Covid

MASKING SAVES LIVES

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Well, Maybe There WAS More to Say on Mega-Military Spending...

"The US missile defence system is the magic pudding that will never run out." -- George Monbiot

Portion below; whole thing here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20552.htm

The US has spent between $120bn and $150bn on the programme since Ronald Reagan relaunched it in 1983. Under George Bush, the costs have accelerated. The Pentagon has requested $62bn for the next five-year tranche, which means that the total cost between 2003 and 2013 will be $110bn. Yet there are no clear criteria for success. As a recent paper in the journal Defense and Security Analysis shows, the Pentagon invented a new funding system in order to allow the missile defence programme to evade the government's usual accounting standards. It's called spiral development, which is quite appropriate, because it ensures that the costs spiral out of control.

Spiral development means, in the words of a Pentagon directive, that "the end-state requirements are not known at programme initiation". Instead, the system is allowed to develop in whatever way officials think fit. The result is that no one has the faintest idea what the programme is supposed to achieve, or whether it has achieved it. There are no fixed dates, no fixed costs for any component of the programme, no penalties for slippage or failure, no standards of any kind against which the system can be judged. And this monstrous scheme is still incapable of achieving what a few hundred dollars' worth of diplomacy could do in an afternoon.

So why commit endless billions to a programme that is bound to fail? I'll give you a clue: the answer is in the question. It persists because it doesn't work.

US politics, because of the failure by both Republicans and Democrats to deal with the problems of campaign finance, is rotten from head to toe. But under Bush, the corruption has acquired Nigerian qualities. Federal government is a vast corporate welfare programme, rewarding the industries that give millions of dollars in political donations with contracts worth billions. Missile defence is the biggest pork barrel of all, the magic pudding that won't run out, however much you eat. The funds channelled to defence, aerospace and other manufacturing and service companies will never run dry because the system will never work.

To keep the pudding flowing, the administration must exaggerate the threats from nations that have no means of nuking it - and ignore the likely responses of those that do. Russia is not without its own corrupting influences. You could see the grim delight of the Russian generals and defence officials last week, who have found in this new deployment an excuse to enhance their power and demand bigger budgets. Poor old Poland, like the Czech Republic and the UK, gets strongarmed into becoming America's groundbait.

If we seek to understand American foreign policy in terms of a rational engagement with international problems, or even as an effective means of projecting power, we are looking in the wrong place. The government's interests have always been provincial. It seeks to appease lobbyists, shift public opinion at crucial stages of the political cycle, accommodate crazy Christian fantasies and pander to television companies run by eccentric billionaires. The US does not really have a foreign policy. It has a series of domestic policies which it projects beyond its borders. That they threaten the world with 57 varieties of destruction is of no concern to the current administration. The only question of interest is who gets paid and what the political kickbacks will be.

Monday, August 18, 2008

'Nuff Said

http://chris-floyd.com/:
The headline from Saturday's WSJ story says it all: Attack on Georgia Gives Boost To Big U.S. Weapons Programs.
From Chris Floyd's article on Empire Burlesque



Come to Denver -- 2008 Antiwar Protests at DNC

At JFK Airport, Denying Basic Rights Is Just Another Day at the Office

Send me your tired, your poor [NOT]!

Portion below; whole thing (via Angry Arab Newservice) here: http://www.alternet.org/rights/95351/at_jfk_airport%2C_denying_basic_rights_is_just_another_day_at_the_office/?page=entire

There was one British tourist in the group. Paul (also not his real name) was traveling with three friends who had passed through customs soon after their plane landed and were waiting for him on the other side of the metal barrier; he suspected he had been detained because of his dark skin. When he asked if he could go to the bathroom, one of the guards said, "I wouldn't." "What if someone has to?" I asked. "They will just have to hold it," the guard responded with a smile. Paul began to cry. I watched as he, over the course of four hours, went from feeling exuberant about his trip to New York to despising the entire country. "I speak the Queen's English," he said to me. "I'm third-generation British. I came to America because I've always wanted to come here, and now they've got me so scared that all I want to do is go home. We're paying for your stupid war anyway."

