The Myth of Haiti's Lawless Streets

The myth of Haiti's lawless streets by Inigo Gilmore in the Guardian (UK).

As a member of the media covering the tragedy in Haiti, it's with a sense of alarm and astonishment that I've witnessed how some senior aid officials have argued for withholding aid of the utmost urgency because of sensational claims about violence and insecurity, which appear to be based more on fantasy than reality.

From what I've observed, such chilling claims do not match the reality on the ground; and by trumpeting a distorted and sensational picture about the violence, some senior aid officials may be culpable of undermining the very aid effort they are supposed to be promoting. When I traveled into Haiti's disaster zone last week from the Dominican Republic, I did so alone and on a bus, whose passengers were mostly Haitians, including some living in the US. Since then, whether on the road to Port-au-Prince or within the city, I have not witnessed anyone wielding a gun, a machete or a club of any kind. Nor have I witnessed an act of violence. (I have seen one badly wounded man who had been shot in circumstances which were unclear and who was eventually rescued by US soldiers after an American reporter sought help.)

Any violence is localised and sporadic; the situation is desperate yet not dangerous in general. Crucially, it's not a war zone; it's a disaster zone – and there appears to have been little attempt to distinguish carefully between destructive acts of criminality and the behaviour of starving people helping themselves to what they can forage. For Haitians and many of those trying to help them, the overriding sentiment is that a massive catastrophe on this scale shouldn't have to wait for aid because blanket security is the absolute priority.

There's an old saying. If you are a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. At the very least, this is what happens when you put the military in charge of disaster relief. If you are the military, then everything looks like a war zone.

"Haitians here cannot understand why they're not getting help, especially as the way the violence is portrayed is not right. The people are unhappy that there's been no assistance but do you see them rioting in the streets? No.
"People are hungry and needy and yet they're being portrayed as savages. Aid is not getting there quick enough and that's sad because the solution is right there and we have the power to do it."

Keeping us safe from Dork Hunter terrorists.

Children's TV Stars Face Anti-Terror Quiz

Now tell me, do these people look like 'terrorists'?

Really?

"We were out and about doing 'dork hunting' ourselves on the streets of London.

"Jamie and I were kitted out in fake utility belts. We've got hairdryers in our belt, a kids' walkie-talkie, hairbrushes and all that kind of stuff, and we were being followed by a camera crew and a boom mike and we get literally pulled over by four policemen and we were issued with a warning 'under the act of terrorism'."

TV hosts Anna Williamson and Jamie Rickers dressed as they were when police questioned them under anti-terrorism powers (see picture)

Rickers, 32, added: "We were stopped, not arrested, but they had to say 'we are holding you under the Anti-Terrorism Act because you're running around in flak jackets and a utility belt', and I said 'and please put spangly blue hairdryer' and he was, like, 'all right'."

I really hope 'spangly blue hairdryer' made it into the police report. :)

Sometimes words in England and America mean totally different things. So, I'm wondering if 'dork' means the same thing there as here? If so, then I think I see what the problem is. They were probably using their secret 'dork detector', and it led them right to the terror police squad.

Liberal Self-Deception

Coup in Honduras: D by Mark Engler via FPIF.

Generally, this is a pretty good piece. He correctly points out the awful policies that Obama pursued that basically legitimated the right-wing coup in Hondurus.

The Obama administration's true failure was that it bombed the final exam: the scheduled November 29 presidential elections. Shortly after brokering a deal designed to pressure the Honduran Congress to reinstate Zelaya and allow him to serve the end of his term, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon reversed himself and declared that the United States would recognize the elections even if Zelaya remained out of office. And that is exactly what happened.

We're now left with a new government tarnished by the legacy of the coup and elected amid massive protest and popular abstention. Pro-coup forces continue to perpetuate frightening human rights abuses, including the repression of critical journalists and the abduction of prominent pro-democracy activists. Yet the Obama administration has articulated no plan for exerting its considerable leverage to promote the return of legitimate democracy.

My problem with the piece overall is that the author gives Obama way too much credit for words. He says the Obama administration did fairly well early on, mainly because of its words that criticized the coup. Later on, he says that we shouldn't be too hard on Obama because the words from ex Bush officials were worse.

This is the deception that the liberals try to sell. When you look at actions, when you look at policies, there is very little difference between a Democrat government and a Republican government. The only difference is that the Republicans will crow about how great the coup is, while Obama will just utter some words where he says that coups are awful things. But, while uttering the pretty words, the Obama administration was very helpful to the coup in keeping key aid flowing (despite the words) and in blocking any OAS action on Honduras.

I guess if words are important, then you can say the Democrats are better than the Republicans. But, if you dismiss the words as being the equivalent of a magician's patter or a con man's game, and if you learn to only watch the actions .... then you can see that nothing changes.

A real MLK day

Fortunately, Dr. King told us exactly what a real MLK day would look like. (From his speach at Riverside Church in NYC, 1967 ... http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/MLKapr67.html

"It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood. "

When we see that, then we'll know its really MLK day.

What's news?

Antiwar.com has this story up on its site.

Green Zone mortared, says eyewitness from Aswat Al-Iraq, an Iraqi newspaper.

