voting for your favorite candidate can lead to the election of your least favorite candidate. Providing the means to express one's real views and insuring majority rule are basic requirements of democracy. But our current system badly fails these tests.

Fortunately, the British, Australians and Irish have a simple solution: instant runoff voting. They share our tradition of electing candidates by plurality--a system whereby voters have one vote, and the top vote-getter wins -- but they now also use IRV for most important elections. Mary Robinson was elected President of Ireland by IRV. Labor Party maverick Ken Livingstone was elected mayor of London. The Australian legislature has been elected by IRV for decades. States could implement IRV right now for all federal elections, including the presidential race, without changing federal law or the Constitution.

JOHN CLEESE EXPLAINS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

AMERICA 2.0: LEAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT ALONE

2010-07-11T10:54:00.000-07:00

click on title for webpage.........

July 4, 2010
AMERICA 2.0: LEAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT ALONE

Steps towards a better land

One of the politically dumbest and most pointless pursuits of liberals in recent years has been their efforts against the Second Admendment's protection of gun ownership.

One need only look at the failure of alcohol or drug prohibition to see how futile such efforts are.

Further, in the case of guns, the only people effectively limited in gun ownership are the good guys.

Meanwhile, the liberal obsession with this issue has been a political disaster, helping substantially to build the new right.

The Washington Times recently reported how the effort has also done nothing to change people's minds. In fact, "The public's taste for stricter gun-control laws is fading. In 1998, about seven out of 10 Americans - 69 percent - favored more stringent control. The number now stands at 45 percent, according to a new Harris Poll . . . There's a partisan divide, of course. Currently, 22 percent of Republicans favor stricter laws, compared with 70 percent of Democrats.

"'Large majorities' of the public overall have little problem with gun ownership: 80 percent say Americans should be able to own rifles or shotguns, 74 percent approved of handgun ownership. Half approve "open carry" weapons, 46 percent gave the nod to concealed weapons . . . "

The moral: leave the Second Amendment alone and get this majority of voters on the right side of other issues instead of being angry at liberals for wanting to take away their guns.

Wild Shots: Real facts about guns and violence

Posted by TPR at 7/04/2010

Social Security money stolen by government

2010-07-11T10:51:00.000-07:00

click on title for webpage..............

COMMENTARY

Social Security money stolen by government

By ALLEN W. SMITH
Guest columnist

Published: Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 4:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 1:57 a.m.
( page all of 3 )

In December, the Obama deficit-reduction commission will make recommendations for budget cuts that will then be voted on, with an up or down vote, by the lame-duck Congress.

Already, there is much speculation that Social Security will be one of the big targets. The rationale for cutting Social Security seems to be that, during such difficult economic times, everything should be a candidate for the chopping block, and that the public should support such cuts out of a sense of patriotism.

The flaw in this argument is that Social Security has not contributed a dime to the budget deficits or the soaring national debt. Social Security is funded exclusively by payroll taxes (also known as FICA taxes), paid into the fund by working Americans.

In 1983, the payroll tax was increased substantially in response to the recommendations, the previous year, of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform. Prior to 1983, Social Security had operated on a "pay-as-you-go" basis with each generation responsible for paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them.

The 1983 legislation changed the nature of Social Security funding. In addition to paying for the benefits of the preceding generation, as was customary, the baby boomers were also required to pay additional taxes to partially pre-fund their own retirement.

The net result is that the baby boomers have paid more into Social Security than any other generation. Yet they are often made scapegoats and blamed for the Social Security funding problem. I am not a baby boomer, but I am very sympathetic to them. They are getting a bum rap.

The intent of the 1983 legislation was to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years that were supposed to be saved and invested, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could later be drawn down to pay benefits to the baby boomers. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated more than $2.5 trillion that is supposed to be in the trust fund. If the trust fund actually held this amount in real assets, full Social Security benefits could be paid until at least 2037 without any changes. Unfortunately, none of the surplus revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, by the government, on wars and other government programs without making any provisions for repaying the money.

During the past 25 years, five presidents, and the members of Congress, have participated in the great Social Security scam. All Social Security contributions made by working Americans, except the amount which was needed to pay current retirement benefits, has been funneled into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes.

Some like to say that the government just "borrowed" the money during the time period when it was not needed to pay benefits. But borrowing implies repayment, and no provisions for repayment have been made.

The government did not enact future tax increases that would automatically kick in when the Social Security money was needed. Neither did they enact legislation that would end other spending programs once the Social Security money was needed so the money could be transferred to the trust fund.

The government spent the Social Security money, pure and simple, without making any provisions for future repayments. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they could not be sold to anyone even for a penny on the dollar. The Social Security trustees confirmed the worthlessness of the IOUs in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report with the following words:

"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

In order for Social Security to pay full benefits after 2016, it will be necessary for the government to begin repaying the money it has spent on other things. This will mean increased taxes and/or additional borrowing.

Neither of these is politically popular, and there is no assurance that future politicians will be willing to raise taxes to pay for the irresponsible behavior of past politicians. If the money is not repaid in full, with interest, it will have been stolen by the government from working Americans who paid into the fund.

Since Social Security would be fully funded until at least 2037 if the government had not used the money for other things, the only reason that politicians are advocating cuts in Social Security benefits is the fact that the government does not have the money with which to pay its debt to Social Security.

Given the fact that Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 made it a violation of federal law to use Social Security revenue for non-Social Security purposes, it is hard to justify using the word "borrow" to refer to any of the Social Security money spent after 1990, even if it is eventually paid back.

Allen W. Smith is a Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Eastern Illinois University. Dr. Smith is the author of seven books and holds a Ph.D. in economics from Indiana University.

JUDGE SLAMS RIAA, REDUCING DOWNLOADING FINE BY 90%

2010-07-11T10:27:00.000-07:00

click on title for webpage...........

July 11, 2010

JUDGE SLAMS RIAA, REDUCING DOWNLOADING FINE BY 90%

Torrent Freak - Another break happened today in the RIAA’s case against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, as the $675k fine was reduced by 90%. The judge in the case criticised the RIAA and held that the jury’s damages were unconstitutional. Even the reduced fine is described as “severe, even harsh” by the District Judge.

In the US there have been two major file-sharing cases against individuals that have gone to trial. In both cases the RIAA was initially awarded hundreds and thousands of dollars in damages, but in both cases these were slashed on appeal.

In the RIAA’s case against Jamie Thomas, the jury-awarded damages were reduced significantly as the excessive damages were ruled to be unconstitutional. Today, the same thing has happened with the case against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum.

The ruling issued by District Judge Nancy Gertner states that the constitutional issues are clear, and that attempting to avoid the constitutional challenges (that the damages are excessive in proportion to the crime) by reducing the damages would be the best way to handle these.

The verdict comes as no surprise to many, and may even come as a relief to the RIAA, who have faced some negative publicity over the damages awarded. It’s unclear, though, if this modification will stand, as the RIAA will have to accept it. If they don’t, a retrial will be called.

Judge Gertner finds a retrial likely, stating in the judgment: “The plaintiffs in this case, however, made it abundantly clear that they were, to put it mildly, going for broke. They stated in open court that they likely would not accept a remitted award.”

“The Constitution protects not only criminal defendants from the imposition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’, but also civil defendants facing arbitrarily high punitive awards,”

What Exactly Is COIN?

2010-07-11T10:18:00.000-07:00

click on title for webpage..............

July 10, 2010 at 08:17:32

What Exactly Is COIN?

By Sandy Shanks (about the author) Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Sandy Shanks - Writer

Since Defense Department figures show that COIN is costing American taxpayers approximately $5B/month in Iraq and Afghanistan, it behooves Americans to have intimate knowledge of what COIN is. Well, first of all, it is a misnomer. Second, it is an unproven strategic theory. And three, so far its use as an Americanstrategic principle has proven to be a dismal failure in three wars, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And four, its use by other world powers, Great Britain and France predominantly in the 19th and 20th centuries, has resulted in equally dismal success stories, meaning there are none.

COIN is a misnomer. That does not require any special intelligence, but it does require one to use one's reliable Webster Dictionary. COIN is an acronym for counterinsurgency. Insurgency is defined by Webster as an "insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own." Resistance is defined by Webster as"an underground organization composed of groups of private individuals working as an opposition force in a conquered country to overthrow the occupying power, usually by acts of sabotage, guerrilla warfare, etc." Once again, it does not take a genius to figure out that U.S. forces are an occupying power in Iraq, and that U.S.-led NATO forces commanded by an American general is an occupying force in Afghanistan. Ergo, those forces fighting occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan are not insurgents, but resistance fighters.

Now there we have a P.R. problem. No doubt insurgents, a notch above or below terrorists on the threat scale (depending on one's point of view), are bad guys, but resistance fighters?. In our own Revolutionary War citizen soldiers, merchants, clerks, farmers, seamen, fathers, mothers, daughters, and sons took up arms against George III and his armies. They became resistance fighters and, glory be, they won. The French Resistance against Nazi Germany is legendary. Contrary to nasty insurgents, resistance fighters are the good guys, if not heroes. Getting back to Iraq and Afghanistan, counter-resistance is a really bad term and will not garner many votes in Congress or in the eyes of the American public. A counter-resistance strategy is reminiscent of both the Nazi empire and the Soviet Union. But it is what it is. U.S. forces are implanted on foreign soil in Iraq and Afghanistan on bases that give new meaning to the term,fortress. They are virtual American cities in those lands. We are an occupier in those two sovereign nations, and those who wish us leave are not insurgents. They are members of a resistance movement, plain and simple.

Before we move on to what COIN actually is, the reader is reminded of its cataclysmic failure in Vietnam while using the colloquial term,"winning hearts and minds." Vietnam is the second longest war in our history. It cost the lives of 58,267 American troops, 303,644 were wounded. 1,100,000 Viet Cong and NVA soldiers were killed while the ARVN (South Vietnamese army) suffered 266,000 killed in action. Estimates of civilians killed directly by hostile action vary, but 2,000,000 in both Vietnams is as good a guess as any ...in other words, a lot. According to CBS, the war cost $686B in 2008 dollars. We lost. In April 1975, NVA forces captured Saigon, and North and South Vietnam simply became (Communist) Vietnam with Hanoi as its capital. From 1971 to 1974 I was a Marine officer. I still feel the chagrin and curse the COIN strategy with blasphemy that would never make it past OEN's "kind" censors.

Iraq is America's third longest war. Unfortunately, the clock is still ticking. It began on March 19, 2003, and continues to this day, seven years, four months later. Here again COIN is the operating strategic theory. Put a different way, after killing an estimated one million Iraqi civilians, causing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi refugees while destroying Iraq's infrastructure and economy the goal here is to win the hearts of Iraqis. I don't think so. Unfortunately, because the MSM no longer bothers to say much about Iraq because the flow of body bags returning to the U.S. has been marginalized, many Americans think Iraq is all but over. There may even be some who think we have won the war. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The war in Iraq is far from over. As a result of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and Iraq, American military forces have withdrawn from Iraq's cities, leaving the Iraqi Army and police to secure Iraq's most dangerous places, her city streets. American troops are now ensconced on their powerful military bases. A sand gnat can't approach the perimeter of these bases without being detected. An experienced resistance force commander with limited financial resources and weaponry will always demur from charging such an impenetrable fortress. The commander would seek more lucrative and vulnerable targets as American troops languish on their bases while being virtually useless, targets like government buildings,Iraqi army bases and recruiting centers, Iraqi police headquarters and their recruiting centers, and other sensitive areas, highways, bridges, oil infrastructure, etc. Guess what, that is exactly what they are doing as we speak under the umbrella of a MSM blackout to American viewers. In the meantime the government in Baghdad is in chaos. Elections were held in March. Iraq has yet to form a government due to rivalries, hatreds, corruption, politics, and God knows what else. The resistance movement in Iraq is taking full advantage of the vacuum while being under the radar of the American public. Victory there, under the auspices of COIN, is an unachievable goal. Over 4,400 Americans have been killed in Iraq, over 30,000 wounded. The cost of the war in Iraq is over $730B and counting.

The war in Afghanistan, in its ninth year, is now America's longest war. With COIN being the operational strategy still again intuitive readers might begin to see a trend, an ominous trend, a trend that embodies failure by its very definition and wars without end. Coalition dead as of July 7 stands at 1908, but there is an alarming pattern. The war began in October 2001. The worst year for fatalities was 2009, 521 killed. 2010 promises to be even worse. Already 340 have been killed and the Kandahar offensive which will be quite deadly has been postponed to early fall. At 102 June 2010 was the worst month of the war in terms of NATO fatalities.Worse, contrary to earlier projections that envisioned offensive action by coalition forces by now, it is abundantly clear that it is not we who are on the offensive. The Taliban, which is stronger than ever, are on the offensive. They are so bold now that they are attacking America's strongest bases. This is progress? No, this is COIN. The cost of the war in Afghanistan is over $282B and counting.

To closely examine COIN one must go by the book, thee book, Field Manual 3-24, the soldiers' guide to counterinsurgency operations. The book was written by none other than General David Petraeus, the general who was demoted from CENTCOM commander to become commander, NATO forces, Afghanistan, after the Stanley A. McChrystal debacle. Formerly, Petraeus was McChrystal's boss. The key points of FM 3-24 are shown below. For the sake of brevity, I will not comment on each one. It is assumed the reader is savvy on the topic of our current wars and that the futility of each point is self-evident. However, I will admit that I will be sorely tempted. Temptation will be somewhat relieved by the use of emphasis and brackets.

1-4. Long-term success in COIN depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule [which government].

1-10. For the reasons just mentioned, maintaining security in an unstable environment requires vast resources, whether host nation, U.S., or multinational.

1-30. Protracted conflicts favor insurgents, and no approach makes better use of that asymmetry than the protracted popular war.

1-113. The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government.

1-116. Six possible indicators of legitimacy that can be used to analyze threats to stability include the following:

The ability to provide security for the populace (including protection from internal and external threats).
Selection of leaders at a frequency and in a manner considered just and fair by a substantial majority of the populace.
A high level of popular participation in or support for political processes.
A culturally acceptable level of corruption.
A culturally acceptable level and rate of political, economic, and social development.
A high level of regime acceptance by major social institutions.

1-121. Unity of effort must be present at every echelon of a COIN operation.

1-131. The cornerstone of any COIN effort is establishing security for the civilian populace.You are joking, of course, General. Darn, I promised.

1 2

I am the author of two novels, "The Bode Testament" and "Impeachment." I am also a retired columnist who keeps a wary eye on other columnists.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Mark Twain's Unexpurgated Autobiography

2010-07-11T10:13:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the webpage...........

July 10, 2010

Mark Twain's Unexpurgated Autobiography

Quicklink submitted by Sheila Samples
(Add your own quicklinks easily with the
OpEdNews Quick Link Browser bookmark)

Wry and cranky, droll and cantankerous -- that's the Mark Twain we think we know. But in his unexpurgated autobiography, whose first volume is about to be published a century after his death, a very different Twain emerges, more pointedly political and willing to play the role of the angry prophet.

Read the rest of the story HERE:

America: The World's Master of Double Standards

2010-07-11T10:02:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the webpage..........

July 10, 2010 at 16:40:42

America: The World's Master of Double Standards

By michael payne (about the author) Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: michael payne - Writer

It's really a monumental job that we have to keep all these nations under some kind of semblance of control and compliance; but, then again, someone has to do it and we are the best qualified for the job. That's why we have established the set rules that we expect the rest of the world to follow.

But wait, is that not a contradiction? Isn't that a double standard, defined as "when something is deemed acceptable for use by one group of people, but is considered unacceptable for use by any other group?" Yep, that is exactly true. And in the case of America that has now become the rule as we currently occupy a position in the world that no other nation can match or even challenge -- at least militarily. So, therefore, we set down the rules and the rest of the world must follow them.

Here are some examples of what other nations might try to do, but according to the rules we have set it could not be justified, and their actions would have to be condemned:

*China invades and occupies Taiwan.

*Russia invades and occupies Georgia or Turkmenistan.

*Iran attacks Israel.

*India launches drones against Pakistan.

If any such attacks took place, how would America react? Why, we would demand an immediate end to this flagrant violation of international law. We would condemn the invaders and we would demand that the United Nations and all our allies do the same. We would be shocked at such violent aggression against sovereign nations and their civilian populations. We would call such actions a war crime, illegal, immoral, unconscionable.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

I'm reminded that Russia, in fact, actually invaded and occupied portions of the nation of Georgia in 2008; but, as reliable sources documented, Georgia had initiated these actions when they invaded the independent, separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and Russia retaliated. Regardless of the facts, after this turmoil began, the U.S. government vehemently denounced the Russia actions, claiming they were a violation of international law. But Georgia's were not?

Some cynic might ask, why is it if we have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and are making incursions into Pakistan, that these other nations such as Russia could not, under any circumstances no matter what the reason, invade other nations? The answer is very simple because that's the rule that we have put in place; we have the right to do it but others do not. It's because we say so. If it's a double standard, well so what? If some nations don't like it, just what are they going to do about it?

In researching this issue, it was determined that one other nation came very close to getting the top award for setting double standards -- Israel, a nation that has practiced the technique of double standards in the Middle East for over 40 years. The entire world knows that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal but Israel will not acknowledge it and refuses to join the NPT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been signed by 189 other nations.

Israel continues to accuse Iran of covertly building a nuclear weapon and has threatened to bomb the suspected nuclear facilities numerous times. It insists that Iran has no right to nuclear weapons because that would pose great danger to the Middle East. So, we have to conclude that it is perfectly okay for Israel to have nuclear capability but Iran, who insists that it is only developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, must immediately suspend its programs. It's the old double standard once again; Israel can do anything it wants in the Middle East but Iran and other nations cannot, thus taking hypocrisy to new heights.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for any military purpose. Acting as an agency of the UN, it has inspected Iran's nuclear program and facilities for years and has found no concrete evidence of any nuclear weapons development.

Has the IAEA been able to do the same thing in Israel, which clearly has one of the biggest arsenals in the world? Absolutely not! Because Israel refuses to admit to this fact. The U.S., which knows they have the arsenal, is not demanding that Israel join the NPT nor would it sanction inspections by the IAEA. Further, President Obama recently stated that Israel has the right to have nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. Is that not another double standard? Of course it is, but its okay because he said so.

1 2

Michael Payne concentrates his writings on domestic social and political matters,American foreign policy and climate change. His articles have appeared on Online Journal, Information Clearing House, Peak Oil, Google News and many others.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Biggest Threat to America-- It's our Immoral Military--

2010-07-11T09:57:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the wbepage.................

July 10, 2010 at 13:24:45

Biggest Threat to America-- It's our Immoral Military-- With A Leader Who Thinks It's Fun to Kill Afghans

By Rob Kall (about the author) Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Rob Kall - Writer

Beneath the mantle of defender of the realm, the US military has mutated into a massive parasitic, immoral tumor that is leeching the lifeblood from the US economy and destroying the good will the US earned over past decades.

The immoral words of James Mattis, intended replacement for General Petraeus, as head of US Central Command, are, the UK's INDEPENDENT reports, circulating throughout the world, that it's fun to kill Afghanis.
"Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know it's a helluva hoot. I'll be right up front with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you get guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil ... guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
This is the same general who led the controversial assault on Faluja-- where phosphorous bombs were used.

Mattis has not yet been confirmed by the US senate.

The leader of the military sets the standard for the troops. Already, we have an American military that tortures, with the approval of the Commander in Chief.

Allowing Mattis' kind of thinking to stand, let alone set the standard is totally unacceptable. But it is simply the tip of the iceberg.

Besides Abu Ghraib, we have the murders recently exposed by wikileaks and heroic whistleblower soldier Bradley Manning. There's the School of the Americas, where fascist and totalitarian regimes have their torturers trained. Then there are all the boondoggles the corpo-congress members use to feed billions in contracts to military corporations.

Then, let's not forget the Pentagon Papers that whistleblower hero Daniel Ellsberg used to expose the lies the Pentagon and the Nixon White House were telling about the Viet Nam War. Now, the Obama Administration is cracking down on the truth-telling whistleblowers. Shame on him and the people who follow his commands.

The US military has power similar to AIPAC. They both have the US congress and president in thrall to their will, afraid to deny their requests or wishes in any substantive way. But AIPAC costs the US a few billion dollars a year, directly. The US military costs hundreds of billions on the table and hundreds of billions in addition, hidden in specail funding.

It's time to end the reigns of fear and control by both AIPAC and the US military.

America needs a strong defense. There's no question about that. But the US military Industrial establishment has grown to big, too out of control, too unaccountable. The immoral arrogance of Mattis, and the fact that he felt comfortable expressing such sentiments are simply symptoms of a system that has gone horribly wrong.

Recently, former congressman Tom Tancredo suggested that Barack Obama is a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda. Tancredo is a chronic laughable buffoon. The real danger from within for the US is a bloated, out of control military that directs policy. To the extent that cowardly presidents state that they listen to their generals, as Bush and Obama have done, the Commanders in Chief, who fail to take command actually are a threat to the nation. But that's not why Tancredo said it.

It is time to dismantle the US military, to assess every nook and cranny of it, especially the most secretive, highest security parts, to identify what they do, how they've manipulated and intimidated and worked through lobbyists to corrupt congress and the whitehouse. Then, a smaller, a much, much smaller military, with tighter controls that prevent it from metastasizing again, can be re-invented as we shift from an abacus technological level system to a web 2.0 technology that re-assesses the way defense is done in the twenty first century.

Just because primitive third world nations use weapons to kill does not mean that the US should as well. Of course we need to be able to defend ourselves from such weapons but we also need to understand the new technologies at our disposal that can protect us without loss of life or violence. We already shifted from an era of manufacturing to an era of information and now we are in the process of shifting again to an age of connection. The generals in the high command are almost clueless. We need a new generation of defenders. As Dennis Kucinich has called for, we need a department of peace that fights for justice and opposes conflict.

1 2

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/James_N._Mattis.jpg/250px-James_N._Mattis.jpg

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

D-I-V-O-R-C-E; Dems vs Organized Labor

2010-07-11T09:48:00.000-07:00

July 10, 2010 at 13:47:03

D-I-V-O-R-C-E; Dems vs Organized Labor

By Richard Girard (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Richard Girard - Writer

Comes Organized Labor, hereafter referred to as the Complainant, before this honorable Court of Public Opinion to request that a temporary order of separation be granted in the common law marriage between the Complainant, and the Democratic Party, hereafter referred to as the Respondent.
This order is pursuant to a possible permanent order of separation and filing for a decree of divorcement by the Complainant if the the Respondent does nothing in the next twelve (12) months to correct the Respondent's current wrongful actions against the Complainant within their common law marriage. Among these wrongful actions are:

1.Mental Cruelty, in that the Respondent expects the emotional, electoral, and financial support of the Complainant without providing any support to the Complainant in return. Additionally, the Respondent expects the Complainant to support the Respondent's friends and associates, even if those friends and associates have been abusive to the Complainant in the past. Finally, the Respondent expects the Complainant to abandon all of the Complainant's friends and associates who have supported her against the Respondent's and his friends' and associates' abuse.

2.Adultery, in that the Respondent has not only been associating but colluding in public with Big Business, aka Multinational Corporations, Wall Street, Big Oil, etc., hereafter referred to as the Co-Respondent; who has a history of harming, demeaning, defaming, libeling, and otherwise doing everything in the Co-Respondent's power to damage and destroy the life, livelihood, well-being and sanity of the Complainant, up to and including the hiring of goons to to attempt to physically and emotionally break or even kill the Complainant. For the Co-Respondent's latest actions with regards to the Respondent, Notice is herewith given to this Court of the intention of the Complainant to file a separate suit for Alienation of Affection.

3.Failure to provide financial support to the Complainant, including a failure to provide any sort of meaningful health coverage to the Complainant or the Complainant's extended family, in spite of a promise, made in front of multiple witnesses, to do so. If Complainant is forced to proceed with a divorce, we will inquire of the Respondent during deposition what role, if any, the Co-Respondent played in the failure of the Respondent to follow through on his promise.

4.Emotional Child Abuse, in that the Complainant's and Respondent's three minor dependent children, Civil Rights, Labor Rights, and Small "d" Democracy, have been not only been neglected by the Respondent, but held up to ridicule and other emotional trauma by the aforementioned friends and associates of the Respondent, including the Co-Respondent, which has seriously affected the growth and well being of these minor dependent children, leaving them physically stunted and emotionally scarred.

This has been a very long and fruitful relationship, and it is only the fact that we have seen our neighbor the Religious Right, receive much the same abuse from their common law spouse, the Republican Party, that makes it incumbent on us to try and stop this while there is still a chance that the relationship might be salvaged. Complainant does not want a divorce: Complainant wants the caring Party that we have been living with for almost eight decades. But we will not be taken for granted.
For the Complainant:

_______________________
Richard J. Girard, R.R.Ex.

cc: Ulysses Ketcham

William E. Chetham

Anders Howe

Richard Girard is an increasingly radical representative of the disabled and disenfranchised members of America's downtrodden, who suffers from bipolar disorder (type II or type III, the professionals do not agree). He has put together a team to (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

How to Get Politicians to Admit in Public That the Drug War Has Been a Complete Failure

2010-07-06T09:47:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the full story.............

AlterNet / By Sanho Tree

How to Get Politicians to Admit in Public That the Drug War Has Been a Complete Failure

We do not need yet another blue ribbon commission or academic study to tell us our current policies are not working.

June 26, 2010

Today is the UN’s World Anti-Drug Day. China usually celebrates the day with mass executions and officials in other countries will trot out the usual speeches about the need to continue the war on drugs with ever greater determination. Yet despite a chorus of legal, military, law enforcement and public health voices calling for fundamental reform of our drug policies, their voices have largely fallen on deaf ears when it comes to elected officials. We do not need yet another blue ribbon commission or academic study to tell us our current policies are not working. So why does this zombie drug war continue to march on and what can be done to stop it?

Those who have worked on this issue know one of the most cynical secrets in Washington: many elected officials (if not an outright majority) are willing to acknowledge the fundamental failure of the drug war in private, but continue to vote in favor of it when the yeas and nays are called. Drug policy reform fails to get traction with elected officials because it is the quintessential "third-rail" political issue -- it’s a subject to avoid unless one is declaring support for the status quo. As Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, said, “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” Although Juncker was referring to economic liberalization, the quote is even more applicable to the war on drugs.

The disconnect between private and public views of elected officials has to do with the difficulty in explaining why “get tough” measures sound attractive to voters but are often counterproductive. Politicians must hope the voters will have some basic understanding of the economics of drug prohibition and how escalating the drug war only makes the drugs more valuable, thus attracting even more participants into the drug economy. But that can be tough when political challengers can run negative smear ads relatively cheaply and repeatedly to decimate their opponent’s poll numbers. Very few politicians are able to convey successfully such a paradigm shift in a soundbite. After all, if drugs are bad, why not wage a war against them?

Politicians are loath to go on record voting against drug war measures. Since Congress installed an electronic voting system in 1973, the number of recorded votes has soared because it became so much easier. The reason so many votes are on record (as opposed to a voice vote or simple head count) is not so average citizens can hold their representatives accountable for their votes. After all, the overwhelming majority of voters have never looked up their representative’s voting record. Those recorded votes are for the benefit of the political parties so that they can put their adversary’s votes on record to spotlight at a future time—usually during election season (e.g., “He voted for war funding before he voted against it”). So voicing support for drug policy reform is somewhat analogous to placing a loaded pistol on the table and praying your political challenger will not shoot you in the face with it. On-the-record votes also let lobbyists and pressure groups know they’ve bought their money’s worth of loyalty.

1 2 3 Next page » View as a single page 3

See more stories tagged with: congress, democrats, republicans, drug war, straw poll, un anti-drug day

Pot Versus Alcohol: Experts Say Booze Is the Bigger Danger

2010-07-06T09:40:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the full story..........

AlterNet / By Paul Armentano

Pot Versus Alcohol: Experts Say Booze Is the Bigger Danger

For more than three decades, America's marijuana policies have been based upon rhetoric. Perhaps it's time to begin listening to what the experts have to say.

July 1, 2010

Speaking privately with Richard Nixon in 1971, the late Art Linkletter offered this view on the use of marijuana versus alcohol. "When people smoke marijuana, they smoke it to get high. In every case, when most people drink, they drink to be sociable."

"That's right, that's right," Nixon agreed. "A person does not drink to get drunk A person drinks to have fun."

The following year Linkletter announced that he had reversed his position on pot, concluding instead that the drug's social harms were not significant enough to warrant its criminal prohibition. Nixon however stayed the course -- launching the so-called "war" on drugs, a social policy that now results in the arrest of more than 800,000 Americans each year for violating marijuana laws.

Decades later, the social debate regarding the use of marijuana versus alcohol rages on. Yet among objective experts who have studied the issue there remains little debate at all. Despite pot's long-standing criminalization, scientists agree that the drug possesses far less harm than its legal and celebrated companion, alcohol.

For example, in the mid-1990s, the World Health Organization commissioned a team of experts to compare the health and societal consequences of marijuana use compared to other drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and opiates. After quantifying the harms associated with both drugs, the researchers concluded: "Overall, most of these risks (associated with marijuana) are small to moderate in size. In aggregate they are unlikely to produce public health problems comparable in scale to those currently produced by alcohol and tobacco On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies."

French scientists at the state medical research institute INSERM published a similar review in 1998. Researchers categorized legal and illegal drugs into three distinct categories: Those that pose the greatest threat to public health, those that pose moderate harms to the public, and those substances that pose little-to-no danger. Alcohol, heroin, and cocaine were placed in the most dangerous category, while investigators determined that cannabis posed the least danger to public health.

In 2002, a special Canadian Senate Committee completed an exhaustive review of marijuana and health, concluding, "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue."

In 2007, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare hired a team of scientists to assess the impact of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs on public health. Researcher reported that the consumption of alcohol was significant contributors to death and disease. "Alcohol harm was responsible for 3.2 percent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia," they concluded. By comparison, cannabis use was responsible for zero deaths and only 0.2 percent of the estimated total burden of disease and injury in Australia.

1 2 Next page » View as a single page 0

See more stories tagged with: drugs, safety, marijuana, alcohol

Wal-Mart Is at the Center of a Major Legal Battle Over Pot Patients' Rights

2010-07-06T09:29:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the full story..........

