Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Palast vs. Coulter - Battle of the Books begins today

If you are not familiar with Greg Palast you should be!!!!!!!!!!!!! This would be a good introduction into the kind of investigative journalism that is serious decline in today's "media" market. Let's show the "Dark Side" what the forces of "Light" are capable of. Buy Greg's book today!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks................PEACE............(and "may the force be with you"..............LOL)................Scott



Palast vs. Coulter - Battle of the Books begins today

TODAY, ANNE COULTER AND I BOTH LAUNCH OUR BOOKS -- hers to promote the latest flavor of hate and militant ignorance; mine -- 'Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, The Scheme to Steal '08 and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War -- the investigations, first broadcast on BBC, simply banned from US airways and print. (There's no truth to the rumor Coulter chose to release her book on 06-06-06 in honor of her father's birthday.)

I'm asking you to buy (or order) 'Armed Madhouse' THIS WEEK, right NOW in fact.

Why right now? Amazon and the industry have set up this Coulter vs. Palast 'launch week' as the Battle of The Books: Can progressives match the forces of darkness (they call them "conservatives")?

Coulter has a million-dollar Right Wing campaign behind her -- thereby allowing her and other hate-salesmen to control the media and the national discussion. The Coulter crew buys and dumps massive amounts of books, buying her way onto the bestseller list. I have only you.

Asia Times says, "Greg Palast, the man widely considered as the top investigative journalist in the United States, is persona non grata in his own country's media." But it's not ME that's 'non grata,' it's the information about the Washington regime -- that is shut out of the Fox-ified press. They may not count ballots, but they sure as hell count sales. That's the blunt, ugly truth of it: that's how you get the attention of America's media.

Pick up Armed Madhouse this week at your local bookstore or through Amazon or Barnes and Noble You can get to these from my website www.gregpalast.com/armedmadhouse/preorder.html

When my last book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, was released, you made it a bestseller and, that ended the silence over the theft of the 2000 vote. We broke through the electronic Berlin wall of the American media.

The new book out today, Armed Madhouse, details the fix of the 2004 election, the Bush Administration's confidential, and surprising, plans for Iraq's oil, the untold story of the destruction of New Orleans, the dark, misunderstood economics of the rise of the India-China colossus, Ken Lay's unindicted co-conspirators and many more tales of the current regime you won't get on your nightly news.

Don't be fooled by the fact that the book is entertaining -- this is my most serious investigative reporting yet, connecting Venezuela's petrodollars, 3.6 million missing ballots, Thomas Friedman, Hurricane Katrina and, the death of General Motors and the Arnold Schwarzenegger's tawdry little gatherings with Ken Lay.

The full title is Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War. Welcome to the world of militarized greed, where America's panic over lunatics with box-cutters has metastasized into a billion-dollar fear industry, where Republicans sucking on Super-Sized Slurpees hunt dark-skinned voters on 'caging lists' for elimination, and James Baker's fixer in alligator boots sets up the grab for Iraq's oil on her way to the rodeo. Plus 50 illustrations, including several marked "secret" by the State Department and a brilliant recipe for fish curry.

Hear excerpts from Armed Madhouse read by Amy Goodman, Randi Rhodes, Larry David, Janeane Garofalo and others at http://www.gregpalast.com/section/podcasts

Randi Rhodes calls it the "best investigative reporting in America -- and the funniest." And deadly serious at the same time. Please get their attention -- and get it today. Yes, this is a hard sell for this book -- and for good reason: I'm asked again and again, What can we DO? The answer is, we can't do anything until we're INFORMED. We can't prevent the theft of the '08 election until you know the crazy details of the theft of '04. We can't shield ourselves from economic slaughter until we have the hard, if hidden, facts of class conflict from the Sino-dollar panic to the privatization of hurricane planning. That's why I wrote this book: as a class war defense course.

And that's why Code Pink, Operation PUSH, Ohio Citizens for Secure Elections, Democracy for America affiliates and a score of other front-line organizations are sponsoring the Armed Madhouse book tour.

The ARMED MADHOUSE TOUR BEGINS TONIGHT. I will be traveling to twenty cities across the US to meet with you during teach-ins, which will expose economic piggery so deep and devious you'll just have to scream or cry - or laugh.

For a list of cities and locations, see the end of this email or go to: http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/tour/tour-dates/

For sponsors and sponsorship info, go to: http://www.gregpalast.com/armedmadhouse/madhousesponsors.html

Armed Madhouse Table of Contents here: http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=495

Read an excerpt from Armed Madhouse: http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/category/excerpts


Armed Madhouse Tour:

Tue. June 6. San Francisco
Wed. June 7. Berkeley
Wed. June 7. Santa Rosa
Thurs. June 8. Seattle
Fri. June 9. San Francisco
Fri. June 9. Los Angeles
Sat. June 10. San Diego
Sun. June 11. Chicago
Mon. June 12. Washington D.C.
Tue. June 13. NYC
Wed. June 14. NYC
Thur. June 15. Boulder
Fri. June 16. Denver
Sat. June 17. Albuquerque
Sun. June 18. Austin
Mon. June 19. Houston
Tue. June 20. Columbus
Thur. June 21. Albany
Fri. June 23. Atlanta
Sat. June 24. Tampa

Details at http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/tour/tour-dates/

Thursday, June 01, 2006

I'M BACK..........SORT OF


I have finally gotten back to some sort of normality, even if just for a couple of days. Trying to play catchup is a bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!. I will only be here for a few days and then work once again intervenes. I hate it when that happens...........LOL.................Anyway here is some "stuff" from the backlog. I'll try to post again before I have to leave again. This time I'll only be gone for a week............LOL.............PEACE.........................Scott
When I clicked on this e-mail from Truthout this morning I thought that there was to much impotant information here to not just post the whole thing. The first article hits very close to home.
A very good friend and Union brother of mine who is also a longshoreman, works at the Port of Olympia. He is not involved in loading this particular ship but his ex-wife is involved in the protests. She has alraedy been arrested once and was probably one of the ones who were arrested yesterday. I just want to take this opportunity to thank her and all who have taken the moral step to put thier convictions into action. It is only through acts such as these that we were able to bring focus to the crisis in Vietnam. It appears that we didn't learn our lessons and so we must do it again. Thanks to all the resitors for their efforts. I will be checking to see if there is a defense fund set up for those who are arrested. If so I will be posting that information on this blog..........................PEACE...........................Scott


Anti-War Protests Continue at Port of Olympia
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/053106Y.shtml
Anti-war protesters gathered Wednesday at the Port of Olympia to demonstrate
against a 950-foot military cargo ship bound for Iraq. Crowds were small early
in the day, but were expected to grow amid rumors that the ship was leaving
Wednesday evening. Twenty-two people were arrested Tuesday and police
pepper-sprayed a handful of protesters who pulled down a port fence.

Canadian Arctic, the New Geo-Strategic Issue
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/053106EA.shtml
The Canadian Arctic covers 3.4 million square kilometers, and with extreme
climactic conditions, it used to barely interest anyone. But times change.
Affected by global warming, the ice melt's acceleration is exciting more and
more greed. Canada is now preparing to defend its sovereignty in a region that
could see litigation over maritime control, for the exploitation of natural
resources such as oil and gas, and security matters, with the opening of a
regular new point of entry into North America.

Budget Problems Overshadow America's Energy Woes
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/053106EB.shtml
The push to solve the nation's energy woes are bumping up against the federal
government's budget problems. To be sure, the Bush administration is anxious to
fund long-term programs by cutting lesser-known programs whose payoffs are far
more near-term.

Canada Pays Environmentally for US Oil Thirst
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/053106EC.shtml
Huge mines here turning tarry sand into cash for Canada and oil for the United
States are taking an unexpectedly high environmental toll, sucking water from
rivers and natural gas from wells and producing large amounts of gases linked to
global warming.

AIDS Pandemic Spreading to Every Corner of Globe, Says UN
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/053106HA.shtml
With 65 million people infected worldwide, countries' response is "nowhere near
adequate." Twenty five years after the first AIDS cases were reported, there is
no sign of a halt to the pandemic which is likely to spread to every corner of
the globe, the head of the United Nations' AIDS agency has said.

Starbucks Woes Continue as IWW Initiates Legal Action
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/053106LA.shtml
Still reeling from a defeat at the National Labor Relations Board in March,
Starbucks was hit with a fresh legal charge from the IWW Starbucks Workers Union
today. The Labor Board charge outlines continuing discrimination and retaliation
against union baristas by the world's largest coffee chain.

Truckers Shut Down Nation's Largest Port
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/053106LB.shtml
The thousands of tons of goods that flow daily from the two Los Angeles/Long
Beach ports came to a near shuddering halt on May 1. Over 90 percent of the
12,000 truckers who service the port refused to come to work. More port actions
are expected during the summer as gas prices - and troqueros' frustrations -
continue to rise.

