Chernobyl Could Happen Here ... Not!

Chernobyl Could Happen Here by Harvey Wasserman via Counterpunch.org

In general, I'm on the same side as Mr. Wasserman. And, I try not to follow the leftist tradition of shooting at your allies. But, as someone with a nuclear engineering degree, I have to admit that when I read pieces like this, although I agree with the general purpose, I find myself thinking "Bullshit" as I read it.

There are enough good arguments against nuclear power, without creating misleading BS like this article.

Mr. Wasserman manages to write this article without talking about, or demonstrating any knowledge of the different types of nuclear reactor design. Chernobyl was a design known as 'graphite-moderated'. In a reactor, you need something to slow down the neutrons that are released from fission. In most, but not all, American designs, water is used for this purpose, as well as for cooling. In the Chernobyl design, graphite blocks were use, while water was still used for cooling. This is not that uncommon in some early American reactors. The first reactor under Chicago Stadium used graphite blocks, as did the early DOE, plutonium making reactors at places like Savannah River. But, almost all American commercial reactors used water as the moderator.

Why is that important? Because, as a reactor starts to overheat, the water turns to steam. If that water had been playing an important role in slowing down the neutrons to keep a chain reaction going, then having that water disappear helps keep the reactor under control. In the Chernobyl design, it was graphite blocks that moderated the speed of the neutrons, and thus the reactor could go massively out of control, and do so very quickly. At Chernobyl, the sequence from "uh-oh" to "Oh Shit!" to "Boom!" took only seconds.

If you look closely, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were different. At Chernobyl, the reactor literally blew up in a nuclear explosion. A massive, many-ton, metal lid on the reactor chamber was blown up into the air, the roof of the reactor building was destroyed. Nuclear materials from the core were blown up into the air and landed all around the reactor site. This required brave fire fighters to run out with shovels to keep these highly radioactive bits from burning down the control building before the other reactor could be shut down. They died horrible deaths over the next few weeks from high does of radiation, but they kept Chernobyl from maybe being twice as bad with two exploding reactors. From the one explosion, a plume of hot radioactivity blew tens of thousands of feet up into the air and traveled the world. It was first detected by the rest of the world (after the usual government denials) when workers coming into work at a Swedish nuclear power plant set off the radiation alarms. Crops across Europe were destroyed because of the radiation that rained down.

At TMI, it was much worse than the people were told. The core did melt. And I have some sympathy when reading Mr. Wasserman's claims that more radiation was released than announced. If you read this blog, you'll know I'm not a big believer in government and corporate pronouncements. But there was not this nuclear explosion that blew nuclear materials around the site and send huge radioactive plumes up into the air. These two events are quite different.

Mr. Wasserman has a way of taking a few facts, that are probably correct, then spinning them into pieces that read as total BS to someone like me who knows a bit about nuclear engineering. In this piece, he makes an incredible stretch to problems back in the 1960's with a radically different, experimental reactor design that used liquid sodium. This was tried once and abandoned, and has nothing to do with commercial power reactors in the US today. He also fits in the claim, quite possibly true, that more radiation was emitted at TMI than was announced. Mr. Wasserman uses some facts that are probably correct, but the overall argument of the piece is still total bullshit.

There are plenty of good reasons for not building more nuclear power plants. They are horribly expensive, and not commercially viable without government subsidies in the billions. We don't know a thing about what to do with all this nuclear waste we are building up. And they are not as entirely safe as the nuclear industry would have us believe. Anything humans are involved in will have mistakes. Most good engineers are strong believers in Murphy's Law. And Murphy's law around a nuclear power plant is a scary proposition.

But, it doesn't help the cause to spread nonsense BS around like Mr. Wasserman does. Writing pieces that anyone with any knowledge reads and immediately cries "BullShit!" does not help advance a cause.

To be clear, I'm not saying another nuclear accident can't happen again in the US. In fact, if we keep building more reactors and operating the aging reactors we have, its rather likely that someday we'll have another accident. That whole bit with Murphy's Law is bound to bite us again someday. But, it won't be Chernobyl. It won't be a graphite cored reactor doing its own little impersonation of a nuclear bomb.

Virus

Most people believe that the 20th century was a death struggle between Communism and Capitalism, and that Fascism was but a hiccup. But today we know better. Communism was a fool's errand. The followers of Marx gone from this earth, but the followers of Hitler abound and thrive. Hitler, however, had one great disadvantage. He lived in a time when Fascism, like a virus... like the AIDS virus... needed a strong host in order to spread. Germany was that host. But Germany did not prevail. The world was too big. Fortunately, the world has changed. Global communications, cable TV, the internet. Today the world is smaller and a virus does not need a strong host in order to spread. The virus... is airborne.

-- the character Dressler in the movie, "The Sum of All Fears".

Bonus Man

The poster on YouTube put in this following text.

are you sick and fucking tired of executive pay? executive bailouts? SO ARE WE! we are sick and tired of a lot of things -- join us at www.getangrywithme.com! music & lyrics: jackie sheeler vocals...

Another forbidden voice

While on the topic of voices that are forbidden for the corporate media to let the American people hear, Counterpunch has this piece from Fidel Castro. (remember, you read these in the opposite order from how I create them)

Neither represented nor excommunicated, only today could I learn what was discussed at the Summit of Port of Spain. They led us all to entertain hopes that the meeting would not be secret, but those running the show deprived us of such an interesting intellectual exercise. We shall get to know the substance but not the tone of voice, the look in the eyes or the facial look that can be a reflection of a person's ideas, ethic and character. A Secret Summit is worse than a silent movie. For a few minutes the television showed some images. There was a gentleman on Obama's left whom I could not identify clearly as he laid his hand on Obama's shoulder, like an eight-year-old boy on a classmate in the front row. Then, another member of his entourage standing beside him interrupted the president of the United States for a dialogue; those coming up to address him had the appearance of an oligarchy that never knew what hunger is and who expect to find in Obama's powerful nation the shield that will protect the system from the fearsome social changes.

Mr. Castro later also passes along another voice banned in the US. Daniel Ortega, leader of Nicaragua.

We left the government in 1990 with 12.5 percent illiteracy in the country and on January 2007 we received back the country with 35 percent illiteracy.

This data have not been made up by the government; they have been released by agencies specialized in education and culture.

That is the result of the neoliberalism applied in Nicaragua; the result of privatizations in Nicaragua where healthcare and education were privatized and the poor were left out. For others it was a good change because they amassed fortunes; the model has proven successful to concentrate riches and extend poverty. It is a great concentrator of riches and a great multiplier of poverty and destitution.

It is an ethical problem, a moral problem, and the future lies on it; not only the future of the most impoverished countries --as the five countries of Latin America and the Caribbean I have mentioned—that have little else to lose other than our shackles, if there is not a change of ethics, a change of moral, a change of values that will enable us to be really sustainable.

It is no longer a matter of ideology, it's not a political issue; it's a matter of survival. And this applies to all, from the G-20 to the G-5 who are the most impoverished in Latin America and the Caribbean.

I think that this crisis that is affecting the world today and that is leading to discussions, debates, and to a search for solutions we should approach it bearing in mind that the current development model is no longer possible, no longer sustainable.

The only way to save us all is to change the model.

The only way to save us all is to change the model. That's what they don't want us to hear. Note the words 'save us all'. That's the difference. The goal isn't to save an elite few who can live behind walls and security forces in luxury. The goal is to save us ALL. Any moral person would side with that goal of trying to work for the betterment of all humans.

Racist?

The western corporate media today is full of stories about about Ahmadinegad's 'vile and hateful' speech to the UN conference on racism. What people need to learn is to go look for the text of such a speech and read it themselves. Here's two links to what is supposed to be the English text of the speech.

President Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban Review Conference on racism from the Iranian press agency.
The Guardian has a scan of the text handed out by Iranian officials at the event.
(added - 4/22) Voters For Peace now has a transcript up also

Now, one thing about public speeches. What's handed out is what is written before hand. Its not always exactly what speaker really says, as ad-libs are possible both adding and skipping to the prepared text. And also, both of these are Iranian translations. But, the Guardian article says (by inference) that it is pretty accurate. That article points out that Mr. Ahmadinejad skipped some sections, but doesn't point out that interpreters find any other errors. From what I can tell, the portions the Guardian says were omitted are not in the version from Iranian PressTV.