AlterNet / By Mike Meno and Scott Michelman 12

Wal-Mart Is at the Center of a Major Legal Battle Over Pot Patients' Rights

Joseph Casias was wrongfully fired by Wal-Mart for testing positive for pot. Now the ACLU has filed a landmark lawsuit against the retailer that could alter the legal landscape

July 5, 2010

Earlier this week in Michigan, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that has significant implications for the thousands of seriously ill Americans across the country who legally use medical marijuana under state law, but still face employer discrimination because of the continued stigma attached to the medicine that brings them relief.

The plaintiff in the case is Joseph Casias, a 30-year-old married father of two, who was wrongfully fired from his job at a Battle Creek, Mich., Wal-Mart after he tested positive for marijuana following a drug screen. I emphasize the word "wrongfully," because Casias is a legal, registered medical marijuana patient in Michigan; he takes marijuana on the recommendation of his oncologist to help relieve the effects of sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor that was the size of a softball when diagnosed. This treatment--which Casias says relieves his symptoms more effectively than, and without any of the side effects caused by, his previous medication--became a legal option for Casias in 2008, after Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved a medical marijuana law that was drafted and sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project. In accordance with that law, Casias never used marijuana while on the job, nor did he ever work under the influence of marijuana. In fact, during his time at Wal-Mart, Casias was able to rise from an entry-level stocking position to a managerial role, and along the way was named the store's 2008 Associate of the Year.

But Casias's diligence meant nothing to Wal-Mart. In clear violation of Michigan's voter-approved law, which states that medical marijuana patients "shall not be subject to ... [any] penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business," Wal-Mart fired Casias simply because he had marijuana metabolites in his system, which says nothing about whether he was under the influence of marijuana at the time. Wal-Mart even had the temerity to challenge his unemployment benefits, though they retracted their opposition and issued a hollow statement calling the situation "unfortunate" after a barrage of protests that followed MPP's call for a nationwide boycott.

The Casias case will have great significance not only for Joseph's own life and livelihood but also for thousands of patients around the country in the 14 states and the District of Columbia where medical marijuana is legal. All too often, even after state law and a physician sanction a patient's use of marijuana -- a legitimate and safe medicine backed by countless studies, medical professionals, and public health groups -- employers still punish them for it. But no patient should be forced to choose between adequate pain relief and gainful employment, and no employer should be allowed to intrude upon private medical choices made by employees in consultation with their doctors.

Imagine, for a moment, if employees were similarly reprimanded for having any other legal medication in their system. Surely Wal-Mart wouldn't fire someone for following their doctor's advice to take, during after-work hours, any of the prescription painkillers sold daily in Wal-Marts all over the country, the majority of which carry far more harmful risks than marijuana. Yet that's essentially what happened to Casias. He was punished for following his doctor's advice to take a legal drug that provided him relief. And sadly, that same injustice has affected untold numbers of legal medical marijuana patients across the country, the majority of whom remain silent about their experiences because they fear compromising their chances at future employment.

1 2 Next page »View as a single page 0

See more stories tagged with: wal-mart, medical marijuana

Tomgram: Stephan Salisbury, Plotting Terrorism

2010-07-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the full story..........

July 6, 2010

Tomgram: Stephan Salisbury, Plotting Terrorism

Barack Obama may not have come into office pledging to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, but he did pledge one thing: to close the Bush-era prison at Guantánamo within a year. That couldn’t have been clearer. And as I wrote back then, it was also a reasonable basis on which to judge whether a democratic administration could do anything significant to roll back our Bush-created Homeland Security Nation and alter American policy abroad.

Now, we have our answer -- and it couldn’t be clearer either. No, he can’t. Or won’t.

Just last week, under the dreary headline “Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority,” Charlie Savage reported in my hometown paper that “the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013.” Admittedly, it would never have been an easy thing to do, not given domestic politics and the outsized fear of terrorism that goes with it. It would, however, have been a lot easier than sweeping away much of the rest of the legacy of the Bush administration: the Global War on Terror, the Department of Homeland Security, the Fear Inc. that now rules our lives and somehow managed to convince us, even with unemployment through the roof and the Gulf of Mexico turning into a dead sea, that the main danger to this country is “terrorism.”

As it happens, the only thing the Obama administration seems to have swept away was the name, Global War on Terror. The war itself, like Guantanamo, has proven as unstaunchable as that gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. However named, that “war,” the Afghan war, and the CIA’s drone war in the Pakistani borderlands have all expanded, while the war in -- or at least occupation of -- Iraq has been shrinking ever so slowly on a schedule the Bush administration set up before it left office.

Perhaps none of this is surprising, not with a holdover Secretary of Defense from the end of the Bush administration, the hawkish Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and a national security advisor who was a friend of John McCain’s, and might as easily have been chosen by him for the same post (had he won in 2008). Minus a few speeches and a friendlier attitude toward Russia, it’s increasingly hard to tell the difference between Obama’s imperial policy abroad and the Bush version of the same.

Meanwhile, at home, we remain scared to death by a fear machine that, 24/7, turns every inept doofus into public enemy number one. The latest news from our $281 billion Afghan war is this: there are, according to CIA director Leon Panetta, 50 to 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and, according to Michael E. Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, “more than 300” al-Qaeda leaders and operatives in the Pakistani tribal areas. That’s the “other superpower.” At home, too, as Stephan Salisbury, author of the invaluable Mohamed’s Ghosts: An American Story of Love and Fear in the Homeland, makes clear, we are largely fighting ghosts and phantasms, some helpfully conjured up by the government itself. Too bad we can’t wake up from this nightmare. (Check out Salisbury in Timothy MacBain's latest TomCast audio interview discussing how these cases are created via entrapment and informers by clicking here, or to download to your iPod, here.) Tom

Stage-Managing the War on Terror
Ensnaring Terrorists Demands Creativity
By Stephan Salisbury

Informers have by now become our first line of defense in our battles with the evildoers, the go-to guys in the never-ending domestic war on terror. They regularly do the dirty work -- suggesting and encouraging the plots, laboring as bag men to move the money, fashioning the bombs, and eliciting the flamboyant dialogue, even while following the scripts of their handlers to the letter. They have attended to all the little details that make for the successful and now familiar arrests, criminal complaints, trials, and (for the most part) convictions in the ever-distracting war against... what? Al-Qaeda? Terror? Muslims? The inept? The poor?

GOP Economic Plan: Punish the Jobless to Screw Over Obama

2010-07-06T09:18:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the full story.........

The New York Times / By Paul Krugman

GOP Economic Plan: Punish the Jobless to Screw Over Obama

There are five unemployed workers for every job opening. That does not seem to concern the GOP lawmakers opposed to extending unemployment benefits.

July 5, 2010

There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do.

But that was then. Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?

The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion.

By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain — improves their chances in the midterm elections. Don’t pretend to be shocked: you know they’re out there, and make up a large share of the G.O.P. caucus.

By the clueless I mean people like Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, who has repeatedly insisted that the unemployed are deliberately choosing to stay jobless, so that they can keep collecting benefits. A sample remark: “You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn’t pay as much. We’ve put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry.”

Now, I don’t have the impression that unemployed Americans are spoiled; desperate seems more like it. One doubts, however, that any amount of evidence could change Ms. Angle’s view of the world — and there are, unfortunately, a lot of people in our political class just like her.

But there are also, one hopes, at least a few political players who are honestly misinformed about what unemployment benefits do — who believe, for example, that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, was making sense when he declared that extending benefits would make unemployment worse, because “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” So let’s talk about why that belief is dead wrong.

Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.

1 2 Next page »View as a single page 0

See more stories tagged with: republicans, economy, jobs, unemployment

6 (Unlikely) Developments That Could Convince This Atheist To Believe in God

2010-07-06T09:12:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the full story.........

AlterNet / By Greta Christina

6 (Unlikely) Developments That Could Convince This Atheist To Believe in God

Atheists often point out that religious faith is closed off to evidence that contradicts it. What evidence would persuade atheists that their atheism was mistaken?

July 4, 2010

If I'm such an open-minded atheist -- if I really am an atheist because I think the God hypothesis is unsupported by the evidence -- what evidence for God would I accept? What would it take to change my mind?

Atheists often ask religious believers, "What evidence would convince you that you were mistaken?" We like to point out that religious beliefs are usually unfalsifiable -- there's no possible evidence that could prove them wrong, thus rendering them utterly useless. And even if they're falsifiable in theory (as any belief in a 6,000 year old Earth ought to be), they wind up being unfalsifiable in practice, with an endless series of denialism and goalpost-moving and "God works in mysterious ways" waffling. We often point out that the very definition of religious faith is believing without evidence, even believing in spite of evidence that flatly contradicts the faith. We point out that, when asked "What would convince you that your belief was mistaken?", the answer from believers is typically, "Nothing. Nothing would convince me that my God is not real. That's what it means to have faith." (Which makes accusing atheists of arrogance more than a little absurd... but that's not important right now.)

And atheists like to point out that this isn't true for us: Atheists are open to the possibility that we might be wrong and that the reason we don't believe in God is that we haven't seen good evidence for him -- if we see better evidence, we'll change our minds.

But I'll admit that I've been lazy about spelling out what that evidence actually is. When the subject comes up, I've tended to point to the legendary (in atheist circles, anyway) essay on this subject, The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists, by Daylight Atheism blogger Ebonmuse. I've tended to just point to that piece, and say, "What he said. That's more or less what I think."

But that seems like cheating. If I'm going to insist that my atheism is falsifiable, I bloody well ought to be willing to think carefully about what, exactly, would falsify it. Not for some other really smart atheist -- for me. And I ought to be willing to spell that out in public.

So it's time to go out on a limb. It's time to put up or shut up.

Here are the pieces of evidence that would convince me that God was real. Not necessarily that God was good, or worth worshipping -- simply that he/ she/ it/they existed.

And here, side by side with that, are some of the kinds of evidence that would not convince me God or the supernatural exists. Kinds of evidence that are typically offered by believers in debates with atheists, so often it's depressingly predictable. Kinds of evidence that flatly do not hold up. (All inspired, obviously, by the abovementioned Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists. From which I am stealing this whole idea outright.)

An Unambiguous Message

What would convince me: If I saw an unambiguous message from God, I would be persuaded of his existence. If I saw writing suddenly appear in the sky, in letters a hundred feet high, saying "I Am God, I Exist, Here Is What I Want You To Do" -- and if that writing were seen by every human being, written in whatever language they understand, comprehended in the same way by everyone who saw it -- I would be persuaded that God existed. I'd be puzzled as to why he'd waited this long -- why he'd decided to do it in 2010 and not at any other time in human history -- but I'd still believe.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page »View as a single page 0

See more stories tagged with: religion, god, atheism, belief

Just Give Money to the Poor? A Surprisingly Effective Solution to Poverty

2010-07-06T09:09:00.000-07:00

Miller-McCune.com / By Melinda Burns

Just Give Money to the Poor? A Surprisingly Effective Solution to Poverty

Half the world's population lives below the poverty line, despite extreme free-trade policies that were supposed to "lift all boats." It's time to try something new.

July 4, 2010

Back in the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth, English lawmakers said it was the government and taxpayers. They introduced the compulsory “poor tax” of 1572 to provide peasants with cash and a “parish loaf.” The world’s first-ever public relief system did more than feed the poor: It helped fuel economic growth because peasants could risk leaving the land to look for work in town.

By the early 19th century, though, a backlash had set in. English spending on the poor was slashed from 2 percent to 1 percent of national income, and indigent families were locked up in parish workhouses. In 1839, the fictional hero of Oliver Twist, a child laborer who became a symbol of the neglect and exploitation of the times, famously raised his bowl of gruel and said, “Please, sir, I want some more.”

Today, child benefits, winter fuel payments, housing support and guaranteed minimum pensions for the elderly are common practice in Britain and other industrialized countries. But it’s only recently that the right to an “adequate” standard of living has begun to be extended to the poor of the developing world.

In an urgent new book, Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution from the Global South, three British scholars show how the developing countries are reducing poverty by making cash payments to the poor from their national budgets. At least 45 developing nations now provide social pensions or grants to 110 million impoverished families — not in the form of charitable donations or emergency handouts or temporary safety nets but as a kind of social security. Often, there are no strings attached.

It’s a direct challenge to a foreign aid industry that, in the view of the authors, “thrives on complexity and mystification, with highly paid consultants designing ever more complicated projects for ‘the poor’” even as it imposes free-market policies that marginalize the poor.

“A quiet revolution is taking place based on the realization that you cannot pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots,” the book says. “And giving ‘boots’ to people with little money does not make them lazy or reluctant to work; rather, just the opposite happens. A small guaranteed income provides a foundation that enables people to transform their own lives.”

There are plenty of skeptics of the cash transfer approach. For more than half a century, the foreign aid industry has been built on the belief that international agencies, and not the citizens of poor countries or the poor among them, are best equipped to eradicate poverty. Critics concede that foreign aid may have failed, but they say it’s because poor countries are misusing the money. In their view, the best prescription for the developing world is a dose of discipline in the form of strict “good governance” conditions on aid.

America the Not-So-Beautiful!

2010-07-04T09:53:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the complete article............

July 4, 2010 at 04:38:16

America the Not-So-Beautiful!

By Eugene Elander (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Eugene Elander - Writer

We miss the Fourth of July holiday here in Sweden, where we spend summers. We will have a grillning or cookout, eat some watermelon, and light some tomtebloss or sparklers. Being American-born, and as much as I love Sweden, I will once again miss a full observance of the birthday of America.

But, then, America too seems to be missing the true spirit and meaning of the Fourth of July. Our high ideals have deteriorated to the point that they are nearly unrecognizable. America now condones torturing human beings, including some Americans, in the name of its elusive War on Terror -- as if one could ever declare war on a behavior.
It should be truly shocking that some one hundred people have died in our torture chambers all over the world (called rendition when it happens outside of the United States) and thousands of others have managed to survive inhuman and inhumane practices. That should be shocking, but Americans have become inured to such abuses of power.

It should truly be shocking that while America bemoans the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, right before that disaster our President had advocated a large expansion of unchecked offshore drilling -- this from a man who billed himself as an environmentalist, and still does.
It should truly be shocking that we subsidize the rape of our continent in the endless search for minerals by many billions of dollars of tax breaks, while paying mostly lip service to the search for clean energy.
It should truly be shocking that the Audacity of Hope, and Change We Can Believe In, have turned into Business As Usual in Washington.

I have always thought that America picked the wrong national anthem, as The Star Spangled Banner glorifies war and battle. Far better to have chosen America the Beautiful which pleads for tempering liberty with law while we mend our every flaw, and stresses the importance of mercy to our nation. But how can we credibly sing From Sea to Shining Sea when our seas are becoming more and more polluted daily, as are our rivers, lakes, land, and air? How can we credibly be the nation which once took in millions of hard-working immigrants -- but now, in some states, uses ethnic profiling to identify and deport anyone who came to this country without the necessary documents?

Immediately after the terrorist tragedy of September 11, 2001, I wrote three new verses for America the Beautiful which were read into the Congressional Record by my friend, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The last of these verses expresses my fervent hope:
Oh Beautiful, for all that s good, your best is yet to be;
Lets live our lives, in brotherhood, from sea to shining sea;
America, America, sometimes your path is hard --
But we ll not fail, right will prevail, with faith in Thee, and God!

Author's Biography Eugene Elander has been a progressive social and political activist for decades. As an author, he won the Young Poets Award at 16 from the Dayton Poets Guild for his poem, The Vision. He was chosen Poet Laureate of Pownal, (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Kindling a National Spirit for Independence

2010-07-04T09:46:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the complete article............

July 4, 2010 at 09:41:32
View Ratings Rate It

Kindling a National Spirit for Independence

By Kevin Gosztola (about the author) Page 1 of 3 page(s)
Become a Fan (15 fans)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Kevin Gosztola - Writer

All Americans are familiar with the surface history of America, the history that is published in textbooks, which conservatives have gone to war against with the hope of including less and less history and more and more American fables and mythology. Most are aware of how this nation declared its independence from the British. Or, so I thought.

This Fourth of July there's a poll circulating that indicates a number of people were not sure of whom America gained their independence from. The poll found twenty-six percent was unsure or said suggested America gained its independence from a country that was not England or Great Britain.

Thirty-five percent of non-whites were unsure while thirteen percent were unsure. Most alarming is the result indicating my generation between 18 to 29 was thirty-three percent unsure. And, add in the "other countries mentioned" besides Britain (7%), and you have forty percent of people between 18 and 29 not knowing the history of America's Independence Day.

I don't want to make too much of this poll. I only aim to share my belief that less and less young people are concerned with history. And, how much of Fourth of July really is about America's Independence anymore anyway?

Chances are the average American goes through this anniversary of our Independence Day never really thinking about how this nation had a group of people exercise self-determination and throw off the tyrannical government of King George III. The Fourth of July has devolved into barbecues, fireworks, and a chance for American consumers to get bargains on cars, mattresses, and electronics, etc.

Definitely a good portion of the history of American independence is history embellished with good storytelling--fables teaching Americans values that citizens should uphold and dreams citizens should chase after. Is it really so bad that young people don't know the history they have been taught in school? Not knowing some of that might provide an opening for discussion of the reality, much of which was outlined by the late great Howard Zinn.

To mark Independence Day, The Progressive is circulating a column from Zinn, "Put Away the Flags." Here's an excerpt from a brief essay that all Americans should read:

"On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy""

One wonders what the results would have been if those conducting the poll had asked about U.S. military history, the history of American wars and famous battles. Would that poll have found more Americans (and, in fact, young Americans) aware of those battles and that history? Would they demonstrate that, while they are unaware exactly of history, they believe that America is number one and has been able to beat back "enemies" to remain free for more than two and a half centuries?

1 2 3

Kevin Gosztola is a trusted author for OpEdNews.com. He also publishes to Open Salon, The Seminal, and recently launched a blog on Alternet. He is a 2009 Young People For Fellow and a documentary filmmaker who will graduate with a Film/Video B.A. (more...)

Independence Day?

2010-07-04T09:39:00.000-07:00

July 4, 2010 at 11:11:55

Independence Day?

By Rob Kall (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
Become a Fan (50 fans)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Rob Kall - Writer

Perhaps it's time we revisit the idea. Are we still independent? The revolution was against a nation that imposed massive corporate parasitsm upon us.

Who could argue that we are under a similar affliction now? But today, our afflictor is given its rights and power by the congress and the supreme court.

We face injustice in every direction. The coast guard protects BP from the media. Traitors like Joe Barton protect the oil giants from a weak president who does too little.

I subscribe to one tea party mailing list. Yesterday, one came, pointing out that only 17 percent of people in 1776 actually participated in the revolution. That's that eighty twenty rule. Eighty percent of just about everything gets done by twenty percent of the people. Funny coincidence that liberals make up about 20 percent of the electorate.

We CAN make change happen. It is not going to happen because a majority makes it happen. It will happen because a dedicated minority stands up and holds strong.

The weapon must be the truth and it must be broadcast widely and shone upon with a lot of light-- the light that the transparency movement and blogging have forced the powers to be to contend with.

We may be a minority. We may have little or no representation in congress. But the truths we expose will prevail.

Today is a day we remember courage that started the first contemporary Democracy. Let them remind us that Democracy is a living thing that requires care and feeding and love to survive. It is our job to rescue democracy from the parasites and carrion that would kill it... that are eating away at its heart and soul.

You are in a position to make a difference. Ask yourself, every day, what you can do, what you have to offer. And find something.

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, (more...)

The Fifty Six Men who Signed the Declaration of Independence

2010-07-04T09:38:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the fixty six fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?

Twenty four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well death would be the cost if captured. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education.

They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn't fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't. So, take a few minutes this year while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although some of these men suffered and died for their defense of liberty (as America's political prisoners do today) others went on to become respected leaders of society. In particular, Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of The Declaration of Independence, became the third President of the United States.

U.S. declares independence

2010-07-04T09:31:00.000-07:00

July 4:
1776 : U.S. declares independence

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Continental Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the independence of the United States of America from Great Britain and its king. The declaration came 442 days after the first volleys of the American Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts and marked an ideological expansion of the conflict that would eventually encourage France's intervention on behalf of the Patriots.

The first major American opposition to British policy came in 1765 after Parliament passed the Stamp Act, a taxation measure to raise revenues for a standing British army in America. Under the banner of "no taxation without representation," colonists convened the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765 to vocalize their opposition to the tax. With its enactment in November, most colonists called for a boycott of British goods, and some organized attacks on the customhouses and homes of tax collectors. After months of protest in the colonies, Parliament voted to repeal the Stamp Act in March 1766.

Most colonists continued to quietly accept British rule until Parliament's enactment of the Tea Act in 1773, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company by greatly lowering its tea tax and granting it a monopoly on the American tea trade. The low tax allowed the East India Company to undercut even tea smuggled into America by Dutch traders, and many colonists viewed the act as another example of taxation tyranny. In response, militant Patriots in Massachusetts organized the "Boston Tea Party," which saw British tea valued at some 18,000 pounds dumped into Boston Harbor.

Parliament, outraged by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, also known as the Intolerable Acts, in 1774. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America, and required colonists to quarter British troops. The colonists subsequently called the first Continental Congress to consider a united American resistance to the British.

With the other colonies watching intently, Massachusetts led the resistance to the British, forming a shadow revolutionary government and establishing militias to resist the increasing British military presence across the colony. In April 1775, Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, ordered British troops to march to Concord, Massachusetts, where a Patriot arsenal was known to be located. On April 19, 1775, the British regulars encountered a group of American militiamen at Lexington, and the first shots of the American Revolution were fired.

Initially, both the Americans and the British saw the conflict as a kind of civil war within the British Empire: To King George III it was a colonial rebellion, and to the Americans it was a struggle for their rights as British citizens. However, Parliament remained unwilling to negotiate with the American rebels and instead purchased German mercenaries to help the British army crush the rebellion. In response to Britain's continued opposition to reform, the Continental Congress began to pass measures abolishing British authority in the colonies.

In January 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, an influential political pamphlet that convincingly argued for American independence and sold more than 500,000 copies in a few months. In the spring of 1776, support for independence swept the colonies, the Continental Congress called for states to form their own governments, and a five-man committee was assigned to draft a declaration.

The Declaration of Independence was largely the work of Virginian Thomas Jefferson. In justifying American independence, Jefferson drew generously from the political philosophy of John Locke, an advocate of natural rights, and from the work of other English theorists. The first section features the famous lines, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The second part presents a long list of grievances that provided the rationale for rebellion.

On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to approve a Virginia motion calling for separation from Britain. The dramatic words of this resolution were added to the closing of the Declaration of Independence. Two days later, on July 4, the declaration was formally adopted by 12 colonies after minor revision. New York approved it on July 19. On August 2, the declaration was signed.

The American War for Independence would last for five more years. Yet to come were the Patriot triumphs at Saratoga, the bitter winter at Valley Forge, the intervention of the French, and the final victory at Yorktown in 1781. In 1783, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris with Britain, the United States formally became a free and independent nation.

US House Approves Bill Increasing Compensation for Oil Spill Victims

2010-07-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

clcik on title for complete article............

Friday 02 July 2010

by: Sarah Miley Jurist Report

US House Approves Bill Increasing Compensation for Oil Spill Victims

Docks in Biloxi, Mississippi, are littered with unused fishing boats. (Photo: kris krüg / Flickr)
The US House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill that would increase compensation for injured workers and victims' families that have filed claims against BP as a result of the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill [JURIST news archive] in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill marks the first piece of legislation passed by the House in response to the oil spill. The Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability (SPILL) Act would change several laws applying to legal liability on the high seas. The jurisdiction of the 1920 Death on the High Seas Act, which allows families of decedents to bring a civil action in federal court, would be extended from three to 12 miles from the US coastline........

Delegation From Oil-Afflicted Amazon Visits Louisiana Tribes Hit by BP Disaster

2010-07-03T10:21:00.000-07:00

click on title for complete article.............

Thursday 01 July 2010

Delegation From Oil-Afflicted Amazon Visits Louisiana Tribes Hit by BP Disaster

by: Sue Sturgis Facing South Report

From 1964 until it pulled out in 1992, Texaco -- which merged with Chevron a decade ago -- dumped some 17 million gallons of crude oil and 20 billion gallons of drilling waste water into waterways and pits in the Ecuadorean Amazon. The contamination has seeped into water supplies, where it's killed fish and is blamed for health problems among local residents, who suffer from elevated rates of cancers, reproductive disorders and respiratory ailments.
At a town hall meeting set for Thursday, July 1, in Dulac, La., the delegation will discuss a report about their experiences back home. Titled "The Lasting Stain of Oil: Cautionary Tales and Lessons From the Amazon," it offers advice for holding polluters accountable and planning for long-term recovery after severe environmental contamination.

And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For?

2010-07-03T10:19:00.000-07:00

click on the title for complete article...........

Thursday 01 July 2010

And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For?

by: Randall Amster J.D., Ph.D., t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: GrungeTextures, Sgt. Matthew Moeller / U.S. Army)
It was 1967, and the world was on fire. War at home and abroad demonstrably began to rear its head, and long-held American values of moral exceptionalism and widespread prosperity were rapidly destabilizing. A Democratic president escalated warfare half a world away, and the generals offered red-herring rationales about resource control and the necessity of finishing the job in order to defeat evil.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Panel Pushes Goldman on AIG Collapse

2010-07-03T10:15:00.000-07:00

click on title for complete article.............

Thursday 01 July 2010

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Panel Pushes Goldman on AIG Collapse

by: Greg Gordon McClatchy Newspapers Report

(Photo: Jesús Gorriti / Flickr)
Washington - Goldman Sachs executives first threatened to stop making exotic trades with the American International Group in July 2007 unless the insurance giant posted $1.8 billion in cash collateral to compensate for a slide in the mortgage securities market, internal AIG e-mails show.
When AIG refused to meet its demands, Goldman began betting hundreds of millions of dollars on the insurer's collapse, ramping up those wagers to $3.2 billion over the next 10 months in a strategy that put AIG under huge financial pressure, a congressional commission found.

Finance Must Be Put Back in Its Place

2010-07-03T10:08:00.000-07:00

click on title for complete article...........

Thursday 01 July 2010

Finance Must Be Put Back in Its Place

by: Christian Chavagneux Alternatives Economiques

The G20 display a desire to limit the instability of the financial sector. If it succeeds, it will still have to put that sector back to serving the economy.
Is the power of finance unlimited? During the 2000s, bankers, hedge funds, and other financiers enriched themselves by feeding a speculative frenzy of historic scope. Governments had to mobilize trillions of euros to save the banks and avoid having the economy plunge into depression.
Practically two and a half years after the fall of Lehman Brothers, what has changed? On the face of it, nothing. The banks rushed to reimburse governmental aid - and find themselves with their hands free once again. The markets continue to speculate to their hearts' content. They profit from an instability that they are the first to foster, since the more volatility there is, the more bets there are to be made and the more money is to be made. And as they, in fact, are making a great deal of money, the bonuses ensue. Business as usual...............

Who Will Pay, Wall Street or Main Street - the Tobin Tax or the VAT?

2010-07-03T10:04:00.000-07:00

click on title for complete article.................

Friday 02 July 2010

Who Will Pay, Wall Street or Main Street - the Tobin Tax or the VAT?

by: Ellen Brown, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

Wall Street banks have been saved from bankruptcy by governments that are now going bankrupt themselves; but the banks are not returning the favor. Instead, they are engaged in a class war, insisting that the squeezed middle class be even further squeezed to balance over-stressed government budgets. All the perks are going to Wall Street, while Main Street slips into debt slavery. Wall Street needs to be made to pay its fair share, but how?

Agreement Reached in Gulf to Prevent Sea Turtle Burning Deaths

2010-07-03T10:02:00.000-07:00

click on title for the complete article...........

Agreement Reached in Gulf to Prevent Sea Turtle Burning Deaths
Settlement Forces BP to Rescue Sea Turtles Before Oil Slicks Set on Fire

NEW ORLEANS— An agreement reached today among conservation groups, BP and the Coast Guard will ensure measures to rescue sea turtles from the surface before setting fire to oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico. The agreement came as a result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Animal Welfare Institute and Animal Legal Defense Fund.

How Goldman Gambled on Starvation

2010-07-03T09:55:00.000-07:00

clcik on title to see complete article...........

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by The Independent/UK

How Goldman Gambled on Starvation

Speculators set up a casino where the chips were the stomachs of millions. What does it say about our system that we can so casually inflict so much pain?

by Johann Hari

By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. Here's the rest. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world - Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more - have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world.

It starts with an apparent mystery. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people - mostly children - couldn't afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it "a silent mass murder", entirely due to "man-made actions."

How the TeleCom Industry Plans to Take Over the Internet in Four Easy Steps

2010-07-03T09:54:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the complete article.............

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

How the TeleCom Industry Plans to Take Over the Internet in Four Easy Steps

by Timothy Karr

Have you heard about the battle over the Internet?

It's a power grab that involves lawyers, lobbyists, unscrupulous legislators, phony front groups and the most powerful telecommunications companies in the world.

They've aligned themselves against the rest of us -- the millions of Americans who use the Internet every day, in increasingly inventive ways.

They've opened their wallets to Washington. It's an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's being made right now by AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- the companies that provide broadband access to the vast majority of Americans.

No Age of Austerity for the Rich

2010-07-03T09:51:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the complete article............

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

No Age of Austerity for the Rich

If austerity implies shared sacrifice to preserve a shared public sphere, America isn't really experiencing such an age

by Sasha Abramsky

We are, pundits frequently inform us, living through an "age of austerity". True, perhaps; but what that means, and what community responses it mandates, vary widely from country to country.

UK chancellor George Osborne's emergency budget was stark in the cuts that it laid out - and there's obviously a good case to be made that the notion of an impending debt crisis was largely used as a foil for an ideologically motivated attack on the public sector. But, to sell the cuts, the government couldn't resort to a simplistic "government-is-bad, welfare-is-awful" rhetoric. It wouldn't have worked with an electorate that still retains some affection for the redistributive, protective functions of government vis-à-vis the nation's poor; that still believes in a societal obligation to smooth out the roughest edges of a market system.

And so, in addition to cutting many public services by an eye-popping 25%, the budget also increased taxes. Most interestingly, it significantly raised the capital gains tax, a tax that falls largely on wealthier Brits.