Blades and Rowe-Finkbeiner | Motherhood Discrimination
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/053106WA.shtml
"Despite all the media chatter about the so-called Opt-Out Revolution - and all
the hand-wringing about whether working moms are good for kids - women, and
mothers, are in the workplace to stay. Yet public policy and workplace
structures have yet to catch up," write Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner.

VIDEO | Largest Urban Farm in the Country on the Verge of Eviction
A Report by Chris Hume
http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm
The South Central Farm is like an oasis. Situated in one of the roughest
neighborhoods in Los Angeles, it is a haven for the poor working people of the
area, where they can grow and sell their own food locally. But they face
eviction. Truthout correspondent Chris Hume interviews Daryl Hannah, Julia
Butterfly Hill, and the local farmers about their struggle to stay on the land
they've been farming for 14 years.

The Fuels of Tomorrow

By Meg Carter
The Independent UK

Thursday 25 May 2006

Worried about the greenhouse gases your car pumps out? Sustainable energy is the future, but what's available? Meg Carter reviews the alternatives to petrol.

Liquid Gas

What Is It?

Liquified Petroleum Gas, or LPG, is currently the most widely available "green" alternative to petrol. Although a fossil fuel, LPG is a bi-product of petrol which, for many years, oil companies simply "flared off" from oil rigs. It was endorsed by the UK Government in 2001 because of its lower carbon emissions.

Where Can I Get It?

1,400 UK petrol stations now sell LPG and, encouraged by Government support for the fuel, a number of car-makers, including Toyota, have launched LPG vehicles in this country. "Bi-fuel" models able to run on LPG or petrol are also now available, or you can pay around £500 to have your petrol engine converted to run on LPG.

Reality Check

Although LPG produces less carbon than petrol, its emissions exceed those of "greener" fuels, and recent Government plans to set future fuel duty to reflect fuels' impact on the environment have prompted car-makers to switch their attentions elsewhere. "People like the feel-good green association you get with LPG," says alternative fuels consultant Jo Burge. "But at around a third of the price of petrol per litre, most people choose it because of its cost - which is why it's so popular in countries like Turkey and Poland."

Grains and Vegetable Oils

What Is It?

Bioethanol and biodiesel are green fuels made from grain, rapeseed and vegetable oils. They produce 65 per cent fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than petrol because carbon emissions during production and consumption are almost equal to the amount removed when the crops from which they're made are grown, according to the UK government agency, the Central Science Laboratory.

Where Can I Get It?

E85 - a mix of 85 per cent bioethanol and 15 per cent petrol - is already available in parts of the UK, including Somerset. A pilot scheme was recently launched in Shropshire, where seven independent petrol stations now sell B5 biodiesel produced from rapeseed or vegetable oil. Ordinary cars are capable of running on a mix of 95 per cent petrol and 5 per cent bioethanol or biodiesel, without any modifications. To move beyond 5 per cent, however, an engine must be modified, which essentially means replacing rubber seals and aluminium parts with materials not eroded by bioethanol.

Reality Check

For the time being, bioethanol is more expensive than petrol because of the cost of producing and distributing it. Also, as most petrol stations are owned and operated by the oil industry, they have little interest in selling it. Another concern is whether there is enough grain, rapeseed and vegetable oil to produce the volumes of bioethanol and bio-diesel needed to make these green fuels a viable alternative to petrol. Despite this, a number of supermarket petrol stations now sell petrol containing 5 per cent bioethanol as standard - a practice expected to spread as the Government works to meet its 2010 renewable-fuel target.

Organic Waste

What Is It?

Every bit of organic matter on Earth will eventually rot, generating methane (below right). When released into the air, methane that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide, but when burned, it releases up to 25 per cent less carbon dioxide than the combustion of the same mass of coal, and does not emit the nitrogen and sulfur oxides known to damage the environment. Scientists are currently exploring ways of converting methane into fuel for use in transport.

Where Can I Get It?

Nowhere in the UK, yet. However, car designer Christopher Maltin, the British pioneer of unleaded petrol, has developed a system to convert organic waste into fuel, and recently showcased a car powered by manure which pumps out only water and carbon dioxide. In Sweden, meanwhile, a number of passenger trains now run on methane extracted from the entrails of dead cows slaughtered for food.

Reality Check

"Converting organic waste into fuel is an elegant and sustainable solution," says Burge. "However, biogas is a local fuel - it's most efficient to use close to where it has been generated, as moving it around the country is costly and may, in turn, damage the environment."

Electric

What Is It?

Cars fully powered by electricity sounds like the ultimate green transport solution - plug them into the mains overnight, and away you go!

Where Can I Get It?

A small number of electric cars are now on the market, including the G-Wiz - a two-door hatchback created by the Reva Electric Car Company. Motorists are being offered free parking in Westminster and the City of London, and a congestion charge waiver, as an incentive to buy electric vehicles.

Reality Check

Fully electric cars cost almost twice as much to buy as standard vehicles. And although they produce no emissions they're only as green as the electricity used to power them, says John Roberts, director of the consultancy Arup Energy. "Arguably, their biggest limitation is their range [typically, they run out of juice after 50 miles] and the weight of the battery," he adds. That said, a new generation of electric cars is in the pipeline with Nissan and Mitsubishi due to launch models in the near future.

Hybrid

What Is It?

Hybrids are powered by a combination of electricity and petrol. Car-makers claim they are greener than standard vehicles because an integrated electric motor helps the engine by boosting it during acceleration, improving fuel economy. The electric motor also runs the car when stationary to minimise emissions, and the battery that powers this motor charges itself up with energy recovered during deceleration.

Where Can I Get It?

The Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic are two of the best-known hybrids currently on the road. BMW, Peugeot and Citroën also have comprehensive development programmes for hybrid electric and petrol, and electric and diesel, cars.

Reality Check

Confusion over what constitutes a hybrid is widespread. Half of British drivers think the term refers to two cars that are welded together, according to a recent UK consumer survey for Honda. Moreover, many experts question just how green hybrids really are. "Essentially, hybrids are a fuel-saving device," Burge claims. "They can be pleasant to drive - quiet, and smooth - but they're still basically driven on petrol and struggle to better the efficiency of the latest diesel models."

Hydrogen

What Is It?

Hydrogen-powered vehicles typically run on a fuel cell (which is a bit like a battery) in which hydrogen mixes with oxygen to produce water - a process that creates electricity, which in turn powers an electric motor. Although water vapour is the only emission, how the hydrogen is made in the first place is a more realistic indicator of whether hydrogen can be called a truly green fuel. Hydrogen can be made in a number of different ways including electrolysis - the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen. It is then cooled to turn it into liquid hydrogen, which is distributed in pressurised cylinders.

Where Can I Get It?

Honda is one of a number of car-makers developing hydrogen-fuelled vehicles. Its FCX model is currently being piloted in Japan and the US, where the Spallino family of Redondo Beach, California recently took delivery of the first hydrogen-powered fuel cell car in private use. Closer to home, a two-year project in London involving single-decker buses powered by hydrogen fuel cells recently ended.

Reality Check

"This technology is new, and we're ahead of the game," Honda UK environment manager John Kingston claims. Even so, you'll have to wait a while before you can buy one. "Cost is a major issue," he admits. "Without an established infrastructure to distribute hydrogen fuel, investment by car-makers will be limited. And until more models are produced, production costs will make cars like this prohibitively expensive for most people to buy."

Steam

What Is It?

Typically, a much of the energy released when petrol is burnt is lost through a car's exhaust system as heat. BMW, however, promises its Turbosteamer will cut the amount of energy lost by 80 per cent, by ensuring energy from exhaust gases is used to power a steam engine which in turn powers the car.

Where Can I Get It?

Nowhere, yet - it's still at the test stage. However, the plan is that eventually the Turbosteamer could be fitted to all BMW models.

Reality Check

"The BMW system is a clever way of recovering energy that would otherwise be lost," says Burge. "But this is still a petrol-driven car."

Sun

What Is It?

Solar energy seems an unlikely form of car fuel - not least in cloudier climes. Yet car-makers have been experimenting with solar power for a number of years. In 1993 the Honda Dream won the World Solar Challenge, crossing from Darwin to Adelaide using only the power of the sun. Today, manufacturers are continuing to look at ways of incorporating solar panels into car design.

Where Can I Get It?

Nowhere, yet. But Ford's recently announced plans for the new Reflex include solar-powered headlights.

Reality Check

"Solar panels to power lights is all fine and well," says Roberts. "But it won't solve the problem of what's the greenest alternative fuel. The future won't be about just one solution, but a combination of many."

Subject: Stuck in traffic

Enjoy reading.......



A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the highway. Nothing is moving.

Suddenly a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down his window

And asks, "What happened?"

"Terrorists have kidnapped Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld."

They are asking for a $10 million ransom. Otherwise they are going to

Douse them with gasoline and set them on fire.

We are going from car to car, taking up a collection."

The driver asks, "How much is everyone giving, on average?"

"ABOUT A GALLON" !!!

Politics, or Insanity?