So, what are these 'vile and hateful' comments? Here's what I can find in the printed, prepared text.

Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

The Security Council helped stabilize the occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years giving them a free hand to commit all sorts of atrocities. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza. The supporters of Israel have always been either supportive or silent against the crimes.

Ok, he calls the Israeli government 'racist'. Is that offensive? The Israelis proudly refer to their state as 'a Jewish state.' This Jewish state routinely uses racial criteria to discriminate against some of its citizens. Its citizens of Arab descent are routinely discriminated against. Is a state that proudly associates itself as the state for a particular race, and which discriminates in its laws and actions against people of other races 'racist'?

Then there is this section further down ...

World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face. However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world. They mobilize all the resources including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime and to maliciously diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime.

This is not simply a question of ignorance and one cannot conclude these ugly phenomena through consular campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference. Unfortunately, there have been literatures and statements in support of Zionists and their crimes. And it is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.

It should be recognized that boycotting such a session as an outstanding international capacity is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism. In defending human rights, it is primarily important to defend the rights of all nations to participate equally in all important international decision making processes without the influence of certain world powers.

OK, now where are the parts that are 'vile and hateful' and are worth walking out of or boycotting an important UN meeting on racism? Is it just referring to the Israelis as racist? Is it referring to Zionism, and calling it a racist belief?

Its interesting how there appears to be no attempt to refute these claims. False claims can usually be addressed with facts. There's no need to walk out or boycott the speaker. And perhaps a path towards peace and understanding would be to start such a discussion about what Mr. Ahmadinejad is claiming. But, instead we don't see that. We see a great deal of bombast about the speech from the US, Israel and the corporate media. But, very little that tries to point out where Mr. Ahmadinejad is incorrect.

Do you see anywhere in the western media either video of this speech, or translations of the transcript? Isn't it interesting how its totally blacked out? When I googled to find the transcript, I found no western references. When I removed the word 'transcript' and just searched on 'ahmadinejad geneva', the only stories that I found on the first pages of the search refer to jewish protesters who tried to interrupt the speech, and to the western walkout during the speech.

One good rule to learn. When people don't want you to hear or read a person's words, go find them and read them. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. But, its usually worth going and finding.

Maybe this is the section that they don't want you to hear or see?

Dear friends, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. What are the root causes of the US attacks against Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan?

Was the motive behind the invasion of Iraq anything other than the arrogance of the then US administration and the mounting pressures on the part of the possessors of wealth and power to expand their sphere of influence seeking the interests of giant arms manufacturing companies affecting a noble culture with thousands of years of historical background, eliminating the potential and practical threats of Muslim countries against the Zionist regime or to control and plunder the energy resources of the Iraqi people?

Why, indeed, almost a million people were killed and injured and a few more millions were displaced? Why, indeed, the Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars? And why was billions of dollars imposed on the American people as the result of these military actions? Was not the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then US administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing countries and the possessors of wealth? Did the invasion of Afghanistan restore peace, security and economic wellbeing in the country?

The United States and its allies not only have failed to contain the production of drugs in Afghanistan, but the cultivation of narcotics has multiplied in the course of their presence. The basic question is that what was the responsibility and the job of the then US administration and its allies?

Did they represent the countries of the world? Have they been mandated by them? Have they been authorized by the people of the world to interfere in all parts of the globe, of course mostly in our region? Are not these measures a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations?

Ladies and gentlemen, who is responsible for the current global economic crisis? Where did the crisis start from? From Africa, Asia or from the United States in the first place then spreading across Europe and their allies?

For a long time, they imposed inequitable economic regulations by their political power on the international economy. They imposed a financial and monetary system without a proper international oversight mechanism on nations and governments that played no role in repressive trends or policies. They have not even allowed their people to oversea or monitor their financial policies. They introduced all laws and regulations in defiance of all moral values only to protect the interests of the possessors of wealth and power.

They further presented a definition for market economy and competition that denied many of the economic opportunities that could be available to other countries of the world. They even transferred their problems to others while the waves of crisis lashed back plaguing their economies with thousands of billions of dollars in budget deficit. And today, they are injecting hundreds of billions of dollars of cash from the pockets of their own people and other nations into the failing banks, companies and financial institutions making the situation more and more complicated for their economy and their people. They are simply thinking about maintaining power and wealth. They could not care any less about the people of the world and even their own people.

Hoperoots.

A Lexicon of Disappointment by Naomi Klein via Znet.

Ms. Klein is being brilliant and witty again ... as usual.

All is not well in Obamafanland. It's not clear exactly what accounts for the change of mood. Maybe it was the rancid smell emanating from Treasury's latest bank bailout. Or the news that the president's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, earned millions from the very Wall Street banks and hedge funds he is protecting from reregulation now. Or perhaps it began earlier, with Obama's silence during Israel's Gaza attack.

Whatever the last straw, a growing number of Obama enthusiasts are starting to entertain the possibility that their man is not, in fact, going to save the world if we all just hope really hard.

She goes on to define a new language for Obamabots. Including "hopeover", "hopebreak", "hoper-coaster", "hope-sick" and others. Follow the link as its worth reading.

Obama Stands Nuremberg on Its Head

Obama Stands Nuremberg on Its Head by Mike Farrell at Truthdig.com.

Mr. Farrell quotes Justice Robert Jackson, a US Supreme Court Justice who served as the lead US prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials.

As Jackson said, “Crimes always are committed only by persons. … The Charter [of the tribunal] recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may not take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of states.” “International Law,” he went on, “is more than a scholarly collection of abstract and immutable principles. It is an outgrowth of treaties and agreements between nations and of accepted customs. The law, so far as International Law can be decreed, had been clearly pronounced when these acts took place.”

That was then, this is the US today

Obama goes to the CIA to assure them that no one would be prosecuted for crimes like torture.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we have made some mistakes - that's how we learn," Mr Obama said in a speech at the agency's headquarters.

"So I want to make a point that...I understand that it's hard when you are asked to protect the American people against people who have no scruples and would willingly and gladly kill innocents."

- Barrack Obama speaking at CIA HQ according to the Telegraph.

"One must bear in mind that in the countries affected, human life has absolutely no value...[t]he troops are, therefore, authorized and ordered to take any measures without restriction, even against women and children."

-- That last bit is German Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel, while issuing orders that called for the murder of 50 Russian civilians for any German death caused by partisans ... or 'terrorists' as the Nazis referred to them. That's him in the picture, shaking hands with Hitler. Keitel's defense at Nuremberg was that he was following orders.

The whole point of Nuremberg was to put into place a democratic defense against the horrors the world in 1945 had just witnessed. Thus, they denied the 'following orders' defense. No person has a right to inflict pain and suffering on another simply because they were ordered to do so. And importantly, it becomes each person's responsibility to make sure they don't act illegally. This is the key reform of Nuremberg because now each of us has an obligation to keep our own rears out of prison by always making sure we act morally and legally. Justice Jackson deliberately tried to take the power to commit awful war-crimes out of the hands of leaders.

Barrack Obama just overturned all of this. Barrack Obama is on the side of the war-criminals. He is on the side of the leaders who wish to order others to commit awful acts. Obama is on the side of the Lt Calley's of the world (of Mai Lai massecre infamy), who used this defense to avoid justice for the hundreds of deaths. By this reasoning, Barrack Obama would have deemed it unwise to convict the Nazi's at Nuremberg who claimed that they only 'followed orders'.

And with this, Obama said that at best his own prohibitions against torture are only temporary. With another election, torture can begin again. And those who wield the thumbscrews and the electrodes can rest assured that they won't be held to account for their crimes.

I continue to say you know someone by their actions. Obama's actions on this issue were reprehensible. In cases of the torturer versus their victims, Obama is foursquare on the side of the evil torturer. Who's side are you on?

Wonder which is true?

From the AP ... Shells hit Baghdad's Green Zone after 3-month lulldated April 18, 2009. (via antiwar.com)

Suspected militants shelled Baghdad's protected Green Zone on Saturday in the first such bombardment in more than three months.

The back-to-back strikes reverberated across the Tigris River to a popular promenade, sending families packing up from fish restaurants and abruptly halting a party at a club.

From Dahr Jamail ... Iraq in Fragments, dated April 18, 2009, via Znet.