For all its faults, Osborne's budget was one that made some attempt, both rhetorically and in reality, to share the pain. In that sense, the language of "austerity", with its deliberate historical linkage to the dreary, but socially cohesive, post-second world war years, wasn't entirely misguided. For in the aftermath of the second world war a shared sacrifice narrative developed that, in a powerful way, served as something of a societal glue, a cross-class bonding mechanism, keeping a devastated, in some ways humbled, country from fissuring as its imperial greatness waned; paving the way, eventually, for a return to prosperity in the 1950s.

Move the Money, Starve the Empire

2010-07-03T09:45:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the complete article............

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)

Move the Money, Starve the Empire

by Christine Ahn

June 26 may have been the last day of the U.S. Social Forum (USSF) in Detroit, but it might very well be the emergence of a more powerful antiwar movement in this country.

The U.S. Social Forum is a meeting place for progressive social justice organizations to discuss issues, strategies, and ideas for building a social movement in this country. The sessions on the antiwar and anti-militarism track made several linkages: between the domestic economic crisis and the bloated military budget, the expansion of U.S. bases and the displacement of farmers and indigenous peoples from their land and livelihoods, and the rise of militarism and violence against women.

We can't address the economic crisis blighting neighborhoods throughout the United States without moving money away from war. That's the only part of the national budget not being cut. Organizers at the USSF united two disparate sectors. One is comprised of grassroots base-building organizations with multicultural constituencies working to secure jobs, education, and services. The other includes national peace organizations with mostly white, middle-class membership.

These two groups largely organize separately. But they came together at the USSF because working poor people clearly can't get the jobs and services they need without challenging military spending. Likewise, peace groups can't end wars without a broad movement challenging the military-industrial complex.

Put Away the Flags

2010-07-03T09:38:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the complete article............

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by The Progressive

Put Away the Flags

Remembering Howard Zinn on July 4th
by Howard Zinn

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Holding BP Accountable

2010-07-03T09:36:00.000-07:00

click on the title to see the video............

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Holding BP Accountable

Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History'

2010-07-03T09:32:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the complete article..........

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Democracy Now!

Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History'

As world leaders gathered in Toronto for the G20 summit last week, leading activists from around the world joined thousands in Toronto's Massey Hall to oppose the G20 agenda. Maude Barlow was one of the key speakers at the event. She heads the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest public advocacy organization, and is a founder of the Blue Planet Project.

U.S. Experiencing Worst Episode of Prolonged Unemployment Since Great Depression

2010-07-03T09:30:00.000-07:00

Published on Friday, July 2, 2010 by Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)

U.S. Experiencing Worst Episode of Prolonged Unemployment Since Great Depression

Adjusting for demographic factors, current labor market downturn steeper than '82-'83 recession.

Washington, D.C. - As the nation contends with a long and sustained labor market recession, a new study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research demonstrates that the current unemployment rate is higher than the conventional measure shows.

"An unemployment rate that has hovered above 9 percent for several months is striking, but the jobs picture is even worse than it looks," said report author and CEPR Economist David Rosnick.

The study, "The Adult Recession: Age-Adjusted Unemployment at Post-War Highs," adjusts the current unemployment rate to account for demographic differences and finds that the unemployment rate has not fallen below 10.8 percent in the last 12 months. During the worst episode of the recession of the 1980s -- the second half of 1982 and the first half of 1983 -- unemployment passed 10 percent for 7 months.

The analysis notes that the population is older today than it was in the 1980s, which has the effect of lowering today's unemployment rate relative to the past. Since they change jobs more frequently and are more likely to move in and out of the labor market, Young people have a higher unemployment rate than older workers. Adjusting for this older workforce shows that the United States is experiencing the weakest labor market since the Great Depression.

The severity of the current unemployment situation suggests that policy makers should consider measures that would slow or reverse this trend. Additional stimulus such as work sharing or the extension of unemployment benefits by Congress would go far in addressing the plight of the millions of unemployed Americans suffering as a result of this downturn.

The full analysis can be found here.

Live Dangerously: Ten Easy Steps to Becoming a Radical Homemaker

2010-07-01T08:34:00.000-07:00

Monday 28 June 2010

by: Shannon Hayes YES! Magazine

When Shannon Hayes made a list of easy steps for becoming a radical homemaker, she didn't realize just how revolutionary they were.
When I first released Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, I was advised to make a list of "easy steps for becoming a radical homemaker" as part of my publicity outreach materials. My shoulders slumped at the very thought: Three years of research about the social, economic, and ecological significance of homemaking, and I had to reduce it to 10 easy tips? I didn't see a to-do list as a viable route to a dramatic shift in thinking, beliefs, and behaviors. But since the objective of such a list was smoother discussion and communication of Radical Homemaking ideas with the public, I did it.
I came up with the simplest things I could imagine—like committing to hanging laundry out to dry, dedicating a portion of the lawn to a vegetable garden, making an effort to get to know neighbors to enable greater cooperation and reduce resource consumption. I would perfunctorily refer back to them when radio dialogues flagged, when interviews seemed to be getting off track, or to distract myself when an occasional wave of personal sarcasm (I do have them on occasion) threatened to jeopardize an otherwise polite discourse about the book. After about 40 media interviews, I was pretty good at rattling them off, and I began to see their power and significance beyond helping me to be polite.
Take hanging out the laundry as an example. At the outset, it is deceptively simple: It saves money and resources, and it's easy. As I spoke about line-drying laundry more, however, the suggestion took on more meaning. Of course everyone would like to hang out the laundry. But many people don't do it. They're too busy. Thus, the commitment to hanging out the laundry represents a commitment to slowing down—it means starting to align one's daily household activity with the rhythms of nature. In my mind, hanging out the laundry moved from being a simple chore to being an act of meditation and reflection on a deeper, more profound commitment that a person wanted to make. Thus, draping shirts and socks on a clothesline wasn't just about getting a chore done; it represented the new, sane world so many of us are working to create. Every time a person sticks a clothespin on a pair of undies, he or she is saying, "I want a better world. And I'm willing to do what it takes." Laundry may be a simple first step, but it ultimately leads to something bigger.
Laundry became the central theme of a talk I gave recently in an affluent community, where golf course-quality lawns are ready at a moment's notice as the backdrop for the season's latest fad: large screen outdoor television sets. I was speaking at a community eco-festival, where volunteers were teaching residents about the importance of composting, solar panels, buying locally, and changing light bulbs. In my session, I talked about the power of living by one's values, the misery of excessive consumption, the importance of social change, the deep fulfillment and happiness that results from living with less and having more.
To help me drive my point home, my husband Bob armed me with a seemingly endless collection of images of fellow radical homemaker's lives: pictures of happy kids showing off their homemade toys, families gathering for feasts, piles of tomatoes on a kitchen counter following an early fall harvest, a sink full of grapes ready for juicing, friends in their backyard gardens, smiling bike riders. At the end of my talk, I was presented with a single question from a man wearing an expensive watch: "Americans fall on a spectrum with money," he explained, holding his hands about a foot apart from each other. "Most of the people you're talking about fall on this end," he said, waving one hand. "And what you're talking about may work for them. But what about those of us on this end?" With that, he waved his other hand. "What are we supposed to do to be able to live like that?"
There were a number of snarky remarks on the end of my tongue. But this man's eyes were earnest. Perhaps he saw something in those slides that his affluence could not buy. Nevertheless, my sarcasm propensity meter was no longer registering on the dial. It was time to switch to the safety zone and draw from my 10 easy tips: "Grow some vegetables in your backyard. Try learning how to can," I chirped at him. Once I re-gained my bearings, I talked about changing the world by moving toward what we love, not running away from what we fear. I talked about the power of small changes to result in a deep personal shift. I suggested he hang out the laundry.
There were no further questions. People politely thanked me for my time and left the room. One other man, who sat in the back corner, lingered. A longtime activist, he expressed his despair at the lifestyles of his neighbors. The social pressure to have a perfect lawn is huge, he explained. For years, he'd been doing programs to encourage residents to allow parts of their lawn to go wild for habitat—an even simpler step than gardening. The majority of his efforts were unsuccessful. There was too much shame. "It's so much easier for you," he lamented. "You can hang out the laundry." I gave him a quizzical look. He went on to explain local zoning codes. By law, people in his community weren't allowed to hang clothes outside. It was trashy. It would diminish property values.
But what about home values? I felt deeply sad for his neighbors. They'd devoted their life energy in pursuit of the material affluence required to live in this particular community. At the same time, the number of people in attendance at this eco-festival suggested they truly wanted to play a role in healing the planet. Ironically, the very laws of their community—both social and written—compelled them to turn their backs on their personal values. Henry David Thoreau's observations about the imprisonment of wealth were spot on: "The opportunities for living are diminished in proportion as what are called the 'means' are increased," he wrote. That day, I saw people who cared about the Earth, who wanted a better world. But their power to act according to these concerns was limited to their purchases alone—to buying solar panels, buy local campaigns, buying new light bulbs. They could try to buy some of their beliefs. But they couldn't live them.
I suppose that is the deepest wealth in the radical homemaking lifestyle. By needing less, we are free to live our beliefs. To us, this seems ordinary. To someone else, a values-driven lifestyle might seem an extraordinary act of bravery.
We need that bravery. Now. Worrying about our planet while adhering to local zoning codes or social norms forbidding ecologically sensible behavior is a recipe for disaster. Such laws require citizens to commit an ecological injustice by using a disproportionate share of our Earth's resources. They scream out for civil disobedience. As Thoreau reminds us, "break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." Go on and live dangerously. Hang out the wash.
For those who might be curious:
10 Easy Steps for Becoming a Radical Homemaker
•Commit to hanging your laundry out to dry.
•Dedicate a portion of your lawn to a vegetable garden.
•Get to know your neighbors. Cooperate to save money and resources.
•Go to your local farmers' market each week before you head to the grocery store.
•Do some spring cleaning to identify everything in your home that you absolutely don't need. Donate to help others save money and resources.
•Make a commitment to start carrying your own reusable bags and use them on all your shopping trips.
•Choose one local food item to learn how to preserve for yourself for the winter. Get your family to spend more evenings at home, preferably with the TV off.
•Cook for your family.
•Focus on enjoying what you have and who are with. Stop fixating on what you think you may need, or how things could be better "if only."
Shannon Hayes wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Shannon is the author of Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, The Grassfed Gourmet and The Farmer and the Grill. She is the host of grassfedcooking.com and radicalhomemakers.com. Hayes works with her family on Sap Bush Hollow Farm in Upstate New York.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!

Eight Ways the Great Recession Has Changed Americans

2010-07-01T08:32:00.000-07:00

Wednesday 30 June 2010

by: Mark Trumbull The Christian Science Monitor Report

Fifty-five percent of Americans in the labor force have experienced a job loss, a pay cut, or a reduction in hours since the onset of the Great Recession in 2007, a new survey finds.
More than half of Americans in the work force have lost a job, taken a pay cut, or faced cutbacks in paid hours on the job as a result of the recession that began in 2007.
According to a newly released in-depth survey, some 55 percent of adults in the labor force have experienced at least one of those job-market impacts of the Great Recession.
By tallying this stark statistic and others, the poll by the Pew Research Center paints a fuller picture of America's deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Job conditions may be the most significant way the recession has affected American families – but it is not the only one. The survey also measured prominent effects on spending and saving habits, wealth, and even attitudes about the nation's future prosperity.
"Here is an effort to look more broadly" at the recession, beyond just the official unemployment rate, says Paul Taylor, a co-author of the Pew report on the poll. The survey covered a representative sample of roughly 3,000 Americans during May.
Eight key findings reveal significant negative impacts, even while optimism about the future persists:
•Thirty-two percent of adults in the labor force have been unemployed for some period during the recession.
•Among people who have jobs, 28 percent have had hours reduced, 23 percent have seen pay cuts, and 11 percent say they've been forced to switch to part-time rather than full-time work.
•A "new frugality" has emerged, with 62 percent of adults saying they've reduced spending since 2007. Looking ahead, 31 percent say they plan to spend less than they did before the recession began, while just 12 percent say they plan to spend more. A major reason: Households plan to boost savings.
•Retirement plans are less certain, with baby boomers perhaps the hardest-hit generation. One-third of adults say they lack confidence that they will have enough income and assets for retirement, up from 25 percent who said the same in February 2009. Among workers in their 50s, about 6 in 10 say they may have to delay retirement.
•Nearly half of homeowners say the value of their house has declined during the recession. Of those who say this, 39 percent say it will take six years or longer for home values – a key source of household wealth – to recover.•Some 26 percent of Americans say that when their children become the age they are now, their children will have a lower standard of living than they now have. A decade ago, just 10 percent said that.
•Optimism about the future persists, but with headwinds. Most Americans continue to view their country as a land of prosperity. But 63 percent expect it will take three years or more for their family finances to recover to prerecession levels.
•Partisan views on the economy have flip-flopped. During the Bush presidency, Republicans were more upbeat about their economic future than were Democrats. Now with one of their own in the White House, Democrats are markedly more optimistic. A majority of Republicans, but not of Democrats, say the country is still in recession.

That ambivalence is echoed by economists. An official panel has not yet said whether the recession is over, and some who believe it is over now fear a "double dip," or a second recession.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!

The GOP's Genetic Link to Big Oil

2010-07-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

Wednesday 30 June 2010

by: Jim Hightower, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

If scientists were to compare the DNA of Republican congress-critters and of oil corporations, I'll bet they'd find that they match perfectly. After all, the two species have identical political instincts and seem to have a natural affinity for each other -- so I'm pretty sure they sprang from the same genetic pool.
How else can you explain the remarkable gusher of compassion that Republican lawmakers are presently directing toward Big Oil in general and BP in particular? For example, only hours after winning his party's nomination for a Kentucky Senate seat, GOP teabag darling Rand Paul was on national TV decrying Barack Obama as "un-American" for daring to demand that BP be held accountable for its human and ecological destruction in the Gulf of Mexico.
Next came Minnesota's Lioness of Loopiness, Michelle Bachmann, implying that the hard-hit people of the gulf are shiftless moochers who're using the oil disaster to grab corporate cash. Brimming with tears of compassion, the kooky congresswoman wailed that, "(BP) shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest."
And who can ever forget the astonishing public apology to BP's CEO by the oil-soaked Texas Republican Joe Barton? After Obama had gotten agreement from BP to set aside $20 billion to cover some of the damages it has caused, Barton called Obama's actions a presidential "shakedown." He asserted that it made him "ashamed" to live in America, and he obsequiously begged forgiveness from the reckless CEO whose faulty wells killed 11 American workers and continues to do inestimable economic and ecological harm.
Speaking of ecological harm, nature needs us to focus. All of us who love polar bears, whales, seabirds and other wildlife should put our minds together to send an urgent telepathic message to the animals in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska. Our message is blunt: Flee! Flee as fast as you can! Flee, because BP is coming!
While our public attention has been riveted on BP's disastrous blowout in the gulf, and the British oil giant has been quietly and quickly drilling another risky offshore well three miles off of Alaska's north coast.
Dubbed "Liberty," this project requires a technique called "extended reach," which is even more prone to explosions than the gulf process. First, BP is drilling down two miles under the Beaufort Sea, drilling sideways for up to eight miles to tap into one of our national oil reserves.
But wait -- didn't Obama impose a moratorium on such offshore drilling? Yes ... BUT: When Liberty was planned in the George W. Bush years, it was magically declared by his Republican devil-may-care regulators to be an "onshore project." How can that be? Because the rig sits on a tiny artificial island that BP built, so -- voila! -- it's "onshore" even though it's three miles offshore.
Also, just as in the gulf, industry-cozy regulators let BP write its own environmental impact statements for Liberty. And -- guess what? -- BP's 2007 statement said BP would cause no environmental problems. A-OK, said the winking regulators, as they rubber-stamped the project. And what about a disaster response plan, just in case, you know, something bad does happen? Not to worry, BP assured everyone, because the likelihood of a blowout is very remote. Didn't we hear that about BP's Deepwater Horizon well, too?
Meanwhile, as another oil giant drills away in the Beaufort Sea, GOP lawmakers are dutifully working in Congress to limit the legal liability of BP and its partners to a paltry $75 million each. For Republicans to continue marching in lockstep with Big Oil, despite public outrage at BP's greed, makes no sense at all. But they can't help it -- they're knee-jerk response is genetically programmed. They might even have oil in their DNA.
So, here we go again, putting Mother Nature at the mercy of insatiable oil profiteers. To learn more about BP's Liberty escapade, and to learn what you can do besides warning the sea animals to flee, call the Center for Biological Diversity in Alaska: (907) 274-1110.
National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.
Copyright 2010 Creators.com
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!

Summer in Iraq

2010-07-01T08:23:00.000-07:00

Wednesday 30 June 2010

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

Afghanistan has been getting all the ink lately, and for good reason. General Stanley McChrystal's act of self-immolation by way of Rolling Stone magazine kicked off a genuine no-bones-about-it constitutional crisis over civilian control of the military, until President Obama sacked him at pretty close to the speed of light. The number of troop deaths has reached 100, making June the deadliest month for the coalition since this war began eight years ago. Civilians continue to die all over the place, the poppies continue to flourish, and there's talk about talks with the Taliban, but nobody really wants to talk about that. The so-called "mainstream" media was kind enough to wait for a Democrat to be in the White House before publicly coming to the conclusion that the war looks unwinnable. Somewhere, George W. Bush is smirking over that one, but that's just par for the course.
So, yeah, every day is a busy day in the dust and mountains of Afghanistan, and June has been exceptionally busy even by that high standard. For the longest time - the better part of a decade, actually - Afghanistan was the war that nobody heard about. People died every day, the Bush-era strategies failed and failed again, but all eyes were focused on the war in Iraq. The script has been flipped, Afghanistan gets the headlines now, and the ongoing war in Iraq has been relegated to the back pages, if it makes the papers at all.
It would be a hell of a thing if this country, its people and its "mainstream" media could focus on more than one thing at a time, wouldn't it? Because we are still at war in Iraq, too. Soldiers are still dying there - 38 this year, seven this month - along with dozens of Iraqi service members and policemen. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians are killed and wounded every month, just like in Afghanistan, but we have somehow allowed ourselves to accept the farcical notion that things are settled enough over there that we can ignore what's going on.
Think again, folks, because it's high summer in Iraq, and tempers are getting very short. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the ugly effect of this ongoing conflict continues to grind the people into the ground:
At least three times a week, Maher Abbas brings one of his two young children or his elderly mother to the hospital to be treated for dehydration, stomach bugs or heat exhaustion. Lack of water and electricity are killing his family and his business, he said. Abbas's comments reflect a wave of fury that has erupted across this country of 30 million as Iraq's sweltering summer begins. Most people are having to deal with electricity shortages that leave them with no respite from the heat and no water when their household electric pumps shut off.
Seven years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraqis are taking to the streets to demand basic services they have not received, despite many promises and the expenditure of billions of dollars by the U.S. and Iraqi governments. Their anger has forced the hand of Electricity Minister Karim Wahid, who resigned Monday. In a news conference the same day, Wahid said the ministry could not keep up with demand and did not have enough money, adding that the situation was out of its control.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki defended his government and Wahid. He blamed Iraqis for consuming too much electricity, squatters for tapping into and overwhelming the electrical grid, and the previous parliament for not approving billions of dollars for infrastructure projects to be undertaken with several foreign firms, forcing the government to take out about $2.1 billion in bonds this year. He also warned that Iraqis should expect power cuts for two more years.
Two years. Think about that. Americans will be voting in another presidential election before the Iraqi people can even begin to hope for more than a few hours of reliable electricity a day, and they've been dealing with this situation for a very long time already. Under the best of circumstances, a lack of basic electricity and water service for seven years would be an unbelievable burden on the people, but these are not the best of circumstances by any stretch of the imagination, because it's summer over there. Iraq in summertime is one of the hotter places on the planet; the average daily temperature during this season is 104 degrees, and on many days tops out at nearly 120 degrees.
The heat and lack of services has already led to an outpouring of violence in that already-violent nation. Earlier this month, a protest at the provincial government building in Basra over the lack of electrical service turned unruly; Iraqi police officers wound up firing into the angry, frustrated crowd after bricks and bottles were thrown, killing one protester and wounding three.
According to another Washington Post report, "Iraqis typically pay about $200 a month for generator power that can run one or two appliances in their homes when the electricity is out. Iraqis have taken to unconventional means to beat the heat. Some sit in their cars with the air conditioning on or drench themselves in water before sleeping on cool tile floors."
Of course, the heat is not the only thing causing violence in Iraq. In the last week, car bombs and shootings killed several Iraqi police officers, soldiers and civilians all over the country. But the heat is adding another dimension to an already-unstable and deadly situation. For the seventh time since we invaded, it is going to be another long, hot, murderous summer over there.
We might want to pay attention.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!

Dennis Kucinich: Afghanistan, the Environment and Corporate Control of the Political Process‏

2010-07-01T08:18:00.000-07:00

click on the title for the video...........

Hi, Dennis here.

As you know, I've been leading the effort to try to stop our country from continuing its tragic mistake in Afghanistan. We need to rally, America, to say it's time to end the war once and for all: To set a date and to stick by it to end the war and it can't be in 2011, 2012. We can slow-walk the end of this war for another decade.

That's not acceptable. It's not acceptable because of the loss of lives of our troops, because of the loss of lives of innocent civilians, because of the corrupt government of Afghanistan, because there is no way to win and establish a democracy in Afghanistan, because we can't afford the war, because we have things at home that need to be taken care of: to create jobs, to save homes, to help rebuild our cities. We cannot continue to afford this war in any way, shape or form.

And so, I'm going to continue my efforts to not only create a debate, but also to build the votes so that when the war appropriation comes up again, we will have garnered an even stronger vote to get out of Afghanistan.

I'm asking for your continued support in this effort, not just your financial support - but your moral support. I'm asking you to talk to your friends and neighbors, to spread the word that we need to get out of Afghanistan. We must take a new direction in our international position.

We have to end the War in Iraq. We know that the war was based on lies. Americans now need to continue to focus on what's occurring in Afghanistan - the level of corruption that keeps rising is damaging not only our nation's credibility, but also damaging any hopes that we might have to achieve peace in the world. Clearly, a new approach is called for.

As the oil continues to rise up from the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, I brought to the floor of the House an amendment that would limit the ability of oil companies, who drill in the outer continental shelf, to be able to try to influence federal elections.

We are aware that the U.S. Supreme Court case (Citizens United) has been devastating to our ability to have real control over our political process. We know that the Buckley v. Valeo case - give speech to those that have money, but if you don't have money you don't have free speech - will have a severe impact on the election process.

This means now, more than ever, your participation in the political process, no matter how humble, needs to be felt. The voices of millions of individual Americans, acting out of concern for their government, can through a collective voice outweigh the tremendous influence of corporations. We must take a new direction with respect to campaign financing.

Finally, we need to let the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe be an opportunity to create a new direction with our energy policies. An opportunity to unite America in a grand cause to clean up, not just the Gulf, but to clean up our nation. To clean up not only its politics but to clean up America's environment. You'll be hearing more from me very soon about this endeavor.

But, for now, I want to say thank you for your help.

Please contribute generously as we strive to continue to serve the people of the United States of America and Ohio's 10th Congressional District in the Congress of the United States.

Thank you very much.

The Entabulator...‏

2010-07-01T08:13:00.000-07:00

This sounds like something from a SciFi movie............whatever it is, I want one...........LOLOLOL.............Scott (click on the title)

A technical description of the 'NEW' Turbo Entabulator.

Before watching the video clip, PLEASE read the background below:

Several years ago, Rockwell International decided to get into the heavy duty automatic transmission business. They were getting ready to tape their first introductory video. As a warm up, the professional narrator began what has become a legend within the industrial training industry. This man should have won an academy award for his stellar performance. Now remember, folks, this is strictly off the cuff, nothing was written down.

I think you will enjoy this 'once in a lifetime performance' from this silver-tongued gentleman. He has the mind-clouding ablility of Chairman B.O. to exhibit the power of fluent and persuasive speech! ! ! Let me make this perfectly clear, people . . . This man is nothing short of being a bit more than totally eloquent ('most probably . . . on any chosen subject - ac) ! ! !

Entabulat...wmv (3.1 MB),

The Entabulator...‏

2010-07-01T08:08:00.000-07:00

This sounds like something from a SciFi movie............whatever it is, I want one...........LOLOLOL.............Scott

A technical description of the 'NEW' Turbo Entabulator.

Before watching the video clip, PLEASE read the background below:

Several years ago, Rockwell International decided to get into the heavy duty automatic transmission business. They were getting ready to tape their first introductory video. As a warm up, the professional narrator began what has become a legend within the industrial training industry. This man should have won an academy award for his stellar performance. Now remember, folks, this is strictly off the cuff, nothing was written down.

I think you will enjoy this 'once in a lifetime performance' from this silver-tongued gentleman. He has the mind-clouding ablility of Chairman B.O. to exhibit the power of fluent and persuasive speech! ! ! Let me make this perfectly clear, people . . . This man is nothing short of being a bit more than totally eloquent ('most probably . . . on any chosen subject - ac) ! ! !

Entabulat...wmv (3.1 MB),

BP Turning Tykes Into Activists (With Exclusive New Video)

2010-06-29T09:13:00.000-07:00

June 29, 2010 at 10:24:23

Permalink
BP Turning Tykes Into Activists (With Exclusive New Video)

By Daniel Tilson (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Daniel Tilson - Writer

It's hard to know what to tell young children about the biggest news story of our time, the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Four-year-olds are curious by nature, to say the least. They're such indiscriminate information sponges that it can be darned difficult keeping big news of the "real world" out of their intake zone, even if you try.

Heaven knows must of us are careful not to sit them down in front of the evening news and go off to make dinner. But they still manage to catch wind of some of the more super-sized news stories of our day & age.

When that happens, it feels to this parent like the safest thing to do is offer some factual context, and some reassurance - enough information to create a basic understanding of what's happening, without nightmare-inducing levels of detail. Then let them question, comment, vent a little as needed, treating them like the little emerging citizens of the world that they are, complete with free speech rights (within reason, that is!).

That's what I ended up doing with my four-year-old this past weekend. She has been peripherally aware of the Gulf oil spill, especially living right near the coast in Florida. But we've shielded her from the more ugly aspects and images of the story, the way we do from any genuinely disturbing, scary input from this information overloaded world.

Early Saturday morning my daughter heard me talking on the phone about the Hands Across The Sand event, a fifteen-minute global happening where men, women and children would be gathering on coastal beaches worldwide, joining hands in peaceful opposition to the threat of continued offshore drilling.

When I got off the phone, Aliza was full of questions. So I carefully filled her in on what offshore oil drilling was, how BP's rig had exploded and sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, how oil had been gushing out ever since and how much trouble that was causing. I reassured her that it would get fixed, but I couldn't promise her it would never happen again.

That's where activism came into play.

Aliza was disturbed and dismayed when she heard about the oil spill and what it was doing to waters, wildlife and coastlines. She wanted to know if other kids knew about all this. And she wanted to know what she could do about it.

As she often does because she knows Daddy is a filmmaker, she asked me to grab the always handy little "Flip Video" camera and "take a movie", so she could "let the kids" know what was going on - and show them what they could do about it.

The thing of it is, once she felt like she had a better handle on this oil spill disaster story that been confusing her for a while, once she felt like she was able to have her say about it, and once she felt like she had done something to help prevent it from happening again...she seemed to feel much, much better.

Maybe The Next Generation Can Get Us Off Oil Once & For All...

http://www.youtube.com/user/dptilson

Daniel Tilson was born and raised in New York City, a graduate of Stuyvesant High School, and New York University's Film and Television School, with a double major in Film/TV Production & Broadcast Journalism. Tilson established his own first (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author

Sticking the public with the bill for the bankers' crisis

2010-06-29T09:08:00.000-07:00

June 28, 2010 at 21:57:04

Permalink
Sticking the public with the bill for the bankers' crisis

By Naomi Klein (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
Become a Fan (24 fans)

opednews.com

For OpEdNews: Naomi Klein - Writer

My city feels like a crime scene and the criminals are all melting into the night, fleeing the scene. No, I'm not talking about the kids in black who smashed windows and burned cop cars on Saturday.

I'm talking about the heads of state who, on Sunday night, smashed social safety nets and burned good jobs in the middle of a recession. Faced with the effects of a crisis created by the world's wealthiest and most privileged strata, they decided to stick the poorest and most vulnerable people in their countries with the bill.

How else can we interpret the G20's final communiqué, which includes not even a measly tax on banks or financial transactions, yet instructs governments to slash their deficits in half by 2013. This is a huge and shocking cut, and we should be very clear who will pay the price: students who will see their public educations further deteriorate as their fees go up; pensioners who will lose hard-earned benefits; public-sector workers whose jobs will be eliminated. And the list goes on. These types of cuts have already begun in many G20 countries including Canada, and they are about to get a lot worse.

They are happening for a simple reason. When the G20 met in London in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the leaders failed to band together to regulate the financial sector so that this type of crisis would never happen again. All we got was empty rhetoric, and an agreement to put trillions of dollars in public monies on the table to shore up the banks around the world. Meanwhile the U.S. government did little to keep people in their homes and jobs, so in addition to hemorrhaging public money to save the banks, the tax base collapsed, creating an entirely predictable debt and deficit crisis.

At this weekend's summit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper convinced his fellow leaders that it simply wouldn't be fair to punish those banks that behaved well and did not create the crisis (despite the fact that Canada's highly protected banks are consistently profitable and could easily absorb a tax). Yet somehow these leaders had no such concerns about fairness when they decided to punish blameless individuals for a crisis created by derivative traders and absentee regulators.

Last week, The Globe and Mail published a fascinating article about the origins of the G20. It turns out the entire concept was conceived in a meeting back in 1999 between then finance minister Paul Martin and his U.S. counterpart Lawrence Summers (itself interesting since Mr. Summers was at that time playing a central role in creating the conditions for this financial crisis allowing a wave of bank consolidation and refusing to regulate derivatives).

The two men wanted to expand the G7, but only to countries they considered strategic and safe. They needed to make a list but apparently they didn't have paper handy. So, according to reporters John Ibbitson and Tara Perkins, "the two men grabbed a brown manila envelope, put it on the table between them, and began sketching the framework of a new world order." Thus was born the G20.

The story is a good reminder that history is shaped by human decisions, not natural laws. Mr. Summers and Mr. Martin changed the world with the decisions they scrawled on the back of that envelope. But there is nothing to say that citizens of G20 countries need to take orders from this hand-picked club.

Already, workers, pensioners and students have taken to the streets against austerity measures in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Greece, often marching under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis." And they have plenty of suggestions for how to raise revenues to meet their respective budget shortfalls.