To be powerless and mocked at the same time makes one feel ashamed, which leads quickly to rage. Within a few hours of my arrival, I saw at least 10 people denied the right to use the bathroom or buy food and water. I watched my traveling companion duck under a barrier, run to the bathroom and slip back into the holding section -- which, of course, someone of another ethnicity in a state of panic would be very reluctant to do. The United States is good at naming enemies, but apparently we are even better at making them, especially of individuals. I don't know if it's worse for national security -- and more embarrassing for Americans -- that this is the first experience tourists have of our country, or that some U.S. citizens get treated this way upon entering their own country.

The guard who had been picking his molars for hours quietly mispronounced the names of people whose turn it was to be questioned, muttering each surname three times and then moving on. When he called Omar from City College to his desk, I moved closer to hear the interview. "Where did you go?" the officer asked. "What is your address in the United States? Is your brother here illegally? Do you support Hezbollah? What do you think of Hezbollah in general? How do you pay for your life here? How many people live with you? Are you sure it's just you and your brother? Who are your friends?" Omar answered respectfully and emphatically; he was then asked to wait by the side of the desk, from which he was ushered toward one of the rooms.

After four hours, I finally demanded to speak to the guards' supervisor, and he was called down. I asked if the detainees could file a formal complaint. He said there were complaint forms (which, in English and Spanish, direct one to the Department of Homeland Security's Web site, where one must enter extensive personal information in order to file a "Trip Summary") but initially refused to hand them out or to give me his telephone number. "The Department of Homeland Security is understaffed, underfunded, and I have men here who are doing 14-hour days." He tried to intimidate me when I wrote down his name -- "So, you're writing down our names. Well, we have more on you" -- and asked me questions about my address and my profession in front of the rest of the people detained. I pointed out a few of the families who had missed their flights and had been waiting seven hours. His voice barely controlled, his lip curled into a smirk, he explained slowly, condescendingly, that they need only go to the ticket counter at Jet Blue and reschedule so they could fly out in an hour. One mother responded with what he must have already known: Jet Blue goes to most destinations only once or twice a day and her whole family would have to sleep in the airport.

A large crowd began to gather. Everyone wanted to voice complaints. I explained to the supervisor that his guards had been making people afraid. He flipped through the green files, tossing the American passports to the front of the pile. "You should have gone first, before these people. American citizens first -- that's how it should be." In the face of dozens of requests and questions, he turned and left.

The guards processed me then, ignoring the order of arrivals, if there ever had been one. They refused to distribute more complaint forms or call the supervisor back down at the request of Arab families. One officer threatened, "I'm talking politely to you now. If you don't sit down, I won't be talking politely to you anymore." One announced that because "the American girl" had gotten angry, the families would have to wait a few more hours. "The supervisor is not coming back."

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Now I Have Two Olympic Spirit Moments

"no this aint no photoshop folks. My brother found out that a Palestinian by the name of Hassan Abdo got second in his heat (i don't know what type of swim it was?)- meaning he ranked 73rd in the world (the rankings go up to 90 something). Not bad at all for a guy from gaza who had to train in an 18 meter pool!! One can only wonder what he could have done if he was granted all the luxuries Phelps was.

Go Abdo!"
From al Falasteenyia

Too Big to Fail -- Bendib via Palestinian Pundit

1968 -- The Olympic Spirit I Believe In

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carlos
Following his third-place finish behind fellow American Smith and Australian Peter Norman in the 200 at the Mexico Olympics, Carlos and Smith made headlines around the world by raising their black-gloved fists at the medal award ceremony. Both athletes wore black socks and no shoes on the podium to represent black poverty in America. In support, Peter Norman, the silver medalist who was a white athlete from Australia, participated in the protest by wearing an OPHR badge.

"Don't Forget What Happened in Yugoslavia" -- John Pilger

http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008/08/pilger-kosovo-war-nato-serbs

The secrets of the crushing of Yugoslavia are emerging, telling us more about how the modern world is policed. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, this year published her memoir The Hunt: Me and War Criminals. Largely ignored in Britain, the book reveals unpalatable truths about the west's intervention in Kosovo, which has echoes in the Caucasus.