By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

Tuesday 16 May 2006

Plan to militarize Mexican border is sheer madness or blatant pandering.
Austin, Texas - I hate to raise such an ugly possibility, but have you considered lunacy as an explanation? Craziness would make a certain amount of sense. I mean, you announce you are going to militarize the Mexican border, but you assure the president of Mexico you are not militarizing the border. You announce you are sending the National Guard, but then you assure everyone it's not very many soldiers and just for a little while.

Militarizing the border is a totally terrible idea. Do we have a State Department? Are they sentient? How much do you want to infuriate Mexico when it's sitting on quite a bit of oil? Bush knows what the most likely outcome of this move will be. He was governor during the political firestorm that ensued when a Marine taking part in anti-drug patrols on the border shot and killed Esequiel Hernandez, an innocent goat-herder from Redford, Texas. That's the definition of crazy - repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

I suppose politics could explain it, too. It's quite possible that lunacy and politics are closely related. It's still damned hard cheese for the Guard, though. The Guard is heavily deployed in Iraq, currently 20 percent of those serving, down from 40 percent last year. Some soldiers are sent back for multiple tours. Lt. Gen. James Helmly, head of the Army Reserve, said the Reserve is rapidly degenerating into "a broken force" and is "in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements." Happy hurricane season to you, too. The Guard is also short on equipment and falling short on recruiting goals.

But right-wingers are very unhappy with Bush right now, and this is a strong, red-meat gesture that will make them happy, even if it does nothing to shut down the border. You want to shut down illegal immigration? You want to use the military as police? Make it illegal hire undocumented workers and put the National Guard into enforcing that. Then rewrite NAFTA and invest in Mexico.

Meanwhile, further proof that the entire party is cuckoo comes to us with the passage of another $70 billion tax cut for the rich. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says the average middle-income household will get a $20 tax cut, while those making more than $1 million a year will get nearly $42,000.

The Washington Post editorialized, "Budgetary dishonesty, distributional unfairness, fiscal irresponsibility - by now the words are so familiar, it can be hard to appreciate how damaging this fiscal course will be."

Both President Bush and Veep Cheney are still going around claiming if you cut taxes, your tax revenues increase. No, they don't. Now we're just in whackoville. It's not true. Their own economists tell them it's not true, but they go about claiming it is with the same desperate tenacity they clung to false tales of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How pathetic.

Speaking of lunacy, the saddest report from Iraq is that American soldiers showing signs of psychological distress and depression are being kept on active duty, increasing the risk of suicide. The Hartford Courant reports that even soldiers who have already been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome are kept on duty. This has led to an increase in the suicide rate - 22 soldiers in 2005. And as I have reported before, the military is unprepared to deal with the flood of head cases coming back from Iraq. How many ways can we mistreat our own soldiers, while the right makes this elaborate show of devotion to "the troops"?

The consistent pattern that runs through all these problems is the failure to distinguish fantasy from reality. Mexican immigrants keep crossing the border because they can get jobs here - and most of those jobs are provided by companies whose CEOs support George W. Bush. That's where he can have an impact on the problem, should he choose to do so.

The $70 billion tax cut is part of a continuing right-wing fantasy going back to the Laffer Curve. Of course, clinging to demonstrably false economic precepts is understandable when you benefit from them, but at some point reality does intervene.

As for the Iraq fantasy and those who pushed it on a reluctant country through lies, disinformation and bending intelligence - isn't there a law against that?

Dixie Chicks, Valerie Plame & Bush

Even if you don't like "country"music, or don't care for the Dixie Chicks music in particular, please support this band that has taken an unpolitically correct political stance and suffered for it. They dared speak thier minds and have been banned from airplay across the nation. Album sales plummeted and they have been the subject of smear campaigns. They have a new album(CD) out and will be on tour this summer and fall. Check out these "Chicks"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks.......................PEACE..........................Scott

Dixie Chicks, Valerie Plame & Bush
By Robert Parry
Consortium News

Tuesday 16 May 2006

A politician's reaction to dissent is often the true test of a commitment to democracy. Great leaders not only tolerate criticism, but welcome disagreement as part of a fair competition of ideas leading to the best result for society.

Certainly, no one who truly cares about democracy favors punishing critics and demonizing dissenters. But just such hostility has been the calling card of George W. Bush and his backers over the past five years as they have subjected public critics to vilification, ridicule and retaliation.

While Bush doesn't always join personally in the attack-dog operations, he has a remarkable record of never calling off the dogs, letting his surrogates inflict the damage while he winks his approval. In some cases, however, such as the punishment of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame, Bush has actually gotten his hands dirty. [See below.]

The Bush-on-the-sidelines cases are illustrated by what happened to the Dixie Chicks, a three-woman country-western band that has faced three years of boycotts because lead singer, Natalie Maines, criticized Bush as he was stampeding the nation toward war with Iraq.

During a March 10, 2003, concert in London, Maines, a Texan, remarked, "we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Two days later - just a week before Bush launched the Iraq invasion - she added, "I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world."

With war hysteria then sweeping America, the right-wing attack machine switched into high gear, organizing rallies to drive trucks over Dixie Chicks CDs and threatening country-western stations that played Dixie Chicks music. Maines later apologized, but it was too late to stop the group's songs from falling down the country music charts.

On April 24, 2003, with the Iraq War barely a month old, NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw asked Bush about the boycott of the Dixie Chicks. The President responded that the singers "can say what they want to say," but he added that his supporters then had an equal right to punish the singers for their comments.

"They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out," Bush said. "Freedom is a two-way street."

So, instead of encouraging a full-and-free debate, Bush made clear that he saw nothing wrong with his followers hurting Americans who disagree with him.

Pattern of Attack

Other celebrities who opposed the Iraq War, such as Sean Penn, got a similar treatment. Bush's supporters even gloated when Penn lost acting work because he had criticized the rush to war.

"Sean Penn is fired from an acting job and finds out that actions bring about consequences. Whoa, dude!" chortled pro-Bush MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough.

Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, cited as justification for Penn's punishment the actor's comment during a pre-war trip to Iraq that "I cannot conceive of any reason why the American people and the world would not have shared with them the evidence that they [Bush administration officials] claim to have of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." [MSNBC transcript, May 18, 2003]

In other words, no matter how reasonable or accurate the concerns expressed by Bush's Iraq War critics, they could expect retaliation.

With Bush's quiet encouragement, his supporters also denigrated skeptical U.S. allies, such as France by pouring French wine into gutters and renaming "French fries" as "freedom fries."

Bush's backers even mocked U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix for not finding WMD in Iraq in the weeks before the U.S. invasion. CNBC's right-wing comic Dennis Miller likened Blix's U.N. inspectors to the cartoon character Scooby Doo, racing fruitlessly around Iraq in vans.

As it turned out, of course, the Iraq War critics were right. The problem wasn't the incompetence of Blix but the fact that Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD were false, as Bush's arms inspectors David Kay and Charles Duelfer concluded after the invasion.

But the critics never got any apologies or repair to the careers. As CBS's "60 Minutes" reported in a segment on May 14, 2006, the Dixie Chicks were still haunted by the pro-Bush boycott three years later.

"They have already paid a huge price for their outspokenness, and not just monetarily," said correspondent Steve Kroft. Sometimes, Iraq War supporters even turned to threats of violence.

During one tour, lead singer Maines was warned, "You will be shot dead at your show in Dallas," forcing her to perform there under tight police protection, said the group's banjo player, Emily Robison. In another incident, a shotgun was pointed at a radio station's van because it had the group's picture on the side, Robison said.

Though the Dixie Chicks are still shunned by many country-western stations, they have refused to back down. Indeed, one of their new songs - entitled "Not Ready to Make Nice" - takes on the hatred and intolerance they faced for voicing an opinion about Bush and the Iraq War.

As Kroft noted, "Not Ready to Make Nice" received favorable reviews and became one of the most downloaded country songs on the Internet, but it still "fizzled on the charts" as Bush supporters called up stations and demanded that it never be played.

Asked to explain why these tactics work, Maines said, "when you're in the corporate world, and when that's your livelihood, and when 100 people e-mail you that they'll never listen to your station again, you get scared of losing your job. And why did they need to stand up for us? They're not our friends. They're not our family. And they cave." [CBS's "60 Minutes," May 14, 2006]

The Plame Case

But what's most troubling is that this intolerance toward dissent is not simply overzealous Bush supporters acting out, but rather loyal followers who are getting their signals from the top levels of the Bush administration.

For instance, a new federal court filing by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney apparently instigated the campaign to punish former Ambassador Wilson for his criticism of the administration's claims that Iraq had sought enriched uranium from Africa.

After reading Wilson's July 6, 2003, opinion article in the New York Times, Cheney scrawled questions in the space above the article, according to the court filing. Cheney's questions would soon shape the hostile talking points that White House officials and their right-wing supporters would spread against Wilson and his CIA officer wife, Valerie Plame.

"Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and the defendant - his chief of staff [I. Lewis Libby] - on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to these assertions," according to a May 12, 2006, filing by Fitzgerald.

Cheney's questions addressed the reasons why the CIA sent Wilson to Niger in 2002 to check out - and ultimately discredit - suspicions about Iraq allegedly seeking "yellowcake" uranium from Africa.

