Collateral Damage

'Collateral Damage'. One of the ugly euphemisms of this post-Orwellian age. Usually used to wave away any protests at the killing of innocent civilians. Under today's post-Orwell logic, its a humanitarian act to bomb and kill innocent civilians as long as there was a target who was a bad guy. As long as there is a bad guy as a target, then it doesn't matter how many other innocent people get killed along with them. They are dismissed as collateral damage.

This article (Killer Drones Taking the Place of War by Doug Noble)about the drone wars in Pakistan and elsewhere contained this striking mention.

The targeted killing of al-Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud, for example, took 16 missile strikes over 14 months, with well over 200 mistaken deaths.

That's sourced to an article in the New Yorker.

We killed 200 people to get the one bad guy we were trying to kill. And, it didn't happen in one madly mistaken attack. Nope, it happened over a campaign of one attack after another spread out over 14 months.

The "collateral damage" of the deaths and maimings of innocent civilians is explained away as this un-foreseeable result of a legitimate attack to try to take out a bad guy. But, we've been hearing this for at least a decade now. At what point are these deaths really un-forseeable? If attack after attack kills innocent civilians and more innocent civilians, isn't there some point at which these deaths and maimings become a forseeable consequence of the attacks? If there had been attempted drone strikes against this Al-Qaeda leader, and strike after strike was killing innocent civilians, then isn't there a point where the killing of innocent civilians is a known and foreseeable outcome of more such strikes?

Doesn't the equation change if the killing of innocent civilians is known outcome of the actions? At that point, doesn't this 'collateral damage' just become the blatant cold blooded killing of innocent civilians? Surely by now, the people who launch these strikes know that innocent people are going to die. And thus, by taking the decision to launch yet another drone strike to kill some Al-Qaeda leader, they are deliberately taking the decision to murder and maime innocent civilians? Doesn't the morality of the act change at that point?

We hate terrorists precisely because they are willing to kill innocent people to reach their desired political ends. That's what makes a terrorist 'evil'. Yet, at what point do we become the same as the terrorists? If we deliberately kill 200 people, and maime who knows how many others, in order to take out one person that we've declared a 'bad guy', then how are we any different from the 'bad guy' who's bad precisely because he is willing to kill innocent civlians himself/herself?

Sometimes it helps our clarity of vision to turn something around and look at it from the other direction. If Osama Bin Laden had declared one person in the World Trade Center to be a 'bad guy' in his mind, say perhaps one of John Perkins' "economic hitmen", would we have accepted as okay OBL's then further claim that the killing of the rest of the 3000 people who died on 9-11 to be just 'collateral damage' to this attack?

Hardly. We'd have dismissed that as the psychotic ravings of a dangerous madman. What makes a terrorist evil in our minds is the very notion that they might at any time be willing to kill tens or hundreds or thousands of us in order to reach their goal. But, who are we if we are also willing to kill tens or hundreds or thousands of innocent people as 'collateral damage' to achieve our goal?

The question all of this leads to is "how do we expect this to end?" Do we expect that somehow we can kill every 'bad guy' in the world, and thus magically achieve some sort of peace? That seems a dangerous fantasy. Especially when every killing of a bad guy takes out tens or hundreds or more of innocent people around him. Innocent people who have mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters who love them and who feel loss and anger at their deaths and who are then willing to become 'bad guys' themselves in order to seek revenge on the people who killed their loved ones.

We've used the deaths of the 3000 people on 9-11 as an excuse to kill thousands if not millions of people in country's spread around the world. That's our anger and our fear over being attacked. We vow retribution for our dead, and we want to end the fear of another attack. And yet, if every action we take leaves tens or hundreds of innocent people dead and maimed, isn't it likely that the relatives and countrypeople of our innocent dead will vow retribution upon us? That they will then act in such a way to try to end the fear that they now legitimately have that their world will again explode tomorrow as a missile from an unseen drone explodes on their street or in their house.

It seems quite possible that in taking out this one Al-Qaeda terrorist, that we have instead created more than one new terrorist from the relatives and countrypeople of the two hundred people we killed along the way. If that is true, then we are further away from peace, we are further away from living without fear of another terrorist attack, than we were when we launched this drone campaign.

How does this end? At some point, there must be peace. Or, do we truly believe that we can bomb and missile strike around the rest of the world for ever and ever? I'm sure the people who sell the drones and missiles want that to be the result. But, do we the people want this war to continue and continue and continue? Do we want to bequeath to our children and grand-children this world of murder and fear where they have to always live in fear of another terrorist attack? Do we want our children and grandchildren to some day stand in fear and shock and dismay at the news of some new terror attack against us?

If the goal is to someday live without fear, then the current war appears to be the wrong solution. If we kill so many people to get one terrorist, then it seems likely that we are creating more terrorists than we kill.

How does this end? It seems that if we want peace, then we have to put an end to this. Perhaps there are bad people out there who we need to capture or kill for our own safety. But, if that's the case, then it also seems that we need a way to do this that doesn't create more new terrorists because of the death and destruction and maimings and fear that must result from such drone strikes.