Spent some time searching on CNN for coverage of the same story. Can't find any mention at all. Near as I can tell, the last mention of a mortar attack on the Green zone in Baghdad is when a shell landed during VP Biden's visit last year. I guess with his press entourage there, they couldn't ignore that attack. But they most certainly have ignored this latest attack.

Do you think things have calmed down in Iraq? Or is it just that the American corporate news has stopped broadcasting any reports of violence from Iraq? If things have calmed down, as the impression we get from corporate news would have us believe, then why do we still need 130,000 troops there?

Haiti

Of course, what's happened there is horrible.  If there were any people who less needed a disaster, surely it was the poor of Haiti.  Over the weekend, there were of course constant ads on TV from all of the Red Cross' corporate partners asking that I give to the Red Cross.  I'm not comfortable doing that.  After 9-11, the Red Cross raised a ton of money, and gave only a small percentage of that to the victims.  After Katrina, I heard too many stories from people who were in New Orleans giving aid that the Red Cross stayed out in the (white) suburbs and wouldn't enter the city.

But, a dislike of the American Red Cross is no reason not to help. So, here's a list I found of other groups that are doing aid for Haiti in its time of need.  Personally, I like the American Friends Service Committee, but there are lots of other choices here.  Even the Red Cross is on this list if you so choose.

Interaction members respond to the earthquake in Haiti

Anarchist have organized "Mutual Aid Disaster Relief in Haiti"  If this stems out of the Common Ground collective effort in post-Katrina New Orleans, then they probably deserve support.

Also, via CounterPunch, a report from on the scene with regard to what is, and isn't, happening to aid the survivors of this horrible earthquake. The Rescue Operation's Priorities in Haiti by Nelson Valdes.

First, the foreign aid teams "rescued" and took out of the country the non-Haitians, particularly the Europeans, Americans and assorted other tourists. The Voice of America on Jan. 16 reported: "In the last day or so the United States and French governments have started running passenger flights out of the country [Haiti] for evacuees from those countries. People line up and wait for a plane to arrive so they can leave Haiti and leave behind what is a very difficult, traumatic experience for many." [1]

Second, five days have gone by without any real significant distribution of medical supplies, food or water to the neediest people.

The facts indicate clear priorities: the Haitians are not first in line. In fact, the rescuers seem to have a widespread fear of the poor and desperate Haitians. A Scottish reporter said, "aid workers in Haiti today called for more security amid fears of attacks by increasingly desperate earthquake survivors." [2]

Yet, the Haitians have been extraordinarily patient despite the fact that their world has collapsed around them.

Of course, for wealthy western tourists, life continues as usual. After all, one couldn't let a tragic disaster interfere with one's holidays, now could one.

Cruise ships still find a Haitian berth by Robert Booth of the Guardian (UK).

Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jetski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks.

Also ....
The Militarization of Emergency Aid to Haiti: Is it a Humanitarian Operation or an Invasion? by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research

“The International Community Must Let President Jean-Bertrand Aristide Return to Haiti” by By Ansel Herz on NarcoNews

Why

Why are there more deaths? (see below) Why does health care reform morph into the health insurance company bailout plan of 2009?

The Democrats like to tout how much Obama got from 'small donors'.  The Center for Responsive Politics (found at www.opensecrets.org ... a must-visit website!), has a study up as to how much came to each of the major candidates in donations of $200 or less.  Obama is between 30% (primary) and 34% (gen. election).  That's better than either Hillary (22%) or McCain (21%).

Of course, the bad news is that corporate money poured by the tractor trailer full into Obama's campaign.  Obama raised a record $745 million.  If I take 32% of that (avg. of 30 and 34), that's $238 million.  That leaves $506 million in 'large contributions'.

That $506 million in 'large' contributions alone would break every previous record in the price of buying the Presidency.  By comparison, the well-financed Bush steam-roller of a campaign in 2004 raised a total of $367 million. So, there was somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 million MORE of big corporate money in Obama's coffers than Bush ever got at his peak.

Wanna know why the great liberal progressive Obama ain't out leading the charge for good health car for all Americans?  Because the 'health' industry gave him $28,000,000 not to do so.  And Obama apparently happily took the money and the deal.

Democrats are a strange lot.  They expect you to believe that this $28 million was given just from the generosity of those involved in the health industry.  And that it has nothing to do with the fact that they got their own private meeting with Obama in the White House to make deals in their favor.  And meanwhile, they keep trying to convince the Democratic wing of the Democratic party that Obama really wants to do better than this, but his hands are tied by that mean old awful Senate with its huge majority of Democrats.

Of course, these are the same Democrats, who while insisting that the Senate and its rules are a huge obstacle to anything a President wants to do, seem to want everyone to forget that they never seemed to filibuster any Bush initiatives.  If a weak minority, with fewer votes than the Democrats nadir during Bush, can stop Obama, perhaps the Democrats could explain why their 45 senators could never even slow down Bush?

The Democrats never seem to run out of excuses of why they are so consistently evil.

