Supreme Court Financial Disclosure forms.

This came to me via a MoveOn mailing list concerning their Move To Amend iniative. Looks like it originated with Congressional Quarterly. Supreme Court justices are required to file financial disclosure forms. Here's the links to those.

Justices of the Supreme Court

Updated: August 2010

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: Chevy Chase, Md.
Born: Jan. 27, 1955; Buffalo, N.Y.
Religion: Roman Catholic
Family: Wife, Jane Marie Sullivan Roberts; two children
Education: Harvard U., A.B. 1976, J.D. 1979
Military Service: None
Occupation: Lawyer
Experience: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003-05

Confirmation: President Bush announced July 19, 2005, that Roberts would replace retiring Justice O'Connor; however, when Chief Justice Rehnquist died on Sept. 3, 2005, the president then nominated Roberts as chief justice. Roberts was officially nominated as chief justice Sept. 6, 2005, by George W. Bush to succeed William H. Rehnquist and confirmed as chief justice Sept. 29, 2005, by a yea-nay vote of 78-22.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: New Jersey
Born: April 1, 1950; Trenton, N.J.
Religion:
Family: Wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner; two children
Education: Princeton U., A.B. 1972; Yale U., J.D. 1975
Military Service: None
Occupation: Lawyer; federal prosecutor
Experience: Assistant U.S. attorney, 1977-80; U.S. attorney, 1987-90; U.S. Court of Appeals 1990-present

Confirmation: Nominated Nov. 10, 2005 by George Bush to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor and confirmed Jan. 30, 2006, by a yea-nay vote of 58-42.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

Stephen G. Breyer

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: Cambridge, Mass.
Born: August 15, 1938; San Francisco, Calif.
Religion: Jewish
Family: Wife, Joanna Hare; three children
Education: Stanford U., A.B. 1959; Oxford U., B.A. 1961; Harvard U., LL.B. 1964
Military Service: None
Occupation: Law clerk; lawyer; professor; congressional aide
Experience: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1981-94 (chief judge, 1990-94)

Confirmation: Nominated May 13, 1994, by Bill Clinton to succeed Harry A. Blackmun and confirmed July 29, 1994, by a yea-nay vote of 87-9.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: Washington, D.C.
Born: March 15, 1933; Brooklyn, N.Y.
Religion: Jewish
Education: Cornell U., A.B. 1954; Harvard U., 1956-58; Columbia U., LL.B.,J.D. 1959
Family: Husband, Martin Ginsburg; two children
Military Service: None
Occupation: Lawyer; law professor
Experience: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1980-93

Confirmation: Nominated June 14, 1993, by Bill Clinton to succeed Byron White and confirmed August 3, 1993, by a yea-nay vote of 96-3.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

Anthony M. Kennedy

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: Sacramento, Calif.
Born: July 23, 1936; Sacramento, Calif.
Religion: Roman Catholic
Family: Wife, Mary Davis; three children
Education: Stanford U., A.B. 1958; Harvard U., J.D. 1961
Military Service: National Guard, 1961
Occupation: Lawyer; professor
Experience: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1976-88

Confirmation: Nominated Nov. 30, 1987, by Ronald Reagan to succeed Lewis F. Powell Jr., and confirmed Feb. 3, 1988, by a yea-nay vote of 97-0.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

Antonin Scalia

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: McLean, Va.
Born: March 11, 1936; Trenton, N.J.
Religion: Roman Catholic
Family: Wife, Maureen McCarthy; nine children
Education: U. of Fribourg (Switzerland); Georgetown U., A.B. 1957; Harvard U., LL.B. 1960
Military Service: None
Occupation: Lawyer; professor
Experience: Office of Telecommunications Policy general counsel, 1971-72; assistant U.S. attorney general, 1974-77; U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1982-86

Confirmation: Nominated June 24, 1986, by Ronald Reagan to succeed William H. Rehnquist and confirmed Sept. 17, 1986, by a yea-nay vote of 98-0.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

David H. Souter

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: Weare, N.H.
Born: September 17, 1939; Melrose, Mass.
Religion: Episcopalian
Family: Single
Education: Harvard U., A.B. 1961; Oxford U., 1961-63; Harvard U., LL.B. 1966; Oxford U., A.B. 1989, M.A. 1989
Military Service: None
Occupation: Lawyer
Experience: N.H. assistant attorney general, 1968-71; N.H. deputy attorney general, 1971-76; N.H. attorney general, 1976-78; N.H. Superior Court, 1978-83; N.H. Supreme Court, 1983-90; 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1990

Confirmation: Nominated July 25, 1990, by George Bush to succeed William J. Brennan Jr., and confirmed Oct. 2, 1990, by a yea-nay vote of 90-9.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

John Paul Stevens

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: Chicago, Ill.
Born: April 20, 1920; Chicago, Ill.
Religion: Protestant
Family: Wife, Maryan Mulholland Simon; four children
Education: U. of Chicago, A.B. 1941; Northwestern U., J.D. 1947
Military Service: Naval Reserve, 1942-45
Occupation: Lawyer; law instructor
Experience: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1970-75

Confirmation: Nominated Nov. 28, 1975, by Gerald R. Ford to succeed William O. Douglas and confirmed Dec. 17, 1975, by a yea-nay vote of 98-0.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

Clarence Thomas

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
Residence: Savannah, Ga.
Born: June 23, 1948; Savannah, Ga.
Religion: Roman Catholic
Family: Wife, Virginia Lamp; one child
Education: College of the Holy Cross, A.B. 1971; Yale U., J.D. 1974
Military Service: None.
Occupation: Congressional aide; lawyer
Experience: Mo. assistant attorney general, 1974-77; assistant secretary of Education, 1981-82 (for civil rights); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission chairman, 1982-90; U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1990-91

Confirmation: Nominated July 1, 1991, by George Bush to succeed Thurgood Marshall and confirmed Oct. 15, 1991, by a yea-nay vote of 52-48.

