Obliterate Iran

Clinton Threatens to Attack Iran ‘The Way That We Did’ Iraq from Antiwar.com

Citing the disastrous 2003 US invasion of Iraq as an example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today warned that by continuing to refuse to abandon its civilian nuclear program, Iran was risking the possibility of an invasion by the US or “some other enemy that would do that to them.”

The comments came during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program, and when asked by interviewer and former Clinton-era official George Stephanopoulus, Secretary Clinton reiterated “that’s right, as a first strike.”

(the antiwar.com article has links to ABC News, follow the link above to get there).

Of course, just the other day, President Obama was trying to start a 'new beginning' with Muslims. Remember this part ....

"We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

Of course, uncounted numbers of 'innocent men, women and children' have died as a result of our attack on Iraq. By implication, Secretary of State Clinton is threatening to kill many, many more 'innocent men, women, and children.'

I wonder if President Obama will fly home and confront the violent extremists here?

And, does anyone else notice how none of the real 'choices' given to the American voters last year mean any change at all in our policies? Does it sound like there is any difference at all between Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of State Clinton?

Then there's this ....
Clinton Threatens ‘Massive Retaliation’ in Case Iran Attacks Israel also on antiwar.com

Spending yet more time publicly railing against a nuclear weapons program which both US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency insist doesn’t exist, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today insisted that the American nuclear umbrella in fact extends over Israel, as well as “a number of nations” and that the US would retaliate “massively” in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

Of course, for anyone paying attention, there would seem to be a much greater threat that Israel would attack Iran instead of the other way around. Israel routinely threatens to attack Iran. Israel recently staged major military excerises that seemed to simulate an attack on Iran. Over the last twenty years, Israel has attacked other nations in the region several times. And Israel is known to posses hundreds of nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to launch them. And in the quote above, SOS Clinton explicitly threatened that 'some other enemy' might attack Iran ... a rather transparent reference to Israel.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, experts seem to be in agreement that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and they've shown zero ability to design a nuclear weapon that would fit on top of a missile, survive the g-forces and vibrations of a missile launch and still work when it gets somewhere. There are some very vague statements, with disputes over their translation, from one political leader in Iran, who does not hold absolute power, saying that someday Israel might not exist.

Seems like SOS Clinton would be much better off spending her time worrying about an Israeli attack on Iran, rather than the other way around. But, as one can see below, she seems to be signaling rather publicly that the US would support an Israeli attack on Iran.

Obama's speech

Lots of articles out there on Obama's speech in the Middle East. I'll post some links in a bit, but this bit really struck me. Obama's Non-Starter by Stanley Heller on Counterpunch.org

At one point Obama says, “We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

The author goes on to point out how Obama didn't object so much to the deaths in Gaza from Israeli bombing. But I went to look for a different response. It didn't take long to find just one of the many examples I thought I'd find.

President Obama Orders Pakistan Drone Attacks from Antiwar.com, Jan 23, 2009

A pair of US drone strikes in the North and South Waziristan tribal agencies of Pakistan killed 22 people today. Many of them appear to have been militants, but at least four of them were also children. The attacks, the first of President Obama’s fledgling administration, and the responses in their aftermath suggest that, in the end, very little has changed.

President Obama claims that he rejects the killing of innocent men, women and children. Yet, just days after becoming President, 4 children were dead by his order.

Of course, we know what the official US response would be. They were trying to kill some evil, dangerous extremists. The four children just happened to get in the way. The usual lines about how the US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.

This of course has been going on for years. The US military conducts strikes. Civilians die because of the strikes. The US military then says that it either didn't know the civilians would die, or that they said they took all possible steps to avoid killing them. Yet, when you do something over and over and over, and when exactly the same thing results each time, at what point can you continue to claim innocence as to your actions? By this point, it is very, very clear that when the President orders strikes like these, he is ordering civilian casualties.

War itself causes the deaths of innocent men, women and children. This is a foreseeable outcome for which anyone who orders the starting or expansion of a war must take responsibility. How many innocents have died because of Mr. Obama's expansion of the Afghan war into Pakistan? The direct drone strikes into Pakistan seemed to have stopped or at least slowed down. But that's only because we've insisted that the Pakistani army begin ground actions. How many innocents have died because of those actions? There is no doubt that they are occurring because the US and President Obama want them to occur. And, it seems as if sometime in his term, we will go to war with Iran. The latest hints seem to point to early next year. How many innocents will die if Mr. Obama gives that order?

Mr. Obama claims that he rejects, as do people of all faiths, the killing of innocent men, women and children. Nice words. Too bad he doesn't really believe them. You judge people by their actions, not their words. President Obama's actions are to order the deaths of innocent men, women and children. It was one of the first things he did upon taking office.

Lack of Money Ends Wars

In reading history, there seems to be one thing that forces power-hungry leaders to end wars. Money. Or lack thereof more precisely.

If you read Gabriel Kolko's excellent history of the Vietnam war, you'll see that's what happened then. Nixon was always willing to escalate to try to force the 'peace' he wanted. It was the finance system that eventually said NO. Back then, the US was on 'the gold standard'. In other words, it was only supposed to print money that it had gold in Fort Knox to back up. The idea was that anyone could take US dollars and ask for gold in exchange. By the early 70's, the US was running out of money for both its domestic priorities and its war in Vietnam. When forced to choose, any sensible politician chooses domestic priorities, as that's what gets them re-elected or kicked out of office.

Read this piece by Paul Craig Roberts, As the Dollar Falls Off the Cliff ... (via Counterpunch).

It is obvious to Chinese officials that neither China nor the entire world has enough spare money to purchase $4 trillion of US Treasuries over the next two years. According to the London Telegraph on May 27, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank president Richard Fisher was repeatedly grilled by senior officials of the Chinese government during his recent visit about whether the Federal Reserve was going to finance the US budget deficit by printing money. According to Fisher, “I must have been asked about that a hundred times in China. I was asked at every single meeting about our purchases of Treasuries. That seemed to be the principal preoccupation of those that were invested with their surpluses mostly in the United States.”

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has gone to China to calm the fears. However, even before he arrived, a Chinese central bank spokesman gave Geithner the message that the US should not assume China will continue to finance Washington’s extravagant budgets. The governor of China’s central bank is calling for the abandonment of the dollar as reserve currency, using the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights in its place.

President Lyndon Johnson’s “guns and butter” policy during the 1960s forced president Richard Nixon to eliminate the gold backing that the dollar had as world reserve currency, putting foreign central banks on the same fiat money standard as the US economy. In its first four months, the Obama administration has outdone president Johnson. Instead of ending war, Obama has expanded America’s war of aggression in Afghanistan and spread it into Pakistan. War, bailouts, and stimulus plans have pushed the government’s annual operating budget 50 per cent into the red.

That's the almost surrealistic part of this. The US is broke. We are running huge deficits. Orders of magnitude higher than anything before. That's the cost of pumping trillions of US dollars into the reserves of the Wall Street banks to keep them from collapsing because of their fraud and bad business decisions. What amazes me is why on earth we don't shut these wars down and do it now?

In other news today, the House and the Senate reached agreement on the next $100 billion dollar installment of war funding. No big surprise, since Democrats and Republicans seem to be in full agreement that the wars must go on. If there was debate, it was on the details of the additional 'pork' that is added on to this bill. There was never any disagreement over funding the wars.

That's insane. One thing about being broke. You need every dollar you can lay your hands on. We just spent three times as much on these wars as we just spent trying to prop up our auto industry from the results of their own bad decisions. That was $30 billion. And, you'll see an article below where the union workers in that industry just lost all their pension and health for retirees benefits to fund the Wall Street bankers so they don't lose a dime on the deal.

Think about that. We have to steal $6 billion of the money that retired autoworkers put aside for their own pensions and health care in order to keep the fat cats on Wall Street happy. But we can find $100 billion to fund going to the other side of the world and killing people. Insanity.

At this point, I don't expect anyone in Washington to understand the moral issue that its not right to go around the world killing people. No matter how much you want their oil. But, surely these people can do what every American sitting at the kitchen table making a budget understand. That is, sometimes you just can't afford something. You can't have it right now. No matter how much your evil little heart wants to go to the other side of the world to kill someone who doesn't look like you ... sometimes you just can't afford it.

In case you were wondering .....

Banks run Congress, top Democrat says by John Byrne on RawStory.com

“The banks run the place,” Peterson told the New York Times in Monday’s editions. “I will tell you what the problem is — they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.”

