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.

The Mad Men did well

The Mad Men did well by John Pilger via SocialistWorker.

One of those brilliant John Pilger pieces where if I start quoting it, I'll quote the whole dang thing. Or else fear I've left off something important. Highly recommended that you click the link and go read the whole thing.

It is not surprising that the polls are showing that a growing number of Americans believe they have been suckered--especially as the nation's economy has been entrusted to the same fraudsters who destroyed it. Lawrence Summers, Obama's principal economic adviser, is throwing $3 trillion at the same banks that paid him more than $8 million last year, including $135,000 for one speech. Change you can believe in.

To me, the question of the day is what is the left going to do with all of these 'growing number of Americans' who 'believe they have been suckered'. What Brand Obama showed us all to clearly is that these people desperately want change. All they had to do was to bundle up a young politician and have him say the words 'Change' and 'Hope' repetitively, and the people flocked to him.

They didn't flock to Obama because he'd been the leader of a movement for a generation and had thus earned people's trust. They flocked to him because they desperately want change and any bit of hope they can cling to.

So, what's the left going to do? The stage has been set. The people are desperate for hope and change. The people feel suckered that they haven't gotten it from Obama like they feel they were promised. So what's the left going to do?

The right knows this is a very dangerous time for them. Their flagship brand has been discredited so badly that the opportunists like Spectre who joined the party to obtain power are now leaving the party to retain power. Their flagship Republican brand would have a hard time getting elected as dog-catcher right now. And growing numbers of Americans are feeling suckered by Obama and the Democrats who are playing their role of stand-in replacements for the Republicans.

The stage is set for the American people to embrace a real alternative and real change. Of course, great effort will go into making sure this doesn't happen. The airwaves are full of cries of socialism at the most modest corporate-friendly reforms. Not so much to argue against those reforms, which will gladly be accepted if it limits the damage. No, those cries are part of the bigger picture to stave off any real change from the people.

Meanwhile, we see troops being deployed home and assigned to NorthCom. We see Brand Obama telling us that its vital to spy on the American people like never before. We see the Department of Fatherland Security churning out report after report defining anyone who isn't in on the scam as a dangerous 'extremist'. Their reports focus on groups that try to organize citizen opposition to corrupt government.

All of that should not scare us. Instead, it should be taken as a sign of the tremendous opportunity that is presenting itself. The people yearn for change. Only the left can provide that change, as all others only provide phony covers for more of the same. If there was ever a moment of for the left to be energetic, for the left to be unified, for the left to be working hard to claim back some of our constitutional freedoms, some of our economic freedoms, some of our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then this is the time.

What's the left going to do? What's the left doing in your area? Who's out and active? Who's timid and doing nothing? Who are supporting Obama just because he's not a Republican, and who's out really working and trying to seize the day? And if no one else is in your area, grab a friend and try to begin.

Police Powers

We are constantly told that we must give the police more powers. We are constantly told that we can of course trust the police to only use these powers to protect us, and that they'd never abuse those powers.

How's that working out?

Police prying into stars' data on boston.com

Law enforcement personnel looked up personal information on Patriots star Tom Brady 968 times - seeking anything from his driver's license photo and home address, to whether he had purchased a gun - and auditors discovered "repeated searches and queries" on dozens of other celebrities such as Matt Damon, James Taylor, Celtics star Paul Pierce, and Red Sox owner John Henry, said two state officials familiar with the audit.

The Criminal Offender Record Information system, with its massive databases of criminal records, driving histories, car ownership, and Social Security numbers, is intended to provide police and prosecutors with complete portraits of individuals who have been arrested or brought into the court system. Reports are available to other users such as landlords and some employers conducting background checks on prospective tenants and job seekers. Access is supposed to be restricted to authorized law enforcement users, who are specially trained.

Of course, investigators can check on famous names to see how often they've had their privacy violated. But, what about the next-door neighbors to these police officers? What about the guy who's trying to date some girl they like? Or some guy who crosses paths with one of these police officers and maybe gets into some conflict with them? How many other times and in how many other ways has this database been mis-used?

And of course, there's never in history been a corrupt officer who would access this data for others in return for payment. Anyone want to guess on how many times organized crime has accessed this database by paying a police officer to look up someone?