"Have they [CIA officials] done this sort of thing before?" Cheney wrote. "Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Though Cheney did not write down Plame's name, his questions indicate that he was aware that she worked for the CIA and was in a position (dealing with WMD issues) to have a hand in her husband's assignment to check out the Niger reports.

Over the next several days, White House officials, including Libby and Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, allegedly disseminated information about Plame's CIA identity to journalists in the context of knocking down Wilson's critical article. In effect, the White House tried to cast Wilson's trip as a case of nepotism arranged by his wife.

On July 14, 2003, Plame was publicly identified as a CIA operative in a column by right-wing commentator Robert Novak, destroying her career at the CIA and forcing the spy agency to terminate the undercover operation that she had headed. A CIA complaint to the Justice Department prompted an investigation into the illegal exposure of a CIA officer.

Initially, when the investigation was still under the direct control of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Bush and other White House officials denied any knowledge about the leak. Bush pretended that he wanted to get to the bottom of the matter.

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. "I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true."

Yet, even as Bush was professing his curiosity and calling for anyone with information to step forward, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized the declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to arrange for those secrets to be given to reporters.

In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started - since he was involved in starting it - he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House role and possibly to signal to others that they should follow suit in denying knowledge.

Failed Cover-Up

The cover-up might have worked, except in late 2003, Ashcroft recused himself because of a conflict of interest, and Fitzgerald - the U.S. Attorney in Chicago - was named as the special prosecutor. Fitzgerald pursued the investigation far more aggressively, even demanding that journalists testify about the White House leaks.

In October 2005, Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts of perjury, lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. In a court filing on April 5, 2006, Fitzgerald added that his investigation had uncovered government documents that "could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson" because of his criticism of the administration's handling of the Niger evidence.

Beyond the actual Plame leak, the White House oversaw a public-relations strategy to denigrate Wilson. The Republican National Committee put out talking points ridiculing Wilson, and the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee made misleading claims about his honesty in a WMD report.

Rather than thank Wilson for undertaking a difficult fact-finding trip to Niger for no pay - and for reporting accurately about the dubious Iraq-Niger claims - the Bush administration sought to smear the former ambassador and, in so doing, destroyed his wife's career and the effectiveness of her undercover work on WMDs. Plame has since quit the CIA.

The common thread linking the Plame case to the attacks on the Dixie Chicks and other anti-war celebrities is Bush's all-consuming intolerance of dissent.

Rather than welcome contrary opinions and use them to refine his own thinking, Bush operates from the premise that his "gut" judgments are right and all they require is that the American people get in line behind him.

Bush then views any continued criticism as evidence of disloyalty. While Bush will tolerate people voicing disagreement, he feels they should pay a steep price, exacted by Bush's loyalists inside and outside the government.

So, when Bush's supporters malign his critics as "traitors" and spit out other hate-filled expressions bordering on exhortations to violence, Bush sees no obligation to rein in the intimidating rhetoric.

Instead, Bush almost seems to relish the punishments meted out to Americans who dissent.

--------

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & "Project Truth."

ECOLOGY

MORE THAN HALF OF U.S. STREAMS ARE POLLUTED

REUTERS - More than half of U.S. streams are polluted, with the worst
conditions found in the eastern third of the country, according to a
study by the Environmental Protection Agency. In its first-ever study of
shallow streams, the agency found 42 percent were in poor condition, and
another 25 percent were considered fair. Only 28 percent were in good
condition, EPA said. Another 5 percent were not analyzed because of
sampling problems in New England. Streams running in the East, from the
Atlantic coast through the Appalachian Mountains, fared the worst, with
52 percent listed as poor. In contrast, 45 percent of streams running
west of the Rocky Mountains were the least polluted, the report found.

http://tinyurl.com/gmt6h

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

TIBETAN PLATEAU LOSING 46,000 GLACIERS

GEOFFREY LEAN, INDEPENDENT UK - The Chinese Academy of Sciences - the
country's top scientific body - has announced that the glaciers of the
Tibetan plateau are vanishing so fast that they will be reduced by 50
per cent every decade. Each year enough water permanently melts from
them to fill the entire Yellow River. They added that the vast
environmental changes brought about by the process will increase
droughts and sandstorms over the rest of the country, and devastate many
of the world's greatest rivers, in what experts warn will be an
"ecological catastrophe."

The plateau, says the academy, has a staggering 46,298 glaciers,
covering almost 60,000 square miles. At an average height of 13,000 feet
above sea level, they make up the largest area of ice outside the polar
regions, nearly a sixth of the world's total.

The glaciers have been receding over the past four decades, as the world
has gradually warmed up, but the process has now accelerated alarmingly.
Average temperatures in Tibet have risen by 2 degrees Fahrenheit over
the past 20 years, causing the glaciers to shrink by 7 per cent a year,
which means that they will halve every 10 years.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050806EA.shtml

5 YOU NEED TO READ

William Fisher | Let's Hear It for the Voice of Democracy!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050406R.shtml
William Fisher discusses Cheney's recent declaration that Russia is breaching
civil rights. "But what was President Bush thinking when he chose Vice President
Dick Cheney to go to Lithuania as the messenger? Could there be anyone less
credible on subjects like democratic reform and open government?" wrote Fisher.

Nixon, Wiretaps and Government Secrets
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050406T.shtml
Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! interview John Dean and Daniel
Ellsberg, two figures who played central roles in the fall of President Richard
Nixon and the Watergate scandal of a generation ago.

Leslie Guttman | Los Angeles' Day Laborer Band
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050406LA.shtml
Los Jornaleros Del Norte, a Los Angeles band of day laborers, sings about life
on the other side, where to stand on a US street corner is to be invisible.

South Dakota's Abortion Revolt
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050406WA.shtml
The state's restrictive abortion ban has galvanized a major grassroots campaign
by citizens determined to overturn the law come election day.

US Mothers Deserve $134,121 in Salary
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050406WB.shtml
A full-time stay-at-home mother would earn $134,121 a year if paid for all her
work, an amount similar to a top US ad executive, a marketing director or a
judge, according to a study released Wednesday.

FOCUS | William Rivers Pitt: Going Nukular

I have always liked the way that William Rivers Pitt writes. He is direct and to the point and pulls no punches. "Give 'em HELL, Bill"......................PEACE...................Scott


FOCUS | William Rivers Pitt: Going Nukular
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050506Z.shtml

William Rivers Pitt argues, "If we as a nation are going to be led by dangerous
fools, if we are going to allow treason to stand in the highest ranks of
government, if we are going to allow our Representatives to get wild with
prostitutes and fat wads of cash, if we are going to allow our soldiers to
slowly starve in Iraq while getting blasted out of unarmored Humvees during an
ill-conceived occupation, the very least we can do is not sound stupid while
doing it."

3 ON BUSHCO

Larry C. Johnson | Ray, You da Man!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050506L.shtml
"Today, Ray McGovern, the man who used to give George Bush senior his daily
intel update, spoke truth to power," writes Larry C. Johnson. "Rumsfeld, to his
credit, permitted Ray to speak rather than having him carried out of the
auditorium. In retrospect, Rummy probably regrets that decision."

The New York Times | Veto? Who Needs a Veto?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050506M.shtml
"President Bush doesn't bother with vetoes; he simply declares his intention not
to enforce anything he dislikes," write the editors of the New York Times.
"Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more
than 750 'presidential signing statements' declaring he wouldn't do what the
laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he
did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners."

Tom Engelhardt | "This Is Our Destiny"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050506N.shtml
Tom Englehardt writes, "While the neo-cons proposed much from inside
Washington's Beltway, from various right-wing think tanks, and later from the
inner offices of the Bush administration, while oil-consultant Khalilzad was
still trying to sort out energy pipeline deals with the Taliban, and while
various Iraqi exile Scheherezades were whispering sweet nothings in their ears
about flowers, and liberated populaces, and the glory that was Rome - oh, sorry,
those were pundits on the editorial pages of our major newspapers - they surely
pondered too little."

3 ON THE E

Jonathan Shaw | Fueling Our Future
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050506EA.shtml
Climate warming is accelerating as energy use soars. Nuclear power won't close
the gap. We need to learn to live with coal. Jonathan Shaw gives one elaborate
engineering solution.

Katrina vanden Heuvel | Energy Independence Day
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050506EB.shtml
"George Bush won't ask Congress for permission for torture or domestic spying.
But when it comes to energy policy - he is very, very concerned about the limits
of his presidential powers," writes Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Climate Change Drives Disease to New Territory
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050506HB.shtml
Global warming - with an accompanying rise in floods and droughts - is fueling
the spread of epidemics in areas unprepared for the diseases, say many health
experts worldwide.

Remember the Edsel!

By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Sunday 07 May 2006

Nobel Peace Prize-winner and Iranian human rights advocate and dissident Shirin Ebadi was asked on PBS last week about the $75 million the US State Department intends to spend supporting pro-democracy groups in her country.