If you are looking for reasons beyond excuses, that $28 million speaks volumes.  And that's just into Obama's accounts.  It doesn't include contributions to the national Democratic party proper, or to the state parties, or to candidates (like Sen. Baucus for example), or contributions to 'special' funds like the convention or the inauguration.  So, that's just a fraction that the 'health' industry paid to get this bill that in turn gurantees them billions in profits.

So, if you are running a business, and you think it might be a great idea if you could get a law passed that forces everyone to buy your product, no matter how expensive you make it or no matter how horrible the service you provide as you deny every claim, well, now you've got an idea as to how much that will cost.  Its clearly the best ROI (return on investment) you can get.  Spend maybe $100 million, then make billions in profits.  But the game's only open to those who can bring $50 million to $100 million to the table.  If you want jobs for ordinary Americans, well, tough luck buddy.

Wanna know why Wall Street still gets their bailouts? Wanna know why the wars continue?  Wanna know why the 'health' industry just got richer?  $500 million in 'large' contributions is the answer.  Go read the list of Obama's top contributors in the 2008 campaign.  You definitely won't wonder why Wall Street got its bailouts, and its protection from prosecutions and meaningful reform of regulations and oversight.  Goldman Sachs is number two on the list.  From that, it looks like just under $100 million is the price to buy the right to become the nation's only economic advisers.

Never vote for any candidate that has the money to buy lots of TV ads.  Those candidates are already bought.  Obama bought $420 million in advertising in the 2008 elections.  When you see that kind of money being spent, don't vote for them.  The candidate that will represent your interests is the one who so broke he has to ask for a lift in from the airport.

(all numbers in this post from browsing around the www.opensecrets.org website)

More Deaths

More headlines from antiwar.com ...

NATO Admits US Troops Shot Afghan Protesters
11 Die as US Drones Continue to Target Pakistan
US Army Suicides Hit Grim Record for 2009

Meanwhile, that great liberal comedian, the junior Senator from Minnesota, has his own new joke out ... Sen. Al Franken Expresses Support for Obama's Afghan Troop Increase

If you read the article, the techniques the Democrats use to lie are really amazing. To listen to Franken talk, even in the quotes he made while announcing that he's a willing vote for more war, death and destruction, he says that he doesn't think this is a good idea.

Typical Democrat. Talks against the war. Votes in favor of the war.  Franken just carries it to an extreme by doing both simultaneously.  Who said the man wasn't talented?

Of course, anyone with any sense just watches what they do, and pretty much ignores what they say .... except for its obvious comedy value of course. The key thing to note is this. Even while Democrats talk against the wars, they vote for them.

What voters have to remember later this year is that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for more war. Period. Ignore what they say. If you continue to elect Democrats (or Republicans), the wars will continue .... and escalate ... and expand.

Liberals Kill

The 'liberals' in America seem to regard the anti-war movement as a game. While the opposition is in power, to them it seems as if its a tool to be used to put themselves into power instead. Once in power, war itself seems to become a game for the liberals to play.

Liberals read the polling data and discover that the Iraq war is unpopular. So they criticize it like they are opposed to the war, and they campaign on the promise to end it. But, they also discover that the Afghan war is less unpopular, so even during the last election they campaigned to escalate and expand that war. Its all a game to them. A game to be played to put them into power.

The problem is, their games are killing people. Literally. I go to antiwar.com, and these are the headlines I see.

Afghans: NATO Forces Kill 13 Protesters
US Drone Strike Fires Into Crowd, Kills Another 13 in Afghanistan
2 US Troops, 4 Afghan Troops Killed in Afghanistan

That's just today. If I go back just one day, I find ....
Dozens Killed as N. Yemen Fight Resumes
Six NATO Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan
Over 3,000 Killed as Pakistan Violence Soared in 2009
Pakistani Troops Kill Eight in South Waziristan
Monday: 3 Iraqis Killed, 11 Wounded

None of that is a conclusive list of all the people who've died recently. Its just what I can find in a few minutes of looking through the headlines of antiwar.com.

People are dying. The Democrats are playing games. Its now abundantly clear that the Democrats support these wars. Not only do they support these wars, the Democrats seem to be on a frantic search for places to start new wars. They've already started one new proxy war in Pakistan, the one that the headline above says has already killed as many people as who died on 9-11. Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to constantly be pushing for a war with Iran. And now the Democrats are screaming loudly for a war with Yemen of all places.

In the antiwar movement, we seem to have a lot of people and leaders who support the Democrats. These are the people who are constantly saying that now that the Democrats are in power, we shouldn't protest or even publicly disagree with them. There is this myth that the Democrats aren't as blood-thirsty of warmongers as the Republicans, so now that the Democrats are in power, we should only try to quietly talk with the Democrats to get them to change their policies.

Meanwhile, people are dying. Look back at that list of headlines. People are dying. And that's not even covering the wounded. The people who aren't mentioned in these headlines because instead of dying they are simply lying in a hospital bed screaming in pain because some part of their body has been blown to bits as a part of these wars.

Its high time that those of us who oppose these wars stand up and make sure that they end. In the US, that must include political action to try to change the actions of our government. People are dying. This is not the time to be playing little games with actions or events that have no chance of changing policy. I hear there's an anti-war protest scheduled for March. That's good. Its nice to see the corpse of the American anti-war movement showing any signs of life. But, yet another meaningless protest where a permitted march route goes through an empty city on a Saturday is not going to change anything.