If we want this to end, then we can not act like the terrorists. We have to stop this sort of killing. Its not leading towards peace. Instead this just creates more hatred and more killing and more and more people who'd like to see Americans experience the same horror that they experienced when their neighborhood suddenly exploded from a missile from an unseen drone.

How do we want this to end? To me, any 'good' ending requires that we do as little damage as possible along the way.

Its fascinating to hear that we have to avoid putting our soldiers and pilots at risk in order to do the killing that we say is neccessary for our safety. But, isn't that their job? Isn't that what they signed up to do? Anyone who joins the military is making a deliberate decision to put themselves at risk to protect the rest of us. That's what is so honorable about military service. Yet, we are following strategies that while keeping our soldiers and pilots safe, we create greater danger for the rest of us. That's the opposite of what the military is supposed to be doing. Instead of taking risks themselves to keep the rest of us safe, they are keeping themselves safe while increasing the risks that the rest of us might some day face another dangerous terrorist attack.

Then of course we are told that we have to give our national treasure as well as our hard-earned constitutional rights and liberties away because of the threat of future terror attacks.

How do we expect this to end? Shouldn't our actions today be based on that outcome that we want? Do we want peace? Or do we really want perpetual and never ending war, and the future of never ending terror attacks on our civilians that this implies? I don't think so. Poll after poll suggests the American people want peace. They want the wars to end. If so, then we need to start acting in such a way that we can someday reach the peace we want. If that's the case, then the killing of 200 people to get one Al-Qaeda leader is a defeat for us and our hopes and dreams. That just means that there will be more war that goes on and on and on and on like the little pink bunny that advertises batteries.

Share

We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident

(from the Declaration of Independence)
"-- that all persons are created equal,
-- that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
-- that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among persons, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that humankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now, what made this different from other political writings?

"we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Its the last line that really created America. A willingness to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of Liberty.

Enjoy the fireworks!

Share

Independence Day

That's the name of the holiday.

INDEPENDENCE DAY.

Its not called 'the Fourth of July', although that's what you see in many corporate sources.

Every winter, we get to hear one corporate news channel talk about the war on Christmas. But,no one dares to change the name of Christmas to the "Twenty Fifth of December". Can you imagine how Bill O'Reilly would howl about that? Yet, its frequent to hear the name of our national birthday changed to the square of an otherwise meaningless box on a calendar.

Independence Day is the name of the holiday. Independence Day is the day we celebrate our Independence. Or, at least the fact that somewhere around these parts about 235 years ago, some people pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to throwing off the rules and armies and taxes and police of a tyrant, and decided to live free or die.

Happy Independence Day!!!!!!!!

Share

Back again

Sorry, been off doing other stuff for awhile. :)

Meanwhile, the nuclear plants in NE haven't melted down, although I still suspect the situation was more dangerous than the US media was telling anyone. The US Army still has its occupation troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. And probably lots of other places that I don't think of off the top of my head. For that matter, I grew up in the South, and there are a lot of permanent military bases there a 150 years after that war ended.

Meanwhile, the tour de chemists is beginning in France. There's a strange situation where last year's winner, who as per TDF tradition of late failed a drug test during the race, being allowed to race in this year's race while he appeals the decision stripping him of last year's title and suspending him from the sport. The question is, who are the chemists backing this year. If you do a quick google search, you'll find the 2007 winner, Floyd Landis was stripped of his title as well. As did 2006 winner Jan Ulrich. Every year, more cyclists are banned from the sport for failing drug tests. And of course, the most famous American cyclist, Lance Armstrong has been accused of taking banned drugs as well. Most notably by another top level American cyclist, Tyler Hamilton, who failed is own drug tests in his day. Alberto Contador in just the latest in the long, long line of people who decide that riding bycycles up the alps isn't a normal thing to do and that they need some help to accomplish these super-human feets.

So, anyone want to start a pool? Who will be banned for failed drug tests this year? Or, maybe just pick a date on the calendar when this year's super human is caught doing the things that make him super-human?

Share

Slow withdrawals

Think the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan are going slow? 69 years after invading Okinawa, the Obama administration still can't meet a deadline for shifting out of one of our permanent bases there.

Okinawa row: Japan and US drop Futenma airbase deadline

Japan and the US have agreed to drop a 2014 deadline to move a controversial US airbase on the island of Okinawa.

Officials from both nations said the Futenma airbase, near the provincial capital of Naha, would be moved "at the earliest possible date after 2014".

But they did not specify a date for the relocation.

Based on this set of data, we'll still be seeing whoever's president in 2072 telling us that they still can't get the troops out of Iraq, and can't give a date for when it will occur.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the relocation of Futenma airbase was still critical to US policy in the region.

"Doing so will reduce the impact of our presence on local residents in Okinawa while allowing us to maintain capabilities critical to the alliance in Japan," he said.

What on earth is so dang critical to Americans that we have to be paying for all these troops and planes to be in Japan 70 years after the end of the war? Bring the troops home!

Share

Close Americas' Fukushimas

In the United States, there are 23 operating reactors of the same GE boiling water reactor design that was built at Fukushima.  Beyond Nuclear has a petition to the NRC to suspend operations at these reactors pending reviews.