"Will such a program be helpful to assist democracy advocates like yourself?" asked the News Hour's Margaret Warner.

Ebadi's response: "No, I don't think it will benefit people like me because whoever speaks about democracy will be accused of having been paid by the US." She went on to ask, "Can democracy be brought to people by bombs? Democracy is a culture. It has to come from within a society, not brought by America to a society."

That's about as good a capsule summary of America's public diplomacy dilemma as I've heard.

The essence of that dilemma is that the US is spending a great deal of money on getting its messages out - $597 million last year alone, much of it in the Middle East. Yet successive opinion polls show that people in the neighborhood have increasingly negative opinions about American policies.

Those of us who live in the US know that there are gazillions of positive stories to tell about our country. And no doubt Karen Hughes and her public diplomacy colleagues at the State Department are trying hard to tell them.

But these stories are being drowned out by the realities and perceptions of our target audiences.

The US is now thought of in the Middle East not just as the country that brought jazz and hamburgers, Hollywood movies, and the Bill of Rights to the world. We are thought of as the country that cooked the intelligence books to sell the American people on invading Iraq. That preached about human rights while abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. That is waging a silent war on Muslims at home. That extols democracy but cozies up to dictators in Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. That is seen as ignoring Palestinians while helping Israelis. That is led by a swaggering Texas-style "bring it on" president who dismisses critics as unpatriotic as he exhorts his citizens to "stay the course."

Against that incessant background of "white noise," how can the US hope to be heard?

The truth is it can't. Not now. Not until the policies change.

Because every credible poll in the Middle East tells us that Arabs and other Muslims don't hate the American people or American culture - they hate the policies of the Bush administration.

And that would be true even if the strategies, tactics, and mechanics of our public diplomacy efforts were impeccably crafted. But they aren't.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office weighed in on the subject with a new report. It found the State Department's efforts to reach more than 1.5 billion Muslims in 58 countries lack a strong central message and a strategic plan of communication, and that as many as 30 percent of public diplomacy posts in the Middle East are filled by officers with limited language skills.

It reported that public diplomacy officers abroad don't spend enough time talking to local audiences and, while the program is aimed primarily at younger audiences, there is a shortage of basic, core messages, and a lack of analysis of the program's results.

To explain US foreign policy more effectively, the GAO recommended that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice provide our embassies and consulates with clear written guidance on priority goals and tactics.

At the end of the day, however, it's not going to matter how professionally our public diplomacy efforts are organized and executed, or how much more money we throw at this activity.

Karen Hughes, longtime Bush friend and confidante, has been dealt a lousy hand by the president. He asked her to take on an impossible job for which nothing in her background equips her. I'm sure she is working hard and really trying, but the enemy she faces is not the difficulty of actually getting anything done in the Washington bureaucracy. Her enemy is the very US foreign policy she was brought on board to sell.

So the problem is not the messenger or the message. It's the product. It's US policy. Until that changes, we're kidding ourselves if we believe we're going to be able to win Muslim hearts and minds.

Isn't it amazing that the country that invented modern marketing doesn't understand that sales of a flawed product can't be sustained?

That's what we just don't seem to get.

Remember the Edsel!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world for the US State Department and USAID for the past thirty years. He began his work life as a journalist for newspapers and for the Associated Press in Florida. Go to The World According to Bill Fisher for more.

Report: Katrina Contractors Bilk Taxpayers

By Larry Margasak
The Associated Press

Thursday 04 May 2006

Washington - While removing enough debris to cover Britain, contractors working on hurricane recovery have overbilled the government in a $63 billion operation that only will get more expensive, according to a House report Thursday.

Mileage claims were overstated to get extra fees, debris was mixed improperly to inflate prices and companies sent bills twice for removing the same loads, Democrats on the GOP-controlled House Government Reform Committee found.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who compiled the report for the hearing on Katrina contracting, also complained about layers of subcontractors that drove up costs.

A major contractor would take a large cut and pay smaller amounts to the subcontractors, down to the company with the truck hauling debris to the dump.

"It seems you get more than half," Waxman told Randall Perkins, president of AshBritt Inc. in Pompano Beach, Fla., after Perkins said his company received $23 a cubic yard in a debris removal contract but paid a subcontractor $10 to haul the material.

"We outsource to companies like yours and they go out and subcontract," Waxman said. "It's a higher overhead."

Perkins said some cleanup contractors did hire many subcontractors, but he only hired a few. He said the prices he charged were determined partially by US Army Corps of Engineers rules he had to follow.

In a story last October, The Associated Press reported of instances in which the Katrina debris cleanup involved five layers of subcontractors. Some haulers reported they were being paid just $6 a cubic yard. Many of those interviewed at the time said they believed the prime contractors were being paid $26 to $28 a yard. The corps refused to provide the cost figures specified in the master contracts and last month denied the AP's request for those figures, made under the Freedom of Information Act.

The committee chairman, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said Congress approved more than $63 billion for disaster relief and that recovery expenses may top $200 billion.

Davis said many contracts were awarded without competition. Government officials at the hearing said these contracts are being replaced with competitive awards.

Davis said the sole-source contracts allowed an "unprecedented opportunity for fraud and mismanagement."

The corps said hurricanes Katrina and Rita left 87,000 square miles of debris in parts of Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi and Florida, roughly the size of Britain.

Waxman said the corps was lax in allowing fraud, waste and abuse in removing that debris. A corps official disputed that.

Waxman cited audit findings that corps officials "regularly credited contractors with hauling more debris to dumps than they actually carried." Auditors found that the corps' assessments of contractor performance were "overly generous," "unusually high," "more on the liberal side," "often very liberal" and "consistently on the high side."

The corps also was blamed for allowing inflated charges in more than $300 million in contracts for temporary roof repairs using blue plastic sheeting, Waxman said, citing audit reports.

The corps' director of civil works, Maj. Gen. Don Riley, told the committee his agency sent out the auditors who found the problems and are trying to recoup the money.

Riley said the instances of contractor fraud were "exactly what I asked our auditors to find." He said payments were withheld until the charges could be verified and the government has indicted several contractors on fraud charges.

Waxman asked Matt Jadacki, special inspector general for Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery, whether corps officials were doing their jobs to prevent fraud.

"We found some cases where there were no monitors," Jadacki said.

Waxman's report said contractors sometimes billed twice for removing the same debris and, in other cases, took advantage of extra payments of $2 per cubic yard for debris carried more than 15 miles. Auditors found mileage was overstated in more than 50 percent of the 303 trips they examined.

Contractors fraudulently mixed green waste with construction and demolition debris to inflate their billings by $2.84 per cubic yard, the report said.

Other instances of fraud found by auditors, Waxman's report said, included double billing for housing trailers and abuse of government-issued credit cards.

How Morales Took On the Oil Giants - and Won His People Back

By Dan Glaister
The Guardian UK

Saturday 06 May 2006

Stand-off after Chávez-inspired leader sends troops into gas fields.
The lady behind the reception desk at the Palmasola refinery smiled sweetly. "We're just carrying on here as normal," she said. "There's nothing to report."

Horses ambled by on the dusty road outside. A few oil tankers stood idly, their drivers asleep. Only the presence of half-a-dozen soldiers, guns at their sides, revealed there was, indeed, something to report.

For Palmasola, a Brazilian-owned refinery 15 miles west of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, the most prosperous city in Latin America's poorest nation, was at the centre of an international storm this week that saw the country nationalise in all but name its foreign-owned gas and oil industry, pitting neighbouring countries against each other and wrongfooting foreign investors.

Article continues On May 1, Bolivia's recently elected president, Evo Morales, the country's first indigenous leader, put on a tin hat and made the declaration that much of the country had been waiting to hear. "The time has come," he said, announcing "a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources". Mr. Morales spoke of "looting by foreign companies" and said it was time the armed forces "occupy all the energy fields in Bolivia." But he was off pace. The army had already moved into Bolivia's foreign-owned energy fields, refineries and distribution depots.

International capital did not like what it saw. Even Bolivia's allies, such as Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, looked displeased. But on the streets of Bolivia, it was a different story. "It's been up and down," says José López, a Santa Cruz native. "For the first 100 days of his rule, Evo didn't do the things he said he would. But this was much better. Now everyone is behind him again."

Such was the swing of popular support behind Mr. Morales this week that a general strike planned for Thursday in the Santa Cruz region was called off. Sitting on a dusty traffic island outside the gates to the refinery, Eduardo González was charged with militant fervour and a sense of economic injustice. "It's good they want something for us," says Mr. González, who services the tankers outside the gates. "If Bolivia owns the refinery it means there will be more jobs for Bolivians. Most of the people working in there," he nods at the distance, "are foreigners - Brazilians and Peruvians. We should have 100% ownership of it as a resource to help build the country."

Private and Public

While foreign governments and the 25 foreign energy companies in Bolivia - including BP and BG from the UK, France's Total, Spain's Repsol, Brazil's Petrobras and ExxonMobil from the US - expressed their "consternation" at Mr. Morales' "sad and worrying" decision, really only the timing should have taken them by surprise. For the president was doing that most unfashionable of things, delivering on a campaign promise.