Many are calling for a financial transaction tax that would slow down hot money and raise new money for social programs and climate change. Others are calling for steep taxes on polluters that would underwrite the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change and moving away from fossil fuels. And ending losing wars is always a good cost-saver.

The G20 is an ad hoc institution with none of the legitimacy of the United Nations. Since it just tried to stick us with a huge bill for a crisis most of us had no hand in creating, I say we take a cue from Mr. Martin and Mr. Summers. Flip it over, and write on the back of the envelope: Return to sender.

http://www.naomiklein.org

Naomi Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, now out in paperback. To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Latest Casualty of the BP Spill: Strip Clubs

2010-06-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

To see the video click on the title...........for some reason I can't post things that I used to ...........like videos..........I just got a new computer with "windows 7"...........there are some features that I like but overall I still like XP best...........sorry, I digress..........LOLOLOL

Posted by Brian Merchant at 1:54 pm

June 28, 2010

Latest Casualty of the BP Spill: Strip Clubs

Cross-posted from Treehugger.

Lest you think the economic damage from the BP spill be limited to the seafood trade, tourism, and such industries directly dependent on an un-oiled Gulf of Mexico, we turn to one of the more unlikely institutions that’s seen its business dry up in the wake of the disaster: Strip clubs.

The Herald Sun reports:

An unlikely company has filed a claim for compensation regarding the disaster – a New Orleans strip club. The owners of The Mimosa Dancing Girls, located on the edge of New Orleans, claimed that the spill was bad for business as the fishermen who usually frequented the club cannot afford to spend money there …

Obviously, the impact of a disaster that puts entire industries out of commission is going to have a serious ripple effect — any business that previously relied on workers in the seafood industry is going to have a tough time, needless to say. And though many make the argument that some of these fishermen are getting paid by BP for doing cleanup work, it’s reasonable to assume that many will be saving that money, knowing that when BP no longer requires their services for cleanup, they may find themselves in dire financial straits.

Which is why it makes sense that many of the claims being filed now are not from fishermen, and that other industries may actually be getting hit harder right now: “officials at BP’s New Orleans claims centre said the bulk of claimants were no longer fishermen … As well as strip joint owners, restaurant waitresses, dock workers, plumbers and electricians also came to the centre, saying their livelihoods were severely hit,” the Sun reports.

For another example, just check out this CNN video of a business that is closing its doors tomorrow.

I’ll go ahead and state the obvious: the economic pain already being caused by the BP Gulf spill is already very real.

Should I Quit Being Christian?

2010-06-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

Tikkun / By Be Scofield 35 COMMENTS

Should I Quit Being Christian? Some Questions for the New Atheists

The new atheists negate the contributions of religious people in the reforming of religion and the resisting of injustice.

June 28, 2010

I want your opinion about something. I’m a liberal religious person who doesn’t believe in doctrines, dogma or a supernatural God. 19% of members in my tradition identify as atheist, 30% as agnostic and the rest Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pagan or otherwise. Many of us have been wounded by the bigotry, homophobia and dogma in the religions we grew up in and find refuge, support and community in my tradition. We come together on Sunday mornings to enjoy music and hear sermons about social justice, the power of community and how to live inspiring and meaningful lives. Some ministers may use the word God in an all-inclusive way but most choose to avoid the term because of its troubled history. Here’s my question for you: Should I abandon my tradition because liberal and moderate religion serves to justify the extremes? Is my participation in this religious institution providing legitimacy and credibility for fundamentalism, violence, oppression and bigotry done in the name of religion? I’m studying to be a minister in this tradition. It’s called Unitarian Universalism. Am I guilty by association? Should I jump ship? What do you think?

I know what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would tell me. They are two of the new atheists most responsible for spreading this idea about liberal and moderate religion justifying the extremes. Liberals are “aiding and abetting” the most dangerous religions because they give them credibility by participating in the institution of religion itself. Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “Religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of “moderate” religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” And when asked about why he lumps liberal religions like Unitarianism in with fundamentalism Hitchens responded a reference to Camus stating that he believes all religion is comparable to rats and vermin.

Believe it or not I’m open to their ideas. As someone who is committed to ending oppression against marginalized groups including atheists (see my post ”We’re All Born Atheists”. I listen very carefully to what they have to say. While I don’t have any plans to drop out of my graduate school and abandon my career path anytime soon I want to consider this question they raise very carefully. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.

The first question I have for Harris and Dawkins is this, do other liberal and moderate things justify their extreme forms? For example if Harris drinks liberally or moderately shall we conclude that he lends credibility or legitimacy to alcoholism? Does his liberal behavior justify the tens of thousands of deaths each year which are attributable to alcohol abuse? Why? Why not? Does the pot smoker give credence to the heroin addict? How about politics? Does the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich lend credibility to the Bush administration era policies that led to torture, war and occupation? Is Kucinich guilty for associating with the political system despite his fierce criticism of U.S. Imperialism? Was it enough for congressmen to speak out against the Vietnam War? Or should they have rid themselves of all government? Following Harris’ logic one could also say that the child building a baking soda volcano for her science fair legitimizes the most dangerous nuclear weapons that we have ever known because they both employ science. Can you think of any other real world examples that the logic of Dawkins or Harris would actually apply to? Or is this only true when it comes to religion? If so, what is unique about religion that makes this principle valid?

1 2 3 4 5 Next page » View as a single page 0

See more stories tagged with: christian, religion, christianity, bible, right-wing, atheism, conservative, liberal, christopher hitchens, atheists, intolerance

"I'm a Nervous Wreck":

2010-06-29T08:49:00.000-07:00

Mother Jones Online / By Mac McClelland 3 COMMENTS

"I'm a Nervous Wreck": Gulf Fishermen's Wives Face Trauma, Domestic Abuse, Economic Insecurity

The wives of the men whose livelihoods have likely been destroyed by the BP spill forever, grapple with an uncertain future and air their rage.

June 28, 2010

Oil stains cover the gloves of a Greenpeace official after he dipped them in oil floating on the surface in the Gulf of Mexico off Lousiana. Despite thick globs of oil that have coated their sandy beach, scared away tourists and forced fisherman to hang up their nets, Grand Isle residents insist the spill is no reason to stop drilling.

Inside a cool, shaded old plantation house in St. Bernard, Louisiana, we're all breathing in our favorite color and blowing out gray smoke.

This relaxation exercise is brought to a roomful of women by the St. Bernard Project, a nonprofit founded in 2006 to provide rebuilding services to Katrina-ravaged St. Bernard Parish as well as offer "psychological rebuilding" through its wellness and mental-health center. Since the oil spill started, the organization has been looking to vastly expand its services to meet the area's latest mental-health crisis: the unrelenting depression falling on families living and working on the Gulf Coast. Everyone here except the three clinic workers and me is a fisherman's wife.

Michelle, the clinical coordinator running this early-morning support group, asks the five wives who have come what the St. Bernard Project can do to help them.

"I don't know, because I don't know what's gonna happen."

"We need work. For the wives."

"Whatever happens needs child care. If wives are gonna start workin', someone has to take care of the kids. A lot of fishermen have kids."

"The biggest issue is that our situation is unknown," a woman named Tammy says.* She is tough and broad and has a soothing husk in her voice like phone sex or five packs of cigarettes. Tammy is dressed in white and is eight months pregnant. I hope never to get in a bar fight with her. "They haven't stopped the oil, huh? This is like a time bomb. You can't prepare for what you don't know. But I can tell you right now that we need toilet paper."

The claims checks BP is supposed to be sending are eight days late, which means everyone's out of cash for necessities. The day before, cars lined up and down the nearby highway for a 38,000-pound food giveaway. This morning, like every morning, there was a line outside a church center in New Orleans East, in a part of town where stray dogs scavenge trashy lots and industry makes the air smell like burning toast. There, and at four other locations around Southern Louisiana once a week, Catholic Charities is giving out $100 grocery vouchers. Though they don't open until nine, sometimes it takes being at the doors by four in the morning, when it's somehow already hot, to get one, because they always run out. But you can't buy toilet paper with the vouchers—food only.

I remember that about the $75 grocery vouchers the Red Cross gave us as Katrina evacuees in 2005. The checkout clerk at a grocery store in Ohio wouldn't let me buy vitamins, and boy was I mad about that. Had I not already cried myself out at the Gap looking at a shirt that I already owned but might be underwater back home, I would have pitched a sobby fit in Giant Eagle.

"They won't even let you buy Dawn," Brenda complains. It's difficult to describe Brenda without employing the phrase "fiery redhead." In January, she moved out of the 10-by-16-foot FEMA trailer she'd been living in with four kids and a husband and cats and dogs. In the new house, she can't stop the kids from sleeping in her bed, because they got used to doing it, out of necessity, for so long. She thinks almost everything, including the following statement, is funny: "I mean, Dawn is related to food."

1 2 3 4 Next page » View as a single page 0

See more stories tagged with: men, domestic violence, disaster, bp, spill, gulf, wives, fisherman

Byrd's Life Of Learning‏

2010-06-29T08:44:00.000-07:00

The Progress Report

June 29, 2010 by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Alex Seitz-Wald, Igor Volsky, and Tanya Somanader

CONGRESS
Byrd's Life Of Learning

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), America's longest-serving member of Congress and a "titan" of the U.S. Senate, died on Monday after 51 years and eight full terms in the Senate. Throughout his tenure, Byrd held a number of leadership positions, including majority and minority leader and president pro tem. "Raised by an aunt and uncle in grinding poverty and essentially self-taught, Byrd read deeply -- especially the US Constitution, the King James Version of the Bible, histories of the Roman republic, and English political history. He rose to leadership in the Senate by massive effort and an unrivaled grasp of Senate procedure, which he shared with colleagues on both sides of the aisle." "His life is the Senate," said former senator Bob Dole. "He knows more about it than anyone living or dead. He doesn't watch television. He doesn't follow sports. He's dedicated his life to the institution and his family." Indeed, Byrd's career was one of great evolution through education and learning. Despite his early and ugly involvement with the Ku Klux Klan, Byrd later became "a passionate advocate for civil rights, and he was one of the most vocal supporters of legislation making the birthday of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday." Later in his career, Byrd declared that he would change his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he initially filibustered. With his early opposition to the Iraq war, his ability to shape the Senate and its rules, and his tenacity to take on the coal industry, Byrd undoubtedly shaped his legacy and left a lasting imprint on the institution and our nation.

AN EARLY OPPONENT OF THE WAR: The New York Times' obituary notes that when asked how many presidents he served under, Byrd said, "None." "I have served with presidents, not under them," he would say. It was this belief in the legislature as a co-equal branch of government that led Byrd to stake out an early and rather prophetic opposition to the Iraq war. At a time when many lawmakers cowered to President Bush, Byrd opposed the 2002 congressional resolution often and loudly. It "amounted to a complete evisceration of the Congressional prerogative to declare war," he wrote in "Losing America," "and an outrageous abdication of responsibility to hand such unfettered discretion to this callow and reckless president." "How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will -- a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term 'self-defense'? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election?" Byrd asked in an October, 2002 New York Times op-ed. "We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared." As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent observes, "Byrd's stand against the Iraq invasion is not just a testament to his own courage. It's also a testament to the cowardice of other members of his party at an absolutely critical moment -- an epic cave that may have altered the course of history and should never be forgotten." Byrd's opposition to the Iraq War "was made all the more forceful by the fact that he had staunchly supported the Vietnam War -- and could speak with the authority of someone who had an institutional memory of the consequences of that decision," Sargent added.

RESPECT FOR THE SENATE: A strong and loud defender of Senate rules and procedure, Byrd authored a multi-volume history on Senate procedure and often delivered lengthy speeches on the floor reminding his colleagues of the failures of the Roman Senate. "He was as much a part of the Senate as the marble busts that line its chamber and its corridors," President Obama said in a statement. "His profound passion for that body and its role and responsibilities was as evident behind closed doors as it was in the stemwinders he peppered with history." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) remembered Byrd as "one of the greatest minds the world has ever seen." "He was the foremost guardian of the Senate's complex rules, procedures and customs, and as leader of both the majority and the minority caucuses in the Senate, he knew better than most that legislation is the art of compromise." Known for his defense of the filibuster, Byrd still criticized the way in which Republicans manipulated the rules to thwart the legislative progress. "The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence. But it is not a right intended to be abused," Byrd wrote in May of this year. "During this 111th Congress in particular the minority has threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to each Senator's duty to act in good faith." "A true filibuster is a fight, not a threat or a bluff. For most of the Senate's history, Senators motivated to extend debate had to hold the floor as long as they were physically able. The Senate was either persuaded by the strength of their arguments or unconvinced by either their commitment or their stamina. True filibusters were therefore less frequent, and more commonly discouraged, due to every Senator's understanding that such undertakings required grueling personal sacrifice, exhausting preparation, and a willingness to be criticized for disrupting the nation's business. Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the 'world's greatest deliberative body' to a grinding halt. Why?"

GROWING SUPPORT FOR CHANGE: Once a strong proponent of the coal industry, Byrd began to advocate for reform of the industry towards the end of his career, working with other senators to craft global warming legislation that would smooth the transition for miners and the coal industry to a clean energy economy. In an op-ed published in December of last year, Byrd criticized mountaintop removal and urged the West Virginia coal mining industry to innovate and adapt to the growing threat of climate change. "To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say 'deal me out.' West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table." "The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment," Byrd predicted. "Major coal-fired power plants and coal operators operating in West Virginia have wisely already embraced this reality, and are making significant investments to prepare. The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture lies in change and innovation." Byrd also characterized Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon as a vote "to dismiss scientific facts" about climate change. He took Massey Energy to task for its "disregard for human life and safety" in refusing to fund a new school so students could move away from the company's coal processing plant. "Such arrogance suggests a blatant disregard for the impact of their mining practices on our communities, residents and particularly our children," Byrd said in a statement. "These are children's lives we are talking about." Following the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Massey mine in West Virginia on April 5, Byrd challenged Massey's statements about safety and "demanded explanations from the mine regulator for starting aggressive inspections after the disaster." "I cannot fathom how an American business could practice such disgraceful health and safety policies while simultaneously boasting about its commitment to the safety of workers," Byrd said. He also criticized the Mine Safety and Health Administration, saying he is "perplexed" as to how the tragedy could have happened "given the significant increases in funding and manpower" Congress has approved for the agency.

Tomgram: Stephen Kinzer, BP's First "Spill"‏

2010-06-29T08:28:00.000-07:00

June 29, 2010

Tomgram: Stephen Kinzer, BP's First "Spill"

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: To check out the most recent review of my book, The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s, which just went up at Mother Jones magazine's website, click here (“...as in his daily dispatches, he takes on our war-possessed world with clear-eyed, penetrating precision...”). For all those of you who, in return for a signed copy of the book, sent in a contribution of $75 or more online by last Thursday -- and there were enough of you to make a real difference to TD’s finances! -- I signed away until my wrist hurt last Friday and the books went out to you Monday. For any contributions that came in later or by mail, I’ll try to do the next round this Thursday. In the meantime, many thanks to you all!

While I’m at it, let me recommend a second book. Some of you may remember Stephen Kinzer for his groundbreaking work on the CIA’s overthrow of a democratic Guatemalan government in 1954 in Bitter Fruit, or his more recent history, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. Well, his newest book, Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future, has just been published. Andrew Bacevich calls it “history with a bite”; Juan Cole, “a must-read for anyone concerned with the future of the United States in the Middle East.” It’s a history-cum-critique-cum-policy-review of American folly in the Middle East, especially in relation to Iran, but also Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. It couldn’t be more relevant to this moment or more riveting. I’m almost done and can hardly put it down. So check out Andy Kroll’s intro below, read Kinzer’s dispatch, and then, remember, if you order my book and his (or anything else, book or otherwise) after arriving at Amazon via any of the TD book links to that site, we get a small percentage of your purchase at no cost to you -- and it does add up. Tom]

Only one industry in the world can make Wall Street’s earnings look like chump change: Big Oil. This is, after all, a business where a “slump” year for international oil giant ExxonMobil means annual profits of only $19 billion. A few years earlier, on the back of skyrocketing oil prices, the same company had netted $45 billion, the single largest annual profit in history, a sum that exceeded the gross domestic products of more than half the world’s nations. And as Exxon was drilling its way into the record books in the U.S. in 2008, Royal Dutch Shell was doing the same in Britain, hauling in $27.5 billion, or a mind-bending $75 million in profits daily. To keep the cash coming in, the five biggest oil and gas corporations have spent nearly $34 billion in the past three years on exploration. To keep American lawmakers off their backs or in their pockets, they’ve spent $195 million on lobbying over that same period.

Here’s what they haven’t spent their largesse on: oil-spill response. BP, whose American operations may never recover from its Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, told Congress it spent about $9.6 million in each of the past three years on research into safer drilling technologies. ConocoPhillips spent an even more meager $1.3 million -- and that was over three years. Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has ripped oil companies for their negligence, and called their preparations for future catastrophes “paltry.” Given the funding, it’s hardly a surprise that oil companies like BP are now stuck with antiquated and ineffective tools when a spill occurs, no less a spill a mile under the Gulf of Mexico’s waters. As the Associated Press reported recently, the main technologies being used in the Gulf -- oil dispersants, offshore booms, and skimmers -- are the very same ones employed to clean up the Exxon Valdez spill two decades ago.

Now that it’s helped create one of the great environmental catastrophes in history, BP has typically pledged to right its wrongs, including by giving $500 million to fund “independent research” into the impact of the Gulf spill on the marine and shoreline environment. Of course, you don’t need millions in funding to know that the effect of BP’s spill will reverberate throughout the Gulf coast region and along Florida’s white sand beaches for decades, possibly generations. As Stephen Kinzer, the acclaimed author of the newly published Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future, writes in his debut TomDispatch post, the Deepwater spill is hardly the first time BP has wreaked havoc on a nation and its people. Andy

BP in the Gulf -- The Persian Gulf
How an Oil Company Helped Destroy Democracy in Iran
By Stephen Kinzer

To frustrated Americans who have begun boycotting BP: Welcome to the club. It's great not to be the only member any more!

Click here to read more of this dispatch.

The Corporate Snakes In The Supreme Court Grass‏

2010-06-25T10:44:00.000-07:00

We had already done nine parts in our series condemning various gross judicial errors in what we are calling the Supreme Court's "Corporations United" case, ruling that corporations can spend whatever they want to pervert our election process. We're not proud, we're not tired, but there is still more treacherous ground to cover so let's get back on it.

But first, we are valiantly trying to understand why we have even a single "Corporations Are NOT The People" bumper sticker left. Yes, you have requested and we have sent out tens of thousands of these beautiful 4 color process bumper stickers, mostly entirely for free not even charging for postage. Yes, hundreds of you have gotten the bulk packs to distribute these among your fellow activists and neighbors. But you folks have not picked us clean yet.

Get a pack of 25 for just a modest donation, which makes it possible to sent out all the free singles to those who cannot make a donation right now.

Bulk Corporations Are Not The People bumper stickers: http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers_bulk.php

Request one free for yourself if you have not done so already, and let's get this confront the Supreme Court movement visible and mobilized.

Free Single Bumper Stickers: http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php

And now, part 10 of the analysis series, in the plainest non-legalese we can muster.

In part 9, we addressed the outrage of the Supreme Court creating a super First Amendment right for corporations, while at the same time having zero tolerance for the free speech of ordinary people in cases where free speech actually was important to protect the interests of society, as in exposing police corruption. But Kennedy, writing for the rogue 5-4 majority even confuses in his opinion the difference between the speech of the people and the speech of media organizations.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, OR of the press . . ."

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are NOT the same thing. Otherwise why reference them separately? And yet Kennedy makes a big point in his opinion (at page 35) that the precedent he was so bent on overturning could potentially "ban the political speech of media corporations" themselves, despite the fact that there was no evidence that any such thing had ever happened in the 20 years since the Austin opinion originally issued.

Well, there is a very good reason why no such thing could be demonstrated, because as Kennedy himself admits, just two sentences in the opinion later, media corporations were EXEMPTED from the law he was determined to decimate. Moreover, media corporations have always been perfectly free to speak politically, it's called an EDITORIAL, and they do it all the time, something Kennedy might know if he ever came out of the 18th century cave his legal reasoning dwells in.

So the argument that allowing media corporations to speak politically in their editorial capacity is somehow prejudicial of the "free" speech of corporations to spend a king's ransom to buy ADVERTISING is not just a straw man argument, it is the argument of a man made of trash. For if media corporations cross the line and start financing their own ads for political purposes, and exceed the exemption which includes only "any news story, commentary or editorial" [2 USC 431(9)(b)(i)] that would be proscribed and properly so. All this Kennedy would know if he were intellectually honest or diligent enough to even read the actual wording of the statute he cites.

This kind of shoddy and hack attempt to make equivalence between things that are not even comparable is the foundation of rubble on which the whole opinion is built. Freedom of speech of the people does not equate to the freedom of the most dominant corporations to promote their own business interests by influencing elections. And yet, over and over in the opinion we hear the wailing crocodile tear violins that this is all about protecting the free speech of little people, like "small corporations without large amounts of wealth" (page 38). Scalia in his concurring opinion (page 4) jerks at the heart strings even harder talking about Quaker groups printing their own little pamphlets in colonial days and so on.

Different rules MUST apply to different kinds of organizations. The supreme error of the Supreme Court is to try to apply a one size only fits all rule, going to the extreme of equating purely profit driven artificial business entities with people who are live voting citizens.

But mostly, all this is just a total abdication of what judges are supposed to do, which is to make differential judgments. Kennedy whines that judges might have to make "intricate case by case determinations" (opinion page 12), making it sound like doing their JOB (making such determinations) is just too much of a big pain in the butt.

It is preposterous that a law cannot be crafted to distinguish between giant corporations and the comparatively tiny and faint voice of the people when swamped by wall to wall mega-advertising, if that was their real concern. Even more preposterous is the suggestion that if such a determination needs to be made, as required by them, that is an excuse for overturning any standard of determination at all.

For you see, Kennedy had already made a prejudicial determination, that the Austin case and any financial constraints whatsoever on corporate political advertising had to go. And he made that determination long before the case associated with this decision was even filed. He made that determination 20 years ago in his original DISSENT to the case he now so wrongfully overturns, and was just lying in wait all this time, like a snake in the grass, until enough reasonable centrists were replaced with right wing ideologues like himself, to get enough colluding votes to do the dirty deed of taking a wrecking ball to the precedent he had so long resented and despised, precisely what the principle of stare decisis is supposed to protect us from.

And all this should set up perfectly what will be last two parts in this series on this dreadful dictate, coming soon to a computer screen near you.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

usalone397b:342631

1876 : Battle of Little Bighorn

2010-06-25T10:41:00.000-07:00

June 25: 1876 : Battle of Little Bighorn

On this day in 1876, Native American forces led by Chiefs Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull defeat the U.S. Army troops of Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer in a bloody battle near southern Montana's Little Bighorn River.

Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, leaders of the Sioux tribe on the Great Plains, strongly resisted the mid-19th-century efforts of the U.S. government to confine their people to reservations. In 1875, after gold was discovered in South Dakota's Black Hills, the U.S. Army ignored previous treaty agreements and invaded the region. This betrayal led many Sioux and Cheyenne tribesmen to leave their reservations and join Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in Montana. By the late spring of 1876, more than 10,000 Native Americans had gathered in a camp along the Little Bighorn River--which they called the Greasy Grass--in defiance of a U.S. War Department order to return to their reservations or risk being attacked.

In mid-June, three columns of U.S. soldiers lined up against the camp and prepared to march. A force of 1,200 Native Americans turned back the first column on June 17. Five days later, General Alfred Terry ordered Custer's 7th Cavalry to scout ahead for enemy troops. On the morning of June 25, Custer drew near the camp and decided to press on ahead rather than wait for reinforcements.

At mid-day, Custer's 600 men entered the Little Bighorn Valley. Among the Native Americans, word quickly spread of the impending attack. The older Sitting Bull rallied the warriors and saw to the safety of the women and children, while Crazy Horse set off with a large force to meet the attackers head on. Despite Custer's desperate attempts to regroup his men, they were quickly overwhelmed. Custer and some 200 men in his battalion were attacked by as many as 3,000 Native Americans; within an hour, Custer and every last one of his soldier were dead.

The Battle of Little Bighorn--also called Custer's Last Stand--marked the most decisive Native American victory and the worst U.S. Army defeat in the long Plains Indian War. The gruesome fate of Custer and his men outraged many white Americans and confirmed their image of the Indians as wild and bloodthirsty. Meanwhile, the U.S. government increased its efforts to subdue the tribes. Within five years, almost all of the Sioux and Cheyenne would be confined to reservations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nygaard Notes #457‏

2010-06-25T10:38:00.000-07:00

Nygaard Notes
Independent Periodic News and Analysis
Number 457, June 24, 2010

On the Web at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/

******

This Week: Rwanda

1. “Quote” of the Week
2. Rwanda: Challenging the Conventional Narrative
3. Rwanda In Recent Years
4. Rethinking The Genocide: Info on Rwanda

******

Greetings,

In the last issue of the Notes I talked about narrative. Narratives are the stories that we have in our heads, the big stories that we use to make sense of all the little stories that we hear: news stories, gossip, facts, and so forth. I stressed the importance of critically examining those inside-our-heads stories to make sure that they are sensible and provide a good framework for the facts that we come across in our lives.

Recently in the news in the U.S. has been a story about a lawyer from Minnesota who was just released a few days ago from a Rwandan prison after being arrested on charges of “genocide ideology.” Despite the fact that he is a U.S. citizen, and was being held in violation of the principle of free expression that the U.S. supposedly stands for, there was no strong effort on the part of the U.S. government to win his release. This is an important story on many levels, and is a nearly-perfect opportunity to illustrate how a distorted narrative can seriously distort our capacity to respond to human rights issues.

I confess that, up until a couple of weeks ago, I was as ignorant about Rwanda as I suspect are most USAmericans. As I began to look into the background of the Erlinder case for the purposes of explaining it to my friends and readers, I quickly and painfully became aware that I knew next to nothing about the background, and that what I did “know” was mostly wrong, or at least incomplete. That is, I had swallowed the conventional narrative and I was dismayed to learn how misinformed I was.

The good news about this, and in some ways the main message of this issue of the Notes, is that it really took me very little time at all to address my ignorance and to correct my misunderstandings on this important story. As one of the sources I cite in this issue puts it, “The world must take another look at the Rwandan war so as to avoid visiting the same tragedy on other countries, be they in Africa or elsewhere.”

With that in mind, this issue takes a look at recent history in Rwanda.

Nygaard

******

1.
“Quotes” of the Week

A pair of quotations this week.

“Quote” Number 1:

The first “Quote” is found on page 20 of an August 2009 report called “Rwanda’s Application for Membership of the Commonwealth: Report and Recommendations of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.” It said there that:

“The genocide was (and continues to be) a defining moment in Rwanda. Yet there is considerable controversy about its origin and nature.”

“Quote” Number 2:

On November 19th 1996, the United Nations Security Council voted 14-1 to recommend a second five-year term as U.N. Secretary General for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt. The one vote was that of the United States, which stood alone in vetoing the recommendation. “Quote” Number 2 is the following sentence, uttered in 1998 by that same Boutros-Ghali:

“The genocide in Rwanda was 100 percent the responsibility of the Americans!”

No wonder the U.S. vetoed him. This “quote” comes from the English translation of Montreal-based scholar Robin Philpot's book “Ça ne s’est pas passé comme ça à Kigali.”

Elsewhere in this issue of the Notes I tell you where you can find the original documents in which both of these “Quotes” can be found.

******

2.
Rwanda: Challenging the Conventional Narrative

When it comes to knowledge of Rwandan history, my guess is that most people in the U.S. fall into one of two basic groups: People who have read and heard about “The Genocide” in that country in 1994—maybe they have seen the movie “Hotel Rwanda”— and people who know absolutely nothing at all about Rwanda. While it may seem like the first group is ahead of the know-nothings, it ain’t necessarily so, since a very large percentage of what they “know” is only one version of the story, and much of it is inaccurate. So I’ll start by going back to basics.

Rwanda is a small, densely-populated country in Central Africa, bordered by Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was the scene of incredible tumult in the early 1990s, culminating in a paroxysm of violence following the death of the President, Juvénal Habyarimana, in April of 1994. In the 100 days following the assassination, between 500,000 and one million people were killed.

The Conventional Narrative

Rwanda scholars Allan Stam and Christian Davenport report that “Like most people with an unsophisticated understanding of Rwandan history and politics, we began our research [in 1998] believing that what we were dealing with was one of the most straightforward cases of political violence in recent times.” A feature story in The Atlantic Monthly in 2001 offered a good, succinct example of the interpretation that most people have heard or seen: “In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.” (Faster than the 250,000 or so killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a few hours in 1945? No. Statements like this are red flags alerting us that we are in the presence of propaganda.)

A 2007 article in the London Guardian summarized the conventional narrative in one sentence: “Rwanda's civil war saw 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered by the Hutus—armed and supported by France.” Another widely-accepted part of the story is the U.S. role in all of this. That same Atlantic Monthly article referred to “a chilling narrative of self-serving caution and flaccid will” as the explanation for a situation in which “the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene.”

That’s the conventional narrative: A “straightforward case” of tribal violence, in which a majority tried to wipe out a minority, with help from a major European power, while the U.S. stood by helplessly.

Genocide Denial?

Anyone with a different interpretation of the events of that time—and their numbers are growing—runs the risk of being accused of “denying the genocide.”

Montreal-based writer and activist Robin Philpot, one of the dissident scholars in this area, addresses the “genocide denial” charge, saying, “What about the genocide? What about the massacres? Everybody saw those images, the machetes, the bodies and skeletons. Nobody can claim that it did not happen. Of course not! However, the simplification of the Rwandan tragedy to a tale of ‘horrible Hutu génocidaires’ massacring ‘innocent Tutsis’ aided and abetted by France is aimed to hide the causes and protect the real criminals. Rwanda suffered a major human disaster. Like other such disasters, it had political causes. Any serious analysis will show unequivocally that that Manichaean, good guy-bad guy, tale was developed by Western imaginations for Western public opinion. The fact that tale has so easily taken root bears witness to our blind subservience to real power and historic contempt for Africa.”