The tribunal was set up and bankrolled principally by the United States. Del Ponte's role was to investigate the crimes committed as Yugoslavia was dismembered in the 1990s. She insisted that this include Nato's 78-day bombing of Serbia and Kosovo in 1999, which killed hundreds of people in hospitals, schools, churches, parks and tele vision studios, and destroyed economic infrastructure. "If I am not willing to [prosecute Nato personnel]," said Del Ponte, "I must give up my mission." It was a sham. Under pressure from Washington and London, an investigation into Nato war crimes was scrapped.

Readers will recall that the justification for the Nato bombing was that the Serbs were committing "genocide" in the secessionist province of Kosovo against ethnic Albanians. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been murdered. Tony Blair invoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The west's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose murderous record was set aside. The British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

With the Nato bombing over, international teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, Del Ponte's tribunal announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide in Kosovo. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

That was not all, says Del Ponte in her book: the KLA kidnapped hundreds of Serbs and transported them to Albania, where their kidneys and other body parts were removed; these were then sold for transplant in other countries. She also says there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the Kosovar Albanians for war crimes, but the investigation "was nipped in the bud" so that the tribunal's focus would be on "crimes committed by Serbia". She says the Hague judges were terrified of the Kosovar Albanians - the very people in whose name Nato had attacked Serbia.

Indeed, even as Blair the war leader was on a triumphant tour of "liberated" Kosovo, the KLA was ethnically cleansing more than 200,000 Serbs and Roma from the province. Last February the "international community", led by the US, recognised Kosovo, which has no formal economy and is run, in effect, by criminal gangs that traffic in drugs, contraband and women. But it has one valuable asset: the US military base Camp Bondsteel, described by the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner as "a smaller version of Guantanamo". Del Ponte, a Swiss diplomat, has been told by her own government to stop promoting her book.

Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent and multi-ethnic, if imperfect, federation that stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to dominate its "natural market" in the Yugoslav pro vinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991, a secret deal had been struck; Germany recognised Croatia, and Yugoslavia was doomed. In Washington, the US ensured that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans and the defunct Nato was reinvented as an enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in France, the Serbs were told to accept occupation by Nato forces and a market economy, or be bombed into submission. It was the perfect precursor to the bloodbaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.

General Strike Cartoon on U.S./Israel

http://generalstrikecomicstrip.blogspot.com/

Louis Proyect Writes to Dr. Bass at Princeton on His NYTimes Screed

Dr. Bass,

I should send you a bill for a bottle of Maalox that I had to
purchase after stumbling across your article "Humanitarian Impulses"
in the NY Times Magazine section this morning as I wended my way
toward the crossword puzzle--the saving grace of this atrocious
neoconservative/neoliberal periodical. It was bad enough that
Condoleezza Rice was droning on in the background on Bob Schieffer's
gabfest without being confronted by your exercise in imperialist propaganda.

In trying to put across the argument that the U.S. should police the
world, you seem completely oblivious to counter-arguments. Even a
skilled propagandist like Christopher Hitchens would acknowledge the
opposing viewpoint. For example, you quote Madeleine
Albright--infamous for her observation that the end of "liberating"
Iraq might justify the means of killing 1/2 million of its children:
"many of the world's necessary interventions in the decade before the
invasion [of Iraq] ­ in places like Haiti and the Balkans ­ would
seem impossible in today's climate."

Excuse me, professor, I know that you are a disadvantage teaching at
a place like Princeton, which like Columbia, Yale and Harvard are
branch offices of the U.S. State Department, but it is particularly
obscene for Albright to talk about humanitarian intervention in Haiti
given the fact that the U.S. Marines occupied this sad country for 19
years and then backed its murderous dictator as a bulwark against
Communism in the 1960s. With this on its record, the U.S. had no
business ever sending troops to Haiti again.