To achieve change, we have to change the actions of our government. The American people attempted to do this by electing first a Democrat majority in 2006, then increasing those majorities and elected a Democrat President in 2008. In response we've seen no withdraw or change in Iraq, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the expansion of the war into Pakistan, threats to expand the war to Iran, and now threats to expand the war into Yemen.

Electing Democrats was not the answer. But, that does not mean that elections are useless. What we now need to do is to defeat the Democrats. Let the Democrats know that they won those past elections by lying to get antiwar votes, and that now the retribution is coming.

What we need to do is to run independent, pro-peace campaigns in all the CLOSEST House and Senate races. As the Democrats struggle to hold on to their majorities, let them see an independent pro-peace (and pro-single-payer) candidate in every race taking away from them the votes they need to win. Lets make it perfectly clear that the true progressives of this country, who've been providing the Democrats with the votes they need to win, are tired of being lied to and are mad as all heck about what President Obama and the Democrats have done in this last year.

If we march through empty streets, they won't pay attention. If we threaten their hold on power, they will pay attention. We need to put the Democrats into a political position where they know for certain that the only way they can gain an hold power is by ending these wars. We do that by deliberately targeting Democrats by defeat by running our own candidates in all the CLOSEST races.

Here's a target list in the House. Find a close race near you and start organizing. Don't wait on organizations and leaders to do it for you. They are all bought off or were only pretending to oppose these wars to elect Democrats. Organize yourselves. Find a target from this list close to you and go after them.

Remember, people are dying every day. Its up to us to try to do something to end this.

Reverend Billy

Sitting here watching Reverend Billy from Free Speech TV.

Great show. What a character. This show was a mix two different events up in NYC. One was coverage of a Critical Mass bike ride. The other was a protest against someone who's trying to turn the Union Square pavilion into an upscale private restaurant.

I haven't watched this show often, but seeing Reverend Billy getting arrested seems to be a regular feature. This time is was for his protest outside the restaurant.

The great part was that whoever was filming this was standing next to someone with a foreign accent who was asking "Why is he being arrested? Is he being arrested just for speaking out? That wouldn't happen in my country?" The person filming then asks "Where are you from?" "Spain" is the reply.

For someone who reads history, that's a striking comment. America was founded as a place of free and progressive thought. As opposed to the conservative monarchies of Spain and the rest of Europe at the time. Look how things have flipped around. A citizen of Spain who's in NYC is watching a protesting Rev. Billy get arrested and he's saying "that wouldn't happen where we come from."

Americans in general like to act as if the USA is the world's greatest democracy and the world's free-est country. Its a standard part of our rap that always seems to end with why we need to invade or bomb yet another country. Yet, a citizen of Spain is filmed standing on our streets saying "that wouldn't happen where I come from." Usually, the first step towards change is admitted there is a problem.

The USA imprisons a higher percentage of people than any other nation in the world. Continuing to maintain its lead in the strategically important 'prison race' over Russia. How important are prisons to the USA? As state governments face tightening budgets, do you ever hear of prison guards being laid off? Usually its just teachers and nurses and social workers.

The USA has massive militarized police forces at the local, state and federal levels.

The USA now spies on its own people, with Bush's originally illegal approvals now approved by Congress, with then Sen. Obama flying back to make sure that the big telecoms got their immunity as a part of the bill.

Any protest seems to be met by huge forces of police in riot gear. While the US praised the Tehran twitters reporting on the protest there, the first reaction of the US police was to arrest people doing the same from outside the G-whatever summit in Pittsburgh.

Is the US really still the world's free-est country?

70% of the American people keep telling pollsters they want the wars to end and the troops to come home. Yet, both parties when in power continue the wars. The will of the people seems to be ignored, when its not being ridiculed, by those in power.

Is the US really still the world's greatest democracy?

The Rev. Billy show is now showing a beautiful singing of the first amendment to the US Constitution. I'm guessing the lady is a member of the "Reverend Billy Choir". But its hard to tell, as all you see on the screen is that she is one of the many protesters sitting with their bikes in the middle of the street surrounded by New York's finest in riot gear. Beautiful bit of film. This is just after Reverend Billy got arrested, again, for 'disturbing the peace' by reciting the words of the first amendment. Yes, that's right. He apparently got arrested for reading the very words that are supposed to guarantee us the right of free speech.

The first step towards change is admitting there's a problem. If we delude ourselves by calling ourselves the world's free-est country when we really aren't, then that's a problem. If we delude ourselves into thinking that we are the world's greatest democracy, when we really aren't, then that's a problem. Its looking at the world realistically and admitting that we are not the world's free-est country and that the are not the world's greatest democracy that will be the first step on the path that would lead us back to being both of those things.

America was founded as the free alternative to the monarchies of Europe. Nowadays, a citizen of Europe stands on American streets watching the police arrest a protester and says "that wouldn't happen where I come from."