Now, there’s a dissident voice for you! But he’s not the only one. In their 2009 book “The Politics of Genocide”, scholars Edward Herman and David Peterson suggest that the U.S. role may have been quite different than the conventional narrative would have it. They suggest that the U.S. may have actively supported one side in the conflict: the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front, or RPF. Here’s how Herman and Peterson sum it up:

“The invasions, assassinations, and mass slaughters by which the RPF shot its way to power in Kigali [Rwanda’s capital] advanced many objectives, and their support by the ‘enlightened’ states are regarded by many of the defense teams that practice before the ICTR [International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] as reflecting a quid pro quo between Washington and the RPF: Washington gains a strong military presence in Central Africa, a diminution of its European rivals’ influence, proxy armies to serve its interests, and access to the raw material-rich Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC, known as Zaire into 1997); while the RPF renews Tutsi-minority control of Rwanda, and gains a free hand to kill any perceived internal rivals, along with a client state’s usual immunities, money, weapons, foreign investment, and a great deal of international prestige.”

(A “client state” is a smaller, weaker state that agrees to perform a strategic role in the interest of the U.S. government, in exchange for which they receive the support and protection of the World’s Only Superpower.)

There’s much, much more to say about this, but I’ll leave it there for now, given the constraints of this modest newsletter format.

What I am trying to indicate here is that there are at least two dramatically-differing versions of recent history in Rwanda. One is a simple story of senseless and inexplicable “ethnic violence” in which the U.S. was guilty only of neglect and ignorance. The other is a more complex story, one in which the United States had a more active role in pursuit of its own interests in the region. Those interests were served better by having one side prevail over the other in the struggle for power in Rwanda in the early 1990s.

If it is true that the U.S. bears some significant responsibility for such a massive tragedy—and I think it is true—then we in the U.S. have a responsibility to understand how and why that is so. (See the list elsewhere in this issue for a list of places to go to learn more about Rwanda.)

All of the above has to do with the one bit of Rwandan history that some people know about, The Genocide of 1994. That was 16 years ago. Has anything of importance happened in Rwanda since then? That’s the focus of the following article.

******

3.
Rwanda In Recent Years

After 1994 the Rwandan Patriotic Front, or RPF, came to power in Rwanda. In 2000 the leader of the RPF, Paul Kagame, became President when the Tutsi-controlled Parliament voted him in. In August of 2003 there was a presidential election that Kagame won in a landslide.

The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) reported after the 2003 elections that “According to official voting results, the US-backed Kagame won 95.1 percent of the vote.” A remarkable figure, given that Kagame’s party had been in power for nine years and “Social and economic conditions in Rwanda [were] disastrous,” according to WSWS, an assessment supported by other reports. Some of the explanation for the “landslide” can perhaps be seen in a 2009 report by Amnesty International, which stated that “The 2003 presidential elections and the 2008 legislative elections in Rwanda were marred by intimidation and political opposition activities were severely restricted.”

In the years since Kagame began his 7-year term—indeed, since Kagame’s party took power in 1994—there has been sharp disagreement about his record.

The Minneapolis-based online newspaper MinnPost reported recently, “In the decade since Kagame, 52, became Rwanda's president, he has been showered with honors and tributes. Last year alone, he won a Clinton Global Citizen Award from the former U.S. president's initiative, an international medal of peace presented by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in California, a ‘Children's Champion Award’ from the U.S. Fund for UNICEF and a ‘Most Innovative People Award’ at the Lebanon 2020 Summit.”

Those are some of the “honors and tributes.” There’s another side to the story, however.

Rwanda’s ranking in the Human Development Index—put out by the United Nations Development Programme, a widely-accepted, if rough, gauge of national well-being—dropped from 158th out of 175 countries in 2003 to 167th out of 175 in 2009.

The human rights situation in Rwanda is problematic. Here are some comments from the 2009 Amnesty International report “Human Rights in Republic of Rwanda:” “Freedom of expression remained severely limited”; “War crimes and crimes against humanity committed during and after the genocide remained largely unprosecuted.” and “War crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front] and RPA [Rwandan Patriotic Army] before, during and after the genocide remained largely unprosecuted”; and “Human rights work remained strictly controlled and limited by the government.”

On April 23 of this year Human Rights Watch said that recent actions by the Rwandan government demonstrate “a pattern of increasing restrictions on free expression in Rwanda ahead of August's presidential elections.”

Most relevant to this issue of Nygaard Notes, Amnesty reported that “The National Assembly [in Rwanda] amended the Constitution to give former Presidents immunity from prosecution for life, including for crimes under international law.”

Why would Rwanda pass such a law? It might have something to do with the status of the sitting President, Paul Kagame. The real-life hero of “Hotel Rwanda,” Paul Rusesabagina, in a letter to the Queen of England in 2006, stated that “President Kagame is an unrepentant criminal facing innumerable charges for crimes of war, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide...”

These are not just Rusesabagina’s opinion. Courts in both France and Spain agree that Kagame should come to trial under international law. A report from the Congo News Agency on December 12, 2008 stated that Kagame “is accused in the indictment [by a French court] of ordering the attack [in 1994] on the plane carrying then Rwandan President, Juvenal Habyarimana and his counterpart Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi. Their deaths led to the genocide of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Judge Fernando Andreou Merelles of the Spanish Central Instruction Court issued indictments against 40 senior officers of the Rwanda Defense Forces formerly of the Rwanda Patriotic Army for committing mass killings after the 1994 Rwanda Genocide. He said he also has evidence against Paul Kagame who only escaped indictment because he is a sitting president.”

In order to entertain the idea that the President, or other members of the ruling RPF, might have blood on their hands, one must re-think the conventional narrative of The Genocide, since that conventional narrative sees Kagame as a genocide-ending hero. So it’s important to know that in 2008 the Rwandan Parliament adopted the “Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology,” commonly known as the “Genocide Ideology Law.” The National Lawyers Guild in the U.S. says that this law “defines genocide ideology broadly, requires no link to any genocidal act, and can be used to include a wide range of legitimate forms of expression, prohibiting speech protected by international conventions such as the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.”

The British free speech group Article 19 stated in a report last September that “Reports of authoritative media and human rights non-governmental organisations indicate that the legacy of genocide is being manipulated by the Rwandan government to suppress political dissent and opposition in a range of ways. Most significantly, this has been done through cases involving the crime of genocide ideology.”

What we see here is that the Rwandan president has arranged things so that he is legally out of the reach of the law for life and that to even think incorrect thoughts about some of the things of which he might be guilty makes one a criminal in Rwanda.

Which brings us to 2010, and the arrest of Minnesota human rights lawyer Peter Erlinder, which is what got Nygaard Notes interested in this story in the first place.

On April 30th of this year “a team of lawyers and process servers attempted to personally serve Rwandan President Paul Kagame with an eight count lawsuit,” according to Ann Garrison writing in the San Francisco Bay View. The eight counts include: Wrongful Death and Murder; Crimes against Humanity; Violation of the Rights of Life, Liberty and Security of Person; Assault and Battery; Violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and Torture.

One of the lawyers attempting to serve the papers was Peter Erlinder. Erlinder is one of the lawyers for the defense in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Erlinder also happens to be one of the lawyers defending one of the leaders of the opposition to Kagame, Victoire Ingabiré Umuhoza. “Ingabiré came back home in January 2010 after 16 years in exile in the Netherlands and immediately declared her interest in the country’s top political job,” according to the InterPress Service. That is, she plans to run for President against Kagame. Not only that, says MinnPost, but “She claimed that crimes had been committed against her Hutu people during the genocide as well as against the Tutsis. But only the Hutus were being prosecuted and punished, she said.”

The idea that members of the ethnic Tutsi group were not the only ones victimized in the crimes of 1994 is known in Rwanda as “Double Genocide Theory.” Garrison explains that “President Kagame accuses both Paul Rusesabagina, of Hotel Rwanda fame, and Victoire Ingabiré Umuhoza, the FDU-Inkingi Party’s presidential candidate, of ‘Double Genocide Theory’ because they dare to say that Hutus were also victims of crimes against humanity...”

So it was that on April 21st Ingabiré was arrested and charged with “Genocide ideology”. Peter Erlinder then went to Rwanda on May 23rd to defend Ingabiré against these charges, and shortly after his arrival he, too, was arrested, and charged with the same thing. This is not a technicality: these charges can land one in prison for 10 to 25 years.

It was the arrest of Mr. Erlinder and the strange response in this country to his arrest that got my attention. The State Department made no comment on the case until five days after Erlinder’s arrest, and then only said that the arrest of this U.S. citizen on grounds of incorrect speech “was the responsibility of the Rwandan government.” State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley would only go so far as to say that “we would like to see him released on compassionate grounds.” No stirring defense of “free speech” or condemnation of the Rwandan government’s suppression of human rights. Odd, no?

One has only to imagine the response from the U.S. government and media if an official enemy of the United States—Iran, say, or Cuba—had made a similar arrest. The fact that there was such a mild and tepid response to Erlinder’s arrest in Rwanda told me that the U.S. must have an interest in this region. Subsequent research indicates that this is indeed true, and what we see here appears to be another case where the power of the United States was used to cause untold suffering in a far-away land, a story which U.S. voters and taxpayers have been propagandized to forget. Or, rather, to replace with another story that better fits the racist Grand Narrative that says the United States is the Shining City on a Hill and Africa is the Dark (uncivilized) Continent.

That Grand Narrative, like the conventional narrative of The Genocide in Rwanda, has been constructed to protect certain groups of people and their interests. When we focus on “senseless tribal (religious/ethnic/age-old) violence,” it interferes with our ability to see the senseless violence perpetrated in the name of Empire. And that is a violence that we can do something about.

Resources for more thoroughly addressing this propaganda appear below.

******

4.
Rethinking The Genocide: Info on Rwanda

I came into this Rwanda research project already skeptical of the conventional narrative due to my knowledge of the history of U.S. policy in Africa, and of U.S. foreign policy in general. Beyond fostering my skepticism, my knowledge of history was invaluable in assessing the sources at which I looked, a small fraction of which make up the list you see below.

For those who choose to look at some of these resources, I should say that I believe that the facts you will find there are mostly accurate, to the best of my knowledge. But I also want readers to remember that facts by themselves only have meaning when they can be placed into a larger story. Stories give meaning to facts, and different stories give the same facts different meanings. The story of “The Genocide” in Rwanda illustrates this point extraordinarily well.

I’m fairly certain that all of the following sources would likely be considered “radical,” if not criminal, among supporters of the current government in Rwanda. In fact, the recently-released lawyer, Peter Erlinder, was arrested by the Rwandan government for saying some of the things you will read here.

Resources on Rwanda

For a very basic recent history of Rwanda—3 pages—see Amnesty International “Timeline: Rwanda.” http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/sudan/timeline_rwanda.pdf

For a dissident version of the past 50 years or so of Rwandan history, see Christopher Black’s “The Hidden Story Behind Rwanda's Tragedy,” in Black Star News http://www.blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5831/2009-07-03.html

A succinct look at the U.S. interest in Rwanda comes from Canadian academic and peace activist Michel Chossudovsky. His piece “Rwanda: Installing a US Protectorate in Central Africa,” can be found here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO305A.html

Independent journalist Ann Garrison published a piece on April 8, 2010 in the Fog City Journal, a San Francisco Bay Area-based publication, called “Rwanda Genocide: Honoring the Dead
Without Honoring the Lies.” Find it here: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2010/04/rwanda-genocide-honoring-the-dead-without-honoring-the-lies/

The Rwandan Documents Project was started by Peter Erlinder and its goal is “to collect and make available primary source materials from international and national agencies, governments, and courts that relate to the political and social history of Rwanda from 1990 to the present.” Check out “Articles and Commentaries” for some of Erlinder’s own writings: http://www.rwandadocumentsproject.net

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) put out a report in August of 2009 called
“Rwanda’s Application for Membership of the Commonwealth: Report and Recommendations
of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.” Noting that there is “considerable misunderstanding, or at least confusion, about Rwanda’s history, the politics of the genocide of 1994, and the record of the government led by the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) since the end of the genocide,” the report “examines the evolutionary factors which have shaped Rwanda’s present politics—particularly because the RPF evokes strong emotions of both approval and dislike.” The full 81-page report is found here: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/hradvocacy/rwanda%27s_application_for_membership_of_the_commonwealth.pdf

The most recent summary of the human rights situation in Rwanda by Amnesty International is the 2009 Rwanda Report: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/rwanda/report-2009

Those whose information about Rwanda has largely come from the movie “Hotel Rwanda” may wish to know something about the real-life hero of that movie. He founded The Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation which “advocates for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) for Rwanda and the region.” Read about it here: http://hrrfoundation.org/

Quebec-based writer and activist Robin Philpot published a book called “Ça ne s’est pas passé comme ça à Kigali” (in English: “Rwanda 1994: Colonialism Dies Hard). The entire book is available online at the Taylor Report http://www.taylor-report.com/Rwanda_1994/ If you read nothing but the Conclusion, you will learn a lot.

Finally, the best list of resources (many more than in this list) is found on the website mentioned above, The Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation: http://hrrfoundation.org/reports/

**********

Subscriptions to NYGAARD NOTES are FREE. You can start your free subscription by visiting the NYGAARD NOTES website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/ Or, just send an email to NYGAARD NOTES at nygaard@nygaardnotes.org All back issues are found there, as well, and are fully searchable.

NYGAARD NOTES grows by recommendations and referrals from readers. Please “give” free subscriptions to your friends, family members, and allies. Also, please feel free to forward any issue to anyone, or to reprint anything you read here. All of NYGAARD NOTES is in the public domain, to be used by whosoever can use it.

NYGAARD NOTES is completely supported by voluntary donations from readers and friends. That’s how it stays independent, and remains free to those who cannot contribute. If you want to help sustain this experiment in independent journalism—now in its ELEVENTH year!—please consider making a voluntary contribution by going to the NYGAARD NOTES website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/ Then just get out your credit card and follow the instructions. Or, send a check through the mail, payable to “NYGAARD NOTES” at NYGAARD NOTES, P.O. Box 14354, Minneapolis, MN 55414. Thank you!

You can also support Nygaard Notes indirectly, by recommending my small business, River City Buttons, that makes custom, pin-on buttons for all occasions. Find it at www.rivercitybuttons.com

--
Jeff Nygaard
National Writers Union
Twin Cities Local #13 UAW
Nygaard Notes
http://www.nygaardnotes.org

People Without Homes, Homes Without People

2010-06-25T10:35:00.000-07:00

Thursday 24 June 2010

by: Brooke Jarvis YES! Magazine Report

Three years ago at the first US Social Forum in Atlanta, residents of cities around the country met and found they shared a common goal: Make sure that city life stays accessible to everyone. They formed the Right to the City Alliance, a coalition uniting urban rights groups to allies in their own cities and across the country, from Los Angeles to Boston to New Orleans. The members share the belief that urban dwellers not only have the right not to be priced out of their communities, but to help shape and design them.

The New York City groups who came together, many of whose members were grappling with homelessness, life in shelters or on public assistance, and the loss of affordable housing options, were particularly energized.

"At that point, I didn't know what gentrification was," said Nora Strachan, a member of Mothers on the Move, part of the Right to the City-NYC alliance, who was living in public housing at the time. "Then they tried to privatize my building, and I found out quick."

The struggle hasn't gotten easier in the last three years. Just this month, due to budget cuts, thousands of New York families will lose their Section 8 housing vouchers, sending many of them onto the streets or into the city's overburdened shelter system. Meanwhile, housing prices (not to mention the median income numbers used to determine what's considered affordable housing) are going up.

For the people who attended Right to the City-NYC's workshop at this year's Social Forum—many of them low-income New Yorkers active with Picture the Homeless, Mothers on the Move, and other member organizations of Right to the City—gentrification isn't an abstract idea, but a direct threat to their neighborhoods and their ability to stay in them.

"How do you know when gentrification is coming?" asked Diego Quiñones, an organizer in Harlem with Community Voices Heard, one of Right to the City's member organizations. "What does it look like?"

The answers were forceful: More police harassment. Suddenly, you need a permit to barbecue, to use public parks, or to hold a street party; sometimes you can't get a permit at all. Neighborhood names get changed: Alphabet City becomes the East Village, Spanish Harlem turns into SpaHa. "You can't even stand in front of your property without the police coming by," said one participant. "Bike lanes!" shouted another. "We asked for bike lanes for many, many years—now suddenly we're getting some."

But there's one sign that stands out, clear evidence you're in danger of getting priced out of your community: the arrival of luxury condos, some of them built where affordable housing units used to be.

Following the financial crash, the condos got harder to sell and became especially noticeable: new buildings with enormous price tags standing empty in low-income neighborhoods. It was, said Rogers of Picture the Homeless, an "ugly image of people without homes and homes without people."

And so, when Right to the City sat down to prioritize its first projects (following a year spent in community dialogues crafting an in-depth policy platform, which calls for recognition of the rights to community decision-making power; quality, low-income housing; federal stimulus funds; jobs; public space; environmental justice and public health), condos were key.

In the most comprehensive count of its kind, 150 residents and advocates walked the City's streets and combed its records, producing a report detailing just how many luxury condos were sitting empty in a city with record homelessness and an affordable housing crisis.

In six low-income neighborhoods, they found 4,092 empty housing units, offered for an average price of $2 million, some of which had been on the market for years. Collectively, the buildings were $3.8 million delinquent in back taxes.

Members of Right to the City are now meeting with the City Council and other City departments about what to do with the information they've gathered. "We surprised City officials," said Quiñones. "They didn't expect us to be so organized."

Right to the City is now pushing for New York City to acquire the delinquent buildings through tax foreclosure so that they can become permanent affordable housing for low-income New Yorkers (a pilot project of 400 converted units began in 2009); they're also proposing that tax breaks for condo developers be suspended. Civil disobedience in the form of condo takeovers and squatting is also under consideration, Quiñones said.

"I am nervous. I am afraid. But I'll be damned if I sit down and let them take my city just like that," said DeBoRh Dickerson, part of Picture the Homeless. "We've got a voice in this."

Right to the City is also supporting Housing Not Warehousing—a bill before the City Council, now with 28-cosponsors, which would require the City to officially replicate their count of vacant properties every year—and lobbying for "affordable housing" to be calculated according to local, neighborhood income rather than median income for the area, which is skewed by affluent residents of Manhattan and Westchester County.

"This is part of the move towards human needs and away from the profit motive," said Rogers. "It's why we need the Social Forum. It's bold, but this is the place to make bold statements."
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Stone's "Border" Shows Fall of South America's Berlin Wall

2010-06-25T10:31:00.000-07:00

to see the videos that go with this article please click on the title..........Thanks........

Stone's "Border" Shows Fall of South America's Berlin Wall
Thursday 24 June 2010

by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t Movie Review

On April 13, 2002, an event occurred in Venezuela which was as world historical for South America as the fall of the Berlin Wall was for Eastern Europe: a US-backed coup against the democratically-elected government of Venezuela collapsed. The Bush administration's efforts to promote the coup failed in the face of popular resistance in Venezuela and diplomatic resistance in the region.
The failure of the Bush administration's effort to overthrow President Chavez was world historical for South America because it sent a powerful new signal about the limits of the ability of the United States to thwart popular democracy in the region. In the years prior to the reversal of the US-backed coup, popular movements in South America had suffered from a widespread "Allende syndrome": a key legacy of the US-orchestrated overthrow of democracy in Chile in 1973 was the widespread belief that there was a sharp limit to the popular economic reforms that could be achieved through the ballot box, because the United States simply wouldn't allow formal democracy in the region to respond to the economic needs of the majority.
Following the reversal of the US-backed coup, a succession of presidents were elected across South America promising to reverse the disastrous economic policies promoted by Washington in the region through the International Monetary Fund for the previous 20 years and to promote, instead, the economic interests of the majority: Brazil elected Lula in 2002, Argentina elected Nestor Kirchner in 2003, Bolivia elected Evo Morales in 2005, Ecuador elected Rafael Correa in 2006 and Paraguay elected Fernando Lugo in 2008.
The story of this dramatic transformation has been largely untold in the United States. Our major corporate media are largely uninterested in the freedom narrative of South America, because it's significantly a narrative of freedom from control by US institutions and because the battle is ongoing, as shown recently by Washington's fury at Brazil for working against a US push for new sanctions against Iran and by Ecuador's decision to recall its ambassador after Israel's attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.
But on Friday, Oliver Stone's new documentary "South of the Border" opens in New York (currently scheduled screenings nationwide are here). In this movie, Stone tells the story that the US media has missed. Because it's a Stone movie and because it's being commercially distributed, there's a strong possibility that many Americans who are not connected to the alternative press could have the opportunity to see and hear this story for the first time.
Stone introduces us to leaders that most people in the United States have never had the opportunity to see speaking for themselves.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez explains the Bush administration's effort to overthrow him:
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, who got his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois, explains why he followed through on his campaign promise to get rid of the US military base at Manta:
And Brazil's President Lula da Silva - recently vilified in the US media for his efforts to mediate a deal between the US and Iran on Iran's nuclear program, with pundits demanding that Brazil "get back in its lane" - explains that he has no interest in fighting with the US, but only wants to be treated as equals:
If many Americans get to see it, this could be Stone's most important movie in terms of its social impact, because it's forward looking: it's about a conflict that's going on right now and will continue in the future, pitting a South America that both wants to govern itself in the interests of the majority and speak its voice without fear in world affairs against the latter-day devotees of the Monroe Doctrine who want to keep the region subservient to the interests of US elites.

One would have hoped that Americans who saw Stone's Vietnam movies - "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July" - would be much more likely to oppose the imperial quagmire in Afghanistan. But with so much of the media under corporate control, we need popular documentaries that speak directly to the issues of the day. "South of the Border" speaks directly to the relationship between the US and South America. If many Americans see it, it could help bring about a fundamental transformation in US policy toward all of Latin America. Maybe, sooner rather than later," as President Allende once said, we'll be able to look back at last year's US-supported coup in Honduras and say with confidence that it was the last.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

John Feffer | BP and Sado-Messochism

2010-06-25T10:29:00.000-07:00

Tuesday 22 June 2010

by: John Feffer Foreign Policy in Focus

Have the messes we've been making finally reached a point where they can't be cleaned up?
Aside from the occasional asteroid and volcanic outburst, human beings are responsible for the greatest messes on the planet. We've polluted the air and water, punched holes in the ozone, and pumped enough carbon into the atmosphere to overwhelm the global thermostat. Nor is this merely a modern attribute of homo sapiens. As Jared Diamond points out in his book Collapse, we've repeatedly taxed the limits of our environment, from the heart of the Mayan civilization to far-flung Easter Island. We've hunted countless species into extinction and exhausted the soil to feed burgeoning populations. And what we once did on a local basis, we are now applying on a global scale.
There is certainly an element of sadism in how humans have behaved toward other species. But the messes we have created throughout our relatively brief reign on Earth have also been self-inflicted. We are consummate sado-messochists: We specialize in inflicting messes on ourselves. Has any other species been so thoroughly successful in fouling its own nest?
Which brings me to BP and the latest oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The pursuit of oil and the price paid in human suffering is well known to all those who saw the film There Will Be Blood, or read recent books by Peter Maass, Antonia Juhasz, and others. BP is no exception to this rule. It made its money on oil extracted — stolen, really — from what would later become Iran. These enormous profits sustained the British Empire in its dotage. When Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iranian oil in 1953, BP was a key reason behind the Anglo-American destabilization of his democratically elected government. Later, BP would make out like a bandit during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through its sales of bulk oil to the Pentagon.
Nor is BP a stranger to environmental disasters, considering its oil spills in 2000 and 2005, and the Texas City refinery explosion that killed 15 workers in 2005. In the last three years, two BP refineries were alone responsible for 97 percent of the worst environmental and safety violations in the industry. And now BP is behind the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The gush in the Gulf sends the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez into the waters every four days.
There are many villains in this tragedy. BP executives promised "safety first" and instead pursued profits first. The Minerals Management Service granted exemptions for the environmental impact statements that should have been required for the Deepwater Horizon rig (among others). The Obama administration, attempting to curry favor with the "drill, baby, drill" faction, opened up previously off-limits waters along the East Coast and the Gulf Coast to offshore drilling only a few weeks before the disaster. The financial crisis was a result of a go-go spirit infecting Wall Street; the BP disaster was a result of a go-go spirit infecting Big Oil.
But really the biggest villain is us: our voracious desire for energy. We want energy to be like breakfast at Bob's Big Boy: lots of it at a rock-bottom price. Yes, Americans want an alternative energy future, but we also refuse to pay more at the pump to fund research into creating this future. This bottomless pit of need has pushed us into what Michael Klare calls an era of "extreme energy." We've already extracted the easy stuff. Now we're pushed to the margins — the Arctic, the bottom of the ocean — to get at what remains at the bottom of the bottle. We're pumping toxic cocktails deep into the ground to release natural gas from shale: a disaster in the making for our water supply. Our relentless pursuit of coal has already produced fly-ash spills that have done more damage to our environment than the Exxon Valdez. And of course we expend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight wars in energy-rich lands.
We believe, in our naïveté, that we can operate safely and effectively on the margins. "This Gulf coast crisis is about many things — corruption, deregulation, the addiction to fossil fuels," writes Naomi Klein in The Guardian. "But underneath it all, it's about this: our culture's excruciatingly dangerous claim to have such complete understanding and command over nature that we can radically manipulate and re-engineer it with minimal risk to the natural systems that sustain us." The serial messes we've made do little to undermine this false confidence.
Those who made the messes are often quick to promise to make things whole again. But that rarely happens. The environmental movement, it's true, has worked long and hard to restore devastated areas like the Adirondacks and the Hudson River. We can plant trees and dredge rivers. But we can't magically bring back old-growth forests or remove all the PCBs from the river. The Gulf, meanwhile, was already compromised before the oil spill. To give only one example, agricultural and livestock industries along the Mississippi have been dumping nitrogen into the river that produce an oxygen-poor area known as a "dead zone," which stretches as much as 7,000 square miles along the Gulf Coast.
We are, in other words, piling messes on messes. Stricter regulations, a sustainable energy program, making an example of BP so that others toe the line: all of this is necessary to rid ourselves of these sado-messochistic tendencies. But we might have passed the point of no return.
According to folk wisdom, if you put a frog in a pot of water and gradually (and sadistically) increase the temperature, the frog will not notice and eventually boil to death. Frogs, it turns out, are not that stupid. We homo sapiens, on the other hand, will climb into the pot and jack up the temperature all by ourselves. Then, instead of climbing out, we argue among ourselves. "The water isn't getting hotter at all," says one group. "Great hot tub!" says another. "Don't worry," opines a third, "Mr. Market will come along eventually and turn down the temperature." And now BP has added tens of thousands of gallons of oil to the simmering soup that we find ourselves in.
At this point the great sage Oliver Hardy would look us in the eye and conclude, "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into."
The Messes Continue
We're currently making another mess of our relationship with Mexico. In the last month, U.S. Border Patrol has killed two Mexican citizens. As Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Laura Carlsen explains, the deaths have elicited a strong reaction from the Mexican government, which is already upset about rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States.
"The growing criminalization and dehumanization of Mexican undocumented immigrants has fomented a legal limbo where human rights, including the right to life itself, fall prey to ill-defined national security concerns," she writes in Lethal Force on the Border. "It has fostered a political climate where security forces and vigilantes argue openly that fatal attacks on citizens from other countries in a non-war context are justified simply because they lack a visa. Such governance without respect for basic human rights is nothing but a dangerous lie."
The U.S. military continues to kill numerous civilians during operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. This has prompted FPIF senior analyst Adil Shamoo to ask whether the U.S. government simply values U.S. lives over the lives of others. "[The] mechanization of war has also resulted in treating other nations' citizens as less than equal to citizens of the United States," he writes in Are Foreign Lives of Equal Worth to Ours? "U.S. military actions kill innocent civilians in a repeated and almost routine manner. However, modern communications are informing people around the world that U.S. policies value other citizens less than" U.S. citizens.
Jeju Island is located just off the coast of South Korea. It's a semi-tropical location beloved of South Korean honeymooners. And it's also the location of proposed naval base that will, in part, advance U.S. security interests.
As FPIF contributor Kyouneun Cha explains in Jeju and a Naval Arms Race in Asia, South Korea "has indicated its interest in becoming more integrated into the U.S. missile defense system. In this way, by becoming caught in a conflict between China and the United States, the naval base could endanger Jeju Island and the national security of South Korea. According to Lee Tae-ho, deputy secretary general of People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy in South Korea, 'The Chinese government has a response strategy that first attacks U.S. missile defense in the case of an emergency. That means that the Jeju naval base will be targeted in an armed conflict between the United States and China.' Even short of war, the base will create tension among China, Japan, and Korea, which could escalate into a naval arms race in the Asia-Pacific region."
An Intelligence Failure?
James Clapper is Obama's choice as national intelligence director. He's come under fire for his ties to the military and the Bush administration. "None of these portrayals, however, gets to the two most important aspects of Clapper's career," writes FPIF contributor Tim Shorrock in Clapper: Managing the Intelligence Enterprise, "his ties to the $50 billion intelligence contracting industry, and his role in both developing and deepening the secret intelligence wars initiated by George W. Bush and intensified by the Obama administration."
Perhaps a greater intelligence failure involves Iran. "Despite a deep-seated lack of understanding between Iran and the United States, they share many common interests around which there is room for constructive bilateral engagement," writes Richard Javad Heydarian in An Iran-U.S. Grand Bargain. "Like NATO, Iran wants to see stability on its borders and reduce regional tensions, which have also hurt Iran's economy in terms of investments and trade. Tehran and Washington should move toward active and full engagement, but that will require both sides to shelve a history of conflict and obstinacy for a more cooperative and constructive future."
Finally, FPIF intern Aurora Ellis reviews a new book by Nora McKeon on the relationship between the United Nations and civil society. "McKeon acknowledges the political and economic limits of the UN in its attempts to curtail the powers of transnational corporations and the few wealthy governments of the world who impose a neoliberal agenda on the world's poor majority," Ellis writes. "She also recognizes the lack of political will within the UN and its inability to address structural inequalities or promote accountability. Yet, McKeon still insists that the UN is the only international institution with the potential to move forward."