Having recently returned from Iraq, I experienced living in Baghdad where people were dying violent deaths on a daily basis. Nearly every day of the month I spent there saw a car bomb attack somewhere in the capital city. Nearly every day the so-called Green Zone was mortared. Every day there were kidnappings. On good days there were four hours of electricity on the national grid, in a country now into its seventh year of being occupied by the U.S. military, and where there are now over 200,000 private contractors.

Read the two stories, and you get two radically different views of like in Iraq. One describes a city that is still a very violent place to live. The other paints images of a popular promenade and families in fish markets.

Given their histories, I tend to disbelieve pretty much anything the AP prints unless corroborated by independent sources. Their story reeks of the official US government viewpoint. Lets look at the 'sources' for the AP story.

"The US military said"... wow, all the people and equipment rose up and spoke with one voice. Just stopping and reading that phrase should scream BS at any reader. Presumably, this instead is some unnamed source within the US military. Not the whole institution. The phrasing seems designed to make it appear more official than it really is, and seems designed to mislead the reader.

"A police official says" ... well, at least its not the whole police force. But, more reliance on anonymous 'official' sources.

"where authorities fear" ... wow, couldn't get more specific than that?

"said the city's police chief, Col. Mahmoud al-Issawi." Well, at least someone went on the record. The only attributed source in this whole piece, and its a police official.

"said police and hospital officials." More anonymous sources. Interesting since they are describing what should be a crime and one where you should be able to get the police to go on the record. Wonder why no one is willing to go on record.

"Iraqi security forces said" ... More anonymous sources.

And that's it. One police official on the record. Lots of unattributed anonymous sources. The one thing that is abundantly clear is that the AP reporter only speaks with government officials. The people of Baghdad, like those families in the fish market, are just props to his storytelling. The reporter doesn't bother to go interview any of them, and then pass along to the readers what they think.

Meanwhile, Dahr Jamail is an independent reporter who is telling us his personal experiences after just returned from a trip to Iraq.

All of the recent talk of withdrawal from Iraq is empty rhetoric indeed to most Iraqis, who see the giant "enduring" U.S. military bases spread across their country, or the U.S. "embassy," the size of the Vatican City, in Baghdad. The gulf between the rhetoric of withdrawal and the reality on the ground spans the distance between Iraq and the United States, while the reality is pressed in the face of the Iraqi people each day the occupation continues.

Count One

UN torture investigator: Obama has broken International law from rawstory.com

Bear in mind, this is not the opinion of some nobody like myself. The following is the opinion of the United Nation's lead investigator into torture. Therefore, the following can be taken as the comments of an expert.

“Like all other contracting states to the UN convention against torture, the US has committed to conduct criminal investigations of torture and to bring all persons to court against whom there is sound evidence,” Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on torture, told Austrian weekly paper Der Standard.

“They are party to the convention and the convention is very, very clear,” Nowak told the paper. “The fact that you carried out an order doesn’t relieve you of your responsibility.”

“In a brief telephone interview with The Associated Press, Manfred Nowak [...] said the United States had committed itself under the U.N. Convention against Torture to make torture a crime and to prosecute those suspected of engaging in it,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

So, we now have an expert in a field stating openly that Barrack Obama is in violation of international law. That does not mean he's guilty. But it does mean that in a society that respected laws and the constitution that impeachment hearings into this case should be begun. When you have an international expert stating that the leader of your country is in violation of international law, a lawful society would take steps to correct the problem.

Tour!

Tearing the Whole Building Down: The Dead in Greensboro by Ron Jacobs on Counterpunch.org

Ok, so I'm a Deadhead! Can't wait for them to work their way westward on this tour!

A jam that began with Haynes singing "Caution, Do Not Stop On Tracks" from the Anthem of the Sun album proceeded into a rhythm section performance that had its roots in the place in the human soul that resides somewhere between the Garden of Eden and the future we do not know. That's a mighty big space, but this rhythm crew can fill it like no other. Entwined in the rhythm section's recital were guitar notes that seemed to come from that space Sun Ra called the place. The rhythm section solo came back around with another hippie classic titled "Cosmic Charlie" from the 1969 album Aoxomoa and then bassist Lesh lent his vocals to "New Potato Caboose"--a song that sometimes sounds like it was written by Arnold Schoenberg after he attended a blues club on acid.

So, I'd always picked up some of the deadhead philosophy. When the world gets too crazy, throw a party and dance!

Heartless powers try to tell us what to think
If the spirit's sleeping, then the flesh is ink.
And history's page, it is thusly carved in stone
The future's here, we are it, we are on our own.

If the game is lost then we're all the same
No one left to place or take the blame.
We will leave this place an empty stone
Or this shinning ball of blue we can call our home

So the kids they dance, they shake their bones
And the politicians are throwing stones
Singing ashes,ashes all fall down, ashes,ashes all fall down

-- from "Throwing Stones" by the Grateful Dead

More War.

US Threatens to Invade Eritreaby Jason Ditz on antiwar.com

The Daily Telegraph quotes one source as saying “There are consequences for working with al-Shabaab when President Obama cannot afford to look weak on terrorism.”

Thank Gawd we elected the 'anti-war' candidate in the elections so this era of invasions and wars is over.

Al-Shabaab? This is a threat to the safety and security of American citizens? Hardly. They appear to be a Somali resistence movement. If left alone, it seems rather far-fetched that they would attack Americans in America. Of course, now that we aren't leaving them alone, all of us in America are probably now a bit less safe. At the cost of more billions of dollars and more lives of American soldiers.

Thank Gawd we put the anti-war candidate into the White House.

US as ‘Nation Builder’: Delusions of Omnipotence

US as ‘Nation Builder’: Delusions of Omnipotence
by William Pfaff on antiwar.com
If I judge an article by its ability to make me think, this one gets an "A". Let me just focus on this last bit right at the end.

There is an important book, The Power Problem, just coming out in the United States (Cornell University Press), which puts forth the case that American military power naturally invites excessive or irrelevant use, and that the habits of mind created by military supremacy have caused the United States to be less safe than otherwise, less free, more vulnerable, and less able to do the things that fundamental national security demands.

Its author, Christopher A. Preble, is a former officer in the U.S. Navy and is head of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He argues, as many others do, that the United States has a level of military power that it doesn’t need, has limited utility against stateless enemies and insurgents, and causes confusion between military strength and national power, the latter being the ability to actually produce a desired effect. It is a good and lucid book and deserves a wide audience.

I'd take that analysis one step further. Its the very act of creating this concentration of power in the US federal government that has cost us some of our democracy and liberties at home. Think not only of the military power under the control of those who control the US government, but think also of the economic power. If you control the US government, not only do you get to decide whether entire countries get torn apart militarily, but you also get to decide who makes hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. These days, you also get to decide who gets trillions of dollars in 'bailout' money.

Now, ask yourself this question. What do you think that greedy and power-hungry people will do to gain and keep control of that concentration of power? Then ask the appropriate follow-up question. Do you feel that American citizens have put enough effort into making sure that both their election systems are unquestionably honest and that their rights and liberties as American citizens have been protected? Given the sorts of people that such a great concentration of power would attract, have Americans done enough since WWII to protect and defend their democracy and liberties from such people?

Now, add this to Mr. Pfaff's analysis of whether having this level of military power has made us more or less safe as citizens? Are we better off with or without this power?

Thomas Jefferson is known for favoring decentralized power where control of the power stays as close to local communities as possible. The Department of Homeland Security just declared this to be an 'extremist' philosophy.

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely

Note the way that they not only link people who support Mr. Jefferson's philosophy with hate-groups, but that they are considered to be equally extremist by the government. Given that opinion, its no surprise that the US government now regards support for the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution as a sign of extremism. The 10th Amendment is the one that reads ...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do we really have a situation where a government regards support for elements of the Constitution, the legal document that defines and legitimizes that government, as an extremist action?

Now, think some more about this great concentration of power we've allowed to be created in the US government.

Help out Cindy!

Hello, I'm still on Cindy Sheehan's email list. Right now, what she is trying to do is to retire the debt she incurred while running against Nancy Pelosi in the last election. If you can help her out, please try to do so.

Dear Friend,

Today, we had a set-back!

Do you want the good news or bad news first?

Here goes:

Good news: we raised 1500.00 since yesterday.

Bad news: Our tax liability has grown by one thousand dollars…the longer we go without paying that the higher it goes.

Debt Still Owed:

11,000 to taxes (Federal and state)
6100.00 PR firm
2400.00 back rent

Now, we owe 19,500.00

To DONATE online

To DONATE by check.