Well, that's what you get when you have a political system where money rules.

Grand Theft Auto

The following came to me in an email from Greg Palast. Don't see a link to a web version, so I'm relaying on the full text. The quote from Justice Brandeis to the left seems very appropriate today.

Grand Theft Auto: How Stevie the Rat bankrupted GM

by Greg Palast
Monday, June 1, 2009
ant-farm_2

Screw the autoworkers.

They may be crying about General Motors' bankruptcy today. But dumping 40,000 of the last 60,000 union jobs into a mass grave won't spoil Jamie Dimon's day.

Dimon is the CEO of JP Morgan Chase bank. While GM workers are losing their retirement health benefits, their jobs, their life savings; while shareholders are getting zilch and many creditors getting hosed, a few privileged GM lenders - led by Morgan and Citibank - expect to get back 100% of their loans to GM, a stunning $6 billion.

The way these banks are getting their $6 billion bonanza is stone cold illegal.

I smell a rat.

Stevie the Rat, to be precise. Steven Rattner, Barack Obama's 'Car Czar' - the man who essentially ordered GM into bankruptcy this morning.

When a company goes bankrupt, everyone takes a hit: fair or not, workers lose some contract wages, stockholders get wiped out and creditors get fragments of what's left. That's the law. What workers don't lose are their pensions (including old-age health funds) already taken from their wages and held in their name.

But not this time. Stevie the Rat has a different plan for GM: grab the pension funds to pay off Morgan and Citi.

Here's the scheme: Rattner is demanding the bankruptcy court simply wipe away the money GM owes workers for their retirement health insurance. Cash in the insurance fund would be replace by GM stock. The percentage may be 17% of GM's stock - or 25%. Whatever, 17% or 25% is worth, well ... just try paying for your dialysis with 50 shares of bankrupt auto stock.

Yet Citibank and Morgan, says Rattner, should get their whole enchilada - $6 billion right now and in cash - from a company that can't pay for auto parts or worker eye exams.

Preventive Detention for Pensions

So what's wrong with seizing workers' pension fund money in a bankruptcy? The answer, Mr. Obama, Mr. Law Professor, is that it's illegal.

In 1974, after a series of scandalous take-downs of pension and retirement funds during the Nixon era, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. ERISA says you can't seize workers' pension funds (whether monthly payments or health insurance) any more than you can seize their private bank accounts. And that's because they are the same thing: workers give up wages in return for retirement benefits.

The law is darn explicit that grabbing pension money is a no-no. Company executives must hold these retirement funds as "fiduciaries." Here's the law, Professor Obama, as described on the government's own web site under the heading, "Health Plans and Benefits."

"The primary responsibility of fiduciaries is to run the plan solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits."

Every business in America that runs short of cash would love to dip into retirement kitties, but it's not their money any more than a banker can seize your account when the bank's a little short. A plan's assets are for the plan's members only, not for Mr. Dimon nor Mr. Rubin.

Yet, in effect, the Obama Administration is demanding that money for an elderly auto worker's spleen should be siphoned off to feed the TARP babies. Workers go without lung transplants so Dimon and Rubin can pimp out their ride. This is another "Guantanamo" moment for the Obama Administration - channeling Nixon to endorse the preventive detention of retiree health insurance.

Filching GM's pension assets doesn't become legal because the cash due the fund is replaced with GM stock. Congress saw through that switch-a-roo by requiring that companies, as fiduciaries, must

"...act prudently and must diversify the plan's investments in order to minimize the risk of large losses."

By "diversify" for safety, the law does not mean put 100% of worker funds into a single busted company's stock.

This is dangerous business: The Rattner plan opens the floodgate to every politically-connected or down-on-their-luck company seeking to drain health care retirement funds.

House of Rubin

Pensions are wiped away and two connected banks don't even get a haircut? How come Citi and Morgan aren't asked, like workers and other creditors, to take stock in GM?

As Butch said to Sundance, who ARE these guys? You remember Morgan and Citi. These are the corporate Welfare Queens who've already sucked up over a third of a trillion dollars in aid from the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. Not coincidentally, Citi, the big winner, has paid over $100 million to Robert Rubin, the former US Treasury Secretary. Rubin was Obama's point-man in winning banks' endorsement and campaign donations (by far, his largest source of his corporate funding).

With GM's last dying dimes about to fall into one pocket, and the Obama Treasury in his other pocket, Morgan's Jamie Dimon is correct in saying that the last twelve months will prove to be the bank's "finest year ever."

Which leaves us to ask the question: is the forced bankruptcy of GM, the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs, just a collection action for favored financiers?

And it's been a good year for Señor Rattner. While the Obama Administration made a big deal out of Rattner's youth spent working for the Steelworkers Union, they tried to sweep under the chassis that Rattner was one of the privileged, select group of investors in Cerberus Capital, the owners of Chrysler. "Owning" is a loose term. Cerberus "owned" Chrysler the way a cannibal "hosts" you for dinner. Cerberus paid nothing for Chrysler - indeed, they were paid billions by Germany's Daimler Corporation to haul it away. Cerberus kept the cash, then dumped Chrysler's bankrupt corpse on the US taxpayer.

("Cerberus," by the way, named itself after the Roman's mythical three-headed dog guarding the gates Hell. Subtle these guys are not.)

While Stevie the Rat sold his interest in the Dog from Hell when he became Car Czar, he never relinquished his post at the shop of vultures called Quadrangle Hedge Fund. Rattner's personal net worth stands at roughly half a billion dollars. This is Obama's working class hero.

If you ran a business and played fast and loose with your workers' funds, you could land in prison. Stevie the Rat's plan is nothing less than Grand Theft Auto Pension.

It doesn't make it any less of a crime if the President drives the getaway car.

******

Economist and journalist Greg Palast, a former trade union contract negotiator, is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse. He is a GM bondholder and card-carrying member of United Automobile Workers Local 1981.

Palast's latest reports for BBC Television and Democracy Now! are collected on the newly released DVD, "Palast Investigates: from 8-Mile to the Amazon - on the trail of the financial marauders." Watch the trailer here.

Most investors or businesses would be thrilled to get a 10% or even a 20% "Return on Investment"(ROI). That is, if they invest say $1,000,000, they then make a profit of $100,000 or $200,000. In today's America, the political system has made corruption the best possible investment. In the last election, the "FIRE" (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) sector gave a bit over $20 million to Obama's campaign.

Today, two of these companies alone just made BILLIONS of dollars. Maybe in a different bankrupcty proceeding, that $6 billion in loans these two banks made to GM might have been paid off at 33% ($2 billion). That's a guess, but a ballpark figure is good enough for this example. So, in one day, these firms just made $4 Billion in return for a portion of $20 Million to fund Obama's campaign. A 'return' of $4 Billion on, lets say $10 Million investment, is an ROI of 40,000%. Yes, you read that right ... for every dollar 'invested' in Obama, they just made $400 in return.

This obviously distorts the economy. Why on earth make regular investments when buying politicians creates such a return? Invest in a company that hires American workers ... these days, that's the sucker play. Wall Street now knows what the mob has known for years. The best business investment is to go buy some politicians. Sounds like Chicago. Wait a minute, where's Obama from again?

Look at the effect that money had. Some of it came in very early in the campaign. Obama was quickly established as the one alternative to Hillary's 'inevitable' campaign in 2007 because of the money he raised. Go read those stories again today on early 2007 fundraising, and Wall Street was the leading contributor. Without that early money, Obama is just some junior Senator running for President in a big primary field.

The 2008 Democratic primaries were always going to be a race between the Hillary vote and the anti-Hillary vote. The early strategic goal of all of the candidates in the race, besides Hillary of course, was to establish themselves as the single alternative to Hillary. Obama did that, and he did it with Wall Street money. Without that money, the line on Obama would have been that he was just running this time to prep himself for 2012. Someone else would have been the choice as the 'anti-Hillary' this time.

Makes one wander what sort of bidding contest went on in the formerly-smoke-filled-rooms as the Democratic candidates went begging to Wall Street for money. Wall Street was going to back someone, and that someone was likely to be President. I wonder what the various Democrats offered to Wall Street to try to get that deal? Well, at least we've got a pretty good idea of what Obama bid. $300 billion in TARP money, a few $Trillion from the Fed, and toss in the auto workers pension and health care funds as a few colored sprinkles on top. Oh, and no prosecutions for Wall Street concerning the fraud games that caused this economic collapse.