Telephone: 202-479-3000 | Web: www.supremecourtus.gov
Supreme Court of the United States | One First St., N.E. | Washington, D.C. 20543

---

Sonia Sotomayor

Financial Disclosure Forms: 2009

Skin Cancer Awareness

If its a fall Saturday, I must be watching football. And, during a rare moment when I didn't fast-forward through the commercials, I watched a skin cancer awareness ad that the Ad Council was running.

The message is that risk of skin cancer starts young, so don't let your children play outside in the sunshine without protection. And it shows a mom covering her little girl's bare skin with sun screen.

These days, that's probably good advice.

But, how did us monkeys survive until some other monkey invented sun-screen? Isn't it odd that we are now a species who's natural environment around us is threatening and harmful to us?

That doesn't appear to be a natural state of things. A species will evolve to suit its environment. A species that would all die off at young ages from skin cancer if it dared to walk out into the sunshine without inventing clothing or sun screen seems unlikely to survive for very long. And its not like we all just lost all our hair in one or two generations.

What's happened is that our environment has changed. The sun didn't use to be deadly to us monkeys. Today it is. Something has changed.

Its hard to spot such changes in every day life, as they happen so slowly. You can only spot them by noticing the slow changes over time. You spot these changes by noticing things like today everyone is supposed to wear sunscreen if they go out to check the mail, while 50 years ago everyone just took their shirt off and played and worked in the sun.

Some of that certainly is education and awareness. Probably we should have used more sunscreen back when we used to play and work shirtless all the time. There was some skin cancer around back then. But, judging from today's tv ads, we should have all ended up with a body covered by tumors by playing in the sun like we used to. There was some skin cancer around, but it wasn't so bad that we were all afraid to go out into the sunshine.

It seems like something has changed. During the 80's, we realized that all of the CFCs that we were releasing were doing damage to the ozone layer that helps to protect us and our skin from the sun. This was addressed by one of the rare moments of international environmental cooperation at a meeting in Montreal that led to the phase-out of these CFCs.

But, just how much damage did we do to the ozone layer that we all now have to hide beneath hats and suncreen if we want to go down to the mailbox and check the mail? You don't see any stories that document how much damage we did to our planet? You just see lots of public-service ads that tell parents to never, ever let their kids play outside without protection from the sun.

In a democracy, the people are supposed to have the information required to make good decisions. A democracy is where the people have the final say, so the people need to know the truth so they can make the decisions for their society.

We are constantly told that this path of industrialization and free markets is the only way. But, what if industrialization and free markets were responsible for doing major damage to our planet? Shouldn't we be told this clearly and plainly? Not only should we be told not to let our children play in the sunshine, but we should be told why our children can't play in the sunshine these days.

Because the answer to why lets our democracy make the appropriate choices about whether massive industrialization and unbridled free markets unhampered by regulation are really good for us. If there's a case where this led to world-wide use of CFCs which then destroyed the ozone layer so badly that our children can no longer play safely in the sunshine without protection, then that's something the people of a democracy need to know.

The information about why our children can't play in the sunshine is at least as important to a democracy as the message to parents that they should not let their children play in the sunshine. Because, if unbridled industrialization and free markets without regulation are creating a world where our children can't play in the sunshine, then we need to know about this so we can pick a better course.

Of course, that's the question for this democracy. Is it allowed to consider some very basic questions? Are unregulated free markets good for us? Has massive industrialization and growth been good for us? Is all of this creating a better world for our children? Or, are we destroying the world our children will have to inhabit?

Aren't these important questions for the free citizens of a democracy to be asking? And, if these sorts of choices have been ruled 'off-the-table' for the citizens of a democracy, doesn't that raise questions about whether we really live in a free democracy. Because, it a real democracy, the ultimate power lies with the people themselves, and nothing is 'off-the-table' unless the people put it there.

Why aren't we told why our children can't play in the sunshine without sunscreen?

From wikipedia .....
Ozone depletion

Ozone depletion describes two distinct, but related observations: a slow, steady decline of about 4 percent per decade in the total volume of ozone in Earth's stratosphere (the ozone layer) since the late 1970s, and a much larger, but seasonal, decrease in stratospheric ozone over Earth's polar regions during the same period. The latter phenomenon is commonly referred to as the ozone hole. In addition to this well-known stratospheric ozone depletion, there are also tropospheric ozone depletion events, which occur near the surface in polar regions during spring.

and later down ....