I don't know how much good it will do, but I certainly agree with the petition and thus I was happy to sign it.  I'd encourage others to do so as well.

Cooper - Mon. 6-20-11

One of these American Fukushima's is the Cooper nuclear power plant in Nebraska.  Cooper is one of two reactors threatened by high flood waters on the Missouri River.  And its probably the more dangerous of the two. Not only because its the same design as Fukushima, but because its up and operating while the other reactor, Ft. Calhoun, has been shut down for refueling since early April.

If the flood waters take out the connection to the electric grid that normally provides power to the cooling pumps, and at the same time takes out the emergency backup generators, then we could very well have an American Fukushima in the heart of our country.  Nuclear reactors are of course incredibly hot.  And, they don't shut down that heat at the flip of a switch like you can with a steam boiler. The radioactive decay products from the nuclear reaction continue to generate heat in the core long after the control rods are lowered into the reactor to slow down and stop the fission chain reaction.

Ft. Calhoun - Mon 6-20-11

Fukushima's fission chain reactions were successfully shut down within seconds of the detection of the very first waves of the offshore earthquake.  But, that didn't prevent disaster from occurring.  The problem is this very hot reactor core that requires cooling for a long time after the reaction is stopped.  Fukushima lost its connection to the electric grid in the earthquake. Then Fukushima lost its backup generators to the tsunami.  They had battery power for a few hours, but when that failed, the pumps could no longer pump cooling water and disaster followed very quickly.  We are now finally being informed officially that the cores at Fukushima 1, 2 and 3 were all melting within hours of losing the last battery power to the cooling pumps.

So, if those flood waters breach sandbag walls, and take out the main power line to the plant as well as the backup diesel generators, we'd be only hours from having nuclear reactor cores doing meltdowns in America's heartland.

Pray to whatever gods you got that those sandbag walls hold. If those sandbags don't hold, a lot of America will be wishing the NRC had done what Beyond Nuclear is petitioning for. That is closing Cooper nuclear power plant, and the other's that share the GE design built at Fukushima, pending a rigorous safety review.

Share

Japan's new anti-nuclear resistance

Japan's new anti-nuclear resistance by Chirs Kim of Socialist Worker.

http://www.nnistar.com/gmap/fukushima.html

These protests also marked the arrival of a new generation of organizers largely new to political activism. According to Labornet Japan, "Nearly 90 percent of participants were young people in their 20s and 30s, and most of them were taking part in this kind of action for the first time and found out the mobilization through the Internet...The participation of such a large number of young people is a groundbreaking moment in the history of Japan's social movements."

Thus, in the midst of tragedy, something positive was emerging. Organizer Hajime Matsumoto expressed the enthusiasm that many shared at the sight of this new wave of protest. "Something has begun," said Matsumoto. "Otherwise, Japan will collapse."

What's more, the disarray within the Japanese ruling class was becoming increasingly stark. On April 8, Masayoshi Yoshino, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party (similar to the Republican Party in the U.S.) and a member of parliament from the Fukushima prefecture, held a news conference to declare:

"As a person who has had a pro-nuclear stance, I'm totally at a loss at the moment as to whether we should continue to promote Japan's nuclear energy sector...I know in my head that I should make a decision only when we have a thorough investigation into what happened. But my instinct tells me, "No more nuclear plants.""

No more nuclear plants. We can't afford many more maps like these.

BTW, you might have missed it since Fukushima seems unmenationable now in the US media, but Japan disclosed that Fukushima had been releasing twice as much radiation as had been previously admitted to.  After all, important stuff like Weiner's weiner pictures were dominating the news then.  One thing that's not being discussed is how Fukushima is releasing far more radiation than Chernobyl did (follow link for good maps).  And, at this point, remember that nothing has been done to close off those damaged Japanese reactors. They are still open to the air and spewing radiation.

There's one thing that's been true from Three Mile Island to Chernobyl to Fukushima.  Whatever you hear from the power company and the government, its always much worse.  The scary thought is what that means for the reactor in NE that's going under the Missouri River flood waters, and about which what little media coverage there's been in the US as been very reassuring.

The best way to avoid having to worry about getting your own updated radiation maps for your neighborhood after yet another nuclear disaster is organize and not let them build or continue to operate a nuclear facility near you.

My instinct is yelling at me .... "No More Nuclear Plants".

Waging Another Unconstitutional War

Waging Another Unconstitutional War by Ralph Nader.

The expanding immunities of the Executive branch, now increasingly embracing the military contractors of the corporate state, is destroying the remaining pretensions that we are a nation under law. When he was inaugurated as President in January 2009, President Obama said he wanted his Administration to be known as one of "transparency and the rule of law." You'll recall during his 2008 campaign he trumpeted that he would obey the Constitution, inferring the the Republican regime was trampling the Rule of Law.

Indeed in 2007, then Senator Barack Obama stated that "the president does not have any power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Vice President Biden was even more vehement on this issue. And Secretary of Defense Robert Gates originally opposed the attack on Libya before falling in line.

One thing you'll hear on the internet is that politics doesn't matter because you get this same result no matter who you elect. It now appears obvious that whether the electorate had selected Obama, McCain or Hillary, we'd still be in all our wars including our new one in Libya.