Throughout the campaign, Mr. Morales and his running mate said they wanted to renegotiate foreign ownership of Bolivia's natural resources. This would not be appropriation, they said, it would not be nationalisation, it would be a renegotiation of existing contracts on terms that would provide a greater share of the revenues for the state.

Throughout the campaign, hydrocarbons were the most frequently mentioned natural resources. Bolivians have long been sensitive about foreigners exploiting their resources, and not without reason. First came the Spanish, to rid the country of its silver, starting at Potos' in 1545. By the 20th century, tin mining had taken over. Today, Bolivia has the second largest reserves of natural gas in Latin America after Venezuela; 45% of it is exported to Brazil at a low price. But in the late 1970s, faced with crippling debt, Bolivia began to place its public assets in private hands: the mines, the railways, electricity, water, the state airline, hydrocarbons all went through a process delicately termed "capitalisation" in order to avoid the word "privatisation."

But the economic rigour demanded by the neo-liberal orthodoxy failed to produce the expected results. Poverty remained rampant, as did political instability. By the end of the 1990s, popular protests became the preferred method of political engagement. Mr. Morales and his Movement Towards Socialism party proved adept at harnessing these pressures. "Twenty years on, people see the grand deception," said José Mirtenbaum, sitting in his tiny office in a dismal building in Santa Cruz's University Gabriel René Moreno.

"After all the great promises of the 1980s, what sort of planet do we have? It's also cyclical: there has been 20 years of neo-liberalism. Twenty years is enough, we shouldn't be too surprised."

But what is taking the place of neo-liberalism and privatisation? Is it the good old-fashioned leftist thirst for nationalisation and state control reasserting itself, as many feared this week? "It's an adjustment," says Mr. Mirtenbaum. "It's a sort of gradual nationalisation. The next 180 days will be very difficult."

Capital Values

The decree announcing the army would seize control of the gas installations gave foreign firms 180 days to renegotiate their contracts. "They're still going to get a decent return," says Mr. Mirtenbaum. "It's a good business. These are irrational fears on the part of shareholders who think Bolivia cannot be a good partner, a good capitalist."

The vice-president, Alvaro García, speaking the day after the announcement, sought to assuage investors' fears: "The decree doesn't confiscate or annul the production capacity of the companies, what it does is reduce the extraordinary profits." Mr. Morales, however, had already signalled his next move: "This is just the start," he said on Monday. "Tomorrow or the day after it will be mining, then forestry and eventually all the natural resources for which our ancestors fought."

For some, Mr. Morales is reasserting the Bolivian state, a state that all but disappeared under the strains of financial policies imposed from afar. The notion that the state was ill-suited to running anything took deep root in Bolivia. For others, it is not the might of the state that is being asserted but the might of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. His hands were all over the hydrocarbons announcement: presidents Morales and Chávez were in Havana last weekend to meet Fidel Castro and sign up to the latest instrument of hemispheric influence, the Alba trade agreement. Then Mr. Chávez popped up in La Paz to, in the words of the Santa Cruz paper El Nuevo Día, hold the president's hand as he travelled to a summit meeting with the leaders of Brazil and Argentina.

For the US it could mark the fulfilment of another of Mr. Morales' pledges, to be "Washington's worst nightmare". After a lot of bellicose comment during the campaign, the Bush administration has adopted an unexpectedly conciliatory tone.

"The US never had much confidence in Morales," says Peter Hakim, president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue. "Some were prepared to give him a chance, but when he starts behaving like this it strengthens the hardline groups who think he's an ally of Chávez. I don't think Venezuela can be unhappy about this because the more the region is unsettled, the more they look like the leader."

Indeed Mr. Chávez is not averse to stirring things up in the region. He has intervened in the forthcoming Peruvian and Mexican elections; his presence at the Mar del Plata summit was almost as divisive as that of President Bush; and his efforts to spread his munificence has sometimes been counterproductive.

But others wonder if presidents Castro or Chávez did have a hand in Mr. Morales' move. The announcement that he is obliging foreign investors to renegotiate the terms of their business certainly echoes moves made by Mr. Chávez with foreign oil companies, but Venezuela has a lot of valuable assets: it sends 1.5m barrels of oil a day to the US. Bolivia, on the other hand, has two clients for its natural gas: Brazil and Argentina, and some see naivety in Mr. Morales' failure to balance the interests of his domestic base with the demands of foreign policy to maintain good relations with his neighbours.

Those differences seemed to be partly healed at Thursday's summit. The four leaders - of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela - managed to move beyond the minor scuffle over gas prices. Indeed, they came close to enacting much of Mr. Chávez's rhetoric: they all agreed to get behind Bolivia and support it as it tried to correct the woes of neo-liberalism and build a new country.

They also agreed to join in the "gasoducto del sur" which, as Mr. Chávez grandly declared, "will bring cheap, clean gas to all the people of South America for the next century."

But Larry Birns, of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, believes the rhetoric and the reality might herald some sort of shift in the region. Alba, the gasoducto, Mr. Morales taking on the energy companies, suggest, he says, that "a lethal threat is being posed by the school of thought that says development is not merely a matter for the economists.

"Social issues have to be considered too. There is a direct challenge to the notion that what is private is good and what is public is bad. Enron put an end to that. If Morales has a successful administration, it will bring up some very heavy questions for Washington.

"It's going to be difficult for the Republicans to resist saying, what are we going to do now? The commies are running amok in Latin America. But the truth now is that the US has run out of options. There's not much it can do, short of killing the leaders."

Back at the refinery, the nice lady shrugs when I ask what the soldiers are doing. "They're guarding things," she says, helpfully. "Making sure everything's in order. That's all we know."

An Excellent Reason Not to Join the Military

By Aimee Allison
AlterNet.org

Friday 05 May 2006

I was shocked to discover the realities of being a female minority in uniform.
The following is an excerpt from the forthcoming book, 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military to be published on May 18, 2006 by The New Press.

Aimee Allison served as a medic in the Army Reserves and received an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector during the Persian Gulf War.

I desperately wanted out of my small-minded hometown of Antioch, California, and the military recruiter on my high school campus promised me an escape hatch. The family that my white mother and African American father created was based on the belief that the hard work and democratic values of 1960s activists made equality my birthright.

But my day-to-day experience was full of evidence that racism was alive and well. High school classmates would chant the n-word when our team played its biggest rival the next town over. Slurs against gay people were so accepted that teachers used them without thought. And after winning a local Junior Miss competition, a first for a black contestant, I was excluded from the local news and town parade. When I brought my Ivy League college acceptance letter into the career center, a counselor suggested that I got in because of my race.

So I rushed to sign up for the Army Reserves, in part because it was the only place I knew of that promised I wouldn't be judged or limited by my race or gender. We women, people of color, and immigrants are especially attracted by the idea that we could live our lives on equal footing with other Americans. But the military isn't the egalitarian nirvana that its multi-billion dollar advertising blitz - with a budget of almost $4 billion in 2003 - claims.

Like most female soldiers, I learned the hard way that men dominate military culture. We are stuck in a system that makes it difficult to report abuse because of fear of reprisal. Even the military itself admitted in a June 2005 report by the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies, "harassment is the more prevalent and corrosive problem, creating an environment in which sexual assault is more likely to occur."

Just ask any woman in uniform - sexual harassment is a common experience on base. I remember on the day of boot camp graduation, the same drill sergeant who had threatened to "rip off my head and shit in my neck" for a minor infraction during training grabbed my arm in the on-base store and pressured me for a date. This was a man that had exercised incredible power over me and my unit for twelve weeks, and through my fear I mumbled, "Drill sergeant, no" three times before he let me go. I didn't know at the time that about 60 percent of women who have served in the National Guard and reserves said they were sexually harassed or assaulted, but less than one-quarter reported it. Many who did complain were encouraged to drop their complaints.

When I first joined the military at age seventeen, a military doctor administered a demeaning and uncomfortable pelvic exam during my induction physical. He didn't wear gloves. It turns out that my experience wasn't unusual.

At last year's National Summit of Women Veterans Issues in Washington, D.C., former Air Force officer Dorothy Mackey told of several instances of abuse during OB-GYN exams. "He sodomized me," she said. "I started looking into what happens in a normal OB-GYN examination, and that is definitely not supposed to be part of it."

Nine out of ten women under fifty who had served in the US military and had responded to a survey reported being sexually harassed while in the service. In an episode of "60 Minutes," New Jersey National Guard Lieutenant Jennifer Dyer revealed that she was treated like a criminal after accusing a fellow officer of rape in early 2004. She reported the rape immediately to the military criminal investigation division (CID), who took her to a civilian hospital for a rape kit - then held her in seclusion for the next three days with no counseling and no medical treatment. The CID agent advised her of her Miranda rights and threatened to prosecute her for filing a false report. Her command announced her rape and accusation to the entire unit. By the time she returned to her unit after a two-week leave, she was "fearful for [her] health, safety, and sanity." Her assailant was roaming free on base and was later acquitted of any crime.