PS .... it takes time, but eventually police violence and over-reaction does seem to eventually lead to some protesters walking away with tax dollars. Its, a different Critical Mass ride, but I see this on today's headlines .... Gus Ganley Wins $70,000 Settlement Resulting From August 2007 Critical Mass

Putting Obama Behind Us

There's a lot of good articles out there right now. Ones that I've read over during the holidays, but which I never had time to link to and write about. So, expect to see a flood of new posts soon. :) Of course, the way a blog is organized, you'll read this after you worked your way through all the new posts above this on the page. :)

MOVING ON WITHOUT OBAMA by Sam Smith at Progressive Review.

I can't tell if anyone else knows about Sam Smith. I greatly enjoy his writing and his logic. Like this .....

Most of all, however, Obama represented a triumph of a generation of liberals dramatically different from their predecessors, most markedly in their general indifference to issues of economic as well as ethnic equality.

This heavily professional liberal class never once - in the manner of their predecessors of the New Deal and Great Society - took the lead in pressing for economic reforms. It wasn't that they opposed them; they just never seemed to occur to them.

They, after all, had risen in status even as much of the rest of the country was slipping. Over a quarter of a century passed and the best the liberal Democrats could come up with was to slash welfare and raise the age for Social Security.

Obama was the epitome of this new generation: well educated, well connected and well toned in rhetoric. But far distant from the concerns of so many.

To me, the key point is to realize that today's 'liberals' have little or nothing to do with 'the left', or with trying to do anything to actually help ordinary Americans.

Yet, we see many on 'the left' vote for and support these modern liberals almost reflexively. I suppose while the liberals were the supposed opposition to Bush, these basic facts about their policies were masked. But now, with the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, there's no mistaking the policies they support and promote.

What I like is that he doesn't just stop with the typical whining about what's wrong. He goes on to give some ideas as to what to do about it.

The first thing that needs to happen is for there to be a clear distinction between smug, self-serving liberalism contemptuous of so many Americans and a populist progressive movement that seeks unity with those many liberals prefer simply to condemn.

The magnets for this unity are such obvious yet ignored issues as the creation of jobs, the preservation of pensions, decent treatment of endangered homeowners, an end to credit card usury, respect for local decision-making, and, yes, a healthcare plan based on providing financial assistance, not bureaucratic nightmares.

Such a movement would have to be formed issue by issue. It can not rely on empty icons or over-packed ideology. If one agrees on how to handle foreclosures but disagrees on abortion, leave the latter for another day. It is by working together on the things upon which we agree that both respect and power are gained.

Happy Holidays

May everyone have a peaceful and joyful Christmas, and a very merry New Year's! And if you celebrate other holidays at this time, may they also be peaceful, joyful and merry!

Obama's Torture Logic

Democrats like to claim that Obama 'ended torture'. The reality is of course just a bit different. All Obama did was to end some of the Bush era executive orders. Effectively, Obama returned to the Clinton policy. But, this is very, very different from 'ending torture'.

Before Bush, America tortured, just under some rather tortured logic. It meant that an American CIA officer would not attach the electrodes, would not ask the questions, and would not throw the switch that turned on the electricity that made the victim scream in agony. They would however work the people from other countries who did this, sometimes turning victims over to them via 'extraordinary rendition.'

Now we are starting to see news reports on what Obama's Torture Logic really looks like.

From the UK's Guardian, we get

CIA working with Palestinian security agents: US agency co-operating with Palestinian counterparts who allegedly torture Hamas supporters in West Bank

Palestinian security agents who have been detaining and allegedly torturing supporters of the Islamist organisation Hamas in the West Bank have been working closely with the CIA, the Guardian has learned.

Less than a year after Barack Obama signed an executive order that prohibited torture and provided for the lawful interrogation of detainees in US custody, evidence is emerging the CIA is co-operating with security agents whose continuing use of torture has been widely documented by human rights groups.

...

The most common complaint is that detainees are severely beaten and subjected to a torture known as shabeh, during which they are shackled and forced to assume painful positions for long periods. There have also been reports of sleep deprivation, and of large numbers of detainees being crammed into small cells to prevent rest. Instead of being brought before civilian courts, almost all the detainees enter a system of military justice under which they need not be brought before a court for six months.

...

Some of the mistreatment has been so severe that at least three detainees have died in custody this year. The most recent was Haitham Amr, a 33-year-old nurse and Hamas supporter from Hebron who died four days after he was detained by GI officials last June. Extensive bruising around his kidneys suggested he had been beaten to death. Among those who died in GI custody last year was Majid al-Barghuti, 42, an imam at a village near Ramallah.

...

Sa'id Abu-Ali, the PA's interior minister, accepted detainees had been tortured and some had died, but said such abuses had not been official policy and steps were being taken to prevent them. He said such abuses "happen in every country in the world". Abu-Ali sought initially to deny the CIA was "deeply involved" with the two Palestinian intelligence agencies responsible for the torture of Hamas sympathisers, but then conceded that links did exist. "There is a connection, but there is no supervision by the Americans," he said. "It is solely a Palestinian affair. But the Americans help us."