But, this ignores the fact that there were other names on the ballot in 2008 besides McCain and Obama. Read this piece by Ralph Nader, and ask whether or not US policy might be very different today if the electorate had chosen Ralph Nader to be President. Or, in the last election, I voted for Cynthia McKinney. She's another strong voice against these wars, and US policy would certainly be different if the electorate had elected her.

Nothing kept people from doing this. There's this loud message of course, that these candidates can't win. But, that's only true when the American people walk into a voting booth and select Obama or McCain over these other choices. Nothing stopped the American people from ending these wars in 2008 by electing someone like Ralph Nader as President.

At some point, when people have had enough, they need to stop voting for the same people who keep inflicting these policies they don't want upon them.

A very simple rule to follow to do this would be to stop voting for the candidates with all the money. When you see a candidate with enough money to flood television stations with their ads, people need to realize that this means that the candidate is already bought by the money that paid for those ads. Whether the party of the candidate is (D) or (R) is irrelevant. To get real change, try voting for the broke candidates who can't afford TV ads. At least you've got a chance that they might not already be bought.

Nebraska nuclear reactor dry though surrounded by flood

Nebraska nuclear reactor dry though surrounded by flood

The Fort Calhoun nuclear power station in Nebraska remains shut down due to Missouri River flooding, but the plant itself has not flooded and is expected to remain safe, the federal government said Friday.

The rising river "has certainly affected the site, but the plant itself, the actual reactor is still dry," said Scott Burnell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman.

The 478-megawatt plant north of Omaha shut April 9 to refuel, and has remained shut because of the flooding, said Omaha Public Power District spokesman Jeff Hanson.

When you read something like this, is it meant to inform the public. Or is it meant to reassure the pubic? Not that a news story can't do both sometimes. But, you have to wonder which way the balance tilts when push really comes to shove. This article is based entirely on sources at the power company and the NRC. The reporter certainly got lots of reassurance from these sources. But, the question remains in the back of my mind as to whether the reporter would have gotten important information the public needs to know if it wasn't reassuring? Which comes first, reassurance or informing?

There's so much reassurance in here that its actually hard to spot the important pieces of information. Here's what I see buried in this story.

1) The reactor was shut down for refueling on April 9th. That's the best news you could get about a nuclear reactor upwind of you. That it has been shut down. In this case, it means the large reservoir of heat that sits at the core of a nuclear reactor, and which needs constant cooling, has had two months to dissipate. That's probably the biggest difference between this site and Fukushima. Fukushima was running up until the moment the earthquake alarms went off, and thus was at full heat.

BTW, do you notice in this Reuters piece that the word "Fukushima" isn't even mentioned? Really? A major incident at a nuclear plant just months after Fukushima, and yet the word doesn't even make it in to this news report. You'd think at least they'd be reassuring people that it isn't another Fukushima. But, apparently that's the word that can no longer be spoken.

2) One scary fact is that they are having to do additional earth moving to provide flood protection. That's rather hidden in this story. There's a very odd paragraph that begins with a fact about the ownership of the power plant. The first time I read it, my eyes glazed over and I guess I assumed the rest of the paragraph was boring stuff like that. But, no, after that first sentence, the paragraph jumps sideways into telling you that there are people on the site building emergency dikes to keep the water away from important areas. The fact that crews are out there racing against time and rising flood waters to build dikes around the sensetive areas of a nuclear power plant is presented in such a boring fashion as to provoke yawns. Until you realize that you should be cheering the fact that this was completed before the flood waters got that high.

What I would rather have heard was that the site was originally designed to stay above these flood waters. I'm glad they got their emergency dike up in time. But, I'd rather that a site next to a river have been designed with enough prudence and forethought that such an emergency dike wasn't even needed.

3) After Fukushima, you'd think reporters would know to at least ask the right questions? Does the plant still have off-site power to power the control rooms and cooling pumps? Apparently yes. But its very understated in this article. I'm guessing the 'switch yard' protected by the dike is a key part of this, but its hard to tell. The second question would concern the emergency diesel generators that would need to power the pumps should the off-site power be lost. Deep in a quote from an NRC spokesperson you see that extra earthworks have been completed to protect these important generators.

What they don't tell you is that this is still scary as to how close this plant can come to having a Fukushima in Missouri. If the plant had been operating, instead of being shut down for scheduled refueling, that connection to off-site power and those diesel generators are all that stands between safety and another Fukushima in America's heartland. The heat in a nuclear reactor must be dissipated away. Cooling water propelled by electric pumps provide this capacity. Diesel generators are the backup to this system. If both systems fail, then the reactor core is no longer cooled. When the reactor is no longer being cooled, the temperature rises quickly and very quickly the reactor component start to melt.

We've now been told what was already obvious. That the reactor cores at Fukushima melted within hours of the earthquake/tsunami. This is what happened. The cooling pumps failed when they lost power. The reactor quickly overheated without the cooling water, and the cores were melting within hours.

Its good news that this isn't happening right now in Missouri. The best news was that the reactor was already shut down. That's the safest state for a nuclear reactor. For the safety of all downwind, it should stay that way. If that wasn't true, then you'd better be praying hard that some hastily constructed temporary dikes and sandbags keep the flood water away from the key components which keep the reactor core from melting.