Effects on humans

UVB (the higher energy UV radiation absorbed by ozone) is generally accepted to be a contributory factor to skin cancer. In addition, increased surface UV leads to increased tropospheric ozone, which is a health risk to humans.[29]

1. Basal and Squamous Cell Carcinomas — The most common forms of skin cancer in humans, basal and squamous cell carcinomas, have been strongly linked to UVB exposure. The mechanism by which UVB induces these cancers is well understood—absorption of UVB radiation causes the pyrimidine bases in the DNA molecule to form dimers, resulting in transcription errors when the DNA replicates. These cancers are relatively mild and rarely fatal, although the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma sometimes requires extensive reconstructive surgery. By combining epidemiological data with results of animal studies, scientists have estimated that a one percent decrease in stratospheric ozone would increase the incidence of these cancers by 2%.[30]

2. Malignant Melanoma — Another form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma, is much less common but far more dangerous, being lethal in about 15–20% of the cases diagnosed. The relationship between malignant melanoma and ultraviolet exposure is not yet well understood, but it appears that both UVB and UVA are involved. Experiments on fish suggest that 90 to 95% of malignant melanomas may be due to UVA and visible radiation[31] whereas experiments on opossums suggest a larger role for UVB.[30] Because of this uncertainty, it is difficult to estimate the impact of ozone depletion on melanoma incidence. One study showed that a 10% increase in UVB radiation was associated with a 19% increase in melanomas for men and 16% for women.[32] A study of people in Punta Arenas, at the southern tip of Chile, showed a 56% increase in melanoma and a 46% increase in nonmelanoma skin cancer over a period of seven years, along with decreased ozone and increased UVB levels.[33]

3. Cortical Cataracts — Studies are suggestive of an association between ocular cortical cataracts and UV-B exposure, using crude approximations of exposure and various cataract assessment techniques. A detailed assessment of ocular exposure to UV-B was carried out in a study on Chesapeake Bay Watermen, where increases in average annual ocular exposure were associated with increasing risk of cortical opacity.[34] In this highly exposed group of predominantly white males, the evidence linking cortical opacities to sunlight exposure was the strongest to date. However, subsequent data from a population-based study in Beaver Dam, WI suggested the risk may be confined to men. In the Beaver Dam study, the exposures among women were lower than exposures among men, and no association was seen.[35] Moreover, there were no data linking sunlight exposure to risk of cataract in African Americans, although other eye diseases have different prevalences among the different racial groups, and cortical opacity appears to be higher in African Americans compared with whites.[36][37]

4. Increased Tropospheric Ozone — Increased surface UV leads to increased tropospheric ozone. Ground-level ozone is generally recognized to be a health risk, as ozone is toxic due to its strong oxidant properties. At this time, ozone at ground level is produced mainly by the action of UV radiation on combustion gases from vehicle exhausts.[citation needed]

Put the numbers together. A 4% decrease in the ozone layer per decade. And a 2% increase in skin cancer for every 1% of increase in UV radiation. You can't just add them together, since the first is the decrease in volume of the ozone and that's probably not linearly related to the amount of UV radiation penetrating the ozone layer.

But still, our ozone layer took a big hit. And now, for every 1% of extra UV radiation that results, skin cancer rates go up by 2%.

When we make a mistake, there's often not much we can do but to live with the consequences. Except, that we can try to learn and not make the same mistake again. And in this case, shouldn't our democracy be asking how it was we let our industries pump so much of these gasses into our atmosphere and do this damage. Shouldn't we learn to be more careful.

In this age of propaganda against government regulations and any government interference in businesses and their making of profits, we should stop and think every single time we put sunscreen on our children whether all of this is really making a better world for our children.

Karl Rove's Political Playbook.

Remember how back in the bad old days of the Bush administration, there used to be highly exaggerated 'terror' threats that would come out just in time for the elections?

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain By Simon Tisdale and Richard Norton-Taylor for the Guardian (UK)

A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.

The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have "set the country on fire", said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.

Hasan, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan's president, suggested the Obama administration was playing politics with the terror threat before next month's midterm congressional elections, in which the Republicans are expected to make big gains.

and ....

"I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming midterm American elections. If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al-Qaida people, we should be provided [with] that and we could go after them ourselves," Hasan said.

"Such reports are a mixture of frustrations, ineptitude and lack of appreciation of ground realities. Any attempt to infringe the sovereignty of Pakistan would not bring about stability in Afghanistan, which is presumably the primary objective of the American and Nato forces."

Apparently Karl Rove forgot to burn his secret political playbook before leaving the White House. Because Obama and the Democrats are running the same 'politics of fear' that the Republicans used to run.

The Democrats are so morally bankrupt that this is all they have to offer America. They constantly scream about the 'tea-party' to scare loyal Democrats into voting for their pro-war, pro-corporate party that opposes everything their base believes in. Now they are running Bush-style 'exaggerated' terror threats the month before the election.

If you miss Karl Rove, then vote Democrat this fall.
If you wanted real change, then do not vote Democrat this fall.

Ignorance and/or Dishonesty

Currency Wars and Accounting Identities By DEAN BAKER via CounterPunch.org

When you hear 'economics on TV, you are often hearing BS. Chalmers Johnson, author of "Blowback" talks in the introduction to that book of how 'Economics' has become more religion than science. Believe in the free market. Believe in unbridled capitalism. Take it on faith that this will makes us all rich and create a utopia for all of us to live in.

For real economics, read this article by Dean Baker. Remember, he's one of the people that was writing about the housing bubble back while CNN et al were telling you how wonderful the economy was and how you should go buy your Enron stock today.