How about a test of your injustice barometer?

Bailout Indignation by Ralph Nader on Nader.org

How about a test of your injustice barometer?

You might think that the reckless, avaricious, giant corporations, having shrunk the economy, cost millions of jobs and then demanded that taxpayers be dunned for years into the future for multi-trillion dollar bailouts, would show contrition, regret, or self-restraint of their power over Washington.

Forget it. They’re baaack! Their greed and power are revving up big time to bring Washington and you the taxpayer, you the parent, you the consumer, you the worker, to your knees.
Here is a sample of the appalling dynamics of corporate greed and continuing over-reach each day in your nation’s capital.

Hey, I'm sure they feel like they bought our government fair and square and can do whatever they want with it. After all, why else would they have pumped all those millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Obama and the other Democrats?

Someday we'll learn that the politicians we should surely distrust are precisely the ones we see on TV all the time. If you see a politician on the TV, you should know that it took big bags of corporate money to get them there. The politicians on the TV will never be the ones on our side.

Are you for peace? Or are you a Democrat?

With Obama in office, liberals learn to love war. by Justin Raimondo in American Conservative.

The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama’s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. Those ostensibly antiwar organizations that did so much to agitate against the Iraq War have now fallen into line behind their commander in chief and are simply awaiting orders.

Are you for peace? Or are you a Democrat? People are going to have to take sides on that question, as it becomes obvious that Obama and the Democrats plan to continue and expand these wars.

At least we will be able to clearly separate those who truly believe in the peace movement from those for whom it was just a campaign prop. And not just on the question of being for or against war? This is rapidly becoming true across a whole range of 'progressive' causes.

The key is not to let the betrayal of the Democrats stop us or even slow us down. We must hold true to what we believe, and let the Democrats walk away if they so desire. They'll quickly realize that they need us to beat the Republicans in elections and will soon be back to lie to us again before 2010.

Obama's raids and Obama's camps

Snatch-and-Jail Justice? by Dave Lindorff on CounterPunch.org

Now things are much worse. Lawyers who have tried to defend some of the victims of INS roundups report that many detainees are subjected to what can only be termed torture—things like having themselves slammed into walls or pushed down stairs while arms and legs are manacled, having their teeth smashed out, being left outside in cold rain or blazing sun, kept from sleeping for days at a time. Sound like Guantanamo or Bagram? In fact, there is little difference.

and ...

Not so surprisingly, an appalling one in 10 Hispanic Americans reported in 2007 that they had been stopped by law enforcement and asked to prove that they were citizens or were in this country legally.

Ahem. Those kinds of numbers are the description of a police state, folks.

There is a simple solution to this problem. It’s in the Constitution, actually. It is the Bill of Rights protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), and against arrest “without due process of law” (the Fifth Amendment), as well as the right to “a speedy and public trial” and to “assisstance of counsel” (The Sixth Amendment).

How long do we go into Obama's term before these actions become Obama's actions? He could stop it simply by picking up the phone and telling a cabinet secretary that it ends now.

Democrats Letting Net Neutrality Die

Democrats Letting Net Neutrality Die by Jason Miller at WebProNews.com

The Democrat rope-a-dope strategy of the last few years is coming back around to kill Net Neutrality. The initial plan was simply to let Republicans have enough rope to hang themselves. Congressional Democrats ignored calls for investigations and impeachment of members of the Bush Administration because doing so allowed them to drop all blame square on their opponents’ shoulders for everything without putting themselves under undue scrutiny. A few years of doing absolutely nothing was tantamount to lying low while Republicans destroyed themselves so Democrats could take over…and continue to do nothing.

and ...

You might have also noticed, like we have, that while anything the RIAA and the MPAA want goes right through Congress like crap through a goose, network neutrality legislation (wanted by the people who currently have no money) languishes and dies in committee.

Gee, what a shock. A bunch of Democrats, with big bags of corporate money in their accounts, favor corporations over citizens. What a surprise.

Add to this the data point from a week or so ago about how the "Employee Free Choice Act" is dying a similar death in the Democratic Congress. This is today's Democratic party. They use issues like this during the campaigns to help win elections, but then don't follow through once elected.

History from the Memory Hole

1976: Ford Gives Permission to Sell Nuclear Technology to Iran from HistoryCommons.org

President Gerald R. Ford signs a presidential directive giving the Iranian government the opportunity to purchase a US-built nuclear reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. Iran, with support from the US, wants to develop a massive nuclear energy industry that has complete “nuclear fuel cycle” capability so fissile materials can be supplied self-sustaining basis. US companies, chief among them Westinghouse, stands to make $6.4 billion from the sale of six to eight nuclear reactors and parts. The shah has argued that Iran needs a nuclear energy program in order to meet Iran’s growing energy demand. Iran is known to have massive oil and gas reserves, but the shah considers these finite reserves too valuable to be spent satisfying daily energy needs. In a 1975 strategy paper, the Ford administration supported this view saying that “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.” Top officials in the Ford administration—including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Chief of Staff Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, who is responsible for nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency—are strong supporters of Iran’s ambitions. Kissinger will tell the Washington Post 30 years later that the Ford administration was not concerned about the possibility of Iran using the facilities to produce nuclear weapons. “I don’t think the issue of proliferation came up,” he says. But Charles Naas, deputy US ambassador to Iran at this time, will tell the Post that nuclear experts had serious concerns about potential proliferation. Naas will explain that the administration was attracted to the nuclear deal “terms of commerce” and interested in maintaining good relations with the shah.

The article cites this link to the Washington Post.

Note, these guys wanted to give Iran not just a commercial nuclear reactor, but a full reprocessing facility for them to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel rods.

And I love the bit about how the Ford Administration supported the Iranian idea that their 'oil and gas' reserves should be preserved. These days, you hear the right-wingers constantly ridicule the idea that Iran would want nuclear power reactors because they 'sit on a sea of oil'. Sometimes its fun to watch the same people switch sides on the same issue ... and do it with straight face.

I'd forgotten Paul Wolfowitz was in charge of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Wow! That's like making John Dillinger the agent in charge of preventing bank robberies.

Gen. Odierno: US May Ignore Iraq Deadline Because of al-Qaeda

Gen. Odierno: US May Ignore Iraq Deadline Because of al-Qaeda on antiwar.com

In yet another sign that the Obama Administration’s “pullout” timeline for Iraq is not set in stone, General Ray Odierno told The Times today that US combat troops may remain in Iraq’s cities beyond the June 30 deadline mandated by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). He pointed to increased trouble from al-Qaeda as the justification.

I keep saying the Obama plan for Iraq is identical to the Bush plan. Bush always promised a withdrawal sometime off in the future. Under Bush, we were told that we had to have all these troops there, but only until some 'milestone' came along. Elections, constitution, parliment ... the milestone kept changing, but the message was always the same. Keep the troops there now, but we'll withdraw in a year or so.

That's exactly the 'plan' Obama announced. That we have to keep all of these troops there until the national elections occurred. But, then we'll start to withdraw.

Except now, with the ink not even dry on the plan Obama announced a month or so ago, we are already being told that maybe the withdrawal can't happen as announced because of 'increased Al-Qaida activity'.

I'm thousands of miles away, but here's what I think I know from reading about the recent increase in violence in Iraq. The US had created a false peace in Iraq by paying some 100,000 Sunni fighters a monthly salary not to fight the US or the government. That program is ending. The announced plan was that the Iraqi government would take over paying these fighters, mostly by bringing them into the army.

Naturally, the Shiite government isn't real thrilled about paying for a hundred thousand armed men from their Sunni rivals. So, the number of of Sunni fighters who are still getting paid not to fight is much less than announced. This is causing tensions. A couple of weeks ago, the Shiite government started arresting the leaders of Sunni fighters. The Sunnis naturally fought back against the government forces. In the midst of this, someone started setting off bombs in the Shiite neighborhoods again.

So, the US basically bought a period of peace by buying off the Sunni fighters. Now the US is ending that program. Not at all surprisingly, the violence is returning. Yet, this is presented to the American people as 'increased Al-Qaida activity'. And, it shouldn't be a surprise at all that this is now presented to the American people as the reason that we can't even have the limited, partial withdrawal from Iraq.