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Supreme Court: Washington Can Release Names of Ballot Signers

2010-06-25T10:26:00.000-07:00

Thursday 24 June 2010

by: Les Blumenthal McClatchy Newspapers Report

Washington - A near unanimous Supreme Court today ruled Washington state can release the names of the roughly 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law.
The court found the Washington Public Records Act covered the release of referendum signatures and the state has a responsibility to promote "transparency and accountability" in the electoral process. The high court said release of the names of petitions signers would help "root out fraud" and "ferret out" invalid signatures that could result from simple mistakes.
The lone dissenting justice was Clarence Thomas.
Religious conservatives had sought to keep the signatures secret because they feared retaliation from gay rights groups. The state had argued the Public Records Act required the release of those signing initiative and referenda petitions.
At the heart of the legal dispute is Referendum 71, which sought to repeal the "anything but marriage" domestic partnership law approved by the Legislature.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

These Empty Spaces

2010-06-25T10:22:00.000-07:00

Thursday 24 June 2010

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

My purpose in this life is to chronicle the events of our time, to shine a light on events and actions that damage us all, to reveal good works whenever they actually happen, and when possible, to show people places and times where they can make a difference should they choose to get involved. In the ten years I've been at it, I have seen everything: wars and rumors of wars; economic collapse and environmental calamity; state-sanctioned murder and torture and rape; theft, graft, fraud, deception and greed vast and dense enough to bend the light.
I have also seen millions upon millions of people pour into the streets to raise their voices as one against all these terrible things. I have seen people hurl themselves into political campaigns that have no hope of succeeding because they believed in the candidate, because the campaign message mattered as much as winning, and was made of so much truth that it required their labor. I have seen previously disconnected people get plugged in somewhere, anywhere, because they could no longer abide the silence of the sidelines.
I have seen a man, a veteran of the ongoing Iraq war, walk past me on the street on two prosthetic legs. I have looked into the eyes of too many people whose futures were charred to ash by the flagrant criminality that continues on Wall Street even to this very moment. I have watched helplessly as friends lost their jobs, their homes, and their hopes. I have seen people rise above all this, and I have seen people subsumed by it.
In 2006, I watched as the George W. Bush Big Top Circus finally, finally, finally crashed and burned under the weight of its own incalculable wretchedness. The American people finally stopped buying what he and his people were selling, and on one memorable November night, I watched as those people removed what had been total congressional power from the GOP and hand it to the Democrats. Then I watched as those Democrats failed to do anything even remotely close to stopping the wars, as they failed to thwart the noxious aspirations of the Bush administration, failed to properly investigate and expose the crimes of that administration, failed to impeach, failed to do anything but enjoy the new offices they got for holding majority power.
In 2008, I watched history unfold. The Democrats expanded their control in congress, and more importantly, a black man and a white woman grappled for the White House against a demonstrably unfit Republican from Arizona, a man whose final epitaph will someday credit him for further poisoning our political culture by elevating Sarah Palin to national prominence. On the night Barack Obama sealed his victory in the general election, the reaction across the country was two-thirds jubilation and one-third doomed dismay; in Boston, thousands of people took to the streets beating drums and banging pots as they shouted with joy, while others made hasty arrangements to buy as many guns as possible. That January, the world watched as the United States shrugged off two centuries of rancid history by inaugurating a president who, just fifty years earlier, would have been required to use a separate water fountain if he wanted to quench his thirst.
I was not lured into believing the 2008 presidential election was going to mark the beginning of a sea change in American politics. I approach politics and politicians with one simple rule in mind: if I have heard of a politician, count on that politician being deeply and perhaps irredeemably compromised. In order to achieve the kind of notoriety and financing required to be successful in politics, politicians have to sign their names on a number of dotted lines that are not in any way in the best interests of the people. There are exceptions to this, of course - Sen. Paul Wellstone was one, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich is another - but for the most part, a politician who has reached the lofty heights of genuine power and influence does so by donating themselves to the crooked interests that donated to them on the way up.
President Obama is no different. He took money from BP, which is killing the Gulf as we speak. He took money from the big banks and investment houses that raped our future even as they laughed their way into massive and undeserved bonuses. He is a creature of the "defense" industry, just like every president before him going back to Truman. He is an American politician who reached the highest possible position, and I knew going in that he would be, in the main, another compromised disappointment. Better, but not by much.
I thought I was prepared for this, but a year and a half into this brave new world, I feel...I don't know exactly what. I am glad Obama is the president, I am glad McCain is not, I am glad the derangement of Republican rule has been upended, I am pleased with a number of policy initiatives that have been undertaken, and yet there are these empty spaces in my mind and heart that actually, literally, ache. A few things are better, a lot of things are worse, and most things remain exactly the same. I knew it would be like this, but still, the emptiness is there.
My role is to chronicle these times. During all the years I have done so, I have been clinging to a belief that has managed to sustain me even on the darkest of days, a belief that has always filled some of that emptiness. It is a belief I fear our president has allowed himself to forget amid the cacophony of corporate power, military mayhem and runaway greed which binds him to a familiar course that, if left unchecked, will come to be the end of us all.
This belief is simple: America is an idea. We have borders, roads, cities, farms, armies, but that is not America. The idea that is America was forged in the crucible of Europe, when kings could mandate a state religion and incarcerate or kill whoever disagreed, when rights only existed if the powerful deemed them so. The idea that is America was forged upon the premise that these things were wrong on their face, that people are endowed with rights that cannot be taken away by fiat. At no time in history had any nation premised its existence on the bedrock truth that all of us are created equal until the Founders did so in Philadelphia, and in doing so, they created a self-improving process of national growth and redemption that functions through the will of the people alone.
We are an idea, and all of us are bound to it through the ink that explains us on old pieces of parchment. We are an idea, and in that idea, we can locate our nobility, our strength, and the better angels of our nature. Too many of us, including our president and congressional representatives, have forgotten this. Perhaps, if we remind them in strong enough terms, if we make We The People a true force for right instead of a catch-phrase, things would get better. Until then, the idea that is America will continue to wither, and the empty spaces within will endure.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Beware….

2010-06-25T10:15:00.000-07:00

IDIOT SIGHTING

When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up our car, we were told the

keys had been locked in it. We went to the service department and found a mechanic working feverishly

to unlock the driver side door. As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. 'Hey,' I announced to the technician, 'it's open!'

His reply: 'I know. I already got that side.'

This was at the Ford dealership.

IDIOT SIGHTING:
We had to have the garage door repaired.
The Sears repairman told us that one of our problems was that we did not have a 'large' enough motor on the opener.

I thought for a minute, and said that we had the largest one Sears made at that time, a 1/2 horsepower.

He shook his head and said, 'Lady, you need a 1/4 horsepower.' I responded that 1/2 was larger than 1/4. He said, 'NO, it's not.'

Four is larger than two.'

We haven't used Sears repair since.

IDIOT SIGHTING:

My daughter and I went through the McDonald 's take-out window and I gave the clerk a $5 bill. Our total was $4.25, so I also

handed her a quarter. She said, 'you gave me too much money.' I said, 'Yes I know, but this way you can just give me a dollar bill back.

She sighed and went to get the manager, who asked me to repeat my request. I did so, and he handed me back the quarter,

and said 'We're sorry but we could not do that kind of thing' The clerk then proceeded to give me back $1 and 75 cents in change.

Do not confuse the clerks at McD's.

IDIOT SIGHTING :
I live in a semi rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the local township administrative

office to request the removal of the DEER CROSSING sign on our road. The reason: 'Too many deer

are being hit by cars out here! I don't think this is a good place for them to be crossing anymore.'

From Kingman , KS

IDIOT SIGHTING IN FOOD SERVICE:
My daughter went to a local Taco Bell
and ordered a taco. She asked the person behind
the counter for 'minimal lettuce.'
He said he was sorry,
but they only had iceburg lettuce.
-- From Kansas City

IDIOT SIGHTING:
I was at the airport, checking in at the gate when an airport employee asked, 'Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?' To which I replied, 'If it was without my knowledge, how would I know?' He smiled knowingly and nodded,
'That's why we ask.'

Happened in Birmingham , Ala.

IDIOT SIGHTING :
The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street. I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine.

She asked if I knew what the buzzer was for. I explained that it signals blind people when the light is red. Appalled, she responded,

'What on earth are blind people doing driving?!'

She was a probation officer inWichita , KS

IDIOT SIGHTING :
At a good-bye luncheon for an old and dear coworker who was leaving the company due to 'downsizing,' our manager commented cheerfully, 'This is fun. We should do this more often.' Not another word was spoken. We all just looked at each other with that

deer-in-the-headlights stare.

This was a lunch at Texas Instruments.

;
IDIOT SIGHTING :
I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself and for the sake of her life, couldn't understand

why her system would not turn on.

A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriffs office, no less.

How would you pronounce this child's name?

"Le-a"

Leah ?? NO
Lee - A?? NOPE
Lay - a?? NO
Lei?? Guess Again.

This child attends a school in Kansas City, Mo. Her mother is irate because everyone is getting her name wrong.

It's pronounced "Ledasha", When the Mother was asked about the pronunciation of the name, she said, "the dash don't be silent."

SO, if you see something come across your desk like this please remember to pronounce the dash.

If dey axe you why, tell dem de dash don't be silent.

STAY ALERT!

They walk and Drive among us .... and they VOTE

Republicans ‘Scrooge’ Workers, Kill Long-Term Jobless Help

2010-06-25T10:13:00.000-07:00

by Mike Hall, Jun 25, 2010

Republican partisan politics won—and working families lost—again last night when Senate Republicans for the fourth time this year blocked a bill that would revive the extended unemployment insurance (UI) benefits program that is the last lifeline for millions of jobless workers.

The 57-41 vote (with Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson from Nebraska joining all Republicans) fell three votes short of the 60 needed to end the filibuster against the bill. The bill also included aid for states facing huge budget shortfalls to keep 900,000 people on the job.

The extended UI program expired May 31 after the Senate left town for the Memorial Day recess without acting on a House-passed jobs bill that would have kept the long-term unemployment benefits program alive. Since then, 1.2 million jobless workers have lost their benefits.

The Republican blockade means about 250,000 unemployed workers a week lose their benefits, which averages around $300 a week, while Republican lawmakers take in a nifty $3,346.16 a week of taxpayers’ money.

Maybe if they spent a few months out of work in an economy where the unemployment rate is near 10 percent, at least 15 million people are out of work and 6.8 million people have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, they wouldn’t be so cavalier in calling for “tough love” for the unemployed and telling them they’re just not looking hard for work.

Print This Article E-Mail This Article Comments (6)

Tags: jobless, jobs, labor, unemployment insurance, union, union blogs, unions

Obama and Insubordination: Is He Truman or Mr. Milquetoast?

2010-06-24T10:52:00.000-07:00

June 23, 2010 at 00:48:05

Promoted to Primary Headline on 6/23/10: Permalink

Obama and Insubordination: Is He Truman or Mr. Milquetoast?

For OpEdNews: Ray McGovern - Writer

Journalist Michael Hastings has given Rolling Stone magazine a graphic account of the arrogance, disarray and ineptitude that distinguish what passes for President Barack Obama's policy on Afghanistan. For those of us with some gray in our hair, the fiasco is infuriatingly reminiscent of Vietnam.

In blowing off steam to Hastings, NATO/U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his top aides seem to have decided that, at this low point in the Afghanistan quagmire, political offense is the best defense for a military strategy sinking from waist to neck deep. In interviews with Hastings, McChrystal and his team direct mockery at many senior-level officials of the Obama administration. For instance, one of McChrystal's aides refers to Obama's national security adviser James L. Jones as a "clown."

Members of McChrystal's inner circle also quote the general as saying he was "pretty disappointed" with an Oval Office meeting and describing Obama as "intimidated" by McChrystal and other generals. Commenting on the controversy Tuesday, Obama said McChrystal and his team had shown "poor judgment" but the President added that he wanted to speak with McChrystal directly before making any decision on firing him. That happened today, according to press reports.

Two administration officials who are spared harsh criticism from McChrystal's team are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who were considered key supporters of McChrystal's insistence last year that Obama boost U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to about 100,000.

In praise of Clinton, one of McChrystal's entourage told Hastings, "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review [last fall]." Another aide added, "She said, "If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.'"

As for Gates, McChrystal spared the big boss from criticism perhaps still hoping for support from the chameleon-like Pentagon chief, who will first want to check the surrounding foliage before selecting the best camouflage color. Yesterday, Gates was careful to leave his options open, as is his custom, and limited himself to saying that McChrystal had committed "a significant mistake" in handling the Rolling Stone interviews.

In Hastings's exposure of the backbiting over policy in Afghanistan, the bottom line is best articulated by a predicate adjective beginning with the letter "f" and ending with ""ucked-up."

Some variation of that vulgarism is used repeatedly by the macho McChrystal and the staffers who pattern themselves after him, whom Hastings interviewed at length. Hastings's copious quotes make it seem as if everyone but McChrystal and his merry men are responsible for the fecklessness on Afghanistan.

But their comments also betray a realization that their particular brand of can-do, cut-and-paste counterinsurgency has brought what Thomas Henry Huxley defined as tragedy; namely, "the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

McChrystal and his supporters have failed miserably and they know it. But they lack any measure of being gracious -- or honest -- in defeat.

Worse still for McChrystal is the fact that his arch rival, retired Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, now ambassador to Afghanistan, has been proven correct "beyond reasonable doubt," so to speak, in challenging McChrystal's adolescent views regarding how to turn the Afghan mess around.

Last November, Eikenberry told Washington that McChrystal's whiz-bang counterinsurgency strategy was nonsense, and that the President should look beyond a military solution.

Anyone with a modicum of experience can now see that it was Eikenberry who had it right during last year's policy review. The texts of two cables he sent to Washington in early November were published in the New York Times. (For more on Eikenberry-McChrystal, see Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning."

Strike Two

The Rolling Stone article is also strike two for McChrystal's insubordination. His first strike came last fall when his recommendation for 40,000 additional troops was leaked to the press. He also publicly dismissed a more targeted approach toward attacking al-Qaeda terrorists reportedly advocated by Vice President Joe Biden.

1 2 3 4

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for 27 years, and is now on the Steering Group of (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Methane Bubble Earthquake Volcano in the Gulf?

2010-06-24T10:49:00.000-07:00

June 23, 2010 at 11:06:46

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 6/23/10: Permalink

Methane Bubble Earthquake Volcano in the Gulf?

For OpEdNews: Rob Kall - Writer

There's been a viral message spreading over the web that there's a life and earth threatening methane bubble in the gulf, caused by the gushing well, which will explode and even cause an earthquake and a real volcano, in some versions of the story. Some accuse Obama of hiding nefarious goings on.

Things are bad enough in the gulf. There's a real, genuine disaster of historic proportions. We don't need new tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.

I suspected the veracity of this report, only found on obscure websites and youtube videos. I checked with some experts who have proven to have provided reliable information on the well disaster in the past. The uniform response has been that this methane bubble story is urban legend nonsense. So let's nip it in the bud with some reality.

Yes there is a lot of methane gas. That doesn't mean there's a giant bubble waiting to explode and set off an earthquake or volcanic eruption. It DOES mean that huge amounts of methane are in the water and entering the atmosphere. And methane causes 20 to 70 times the greenhouse gas effect that CO2 does, according to wikipedia. Also, methane decreases Oxygen in the water, making it harder for life in the ocean to survive. Add to that the oil eating bacteria using up oxygen and the risk for dead zones increase. This is serious stuff, but not at all validating the methane bubble narrative.

I have already reported that the situation with the well is very bad-- that probably, a gas explosion, possibly methane, in the well, caused damage up and down the well, possibly breaking the casing, causing leaks throughout the well. That is believed to be the reason the "top kill" failed. Mud was coming out from multiple leak locations. It is also the reason that the relief wells, being drilled so that a "bottom kill" can be attempted-- again, injecting mud into the well to seal it-- will not work because of breaks in the casing.

Part of the reason there are breaks in the casing is because BP chose to use the cheaper option for casing, saving a few million dollars. Then they skimped on spacers used in well sealing process that Haliburton was contracted to do. Haliburton accepted this sub-standard situation and did the work anyway. That added to the risk that the well was never sealed properly to begin with. We don't know all the facts because the mudlogs have not been released which would tell us details.

We do know that weeks before the explosion that sank the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, a worker reporter that there was a hydraulic leak in the BOP that was the safety device that was supposed to close the well in the case of an emergency. The hydraulic fluid was needed to enable the BOP to cut through the well pipe and seal it. Apparently BP failed to address the problem.

First, here's the response I received from my anonymous (I do know who it is but am protecting his job) source in BP:

Here's what I asked him: "There's talk that there's a giant methane gas bubble waiting to explode and start a volcano and earthquakes in the gulf. What's your take? " He replied:
There is no 'cavern' under the Gulf. How are caverns formed? By water dissolving limestone. Over a huge period of time. Above water. I don't know the geology of the oil-bearing rock, but if it were limestone, those drills would be progressing a whole lot faster. Also, if you drill into the top of a cavern, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to cement a well. Remember how that's done? They shoot cement out the bottom and it flows up between the wall and the outside of the well casing. A cavern would mean that there was no wall.

There is no huge gas volcano ready to come forth. It's true that this well is 40% gas by volume, and that the average is 5%, but that's just more doomsday crap from conspiracy nuts.

While the reservoir is around 400-450F, and 13,000 psi, there's no 'bubble', unless you consider an entire underground geology to be a bubble. The thing is permeable rock, not a cavern.

At most, with a huge hole in the ground, it could probably flow 600K bbl/day - but no volcano.

And - if by 'explode', you meant 'ignite', then I'd ask where the ignition source is? Even if it started flowing at the max, no fire on the surface is going to traverse to the bottom; fire requires oxygen.

Earthquakes - if the well opened up 100%, then - eventually, some of the structure might collapse and cause an minor earthquake - but that's doubtful. Generally, as you pump, the land subsides - a very quiet event. Earthquakes happen when drillers inject hot water or whatever to crack the rock and bring oil or gas out more quickly, and then that's only because natural faults get lubricated. Denver had a bunch of these in the 70's (I was there for them). No big deal.

Much ado about nothing, really."

I also asked geologist Chris Landau, who has experience with drilling. He replied,
As far as the bubble is concerned. I say no. If I am wrong, all I can say is I learnt something. Is it not good to be wrong at least once per day. My reasoning follows.

Two links you might want to save to get quick details on how deep the next earthquake is that makes the news and how strong it is. We have a 7 on the richter scale, somewhere in the world every 10 days.

1 2

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

The Anguish of the Age: Emotional Reactions to Collapse

2010-06-24T10:38:00.000-07:00

Published on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

The Anguish of the Age: Emotional Reactions to Collapse
by Robert Jensen

We live amidst multiple crises -- economic and political, cultural and ecological -- that pose a significant threat to human life as we understand it.

There is no way to be awake to the depth of these crises without an emotional reaction. There is no way to be aware of the pain caused by these systemic failures without some experience of dread, depression, distress.

To be fully alive today is to live with anguish, not for one's own condition in the world but for the condition of the world, for a world that is in collapse.

Though I have felt this for some time I hesitated to talk about it in public, out of fear of being accused of being too negative or dismissed as apocalyptic. But more of us are breaking through that fear, and more than ever it's essential that we face this aspect of our political lives. To talk openly about this anguish should strengthen, not undermine, our commitment to political engagement -- any sensible political program to which we can commit for the long haul has to start with an honest assessment of reality.

Here is how I would summarize our reality: Because of the destructive consequences of human intervention, it is not clear how much longer the planetary ecosystem can sustain human life on this scale. There is no way to make specific predictions, but it's clear that our current path leads to disaster. Examine the data on any crucial issue -- energy, water, soil erosion, climate disruption, chemical contamination, biodiversity -- and the news is bad. Platitudes about "necessity is the mother of invention" express a hollow technological fundamentalism; simply asserting that we want to solve the problems that we have created does not guarantee we can. The fact that we have not taken the first and most obvious step -- moving to a collective life that requires far less energy -- doesn't bode well for the future.

Though anguish over this reality is not limited to the affluence of the industrial world -- where many of us have the time to ponder all this because our material needs are met -- it may be true that those of us living in relative comfort today speak more of this emotional struggle. That doesn't mean that our emotions are illegitimate or that the struggle is self-indulgent; this discussion is not the abandonment of politics but an essential part of fashioning a political project.

I would like help in this process. I've started talking to people close to me about how this feels, but I want to expand my understanding. By using the internet and email, I am limiting the scope of the inquiry to those online, but it's a place to start.

My request is simple: If you think it would help you clarify your understanding of your struggle, send me an account of your reaction to these crises and collapse, in whatever level of detail you like. I am most interested in our emotional states, but any exercise of this type includes an intellectual component; there is no clear line between the analytical and the emotional, between thinking and feeling. An understanding of our emotions is connected to our analysis of the health of the ecosystem, the systems responsible for that condition, and the openings for change.

Because I may draw on this material in public discussions and for writing projects, please let me know how you are willing to have your words used. Your writing could be: (1) "on background," not to be quoted in any forum; (2) "not for attribution," permission to be quoted but not identified; or (3) "on the record," permission to be quoted and identified. If you don't specify, I will assume (2).

My plan is to report back to anyone interested. If you would like to be included on that distribution list, let me know. Please send responses in the body of an email message, not as an attachment, to robertwilliamjensen@gmail.com.

Whether or not you write to me, I hope everyone will begin speaking more openly about this aspect of our struggle. If there is to be a decent future, we have to retain our capacity for empathy. Most of us can empathize with those closest to us, and we try to empathize with all people. The next step is to open up to the living world, which requires an ability to feel both the joy and the grief that surrounds us.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. He is the author of All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, (Soft Skull Press, 2009); Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen is also co-producer of the documentary film "Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing," which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist. Information about the film, distributed by the Media Education Foundation, and an extended interview Jensen conducted with Osheroff are online at http://thirdcoastactivist.org/osheroff.html.

The Runaway General

2010-06-24T10:27:00.000-07:00

This is a lengthy article.............I only posted part of it..........for the rest click on the title...........Thanks.................Scott

Published on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 by Rolling Stone

The Runaway General

Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House
by Michael Hastings

How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies - to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany's president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.

The Dollar Might Be Having Problems, But Here's Why We Really Don't Want to Go Back to Gold

2010-06-24T10:20:00.000-07:00

Dollars and Sense / By Katherine Sciacchitano 6 COMMENTS

The Dollar Might Be Having Problems, But Here's Why We Really Don't Want to Go Back to Gold

The United States has faced a vacillating dollar, calls to replace the greenback as the global reserve currency, and an international consensus that it should save more.

June 18, 2010

For more than half a century, the dollar was both a symbol and an instrument of U.S. economic and military power. At the height of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, the dollar served as a safe haven for investors, and demand for U.S. Treasury bonds (“Treasuries”) spiked. More recently, the United States has faced a vacillating dollar, calls to replace the greenback as the global reserve currency, and an international consensus that it should save more and spend less.

At first glance, circumstances seem to give reason for concern. The U.S. budget deficit is over 10% of GDP. China has begun a long-anticipated move away from Treasuries, threatening to make U.S. government borrowing more expensive. And the adoption of austerity measures in Greece—with a budget deficit barely 3% higher than the United States—hovers as a reminder that the bond market can enforce wage cuts and pension freezes on developed as well as developing countries.

These pressures on the dollar and for fiscal cut-backs and austerity come at an awkward time given the level of public outlays required to deal with the crisis and the need to attract international capital to pay for them. But the pressures also highlight the central role of the dollar in the crisis. Understanding that role is critical to grasping the link between the financial recklessness we’ve been told is to blame for the crisis and the deeper causes of the crisis in the real economy: that link is the outsize U.S. trade deficit.

Trade deficits are a form of debt. For mainstream economists, the cure for the U.S. deficit is thus increased “savings”: spend less and the bottom line will improve. But the U.S. trade deficit didn’t balloon because U.S. households or the government went on a spending spree. It ballooned because, from the 1980s on, successive U.S. administrations pursued a high-dollar policy that sacrificed U.S. manufacturing for finance, and that combined low-wage, export-led growth in the Global South with low-wage, debt-driven consumption at home. From the late nineties, U.S. dollars that went out to pay for imports increasingly came back not as demand for U.S. goods, but as demand for investments that fueled U.S. housing and stock market bubbles. Understanding the history of how the dollar helped create these imbalances, and how these imbalances in turn led to the housing bubble and sub-prime crash, sheds important light on how labor and the left should respond to pressures for austerity and “saving” as the solution to the crisis.

Gold, Deficits and Austerity

A good place to start is with the charge that the Federal Reserve triggered the housing bubble by lowering interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst and plunged the country into recession in 2001.

In 2001, manufacturing was too weak to lead a recovery, and the Bush administration was ideologically opposed to fiscal stimulus other than tax cuts for the wealthy. So the real question isn’t why the Fed lowered rates; it’s why it was able to. In 2000, the U.S. trade deficit stood at 3.7% of GDP. Any other country with this size deficit would have had to tighten its belt and jump-start exports, not embark on stimulating domestic demand that could deepen the deficit even more.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page »View as a single page 0

See more stories tagged with: capitalism, china, dollar, economic crisis, u.s. dollar, deficit, economic meltdown, dollars, global currency

Why the BP Disaster Threatens to Expose Fox News' Insanity to Its Right-Wing Audience

2010-06-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

Media Matters for America / By Eric Boehlert 114 COMMENTS

Why the BP Disaster Threatens to Expose Fox News' Insanity to Its Right-Wing Audience

"I'm wondering if Fox News isn't pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP's defense."
June 24, 2010 Eight-two percent.

That's the number you need to keep in mind as you listen to the right-wing caterwauling about how poor, helpless BP has been tormented and demonized by the bullying, Constitution-hating Obama White House.

Eight-two percent.

According to the latest CNN poll, a huge, huge, huge majority of Americans supports the $20 billion escrow fund that BP agreed to create in order to help pay for the Gulf of Mexico cleanup.

And get this: According to the same CNN poll, a microscopic 5 percent of Americans think Obama has been "too tough" on BP. Just 5 percent.

But apparently those 5-percenters all host radio and TV shows, or blog online, because that radical claim that Obama's to blame for creating the hated escrow fund (not to mention for causing the oil spill in the first place), has been exploding within the GOP Noise Machine as pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts rush to defend BP and denounce one of the most popular things Obama has ever done.

And, of course, helping lead the charge to guard BP from Obama's wicked ways has been Fox News.

Fox News is programmed for Obama dead-enders, that much is clear. They're the radical minority of political hyper-partisans who hold as a matter of faith that Obama is a Manchurian candidate. It's not just that Obama was born in Kenya and isn't truly of this country, or culture, and that his policies are misguided and wrong for America. It runs much deeper. It's that Obama ran for the Oval Office with the explicit plan to ruin America from within once he was elected. He ran for president in order to destroy this country by stripping it of its freedoms and liberties and transforming the United States into some sort of socialist or communist outpost.

That's how far out on the ledge Fox News now operates. And FYI, if you view the world from that demented perspective, it probably does look like BP got jobbed. (Just like of course the Clinton White House sold nuclear secrets to China during the `90s; Democratic presidents are a treasonous bunch.)

As I said, the dead-enders represent a radical minority. And yet they have an entire right-wing media complex set up explicitly to whet their Obama-hating appetite. There is no thought put into the rhetoric anymore, or their partisan jousting. Instead, the content revolves around a very simple premise: If Obama did it, it's wrong. Not just wrong. More like, if Obama did it, it's evil and dangerous and ghastly and un-American.

So the stimulus bill was evil and un-American. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was evil and un-American. Passing health care reform, of course, was evil and un-America.

But securing $20 billion from BP to pay for the cleanup and to compensate working Americans for the damage done to their livelihoods. That was evil and un-American?

According to Fox News it was.

And with that audacious claim, I'm wondering if Fox News isn't pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP's defense, and just how distant its programming is from the American mainstream.

video: "Kindra Arnesan - Quoted on PBS Newshour 6/23/2010"‏

2010-06-24T10:13:00.000-07:00

Check out this video..............it confirms what we have suspected about BP's response since the spill began...........

video: "Kindra Arnesan - Quoted on PBS Newshour 6/23/2010"‏

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3bzypjTIWg&feature=email

Tomgram: Engelhardt, The Perfect American Weapon‏

2010-06-24T10:06:00.000-07:00

June 24, 2010
Tomgram: Michael Klare, The Coming Era of Energy Disasters

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Check out Inter Press Service reporter Daniel Luban’s review of my new book, The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s, which can be ordered by clicking here. And while you’re at it, don't miss Timothy MacBain’s first TomCast video interview with me about the book by clicking here. I was also on Laura Flanders GRITtv show yesterday, while the McChrystal resignation was happening and you can check that out here. As you may remember, about a week ago I offered a signed copy of the book to anyone who gave TomDispatch a contribution of $75 or more. The response was little short of overwhelming, and a real boon for the future of this website. For those of you now waiting patiently for your book, I’m heading into the Nation Institute soon to sign all of them. If you want an autographed book in this batch of send-outs be sure to get your contribution in quickly! Tom]

America Detached from War
Bush’s Pilotless Dream, Smoking Drones, and Other Strange Tales from the Crypt
By Tom Engelhardt

Admittedly, before George W. Bush had his fever dream, the U.S. had already put its first unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drone surveillance planes in the skies over Kosovo in the late 1990s. By November 2001, it had armed them with missiles and was flying them over Afghanistan.

In November 2002, a Predator drone would loose a Hellfire missile on a car in Yemen, a country with which we weren’t at war. Six suspected al-Qaeda members, including a suspect in the bombing of the destroyer the USS Cole would be turned into twisted metal and ash -- the first “targeted killings” of the American robotic era.

Just two months earlier, in September 2002, as the Bush administration was “introducing” its campaign to sell an invasion of Iraq to Congress and the American people, CIA Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney “trooped up to Capitol Hill” to brief four top Senate and House leaders on a hair-raising threat to the country. A “smoking gun” had been uncovered.

According to “new intelligence,” Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had in his possession unmanned aerial vehicles advanced enough to be armed with biological and chemical weaponry. Worse yet, these were capable -- so the CIA director and vice president claimed -- of spraying those weapons of mass destruction over cities on the east coast of the United States. It was just the sort of evil plan you might have expected from a man regularly compared to Adolf Hitler in our media, and the news evidently made an impression in Congress.

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, for example, said that he voted for the administration's resolution authorizing force in Iraq because "I was told not only that [Saddam had weapons of mass destruction] and that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles, but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard."