Oh, by the way, the refueling cycle of a nuclear reactor is about 18 months I believe. That means, this reactor will probably be up and running during next year's late spring flood season along the Missouri. And for a fair number of the rainy seasons to come. Hope they keep the sandbags handy. The bad news is that something only has to go wrong once.

Republicans defeat Pelosi and the pro-war Democrats

The Republican controlled US House of Representatives did something that the Democrat controlled House never did. They voted to cut off funding to a war. They passed and amendment to the Defense Dept authorization bill that banned money being "prohibit the use of funds in contravention of the War Powers Resolution."

Nancy Pelosi voted against the amendment, and thus in favor of more war in Libya. My local faux-progressive representative, Diane DeGette, also voted in favor of more war. She talks quite nicely about her opposition to war, until the chips are down back in DC and her vote is needed to help keep a war going. She never fails to deliver up her vote for longer wars and more deaths when its really needed. Jared Polis, the other supposedly 'progressive' representative from Colorado also voted for more war.

The vote did largely split party lines. 138 Republicans voted yes, and 110 Democrats. If you want to see a list of the Democrats who will support Obama straight into the hell of a continuing war, click on the link to go see the roll call for this vote. If you want the wars to end, this is a list of the 70 Democrats that would be good to vote out of the US House. A lot of these pro-war Democrats represent anti-war districts. Pelosi representing San Francisco is just one prime example.

Of course, the Democrats still control the Senate, so its a pretty fair bet that the Defense Dept authorization bill that passes the Senate won't include this provision. That means it probably goes to conference committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions. Eventually the pro-war Republican leadership, that is apparently a minority in its own caucus on Libya, will negotiate a deal with the Senate leadership on the final shape of this bill. My guess is this provision gets dropped then, and the majority in the House that voted against the war in Libya will be told to accept the bill without it.

This world keeps getting more surrealistic. Electing a Democrat house in 2006 just kept the wars going uninterrupted. But the Tea Party rise leads to a Republican House that finally takes the step that most Democratic voters have wanted for a decade .... a vote to cut off funds to a war. And it happens over the No votes of the Democratic leadership.

To me, the question really is, how long will anti-war voters and activists continue to support the pro-war Democrats?

The sit-down strikes

The sit-down strikes by Sharon Smith at SocialistWorker.org

The years 1936 and 1937 represented the highest point of class struggle in the U.S. to date--when a wave of sit-down strikes swept across U.S. industry. Those strikes built the Congress of Industrial Organizations and changed the face of the labor movement.

Ever watched a modern corporate manager try to handle the job of someone beneath them? Its usually pretty funny. I first worked in the restaurant industry, and there it was very common for a restaurant manager to be able to do any job in the place if needed. They could step in and cook, or tend bar, or wait tables or whatever. I found the corporate world to be very different. Most corporate managers would be able to very little of the work that the people who work from them do every day.

Wonder what they'd do if they came out of the conference rooms and found no one there?

Thus, the Flint sit-downers had daily meetings of all strikers in the plant. They organized routine clean-up rituals, defense drills, recreation and even "courts" where grievances could be raised (many, apparently, in jest, as a form of entertainment.)

Strike supporters and families organized the picket lines and food supplies, and raised money for the strikers. Solidarity networks of union activists organized unionists to come to Flint to take part in solidarity actions and mass picketing.

In short, factory occupations give workers a taste of taking real control over their own lives. That's why after the strike was over, many of the Flint sit-downers recalled their experience inside the plant with genuine affection.

As one worker, quoted in Jeremy Brecher's book Strike, put it, "We are all one happy family now. We all feel fine and have plenty to eat. We have several good banjo players and singers. We sing and cheer the Fisher boys and they return it."

According to one historian, there were 170 sit-downs in GM plants alone between March and June 1937. One GM worker later recalled, "every time a dispute came up, the fellows would have a tendency to sit down and just stop working."

The use of the sit-down made the strike wave of 1936-37, which built the CIO, the highest point of class struggle in the history of the U.S. labor movement. And the workers who were involved were changed forever by the sit-downs, in their awareness of their own power as a class.

Clubmates

The Club of Torturers had an informal meeting at the White House yesterday.

White House affirms relationship with Bahrain, detentions and prosecutions continue

As the Bahraini government continued its crackdown on largely Shiite pro-democracy groups, the Obama administration reaffirmed its friendship with Bahrain this week.

More Shiites were arrested and about 50 medical workers were charged by the Bahraini government this week. The government has accused the doctors and nurses of supporting the pro-democracy protests that the government has been trying for months to stop. Reuters reported yesterday that the medics have been denied access to their attorneys.

The Crown Prince of Bahrain, Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, paid a visit to the White House yesterday and met with State Department officials as well as President Obama. There, the Obama administration’s soft touch on Bahrain continued, with Obama urging the Sunni monarch to “hold accountable” those responsible for human rights abuses without specifying who be held accountable, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Gee, could it be that the first person to hold accountable is the Crown Prince who's sitting in the expensive chairs at the White House as an honored guest? No, let me guess, at some point the Crown Prince will declare that after much investigation it was determined that it was the victims fault that they were tortured. As a remedy, he'll round up any survivors and punish them further for causing themselves to be tortured.