That last piece shows the semantics of Obama's Torture Logic. "Supervision" is a very precise word. And its unlikely that any country, state or even puppet government would willingly put its own intelligence officers and police under the direct supervision of agents of a foreign power. So, I believe the PA official when he says there "is no supervision". The CIA officer probably merely 'suggested' that the prisoner should be left hogtied for another day. And maybe the CIA officer only 'suggested' that maybe one more slightly more powerful blow to the kidneys might be what was needed to make the victim break. There was no "supervision". But there were "links", and "the Americans help us".

Amongst all these word games, we "helped" to beat a nurse to death this year. Ain't life just wonderful with Obama's Torture Logic?

Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A.

Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A. by James Risen and Mark Mazzetti (NYT) via VotersForPeace.

Private security guards from Blackwater Worldwide participated in some of the C.I.A.’s most sensitive activities — clandestine raids with agency officers against people suspected of being insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the transporting of detainees, according to former company employees and intelligence officials.

Lets stop and think about 'force' and who's had it and controlled it in the history of the United States.

Our Founding Fathers were very suspicious of force that could get out of control. They'd just lived under the King of England arbitrarily using mercenaries and conscripts against them. So, one of the cornerstones of our early democracies that they created was that the power of 'force' remained in the hands of the people.

Our early democracy did not have this plethora of local, state and federal police forces and their thousands upon thousands of officers. Instead, there was a local sheriff, usually an elected office, and maybe a very small handful of deputies. If the sheriff needed to use more 'force' than that, he called for citizen volunteers. Anyone who's seen an old western movie where a posse is formed knows how this worked.

For defense against foreign enemies, our founding fathers were very distrustful of 'standing armies'

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

* Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison

Instead, they kept a very small number of regular army, really just enough to man some forts along the coasts and frontiers. When war came, when the government needed more 'force' than this, they called for volunteers.

When Lincoln called this a nation with a 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people', this is at least in part of what he referred to. In those days, when the government needed to use 'force', it relied upon volunteers from the people.

The effect of this was that government officials did not have 'force' available to them without the participation of the citizenry. Under the original system of democracy created here in America, there was tight control over whether the government could fight an unpopular war. The citizenry had the final say, as it would be very hard to fight a war that no one volunteered to fight.

This is a very different system than today where any mayor has thousands of armed police officers at their beck and call, and the President can order millions of paid soldiers who are sworn to obey his orders as commander in chief.

World War II was largely the dividing line. Lincoln had a draft and of course a huge army to fight the Civil War, but that was disbanded at the end of the war, and the nation largely returned to the original system afterwards. It was the end of World War II that marked the change to a permanent army numbering in the millions.

Maybe that was needed to fight the Soviets, although that threat was always massively exaggerated in the intelligence estimates. But, whether it was really needed or not, by the end of the Cold War in 1991, the concept of a huge permanent army had become a permanent feature on the American landscape.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty

But, at least that force was still at least nominally under popular control. Now we are moving to the next phase. Private armies. That's what's been built in this era of 'privatisation'. The US government has paid companies like Blackwater huge fees in the millions upon millions of dollars to build vast private armies. The bean counters in the government apparently think this is a good idea since we only hire the armies when we need them.

But the problem is this. Those private armies don't just disappear when the government isn't using them for missions. They'd be available of other missions. Maybe an oil company has a problem with protesters near an overseas oil field. Or, if things get really nasty, the private armies can start to act on their own. Maybe someday a mercenary company gets tired of those protesters near its facilities and turns loose its own CIA-used snatch and grab teams on them.

Not saying that this has happened yet. But the point is that we are taking another very dangerous step AWAY from the system and the protections that our Founding Fathers tried to erect to create a free nation. We've already gone from force being under the direct control of citizens to a system where force is under the relatively uncontrolled power of the state. Now we are seeing this force move from within the government, where there was at least some chance that the people might control it, off into private companies that are completely out of public control. And these private armies are being created with public tax money being paid out in contracts.

Paying public tax money to create private armies that are not under popular control is not right. In fact, it is a very dangerous thing to do. Having private armies around is never good for peace and stability.

If Madison considered a standing army under control of the government a threat to liberty, I wonder what he would think of a private standing army that's only under the control of its owner?

So, there are these guys that were trained and had the skills to go with the CIA on these raids. Wonder what they are doing today?

The very long war

On Obama's Peace Prize

The modern American "Peace" movement must surely get some sort of an award for being the most ineffectual movement in history. They represent the views of at least 60% of Americans who want these wars to end, but they can not manage to pull off anything with the slightest impact on the wars.

Its their latest effort that has me shaking my head. They just wrote a 'open letter' to the Noble Peace Prize committee. Ok, some obvious points to be made there, as our wonderful man of peace has just escalated the war in Afghanistan by yet another 30,000 troops.

So, what do these wonderful leaders of our peace movement ask for in this letter? What dramatic step forward for mankind and the peace of the world are they calling for?

We assume that the Nobel Committee chose to award President Obama the peace prize in full awareness of the vision offered by Dr. King’s acceptance speech. We also understand that the Nobel committee may now regret that decision in light of recent developments, as we believe that the committee should be reluctant to present an Orwellian message equating peace with war. When introducing the President, the Committee should, at the very least, exhibit a level of compassion and humility by drawing attention to this distressing ambiguity.

That's it?