In a speech in October 2002, President Bush then offered a version of this apocalyptic nightmare to the American public. Of course, like Saddam’s supposed ability to produce “mushroom clouds” over American cities, the Iraqi autocrat’s advanced UAVs (along with the ships needed to position them off the U.S. coast) were a feverish fantasy of the Bush era and would soon enough be forgotten. Instead, in the years to come, it would be American pilotless drones that would repeatedly attack Iraqi urban areas with Hellfire missiles and bombs.

In those years, our drones would also strike repeatedly in Afghanistan, and especially in the tribal borderlands of Pakistan, where in an escalating “secret” or “covert” war, which has been no secret to anyone, multiple drone attacks often occur weekly. They are now considered so much the norm that, with humdrum headlines slapped on (“U.S. missile strike kills 12 in NW Pakistan”), they barely make it out of summary articles about war developments in the American press.

Click here to read more of this dispatch

2010-06-24T10:03:00.000-07:00

I just want to appologize to all of my regular readers for my lack of posting in the past few months..........Sorry............I know that there is a lot going on in the world and I'll try and get back to passing along the info...........Thanks for your supprt............Scott

Clinton's Contrition

2010-04-24T11:27:00.000-07:00

Friday 23 April 2010
by: David Sirota, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

In 1992, I was in 10th grade. Hence, I didn't care about much more than the girls I could never get, the Philadelphia 76ers' playoff chances and the shortcomings of my own unimpressive basketball career (in that order) -- and I certainly didn't care about politics. So when my teacher assigned me to represent a Southerner I'd never heard of in a mock presidential debate, I was, um, not psyched.
My attitude changed, though, when I started researching -- wait, what was his name again? Oh, right -- Bill Clinton. To my surprise, what I found was inspiring. The lip-biting saxophonist seemed like a forthright guy with some heartfelt "feel your pain" outrage at the unfairness of the moment's Gordon Gekko zeitgeist. An early campaign speech I discovered particularly captivated me -- the one in which Clinton said, "I expect the jetsetters and featherbedders of corporate America to know that if you sell your companies and your workers and your country down the river, you'll be called on the carpet."
Call me crazy or gullible -- at 16, I was probably both -- but I bought it. If not for Clinton's campaign (and that irrepressibly optimistic Fleetwood Mac jingle), I might have followed star-crossed hoop dreams already doomed by my god-awful jump shot. Instead, I chose a political path, genuinely believing in that place called hope.
This naive faith, of course, is why I would later come to detest Bill Clinton.
Upon assuming office, he championed the very corporatist policies he railed on -- lobbyist-written free-trade pacts and financial deregulation, to name a few. To me, a fervent supporter turned spurned groupie, Clinton eventually looked like an opportunist who knew he was selling out -- and yet sold out anyway.
Because of his reversals, I ended up in my adult years being critical of Clinton -- so consistently critical, in fact, that I'm shocked to find myself about to spend the next few paragraphs praising him. No, not for his (admittedly impressive) humanitarian work, but for his recent contrition.
Whereas former presidents typically devote their retirements to history-revising legacy preservation, Clinton is laudably doing the opposite -- and the nation will, hopefully, benefit.
It began with his congressional testimony last month. Discussing his administration's trade policy, Clinton admitted that it "has not worked" to alleviate poverty, as promised.
"It was a mistake," he said of his agribusiness-backed initiatives forcing impoverished countries to eliminate tariffs. "It was a mistake that I was a party to ... I had to live every day with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did."
Clinton didn't stop there. In a subsequent ABC News interview, he said that when it came to 1990s-era financial deregulation that so harmed today's economy, "I think (my advisers) were wrong, and I think I was wrong."
Some will undoubtedly say "too little, too late." But with Clinton having nothing to gain from these admissions -- and, really, lots to lose -- the 10th-grade idealist in me says "better late than never."
Better he acknowledge the failure of misguided trade and deregulatory initiatives, rather than pretend they succeeded. Better he apologize for the betrayals that deflated his supporters, rather than feign indifference. Why? Because the penitence may now spur change.
Clinton's compunction could, for instance, convince President Obama to shelve new free-trade proposals and avoid undermining Congress' current financial regulatory legislation. It may compel Obama to fire the same Clinton economic aides who now work in his administration. And it might even prompt a nation of exceptionalists to admit its errors and actually reform itself.
After all, if Clinton can learn from mistakes, then America should be able to do the same.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.
Copyright 2010 Creators.com

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Corporate Reform Is Long Overdue: Am I Missing Something Here?

2010-04-24T11:25:00.000-07:00

Friday 23 April 2010
by: Jack Lohman, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

Perhaps I'm biased.
I bought $25,000 of stock in a corporation that I thought had a good idea. Little did I know that the CEO also had a second idea: to drain the shareholder value through high salaries and bonuses, and then put the company belly up. My money went down the tubes, as did many others, though the CEO and executives made out very well.
I don't like being ripped off, and few folks do. The Fat Cats know that's just part of the game, because they invented it. And they can afford to play it because they'll win more than they lose. They have these things like insider trading and cooking the books that keep them whole.
So, now Obama wants to take over the banks when they fail, and those shareholder values will go to zero even though they had no say in running the company. But the bankers and their bonuses for failure likely will survive, as they'll find ways to offshore their wealth.
Unfortunately, Congress seems not to want to protect the investments of shareholders, as the recent hit on our IRAs will attest. It's that free-market thingy, don'cha know? We should have known better.
It also seems that Congress has had a hands-off policy because the CEOs and boards finance their campaigns to a greater extent than do the shareholders. Campaign cash works as planned, and these CEOs are no dummies.
Corporations (and banks) have been taken over by CEOs and the buddy system, a board of directors where each member sits on each others' boards and each votes in favor of the others' pay package. Exorbitant salary, vacation and retirement benefits, stock options, and a handsome golden parachute in the event of an unfriendly takeover or forced change of command. Nice arrangement.
Like the CEO of UnitedHealth who reaped $100 million by exercising stock options. How nice is that?
And, oh, to ward off potential shareholder lawsuits that claim mismanagement, they hire an outside "compensation consultant" to provide a recommendation they can all live with and that will give the board legal cover in a lawsuit. And they pay these "consultants" very well to ensure an acceptable answer, which comes out of profits to the detriment of the shareholders they rip off.
So, we have Fat Cats funding the elections of the politicians who otherwise would pass laws to shield shareholders from corporate corruption. And, now, the Supreme Court guarantees that these corporations are to be treated like "people" and can give unlimited funds to back the elections of these same politicians.
Is this what they call corporate and political corruption?
The fix?
I'm sure there are many fixes, but the first is to give the owners (the shareholders) a binding vote on CEO, executive and board member compensation packages (including stock options and golden parachutes). The CEOs and boards should run the companies, but the rules should facilitate easy replacement of CEOs and board members in the event of poor management. And board members should be selected by the shareholders alone, rather than by conflicted CEOs.
As well, corporations may be people, but they can't go to jail. The CEOs, therefore, should not be able to hide behind the corporate veil, and if they are involved in wrongdoing they should spend the time in jail.
Lastly, the shareholders should have a binding vote over whether, and if so to what extent, and to whom, the company is going to bribe - er, contribute to - in the political system. The same should be true of union members when their dues are being spent on contributions. Nobody's money should be spent on politicians they don't agree with, with their money mandated by the personal whim of the CEOs.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States Lic

Cheating US Workers

2010-04-24T11:24:00.000-07:00

Friday 23 April 2010
by: Dick Meister, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed

Hundreds of thousands of workers are being cheated by US employers who blatantly violate the laws that are supposed to guarantee those workers decent wages, hours and working conditions.
That's been going on for a long time, but rarely as extensively as it was during the administration of George W. Bush. Thankfully, Bush is gone. And thankfully, President Obama and his outstanding secretary of labor, Hilda Solis, have this month launched a major campaign to try to overcome the very serious damage of the past.
Even the name of the campaign itself is very un-Bush-like. "We Can Help," it's called. Bush, of course, never so much as offered help to badly exploited workers. He did, of course, offer plenty of help to their lawbreaking employers.
So, just what are Obama, Solis and their allies in the labor movement and elsewhere up to? They're taking some very big steps to encourage workers to report employer violations of the wage and hour laws - especially low-wage workers, who are the most exploited. And they're trying to respond as quickly as possible to the workers' complaints.
Undocumented immigrants, perhaps the most exploited of all workers, are being encouraged to make complaints and are promised they won't be punished for their illegal status. As the Labor Department explains, all workers deserve decent treatment, whatever their legal status.
Solis's Labor Department has made the campaign a top priority. The department has already hired more than 250 new investigators, increasing the number by more than one-third. Even with a lesser number, the department has recovered more than $170 million in back pay for more than 200,000 workers since Obama took office.
The key element of the campaign is to make sure that workers understand their rights under the laws and report any violations of those rights.
Certainly there's no doubt that there are plenty of violations to report. For instance, a recent survey of workers in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago found thousands of rampant abuses of low-wage workers, many of them undocumented immigrants.
They worked in stores, in factories and offices, at construction sites, in janitorial and food service jobs, in warehouses, in private homes and elsewhere. More than one-fourth of the workers had been paid less than the legal minimum wage, often by more than $1 an hour less. That amounted to an average of more than $50 week in underpayments on wages that averaged not much more than $300 a week to begin with.
Many of the workers had been denied overtime pay or had their pay illegally docked for the cost of tools or transportation. Some were forced to work without pay before and after their regular work shifts. Being forced to work without pay? Slavery is the word for that.
Although the Labor Department is relying primarily on workers themselves to report on employers' labor law violations, the department is also getting help from the AFL-CIO, its affiliated unions and other worker advocacy groups.
They are distributing posters, fact sheets and booklets spelling out the wage and hour laws and how to report violations, arranging meetings between workers and Labor Department staffers, holding forums at union halls and other steps.
The department also has begun a publicity campaign in English and Spanish that includes TV ads featuring prominent Hispanics such as Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, and Puerto Rican actor Jimmy Smits.
Win or lose, the drive to greatly strengthen workers' rights is one of the most important ever undertaken by an American administration. I strongly suspect it will come in a winner.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

"Imagine": A Simple Plan for World Peace

2010-04-24T11:22:00.000-07:00

Friday 23 April 2010
by: Eleanor J. Bader, t r u t h o u t Book Review

2048: Humanity's Agreement to Live Together
by J. Kirk BoydBerrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2010

The first time I heard John Lennon's "Imagine," I was a high school kid with little sense that the world could be different. The song stopped me in my tracks. Tears streamed down my cheeks as Lennon's visionary prayer for a world without religious or nationalistic swagger set my heart and mind racing.
J. Kirk Boyd, author of "2048: Humanity's Agreement to Live Together" and the executive director of the 2048 Project at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed Lennon's vision and crafted a cogent and realizable proposal for peace and well-being the world over. The plan is straightforward and simple and is conveyed in a clear, short, easy-to-read text. Like Lennon, Boyd wants a world in which people matter; he envisions a universe where respect trumps competition and each person alive receives the material essentials to ensure his or her advancement. And, rather than presenting a pie-in-the-sky what if, "2048" projects a concrete, if still developing, timetable for granting universal human rights to the world's people. Indeed, in less than four decades, by 2048, Boyd foresees tremendous changes in how we govern ourselves and treat one another.
Special Offer: A limited number of copies of "2048: Humanity’s Agreement to Live Together" are available for readers who sign up for a recurring donation of $15 here:

Just indicate that you'd like a copy of "2048" in the comments section of the donation page.
Humanity, he writes, "has an unprecedented opportunity to prevent future wars, eliminate poverty and create the conditions necessary for a sustainable existence on our planet. These ends can be achieved through a written agreement to live together that is enforceable in the courts of all countries. "
The idea hearkens back to 1948, the year that members of the United Nations created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document was revolutionary, for the first time acknowledging that everyone alive has certain fundamental entitlements, regardless of current residence or place of birth. The concept, Boyd explains, gave voice to the idea that there should be one human rights standard. "No one should be free from slavery in one country but not another," he writes. "No one should have the right to an education in one country but not another and no one should have the right to speak out against the government in one country but not another."
But there was a problem, Boyd continues, because despite international lip-service supporting the Declaration, it has been largely unenforceable. In fact, because the UN lacks the power to punish countries for violating the Declaration, the statement has been symbolically important, if essentially meaningless, in protecting human rights.
Not so "2048." "First, we write our agreement to live together," Boyd writes. "Second, we insist that those in power make our agreement enforceable law in exchange for our allowing them to govern. Third, we teach students about our agreement and we go to court to enforce our agreement, because history has shown that even a written agreement may be violated by government officials unless we go to court and obtain orders to stop them."
What's more, the 2048 plan picks up - and expands - the Four Freedoms delineated by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union address: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Boyd has added a fifth freedom, freedom for the environment, to address the ever-worsening ecological crisis that threatens planetary survival.
Upholding these pillars, according to "2048," will move the planet toward peace, security and prosperity. It is important to note that the proposal leaves capitalism intact while shrinking the distance between the richest and poorest peoples. The concept further eschews turning every sword into a plowshare. "Our international community is spending $1.4 trillion a year on military expenditures. One percent of GNP for all countries is roughly $500 billion. All it would take to bring about the realization of the Five Freedoms and to usher in a new form of human society would be to reallocate $500 billion of military costs," Boyd assures readers. "That would leave $900 billion for military, more than enough."
One percent. Imagine that.
Ending poverty, of course, is key and a chapter entitled "Freedom From Want" lays out some appalling statistics. Each day, Boyd writes, 27,000 children die from starvation and preventable diseases such as dysentery. Indeed, 80 percent of humanity lives on less than $10 day, while the world's richest residents increasingly control the lion's share of wealth and resources.
"Without the realization of freedom from want for everyone in the world, social pressures will erupt and not everyone rebelling will be a terrorist ...Wiping out poverty will do more to rid the world of terrorism than any number of nuclear weapons will ever do. Terrorism will fade away as the Five Freedoms take hold," Boyd predicts.
In addition, Boyd argues that freedom from want is integrally tied to freedom from fear. Assuring both requires that governments treat every human being with dignity. It also requires that each person have access to life's essentials: adequate food, clothing, and recreation; a decent home; basic literacy training; medical care; a useful, remunerative job; and adequate protection from the economic panic wrought by old age, illness, accidents or unemployment.
Sound ridiculously utopian? Perhaps. But the strength of "2048" is that it makes the formulation seems both sensible and possible. Boyd puts his faith in the rule of law - he is, after all, an attorney - and he argues that regional human rights courts, patterned after the successful European Court of Human Rights, can make a huge dent in upholding the Five Freedoms and shifting expenditures from armaments to human needs. At the same time, he acknowledges opposition from critics who equate universal human rights with cultural imperialism, a charge he finds absurd. "Every person is human; therefore every person has human rights," he writes. "It doesn't matter whether those human beings are Chinese, British, or Nigerian - only that they live, that they exist."
That said, the draft document, available for perusal and comment here, will undoubtedly ruffle many a feather. For example, Article 21 outlaws torture and bans the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. On a completely different tangent, Article 26 guarantees access to contraception and gives the world's people control over all decisions regarding reproduction. "Everyone has the right to control his or her body," the Article states, "including the authority to end life-extending treatment." While most progressives will cheer these sections, seeing them as enormous advances for humankind, we don't need a crystal ball to predict that they will elicit a firestorm of opposition.
Boyd is unfazed by inevitable disagreements and welcomes written comments and questions about the 2048 draft document. At the same time, he is not a community organizer, which means that the task of mobilizing support to move 2048 from text to reality falls to us. In the end, if we want to achieve the Five Freedoms, we need to dig in our heels and work to bring them to fruition.
Boyd takes great inspiration from Gandhi, reminding "2048" readers of the pacifist leader's statement, "What a man [sic] thinks about, he becomes." In urging us to think about universal human rights, Boyd bolsters support for nonviolence, respect and tolerance. In the end, he helps us imagine a new, more equitable, social order.

John Lennon would be pleased.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Bill Moyers | James Kwak and Simon Johnson: Banks Are an Oligarchy

2010-04-24T11:09:00.000-07:00

This is a long article or you can watch the video..........worth the time...........Scott

Bill Moyers James Kwak and Simon Johnson: Banks Are an Oligarchy
Friday 16 April 2010
by: Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal Interview
Moyers and economists James Kwak and Simon Johnson wonder whether the financial powers are more profitable, and more resistant to regulation than ever.
How did Big Finance grow so powerful that its hijinks nearly brought down the global economy – and what hope is there for real reform with Washington politicians on Wall Street's payroll? Bill Moyers talks with authors Simon Johnson and James Kwak, two of the nation's most respected economic experts and authors of the new book 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown.
VIDEO: Part I - Interview with James Kwak and Simon Johnson
VIDEO: Part II--Interview With James Kwak and Simon Johnson