I wonder if Obama's club of torturers and assassins has official t-shirts and hats? Does the secret handshake  include breaking the fingers of a prisoner? Is there a minimum number of people you have to torture before you get invited to the White House for your initiation into the club? The bad news is that Mistress Hillary is in charge of your initiation ceremony. From the look on the Crown Prince's face, this may be something that has only just occurred to him.

What's Missing in This Story?

U.S. wants ‘joint bases’ in Afghanistan, Gates says by Karen De Young in the Washington Post.

I won't quote any of this corporate media piece. That's because my comment isn't about what's written in the article. The article covers Gates' announcement of plans for a nearly permanent occupation of Afghanistan.

No, the key is what's missing from this article. If you read this article, what is the important bit of information that the article never covers?

Why is the US going to have a permanent occupation of Afghanistan? After all, this started as a raid to go get Osama Bin Laden after he attacked us on 9-11. Osama is dead. Whatever bases he had in Afghanistan have long since been found, destroyed or abandoned. If another band of terrorists were to set up a base there, we could always bomb it or missile it any time we wanted. So, why on earth is it in the US national interests to permanently occupy Afghanistan? Why is occupying Afghanistan somehow more important to us as a nation than paying teachers for our children?

Pentagon Papers Online

Before you give over any cash to the Nixon Library, realize that most of the Pentagon Papers are already available online.

Daniel Ellsberg points out to CNN that all of the illegal acts that Nixon did against him are now perfectly legal.

Tricky Dick was just ahead of his time.

These days, when you find yourself thinking about Richard Nixon, what comes to mind?

Richard Nixon, if he were alive today, might take bittersweet satisfaction to know that he was not the last smart president to prolong unjustifiably a senseless, unwinnable war, at great cost in human life. (And his aide Henry Kissinger was not the last American official to win an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize.)

He would probably also feel vindicated (and envious) that ALL the crimes he committed against me–which forced his resignation facing impeachment–are now legal.

That includes burglarizing my former psychoanalyst's office (for material to blackmail me into silence), warrantless wiretapping, using the CIA against an American citizen in the US, and authorizing a White House hit squad to "incapacitate me totally" (on the steps of the Capitol on May 3, 1971). All the above were to prevent me from exposing guilty secrets of his own administration that went beyond the Pentagon Papers. But under George W. Bush and Barack Obama,with the PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendment Act, and (for the hit squad) President Obama's executive orders. they have all become legal.

There is no further need for present or future presidents to commit obstructions of justice (like Nixon's bribes to potential witnesses) to conceal such acts. Under the new laws, Nixon would have stayed in office, and the Vietnam War would have continued at least several more years.

Likewise, where Nixon was the first president in history to use the 54-year-old Espionage Act to indict an American (me) for unauthorized disclosures to the American people (it had previously been used, as intended, exclusively against spies), he would be impressed to see that President Obama has now brought five such indictments against leaks, almost twice as many as all previous presidents put together (three).

He could only admire Obama's boldness in using the same Espionage Act provisions used against me–almost surely unconstitutional used against disclosures to the American press and public in my day, less surely under the current Supreme Court–to indict Thomas Drake, a classic whistleblower who exposed illegality and waste in the NSA.

Drake's trial begins on June 13, the 40th anniversary of the publication of the Pentagon Papers. If Nixon were alive, he might well choose to attend.

My introduction to politics was the time of the Watergate hearings. Back when there were only four networks, my Mom always had the PBS live broadcasts of those hearings on in the house. Little did I realize then, that forty years later all of our Presidents would make Tricky Dick look like a choir boy. And that it would become perfectly legal for them to do so.

What we've seen in Washington is an apparent agreement that neither party will challenge or prosecute the other party for crimes committed. They seem to have reached a deal where everything goes, as long as its for both parties. And, along the way, they've made every awful thing that Tricky Dick did legal.

For someone who's first lesson in politics in America was a litany of the crimes of Tricky Dick, that does really make one pause and realize just how far down the slippery slope we've slid since the days of the Watergate hearings.

"Tin Soldiers and Nixon coming
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the calling
Four Dead in Ohio."

These days, President Obama would just have to declare the Kent State students to be terrorists and then order in a drone strike.

But They Are Our Death Squad States.

Obamaland in this hemisphere. And yes, it involves more dead bodies.
The Killing Continues as US Doubles Down on Failed Trade Policies by Dan Kovalik

Colombia remains a death squad state - with the full support of the U.S. -- a "Genocidal Democracy," in the words of renowned Colombian human rights advocate Father Javier Giraldo. That Colombia is nonetheless the closest ally of the U.S. in the Hemisphere, however, should not be surprising as the U.S. has never seen a death squad government in this Hemisphere that it hasn't liked or sponsored. Indeed, the violence happening in Guatemala today is a continuation of the violence that the U.S. unleashed decades ago when, at the urging of United Fruit (now Chiquita), it overthrew the democratic government of President Arbenz and installed a military dictatorship which proceeded to kill around 200,000 civilians in the succeeding years.