The difference between the Obama campaign and the Kucinich campaign last time around was that early money. The difference between the Obama campaign and the Nader campaign was the mountains of cash that Obama had to spend. Do you wonder what a election system that let all candidates talk equally to the voters would look like? Do you wonder why both the Democrats and Republicans constantly oppose such an idea?

I wonder how many of those auto workers who are losing their jobs and the pensions and their retirement health care had Obama stickers on their cars last fall?

Someday, American voters have to learn that the candidates with the money are not their friend. Oh, they'll be able to pay lots of speechwriters and consultants to make it look like they are the voter's friend. But, the sure bet is that the candidates with all the money are going to look out for the people who gave them the money.

We need to make it such in this country that the candidates with the money NEVER win. We need to make is such that the American people automatically look at a candidate with lots of money and say 'No way in h@#% am I electing you." The broke candidate who needs their supporters to give them a ride in from the airport is the much better choice. At least you'll know they aren't bought.

Another Czar

Obama to create cyber czar in awareness effort

Czar is the name of the Russia kings. Hereditary monarchical rulers with dictatorial powers. The name is supposed to trace back to the name Caesar, who was the dictator of Rome, after he overthrew the Roman Senate and the concept of a republic there.

I saw one report awhile back that Obama had appointed some 17 or so 'czars'. Here comes another one.

These 'czars' are anti-democratic here too. They bypass the system that was set to give Congress checks and balances over executive power. As the founders set up the system, the cabinet officials were the heads of various sections of the government. With this understanding, Congress was given the power and the requirement to confirm cabinet officials. All of these 'czars' are appointed just by Obama with no Congressional approval required.

The AP article is of course written from the assumption that we absolutely must have cyber czar. The only questions asked in the article are from 'opponents' who feel this post won't have enough power. The question that maybe no government official should have this power doesn't make the AP's mindset.

Enter Stage Right: The "Cyber Czar" from the Electronic Frontier Foundation gives a bit of a different point of view.

Sen. Rockefeller has proposed a bill that would give sweeping powers. The power to access any data anywhere. As well as the power to shut down the internet whenever the government declares an emergency. That sort of stuff.

Sometimes its amazing to watch how the US treats the internet and freedom of information in ways very similar to China. The whole debate of Net Neutrality is on the same lines. Should the corporations that own the hardware of the internet be able to control the content you watch. To me, the 'news' on cable TV, where these same corporations already decide which channels you get to see (Fox News, CNN) and which you don't get to see (Al-Jazeera, other foreign news, Free Speech TV, etc), this news is worthless and almost all propaganda.

So, many people start going to the internet to get news from other sources. And, amazingly enough, there is now a move from the corporations that want to control the internet to be able to limit what you can see over the internet. They want the power to make a deal where CNN pays to come in full blast over your computer, while other, non-corporate approved channels would come in at best much slower, if not blocked entirely.

Sounds a lot like China to me. Or, back in the days of the Soviet Union when the government treated fax machines and copying machines as threats to the state.

So, now we get a 'cyber czar' with the power to control the internet. Everyone shout "Hail Caesar!"

Obama’s new war doctrine: ‘Cyber dominance’from AFP via rawstory.com

Notice the goal. Its not freedom. Its not democracy. Its not a new interactive form of communications that empowers people. Nope, its 'dominance'. Specifically, the 'dominance' of the US military. Hail Caesar!

Democrats hate Democracy

Nader: McAuliffe offered me money to pull out of key states by Stephen Webster on Rawstory.com

Citing a new book by Theresa Amato, the national manager of Nader's 2000 and 2004 campaigns,

Terry McAuliffe -- currently running for Virginia Governor, but formerly Hillary Clinton's campaign manager and chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- offered an unspecified amount of money to fuel Nader's campaign, if you believe Theresa Amato, author of the recently-published book Grand Illusion: The Myth of Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny.

In the volume, she and Nader allege that McAuliffe personally called and offered a sum of money to enhance the Nader campaign in 31 states if he would pull out of 19 key Democratic battlegrounds.

In a democracy, there should be one crime that is more serious than almost all others. That is interfering with and subverting free elections. Its fascinating the lengths, now apparently including attempted bribery, that the Democrats will go to in order to seize power for themselves.

Impeach Obama

UN expert: US failing to properly probe war crimes from AP via Antiwar.com.

An independent U.N. human rights investigator said Thursday that the United States is failing to properly investigate alleged war crimes committed by its soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Although some cases are investigated and lead to prosecutions, others aren't or result in lenient sentences, said Philip Alston, the U.N. Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings.

"There have been chronic and deplorable accountability failures with respect to policies, practices and conduct that resulted in alleged unlawful killings — including possible war crimes — in the United States' international operations," Alston said in a report dated May 26 and published on a U.N. Web site.

This is the second statement from an independent UN human rights investigator along these lines. Which means, twice now we've had independent international officials, who by position of their post deserve some respect as 'expert' opinions in the matter, clearly state since Obama took office, that the US is failing to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

This in itself is an impeachable offense. There are both international treaties signed by the US, and US law making these acts illegal. It is the legal responsibility of officials in the US government to investigate and prosecute illegal acts. Its not an option. Its not a political decision. Its a legal responsibility. By failing to do so, the officials in the Obama administration are failing in their responsibilities. At some point, this comes back to Obama as he is the elected official at the top of the government who is responsible for the actions of his government. And remember, the war crimes charges against Milosovich in Serbia were not based on acts that he personally committed. Instead, they were based on his position of being in command, and that he therefore bore the responsibility to prevent those under his command from committing such acts.

Its the constitutional responsibility of Congress to investigate if they receive evidence that impeachable offenses are being committed. Just like I used to say when Bush was in the White House, its not optional, its not a political decision. Its a constitutional requirement for people who've sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. At the very least, there should be serious investigatory committee hearings asking the Obama administration exactly what they are doing to make sure possible war crimes are being properly investigated and prosecuted. This should include questions about what is being done about the investigation and prosecution of officials from earlier administrations who were in command and control positions of organizations that committed war crimes.

Gee, if the US government isn't investing clear cases of war crimes that are reported to it, what are they using the resources of the government for? How about this? FBI Infiltrates Iowa City Protest Group by Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive magazine.

He was very well dressed. He claimed he’d been in the military. But he said when he was ordered to go to Iraq, he refused and was granted conscientious objector status.

That’s how activists in Iowa City are now recalling a person they believe was working undercover for the FBI.

So, the US government refuses to properly investigate and prosecute war crimes. But, they put a lot of effort into investigating protest groups that are opposing the war, and thus who are opposing war crimes.

PS ... in the some things never change category. With my eclectic reading tastes, one of the next things I read today was this interview with Grace Slick (singer for Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship for those who aren't old hippies like me and thus might not recognize the name.) It includes this passage.

... I have something that you probably also have a copy of. I have the F.B.I. file here on the Jefferson Airplane.

[Grace]Right (laughs).

I had sent in this FOIA request, back in 2003. As you know, apparently the feds were not amused by your relationship with the Yippies, or specifically Abbie (Hoffman).

[Grace]Yeah.

In the file, F.B.I. headquarters domestic “intelligence” (their word, not mine) alerted the secret service, military intelligence and local law enforcement about your presence in various cities, particularly in Cleveland and Cincinnati.

[Grace]We got arrested almost every time we went to Ohio (laughs).

Yeah, after the Kent State massacre. You are specifically mentioned by name in the file, which is actually quite unusual, because according to the FBI’s own policy, and the FOIA/PA laws, the privacy laws, usually living peoples’ names are redacted from the files and public view, due to the privacy laws. Of all the people in the Airplane, J. Edgar Hoover’s henchmen were more worried about you than they were about any other member of the group. The F.B.I. labels their teletypes about you as being, quote “urgent.”

(Grace laughs.)

Some things never seem to change. Whether its Nixon or Bush in the White House. Or whether its the guy who campaigned by constantly chanting the word 'change' at us. Even then, some things never change.

They drill and they kill

Chevron, Shell and the True Cost of Oil by Amy Goodman, via Truthdig.com

Remember, over on the Page 2 link, there's an RSS feed showing the last five stories from Democracy Now!

The economy is a shambles, unemployment is soaring, the auto industry is collapsing. But profits are higher than ever at oil companies Chevron and Shell. Yet across the globe, from the Ecuadorian jungle, to the Niger Delta in Nigeria, to the courtrooms and streets of New York and San Ramon, Calif., people are fighting back against the world’s oil giants.