There are reasons why people have always felt that the best protection of the liberty of citizens is to prevent the police from collecting this data in the first place. Human nature being what it is, its a pretty sure bet that once the database is created that it will be mis-used.

And, if you read closely, its not just the police who have access to this. Its also 'landlords' and employers doing background checks. Hope you enjoy everyone in the world having access to lots of information about you that is in no way related to any criminal activity. Like what car you own. Like what your social security number is. Like where you live. Nice to know all that's out there the next time you steal a girl from some angry jerk.

More war, from the folks who brought you the last war ... the NY Times.

A Full-Court Press for Pakistan War by Chris Floyd at Counterpunch.

Follow the link to read the excellent article about the current propaganda wave being foisted upon the American people to justify yet more war ... this time in Pakistan.

Here's what struck me. The article quotes a NY Times article from an anonymous source inside the Taliban. The really strange part is that they refer to this anonymous person, who just happens to be saying everything Obama and the war-mongers want to hear, as a "Pakistani logistics tactician". What the heck is a 'logistics tactician'?

In military jargon, 'logistics' means supplies. The people involved in logistics are the people who make sure the soldiers have food, water, toilet paper, ammo etc. Translate it to 'supply sergeant' or 'supply officer', and you would be close.

In military jargon, a 'tactician' is the commander making combat decisions on a small scale in battles. If you watch old war movies, when the character says 'Joe, take three men and go around on the flank and hit them from over there', that's a tactician. Usually its a lower ranking officer like a lieutenant or a captain, or it could be an experienced sergeant leading his troops.

These seem to be two very different roles. The guy who brings toilet paper up to the troops at the front, and the guy who leads the troops at the front at the lowest levels of a battle. So, what the heck is a 'logistics tactician'? Does he send bowls of rice around the right flank to have the rice attack the enemy from over there?

Just in case there was some new military jargon I wasn't aware of, I typed "logistics tactician" into google. Every hit on the first two pages of results referred to this NY Times story. As near as I can tell, the NY Times is just making this up, and created this mumbo-jumbo, fancy sounding title for their anonymous source. Of course, if the job title for the anonymous source is something the NY Times has obviously just made up, then one has to wonder if they whole anonymous source was made up as well.

Remember, in the lead up to the Iraq War, the NY Times used the same sort of stories based on anonymous sources to pump up the war. We later learned that most of this came from Judy Miller sitting talking to Dick Cheney's staff.

IAEA detects highly enriched uranium ... in Egypt

High-enriched uranium traces found in Egypt: IAEA by Reuters

The key to this story is to notice how the IAEA detected this.

The report, which described global IAEA work in 2008 to verify compliance with non-proliferation rules, said the highly enriched uranium (HEU) traces turned up in environmental swipe samples taken at the Inshas nuclear research site in 2007-08.

The HEU was discovered alongside particles of low-enriched uranium (LEU), the type used for nuclear power plant fuel.

The IAEA took 'environmental swipe samples' during an inspection, and analysis of those turned up the presence of highly enriched uranium. The Egyptians say that they believe it came from "contaminated radio-isotope transport containers"

Now, think a bit about Iran. IAEA inspectors there have never detected highly-enriched uranium in Iran. The war-mongers constantly tell us that Iran has a nuclear bomb program despite this. From this article, we know how hard it would be to hide such work. The IAEA inspectors, through simple little swipe samples, are able to detect the presence of highly enriched uranium. Their tests can pick up and identify traces of this, even if it is in minute quantities from contanimated transport containers.

Yet, the war-mongers would want us to believe that Iran can be producing the many pounds of the same HEU that would be needed for nuclear weapons without these same inspectors using the same tests detecting even a whiff of it.

Yeah, right. Just remember, the same war-mongers and the same media outlets were telling you that Iraq had nuclear weapons as well.

Too much ....

On Antiwar.com ....

US, Iraq at Odds Over Extending Pullout

Surprise, surprise surprise. Obama's been acting like this agreement between Iraq and the US was non-existent since his inauguration. In all the 'debates' about Iraq in this administration, the fact that there is already a signed agreement with Iraq spelling out the pullback and withdrawal dates is never mentioned. Now Iraq expects the US to abide by this treaty. The Iraqis should come over here and talk to some of the surviving descendants of American Indians to get an idea on how much a treaty means to the US Gov.