First, its so badly written, that what they actually ask for, which is merely for the President's introduction mention the fact that he's a warmonger creating more wars in the world, is hard to even find until you read it several times. And this is all buried down in paragraph number five of this 'open letter'. This is obviously what comes out when you assign a committee to write a statement.

And that's all they want? Heck, that's not worth the paper the letter's written on. They killed a tree to say this? Couldn't they at least ask that the committee actually withdraw the prize?

The American peace movement. Doesn't have the power to accomplish anything. Doesn't even have the guts to ask for anything. Useless.

We need to build our own peace movement from the ground up. Don't wait on leaders. Don't wait on organizations. Build it yourself in your neighborhood.

Because, if we have to wait on this bunch of 'antiwar leaders' to bring peace to the US, we are going to have a very, very, very long war.

Banks for the People

Chavez's Lines: December 6, 11 years later
Ever wonder why Chavez is so hated by the elites in the US? Its not because he's a 'dictator'. A strange dictator that's constantly having elections. No, its because he says things like this. Dangerous things. So dangerous that the citizens of the US are to be protected from such thoughts, here in this great land of freedom.

A good rule to follow is to always read the people they don't want you to read, and listen to the people they don't want you to hear. When someone is criticized and attacked, usually its a good idea to go find out why. Of course, you might find out they are a total idiot, but you should at least go check for yourself.

In this case, you might find out that its possible that a government might put white-collar bandits in jail rather than protecting them.

Banks for the people!

It is necessary to insist on the profound difference between the logic of the revolutionary state we are creating - which makes people a priority - and the logic of the bourgeois state.

Within the logic of the bourgeois state, capital pays and it receives: the only important thing is the permanent strengthening of capital to support an economic structure that not only ensures the abusive privileges of a few, but is designed for the reproduction of a model of society based on inequality and the exclusion of the majority.

Let's recall, when the financial crisis rocked the United States, we saw how the state power came to the aid of the corrupt bankers, forgetting the depositors.

Venezuela has seized control of seven banks and in our case, without any ambiguity, the idea is to protect depositors and guarantee their savings. In this particular case, we are talking about 713,200 depositors who trusted in these seven banks. In addition, we decided to include two of these banks in the public financial system in order to strengthen and broaden the support to low-income sectors.

What a difference! Over there, bankers are protected so they can continue with their sneaky tricks. Here, white-collar bandits go to jail.

Where is boom?

Remember, Bullwinkle says

"Turn off your TV, and vote for whoever you want!"

-- from the Rocky and Bullwinkle movie.  

From the Cradle

From the Cradle by Widespread Panic and William Tonks

Listening to music and ignoring the world today. :)

From The Cradle

Black hole, paradise found
something so dark and something so bright
Blue skies over our head
Why the hell is everything turning out gray?

All things are not what they seem
The man behind the curtain is probably mean

Deep six keeps the population down
Broke and soaking wet, floating around
Keep your head down, keep your voice down
Ohh listen to the sound
All the races, all the faces
Just might find a winner lying on the ground

Learn to take it, meditate it
Can’t fake it now
From the cradle you’ve been labeled
About as stable as a drunk on shaky ground

Blind luck stumbling into a tree
Would’ve passed by if I could have seen
Got no cares I never felt pressed
I wonder what they’re getting for a pound of flesh?
Hunker down now throwing a shoe
Dogs new tricks Something they can’t use

Deep six keeps the population down
Broke and soaking wet, floating around
Keep your head down keep your voice down
Ohh listen to the sound
All the faces, you can't shake 'em now now
Just might find a winner lying on the ground

Learn to take it, try to shake it
All the faces, you can't shake 'em now now
From the cradle you’ve been labeled
About as stable as a drunk on shaky ground

Goodpeople by Widespread Panic

We are the good people
The ones they told you about
The ones that disappeared
Behind the calling of the sun
Like footprints to the sea
They dance upon the rising storm
Ten thousand voices singing
Hardly thrills our soul

Louder and louder
Hear the engines roar
Faster and faster
Fables overturned
Tighter and tighter
Oh the lightning flash
Closer and closer
Here are your waters so drink and be whole again

Machines that make their rounds
Don't care if they ever see the dawn
It'll be peaceful flowing rivers
After the winter's come and gone
Some are weak and wounded
Others sick and sore
Old woman at the well
Dropping roses from planted thorns

Louder and louder
Hear the engines roar
Faster and faster
Fables overturned
Tighter and tighter
Oh the lightning flash
Closer and closer
Here are your waters so drink and be whole again

We are the good people
The ones they told you about
One kiss of mother nature
Her spirit waits in light

Louder and louder
Hear the engines roar
Faster and faster
Fables overturned
Tighter and tighter
Oh the lightning flash
Closer and closer
Here are your waters so drink
Here are your waters so drink and be whole again
Be whole again

Both songs widely available for free on the internet since Panic allows its fans to record its shows and pass them around for free. Bt.etree.org is a good place if you know how to use bit torrent. Otherwise, I'm sure google will help find them.

Emergency

e⋅mer⋅gen⋅cy
[i-mur-juhn-see] noun, plural -cies, adjective
–noun
1. a sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action.
2. a state, esp. of need for help or relief, created by some unexpected event: a weather emergency; a financial emergency.
–adjective
3. granted, used, or for use in an emergency: an emergency leave; emergency lights.

-- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emergency

Notice the definition is in terms of words such as 'sudden', 'urgent', and 'unexpected'.

U.S. alleges company laundered money for Iran from CNN.

In another U.S.-Iran development, President Obama said Thursday in a letter to Congress that the national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in 1979 during the Iranian revolution has not ended.

"Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still under way," Obama wrote in an official "notice of continuation" required to extend the emergency status with Iran beyond the anniversary date of November 14. "For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect to Iran, beyond November 14, 2009."

Now, given the definition of the word 'emergency', how on earth can a 'state of emergency' last for 30 years? Orwell would probably be inspired to write a new chapter of Animal Farm where the pigs declare a 30 year state of 'emergency'. Of course, this is the same government that continues to fund 8 year old wars as if they were 'unexpected' in 'emergency supplemental' funding bills.

Notice also that the US government defines 'normal' in its relations with Iran as when the Shah of Iran was our murdering and torturing puppet. Apparently, we must be in a state of emergency with Iran until we 'return' to those wonderful good ol' days when we trained the Shah's men in the CIA way of torture. When the CIA is back in Tehran, the 'emergency' will be over.

Remember back when Obama was just a candidate in the primaries, and that in order to win he needed progressive votes, and he kept promising that things would 'change' and he would follow a different course? Maybe one where we actually talked with the Iranian government as adults?? Instead, he tries to overthrow their government with a coup, and now continues the ridiculous notion of a thirty year long 'sudden' and 'unexpected' state with Iran.

BTW, this is at the tail end of a CNN piece on another story. One of the ways they try to hide embarrassing announcements. The main story is also interesting. The US government is seizing 4 American mosques and a skyscraper in NYC. It seems the Shah used to own the skyscraper, so it passed on to the Iranian state. Who then gave it to a foundation they set up so that the rents earned by the skyscraper could fund the college educations of Iranians who wish to study abroad. Obviously a communist plot. Oops, they aren't communist plots anymore, now they are 'terrorist' plots.

Their crime. Not one steamy allegation of the foundation supporting terrorism in the piece. I guess the crew that makes these things up from whole cloth had a day off. Instead, the charge is that they've done business with the Iranian state-owned bank. Not a surprise at all if the foundation is giving money to students in Iran to come to university here. I suspect they would put money into the family accounts at this state-owned bank. But ...

U.S. and European Union officials last year designated Bank Melli as a proliferator for supporting Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and funneling money to the Revolutionary Guard and Quds Force, considered terrorist groups by the United States.

Lets see. 'Funneling money'? Isn't that what a bank is supposed to do? So, I guess what the administration bought by Wall Street is really saying is that its illegal for Iran to have a bank. Goldman Sachs needs their business.

And, everyone from the experts at the IAEA to the experts at the CIA keep saying that Iran does not have an illegal nuclear program. But, this bank is still accused by the US of 'funneling money' to it. Which I suppose really means that both the Iranian Treasury and this Iranian government agency both have counts at the state-owned Iranian bank. What a shock! What horrible crimes this bank has committed! And of course, by extension, what great crimes this foundation in America has committed by also committed by daring to do business with the same bank!

Or, to put it into Chicago terms, this would be about the same as the feds seizing a church because it happens to use the same bank for its accounts as Al Capone. Even if its Al Capone's bank, does that make a church nefarious gangsters if they open a checking account there?

My real guess is this. Somebody wanted the Shah's old skyscraper, and all of this was an excuse to go grab it. Manhattan real estate is still valuable. Remember, when the Nazi Germans stole the property and money of the jews, they dressed it up by calling the jews 'terrorists'.

How low can they go?

OBAMA HELPING TO WEAKEN OFFSHORE TAX RESTRICTION by David Sirota via Undernews.

And yet in the now-Democratic Congress seven years later, with deficits exploding and the government clearly needing to strengthen any and all incentives for corporations to pay their taxes, I was more than disheartened to read this story in the Hill newspaper this week:

[] Multinational corporations are fighting to preserve language in a spending bill that would weaken a ban on federal contracts.

The provision, inserted in the Senate version of the bill at the request of the Obama administration, would weaken a ban on federal contracts for inverted companies...

Before the ban began in 2002, four of the 100 largest federal contractors were inverted, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

In 2001, those four companies received $2.7 billion in federal contracts, but they have unable to win the contracts since the ban was put into place. []

The Obama administration is justifying its push on the grounds that the ban may - at some point in the undetermined future - conflict with our trade agreements. It's a charge North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) rightly calls "absurd."

Is there nothing that these Democrats won't do to sell us out to corporate America. Think about this for a second. This is a Congress that is deliberately voting to reduce tax revenue in the middle of a recession by giving favors to corporate America.

I don't suppose they'd let every American citizen move their official residence to the Bahamas in order to reduce our taxes. Naw, didn't think so. You have to be able to bribe Congress with millions of dollars to get such preferential treatment.

Why on earth did the people elect these crooks? And, sure the people won't vote to re-elect a Congress that lets corporations move revenue and jobs out of America?