Shell and Chevron are in the spotlight this week, with shareholder meetings and a historic trial being held.

and this ...

I interviewed Saro-Wiwa in 1994. He told me: “The oil companies like military dictatorships, because basically they can cheat with these dictatorships. The dictatorships are brutal to people, and they can deny the human rights of individuals and of communities quite easily, without compunction.” He added, “I am a marked man.” Saro-Wiwa returned to Nigeria and was arrested by the military junta. On Nov. 10, 1995, after a kangaroo show trial, Saro-Wiwa was hanged with eight other Ogoni activists.

In 1998, I traveled to the Niger Delta with journalist Jeremy Scahill. A Chevron executive there told us that Chevron flew troops from Nigeria’s notorious mobile police, the “kill ‘n’ go,” in a Chevron company helicopter to an oil barge that had been occupied by nonviolent protesters. Two protesters were killed, and many more were arrested and tortured.

Oronto Douglas, one of Saro-Wiwa’s lawyers, told us: “It is very clear that Chevron, just like Shell, uses the military to protect its oil activities. They drill and they kill.”

'They drill and they kill.' Those words put a chilly touch on those chants of "Drill Baby Drill" that the rightwingers were putting out last fall.

Some environmental groups have put out an 'alternative annual report' about Chevron in time for the corporations shareholders meeting. It can be found at TrueCostofChevron.com.

PS ... that report is really worth reading. Its large, so I haven't read it all. Out of curiosity, I jumped to the section on Chevron in Iraq. Lots of interesting history there. Its a nice summary of Chevron's activities in Iraq dating back to before Saddam. Full of little details I don't think I ever knew. And some real nuggets like this ...

If and when U.S. oil companies get to work in Iraq they will require protection—most likely that of the U.S. military. A confidential intelligence report on the Iraq Oil Law prepared for U.S. officials and leaked to ABC News concluded that if “major foreign oil companies“ were going to go to work in Iraq, they would need to be “heavily underwritten by the U.S. government.”245

Gee, its such a surprise that we won't give up our bases in Iraq, now isn't it?

The control of the government, which is then turned against its own people.

Corporate Frankensteins by Ralph Nader via counterpunch.org. Also visit the Nader.org link to the left sometimes.

Once upon a time early in the 19th century, corporations came into existence by state legislatures approving charters, which were granted for a limited period of time and for limited purposes. These corporations – producing textiles and other products in New England – raised capital in part because their investors had limited liability. That meant they could not lose any more than their investment if things went wrong.

Since corporations were artificial legal entities and not human, these lawmakers feared that without some strong leashes, they could be creating Frankensteins.

ending with ...

What Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis feared in an opinion he wrote during the nineteen thirties is happening. These megacorporations have become Frankensteins—moving to own our genes, the plant seeds of life and taking control of computerized artificial intelligence. Their final conquest is far along—the control of government which is then turned against its own people.

As Paul Harvey used to say: “Good day.”

Have we turned into sheep?

Have we turned into sheep? by David Maccaray via counterpunch.org

While there are no simple answers, one thing is clear. We’re making it way too easy for these people. Without resistance, nothing’s going to change. Without resistance, corporations, politicians and, yes, union leadership will continue to pacify us with promises and excuses.

You don’t stop a bully by giving him your lunch money; you stop him by punching him in the nose. It doesn’t always work. Sometimes you wind up getting the crap beat out of you. But continuing to give up your lunch money isn’t an option.

American workers need to get serious. They need to get rude. They need to get ugly. They need to get French.

American treaties with the natives

Last year, the US signed a 'Status of Forces Agreement' (or SOFA) with Iraq. This agreement mandated two things that should happen within the next two months. One is the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities by the end of June 2009. The other was a referendum vote by the Iraqi people on whether US troops would be allowed to stay until the end of 2011. This vote is supposed to be held by the end of July 2009, and if the Iraqi voters reject the idea of US troops staying until the end of 2011, they are instead supposed to withdraw over the next year, or by end of June 2010.

I knew these deadlines were coming up, and I was feeling I was hearing remarkably little about US forces withdrawing from Iraqi cities in the next 30 days or so. And also, I was hearing remarkably little about this big nationwide referendum that is supposed to be held within the next 60 days. So, I started digging around with Google a bit.

To meet June deadline, US and Iraqis redraw city borders by Jane Arraf on Christian Science Monitor.

On a map of Baghdad, the US Army's Forward Operating Base Falcon is clearly within city limits.

Except that Iraqi and American military officials have decided it's not. As the June 30 deadline for US soldiers to be out of Iraqi cities approaches, there are no plans to relocate the roughly 3,000 American troops who help maintain security in south Baghdad along what were the fault lines in the sectarian war.

"We and the Iraqis decided it wasn't in the city," says a US military official. The base on the southern outskirts of Baghdad's Rasheed district is an example of the fluidity of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) agreed to late last year, which orders all US combat forces out of Iraqi cities, towns, and villages by June 30.

"We consider the security agreement a living document," says a senior US commander.

Remember that quote the next time you hear anyone talk about 'democracy' in Iraq. Unlike in America, where the agreement was signed by imperial fiat by President Bush, the Iraqi parliament was supposed to ok the agreement. This was the cause of much debate at that time. The details of the agreement were hammered out to get the approval of the Iraqi parliament.

Now, the US military regards this document as 'a living document' that can be changed at will. Without the approval of the Iraqi parliament, of course.

The picture with this article is a map of Baghdad from google maps. The Camp Falcon mentioned at this story is at the Al Rasheed airport, which is visible on the map. Find where highways "6" and "7" turn off to the southeast, then look just above them and you'll see the runways of the airport. This is the area that has now been declared to be 'outside' the city. Yeah, right. The map comes from here.

The key bit is that this base is referred to as responsible for the security in that part of Baghdad. Now, the 'spirit' of the agreement was to get US troops out of Iraqi cities to reduce violence. Not only are these troops remaining in what's obviously Baghdad, but there is no mention of their role changing. Ie, they'll still be out on the streets of Baghdad with their machine guns and other high-tech weaponry. In other words, no change at all.

Yet another example of Obama continuing the policies of Bush completely unchanged. Or, if you believe Bush and McCain might have honored this agreement negotiated by Bush, then Obama is worse than Bush. Since I believe Bush knew he was lying when he signed the agreement, I just put it under the category of 'no change'.

OF course, the key part of this agreement from the American point of view is that it provides the legal right for US troops to remain in Iraq. You can bet that that part of the deal is not considered a 'living document' subject to change. Only the parts where the US had to meet Iraqi desires to get their signature are subject to change.

These collide in the part of the agreement that says Iraq should have a referendum by the end of July 2009 on whether the US should leave a year from now, instead of the end of 2011 date that is currently in the document. Apparently the requirement for the referendum is indeed a part of the document that is 'living' and therefore changing. This means that what the US wanted, legal authority to stay in Iraq until the end of 2011, is not changing at all. From the same CSM article linked above ....

The Iraqi parliament voted to approve the SOFA late last year only after linking it to a referendum this summer which would allow Iraqis to vote on whether US troops should leave sooner than the end of 2011.

With Maliki's public insistence that there will be no extension for US forces, plans for the promised referendum appear to have quietly disappeared.

"We promise a lot of things we don't deliver," says one Iraqi member of parliament when asked about the poll.

When the Iraqi parliament insisted on this referendum, they probably felt that it was very likely that the Iraqi voters in a fair vote would massively reject the presence of US troops until 2011, and instead would insist on the mid-2010 withdrawal date. Every poll I've ever seen of Iraqis says a huge majority would vote for us to leave sooner rather than later. Of course, US imperial plans couldn't allow for this pesky notion of democracy in Iraq to cause a withdrawal sooner than the end of 2011.

Of course, the notion of democracy in the US on this issue was thwarted as well in the last election. While vast majorities of American voters want the US to withdrawal from Iraq, this was thwarted by only giving them the option of voting for lying Democrats who promised a withdrawal. Of course, once elected, the Democrats have no intention of any quick withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, they are busy making sure that the Pentagon has all the money they want to keep killing people in Iraq.

I suspect any descendants of American Indians who are following this sense a very familiar feeling about the worth of treaties with the US government.

Maybe 'anti-war' voters in the US will learn the same lesson about promises from Democrats.