Against this background, Secretary of State Clinton announced this past week that she is certain that the Colombia FTA will be introduced by the Obama Administration in the very near future. Bill Clinton's own confession before the Senate last year that such free "trade policies have failed everywhere they have been tried," should ring in Secretary Clinton's ears and in the ears of President Obama. And, recent events in Guatemala prove how such policies have been a failure in guaranteeing labor and human rights. Still, the Administration seems doomed by its own ideological dedication to free trade and free market principles to push through another bad trade deal with Colombia - a deal which will ratify Colombia's continued gross violations of human and labor rights.

Everyone should see the picture clearly. The reason this occurs is money. Some people make a lot of money off these 'free trade deals'. Those people give some of that money to the politicians that make the deals happen. That's why this happens. The left seems to like to wander off into vague generalities about an "Administration seems doomed by its own ideological dedication to free trade and free market principles". The problem with that, is that if you don't see the problem clearly and if you don't define the problem clearly, then you don't have much more than a prayer of solving the problem.

Defining the problem as a vague 'idealogical dedication' leaves the answer to the problem even more shrouded in vagueness. But, if you say the problem is simply that people who make a lot of money off cheap labor and raw materials from Latin America are buying off our politicians so they get the trade deals they want, not withstanding the murders and the bodies and the immigrants fleeing poverty that the trade deals bring, then at least you know what the problem is.

And the solution. We still have elections in this country. Stop voting for the politicians who do stuff like this. Learn to look at the money before the election so you can then predict that since Obama had wall street's millions behind him that a vote for Obama was a vote for these sorts of policies.

There are usually other candidates on the ballot. And there's at least a chance that if you elect one of these then you might at least get someone honest enough to not be bought. Especially if they are running a broke campaign without any money. Then you know they haven't been bought. That's who to vote for if you want to change this.

Party Guests Who Stay Too Long

Planet Earth Doesn't Know How To Make It Any Clearer It Wants Everyone To Leave by The Onion.

EARTH—According to a statement released to the press Tuesday, the planet Earth has "just about run out of ways" to let its roughly 6.9 billion human inhabitants know it wants them all to leave.

Following a recent series of disastrous floods along the Mississippi River and destructive tornadoes across much of the United States—as well as a year of even deadlier natural catastrophes all over the world—the Earth said its options for strongly implying that it no longer wants human beings living on it have basically been exhausted.

"At this point, I think I've stated my wishes quite loudly and clearly," the Earth's statement to all of humanity read in part. "I haven't exactly been subtle about it, you realize. I have literally tried to drown you, crush you, starve you, dehydrate you, pump you full of diseases, and suck your homes and families into swirling vortices of death. Honestly, what more is it going to take for you people to get the message?"

"Do I have to spell it out for you?" the statement continued. "Get the fuck out of here. I want you to leave now."

Anyone got a copy of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe handy? Seems like we need to find a new planet for this party. The landlady here is getting mad.

A Frat House With Guns.

How Not to Withdraw From Iraq by Peter Van Buren via CounterPunch.org.

Peter Van Buren spent a year in Iraq as a State Department Foreign Service Officer serving as Team Leader for two Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Now in Washington, he writes about Iraq and the Middle East at his blog, We Meant Well.

He details what Obama's and Hillary's vision for the new and improved occupation of Iraq will look like. If, and its a big if, the military can be convinced to actually withdraw and hand Iraq over, its Hillary's State Dept that will be running the show in Iraq in the future. And SOS Hillary will have an army of mercenaries at her disposal. Gee, wonder what these guys will be paid to do?

The past mayhem caused by contracted security is well known, with massacres in public squares, drunken murders in the Green Zone, and the like. Think of the mercs as what the Army might be like without its NCOs and officers: a frat house with guns.

Most of them are Americans, though with a few exotic Brits and shady South Africans thrown in. They love 5.11 clothing and favor fingerless leather gloves. Think biker gang or Insane Clown Posse fan boys.

Popular is a clean-shaven head, no moustache but a spiky goatee teased straight out. You know the look from late-night convenience store beer runs. They walk around like Yosemite Sam, arms out as if their very biceps prevented them from standing straight. They're bullies of course, flirting inappropriately with women and posturing around men. Count on them to wear the most expensive Oakley sunglasses and the most unnecessary gear (gold man-bracelets, tactical hair gel). Think: Jersey Shore rejects.

Aggressive tattoos on all exposed skin seem a prerequisite for membership in Club Merc, especially wavy inked patterns around the biceps and on the neck. They all let on that they were once SEALS, Green Berets, SAS, or Legion of Doom members, but of course they "can't talk about it." They're not likely to disclose last names and tend to go by nicknames like Bulldog, Spider, Red Bull, Wolverine, or Smitty.

If arrogance was contagious they'd all be sneezing. All Aryan, all dudely, and now all that stands between those thousands of State Department personnel and Iraq. Oh yes: the seersuckered and bow-tied diplomats are supposed to supervise the mercs and keep them on the right diplomatic path, kind of like expecting the chess club to run herd on the football team.

Doesn't Hillary's Iraq sound just wonderful?