Iraq Bombs May Slow U.S. Pullout as Splits Fuel Fresh Violence

The recent spate of bombings in Iraq means U.S. officials may have to keep troops there longer than they planned, and Iraqis may have to live with a higher level of violence than they wish.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Even the slow pullout proposed by Obama might be given an excuse to be ignored. And interesting how the Iraqis don't get to decide on the 'level of violence' in their own country.

Israeli Military Exercise Over Gibraltar Raises Specter of Iran Strike

Israel continues to threaten to attack Iran. Remember, somewhere down below on this blog is an item with quotes from Obama officials who say their only concern is that this doesn't happen until they feel the time is right.

Gates plans to reassure allies on Iran outreach

In a sane world, the US would be trying to reassure people that there might not be another war, this time with Iran. But, in this world, Gates is over there 'reassuring' people that the US 'outreach' to Iran is doomed to fail.

"And I just think it's important to reassure our friends and allies in the region that while we're willing to reach out to the Iranians, as the president said, with an open hand, I think everybody in the administration, from the president on down, is pretty realistic and will be pretty tough-minded if we still encounter a closed fist."

As a side note, its interesting how much 'foreign policy' the military conducts these days. Isn't it the President and the State Dept that should be conducting foreign policy?

Officials: Gitmo court system likely to stay open

You didn't really think Obama was going to change very much from what Bush was doing, did you? And, remember the story from last week, that the US is now saying there are 50 to 100 people held at Gitmo that they can't put on trial and can't release. There's a fundamentally un-American idea for you, holding people without giving them a trial.

Calif.'s Harman Rails Against Wiretapping That Ensnared Her

Here's a funny one for you. In the funny-ironic category. The Democratic Congress lady who supported every Bush (and now Obama) initiative to spy on American citizens is upset that she was spied upon. Remember, as ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Harman (like Speaker Pelosi), would have been briefed on the issues like spying and torture by the Bush White House. She never complained at what was being done, never worked to stop it, and consistently worked to support it. But, now she's upset that she wasn't immune to what she so enthusiastically approved for the rest of us.

Robert Fisk’s World: Right to the very end in Iraq, our masters denied us the truth

The sentence ‘millions of Iraqis now live free of oppression’ is pure public relations

At least as a Brit, Mr. Fisk can speak of 'the end' of his country's involvement in Iraq. Here in America, there is no end in sight. Obama's weak withdrawal promises still planned on leaving many more troops in Iraq than the UK ever had there to begin with. And, as you saw above, the US is now saying that we now have excuses not to even follow through on Obama's tepidly slow withdrawal. Short of a revolt of the American people in the 2010 elections, the US will still have many, many troops in Iraq at the end of Obama's term.

Gates optimistic on 2010 US defense budget success

Gee, I'm sure he is. Since the Democrats have approved every one of Bush's military budgets in the past, and are proposing and pushing their own increases in military spending. Even in a depression and with budget deficits approaching 2 trillion dollars, the modern Democrats say we have to spend more and more and more on 'defense'. I wonder why Gates is optimistic?

Gates told CNN that he has been surprised by the limited scope of criticism aimed so far at his recommendations for the Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2010, which begins Oct. 1, and had heard some "important voices raised in support."

"I'm relatively optimistic, actually," he said in the interview, which was taped last week. "I think we've presented, as one news magazine referred to it, a radically sane set of proposals. They don't represent a cut, and where we have eliminated one program, you have added to others."

Israel 'ups questioning of Gaza patients'

It said the Shin Beth had interrogated minors, photographed patients against their will; harassed, cursed and intimidated patients during questioning; and returned to Gaza patients who did not cooperate.

People seeking to leave Gaza for medical treatment find themselves "between a rock and a hard place" as they also face pressure from the Hamas rulers of Gaza, the group said.

Israel continues to show what a kind, wonderful humanitarian country they are. First they blockade Gaza and thus deny people medical care they need. Then, they target the clinics and the hospitals during their 'war'. Then, when people are forced to beg Israel to be able to travel somewhere else for medical care they need, this is how they are treated.