And note, even though we are now starting to be told that we can't withdraw from Iraq, the plans for the escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue. The idea that this was a 'redeployment' from 'the wrong war' to 'the right war' disappears. But, the escalation of Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan continues.

If you liked the Bush wars, you gonna love the bigger, better, expanded Obama wars.

And, we are going to be about $2 TRILLION in debt for just this year alone. The last estimate I saw was $1.8 TRILLION, and that number keeps rising with each new estimate. So, here's where we get the bill for the bigger, better, expanded Obama wars.

Obama Seeks $83.4 Billion for Iraq, Afghan Wars

President Barack Obama will seek $83.4 billion in additional “emergency” funding for the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which if approved would bring the 2009 funding to around $150 billion and the overall costs of the two wars to nearly $1 trillion.

...

The request is in addition to the $534 billion military budget the administration unveiled earlier in the week. That budget was for fiscal 2010, and was an increase over 2009.

That's another $83 billion for just the rest of this year (until Oct 1 I believe). That's on top of the money that the Democratic congress had already approved last year for the wars in 2009.

It is simple. We can not afford these wars. We have to come home NOW!

Imagine, just for a moment, an $83 billion dollar program pumping money directly to homeowners. But no, we can't have that. Instead, we have to use it to go kill people on the other side of the world.

Nigerian bribes

Swiss hold '$150m Nigeria bribes' from BBCNews

Hello, I'm a Swiss banker. We are holding $150 million dollars that was used by the American firm Haliburton to bribe some of our Nigeria customers. We are determined to return this money to the American people. As such, we've randomly selected your email address as the recipient of $1 million dollars.

To deliver this money to you, we need to collect some information from you. Your name and contact information, your social security number, and the number of the bank account where you would like the money deposited. To verify your identity, we would also need all your other bank account numbers, all PINS and secret codes to access those accounts, and also all of your credit card numbers.

When we receive this information, we will happily deposit $1 million of this Nigerian bribe money into your accounts.

Obama doesn't want Iran attack "before they are ready to have that actually happen."

Obama Team Debates Stance on Israeli Attack Threat by Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service via antiwar.com

Both Gary Samore, the new White House coordinator on weapons of mass destruction, and Ashton Carter, now under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, expressed support for a diplomatic strategy of exploiting the Israeli military threat to Iran at a forum at Harvard University’s Kennedy School last September.

Referring to negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue, Samore said, "My view is that, unless it’s backed up by a very strong bashing alternative, it probably won’t be successful."

Samore called the threat of such an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites "a good diplomatic instrument" for the United States. Carter, who is also a non-proliferation specialist, referred to making the Iranians "wonder whether the Israelis are going to do something" as "not an unreasonable game to play."

But Samore also acknowledged that such a strategy could be dangerous. "[W]e have to be careful when we use that instrument," he said, "that the Israelis don’t see that as a green light to go ahead and strike… before we’re ready to have that actually happen."

Take very careful note of that last sentence ... "before we’re ready to have that actually happen." It reveals that all of the talk of 'diplomacy' is a smoke screen. Just like with Bush. Oh, the smoke is of a different color and smell from Bush's smoke. Obama's smoke doesn't seem quite so irritating to those on the left as Bush's smoke. But its all still just smoke.

Obama and the Democrats support a military attack on Iranian nuclear sites. There only concern is that it happens when they are 'ready to have that actually happen'.

That's the Democrats idea of an 'anti-war' candidate. Remember, Obama was the alternative the Democrats gave to voters as opposed to Hillary's call to 'obliterate' Iran back in the primaries.

An attack on Iran would start a war. The militarists fantasize about the Iranian people supporting us after such an attack. That would literally be the same thing as thinking the American people would long to return to the King of England after he burned Washington in the War of 1812. It is roughly the same amount of years since the revolution in each case.

An attack on Iran's nuclear sites would spread radioactive contamination around the bombed site. Some of these sites are in populated areas. Most of the Muslim world already knows we poison people with radioactivity using our depleted uranium weapons. This would only inflame these passions. And don't think the rest of the world won't still blame us even if the planes have Israeli markings and are flown by Israeli pilots.

Remember, there is no proof that Iran is trying to build a bomb. There is no proof that they have ever enriched fuel beyond reactor-grade levels. Anyone sensible is saying that it is years before Iran could have a bomb.

Yet, we have a Democratic administration that wants an attack on Iran, with the only condition that it occurs when they "are ready to have that actually happen."

This is the Democrats idea of an 'anti-war' candidate. This is the Democrats idea of 'peace'. And people wonder why I'm not a Democrat?

Too much

Sometimes there's just too much to blog about ....


Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program by John Bryne on RawStory.com

Obama Praises Iraq War: 'Extraordinary Achievement' on Antiwar.com

‘Progressive’ Warmongers: Liberals rally 'round Obama's war by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com

Meet the New Escalators by Norman Solomon on Counterpunch.org

Obama's neoliberals by Jeremy Schahill via Socialist Worker

Card Check on the Ropes by Adam Turl on Counterpunch.org

Who's the Boss? by Uri Avnery on Counterpunch.org

The Tooth Fairy and the Defense Budget by Winston Wheeler on Counterpunch.org


With watchdogs like this... by Nicole Colson in Socialist Worker

Bank-owning life insurers eligible for US bailout: Treasury from AFP via RawStory

Fusion center declares nation's oldest universities possible terror threat by Stephen Webster on RawStory

and, for all us former viewers of Battlestar Gallatica ....

Killer Robots—What Could Go Wrong? by Matthew Yglesias on American Conservative

China vs USA

China vs USA

Cyber-skirmish at the top of the world by Peter Lee in Asia Times

Landline, cell and Internet services in Tibetan areas were interrupted during the period of unrest. When the Chinese government became aware that Tibetan dissidents were using the video-sharing website YouTube as a text-free method to communicate, it shut it down. When image-sharing website Flickr emerged as a potential source of visual information, it was blocked. Tibetan radio broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of Tibet were jammed. A campaign against satellite dishes was intensified to limit the audience of VOA's direct-to-dish Tibet TV service. In order to cut off cell-phone based talk, text, and images, China r

Well, thank gawd we live in a free country where that can't happen here.

Should Obama Control the Internet? in Mother Jones

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Just because Obama used to say the word 'change' in every sentence, that doesn't always mean its 'change' for the good.

Mind Managers

Reflections on a Largely Forgotten Book: Herbert Schiller's The Mind Managers (1973) by Paul Street on ZNet.

There's a huge amount of useful information in this piece, and on a topic that I like to think and write about. That is the media manipulation of the psyche of the American public. I'm partly linking to this just so I can easily find this article again. :)

Just a short taste of what you'll see if you follow this link ....

Together these authors and books show how and why domestic U.S. democracy is undermined by concentrated corporate control of the means of communication and culture. As McChesney explained more than a decade ago, meaningful participatory democracy requires three interrelated things to be in place: (1) rough equality in wealth, income, and property ownership, since large class and socioeconomic disparities undercut the ability of citizens to act as equals and confer disproportionate political, policy, and cultural influence on those with superior resources; (2) a sense of community between individuals - a sense that each individual's well-being is positively connected to the common good, since a democratic political culture cannot take root in a society whose members are simply out to serve their own selfish interests; (3) an effective system of communications that accurately informs and engages the citizenry, encouraging their intelligent participation in political life. The need for accurate, un-biased information is especially urgent for viable democracy in a large and complex modern society like the United States, where the scope and scale of political and societal affairs is so vast and multifaceted as to be beyond immediate observation (McChesney 1997, 5-6)

These three critical prerequisites for meaningful participatory democracy are intimately interrelated with each other, McChesney noted. A society in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small elite will see its economic masters work to sustain and eternalize inequality through control of the communications system (media). The masters will own a disproportionate share of that media. They will insist upon a media that filters, shapes, "spins," and otherwise distorts information and shapes popular perceptions and values in ways consistent with continued ruling-class domination. That media system (whose ownership and control becomes ever more concentrated under capitalism) will privilege selfish and authoritarian values over positive notions of the common good and social justice.

Colony

Petraeus: Military Reserves 'Right of Last Resort' for Threats Inside Pakistan from FoxNews

I found this through Progressive Review, which had it listed under the headline "PETRAEUS CLAIMS U.S. COLONIAL POWERS OVER PAKISTAN". Pretty accurate description.

What struck me was this paragraph.