The whole piece is worth reading. Its hard not to copy it all into here. But, here's the part he ends with.

This raises the possibility that perhaps the deficit hawks don’t really give a damn about the deficit. Perhaps the deficit hawks just want to cut Social Security and Medicare and other programs that benefit the middle class and moderate-income people. Of course, it is also possible that the deficit hawks are just confused when it comes to economic policy. It’s hard to know for sure, but these days ignorance and/or dishonesty appears to be the price of admission to Washington policy debates.

Government of the ignorant and dishonest, government by the ignorant and dishonest, and government for the ignorance and dishonest shall not perish from this earth.

Certainly as not as long as we just keep voting for Democrats or Republicans. And if we even have a hint that this government is ignorant and dishonest, then voting for any incumbent seems suicidal.

Time to Kick the Donkey

FBI Raids and the Criminalization of Dissent By Amy Goodman via ZNet.

Early in the morning on Friday, Sept. 24, FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota’s Twin Cities kicked in the doors of anti-war activists, brandishing guns, spending hours rifling through their homes. The FBI took away computers, photos, notebooks and other personal property. Residents were issued subpoenas to appear before a grand jury in Chicago. It was just the latest in the ongoing crackdown on dissent in the U.S., targeting peace organizers as supporters of “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Everyone refers to this as just the "FBI".  What's missing is that this is Obama's FBI.

At least now we know why Obama's FBI wasn't arresting the Bush era criminals who tortured and illegally spied on Americans.  And, at least now we know why Obama's FBI wasn't arresting the Wall Street crooks who cost Americans trillions of dollars of wealth by first creating a speculative bubble in the housing market that was American's primary avenue of investment, which of course was followed by the inevitable crash of that speculative bubble.  Nope, Obama has his FBI infiltrating and investigating peaceful antiwar activists.  Obviously spying on peaceful activists is more important to Obama and the Democrats than going after Bush-era torturers or Wall Street crooks.

The open question is, when will the majority of Americans, who oppose these wars and who think our children and our money should come home, when will they stop supporting Obama and the Democrats?  Not only has voting Democrat led to a never-ending war in Iraq and bigger and bigger wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but now Obama is sending his FBI to kick in the doors of people who dare to disagree.  Obama is sending his FBI to kick in the doors of people who dare to suggest that we shouldn't be getting our children killed and maimed.  Obama is sending his FBI to kick in the doors of people who dare to suggest that we shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on these useless wars in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. 

Obama's stance is clear.  Obama has declared open war on the antiwar movement by sending his FBI to kick in these doors.  The question is, are the anti-war voters of American foolish enough to still continue to vote Democrat?

The secret no Democrat wants to mention is that the Democrats win their elections on anti-war votes.  No matter what your estimate of the strength of anti-war public opinion in this country, if the anti-war votes do not support the Democrats, the Democrats lose to any Republican with a pulse.  It doesn't matter if you picture the anti-war movement as the 60% of Americans who consistently tell pollsters that they want these wars to end, or if you picture it as 20% of committed antiwar voters on the left of the Democratic party.  Even that smaller number is far larger than the Democratic margin of victory in almost any race.

What you can destroy, you can control.  The anti-war voters of America have the power to destroy any Democratic campaign by their opposition to it.  The Democrats simply do not have the number of votes to win without the anti-war votes.  Which leads to a very simple response to these raids.

DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT in NOV.  Not even for dog-catcher.  DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT.

That may not lead to an immediate utopia of a peaceful world the second week in November, but it will send a powerful message that the Democrats will hear and which will change the future.  And I don't mean the fake change in the wrong direction that the Democrats offer, but I mean a powerful change in the direction of ending these wars.  Because, every Democratic strategist looking at 2012 will have one fact in front of them in complete clarity. The Democrats can not win without anti-war votes.  If you want to end the wars, put the professional Democratic politicians into a position where the only way they can win elections is by opposing these wars.  That leaves them only two choices.  Ending the wars, or finding a new career path in bad economic times.

Even that probably won't end the wars in 2012, as most likely we'll have to go through another loop where the Democrats lie to pretend to oppose the wars, get elected, instead expand the wars again, and again we have to kick them out.  But, as long as we stand firm in saying that we will not elect Democrats who do not oppose these wars, well, even the stubbornest donkey will sooner or later get the message if you keep kicking it.

Now is the time to kick the donkey. The donkey ain't moving.  When the donkey does want to move, it seems to want to go the wrong direction.  But, any country boy knows how to deal with that donkey and get it to head in the direction you want it to go.  A few good kicks will get it moving in the right direction.  In fact, once you teach the donkey that you will kick it, you don't have to any more.  Just raise your voice in that special manner that tells the donkey another kick is coming, and it will start to move on its own.

Now is the time to kick the donkey.  It won't immediately end the wars.  But, to end the wars we need a Democratic party that's been trained to know that it can only win with anti-war votes.  Now is the time to kick the donkey to lead to a future where someday we won't have to.

Surely, if any anti-war voters hadn't noticed that the wars got bigger and bigger after they voted for the supposedly anti-war Democrats, they can't help but notice Obama's FBI kicking in the doors of peaceful antiwar activists.  If nothing else, the obvious message to any anti-war voter is that if they vote Democrat they are voting to have their own homes raided by the FBI if they dare to tell others that they oppose these wars. 