Gaza costs Israel its reputation for press freedom

Israel had a reputation for 'press freedom'? Well, I guess compared to even worse places. But, for years, any reports you've seen from Israel have been cleared by government censors. Just like Saddam used to do in Iraq. And its always been a sure bet that no Isreali media would publish something the Israeli military didn't want published.

And, this study is from "Freedom House", which is a highly-biased right-wing group in the US. If the crazy right-wingers are starting to criticize Israel, then ....

Over on CounterPunch ....

The AIPAC Spy Case by James Abourezk.

Note very carefully that while the Bush administration was willing to pursue espionage charges related to AIPAC, the Obama administration quickly dropped those charges during its first 100 days in office. Well, I guess its a change. For an administration that's offered remarkably little change, that's something. Of course, Obama was always rather vague on which direction he would be changing in.

So lets see, if you try to give money to a Palestinian charity, you'd better do a lot of investigation of that group because the US DOJ will threaten to charge you with supporting terrorism if you give to a group that knows another group that's connected to some 'wrong' group. But, an Israeli lobbying group can pass around top-secret US documents and there are no charges filed.

This is why the Founders felt that a nation that was a 'rule of law', instead of rule by imperial fiat, was an important guarantee of liberty. What a quaint notion, that the law should apply equally to everyone.

Obama's War Budget by Jeff Leys.

Details on Obama's off-budget(just like Bush), supplemental, supposedly 'emergency' (too make constitutional) war budget request. Obama want's $200 billion more for the wars. That's $75 billion more for the remainder of budget year 2009 (now to Oct), and $130 billion more for this year.

Gawd I'm glad we elected the Democrats to stop these wars so we can use this $200 billion instead to help our own citizens in this crashing economy.

From Huffington Post ...
Why Are Bankers Still Being Treated As Beltway Royalty?

Because dear Arianna, that Democratic Party you so gladly helped into power is bought and owned by the bankers. They pumped $20 million or more into Obama's accounts, and who knows how much into other Dem campaigns. Arianna, what the heck did you expect? That Obama and the Democrats would then turn around and bite the hand that's given them millions? What a fool!

Of course, we'll see fake progressives like Arianna make some noise in opposition about this. That is from now until 4 to 6 months before the next election. Then they'll go into full campaign mode telling us how we need to elect the banker's candidates next time as well.

This is nothing new

Quotes from Thomas Jefferson to make the point that we face nothing new today. Our Founding Fathers broke free of the shackles that enslaved them. And they are exactly the same shackles we face today.

• “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principles of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale”
  
• “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
  
• “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army”

Other quotes found in the same google search.

• “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” - Noah Webster
  
• “Keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics - that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe” - James Madison
  
• “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government.”- Henry David Thoreau

You Are Not Alone

New Homeland Security memo lists black power, shaved-head Doc Marten wearers as ‘extremist threats’ by John Byrne on RawStory.com

Those now listed as dangerous extremists include: Mexican separatists, “black power” advocates, “racial Nordic mysticism” practitioners and black nationalists.

...

Perhaps the most amusing item is the document’s loose definition of “skinhead,” which appears to encompass anyone who shaves their heads and wears Doc Martens. Even those skinheads who merely preach “group unity” are worrisome, the memo says.

People treat these memos as jokes. They are of course officially 'withdrawn', right after they send it out to police forces across the country. Of course, anyone who's hit 'send' on an email knows that such things can't be withdrawn. Somewhere, right now, there's a cop cleaning his gun who didn't get the 'withdrawal' memo.

The thing is, they are not joking. The people at DHS know what's going on. They know the government is stealing trillions of dollars of the money of its citizens to give to the Wall Street bankers. They know another trillion dollars a year is stolen to fund the defense/intelligence/homeland security budgets so full of pork they have to work to avoid being mistaken as bacon to hungry, struggling Americans.

They know that we no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Instead, its a government of crooks and thieves. And they know this as well. They know that eventually, sooner or later, the American people are going to wake up from American Idol and the NBA playoffs and realize that everything they had, everything that previous generations had built in this country, has been stolen. Maybe it won't happen until the power is cut off for non-payment, or until the high-def TV is repossessed, but sooner or later the American people will wake up and realize all that they have lost.