The Pakistanis have expressed frustration over unmanned U.S. drone strikes to take out terrorist targets inside their border.

But Petraeus said the U.S. is mindful of perceptions in the region.

"It's hugely important that we be seen as good neighbors, as friends, certainly fierce warriors who will go after the enemy and stay after them -- but also as individuals who try to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible and are seen again as supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life," Petraeus said, specifically referring to the fight on the Afghan side of the border.

And on the Pakistan side of the border? I take it we are NOT interested in being seen as 'supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life?'

Actually, I don' think the US ever has been. In Pakistan, the US has supported a long line of military dictators, interspersed by a few stretches of corrupt but US-compliant civilian rule. We don't exactly have a long track record of 'supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life', now do we?

Afghanistan Was Never the “Good War”

Afghanistan Was Never the “Good War” by Bill Fletcher Jr, Blackcommentator.com via World Can't Wait.

Sometimes I feel like I am reliving the era of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The era of 'guns and butter,' as they called it. At the same time that Johnson was launching his 'War on Poverty' he was escalating the US war against the people of Vietnam and Laos, as well as carrying out the
criminal invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965). Not only did these interventions (and others!) isolate the USA and set back the efforts of these various countries at self- determination, but they wrecked the US economy, siphoning off badly needed resources.

And, the one point he never quite touches in this article ..... Why on earth are we fighting in Afghanistan? What in Afghanistan is worth having human beings die? At least in Iraq, I could sorta understand the sort of evil, 'today-we-conquer-the-world', James Bond villan sort of thinking that said it was worth killing hundreds of thousands of people by attacking Iraq to gain control of the oil. But, Afghanistan?

Unannounced

Obama makes unannounced visit to Iraq by Reuters via Anti-war.com.

First, I'll believe we've actually made 'progress' in Iraq when a President can make an 'announced' visit. The fact that our great leaders have to sneak in and out of the country, even with their massive security details that can otherwise hold back tens of thousands of evil protesters, does not leave one impressed by the level of security in Iraq.

Then there's this lead to the Reuters piece ...

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama made an unannounced visit to Baghdad Tuesday, marking a new chapter in his strategy to wind down the unpopular war in Iraq and shift the United States' military focus to Afghanistan.

Really? How on earth does this mark 'a new chapter' in his winding down the war?

What's hilarious is watching Obama do exactly the same thing Bush used to do, but now its trumpeted as a 'new strategy' to wind down the war.

This is true not only for these furtive trips to Iraq for photo opportunities, but for the policy in general. Remember, it was always Bush's announced policy that the full level of troops would only stay in Iraq for six months to a year, and then start to withdraw. The catch was, we never got to the withdrawal part. There would always be some new reason why the withdrawal couldn't begin, and the troops would have to stay another six months to a year before the withdrawal can begin.

Obama's big new strategy for 'winding down the war in Iraq' is to keep the current levels of troops for the next year, and then start a slow withdrawal that will take two more years after that. Sound familiar?

What's hilarious is watching Obama do exactly the same thing Bush used to do, but now its trumpeted as a 'new strategy' to wind down the war.

Change

A Coffin, a Flag, a Photograph by the NY Times.

Yes, the advent of the Obama Administration has brought great changes to America. Now, in a dramatic step, coffins of the people who die in our wars can once again be photographed. Ah yes, the world is indeed a different place.

The bad news is that there are still plane loads of coffins arriving back in the country. Real change of course would be to end these wars, and thus end the opportunity to photograph coffins at all.

See also Media Can Now Cover Coffins Coming Home -- But What About the OTHER Missing War Photos? by Greg Mitchell at Editor and Publisher magazine.

For whatever reason, the media in the U.S., in the weeks and then years after that rarely showed the full face of war, despite the brave and remarkable efforts, and wishes, of countless press photographers and cameramen. Bloody scenes, featuring Americans, almost never made the U.S. media, while being widely shown abroad, and on the Web. When they did appear, protests from the government or readers seemed to set the media off this path. Dead Iraqis got more play, but not nearly to the extent called for.

Is this a joke?

Saudis Report Plot To Assassinate Obama from CBS News.

The man, who was carrying an Al-Jazeera TV ID card in the name of M.G., confessed after his arrest that he was planning on stabbing the U.S. president with a knife during the Alliance of Civilizations summit held in Istanbul, adding that he had three other accomplices to help him execute his plan.

He was going to "stab" Obama? Are you kidding me? Have you ever seen the security detail that surrounds a President? No one with 'journalist' credentials would ever even get close enough to try to stab a President. Ever see those four or five guys who are built like football players, who wear nice looking suits, but who's eyes never leave the crowd and who always stand next to the President? And of course, anyone getting into the same room with the President goes through at least a metal detector. And we are supposed to believe that there was a serious plot to 'stab' Obama? Give me a break.

Whole thing sounds like a 'wag-the-dog' type of media story to me (go rent that 1990's movie if you haven't seen it lately). Especially the part about the Al-Jazeera credentials. Note if you read the article, the people at Al-Jazeera strongly deny that they'd ever seen this guy before. Hmmm, who are the relatively small group of countries that hate Al-Jazeera and try constantly to discredit Al-Jazeera?

Oh, note also the line about how the purported assassin "confessed after his arrest" to Turkish police. Was that after the 5th electric shock or the 10th electric shock?

And, note the fine print in the article that says the man never actually even got to a venue where Obama was going to be present. It doesn't say where he was arrested, or how the police learned about his 'plot'.

Whole story stinks to high heaven to me. And it says a lot about the American corporate media that the editors at CBS are spreading it around like its a serious story. I'd have thought any honest editor would have just fallen over laughing when they first saw this ... and never would have run the story.

There's good reason why I block all the American news networks from my TV set, and why I don't ever watch the 'network news'. This story is a wonderful example. Its just garbage, and it seems to be designed to inflame passions.

Political landscape

57% want America to take military action against North Korea on PoliGazette

Interestingly, a broad consensus exists among voters: 57% favor a military response, 28% are not sure, while only 15% oppose it. 15% is a remarkably low percentage. Support for military action is, as you’d expect, higher among Republicans (66%) than under Democrats (52%), but the difference is relatively neglible.

Here's what I consider key information in this poll. Military action is supported by more than a narrow majority, but its not an universal opinion. The flip side would be that 43% of Americans don't favor military action. Stand among 10 average Americans, 5 would be in favor, 4 opposed, and one wavering in the middle.

But, the key point to me is that a majority in BOTH parties favor war. The majority is much slimmer in the Democratic Party, but its there (52-48%).

The antiwar forces are split between the two parties. Neither is marginal. Put three average Republicans in a room, and one of them doesn't favor military action. That's not a small fringe group. That's a sizeable portion of the Republican party.

The anti-war votes are split between the two parties, holding a minority in each. The margin is smaller in the Democrats, but the pro-death forces in the Democratic party hold the tactical edges of controlling the money, the power and the rules within the party, thus marginalizing the half the party that opposes such military action.

The thing to do would be for the anti-war forces on both the right and the left to come together in one joint anti-war party. This would command a powerful 40% position in a three-way election. By taking that one simple step, of leaving the existing parties, both Republican and Democrat, and forming one unified anti-war party, we would become the strongest political faction in the nation.

Of course, right now the right and left anti-war forces are split, and they barely talk to each other. We need to unify to have strength, but any attempt is met by vocal cries of hatred. For example, think back to last year and the flood of negative comments from the left towards Ron Paul's campaign.

Today, the rebels on the right and the rebels on the left agree on most of the key issues facing this country. For example ...

• Clean up election systems, have free and fair elections which are open to all parties to partcipate on an even level.
  
• End the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, don't start any new wars, bring the troops and the money home.
  
• Stop the trillions of dollars of public money from going into the banks.
  
• Stop spying on Americans. Restore lost civil liberties and rights.
  

That's plenty for people to do during any two-year span between elections. Why not agree to do this, then run a unified anti-war party in the next elections? Combine all the anti-war forces in a three-way race, and we are the leading party. If the Democrats and Republicans show their true colors and unify to try to defeat the anti-war party, then at least we are in a two-way race and starting with 40% of the vote. Our voices would be heard in such an election.

Unity. Its the only way to succeed.

Should Obama Control the Internet?