Standing Armies

I like watching motor racing. So, that means on Memorial Day weekend, I get blasted by a big load of militarism as I try to watch the races I want to watch. The corporate TV networks are constantly pushing the message that we all must support our massive military in its goals of conquering the world.

So, this made me get on the internet and do a little research. About 240 years ago, some brave people fought hard and made great sacrifices to establish America as a free nation of free citizens (well, at least if you were white, wealthy and male ... we've had kept working on that bit over the centuries).

I found one web page of what Thomas Jefferson, primary writer of the Declaration of Independence, thought of the idea of keeping massive military establishments around during peace time.

"The supremacy of the civil over the military authority I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"Instead of subjecting the military to the civil power, [a tyrant will make] the civil subordinate to the military. But can [he] thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect a power superior to that which erected himself? He [can do] it indeed by force, but let him remember that force cannot give right." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.(*) ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

To me, its an interesting question as to exactly how much civilian control of the military we have in this country these days. We take that as a given, that in America the military is under civilian command. But stop and ask yourself this question. How often in your lifetime have you see the military submit to a civilian command?

Remember the fight over gays in the military at the beginning of the Clinton terms. Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to allow gays in the military. The military basically told him "No". The result was the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy that left the military basically unchanged.

During the Bush years, there was of course no conflict between the civilian and the military as President Bush seemed determined to always give the military whatever it wanted.

The interesting data point of the Obama first 100 days is that a change in civilian authority led to no change at all in the military command structure. Sec. of Defense Gates remained in charge of the military. Lately we've seen Mr. Gates traveling overseas conducting his own foreign policy in the middle east. And of course, the change in Presidents has led to no change in the war policies, no change in war funding, and continued increases in 'defense' spending.

The story in the link posted below this one speaks a bit about the hostility in the military to the notion of the Democratic Party being in charge. I have no idea why, since the Democrats are a militaristic as the Republicans, but the perception in the military is obviously that the Democrats might actually try to make the military do some things it might not want.

On a holiday, we hear a lot about the patriotism of our people in uniform. Stop and think a bit about just how patriotic they are when they are hostile to a civilian political party that might interfere with their power.

More Jefferson ....

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

This quote seems poignant after two days of watching racing on TV where I've been told repeatedly that the people in the military are superior to the rest of us and require our devotion and support.

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

Its also an interesting quote to remember during election seasons when we are constantly told that candidates who've served in the military are superior to other candidates.

The Democrats have gone quiet again on their desire for a draft. But, with Obama keeping the war in Iraq going and dragging his feet on withdrawing our troops from there, and with Obama expanding the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and with Obama saber rattling and trying to start a war in Iran, at some point it becomes obvious that Obama will need to bring back the draft to accomplish his goals of empire abroad. Most likely, the talk of a draft has gone quiet as Wall Street's crashing of the economy has meant that the military is the only job available to people.

"In this country, [a draught from the militia] ever was the most unpopular and impracticable thing that could be attempted. Our people, even under the monarchical government, had learnt to consider it as the last of all oppressions." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1777. ME 4:286, Papers 2:18

"The breaking men to military discipline is breaking their spirits to principles of passive obedience." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1788. ME 7:19

A note on the last quote. The History channel some times runs a show called the Color of War. Its based on color film footage of WWII. One of the early shows in the series is fascinating. Its about the massive expansion of the American Army from its peace-time size of only tens of thousands of troops, up to the massive multi-million person army needed to fight WWII.

The point this show makes is that in 1940, Americans were a free and independent people, and the military at that time had to put a lot of effort into breaking that independence to make soldiers of them. The contrast to today is striking, where the military is constantly used as the model of behavior throughout our schools and businesses, and where people are broken to military like discipline at an early age.

"If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia and guard the magazines with them. More than magazine guards will be useless if few and dangerous if many. No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.

220 years later, a milita would still be all we'd need to defend ourselves from the Canadian army and the Mexican army. And no European or any other foreign power would seem to have any designs on invading America. And surely, we've far exceeded any 'safe bounds' as to the number of standing troops in a free country.

"Our duty is... to act upon things as they are and to make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened instead of being reserved for what is really to take place." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:424

Ever since WWII, we've had a long and consistent trend of fear mongering about specks of war visible on the horizon used to pour trillions of dollars of our national treasure into building massive standing armies. We are truly never without them, and the economy today says clearly that our resources have become exhausted. We know now after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the 'intelligence' community vastly exaggerated the dangers to America of Soviet military power. And those with a memory remember that current Sec of Def Gates was a leader in the CIA at making those exaggerated inteligence estimates. Its one of the reasons he was rejected by the Senate as CIA director years ago. Yet today, he's become a power in America as commander of the military, with enough power in his hands that he stays in that post even with the election of a President who comes to office promising change.

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

Today's politicians want an unarmed nation with a huge standing army.

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

Today's governors are not allowed to command their own state's National Guard units.

"Peace... has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it... However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care in pursuit of a fantastic honor unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions or the pride of administrators excited by personal incidents in which their citizens have no concern." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

"The state of peace is that which most improves the manners and morals, the prosperity and happiness of mankind." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Worcester, 1817. ME 18:299

"War has been avoided from a due sense of the miseries, and the demoralization it produces, and of the superior blessings of a state of peace and friendship with all mankind." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Queen Anne's Country Republicans, 1809. ME 16:36

Obama and the Big Lies

Barack Obama pledges to keep U.S. 'dominance' from politico.com

Obama gave a speech at the US Naval Academy that rivals Bush both for its unabashed militarism and the bald-faced lies that were given.

“I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support you need to get the job done,” Obama said before an audience estimated at 30,000.

That's a giant whopper of a lie that matches anything from Bush in his term. Think about Afghanistan. Obama is sending more and more of the US military into "harm's way" in Afghanistan. In terms of the security of the United States, this is completely unneccessary, with no clear strategy and no clear goals.

There seems to be no reason at all for members of the US military to be in "harm's way" in Afghanistan. If we withdrew from Afghanistan today, American citizens would never notice. We'll, we'd notice that we have billions of more money to spend trying to solve our own problems. And we'd notice that the body bags would stop coming back. But there is no strategic interest whatsoever in Afghanistan that is worth fighting for. We are fighting for control of one of the poorest countries on earth. Why?

“As our nation debates how to deal with the security challenges that we face, we must remember this enduring truth: the values and ideals in those documents are not simply words written into aging parchment, they are the bedrock of our liberty and our security,” Obama said. “We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to. Not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe.”

Wow. This is from a President that supports spying on the American people. This is from a President who just declared that he will continue the Bush era military trials. In typical Obama fashion, he neglects to mention any details as to what values and ideals in those documents he is defending. That's because if he listed them the hypocrisy of his statement would be blindingly obvious.

Remember, this is from a President who's Dept of Homeland Security has declared that SUPPORTERS of the Bill of Rights are dangerous extremists who need to be watched by the police. This is from a President who has refused to allow any prosecution of crimes against these very values and ideals committed by the previous administration. This is from a President who has blocked any legal action against those who've violated those very values and ideals by unconstitutionally spying on American citizens. This is from a President who has just declared his own power to hold people without trial or any of the due process that is spelled out in those 'values and ideals' he claims to be protecting.

“We will maintain America’s military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen.”

Sounds like Dick Cheney is still setting the policy. This whole article sounds like this could be a Dick Cheney speech.

A Quarrel on the Titanic

A Quarrel on the Titanic by Uri Avnery at counterpunch.org

One of the happiest moments in my life occurred in a restaurant.

It happened before the second intifada. I had invited Rachel to celebrate her birthday with dinner at a famous restaurant in Ramallah.

We were sitting in the garden under strings of colorful lights, the air was fragrant with the perfume of flowers and the waiters were hurrying back and forth with laden trays. We ate Mussakhan, the Palestinian national dish (chicken with tahini baked on pita bread), and I drank arak. Our waiter, who had overheard us talking, took our order in Hebrew. We were the only Israelis there. At the nearby tables, Arab families with the children in their best clothes, as well as a bride and groom with their wedding guests. Bursts of laughter punctuated the murmur of Arabic conversations, and spirits were high.

I was happy, and a sigh escaped me: “How wonderful this country could be, if only we had peace!”

This is what we want. Peace.