Even beyond any political grand strategy, the most obvious statement for anyone who opposes these wars is that a vote for the Democrats is a vote to have your own front door kicked in by Obama's FBI.  Surely at some point an anti-war voter has to get the message that voting Democrat does not lead to good outcomes for themselves.

I watched in amazement in 2008 as the antiwar voters of America combined to all vote for a candidate only that pretended to be antiwar while at the same time promising bigger defense budgets, a bigger military, keeping troops in Iraq and expanding the 'right war' in Afghanistan.  But surely, now, after two years of this pro-war reality, and now with Obama's FBI kicking in the doors of anti-war activists, the response of the anti-war voters of America has to be clear.

DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT.

We've got a month.  Lets all combine to deliver a response to this that the Democrats will hear loud and clear and which will send them reeling.  Spread the word as loudly and as far as you can before people start to vote in the next few weeks. 

If you oppose these wars, DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT.

And don't do it quietly. Now is not the time to sneak around and try to secretly deliver a kick to the seat of the Democrats without them noticing. Now is the time to stand right in front of the Democrats and make sure they know that you are tired of being lied to, and that you are tired of being raided, and that this swift hard kick that is coming is our response to the lies and especially to these raids.  When its time to kick the donkey, it doesn't do any good if the donkey doesn't know who's kicking it.  The anti-war movement needs to be loud and vocal for the next month in its response to these raids by refusing to support the Democrats in this election.

Donkeys aren't real good at reading their email.   But, this is a response that any donkey can understand.

The only reason for time ....

"The only reason for time is so everything doesn't happen all at once"

-Albert Einstein.

+

"I need a miracle every day"

-Grateful Dead

=

"The only reason for time is so all of my miracles don't happen all at once."

What a wonderful bunch of monkeys we are.

From The Infinite Hypocrisy of the West
By Fidel Castro

Although several articles on this subject were published before and after September 1st, 2010, on that day the Mexican daily La Jornada published one of great impact entitled El holocausto gitano: ayer y hoy (The gypsies’ holocaust: yesterday and today) which reminds us of a truly tragic history. Without adding or deleting a single word from the information contained in the article, I will quote some lines referring to some events that are really touching. Neither the West nor -most of all- its colossal media apparatus have said a single word about them.

“1496: boom of humanist thinking. The Rom peoples (gypsies) from Germany are declared traitors to the Christian nations, spies paid by the Turkish, carriers of the plague, witches and warlocks, bandits and children kidnappers.

“1710: century of Enlightenment and rationale. An edict ordered that adult gypsies from Prague be hanged without any previous trial. Young persons and women were mutilated. In Bohemia their left ear were cut off; in Moravia, their right ear.

“1899: climax of modernity and progress. The police of Bavaria founded the Special Section for Gypsies’ Affairs. In 1929, the section was promoted to the category of National Central section and was moved to Munich. In 1937 it was based in Berlin. Four years later, half a million gypsies died in the concentration camps of Central and Eastern Europe.”

“In her PhD’s thesis, Eva Justin (assistant of Dr. Robert Ritter of the Racial Research Section of the Ministry of Health of Germany), asserted that gypsies’ blood was extremely harmful to the purity of the German race. Someone called Dr. Portschy sent a memorandum to Hitler suggesting that gypsies should be submitted to forced labor and mass sterilization because they jeopardized the pure blood of the German peasantry.

“The gypsies, who were labeled as inveterate criminals, started to be arrested en masse, and as from 1938 they were put into special blocks at the Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Gusen, Dautmergen, Natzweiler and Flossenburg camps.

“In a concentration camp he owned in Ravensbruck, Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Gestapo (SS), created a space to sacrifice gypsy women who were submitted to medical experiments. One hundred and twenty zingari girls were sterilized. Gypsy women married to non-gypsy men were sterilized at the Dusseldorf-Lierenfeld hospital.

“Thousands of gypsies were deported from Belgium, the Netherlands and France to the Polish concentration camp of Auschwitz. In his memoirs, Rudolf Hoess (commander of Auschwitz) wrote that among the gypsies deported there were old people almost one hundred years of age, pregnant women and a large number of children.

“At the ghetto of Lodz (Poland) […] none of the 5 000 gypsies survived.”

“In Yugoslavia, gypsies and Jews were equally killed in the forest of Jajnice. Farmers still remember the cries of the gypsy children who were taken to the places of execution.”

“At the extermination camps, only the love of gypsies for music was at times a source of comfort. In Auschwitz, starving and infested with lice, they gathered together to play music and encouraged children to dance. But the courage of gypsy guerrillas who fought alongside the Polish resistance in the region of Nieswiez was also legendary.”

Music was the factor that kept them together and helped them to survive, just as much as religion was for Christians, Jews and Muslims.

--------------------
Of course, not much has changed. This history is in the news because France is deporting hundreds of Gypsies because of their apparent 'criminal nature'.

Fascinating how Hitler's and Goebbel's style of racial hatred still works today. Of course, they can't use Jews as the scapegoats anymore. But there are apparently plenty of other targets out there for whom such racial bigotry is perfectly acceptable.

One of the blessings of largely ignoring the corporate media is that I've heard remarkably little of the apparent debate of a mosque in lower Manhattan. But apparently, this sort of race baiting still works rather well with a decent sized portion of the US public, as long as the targets are 'muslims'.