Should Obama Control the Internet? on MotherJones.com

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

By now, we all know that in the time of war, all of our so-called 'media', will repeat the government's message uncritically and with no investigation. We all know that the 'media' will block any alternative points of view from being heard. We all saw this quite clearly in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003. And, various crisis' since, like the question of bombing Iran, have shown us that nothing has changed.

The one place where people have been able to turn for alternative news, facts that are 'inconvenient' to the government (like Iraq not having WMD's for example), and other points of view has been the internet.

So, now the US government feels it needs the power to shut down the internet by executive fiat any time it feels there is a crisis.

We have to be aware that sometimes rule by the Democrats can be much more dangerous than rule by the Republicans. If this had been Bush proposing this drastic curtailment of freedom, there would have been loud screaming from all sectors.

A democracy can only exist if citizens have access to information. A democracy is supposed to be a system where the power resides with the people, and in order to exercise that power, the citizens need good information about what is really happening. Any move to try to shut down access to such information is a direct blow to democracy in America.

If you want to know what's 'anti-American', you are looking at it.

Typical Obama

Obama outlines sweeping goal of nuclear-free world from AP via Antiwar.com

Sounds great. A nuclear free world. And this is what I mean by typical Obama. Obama is always very good at telling us about the problems we already knew we faced. And on the vague level of sound-good talk, he always shines. A 'nuclear-free world' sounds wonderful.

So, what's the first steps towards getting there?

He offered few details of how he would accomplish his larger goal and acknowledged that "in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up."

Like I said, typical Obama. When you look behind the pretty words to see what he's really proposing, there's nothing there. Typical Obama. "All hat, no cowboy" is a phrase I've learned since I headed west.

In this case, as the world's leading nuclear power, the obvious thing for the US to do is to start taking unilateral steps to reduce its own nuclear weapon stockpiles. We have so many of the damn things, we could easily do this while still not affecting "America's security". Besides, from which country in the world are we protecting ourselves with these evil things?

But no, Obama puts no details into his proposal. Here's some obvious ones that he could have put out there ....

• Stopping the development of new nuclear weapons that the US began under Bush
  
• De-targeting the strategic nuclear weapons we have. Its hard to believe that nearly 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union we still have these things on a hair-trigger alert status. Why?
  
• Unilateral cutbacks by the US in our nuclear weapons forces and stockpiles. We have plenty to destroy the world many times over. Why not give up some of those as a first step to try to lead the rest of the world to the goal Obama says he wants to achieve?
  

This is typical Obama. On the surface, it sounds very good. But, there's nothing real behind it. And by now, we should have all learned that Obama is very weak on following through with these things that sound good. We've had close to two years of this from Obama. Two years worth of speeches that sound good, but which have nothing behind it. And by now, we should know that Obama never does anything.

Don't believe me. Go talk to all those union-activists who worked on his last campaign under the very minimal promises of a new law that would make organizing a union a fairer process. Go ask them how the EFCA is going?

Watch Obama's actions. This is all just hot-air, and by now we should all know not to pay any attention to Obama's hot air. Watch for actions. So far, they are missing. Except for the real reason he's made this speech which is that he is continuing the same war-mongering bluster towards North Korea that was the Bush policy. With no real actions, the rest of the speech is just feel-good cover for that continuing Bush policy.

Hot-air speeches with no details, but which sound really good. While at the same time, continuing Bush's saber-rattling and war-mongering. Welcome to Obamaland.

Merchants of Death Become Honest

There's been a remarkable restoration of honesty and integrity amongst America's merchants of death. As this chart shows, the companies that manufacturer and sell the equipment that allows American boys to go around the world, meet interesting people, and kill them, have become almost perfectly honest in their dealings with the US government.

While spending on 'defense' has soared to levels far beyond what the rest of the world combined spends, the American tax payers who pay for all of this can rest assured that every single nickle and dime is being spent completely honestly. This is a remarkable turn around for an industry that was once derided for selling $400 ash-trays and $1000 toilet seats. But as you can clearly see in this chart, since the peak of corruption in 1989, the number of prosecutions for fraud have now dropped to almost zero.

There's no one quite so honest as a Merchant of Death.

-- chart from Fraud Cases Fell While Pentagon Contracts Surged by Nick Schwellenbach at the Center for Public Integrity, who makes the odd assertion that the only reason the number of cases dropped is that there are fewer investigators today than back in 1995 when the 'Defense' budget was only a fraction of what it is today.

The law they'd rather forget about

Thanks to Progressive Review for this link to this article that appeared in the NY Times on Nov 5. 1999. CONGRESS PASSES WIDE-RANGING BILL EASING BANK LAWS

From 1999 ...

The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.

Today's action followed a rich Congressional debate about the history of finance in America in this century, the causes of the banking crisis of the 1930's, the globalization of banking and the future of the nation's economy.

Administration officials and many Republicans and Democrats said the measure would save consumers billions of dollars and was necessary to keep up with trends in both domestic and international banking. Some institutions, like Citigroup, already have banking, insurance and securities arms but could have been forced to divest their insurance underwriting under existing law. Many foreign banks already enjoy the ability to enter the securities and insurance industries.

Gee, how'd that work out?

Here's what a familiar name was saying then ...

''Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ''This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.''

Gee, how'd that work out?

The opponents of the measure gloomily predicted that by unshackling banks and enabling them to move more freely into new kinds of financial activities, the new law could lead to an economic crisis down the road when the marketplace is no longer growing briskly.

Those dang opponents are always so gloomy in the face of progress, aren't they?

Fortunately, we had Bill Clinton to lead us to a brighter future...

And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority. This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition. It will also protect the rights of consumers.

-- statement at signing ceremony

Another War Lost?

Another War Lost? by William Lind via Antiwar.com

William Lind is a former Marine Corps officer who is usually far to the right of me politically. But, he is a very astute writer on military affairs, so I usually read his columns. This one is a very nice analysis of what's wrong with Obama's plan to 'win' the Afghan war. But, its this last bit about politics right at the end that struck me. So, this is the view of rather conservative ex-military officer ....

Here we see how little "change" the Obama administration really represents. The differences between the neo-liberals and the neocons are few. Both are militant believers in Brave New World, a globalist future in which everyone on earth becomes modern. In the view of these ideologues, the fact that billions of people are willing to fight to the death against modernity is, like the river Pregel, an unimportant military obstacle. We just need to buy more Predators.

Meanwhile, the money is running out. The ancien regime syndrome looms ever larger: we not only maintain but increase foolish foreign commitments, at the same time that debt is piling up, those willing to lend become fewer, and we are reduced to debasing the currency. Historians have seen it all before, many, many times. It never has a happy ending.

It appears Afghanistan will be the graveyard of yet another empire.

And the question that we should be asking? Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? As a nation, we are broke. So, why are we even trying to spent billions building a prosperous Afghanistan?

BTW, 'ancien regime' is what the court of King Louis XVI called themselves at Versailles. If you read history of the French Revolution, you'd learn that they spent themselves into horrible debt with silly wars and huge military budgets. They eventually collapsed the French economy to the point where people were starving and fighting to get bread. That led to the 'let them eat cake' comment, and to the French people eventually ridding themselves with such foolish rulers via the guillotine.

The State of Play in the Bomb-Iran Debate

The State of Play in the Bomb-Iran Debate by Justin Logan at Cato@Liberty.

Mr. Logan is commenting on a debate recently held about whether the US should commit more war crimes by launching an unprovoked attack on Iran. There are two interesting things in this debate. The first of course is that its all based on a false premise. That Iran is developing nuclear weapons. And that they are close enough that we should bomb them about it.

Actually, I'd be a little surprised if Iran wasn't at least thinking about developing nuclear weapons. They've seen what happened to Iraq and North Korea, and the obvious lesson the US is teaching the rest of the world is that they'd better go get nukes to try to deter the US. But, there's been zero proof so far that the Iranians have done anything substantial towards producing nuclear weapons. No inspection of their facilities have ever found any traces of any bomb-grade uranium being made. Uranium for a power plant can't be used to make a bomb, and all the IAEA has ever found is power-reactor-grade uranium.

But there's a second part that really strikes me as incredibly ridiculous. The fool Elliott Abrams makes this argument in his portion of the debate.

we are not talking about the Americans killing civilians, bombing cities, destroying mosques, hospitals, schools. No, no, no – weʹre talking about nuclear facilities which most Iranians know very little about, have not seen, will not see, some quite well hidden.