All the bad press about rape in the military has led to congressional demands for reform. For the eighteenth time in sixteen years, the Pentagon has studied the problem and proposed changes, including designated victim advocates in every command and a promise of confidentiality, according to "60 Minutes."

It's too bad that fully funding this need isn't a high priority. A Department of Veterans Affairs report released in September 2005 found that the annual cost for health care, including mental health for National Guard members like Lieutenant Jennifer Dyer who experience sexual trauma, is about $20 million. Only $13 million is budgeted for the 2006 fiscal year.

Reports of sexual assaults have skyrocketed recently, especially in hostile environments like Iraq and Afghanistan. The Washington Post reported, "In many US military camps in Iraq, for example, signs are posted in female showers and other locations requiring US servicewomen to be in the company of a 'battle buddy,' especially at night, for their safety."

The military has rules and structures to direct every aspect of a person's conduct. Why does abuse still occur? One answer is that a male commander most often decides when to prosecute for abuse or misconduct. In 2002, the number of female active Army officers was about 20 percent. This means that the vast majority of officers in the military are men.

In addition, military training itself is responsible for further desensitizing men to sexual violence. In January 2003, the Village Voice reported that military training has included efforts to get young soldiers used to the sounds of women being raped so that, if captured, hearing fellow soldiers assaulted would not cause them to crack.

These revelations are not surprising to former Marine Corps Lance Corporal Stephen Funk. During his training in 2002, Stephen told me that his drill instructor gave a rousing speech at the end of Marine combat training: "This is the reality of war. We Marines like war. We like killing. We like raping females. This is what we do." If there was a touch of irony in his voice, it sure wasn't clear to the young, impressionable group eager to prove they were men, Stephen said.

Basic training also reinforces racism. Boot camp systematically breaks a recruit down physically and emotionally. Military discipline depends on eliminating individuality. Anything that makes you different from the "standard" (read: straight white male) makes you a target for abuse. But submissiveness and conformity are not the only goals of training. Soldiers are taught to follow orders in war without question. When the training taps into a person's own racist views, it's easier to convince them to kill people who are different.

Iraq war veteran Aidan Delgado, who served as a mechanic in the 320th Military Police Company in Abu Ghraib, described how his training led to racism against Muslims and Arabs.

"'Hajji' is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military," he told a reporter. "The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as 'gook,' 'Charlie,' or the n-word."

Stephen, the former Marine corporal, said that his training on operating machine guns included a tip to avoid overheating the machinery: Squeeze the trigger for as long as it takes to chant, "Die, fucking raghead, die." When riling up the troops to take part in a nighttime simulation, the squad leader would yell, Stephen recalled, "Let's go burn some turbans!"

But racism in the military doesn't stop at Arabs. Basic training - a nightmare for most - is even more difficult if you happen to be a person of color or gay. If you are in these groups, I don't have to tell you that many times it's seemingly small insults that create a feeling of oppression.

When I was at Army boot camp at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, standing in line for chow, I overheard the white drill sergeant tell a dark-skinned recruit with a smile, "You look like Kunta Kinte [a slave from the TV miniseries Roots]."

"Doesn't she? Doesn't she?" he asked everyone within earshot. She moved on silently in the wake of laughter.

It was common for my drill sergeant to ask, "Where are my Chinese at?" when assigning laundry duty. "For some reason, they do it the best," he'd say with a smirk.

I went to training with many new immigrants, since recruiters often falsely promised them citizenship. One Sudanese immigrant was the butt of many of the drill sergeant's jokes. The sergeant would hand him a dark-colored rifle and then loudly comment that they couldn't tell where the rifle ended and the hands began.

In preparation for a night-ops simulation, the drill sergeant announced that recruits were to blow a whistle if they got lost. "Except you," he said, pointing at the Sudanese recruit. "You just smile and we'll see you in the dark."

Then the drill instructor made him stand up in front of the others.

"Give me a pimp walk," the instructor ordered. English wasn't his native language and he hadn't been in the United States long, so he didn't understand what the sergeant meant. Then the sergeant pulled up another black recruit and said, "Give me a pimp walk." The man answered that he didn't know how because he wasn't a pimp. Finally, a white recruit volunteered to show the group. Pretty soon, many others were doing the "black" pimp walk as well.

In the early morning hours during the second week of boot camp, I was forced to leave my barracks with an unfamiliar drill sergeant who decided to punish me for turning my head while standing at attention. I was afraid to go with a strange man to another part of the base, but was just as scared to refuse. He made me stand at attention and gathered his unit around to watch the show. He called me stupid, ugly, dumb.

"Where are you from, private?" he screamed. "You look like a gang member. Are you a gang member?"

I started crying - he looked at my dark skin and didn't know or care that I was an excellent student on my way to the university.

"Get down into front position!" he yelled at me in front of his own unit of women. "Get up. Get down. Get up."

The thirty minutes of humiliation seemed to last an eternity.

Although the military doesn't officially condone racism and sexism, it explicitly discriminates against gays who are open about their identity, both in legal practice and in day-to-day life. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group for gay and lesbian soldiers, claims that more than 65,000 lesbian and gay Americans are on active duty and serving in the National Guard and reserves.

Thanks to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, put in place under the Clinton administration in 1993, as long as gay people stay deep in the closet, the military won't kick them out. In other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" actually authorizes the federal government to fire someone for being gay. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, soldiers may be investigated and administratively discharged if they:

make a statement that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual;


engage in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; or


marry, or attempt to marry, someone of the same sex.
Several soldiers have been discharged for posting online profiles that indicated they were gay or looking to date someone of the same gender.

The other part of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy attempts to limit harassment and the scope of investigations into a soldier's sexual orientation. Yet, as Stephen Funk's experience shows, the services continue to violate these basic rules. Stephen, a gay man, told me what it's like to live with a constant barrage of antigay slurs. No one dares speak up against it because they fear facing suspicion and investigation for being gay. Stephen's sergeant secretly investigated his homosexuality for more than a month by pulling other members of his unit into his office and grilling them about his suspicions. A soldier in his squad finally told Stephen about the interview: the sergeant had asked him, "Did you notice anything 'funny'? Did he touch you or use 'gay' words? Do you agree that his feminine gestures and soft voice make him seem like a 'fag'?"

After learning about the investigation, Stephen was forever shaken and self-conscious about his interactions with other soldiers.

The military may try to sell itself as a level playing field, but as long as abuse is tolerated and discrimination helps recruits pull the trigger, they will always be part of the soldiers' experience.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Allison is a community activist and organizational consultant. She counsels military members seeking CO discharges, and is a leader in the counter-recruitment movement.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

An Open Letter to Richard Cohen

I haven't had much time to keep track of what has been going on in the "real" world. However I checked my e-mail today and just before I was ready to sign off this post from one of my favorite journalists came in and I had to read it. William Rivers Pitt is a man who does not mince words and tells it like he sees it. So here once again is the latest from a true American journalist who has the guts and integrity to speak his mind................PEACE.................Scott


An Open Letter to Richard Cohen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Perspective

Tuesday 09 May 2006

Greetings! I was inspired to write you after reading your missive in today's Post regarding all the nasty emails you have received of late. Personally, I found Colbert's performance hilarious and timely, the kind of satirical backhand so desperately needed these days. I don't begrudge you your opinion that he wasn't funny, and I agree with your belief that it wasn't your opinion on his performance that motivated such an angry response.
It wasn't. You yourself nailed the reason: "Institution after institution failed America - the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have."
The fact that your Colbert commentary became the flint against this rock doesn't mean that Colbert, or your opinion of him, is to blame for the resulting firestorm. The fact is that people are angry - brain-boilingly, apoplectically, mind-bendingly so - at what has happened to this great country. I am, quite often, so angry that my hands shake. Yes, a former high school teacher from New England here, so filled with bile and rage that I sometimes don't recognize my face in the mirror.
You, sir, should not be asking why so many of your email friends are so angry. You should be asking why you yourself are not with them in their rage. I have admired a number of your articles over these last years, and know that you are no fool regarding our situation in Iraq and here at home. It isn't your grasp of the issues that concerns me, but the absence of outrage. Do you really care about the things you write about, or is all this merely grist for the mill that provides you a paycheck?
"I have seen this anger before," you wrote, "back in the Vietnam War era." No, sir, you have not.
You hearken back to rock-throwing days in Vietnam, and lament hatred and rage. But you do not see that those days are quaint by comparison given our current geopolitical situation. Johnson and Nixon, whatever else their faults may have been, were internationalists who understood the need for connection to the wider world. The war in Vietnam, barbaric as it was, did not inspire tens of thousands of Vietnamese to join martyr's brigades. It did not threaten to unleash chaos in a part of the world that holds the economic lifeblood of our whole existence. It did not threaten to shake loose nuclear weapons from quasi-rogue states like Pakistan.
You speak of the angry mob because you got slapped around via email, but your characterization of the anti-war crowd tells me you have not spent a single moment out in the streets with them. I have. I have covered dozens of protests, large and small, in cities all across this country before and after the invasion of Iraq. Millions upon millions of Americans participated in these, and never once, not one time, was a rock thrown.