TRANSCRIPT:
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL. With all due respect, we can only wish those tea party activists who gathered this week were not so single-minded about just who's responsible for their troubles, real and imagined. They're up in arms, so to speak, against big government, especially the Obama administration.
But if they thought this through, they'd be joining forces with other grassroots Americans who will soon be demonstrating in Washington and elsewhere against high finance, taking on Wall Street and the country's biggest banks.
The original Tea Party, remember, wasn't directed just against the British redcoats. Colonial patriots also took aim at the East India Company. That was the joint-stock enterprise originally chartered by the first Queen Elizabeth. Over the years, the government granted them special rights and privileges, which the owners turned into a monopoly over trade, including tea.
It may seem a stretch from tea to credit default swaps, but the principle is the same: when enormous private wealth goes unchecked, regular folks get hurt - badly. That's what happened in 2008 when the monied interests led us up the garden path to the great collapse.
Suppose the Tea Party folk had dropped by those Senate hearings this week looking into the failure of Washington Mutual. That's the bank that went belly up during the meltdown in September 2008. It was the largest such failure in American history.
WaMu, as we were reminded this week, made sub-prime loans that its executives knew were rotten, then packaged them as mortgage securities, and pawned them off on unsuspecting investors.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: And that was your responsibility to make sure that the securities which went out to the investors were following notice to the investors of everything that they needed to know in order that the information be complete and truthful. That's what your testimony was, under oath.
DAVID BECK: It's a very real possibility that the loans that went out were better quality than Mr. Shaw laid out.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: And you don't -
DAVID BECK: A very real possibility.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: And there's a very good possibility that they were exactly the quality that he laid out, right? Is that right?
DAVID BECK: That's right.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: Okay. And you don't know, and apparently you don't care. And the trouble is, you should have cared.
BILL MOYERS: Then there's Lehman Brothers. During those black September days a year and a half ago, the Feds decided to let Lehman go. This led to America's biggest bankruptcy ever. In an admirable work of journalism this week, the New York Times reported that Lehman secretly controlled a company called Hudson Castle and used it to borrow money as well as to hide bad investments in commercial real estate and sub-prime mortgages.
But the week's award for sheer gall goes to a Chicago-area hedge fund called Magnetar, named after a kind of neutron star that spews deadly radiation across the galaxies. Thanks to the teamwork of the investigative reporting website "ProPublica," NPR's "Planet Money" project and "This American Life," we learned Magnetar worked with investment banks to create toxic CDO's - collateralized debt obligations - securities backed by sub-prime mortgages the management knew were bad. And then Magnetar took that knowledge and bet against the very same investments they had recommended to buyers. Selling short and making a fortune.
And late this week the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the godfather of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, with fraud in earning a fifteen million dollar fee involving those complex CDO's, a hedge fund, and the housing market.
But, since we know all this, why is it so hard to hold Wall Street accountable? Even as we speak the banking industry and corporate America are fighting against financial reform with all the money and influence at their disposal Their effort is to preserve a system that would enable them to ransack the country once again.
So even if the Tea Party folks saw the light, what can ordinary Americans do?
That's the question I want to put to my guests, Simon Johnson and James Kwak. They have written this new book, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. It's a must read - already a best seller -- and it couldn't have come at a better time. This book could change the debate over financial reform by tipping it in favor of the public.
Simon Johnson is a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. He now teaches at MIT's Sloan School of Management and is a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
James Kwak is studying law at Yale Law School - a career he decided to pursue after working as a management consultant at McKinsey & Company and co-founding the successful software company, Guidewire. Together James Kwak and Simon Johnson run the indispensable economic website BaselineScenario.com
Welcome to you both.
Let me get to the blunt conclusion you reach in your book. You say that two years after the devastating financial crisis of '08 our country is still at the mercy of an oligarchy that is bigger, more profitable, and more resistant to regulation than ever. Correct?
SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely correct, Bill. The big banks became stronger as a result of the bailout. That may seem extraordinary, but it's really true. They're turning that increased economic clout into more political power. And they're using that political power to go out and take the same sort of risks that got us into disaster in September 2008.
BILL MOYERS: And your definition of oligarchy is?
SIMON JOHNSON: Oligarchy is just- it's a very simple, straightforward idea from Aristotle. It's political power based on economic power. And it's the rise of the banks in economic terms, which we document at length, that it'd turn into political power. And they then feed that back into more deregulation, more opportunities to go out and take reckless risks and-- and capture huge amounts of money.
BILL MOYERS: And you say that these this oligarchy consists of six megabanks. What are the six banks?
JAMES KWAK: They are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.
BILL MOYERS: And you write that they control 60 percent of our gross national product?
JAMES KWAK: They have assets equivalent to 60 percent of our gross national product. And to put this in perspective, in the mid-1990s, these six banks or their predecessors, since there have been a lot of mergers, had less than 20 percent. Their assets were less than 20 percent of the gross national product.
BILL MOYERS: And what's the threat from an oligarchy of this size and scale?
SIMON JOHNSON: They can distort the system, Bill. They can change the rules of the game to favor themselves. And unfortunately, the way it works in modern finance is when the rules favor you, you go out and you take a lot of risk. And you blow up from time to time, because it's not your problem. When it blows up, it's the taxpayer and it's the government that has to sort it out.
BILL MOYERS: So, you're not kidding when you say it's an oligarchy?
JAMES KWAK: Exactly. I think that in particular, we can see how the oligarchy has actually become more powerful in the last since the financial crisis. If we look at the way they've behaved in Washington. For example, they've been spending more than $1 million per day lobbying Congress and fighting financial reform. I think that's for some time, the financial sector got its way in Washington through the power of ideology, through the power of persuasion. And in the last year and a half, we've seen the gloves come off. They are fighting as hard as they can to stop reform.
SIMON JOHNSON: I know people react a little negatively when you use this term for the United States. But it means political power derived from economic power. That's what we're looking at here. It's disproportionate, it's unfair, it is very unproductive, by the way. Undermines business in this society. And it's an oligarchy like we see in other countries.
BILL MOYERS: And you say they continue to hold the global economy hostage?
JAMES KWAK: Exactly. Because what's happened- what we learned in 2008 were certain institutions are so big and so interconnected that if they were to fail, they would cause systemic shocks throughout the economy. That's essentially what happened in September 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed. And what's remarkable, and I think what essentially proves the point of our book is that almost two years later, nothing has changed.
Or the only thing that has changed is that these banks have gotten larger, more powerful, both economically and politically. And they've been flexing their muscles in Washington for the last year and a half. So Neal Wolin, the Deputy Treasury Secretary gave a blistering speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in which he said, look, the financial sector has been spending more than one million dollars per day lobbying against the reforms we need to fix the financial system. Now, Simon and I think those reforms that the Administration has proposed do not go far enough. But we think they're certainly better than nothing. What Wall Street wants is they want nothing. They want to stop this in its tracks and go back to where we were five years ago.
SIMON JOHNSON: It's amazing, Bill. But this is this is politics and this is money. And you know, there's a ground game, which is campaign contributions, which are surging in. I'm sure on both sides of the aisle. And there's also the ideological space. It's amazing. The Chamber of Commerce that claims to represent the broad cross section of American business is siding with six big banks, who favor policies that are directly contrary to the interests of most of the membership of the Chamber of Commerce. And that's just not just me saying that. That's Neal Wolin. That's Treasury. That's the White House saying that now. Calling fortunately, they've come to the point where they're willing to call the Chamber of Commerce on that. But I don't know if that message is getting through to people.
JAMES KWAK: You see what the bankers have done is they have taken a basic principle which is more or less true. Which is that free financial markets do enable money to go to the places where people need it. But on top of that, they've erected a system that is indescribably complex. And gives many opportunities to make money at the expense of their customers, at the expense of their counterparties. Even at the expense of their own employers. So, one of the things that has happened has been that Wall Street finance has become so complex and the internal systems of Wall Street banks has become so complex that if you are a smart banker, who is out to maximize your own income, you can find the loopholes in the system and you can exploit them, even if it means taking money from your own-- from your own company
BILL MOYERS: You've been writing this week on your website-- about this hedge fund in Chicago that's made a lot of money. In effect, betting against the American Dream. What was that?
JAMES KWAK: Magnetar is a hedge fund which means that other people gave them money to invest. And their job is to make as much money as possible. And these were the smart guys in the room. They saw that the system was broken. And they found a specific way to exploit it. And they knew that they could go for example, they could go to Wall Street banks and the banks would collaborate in making these extremely toxic securities. Because they knew what the bankers incentives were. They knew that the banker's incentives were to do the deal, to do the transaction, to get the fees up front. And they knew that there was nobody watching out for the investors. There was nobody watching out to make sure that securities they manufactured were actually good securities. But essentially what they were doing is they wanted to short the housing market. And they shorted the market in such a way that they actually made the problem worse, because what they did is they encouraged they tried to create these very toxic securities explicitly so that they could then short those securities. And that's why in a sense, they were they were shorting the American Dream. But what the real story of Magnetar, I think, is that they were exploiting a system that was deeply broken.
So, we like to think that the financial system we have in Wall Street are set up so that as people try to make lots of money they are they are indirectly helping the economy by making sure their capital goes where it's needed most. What the Magnetar story shows us that this is a casino, where you can make money you can make money exploiting the weaknesses in the casino. And it has nothing to do with the American Dream. It has nothing to do with making sure that capital goes to the places where it's needed most. I have to say that we owe a great to debt to "ProPublica" and "Planet Money" and "This American Life" for uncovering this story
BILL MOYERS: Public radio's excellent program, "This American Life", did a terrific broadcast on this subject, based upon the ProPublica investigation that you talked about. And there's a song in it that I have to play for the two of you and for my audience. Take a listen.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Step one. You write a check for 10 million dollars. Hand the check to a Wall Street bank, and ask them to make us a CDO. Step two: they create the CDO, using risky stuff, very risky stuff, extremely risky stuff. Step three: other investors commit hundreds of millions of dollars to the CDO. Step four: we bet against the CDO, using a credit default swap. Step five: the housing market crashes. The CDO's value goes to zero, our bet pays off and we make hundreds of millions of dollars and before you can say step six, we're rich! We're going to bet against the American Dream, we're going to be on the winning team, purchase risky debt on a massive scale. Then place a bet that the debt will fail. Hundreds of millions for Magnetar, the economy collapsing like a dying star. No one will know till it's on NPR, and who cares? It's time to hit the town, this sucker could go down. The housing market's losing steam. And all we got to do to make our dreams come true is bet against the American Dream!
BILL MOYERS: You're smiling, James, but is it really that funny?
JAMES KWAK: Well for decades, we've been told that Wall Street and financial innovation were promoting the American Dream. And what they've I think what the show and the song have really hit the hit the nail on is that in fact, you can make even more money betting against the American Dream. And that's the kind of system we have today.
SIMON JOHNSON: My bumper sticker from this and I hope it does become a bumper sticker is, "Trust me, I'm a banker."
I mean, you need to break through there's a level of progress here, Bill. Which is when people can laugh about it. When people can break it down into pieces. When you've got the 60-second version. And you can hammer that. And people understand it. Then you're starting to fight back. This is about ideology. This is about belief. This is about these guys are smart. These guys are well paid. So they must know what they're doing. And that's wrong.
BILL MOYERS: You wrote on your website this week about how JPMorgan Chase lost $880 million on one of these kind of whacky obscure deals? But the executives still paid themselves millions of dollars in up front fees. And you conclude that bankers placed a ticking bomb on their own bank balance sheet. It exploded and personally they still made money.
JAMES KWAK: Exactly. Because this is an example so, this is from the "ProPublica" investigation of Magnetar. essentially the bankers at JPMorgan Chase involved in the transaction created a new CDO. A new collateralized debt obligation. Which was very, very toxic. And either they knew at the time that it was toxic, or they should have known, I have no way of knowing. JPMorgan decided to hold onto most of this toxic product they-- they had built. A billion dollars worth of toxic product. And then when the market collapsed, it turned out they lost $880 million on that position.
So, if we think about it, there are really two possibilities here. The bankers involved in the transaction either really thought that this was a good product and a good investment, in which case they're incompetent. Or they had- they may have doubts, they may have thought it was toxic, but they knew that the way the internal systems at JPMorgan Chase worked, they could get the fees front, they could get bonuses based on those fees, and leave the bomb for later.
BILL MOYERS: Somebody wrote on your blog this week, "If I were to buy an old house. Make some cosmetic improvements that mask an underlying rot. Got my insurance company to write an exorbitant homeowners policy exceeding any leans against the property. Then burned it down, wouldn't that be fraud?" Did you answer this guy?
JAMES KWAK: I haven't. That would
BILL MOYERS: Would you?
JAMES KWAK: That would be fraud.
BILL MOYERS: That would be fraud. So, explain to me how you manage to lose $880 million on your own company's money to make a quick buck for yourself and you get away with it?
JAMES KWAK: Well, I think that there are laws in this area. So, for any securities, there has to be-- for this type of security, there has to be a document which explains those securities. And that's a document that you give to the investors who might buy them. And there are laws governing those. And if you put in facts in there that that are materially false. That you know to be true, that is fraud. But I think the problem is that in many of these cases, I don't think that many of these people are criminals. I get a lot of criticism for saying that I don't think these people are criminals. But I think it's relatively easy to write these documents in such a way that you're not saying anything you know to be false. And so, they pass through, they pass through any kind of you avoid any possible criminal liabilities there. But yet, they can be misleading in a way that encourages people to buy them.
SIMON JOHNSON: I think it's actually worse in some instance, Bill. Certainly for offshore activities. Goldman Sachs was involved in hiding a lot of Greek government debt. They then sold new Greek government obligations to people in the United States as far as far as we understand it. And didn't reveal that they'd hidden the levels of the true levels of government debt. Now, that is withholding material information. That's a violation of rule 10B-5. and where is the legal process, you should ask, that holds them accountable for that? I've talked to lots of very good lawyers about this. And there are many complicated stories about why Goldman Sachs won't face any civil action or criminal action. There are huge loopholes in our legal system with regard to financial services that need to be closed.
BILL MOYERS: There were some interesting hearings, as I know you saw, before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. And some of the first, some of the most interesting testimony came from the former honchos at Citigroup. Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin. Take a look.
CHARLES PRINCE: Let me start by saying I'm sorry. I'm sorry that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us.
ROBERT RUBIN: My role at Citi, defined at the outset, was to engage with clients across the bank's businesses, here and abroad. Having spent my career in positions with significant operational responsibility at Treasury and, prior to that, at Goldman Sachs, I no longer wanted such a role at this stage of my life, and my agreement with Citi provided that I would have no management of personnel or operations.
ROBERT RUBIN: But almost all of us, including me, who were involved in the financial system, missed the powerful combination of factors that led to this crisis and the serious possibility of a massive crisis. We all bear responsibility for not recognizing this, and I deeply regret that.
PHIL ANGELIDES: The two of you, in charge of this organization did not seem to have a grip on what was happening. I don't know that you can have it two ways. You were either were pulling the levers or asleep at the switch.
BILL MOYERS: How can it be that a Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury, pulls down $100 million as a senior advisor to Citigroup and claims he doesn't know the risk that was involved in what he was trying to sell to clients and foreign officials? How can that be?
JAMES KWAK: I think there are two things. There's a narrow and a broad view of this. The narrow view is I think Rubin is actually not lying. I think it is true that Rubin did not know what the risks were. Although he certainly should have known what the risks were. And that's because he was fully subscribed to this ideology that free markets are good. That the market will take care of itself. That, he also suffered from a lot of the blindness that corporate officers and directors have. Corporate officers and directors manage these enormous organizations with tens of hundreds of thousands of people. They have very little idea what's going on. They're getting their information from subordinates, who are giving them a filtered view of the world. On the other hand, when he says, no one could have foreseen this. This is what I call an intellectual cover up. And I say that because it's very disingenuous. Over the past 20 years, these banks used their economic power and their political power to engineer an unregulated financial environment in which precisely this sort of thing could happen. And in that sense, I think that this was not an accident. It was not a natural disaster. It was not unforeseeable. It was the product of the efforts by the sector over the past 20 years to reshape Washington and to engineer an environment that would allow them to make as much money as possible. Simon talked earlier about money. And we know that the financial sector, especially Wall Street, has been, has made enormous contributions to both campaign contributions and lobbying expenses. But I think there were, there were two more potent weapons in their arsenal. One is the revolving door. So, we've seen an enormous number of people passing back and forth between Washington and Wall Street over the past 20 years. This is not a new phenomenon. It happens in every industry. But there are certain things that make it especially pernicious when it comes to finance. One is that, one is a question of incentives. So, compared to other industries, Wall Street can simply offer enormous amounts of money. I'm not saying that everyone did that. I'm not saying that even the majority of people did that. But that is, that is very clear.
BILL MOYERS: The New York Times has a story this week saying that 125 former members of Congress and staffers are now working for the financial industry in Washington. One of them is Michael Oxley, whose name is on one of the most important pieces of business legislation in the last 20 years. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which was designed to impose some very strict accounting rules after Enron on all of this. And there he is now, he's a lobbyist for the securities industry.
SIMON JOHNSON: But Bill, it goes even further and deeper than that. Robert Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury in the 1990s. He oversaw the deregulation. He fought hard against Brooksley Born, the only regulator in living memory who tried to prevent derivatives from getting out of control. He then went to Citigroup. He presided over this nonsense and this mess. He's now and he was he's clearly - minence grise of this administration. Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers are his proteges. But that's, that's not all. Next week, the Hamilton Project, a project of the Brookings Institution founded by Mr. Rubin, will have a big public event. Probably Mr. Rubin's most prominent Washington appearance since the crisis broke. The headline act at this event will be Vice President Joe Biden. Now, maybe Mr. Biden will be taking on the view of finance that we all should fear greatly. But I'm not so optimistic.
BILL MOYERS: You know, I don't get it. Recently when "Newsweek" wanted to give big space to somebody to explain how we get out of this, who wrote the piece? Robert Rubin. I mean, are they locked into this worldview so that they cannot see the consequences of their own actions?
JAMES KWAK: Well, I think there are a couple things going on. One of the things we talk about in the book is how the Democratic Party became taken over by this Wall Street friendly view in the 1990s, which is, you know, extremely important, because in the 1980s, we had a deregulatory administration that was largely opposed by a Democratic Congress. And it became very convenient for Democrats, because if you believed in the ideology of finance, you could sincerely think, I am a Democrat, I am a servant of the poor and the working class. And yet, I can take campaign contributions from Wall Street, because I sincerely believe that Wall Street is doing what's best, what's in the interest of the country.
I think it's been exposed in the last year and a half that a lot of what Wall Street did was not in the best interest of the country, not in the interest of the people getting these subprime loans, not in the interest of the taxpayer who was paying for the immense fiscal costs of the financial crisis and the recession. But it's, there's a curious time lag going on in the, in the Wall Street, intellectual and political establishment, where they think they're still in 2005.
SIMON JOHNSON: As I travel around the country, Bill, I'm really struck by the fact that while people in Washington talk about populist anger in the country, most of what I encounter is legitimate, sensible anger. People actually understand what happened. They understand what went wrong. And they want to stop it. And the banks don't get this. The belief system on Wall Street is the same. Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan Chase, one of the most powerful men in the country. If you don't know his name, you should look him up because this is a man to fear.
BILL MOYERS: Very close to the President. Has dinner- lunch with the President.
SIMON JOHNSON: The President called him a savvy businessman, recently. Jamie Dimon told his shareholders, we just had probably our best year ever. They didn't have their best year ever. They went through crisis. They were saved like the rest of the financial system by the government, by the taxpayers, but that's not how they see it. That's not what they believe. That's really important. That belief must be shaken if we're to make any progress at all.
BILL MOYERS: But we can't compete with those lobbying dollars. We can't compete with this interlocking oligarchy that you say. That's a fact.
SIMON JOHNSON: Bill, in 1902, when Theodore Roosevelt took on the industrial trusts, nobody knew what he was doing. Nobody thought he could win. The Senate was called the Millionaires Club for a reason. And it wasn't even any theory. The antitrust theory, everything we know and believe about monopoly, why monopoly is bad for society, didn't really exist, certainly not in the mainstream consensus, when Roosevelt decided to take on J.P. Morgan, okay?
Ten years later, the mainstream consensus has shifted completely. People understood from the debate and from the struggle, from the fact- from the way the trusts fought back and the way they spent their money, they began to understand this was profoundly dangerous, politically and socially. 1912, everyone agreed that breaking up Standard Oil was a good idea. Had to be done. They broke into 35 companies, most of them did well. The shareholders actually made money. It's a very American resolution, Bill. And it's very clear that we've had this confrontation before in American history: Andrew Jackson against the Second Bank of the United States in the 1830s, Jackson won, barely; Theodore Roosevelt, the beginning of the 20th Century; FDR in the 1930s.
The American democracy was not given to us on a platter. It is not ours for all time, irrespective of our efforts. Either people organize and they find political leadership to take this on, or we are going to be in big trouble, okay? Now, I agree, we don't have Theodore Roosevelt. I agree. The only Senator who speaks complete truth and clarity on this issue is Ted Kaufman from Delaware, who's an appointed Senator, he got- he was appointed to Joe Biden's seat, and he's not running for reelection. He therefore doesn't care about the money. I take that point. But there are others. There must be others. We must find them and we must fund them, individually, sufficiently, to fight against this nonsense from the corporate sector.
I would like to emphasize, Bill, I'm a professional entrepreneurship, James is a successful entrepreneur. We're not anti-finance. We have many people endorsing the book, backing us, and you know, they, we put their blurbs in the book for a reason, who are from finance. Who really appreciate and understand this key point. Which is the complexity has gone too far. It's become dangerous. And we need to return our financial system to a simpler, more direct, easier to manage way.
BILL MOYERS: You both paid attention last week, to the hearings in Washington, on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Was there a theme that you heard emerge there?
JAMES KWAK: I think the biggest theme that I heard emerge was that this was an innocent mistake. So, what I mean by that is-
BILL MOYERS: You mean the collapse of 2008? All of this? What- was-
JAMES KWAK: Exactly.
BILL MOYERS: An accident?
JAMES KWAK: Yes, an accident in the sense that-
BILL MOYERS: Natural disaster?
JAMES KWAK: As we heard Chuck Prince say and Robert Rubin say, we couldn't see it coming. These were, there were risks that build up in the system, and our models didn't account for it. We're sorry that it happened. Not even, we're sorry that we did it. We're sorry that it happened.
And I think that this is, I mean, it's unfortunate if they really believe this. Because again, if we just take a very small example, one of the things that clearly went wrong is these banks were not able to manage their own risk. They did not know what positions they had. They did not know what market forces they were exposed to. You would think that should be the first job of a bank. And I don't think this was an innocent mistake. And I say that for this reason. It was in the bank's short term financial interest to underestimate their risk. Because if they had estimated their risk accurately, they should have had to set more capital aside, they would have been less profitable.
So, yes, it's possible that the CEOs of these banks honestly did not understand their risk positions. But that mistake-- there was an incentive behind that mistake. You know, banks never overestimate their risk. These mistakes always only go in one direction. Because that's the direction they have an incentive to make the mistake in.
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean they have an incentive to make a mistake?
JAMES KWAK: So, in the short term, a bank's profitability is going to depend on how much capital it has to set aside. So, in banking, if I have a certain position, I have to set aside a certain amount of capital to protect myself from that position going bad. If I think the position is less risky than it actually is, I'm going to set aside less capital to cover that position, and that's going to give me a higher profit margin.
If I'm the head of this bank, that means that in the short term, I'm going to have higher profits, higher stock price, more money for me, but I'm underestimating the risk of something blowing up several years down the line. But we know that the, essentially, the incentive systems within these banks favor short term profits over long term solvency.
SIMON JOHNSON: The most profound thing, observation, on this structure, inadvertent, I would say, observation, was by Chuck Prince, the former head of Citigroup. In July 2007, right before the whole structure began to crumble. He said, "As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance." And that's a statement about the incentive structure. Saying, well, everybody's doing it. That's how we all make money. We've got to do it, too. I'm just a bank doing what all the other banks are doing. That's absolutely the heart of the problem. I would also say and tell you, and emphasize, these people will not come out and debate with us. The heads of these companies or their representatives, they will not come out. They're afraid. They don't have the substance. They don't have the arguments. We have the evidence. They have the lobbyists. And that's all they have.
BILL MOYERS: They've got the power, the muscle, the money.
SIMON JOHNSON: They have money.
BILL MOYERS: You just have the arguments. You just have the facts. On your side.
SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. That's exactly what it comes down to.
BILL MOYERS: Let me show you one of my favorite moments of the week. The commission on the crisis is looking into two former executives of the big mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Fannie Mae guy tries to say, what happened was Congress made us do it.
BILL THOMAS: Was there an opportunity, perhaps, to reprioritize your charter and focus on those things that were most relevant in the marketplace that would have made the institution more sound?
ROBERT J. LEVIN: That wasn't done at my pay grade.
BILL THOMAS: My understanding is, between 2000 and 2008, you made $45 million. So only people above 45 thousand-- 45, excuse me, million dollars, between two and 2008, could answer that question?
ROBERT J. LEVIN: What I meant by the, what I was addressing was the question of, could we have affected the charter act--
BILL THOMAS: Right. And it was above--
ROBERT J. LEVIN: Of the company--
BILL THOMAS: Your pay grade.
ROBERT J. LEVIN: Yes. And my language was sloppy, and--
BILL THOMAS: No, it wasn't sloppy.
ROBERT J. LEVIN: And what I meant by that--
BILL THOMAS: It was flippant, if you want that as a choice.
ROBERT J. LEVIN: What I meant by that, sir, was that that was in the purview of the Congress, not the company.
BILL MOYERS: You're laughing.
SIMON JOHNSON: So, look, what I say to my, to all my Republican friends: on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you were right. They became too big to fail. They captured Congress. They were known as some of the most formidable financial lobbyists in the 1990s. They argued for the rights to take on these kinds of risks, okay?
And the Republicans were right. The Republicans called them on this. But now it's the big private banks that have the same incentive structure. That have bulked themselves up so big that you can't let them fail. That's what we saw in September 2008. Hank Paulson looked at his options. And they are all pretty awful. And I'm not a big fan of Hank Paulson, but I think the moment where he looked at it, he was right. That if you let JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs fail, the consequences would have been devastating, because they're so big. It's a Fannie May and Freddie Mac structure come to Wall Street, come to the top guys on Wall Street. And our Republican colleagues and friends should recognize this, they should acknowledge it. And then we can all fix this together.
BILL MOYERS: Well then why is Mitch McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, who is the Republican Leader in the Senate saying what he said this week? Let me show you from his statement.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: If there's one thing Americans agree on when it comes to financial reform, it's that it's absolutely certain they agree on this: never again, never again should taxpayers be expected to bail out Wall Street from its own mistakes [...] This bill not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks, it institutionalizes them. The way to solve the problem is to let the people who made the mistakes pay for them. We won't solve this problem until the biggest banks are allowed to fail.
BILL MOYERS: He seems to be saying what you say, right?
SIMON JOHNSON: It's a clever piece of political manipulation. It's not at all what we say. What he says is dangerous and deliberately misleading.
BILL MOYERS: How so?
SIMON JOHNSON: He says let the biggest banks fail, go bankrupt, don't do anything, leave the situation as it is now and when they get in trouble, let them fail. If you do that, you'll have catastrophe. The bankruptcy system clearly and manifestly cannot deal with the failure of a complex, global, financial institution. And we have the evidence before us in what happened after Lehman Brothers failed. That was bankruptcy. It caused chaos around the world, Bill. That's what the Republicans are advocating. Is we just leave things as they are and next time we'll take that chaos and we'll get a second Great Depression. We're arguing for reform. We're arguing for change. We're arguing for ways to make those biggest banks smaller and safer. If they were small enough to fail, that's a very different story. And that's a much safer place to be.
BILL MOYERS: What do these big six banks think about what Senator McConnell is saying?
JAMES KWAK: Well, the big six banks don't want any reform at all, essentially. So, I think that they are, and there's some evidence that Senator McConnell has been talking to the big banks and to other people on Wall Street.
BILL MOYERS: There have been published reports that he attended a fundraiser with hedge funds and other Wall Street poobahs just last week, before he made this statement. And the reporters, knowing that he had been at this big fundraiser for hedge fund and Wall Street tycoons a week before, begin to press him in an unusual, and actually promising way. Take a look at this.
REPORTER: How do you push back against this perception that you're doing the bidding of the large banks? You know, there was a report that you guys met with hedge fund managers in New York. A lot of people are viewing this particular line of argument, this bailout argument as spin--
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: You could talk to the community bankers in Kentucky.
REPORTER: I'm not asking you about the community bankers--
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: But, I'm telling you about the community bankers in Kentucky. This is not, everybody--
REPORTER: Have you talked with other people other than community bankers?
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Well, sure. We talk to people all the time. I'm not denying that. What's wrong with that? That's how we learn how people feel about legislation. But the community bankers in Kentucky, the little guys, the main street guys, are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.
REPORTER: Well what would you say to folks who say that this is just spin to deflect attention from the fact that you're representing the large banks?
BILL MOYERS: So, he deflects their questions about being at this meeting with the large banks, the oligarchs, as you called them. And talks about community banks back in Kentucky. What do you make of that?
SIMON JOHNSON: Well, two things, Bill. First of all, he's embarrassed, as he should be, and that's good. I don't think they used to be embarrassed. I think-- I hope Vice President Biden is somewhat embarrassed by the event he's going to attend next week with Robert Rubin, unless he criticizes Rubin and goes after Rubin's view of the world. In which case, I'm okay with that.
JAMES KWAK: This other part of the problem which Simon and I talk about more in the book, and that we don't think is fully solved by the legislation in the Senate, is why do you have to have these too big to fail banks in the first place? So, we think that's the obvious and simplest and almost unarguable solution that you should simply not have banks that are too big and too interconnected to fail.
SIMON JOHNSON: There are no benefits to society, Bill, from having banks that are larger than $100 billion in total assets. This is a well-established fact. The evidence does-
BILL MOYERS: You make the case.
SIMON JOHNSON: There's nearly 100 pages of footnotes for a reason.
BILL MOYERS: But don't let the facts get in the way.
SIMON JOHNSON: I understand. But there's no evidence, okay? We've let our banks get to $2 trillion-- Citigroup when it almost failed or did fail in fall 2008 was a $2.5 trillion bank. Jamie Dimon runs a $2 trillion bank at JPMorgan Chase and says, if we're big, it's 'cause we're beautiful and efficient. And we should be allowed to get bigger. It's not true. They're big because of the government subsidy, right? That's what gives them the profits at this level. If they get bigger, they'll become more dangerous. That's, those are the costs. On the benefit side, there's no economy of scale or scope or anything else to support the case that banks bigger than $100 billion. That's on a pure cost/benefit basis.
JAMES KWAK: So, there's no way that Jamie Dimon, who according to many observers is perhaps the savviest bank CEO, the best one out there, there's no way that he can know what's going on within his organization. There's no way he can even have an information system that will let him know, efficiently, all the things that he needs to know. So, why is JPMorgan Chase so big? One reason is that it's in the interest of CEOs to have large banks. Because if you have, the larger your bank, the bigger your salary. But then at the same time, it creates this incentive among the traders, the people who really make the money or lose the money in these banks. It creates an incentive to the traders to essentially exploit the management failings of the company.
BILL MOYERS: The toughest hearing in Washington this week was conducted by Senator Carl Levin in the Senate, looking into Washington Mutual. That's the largest bank ever to go under in our history, and there are some friends of mine in Washington say there's some possible criminal indictments going to be coming out of this. Let me show you Senator Levin laying out some of the evidence.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: To keep that conveyor belt running and feed the securitization machine on Wall Street, Washington Mutual engaged in lending practices that created a mortgage time bomb...WaMu built its conveyor belt of toxic mortgages to feed Wall Street's appetite for mortgage-backed securities. Because volume and speed were king, loan quality fell by the wayside and WaMu churned out more and more loans that were high risk and poor quality.
Destructive compensation schemes played a role in the problems just described. These incentives contributed to shoddy lending practices in which credit evaluations took a back seat to approving as many loans as possible.
BILL MOYERS: He goes on, you know? There's evidence that WaMu knowingly sold fraudulent loans to investors in the form of securities. That loan offices were falsifying documentation in order to churn out as many lousy loans as they could. And that senior management was putting pressure on the loan officers to do just this. And he claims, what we were talking about, that destructive compensation schemes were part of the problem.
JAMES KWAK: I think that some people may go to jail. I think that falsifying loan documents, I think there's a good chance people could go to jail for that. I think that if there are- you know, when you get the emails of people at midlevel managers at these banks saying, you know, falsify the loan documents. They might go to jail as well. I don't think anyone who's high up in these banks is going to go to jail for this reason.
I think that, for example, these loans were eventually sold on to investment banks which used them to manufacture new securities. Those investment banks were getting documents from Washington Mutual. These are like representations and warranties. So Washington Mutual is saying, you know, these loans meet these criteria. And the investment bank is going to say, I got this document from Washington Mutual. They told me the loans were good. You can't send me to jail.
And he's absolutely right. So, you've got investment bankers who must have known. Who should have known that a lot of these loans are bad. But they've got a piece of paper from the person selling them the loan saying they meet these criteria. He's pretty much Scott free when it comes to criminal liability. So--
BILL MOYERS: Mistakes were made, but not by me, right?
JAMES KWAK: Exactly.
BILL MOYERS: I mean, that seems to be the mantra that came through all these hearings this week: mistakes were made but not by me.
SIMON JOHNSON: Or, no, I think they also say, Bill, well, everyone made mistakes, Bill. You know, we're just human. This was beyond our control. And that's not true, these are systems they controlled, they designed. Mr. Rubin designed this, right? And I want to point out there's something very interesting in this WaMu conversation.
It's only when a firm collapses that you get full discovery. Now, Senator Levin is a great voice on this. And I think he's absolutely nailing this. But he only has the ability to get at this level of detail and documentation from a company that failed like WaMu. For the people who were able to keep going. The Goldman Sachses of this world, you'll never know what they were really up to.
These are incredibly smart people. They're very well paid. They have ever incentive. The regulators are totally outgunned. It's not an accident that this complexity allows them to get away with it. It's by design. That's the system. Not a conspiracy, Bill. Don't say that.
BILL MOYERS: I wouldn't.
SIMON JOHNSON: It's a system of--
BILL MOYERS: A system.
SIMON JOHNSON: It's a system of beliefs and incentives, much more profoundly dangerous than a conspiracy.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
SIMON JOHNSON: Conspiracies you can unroot. Conspiracies you can have, you know, a couple of hearings. People can understand it on TV. You get the sound bite. This is very complex. This is about what many, many PhDs and specialists in finance have cooked up over 20 years with the active participation of the people who were supposed to oversee that in Washington.
BILL MOYERS: Is this what the blogger meant when he posted on "The Baseline Scenario" this week, "Unnecessary complexity just creates rich opportunities for systemic corruption"?
JAMES KWAK: That is certainly one of the things he meant.
BILL MOYERS: What should be the purpose of reform? Should it change the behavior of Wall Street, or should it change the regulation of Wall Street? And there is a difference, is there not?
SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. Look, I don't know if this will work or not. I don't know if at the end of the day, we will end up supporting the bill. I hope we will, okay? But whatever happens, this is one legislative cycle. Theodore Roosevelt did not change the mainstream consensus in this country with regard to power and monopoly and the dangerous side effects of big business overnight.
He didn't do it in one year or two years. It was a ten year process. The consensus has to change, Bill. And regulation, the role of regulation or understanding of regulation with regard to finance has to change. The regulation is there to limit the downside to society and to make sure that all of these activities have as much as possible of the positive effect on the economy without generating these massive negative shocks. And we're a long way from that point.
JAMES KWAK: I think the distinction you made is a very good one. Between changing the regulation of Wall Street and changing Wall Street itself. I think the bill does a lot of things that will improve the regulatory system.
I think it does not do a lot to change Wall Street. Certainly, better regulation will change Wall Street a little bit, but some of the basic fundamental issues, I think, for example, the fact that in many realms, Wall Street banks knowingly make money by finding, because they want to put on a trade, they find a sucker to take the other side of that trade.
They're making money directly off of their customers. You can't really have it any other way when you're engaged in proprietary trading. These, this is not going to change. The fact that we have these enormous banks that are too big to manage and that have a competitive advantage, because they're big. That's not going to change.
And that's one reason I think why it's not going to satisfy the many people in America right now who are upset and frustrated about what's happen. Because they're going to see that what we've done is we've made Washington a little bit better at regulating Wall Street. We haven't changed the fundamental causes.
BILL MOYERS: Well, I've seen one regulatory agency after another taken over by the very industries they were supposed to regulate.
SIMON JOHNSON: This is absolutely right, Bill. And, you know, the person who nailed this intellectually a long time ago was from the University of Chicago. George Stigler. Not a man of the left. He got a Nobel Prize for his observation. All regulated industries end up with the industry capturing the regulators.
And what's happened to us is a Stigler, exactly what Stigler warned against on a massive scale. And you have to think very hard about this. The Administration still argues that we should delegate responsibility, going forward, for lots of things around finance. Like how much capital you should have. Delegate that to the regulators.
Now, that's crazy. That's not acceptable. That is not what they should do. Particularly because, and any Democrat should say, well, wait a minute, next time a free market President who doesn't believe in regulation comes in will gut the system. And any person from the right who's read Stigler should say, Well, these regulators are just going to get captured. You've got to put it in legislation. You've got to design the legislation. You've got to go after the things that can be legislated. Congress must not abdicate this responsibility.
BILL MOYERS: So, you would break up the banks. That's what you would do, right?
SIMON JOHNSON: We would set a hard size cap on the banks. And the banks, in order to comply with that, would have to break themselves up. So, take a bank like Goldman Sachs, for example. It's about ten times bigger than what we would be comfortable with. And, you put that cap in-- they have to figure out how to do it. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders not to lose value as they comply with this law, not a regulation, law, right? Our book is called "13 Bankers" because it was 13 bankers who were pulled into the White House last March, and they were saved completely and unconditionally in the most amazing deal ever: their jobs, their pensions, their board of directors, their empires. But the title is also an echo of a remark made forcefully in 1998 by Larry Summers, who was then Deputy Treasury Secretary to Brooksley Born, who was trying to regulate over the counter derivatives.
And she was way ahead of her time, by the way. None of this nonsense existed. But she had- she saw this coming in a very profound sense. And she wanted to act in a preemptive and preventive way. Now, Larry Summers called her up. This is according to the public record and it's not been disputed by any of the protagonists here.
He called her up and he said, Brooksley, if you do what you want to do, which is regulate the derivatives. Over- regulate all this over the counter derivatives, you- I have 13 bankers in my office who say you will cause the greatest financial crisis since World War II., right? That was what he believed. That was the prevailing philosophy of the Rubin wing, the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
That was Alan Greenspan's view. That is what brought us to this point. The idea that if you regulate, in any fashion, in any form, you will cause problems, you will prevent growth, you will cause crisis. That view is profoundly wrong. It has been manifestly and repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong. And the people who hold that view must change their minds or they should be voted out of office.
BILL MOYERS: If Wall Street's behavior doesn't change, can we have another financial catastrophe like the one in 2008?
JAMES KWAK: The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a difficult result. And I think one of the core messages in our book is that the fundamental conditions of the financial system today are the same as the ones we had leading up to this crisis. And it would be folly to expect a different outcome.
Now, the legislation will help in certain ways. It will certainly, you know, it'll bolt the barn door after the horses have fled. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency will make it much harder to have a bubble built on subprime mortgages. But we'll have a bubble built on something else. And it may even be on a market or a product that doesn't even exist yet.
And that's why, again, legislation is helpful, but if you're going to have the same kind of incentive structures on Wall Street and the same degree of concentration, the same degree of political power, it's likely that we'll have another financial crisis.
The financial world has gotten much more dangerous in the last 30 years. We had this one. We had the stock market bubble of 2000. We had the long term capital management crisis. We had the S & L crisis. We had the Latin American debt crisis. And the question is, are these crises going to-- are we going to somehow figure out a way to have fewer of them, or a way to make them less damaging? And I'm not sure I've seen that.
SIMON JOHNSON: The structure of the system is such that people will take these egregious risks. That's what they're paid to do. They will mismanage their companies. That is absolutely in their incentive. And they get the upside, remember? Goldman Sachs just helped Geely Automotive, a Chinese car company, buy Volvo from Ford.
Now, that's an interesting investment. It's a very risky investment. If that goes well, Goldman will get tremendous upside. If it goes badly or if Goldman's other investments go badly, who gets the downside? Well, Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company now. They were allowed to become that in September 2008 as a way to rescue them. They have access to the Federal Reserve discount window. Okay? If Goldman Sachs gets into trouble, that's the responsibility of the Federal Reserve and the downside is for society. That is an untenable, unacceptable position in America today.
BILL MOYERS: We are moving now toward the decisive moment in this fight for reform, sometime in the next two or three weeks, we may well have a vote in the Senate. But what are you going to be looking for over the next two weeks that will convince you there is some possibility of true reform?
JAMES KWAK: Well, it's going to be a little bit difficult, because right now a lot of the action is in the fine print. As often happens in the last phase of bills. But I think there's going to be an attempt to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Even more than it's been weakened already.
And essentially, what will happen is opponents will try to make the C.F.P.A. subordinate to some other regulators, who can veto it. I think that on derivatives, there's going to be a lot of action, essentially on this issue of exemptions.
So, the derivative legislation looks quite good if you read the first page and look at the headlines. But then there are exemptions inside it. And the question is how big are the exemptions. The thing that we care about most is on the too big to fail issue. So, are we going to have real constraints on the size and scope of these banks? Things that the Obama Administration unveiled in principle to great fanfare in January.
They had a press conference with Paul Volcker and said we're going to have these Volcker rules. Those rules have been considerably watered down in the legislation. And I think that, you know, what we would most like to see are serious constraints on the scope and the size of these banks. Those are the main issues that I'll be looking at.
SIMON JOHNSON: So, the second Volcker rule was proposed in January was to put a size cap on our largest banks at their current size. Now, that-
BILL MOYERS: $2 trillion?
SIMON JOHNSON: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: 2 trillion-
SIMON JOHNSON: Now, a size cap is a good idea. Obviously, the current size makes no sense at all, because that's how we got into this mess. There will be amendments brought forward to the floor of the Senate, if this process has any integrity at all. For example, Senator Sherrod Brown has a very good draft amendment.
BILL MOYERS: Ohio, right?
SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. And he will, in that amendment, press for a hard cap on the size. And I think also restrictions on the scope. And they'll give a lot more restrictions in legislation, which regulators will have a hard time getting out to, in terms of what can be allowed in our biggest financial institutions.
For me, at least Bill, that is going to be the critical moment. How many people support that amendment or that kind of amendment. Does the Democratic leadership come out in favor of it? Where does the White House stand on this? If the White House steps back and the White House says well, it's all up to the Senate, we're staying out of this. I think you know what's going to happen. You're going to get mush, right? Nothing really meaningful will come of it.
If the President takes the lead, the President takes this one, if the President takes this to the country, takes on the Chamber of Commerce, goes directly to people. And explains why you need to make our biggest banks smaller. As one way, that's not a sufficient condition for financial stability, but it's necessary and it gets at the heart of their political power. Take on the big banks. Take them on directly. That's what Jackson did. That's what Theodore Roosevelt did. That's what Franklin Roosevelt did, too.
BILL MOYERS: Simon Johnson, James Kwak, thank you for being with me. The book is 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. We will link this conversation with your website, BaselineScenario.com.
JAMES KWAK: Thank you.
ROBERT J. LEVIN: Few, if any, predicted the unusually rapid...
DANIEL H. MUDD: I did the best that I knew how...
ROBERT J. LEVIN: In hindsight, if we and the industry as a whole had been able to anticipate...
CHUCK PRINCE: Regrettably, we were not able to prevent the losses that occurred...
ROBERT RUBIN: I was not involved in the interactions between the company and the regulators...
DANIEL H. MUDD: Although I was not in the room -- it was executive session [...] I don't, but I just don't know what the number was.
BILL MOYERS: That's it for the JOURNAL.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.