Now, think back to the last election and all the wonderful talk you heard about how Hillary was this super wonderful progressive who would make the world better if we'd only give her the power to do so. She instead becomes the paymaster for mercenaries. Its not that Hillary has changed a bit. Its that you were lied to during the last elections.

Clinton: I won't fund Iraq war without withdrawal plan turns out to be SOS Hillary signing the paychecks of the mercenaries in Iraq to keep us there forever.

The key lesson is that Democrats always run as progressives in the primaries, and always appeal to that base as needed in the general election. The problem is, the track record is that they are lying when they do so. This means in a future election, when you hear some Democrat saying all these wonderful progressive things, you have to remember that they are lying. Their calls not to fund a permanent occupation of Iraq will become their ruling actions of becoming the paymaster of the mercenaries for the permanent occupation of Iraq.

Just remember, (D) is for Liar.

One in four US hackers 'is an FBI informer'

One in four US hackers 'is an FBI informer' by Guardian(UK)

The underground world of computer hackers has been so thoroughly infiltrated in the US by the FBI and secret service that it is now riddled with paranoia and mistrust, with an estimated one in four hackers secretly informing on their peers, a Guardian investigation has established.

Cyber policing units have had such success in forcing online criminals to co-operate with their investigations through the threat of long prison sentences that they have managed to create an army of informants deep inside the hacking community.

And of course, the FBI is a beauracracy that will re-use the same playbook when dealing with any organization.

Thou Shall Not Kill

Thou Shall Not Kill

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (see comment) all recognize the Ten Commandments.  And, high on the list is, "Thou Shall Not Kill."  Even if you aren't religious, and you look at those stone tablets as one of civilization's first attempt to establish a set of rules under which we might all peacefully live, surely its worth noting that "Thou Shall Not Kill" is prime rule to live by.

Meanwhile, "Thou Shall Not Attempt to Cross a Fence" doesn't seem to have made God's top ten list of things to forbid.  It was probably on his mind, as its not a bad rule for helping to keep the peace, but it didn't make his final top ten list.  Of course, for me growing up as a country boy, crossing fences while roaming the area was a pretty normal thing to do.  Glad there weren't snipers in East Tennessee shooting at anyone who got too close to a fence.

But, in terms of trying to create a set of rules by which to exist as a society, "Thou Shall Not Cross A Fence" didn't make the cut against such classics as "Thou Shall Not Steal", and "Thou Shall Not Fuck Thou Neighbor's Wife."

And, there's nothing in the list that says you get to break commandments just because someone else did.  And it especially doesn't say that the "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment is waived in cases of someone breaking another commandment.  For example, there was no fine print on the stone tablets about how the "Thou Shall Not Kill" provision of Section 3, paragraph A, sub-section i, was null and void upon your neighbor violating the "Thall Shall Not Fuck Thy Neighbor's Wife" provision of Section 4, paragraph A, sub-section i.

Since the Ten Commandments don't seem to allow for the commencement of killing of other people for other serious offenses such as 'Coveting thy neighbor's donkey', then it seems doubtful that God wanted people opening fire with snipers and machine guns because they were violating a commandment that didn't even make God's Top Ten List such as "Thou Shall Not Cross A Fence."

At Least 23 Golan Protesters Killed, 350 Wounded as Israeli Troops Opens Fire

Israeli soldiers attacked protesters along the Syrian border with the occupied Golan Heights today, killing at least 23 protesters and wounding some 350 others. The protesters were marching to commemorate the 44th anniversary of the 1967 invasion of Golan.

Just to show what a strange and surreal place this world is, by and large, the same people who insist on posting the Ten Commandments in public spaces will also be applauding Israel's killing of 23 people. I'm starting to think that I'd agree on letting them post the Ten Commandments if they'd agree to actually read the things for a change.

And Yet Still More Catastrophe

Update: 20 killed, 360 Injured as Israeli Troops Attack Naksa Protests

On Sunday 20 civilians were killed and 360 injured when Israeli soldiers opened fire at protesters marking Naksa across the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Syrian border.

Israel decides its a death penalty offense to walk up unarmed to a border in protest. The US reaction is of course to treat this as a Syrian provocation (the official Israeli line) and defend Israel's right to "defend its borders".

Shooting down unarmed protesters who get near a fence is not a nation "defending its borders". So what if they crossed the border. Contain them and don't let them go anywhere. Since they aren't bringing any truckloads of food and water with them, they'll soon get bored and hungry and thirsty and go home. Just because some unarmed people walk up to a fence in protest is not an excuse for snipers and machine gun wielding infantry to start murdering people.

If you neighbor walks up to your fence, does that give you a right to shoot him? Yet, that's the logic of Israel. Which means its also what our own State Department is trying to peddle in our name as our beliefs.

Israel seems determined to try to keep up with Syria and Libya as to how many protesters they can kill. But, don't hold your breath waiting on a NATO "No-fly Zone" to protect Palestinian protesters. Not all murderous regimes who kill unarmed protesters are treated equally. In this case, the US is paying for the bullets with the billions of military aid we send to Israel. And making solemn statements defending the murder of unarmed protesters as 'defending borders'.