This is what the Democrats and the other war-mongers don't understand. That we can indeed all live together in peace. Throughout the entire Bush administration, the Democrat's position was never one of peace. The Democrats always criticized the Bush administration for being incompetent at war. But the Democrats never wanted peace. The Democrats merely claimed that they could be better war-mongers than the Republicans.

We want peace. We want to sit in restaurants, surrounded by those who we used to be told were our enemies, and we want to enjoy pleasant meals and good times.

This is what struck me the most when I was traveling on business in Europe. One could sit in a restaurant and hear so many different languages being spoken around you. Someone like me who's read lots of history knows that all of the speakers of these languages used to fight constant wars against each other. Now you hear the voices and the fluid flow of languages swirl around you while sitting peacefully in a restaurant.

Peace is possible. Most people want peace. Most of the world wants peace these days. This is why our leaders have to put so much time and effort into trying to make us all hate each other. Read the news today, and you see Obama and the Democrats stirring up hatred towards Iran in order to spark yet another war.

What I want, and what I think most people in the world want, would be to sit peacefully at a restaurant in Tehran, maybe on a patio, enjoying a beautiful spring evening with the other human beings around me.

Peace is what we want.

Democrats Betray Labor

Democrats Betray Labor. Card Check is Pronounced Dead by David Macaray at counterpunch.org

Earlier this week it was acknowledged by labor officials and Democratic insiders that the EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act), as presently written, wasn’t going to pass. While the bill may be reintroduced in a different form, the crucial “card check” component has been pronounced dead. Although labor wonks across the country were disappointed by the news, most weren’t surprised by it.

Despite all the hoopla and anticipation, skeptics had predicted long ago that this ambitious bill, which would have provided working people with far greater access to labor unions, had virtually no chance of passing. Why? Because it was too explicitly “pro-labor.”

Big Business and the Democratic Party (despite its lip service) simply couldn’t allow legislation this progressive to become law. Not for nothing has Taft-Hartley remained on the books for 62 years.

The question is, what is Labor going to do about it?

Wall Street gave more money to Obama than to any other candidate in the last election. Meanwhile, Labor also supported Obama. That alone sounds quite bizarre, that Wall Street and Labor would be backing the same candidate in an election. It seems rather obvious that one of the two has made a major mistake and is going to come away disappointed. And anyone who's honestly watched the Democrats for the last 20 years knew it was going to be Labor.

Once upon a time, the Democrats were a party that always had less money than the Republicans, but which could rely on armies of volunteers to help win elections. In the late 80's, the Democrats, led by the DLC, changed this and committed themselves to big money instead. Ever since, the Democrats run well financed campaigns full of expensive advisers and lots of TV ads. And ever since then, the Democrats serve the interests of big money once elected.

This EFCA battle is a perfect example. The leadership of the Democratic party was not willing to anger big contributors by supporting a system where businesses aren't as able to win union elections by intimidation. When push comes to shove, the Democrats back big money .... again.

The leaders of today's labor movements clearly are not representing the interests of their members by supporting Wall Street's candidate list in elections. The question is, when will Labor start to support candidates that truly represent the interests of the workers. When that happens, it will be a political earthquake because for the first time since the 1980's the voice of the workers will be heard in elections and thus in government.

Workers probably should not wait for their union leaders to take them in this direction. It has been obvious since at least the middle of the Clinton terms that the Democrats had allied themselves with business, not with labor. Yet, the union leaders consistently manage to back Wall Street's candidates in elections. It seems rather clear that workers are going to need to move on their own to gain a voice in the American political system.

One thing is perfectly clear. The vast majority of American workers have no voice in the system today. That's what continually backing the Democrats has brought them. Nothing. Its said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over and while expecting different results. So, is Labor going to back the Democrats again in 2010? Or, is Labor going to try something different for a change?

PS ... another article on Labor by Dave Lindorff, A Corporate Crime Wave of Labor Law Violations concludes with this call for street actions:

This is no time to be polite with politicians, and no time to limit political action to writing email letters, signing petitions and making phone calls.

This is a time to call out the corporate managers who are treating the labor laws like so much toilet paper—a time for boycotts, for marches, and for sit-ins.

End the American corporate crime wave of labor law violations!

Demand stiff penalties for breaking labor laws!

Support unionized companies and boycott anti-union companies!

Pass the ECFA, as written, with no compromises!

That's the sort of leadership, coming from the bottom, not from the union's plush executive offices, is what holds the real chance for real change.

What Obama (and Bush) don't want you to see

The Sydney Morning Herald has some of the photos that Obama is working so hard to try to keep you from seeing.

There's one line of this debate that keeps shocking me. We are constantly told that releasing these photos would hurt America's standing in the world. Or that releasing these photos might put American troops in danger of being tortured themselves if captured.

But, its not 'releasing the photos' that has these effects. These effects were instead caused when the torture was authorized and committed. Yes, this hurts America's standing in the world. And it means US military personnel might be tortured some day. But that's the result of the acts of torture themselves.

Releasing the photos could be the first step towards redemption. They tell any alcoholic that the first step towards a better life is admitting that they are an alcoholic. The first step towards ending torture by Americans is admitting that we are torturers. The second step would be bringing those responsible to justice, from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gates on down, as a clear signal that we as Americans do not condone torture.

PS ... a few days later, we have VP Biden making the same ridiculous argument with regard to Guantanamo's prison camp. Now, he's saying the decision to close Guantanamo is 'opening Pandora's Box.'

No Mr. Vice President. It was the decision to OPEN Guantanamo that opened Pandora's Box. Trying to close it is just trying to clean up the mess and contain the damage.

Sound familiar?

The Black Shirts of Guantánamo by Jeremy Scahill via Counterpunch.org

Unfortunately, very little surprising in this article. The US military continues to brutalize prisoners at Gitmo, despite Obama's PR push that pretends we don't torture.

One of the ways we pretend we don't torture is by pretending that this is all something new. Its just a few people out of control. Its just one administration out of control that orders torture. Its just a few people who go too far and abuse prisoners.

The problem is, that's all bull. Here's a portion of Mr. Scahill's piece describing the torture of one Gitmo detainee. He's quoting one of the lawyer's who defends Gitmo prisoners.

"They brought their pepper spray and held him down. They held both of his eyes open and sprayed it into his eyes and later took a towel soaked in pepper spray and rubbed it in his eyes.

"Omar could not see from either eye for two weeks, but he gradually got sight back in one eye.

"He's totally blind in the right eye. I can report that his right eye is all white and milky -- he can't see out of it because he has been blinded by the U.S. in Guantánamo."

The problem is, this sounded sadly familiar. Click on this site to see why. That site has pictures and videos of what Humboldt County (CA) sheriff deputies did to some people who dared to try to protect a forest from people who wanted to clear cut it for profit. This happened back in the 1990's.

From the same nopepperspray.org website ...

officers forcibly seized the heads of each demonstrator, one by one, and repeatedly inserted cotton swabs saturated with oleoresin capsicum pepper spray onto the eyes of each one.
...
The deputies held the head of each Headwaters activist and inserted pepper spray into their eyes with cotton swabs. Seconds later, officers sprayed the substance directly into their faces at close range, from a few inches away.
...
The officers held the heads and swabbed pepper spray around and into the eyes of each the women, one of whom was a sixteen year old girl. After a few minutes they applied a second round of pepper spray swabbing, forcing open the eyelids as shown on the police video. Subsequently, officers applied a full force spray blast to one of the women, plaintiff Terri Slanetz, with the spray nozzle no more than 2" from her eyes.

Remember, several of the guards at Abu Ghraib had experience as US prison guards before going off to do their military reserve duty at Abu Ghraib.

Two of the guards at Abu Ghraib, Ivan L. (Chip) Frederick II and Charles Graner, had careers back home as corrections officers. Graner, whom The New York Times has described as one of "the most feared and loathed of the American guards" at Abu Ghraib, worked at Greene County Prison in Pennsylvania. According to a 1998 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, guards at the Greene facility behaved in ways that eerily anticipate the allegations from Abu Ghraib.

The United States of America tortures. We've done it for years. Our cops have beaten confessions out of prisoners for ages. They still complain that the Supreme Court actually slightly restricted this back in the 60's and 70's. In our foreign policy, we've been associated with torture for ages. Ever since the formation of the CIA after WWII, torture has followed the CIA everywhere they've gone. And it goes back further than that. For instance, read accounts of what the US did in the Phillipines back at the turn of the 20th century. Or read accounts of the Indian wars in this country.