If you read history, you know what a frightfully short journey it was from the age of enlightenment and reason at the end of the 19th century, to Auschwitz. And what powers that journey is this mental virus of hatred that somehow convinces some people that its perfectly fine if others are robbed, tortured and killed. Its this same racial hatred that we see today towards Gypsies and Muslims that drives that journey to a hell of war crimes and atrocities.

Of course, the truly bizarre part is that this is done in the name of Jesus Christ, who got himself hung on a cross because he got too loud about telling people not to do exactly this.

Does 40% equal 'withdrawal'?

Lets take a total look at numbers in Iraq.

FAS has a document that estimates that there are 95,000 contractors in Iraq as of March 2010. And the high point of US troop totals was about 150,000. So, to use nice round numbers, lets say there were 250,000 guys and gals with guns in Iraq.

Obama has withdrawn 100,000, bringing the US official 'non-combat' troop total down to the 50,000 or so troops that the Democrats have been promising to keep in Iraq ever since gaining power in Congress in 2007.

Which means, the total number of people toting guns around Iraq for 'our side' has gone from 250,000 to 150,000. Overall numbers are down 40%. Doesn't sound like much of a 'withdrawal' when you look at it that way. 'Drawdown' might work for how to describe this. But to call it a 'withdrawal', which usually means 'leaving', well, Orwell would be proud of the Democrats for that one.

Oh, and that assumes that the number of contractors stays level, which probably won't be the case since that same google search found other papers which talk about the thousands of tasks that have been identified for handover to 'civilians'. So, that 40% withdrawal that it looks like was done in the numbers above probably isn't as big as it looks either.

Unfortunately, as many men have found out the hard way, 40% doesn't equal total withdrawal. But there have been armies of cigarette smokers and heroin addicts who've prayed to God that they could have ended their withdrawals at 40% and claimed victory.

And, if you voted Democrat because you wanted peace, then you were just totally hosed. Because most of those troops that were 'withdrawn' from Iraq have gone to Afghanistan. Voting for Obama didn't lead to peace. It led to an Iraq that's still broken, but which got a new coat of whitewash for Obama's photo-op. And it led to a bigger and bigger war in Afghanistan, which, oh by the way, has been escalated into a proxy war in Pakistan as well.

Well, Obama can say he delivered 'change'. It was just change in the wrong direction. When Obama said 'change', apparently he meant more and more and more war. Bush's never ending war has now become Obama's never ending war.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of WITHDRAWAL
1
a : the act of taking back or away something that has been granted or possessed b : removal from a place of deposit or investment c (1) : the discontinuance of administration or use of a drug (2) : the syndrome of often painful physical and psychological symptoms that follows discontinuance of an addicting drug (a heroin addict going through withdrawal)
2
a : retreat or retirement especially into a more secluded or less exposed place or position b : an operation by which a military force disengages from the enemy c (1) : social or emotional detachment (2) : a pathological retreat from objective reality (as in some schizophrenic states)
3
: retraction, revocation
4
a : the act of drawing someone or something back from or out of a place or position b : coitus interruptus

Private Armies

Blackwater's Black Ops by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation.

There was always a dark side to the US government contracting out its military and intel operations to private companies. And that was that in the process we were creating private armies.

Its one thing for a nation to spend money on its own armed forces. I think that the US way overspends, and has been hurting its economy by doing so. But, at least when the nation spends money on its own armed forces, those forces stay under control of the nation. At least in the theory they teach in civics books, that military is answerable to civilian authorities. Which in turn is supposedly elected in free and fair democratic elections. The basic democratic ideal of a free nation is that the people control the military.

But when such money is "Outsourced" to private firms like Blackwater (who's pr people have renamed as "Xe", apparently trying to hide under an obscure name), the people end up having no control over the armed force that's created with their money.

Here's how it works. The US pays out our tax money to purchase Blackwater's services. Blackwater then uses this money to recruit people and buy equipment. Blackwater uses this money to train its people. Then, hopefully they go do the task, like protecting State Dept personnel, that they were contracted to do.

Except, when the contract's up, those trained people and equipment don't go away. Now there's a private army in existence. And since the US has been contracting out 'intel' ops to Blackwater, now there's essentially a private CIA in existence. All paid for by the hard earned tax dollars of working Americans.

Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater's work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article.

One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.

So, now when local citizens around the world try to exercise their rights as free people to organize against a chemical and biotech corporation's assaults on their society, they are now facing this private CIA and this private army that was paid by US tax dollars.

Gee thanks.

And, while the Democrats will try to use their usual spin of blaming this all on Bush and the Republicans, not a single thing has changed when Obama and the Democrats got to power. If anything, its gotten worse as Obama wants his dog-and-pony show fake withdrawal from Iraq. And he's getting it by dumping more and more of the violent dirty work on 'contractors'. While troop numbers decrease in Iraq, contractor numbers stay even or keep climbing.

The bad news about mercenaries is that they don't just disappear when the contract's up. What we've done is create armies of mercenary soldiers and spies who will now be turned loose on anyone who dares to challenge anyone with the millions of dollars needed to pay their fees. And, it won't be the local activists who have the millions of dollars.

After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson "understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name.... Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for." Black added that Total Intelligence "would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto." Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater "could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally." Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto's "generous protection budget" but would eventually become a line item in the company's annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.