So they wake up in the morning and find out that the United States if attacking those facilities and, presumably with some good messaging about why weʹre doing it and why we are not against the people of Iran.

Itʹs not clear to me that the reaction letʹs go to war with the Americans, but rather, perhaps, how did we get into this mess? Why did those guys, the very unpopular ayatollahs in a country 70 percent of whose population is under the age of 30, why did those old guys get us into this mess.

The man can't possibly be that ignorant of US-Iranian history over the last 60 years. But, just in case he his, let me try to give him a few hints.

• 
  In the 1950's, the Iranians overthrew their shah and tried to put into place a western-style democracy. The problem was, these poor deluded Iranian democrats viewed the oil under their country as theirs. Whereas the US and Britain thought of the oil as their own. So, the CIA and British intelligence ran a joint operation to overthrow the Iranian government and put the shah's son in power as the new shah.
  
• 
  The Shah ran the country for almost thirty years. One of the things the Shah was well known for was for his vicious secret police which was trained by and worked with the CIA.
  
• When Khomeni overthrew the Shah, the US condemned this act. We tried to find ways to make the revolution fail, while at the same time inviting the Shah to come into the United States. This last act sparked the storming of the US embassy and the hostage crisis.
  
• The US responded by trying to launch a military operation into Iran to retake the embassy, but it failed when the helicopters didn't react well to sand and flying into each other.
  
• Next, the US used Saddam Hussein to launch a horribly nasty war against Iran. For the people involved, this war was as bad as World War I. Except it lasted far longer. It had trench warfare, and human-wave attacks against those trenches. The US and western Europe helped supply Saddam Hussein with poison gas, which he used to try to attack the Iranian trenches. All of this lasted for most of the 1980's.
  
• Then came Bush and his axis of evil. And all of the constant threats that the US would bomb Iranian nuclear facilities over the last four years of so.
  verthrow their government and welcome Osama Bin Laden as our liberator.
  

Hey, the Iranians call the US 'The Great Satan'. Please, there's not a chance in heck of the Iranian people greeting us as liberators.

Bush policies are back?

This is from an email I received from Amnesty International. They are organizing a lobbying campaign for when our pro-torture Congress-critters are back in the districts the weeks of April 6-17.

This past weekend we got a deeply troubling glimpse into the heart of the Obama administration's counter-terrorism policies.

On Friday, in a symbolic break with the past, the Obama administration announced it would drop the term "enemy combatant" - only to argue in the same breath that the administration has the legal authority to hold detainees indefinitely, without charge. 1

We're beginning to fear the worst: that the Obama administration will hold onto the failed counter-terrorism policies of the Bush administration. Such a move would solidify and make indefinite detention and other Bush policies the new norm in America.

Our most powerful antidote to these cancerous counter-terrorism policies is a full investigation that includes holding those responsible accountable.

Follow the link above for more details on how to join a delegation in your area.

Obstruction of Justice

Obstruction of Justice by Chris Hedges on Truthdig.com

If you don't know about the case of Dr. Al-Arian, then you should read this article.

To try to give the short version, Dr. Al-Arian was a professor at Univ of South Florida who vocally supported Palestinian rights. After years of FBI surveillence, he was arrested and tried on terrorism charges. The jury acquitted him on most charges, and hung 10-2 in his favor on others.

Government lawyers made wild assertions that showed a profound ignorance of the Middle East and exposed a gross stereotyping of the Muslim world. It called on the FBI case agent, for example, who testified as an expert witness that Islamic terrorists were routinely smuggled over the border from Iran into Syria, apparently unaware that Syria is separated from Iran by a large land mass called Iraq. The transcripts of the case against Al-Arian—which read like a bad Gilbert and Sullivan opera—are stupefying in their idiocy. The government wiretaps picked up nothing of substance; taxpayer dollars were used to record and transcribe 21,000 hours of banal chatter, including members of the Al-Arian household ordering pizza delivery. During the trial the government called 80 witnesses and subjected the jury to inane phone transcriptions and recordings, made over a 10-year period, which the jury curtly dismissed as “gossip.” It would be comical if the consequences were not so dire for the defendant.

A jury, on Dec. 6, 2005, acquitted Dr. Al-Arian on eight of the counts in the superseding indictment after a six-month trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On the 94 charges made against the four defendants, there were no convictions. Of the 17 charges against Al-Arian—including “conspiracy to murder and maim persons abroad”—the jury acquitted him of eight and was hung on the rest. The jurors, who voted 10 to 2 to acquit on the remaining charges, could not reach a unanimous decision calling for his full acquittal. Two others in the case, Ghassan Ballut and Sameeh Hammoudeh, were acquitted of all charges.

After losing before a jury, the federal government refused to drop the case. Instead they promised to move forward with another years-long trial on the charges on which the jury hung. In order to end the ordeal, Dr. Al-Arian agreed to a plea bargain where he would leave this country. A part of the deal was that he refused to testify in other cases. So, then a federal prosecutor had him hauled up to Virginia to force him to testify in other cases. When Dr. Al-Arian refused, citing his plea bargain deal, he was charged with contempt of court and kept in federal prisons.

Despite the refusal of a jury to convict him, he's been held in federal prisons for years.

PS ... note that while the author refers to the Bush Justice Dept and 'right-wing' prosecutors, the Obama Justice Dept is still pursuing the case. And note also that incredible amounts of extra jail time that they are asking for comes from the 'Patriot Act II', which was supported by Obama and the Democrats.

Obama the Republican

Obama: won't speed up Iraq pull out on AP

Obama the Republican ....

"I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one" because it calls for "a very gradual withdrawal through the national elections in Iraq,"

...

"I'm confident that we're moving in the right direction. But Iraq is not yet completed. We still have a lot of work to do," the president said of the war that's winding down after six hard-fought years.

And, for people in the National Guard who thought they might be able to spend some time at home. Well, not so fast. Obama has other 'wars' to fight.

_His administration was considering putting more National Guard troops on the U.S. border with Mexico to stem violence from the illicit drug trade.

And, gotta make sure that short-term 'anger' over million dollar bonuses to the very people who caused this crash doesn't get in the way of the long term policies of pumping trillions of our dollars into the Wall St firms.

_Anger over giant bonuses for bailout-recipient American International Group Inc. was justified, but he doesn't want his long-term focus threatened by what he calls the legitimate, but short-term frustrations over some of Wall Street's actions.

"My most important job is to get this economy moving again, to get credit flowing again so that businesses large and small can start rehiring, open their doors and we can start seeing economic growth again," Obama said.

Oh, and there's this other article announcing that Obama's relations with Iran will stay on the same saber-rattling, war-like course as Bush's. You didn't really think we were going to talk to Iran, like Obama promised in the primaries, did you?

Wow, the 'change' we are getting is just stunning isn't it? We can't 'change' the war in Iraq'. We are only 'changing' the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the worse. And, of course we can't 'change' the fact that Wall St. owns this government, and that they now have an apparently unlimited pipeline direct from the public treasury into their pockets.

People need to burn this into their memories as what the Democrats mean by 'change we can believe in.' If people want real change, voting Democrat is not the answer.

Some times, all you can do is cry ...

If Only the World Had Listened by Robert Fisk in The Independent

I don’t know if I met Tom Hurndall. He was one of a bunch of “human shields” who turned up in Baghdad just before the Anglo-American invasion in 2003, the kind of folk we professional reporters make fun of. Tree huggers, that kind of thing. Now I wish I had met him because – looking back over the history of that terrible war – Hurndall’s journals (soon to be published) show a remarkable man of remarkable principle. “I may not be a human shield,” he wrote at 10.26 on 17 March from his Amman hotel. “And I may not adhere to the beliefs of those I have travelled with, but the way Britain and America plan to take Iraq is unnecessary and puts soldiers’ lives above those of civilians. For that I hope that Bush and Blair stand trial for war crimes.”

Hurndall got it about right, didn’t he? It wasn’t so simple as war/no war, black and white, he wrote. “Things I’ve heard and seen over the last few weeks proves what I already knew; neither the Iraqi regime, nor the American or British, are clean. Maybe Saddam needs to go but ... the air war that’s proposed is largely unnecessary and doesn’t discriminate between civilians and armed soldiers. Tens of thousands will die, maybe hundreds of thousands, just to save thousands of American soldiers having to fight honestly, hand to hand. It is wrong.” Oh, how many of my professional colleagues wrote like this on the eve of war? Not many.