My point is this. If Obama and the Democrats are serious about saying 'We do not torture', they have to do much more than cancel a couple of Bush's executive orders. This noble goal involves changing the entire culture of the United States. If you see the Democrats mounting a major effort to do this, then they are serious in saying that 'we do not torture'.

If all you see is the photo op where they proclaim this noble goal, but then everything continues pretty much as before, then they aren't serious.

What's the difference in how we treat Muslim prisoners and our own citizens? Well, our own citizens can sue in court. They can find a long, brutal, painful legal fight for a decade. And if they are courageous enough to fight that long fight, they can eventually win.

Anne-Marie Cusac has been writing about the abuse in US prisons for years now over at The Progressive magazine. Here's what she wrote after the Abu Ghraib abuse became widely known.

Abu Ghraib, USA
Abu Ghraib, USA
By Anne-Marie Cusac

When I first saw the photo, taken at the Abu Ghraib prison, of a hooded and robed figure strung with electrical wiring, I thought of the Sacramento, California, city jail.

When I heard that dogs had been used to intimidate and bite at least one detainee at Abu Ghraib, I thought of the training video shown at the Brazoria County Detention Center in Texas.

When I learned that the male inmates at Abu Ghraib were forced to wear women's underwear, I thought of the Maricopa County jails in Phoenix, Arizona.

And when I saw the photos of the naked bodies restrained in grotesque and clearly uncomfortable positions, I thought of the Utah prison system.

Donald Rumsfeld said of the abuse when he visited Abu Ghraib on May 13, "It doesn't represent American values."

But the images from Iraq looked all too American to me.

I've been reporting on abuse and mistreatment in our nation's jails and prisons for the last eight years. What I have found is widespread disregard for human rights. Sadism, in some locations, is casual and almost routine.

So Mr. Obama, you say 'we don't torture.' Do you mean it?

Democrats love war

House passes $96.7 billion bill funding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan via Antiwar.com

The House has approved $97 billion for military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure also would pay for anti-flu programs and for additional cargo planes the Pentagon doesn't want.

The 368-60 vote on Thursday reflects bipartisan support for troops in harm's way overseas.

Democrats doing what they love to do. Spending billions of our money on war. Oh, they highlight the few token Democratic voices that oppose this. For instance, the article highlights Rep. Obey as someone who's growing critical of the war in Afghanistan. But here's the joke. It's his bill.

H.R.2346
Title: Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (introduced 5/12/2009) Cosponsors (None)

That's the lying Democrats in a nutshell. They pretend to oppose the war. They pretend to be critical of the policy. But when you look closely, its their name on the bill as the chief sponser of the bill.

So, what do you think matters most to the Afghani and Pakistanis who are dying in increasing numbers. That Rep Obey made some mealy mouthed comments that are kinda-sorta critical of the policy? Or that he just played a leadership role in shepherding through Congress another $100 billion to pay for more killing?

Been saying it for years. With Democrats, you have to watch the ACTIONS. The ACTIONS of Democrats like Obey, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and most of the rest is that they love these wars, and that even when Americans are struggling economically, they gladly give the Pentagon everything its wants, no questions, no strings. In fact, they even added on more money for cargo planes the Pentagon says it doesn't want.

The Democrats try to claim during election season that we must all vote Democrat to keep the Republicans from power. But, if the Republicans didn't exist. If the entire House was only just the Democrats, the war would continue, completely fully funded, by a vote of 200-51.

If you hear the talk, just laugh. Their actions scream that they aren't serious in what they say.

For an interesting intellectual exercise, compare how the Democratic leadership pushes through war funding, that is quickly and efficiently, with how they act on items EFCA or allowing judges to adjust mortgage terms in bankruptcy. The Democrats only seem ineffectual when they want to be. When it comes to giving hundreds of billions to generals or bankers, they are quick and efficient.

PS ... My local, phony liberal Democrat, DeGette, voted for more war and death and destruction. When in front of her very anti-war constituents, she's puts up a fake progressive front that pretends to oppose the war. But, there's her name, signed in blood, approving yet another $100 billion for more war, death and destruction. Typical Democrat. To see how your local Dem voted, click here.

PPS... To end the war, we need to REPLACE 157 members of Congress. How many will we replace in 2010?

The limits of liberalism

The limits of liberalism by Lance Selfa on Socialist Worker.

Another very good piece that's worth following the link above to read the whole thing.

But this modus operandi is becoming a bit of pattern. Already, the administration's policies to address the financial crisis--from the bank bailouts to the rigged "stress tests"--appear to have been designed to disrupt Wall Street's business as usual as little as possible. For this reason, liberal economists like Nobel Laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have denounced the administration's policies as, at best, keeping "zombie banks" on life support--or, at worst, robbing taxpayers.

All of this dismays liberals who believe that they have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact overdue reforms. Instead, they see the administration compromising with big business that has interests in making whatever reforms are passed as toothless as possible

Ok, but here's what the 'liberals' mentioned in this piece don't get. Today's Democratic Party exists precisely to make sure that 'once-in-a-generation' opportunities for reform DO NOT get enacted. The role of the Democrats in today's American political system is to divert energy away from real reform. The role of the Democrats is exactly what Mr. Selfa says in his piece. To make sure that even when the Republican brand crashes and the people run them out of town, that business proceeds as usual with as little disruption to Wall Street as possible.

The Democrats are supposed to use the popular anger against Republican policies to gain power when people get upset at the Republicans. But then, once in power, the Democrats will a) continue the same policies as much as is possible, and b) actively work to block any real reforms that the people might be demanding.

See the piece just below this one on the page about how Sen. Baucus is handling 'health care' reform for an example. The real reform that most of the American citizens would want is declared immediately 'off the table', the interests of the insurance companies, HMO's and big pharma companies are well represented and looked after, and the cops are called should someone dare to stand up and try to talk about national health insurance.

That's no accident. That's the Democrats doing precisely the job they are well paid to do.

A Populist Health Care Rebellion

A Populist Health Care Rebellion by Kevin Zeese via CounterPunch.org

As the hearing began, and Sen. Baucus was speaking a group of about 30 nurses, dressed in their red hospital uniforms, stood up and turned their backs on Baucus. They had pinned to their backs: “Nurses Say: Stop AHIP. Pass Single Payer.” (AHIP is America’s Health Insurance Plans – the health insurance industry lobby.)

The nurses left the room to applause.

Then doctors, nurses and advocates stood up and one by one and spoke directly to Senator Baucus.

DeAnn McEwen, a registered nurse from California said: “Today is Florence Nightingale’s birthday. Florence Nightingale said if there were none to hope for any better, there would never be any better. This country needs a single payer health care system.”

Then, another RN from California stood up: “People at the table have failed Americans for 30 years. We want single payer at the table. We want guaranteed health care so we can give the care we need, when we need to give it.”

She was followed by Dr. Judy Dasovich of Springfield, Missouri, who said “We request that single payer advocates be allowed at the table. Health care should be for patients not for profits.”

Dr. Steven Fenichel of Ocean City, NJ followed adding: “It’s a sense of outrage that brings me to your Senate chambers today. These people were entrusted by the American people to serve the American people’s interests. And they are just serving the interests of the insurance companies and drug companies – the people be damned.”

Jerry Call, a member of Physicians for a National Health Program from South Thomaston, Maine was the final advocate from the audience, speaking for the majority of Americans shut out from the discussion, and saying: “Sixty percent of Americans and sixty percent of physicians want single payer. Why aren’t sixty percent of the people up front not single payer representatives?”

All five were arrested and taken away for booking. They were charged with Disruption of Congress, the same offense I will go to court for on May 26th.

Yes my friends, under this wonderful progressive leadership that we get from the Democrats, trying to speak to Congress about national health insurance is a crime. Try it, and you end up led out of the room in handcuffs.

Of course, people should try to address a congressional hearing in the traditional way. That is by going and testifying before the committee. But, in this case, that avenue has been denied. Our lovely Democrats have issued an imperial degree that single payer health care can not even be discussed. So, they hold hearing after hearing where the representatives of the health insurance companies get a seat at the table, while the supporters of national health insurance are barred from testifying.

"Disruption of Congress". Apparently that's the charge for daring to get in the way of a bunch of Senators who all take money from the health insurance industry as they try to find ways to give more money out of your pocket to the people who bought them.

Must kill more people! Kill! Kill! Kill!

Back to the Balkans by William Lind via Counterpunch.