Interesting. They aren't as expensive as I thought.

This is one thing any activist has to realize. These sorts of expenditures are a tiny blip in a budget like Monsanto's. Or, that would be a tiny blip in say a political campaign that has hundreds of millions or tens of millions to spend. Not much we can do about it, except be aware that its very cheap for someone to pay to infiltrate our groups.

The key somehow is to build such groups such that they can't be disrupted by such infiltration. Somehow, we got to know that we can be spied on. We've got to to know that people can come in and disrupt us. But we've still got to be able to carry on and be effective despite that.

Its not impossible. It helps not to be reliant on 'leaders', as leaders can always be bought or diverted. Its vital to have a group of committed grassroots activists who believe in what they are doing. Then they have to keep that focus despite any attempts to disrupt the group, or to turn members of the group on each other. Its not easy. But it can be done.

We are the majority!

I think the information below is important, and it was starting to slip away from me.  So, I put it back on my blog.  Mainly so I can find this list again myself.  Its important and I like to refer to it.

The right-wingers and the corporate media go to great efforts to try to convince the left that we are a weak and powerless minority.  But, anyone who pays attention knows that right-wing policies are only supported by about 20-25% of the population.  There's the core of Limbaugh listeners and Palin partisans, but they aren't anywhere near a majority.

What's the majority in America?  That's why I wanted to bring back this data published in Yes! Magazine in August 2008.

The majority of Americans are far to the left of the pro-war, pro-corporate, conservative Democratic Party.  Far to the left.  And, after accomplishing only a few of these tasks that a great majority of Americans supported in 2008, the Democrats are now scratching their heads wondering why their popularity is dropping and why they might lose these midterm elections.  Read these poll numbers, and you'll understand why Obama's pro-war, pro-wall street policies are not popular.

from http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/purple-america/our-own-agenda-economy#economy
67% Favor public works projects to create jobs.
55% Favor expanding unemployment benefits.
73% Say corporations don’t pay a fair share of taxes.
76% Support tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people.
71% Say unions help their members; 53% say unions help the economy in general.
80% Support increasing the federal minimum wage.
59% Favor guaranteeing two weeks or more of paid vacation.
75% Want to limit rate increases on adjustable-rate mortgages.
64% Are not confident that life for our children’s generation will be better than it has been for us.
65% Believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry or form civil unions.
70% Support restoring habeas corpus rights for detainees at Guantanamo.
58% Believe a court warrant should be required to listen to the telephone calls of people in the U.S.
59% Would like the next president to do more to protect civil liberties.
68% Believe the president should not act alone to fight terrorism without the checks and balances of the courts or Congress.
79% Favor mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.
76% Believe that oil is running out
and a major effort is needed to replace it.
90% Favor higher auto fuel efficiency standards.
75% Favor clean electricity, even with higher rates.
72% Support more funding for mass transit.
73%  Believe our health care system is in crisis or has “major problems.”
64%  Believe the government should provide national health insurance coverage for all Americans, even if it would raise taxes.
55% Favor one health insurance program covering all Americans, administered by the government, and paid for by taxpayers.
69% Believe the government should make it easier to buy prescription drugs from other countries.
81% Oppose torture and support following the Geneva Conventions.
76% Say the U.S. should not play the role of global police.
79% Say the U.N. should be strengthened.
73% Favor abolishing nuclear weapons, with verification. 80% favor banning weapons in space.
85% Say that the U.S. should not initiate military action without support from allies.
63% Want U.S. forces home from Iraq within a year.
47% Favor using diplomacy with Iran. 7% favor military action.
57% Say going to war in Iraq was the wrong decision.
67% Believe we should use diplomatic and economic means to fight terrorism, rather than the military.
86% Say big companies have too much power.
74% Favor voluntary public financing of campaigns.
66% Believe intentional acts are likely to cause significant voting machines errors.
80% Say ex-felons should have their voting rights restored.
65% Believe attacking social problems is a better cure for crime than more law enforcement.
87% Support rehabilitation rather than a “punishment-only” system.
81% Say job training is “very important” for reintegrating people leaving prison. 79% say drug treatment is very important.
56% Believe NAFTA should be renegotiated.
64% Believe that on the whole, immigration is good for the country.
80% Favor allowing undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. to stay and apply for citizenship if they have a job and pay back taxes.

Some things never change ....

May 1, 2003

"In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement."

Yep, he really said that as a part of this speech.

Aug. 31, 2010

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began.

Well, at least he has enough sense not to commandeer an aircraft carrier and stand in front of a giant banner.





Sept 5, 2010

American officials say that U.S. troops helped repel a complex attack by a group of heavily armed militants against a Baghdad military headquarters.
The fighting comes five days after the U.S. said it formally ended combat operations in Iraq.
A U.S. military spokesman said the Americans helped provide suppressive fire Sunday while Iraqi Army soldiers located two terrorists who had entered the compound.
Twelve people were killed in the attack. None of them were Americans.  Lt. Col. Eric Bloom also said the Iraqi military asked for support from helicopters, drones and explosives experts.