No violence was offered anywhere, unless it was violence offered to old ladies by riot-garbed police, as was evidenced in Portland several years ago. I have the photographs to prove it. If you want to see anger, enjoy this picture of a 60-year-old woman holding an anti-war sign while being placed in a hammer-lock by a riot cop:
"The hatred is back," you say, as if such hatred is beyond justification. It is interesting that you make so many allusions to Vietnam; the comparison is apt, yet not on point. This is not a situation of "Then" and "Now," but "Then" and "Again." The two issues are joined by a common theme: official malfeasance, presidential lies, administrative fear-mongering and horrific body counts in a faraway land. The lesson of Vietnam was so searing, many believed, that it would never have to be learned again.
Why the anger? Because that lesson didn't take, at least with this crowd. Why the anger? Because millions of people are staggered by the idea that, yes Virginia, we have to go through this again. We have to watch soldiers slaughter and be slaughtered for reasons that bear no markings of truth. We have to watch the reputation of this great nation be savaged. We have to watch as our leaders lie to us with their bare faces hanging out.
Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children's future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.
George W. Bush and his pals used September 11th against the American people, used perhaps the most horrific day in our collective history, deliberately and with intent, to foster a war of choice that has killed untold tens of thousands of human beings and basically bankrupted our country. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq. They destroyed the career of a CIA agent who was tasked to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear ambitions, and did so to exact petty political revenge against a critic. They tortured people, and spied on American civilians.
You cannot fathom anger arising from this?
I wrote a book called "War on Iraq" in the summer of 2002. That book stated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no al Qaeda connections in Iraq, no connections to 9/11 in Iraq, and thus no reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is now almost the summer of 2006. That book was right then, and is right now, and the millions of Americans who agree with the facts contained therein have shared these four years with me in a state of disbelief, shock, sorrow and yes, anger. None of this had to happen, and the fact that it was allowed to happen inspires the kind of vitriol you got a taste of via email.
If you want anger, you should try reading some of the emails I get on a weekly basis. The mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands and children of American soldiers killed in Iraq write to me asking why it happened, what can be done, how this is possible. They write to me because I wrote that book, because somehow they think I have an answer to that bottomless question.
I am sorry you were so wounded by the messages you received. I wish that hadn't happened; I am personally from the more-flies-with-honey school of journalistic correspondence. But in the end, truth be told, I don't feel too badly for you. It isn't an excess of outrage that plagues this nation today, but an abject lack of it. Instead of castigating those who take an interest, who have gotten justifiably furious over all that has happened, I suggest you take a moment within yourself and ask why you don't share their feelings.
This isn't Vietnam, Mr. Cohen. This is a whole new ballgame, and the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude. It took almost ten years of Vietnam for people to reach the boiling point you are so apparently horrified by (and worthy of note, that rage may have elected Nixon, but also served to stop the killing in Southeast Asia). Should those of us who are angry today wait until 2013 to raise hell?
At a minimum, I suggest you head down to your local hardware store and buy a few sheets of 40-grit sandpaper. Apply it liberally - pardon the pun - to any and all parts of your body that may be exposed to the scary anger of the anti-war Left. Toughen up that hide of yours, and greet the coming days with a leathery mien impervious to a few angry emails.
Afterwards, you could perhaps figure out why the anger of those who see this war as a crime and this administration as a disaster is so terribly threatening to you. Anger is a gift, after all, one that inspires change. If you don't think we need a change, real change, I can only shake my head.
P.S. Another reason for the anger you have absorbed can be laid, frankly, at your own feet. There are enough of us around who can still remember your words from November of 2000: "Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."
Locate a mirror, Mr. Cohen. Stare deep within it. Know full well that today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, will recast all your yesterdays as having passed like a comforting dream. Your ability to remain within the safe bubble of the beltway clubhouse, drifting this way and that in some meandering, rudderless fog, has ended. Al Gore invented the internet, or so we are told, and some bright-eyed editor decided to staple your email address to the bottom of your works. Welcome to the age of electronic accountability.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

LIFE INTERFERES


Once again life interrupts my usual patterns and habits..........It seems to do that quite regularly as of late..............Anyway...........I will be enjoying the pleasures of a rigorous work schedule of 6-10's for the next 3 weeks. I don't anticipate having a great deal of time to spend in front of my computer. I will try to see what I can do, but I anticipate taking a 3 week hiatus. Thanks for everyone's support and I shall return somewhere around the end of the month................PEACE..........................Scott

PS: listen to Neil Young's new album "Living with War"

THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE:


April 30, 1803

On April 30, 1803, representatives of the United States and Napoleonic France
conclude negotiations for the Louisiana Purchase, a massive land sale that
doubles the size of the young American republic. What was known as Louisiana
Territory comprised most of modern-day United States between the Mississippi and
the Rocky Mountains, with the exceptions of Texas, parts of New Mexico, and
other pockets of land already controlled by the United States. A formal treaty
for the Louisiana Purchase, antedated to April 30, was signed two days
later.Beginning in the 17th century, France explored the Mississippi River
valley and established scattered settlements in the region. By the middle of the
18th century, France controlled more of the modern United States than any other
European power: from New Orleans northeast to the Great Lakes and northwest to
modern-day Montana. In 1762, during the French and Indian War, France ceded its
America territory west of the Mississippi River to Spain and in 1763 transferred
nearly all of its remaining North American holdings to Great Britain. Spain, no
longer a dominant European power, did little to develop Louisiana Territory
during the next three decades. In 1796, Spain allied itself with France, leading
Britain to use its powerful navy to cut off Spain from America.In 1801, Spain
signed a secret treaty with France to return Louisiana Territory to France.
Reports of the retrocession caused considerable uneasiness in the United States.
Since the late 1780s, Americans had been moving westward into the Ohio and
Tennessee River valleys, and these settlers were highly dependent on free access
to the Mississippi River and the strategic port of New Orleans. U.S. officials
feared that France, resurgent under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte, would
soon seek to dominate the Mississippi River and access to the Gulf of Mexico. In
a letter to Robert Livingston, the U.S. minister to France, President Thomas
Jefferson stated, "The day that France takes possession of New Orleans...we must
marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation." Livingston was ordered to
negotiate with French minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand for the purchase of
New Orleans.France was slow in taking control of Louisiana, but in 1802 Spanish
authorities, apparently acting under French orders, revoked a U.S.-Spanish
treaty that granted Americans the right to store goods in New Orleans. In
response, President Jefferson sent future president James Monroe to Paris to aid
Livingston in the New Orleans purchase talks. On April 11, 1803, the day before
Monroe's arrival, Talleyrand asked a surprised Livingston what the United States
would give for all of Louisiana Territory. It is believed that the failure of
France to put down a slave revolution in Haiti, the impending war with Great
Britain and probable Royal Navy blockade of France, and financial difficulties
may all have prompted Napoleon to offer Louisiana for sale to the United
States.Negotiations moved swiftly, and at the end of April the U.S. envoys
agreed to pay $11,250,000 and assumed claims of its citizens against France in
the amount of $3,750,000. In exchange, the United States acquired the vast
domain of Louisiana Territory, some 828,000 square miles of land. In October,
Congress ratified the purchase, and in December 1803 France formally transferred
authority over the region to the United States. The acquisition of the Louisiana
Territory for the bargain price of less than three cents an acre was Thomas
Jefferson's most notable achievement as president. American expansion westward
into the new lands began immediately, and in 1804 a territorial government was
established. On April 30, 1812, exactly nine years after the Louisiana Purchase
agreement was made, the first of 13 states to be carved from the
territory--Louisiana--was admitted into the Union as the 18th U.S. state.

GREAT QUOTES / 20

Here is #20 in the ongoing series of GREAT QUOTES. Distribute liberally!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks...........PEACE.....................Scott


"In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Rev Martin Luther King, Jr.


Thomas Jefferson said: "I have great confidence in the common sense of mankind in general.
Let's vote the bastards out!!!"


Congress is furious. They want to know, how come these oil company
profits are so high, but the money they receive under the table remains
the same. This has got to change. -- Jay Leno


"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
— Abraham Lincoln, Second Annual Message to Congress


"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible
and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the
Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."- Jamie Raskin, professor of law at
American University, responding to MD state Senator Nancy Jacobs' biblical
justification for supporting a ban on same sex marriage.


At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home & our
being, drive a spear into the land, and say to the bulldozers,
earthmovers, government and corporations, "thus far and no farther." -
Edward Abbey


A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest
in students. - John Ciardi


"He who slings mud generally loses ground." - Adlai Stevenson


The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362
admonishments to heterosexuals. That does not mean God doesn't love
heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision - Lynn Lavner


Sure, call me any ugly name you choose -
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again, America!...
- Langston Hughes


The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of
extremists we will be...The nation & the world are in dire need of
creative extremists. - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.


A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody
wants to read. - Mark Twain