Now, it seems, our distinguished secretary of state, Madame Clinton, wishes to revisit the scene of the crime. Perhaps looking about for something more promising than fighting Pashtuns, she is rumored to want another round with the Serbs. The demands, this time, are to be Serbian recognition of Kosovo’s "independence" (Kosovo is not a country and never has been; there are no Kosovars, only Serbs and Albanians who live in Kosovo) and the destruction of Republika Serbska, the Serbian portion of Bosnia.

The Democrats seem to be in an unusually blood-thirsty mood. Not happy with keeping the Iraq war going in perpetuity, nor with escalating the Afghan war and, nor with expanding that war into half of Pakistan, and not happy with saber rattling against Iran and letting it slip that they are happy with a war there as long as it happens when they are ready for it, they now apparently want to stir up the Balkans as well.

Boy, I'm sure glad we elected the peace party in the last election.

Just in case people forget, here's Mr. Lind's description of the after effects of the last Democratic 'humanitarian' war in the Balkans.

In fact, the two previous rounds of Balkan fighting and American and NATO meddling have left unstable situations needing only a spark to erupt. Bosnia is a hothouse creation, a figment of the globalist elite’s imagination. Like Oakland, there is no there there. It is a Croat-Muslim "federation" neither party accepts. The Croats want out, and the Muslims want to cut the Croats’ throats. All that keeps the lid on is the money that pours from the foreign troops who occupy the place.

Kosovo remains a festering boil, home to jihadists, drug distribution networks, and other 4GW elements of every sort. Serbia won’t give it up, and the Albanians will not rest until every Serb is gone or dead and every Serbian church or cultural monument is obliterated.

Afghan Govt: US Strike Killed 140 Civilians

Afghan Govt: US Strike Killed 140 Civilians from antiwar.com

An Afghan government commission has concluded that 140 civilians were killed in the United States air strikes in the Farah Province last week

I put this up for several reasons. One is to point out that there is a cost in Obama's escalation in Afghanistan. This story is unique only in the larger than average number of people killed.

Second, it follows a very familiar US military propaganda pattern. First we hear of the event, usually from non-US sources. Stories start to come out about a large number of people killed in a US attack. The first step in the US propaganda campaign is to deny it ever happened. The US military obviously plays for time, so they do this stall first. And probably just hope the story goes away. When the story doesn't go away, they then admit to a lower number of murders, they usually claim that they killed 'terrorists' instead of innocent civilians, and they usually try to blame the other side for somehow faking or creating the massacre.

And lastly, today they tested the local civil defense sirens. Since I didn't know what was going on, I did something I rarely do. I turned on the local TV news. They of course told me nothing about why the sirens were going off. But I did see a story about this massacre on the local ABC affiliate. What was striking was that they referred to this event as a 'battle'. That makes it sound very, very different from what it really was. Especially as a 'battle' would imply that American lives were at risk. It also brings to mind images of a larger, violent, chaotic scene, where it would be more understandable that some civilians might be killed.

What this was instead was a pilot, flying safely overhead and in no danger, following an order to blow up some buildings. Reports are sketchy, but nothing I've seen indicates any fighting going on around the buildings. There are general reports of some other fighting in that part of the province, and apparently enough that the villagers decided to take shelter in these buildings.

This is the price people are paying daily for Obama's 'the right war'. And this is the propaganda we are all constantly exposed to about this 'right war'.

PS ... Afghan President Karsai is calling for the end of air strikes in his country. Imagine the gall of that. Look for the stories out of Washington about how the US isn't happy with Karsai to increase again soon. Don't be surprised if you see that this fall the US is suddenly supporting a new puppet in the Afghan elections.

Change?

The Anti-Empire Report by William Blum via Znet.

Another highly recommended article. This bit near the end caught my eye.

As the Washington Post reported it: "Clinton played down the latest burst of violence, telling reporters she saw 'no sign' it would reignite the sectarian warfare that ravaged the country in recent years. She said that the Iraqi government had 'come a long, long way' and that the bombings were 'a signal that the rejectionists fear Iraq is going in the right direction'."9

So ... the eruption of violence is a sign of success. In October 2003, President George W. Bush, speaking after many resistance attacks in Iraq had occurred, said: "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react."10

And here is Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking in April 2004 about a rise in insurrection and fighting in Iraq over nearly a two-week period: "'I would characterize what we're seeing right now as a - as more a symptom of the success that we're having here in Iraq,' he said ... explaining that the violence indicated there was something to fight against - American progress in building up Iraq."11

War is Peace ... Freedom is Slavery ... Ignorance is Strength. I distinctly remember when I first read "1984" thinking that it was very well done but of course a great exaggeration, sort of like science fiction.

Fascinating how Hillary is now saying exactly the same things that the Bush Administration said. Of course, that's nothing new. That's been true all along as Hillary helped to push us into this war. She just tries to hide that when she runs for elections. But still, the fact that the US Secretary of State is saying exactly the same things today that the Bush Administration said about Iraq is very revealing about American democracy.

Stop and think about how we got here. If you rewind back two years, the 2008 election looked to be shaping up as a contest between some Republican, probably McCain, who would run on continuing Bush's pro-war policies, and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, who would run on a platform of returning the Clinton administration to power. And, since we all know the record of the 1990's, everyone knew that this would be a very Republican-like administration. Especially in foreign policy, where we'd seen the first Clinton administration continue the Bush cold-war against Iraq, start an illegal war in Yugoslavia, and launch missiles whenever they needed a distraction in the news.

The voters in the Democratic Party revolted and rejected this. The voters in the Democratic primaries made it clear that they wanted an alternative to the left of Clinton's Republican-like policies. And it was Obama who capitalized on that revolt. He positioned himself to the left of Hillary. He made hints that he might conduct a foreign policy where we actually talked to countries instead of bombing them. This positioned himself to the left of Hillary who was running around talking about 'obliterating' Iran.

The problem is, it was all a giant fraud. Obama was in no way an alternative to the Reagan\Bush\Clinton\Bush policies. Obama immediately moved to put the senior Clinton people in charge of foreign policy. At least in the areas that he didn't just completely surrender complete control to the Republicans and the generals. And of course, the ultimate symbol of this was to put Hillary in as Secretary of State.

This is very revealing of American elections, and the choices, or lack thereof that are available to the American voters. There was no 'major' candidate in the last election that offered any chance of any 'change' in the direction this country is taking. Given that some 70% of the American citizens have been telling pollsters for several years now that they feel America is 'going in the wrong direction', that's very revealing about American 'democracy'.

Face it, the corporations have no intention of ever giving us a real choice. If the American people really feel we are going in the wrong direction and that its time for a change, they are going to have to reject the candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate money in their accounts. They are going to have to reject the candidates of the corporate parties. The candidates in the elections that might provide real 'change' are the ones that are ignored or sneered at in the corporate media. The candidates in the elections that might provide real 'change' are the ones that need a volunteer to pick them up at the airport and give them a ride because they don't have the hundreds of millions to spend that the corporate candidates always will have.

None of the 'major' candidates will ever give you any real change.

Phony Liberals

Something smells at Whole Foods by Sharon Smith at SocialistWorker.org

There was a time in decades past when liberalism was defined in part by its principled defense of the right to collective bargaining. That liberal tradition was buried by the market-driven neoliberal agenda over the last three decades, allowing companies like Whole Foods to posture as progressive organizations when their corporate policies are based upon violating one of the most basic of civil rights: the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Indeed, Whole Foods has ridden its progressive image to absorb its smaller competitors and emerge as a corporate giant.

As the Texas Observer argued recently, "People shop at Whole Foods not just because it offers organic produce and natural foods, but because it claims to run its business in a way that demonstrates a genuine concern for the community, the environment and the 'whole planet,' in the words of its motto. In reality, Whole Foods has gone on a corporate feeding frenzy in recent years, swallowing rival retailers across the country...The expansion is driven by a simple and lucrative business strategy: high prices and low wages."

Indeed, Whole Foods now stands as the second largest anti-union retailer in the U.S., beaten only by Wal-Mart. Most of Whole Foods' loyal clientele certainly would--and should--shudder at the comparison.

BTW, Whole Foods is one of the companies working hard to fight EFCA.

It doesn't matter what clothes you wear to a business meeting. It doesn't matter if you wear shorts and hiking boots to a business meeting instead of a suit and tie, if the result of the meeting is still the downgrading of employee health care and fighting hard to deny the employees the basic human right to organize and collectively bargain together.