This is why we have a Department of Homeland Security. This is why Army brigades are being redeployed into the United States for crushing civil disobedience. This is why the US government insists on the right to spy on its own, supposedly free citizens. And this is why there are these streams of memos and reports coming out of DHS detailing every group of Americans that appears to be waking up to what is going on around them. They are listing virtually every political group in the country that is not already owned by Wall Street. Ie, everyone except the Democrats and Republicans. The message is clear, if you don't support the Wall Street bankers, you are an extremist threat.

Washington DC is scared to death, and what they are most afraid of is the American people. And that's because the American people are the one force on this planet who can put an end to this. They are scared that some day they'll hear the sounds of TV's being powered down, of doors opening and slamming, and then of the sound of millions of Americans in the streets demanding their country back.

Right now, the only people who don't realize that they have the power to really change things right now are the American people. But, if you watch both the fear levels in Washington DC, as well as the huge amount of effort that goes into keeping the American people manipulated and docile, then you can sense where the real power lies.

Most Americans today know in their hearts that something is dreadfully wrong. But, they feel alone and don't know what to do about it. The key thing for everyone to realize is that they are not alone.

Wow!

Recriminations after NYC jet flyover photo op from AP via Antiwar.com

It was supposed to be a photo op that captured images of an Air Force One plane with a majestic Statue of Liberty in the background. Instead, it turned into a public relations nightmare that led to recriminations from the president and mayor and prompted thousands of others to ask, "What were they thinking?"

Just before the workday began on Monday, an airliner and supersonic fighter jet zoomed past the lower Manhattan skyline. Within minutes, startled financial workers streamed out of their offices, fearing a nightmarish replay of Sept. 11.

For a half-hour, the Boeing 747 and F-16 jet circled the Statue of Liberty and the Financial District near the World Trade Center site. Offices evacuated. Dispatchers were inundated with calls. Witnesses thought the planes were flying dangerously low.

Wow, so much to comment about on this story, that I don't know where to begin.

How about with money? Any idea what it costs to fly Air Force one around along with several high tech jet fighter planes? A quick Google search turned up some numbers like $40,000 a hour (from a few years ago) for flying Air Force One. More Googling found numbers like $50,000 an hour for an F-16. Its hard to tell from the AP reporting a little fact like how many F-16s were involved in the mission. They say one was flying with AF1 around the Statue of Liberty. Later it refers to 'jets' plural and says a photographer was in a jet taking pictures. So, lets say 2 F-16's.

Probably a minimum of 2 hours air time to do this. 3 might be a good guess. Especially if they had to move this AF1 to NYC to do the photo op. But still, that's at least $280,000 spent. For what purpose? For "updating file photos of Air Force One near national landmarks."

In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, when the US Government is projecting a deficit for the year in the $1.8 TRILLION range, these guys just spent at least $300,000 updating publicity photos for Air Force One? Are they freaking kidding? And even better, this probably isn't the only time they've done this. Note the reference to a larger program to 'national landmarks'... that's plural. These bozos are flying a 747 and high-tech fighter planes that cost at least $140,000 an hour to operated (combined) all around the country taking publicity photos of Air Force One!

Do we really need new file photos of Air Force One? Is Air Force One looking to get a new modeling job somewhere, so it needed a new portfolio? Explain to me how this improved the life of any American tax payer? Come on people! The country is broke, Americans by the millions are losing their jobs, and you guys are wasting millions of dollars updating the publicity photos of an air plane?

-----------------------
If this was still the Bush era, I'd have the nasty little thought that they did this just to scare people. That the Bushies would have felt that it was to their advantage as an authoritarian government that thrived on fear to have thousands of New Yorkers streaming out of buildings in fear that 9-11 was happening again.

The Bush administration had a long record of trying to use terrorism scares to bolster their popularity every time it dropped. If Bush got hit with an embarrassing news story, or if is popularity numbers dropped too low, you could count on some 'terror scare' type of story to come along to try to put the fear of God back into the citizens.