 Yeah, we turned over security.  The Iraqi Army can't defend one of its headquaters in the middle of Baghdad without calling on the US army.  Two, count em' two terrorists apparently got inside, and the Iraqi Army couldn't deal with it without calling in 'suprressive fire', and 'support from helicopters, drones and explosive experts'.  That's not really the fault of the Iraqi Army.  They were originally designed as a force that couldn't operate without US support. 

Oh, and if you thought that electing the Democrats would get us out of Iraq anytime soon ....

The United States likely will need to keep thousands of troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to keep a lid on sectarian tensions and to bolster Baghdad's fledgling military, experts and former officers say.
American officials privately acknowledge that the US military presence in Iraq will almost certainly be extended, even though a security agreement in force requires all US forces to depart by the end of 2011.

So tell me, exactly which names on an American ballot do oppose the war?  An American voter gets a 'choice' between a pro-war Republican who openly says these wars are fantastic, and a pro-war Democrat who says these wars are awful, but still continues the wars on the same path as the Republicans.


Here was a statement from Bush on how he saw the future of the Iraq War.
"

George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd US President, in a Nov. 30, 2005 speech titled "Remarks on the War On Terror" in Annapolis, MD, stated:

"My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change... We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys. As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."

Now, for all the hot air from Obama and the Democrats about how they oppose these wars, does it really sound like anything has changed with their election?  Aren't Obama and the Democrats still running Bush's plan to the end?

And remember, for all their talk about ending the Iraq war, all they really did was to send the troops over to Afghanistan.


Turns out they promised a change we could not believe in. 





So, what's next.  Electing Republicans won't stop these wars.  And obviously, neither will electing Democrats

USA as Exporter of Terrorism

One of the documents Wikileaks has released is a report from a CIA internal think tank. Its titled "A Red Cell Memorandum".   Fascinating because it openly speaks of the US as an exporter of terrorism.  Now, from Vietnam to Central America to the Middle East, this is probably not a big surprise.  But its so 180 degrees different from the propaganda line that most Americans see and hear that everyone should read this report.  If you believe in America as a free society of free individuals, with a government that represents those free individuals, then its your duty as a citizen to know what your government is doing.

Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.

Of course, since its a CIA report, its not talking about the CIA having Saddam Hussein killing people in Baghdad back in his mis-spent youth. Nor is it talking about killer drones firing missiles. Nor any of those mysterious bombs going off in Iran these days. What its referring to is the history of groups like Zionists or the IRA using Americans in their operations.

And of course, since its the CIA, they view the biggest threat as American Freedoms. There's a whole section on this titled ....

American Freedoms Facilitate Terrorist Recruitment and Operations

Mostly, this just reveals the strange mindset within the CIA. You see this when the report moves on to the repercussions of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism.

Impact on Foreign Relations if US Seen as “Exporter of Terrorism” (S//NF)

If the US were seen as an exporter of terrorism, foreign partners may be less willing to cooperate with the United States on extrajudicial activities, including detention, transfer, and interrogation of suspects in third party countries. As a recent victim of high-profile terrorism originating from abroad, the US Government has had significant leverage to press foreign regimes to acquiesce to requests for extraditing terrorist suspects from their soil. However, if the US were seen as an “exporter of terrorism,” foreign governments could request a reciprocal arrangement that would impact US sovereignty.

Note the part about how the US is a "recent victim of high profile terrorism originating abroad." What's their idea of 'recent'? This report is 'recent', dated Feb 2010. But 9-11 is nine years ago now. 9-11 is two wars ago. Gawd knows how many drone strikes ago.

But, if anytime one gets a glimpse inside the US military or intel organizations, one sees that propaganda about 9-11 is still very prevalent. Our soldiers and operatives are hyped up to go kill the enemy by constant reminders of 9-11. Its a standard part of the propaganda that gets the US to be going abroad to kill and maim those who don't submit to corporate rule. So, its interesting the way it pops up here.

The CIA views 9-11 as a recent attack that is still getting the US sympathy from abroad. Pretty much everyone else views that as something a long time ago, and that US actions since, mainly in starting two wars, have long since removed any sympathy the US gets from the rest of the world. What shows up in this report is the CIA mindset where they believe their own propaganda. And yes, we pay many millions of dollars to have our own propaganda given backed to us as top secret intelligence. And its the end of democracy as we know it if any of this is made public.

The report discusses the impacts of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism by talking about how other countries might expect policies like rendition to go both ways. Of course, in a peaceful and just world, just that would happen.

Of course, one reason the report veers in this direction is probably the innate fear that most employees of the CIA have of someday being held accountable in a non-US court.

Interestingly, the report then sites as an example the case in Italy where ....

If foreign regimes believe the US position on rendition is too one-sided, favoring the US, but not them, they could obstruct US efforts to detain terrorism suspects. For example, in 2005 Italy issued criminal arrest warrants for US agents involved in the abduction of an Egyptian cleric and his rendition to Egypt. The proliferation of such cases would not only challenge US bilateral relations with other countries but also damage global counter-terrorism efforts.

Of course, the CIA thinks that kidnapping someone off the streets of Italy and sending them to be tortured in Italy is just an example of fine and upstanding international behavior. The notion that Italy might actually try to enforce there local laws against kidnapping is only viewed as 'obstructing US efforts'.

Of course, a group that came from overseas and started kidnapping American citizens off the streets to be taken away to be tortured in some terrorist cell's dungeons would be a great outrage.

What the CIA is really afraid of is a world where it has to obey the law.