Would Obama's administration do the same? Don't know. So far, there isn't a track record of this sort of behavior from the Obama-ishies, so there aren't 'actions' to track. There is the very disturbing trend that says that almost all of Bush's security and military policies have been continued under Obama. So, would this sort of 'scare the people back into line' tactic have continued as well.

Of course, there's the general question of civilian control of the military and intelligence agencies to think about. The story traces this back to the White House, but only to someone with a title of "director of the White House military office".

Would the Pentagon be interested in scaring the citizens of New York into thinking 9-11 was happening again? Would they hide the op with approval from the White House 'military office' for some photo op updates?

Don't know. Interesting to think about. But, I don't have a clue if its true or not.
------------------
We don't think enough about whether our civilian government has control of our military. That's supposed to be one of our guarantees of liberty in the system our Founding Fathers set up. They severely distrusted the idea of ANY standing military that existed between wars. Their idea for a free and democratic society was to rely on militias that would call up when a war needed to be fought. As a nation, we stayed with that model until the end of World War II when we refused to disband our military. Maybe it was necessary to fight off the threats of communist dictatorships conquering the world. Or maybe keeping that large military force in existence ourselves caused the Soviets to keep their military large to defend against this other large military they found themselves faced with. Most like, it was probably a bit of both as the general and the merchants of death on each side used inflated estimates of the others to scare governments into spending more and more on the military.

The fascinating thing is, this drove the Soviet Union into the ground nearly twenty years ago. But, the US couldn't stop spending hundreds of billions on 'defense' every year, even after its enemy collapsed. Instead, it just spurred on a search for new enemies under the Clinton years, which Bush ended when he found 'Al-Qaida' as the enemy that would justify what is now a trillion dollars a year that we spend on 'defense'.

Now, does that sound like a military that's under civilian control? Or does it sound more like the out-of-control sort of military establishment that everyone from our Founding Fathers to Dwight Eisenhower have tried to warn us against?

During the Clinton years, it was interesting at times to watch how much the military actually responded to civilian control. The issue came up right off the bat when the military rejected an order from their supposed commander-in-chief to stop discriminating against gays in the military. Later on, I seem to recall the military basically conducting their own foreign policy with Indonesia around the time of East Timor.

During Bush, it wasn't ever a question because Bush always did what the military wanted. I remember one time when National Security Director Rice tried to assert White House control over the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and basically got told by Rumsfeld to go buzz off.

But, it will be an interesting question to watch under Obama? Does our civilian government still have control over the 'military'. I put that in quotes, because the first fight that's shaping up seems to be with the CIA. Will those who violated US and international law by torturing people be prosecuted for their crimes? The CIA is certainly saying no. And so far, Obama is mostly just parroting the CIA line. But, its an interesting question these days to ask whether Obama could do this if he wanted to. Or, does the CIA weld so much power in Washington these days that the reason Obama doesn't publicly call for such prosecutions is because he knows he could never do it.

One scary thing about agencies like the CIA is how much money do they have that is unaccountable and unknown these days? If you think back to Iran-Contra, you'd remember that it exposed a lot of ways the CIA can run ops to make money for itself which can then be stuck into hidden accounts and slush funds.

Add to this the private military capability that was created by the Bushies, so that there are now plenty of trained operatives out of government control and available for hire, and a very scary picture starts to emerge.

And remember, there was always the suggestion that the CIA was involved in killing Kennedy. Depends on which conspiracy theory you like, but it was always an idea that was out there. There was also the suggestion that the CIA was involved in tilting a presidential election in 1980 by manipulating the hostage crisis to Reagan (and former CIA-director G.H.W. Bush)'s benefit against Carter. Carter had actually tried to cut the CIA budget and bring it under even a little control.

Its an interesting question to watch during Obama's years. How much will he challenge the military and intelligence communities. And what happens when he does? So far, he hasn't challenged them. He's raising their budgets (just like Bush) and he's continuing almost all the same policies. The only place he's reigned them in at all is in the area of torture and secret prisons. And on torture he's left plenty of loopholes big enough for the electrodes to pass through. And I suspect all he's done with secret prisons is moved them from CIA control to military control in places like Bagram.

The interesting question is why?