You do admit of course that the U.S. "was rarely moved by
humanitarianism alone". That's quite an admission from an imperialist
mouthpiece like you, but it would be more accurate to state exactly
why the U.S. sends troops abroad. It is to defend the profits and
future profit possibilities of the capitalist class. You have the
brass to begin your article crowing about the capture of Radovan
Karadzic when just moments earlier, I read this item titled "License
to Steal" from the Al Ahram Weekly Online August 7-13 issue, which began:

>>"Our country has been undergoing the longest, slowest economic
transition in Eastern Europe," remarked Djordje Petkovic, a Serbian
rubber factory worker whose company, Rekord, recently shut down,
leaving him jobless for the past 10 months. Frustrated with his
country's current economic state, he continued: "We have seen nothing
of the grants and loans the West has given us. The new transition
laws have brought popular misery and raised the cost of living for
many. My company, which has existed for 100 years, has now
ceased to exist, but nobody cares."<<

That's what these "humanitarian interventions" bring: popular misery. Haiti is worse off than ever as the U.S. conspired to topple its popular president who was too far to the left. Some day the lying propagandists who have made a career at prestigious Ivy League colleges will have to be accountable to a world that is sick of U.S. bullying and corporate plunder. The sooner the better.

Louis Proyect

Free Gaza Boats -- Israel Threatens Force

It’s appalling enough to receive phone calls, warning us that our boats will be blown up or asking us if we know how to swim, but when the callers go after our families, then that crosses the line from adolescent intimidation to psychological terrorism. This past Thursday, Lauren Booth received one such call.

“On the 14th of August 2008, an anonymous man called my home in France as my daughters played hide and seek in the garden. This stranger spoke to my husband, warning him that 'your wife is in great danger. These ships will be blown up.' My husband asked how it was this person had obtained our private home number. No response was forthcoming, but the illicit threats carried on.”

Other members of our nonviolent project have had their families in Occupied Palestine threatened with violence as well. From these threats, a pernicious pattern of intimidation is beginning to emerge. The question, of course, is just who benefits the most by trying to terrorize and stop us from breaking Israel’s terrible siege on 1.4 million Palestinians in Gaza?

In April, 2008, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel released a report stating, “The illegal exploitation of family members, who, in most instances, are not suspects themselves, has on many occasions caused severe psychological suffering to interrogees and to their innocent relatives. In more extreme cases, this method takes the form of psychological torture of a detainee rendering him a victim of a cruel psychological manipulation via the illegal exploitation of a close relative.”

Today in the Israeli newspaper, Haartez, Amos Harel writes: “Defense officials favor forcefully blocking two boats, which a group of U.S.-based activists plan to sail to Gaza ... A position paper by the Foreign Ministry's legal department says Israel has the right to use force against the demonstrators as part of the Oslo Accords ... the Foreign Ministry's paper means that security forces could detain the vessels upon entry to Gaza's territorial waters, arrest the passengers and haul the ship to Israel, where the detainees could be interrogated.”

The Oslo accords expired in 1999, but even when they were in place they never advocated or allowed Israel to use deadly force against nonviolent human rights workers. However, Israel has decided to interpret the now-defunct accords as giving them permission to act violently against us.

Given this situation, we, the members of the Free Gaza Movement, would like to make two things very clear to the government of Israel:

1) We are nonviolent human rights activists and we have vowed to take no violent action, in either word or deed, against any other human beings - including against Israeli government and military officials who, apparently, wish us harm.

2) The threats and intimidation that we have received these past few days, though disturbing, do not even come close to the suffering imposed on 1.4 million Palestinians through the illegal and immoral Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. Given the enormity of this crisis, we will not be deterred.

We will sail to Gaza, and this siege will be lifted.
Members of the Free Gaza and Liberty, setting sail this week.
http://www.FreeGaza.org

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Blackwater Guards "Caught Up" in Nisoor Square Indictments -- AP & NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Blackwater-Guards.html?pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Half a dozen Blackwater Worldwide security guards have gotten target letters from the Justice Department in a probe of shootings in Baghdad that killed 17 Iraqis, The Washington Post reported.

The Blackwater guards are caught up in the investigation of shootings that took place last September when a Blackwater team arrived in several vehicles at an intersection in Baghdad where shooting erupted, leaving numerous Iraqis dead and wounded.

Attributing its information to three sources close to the case, the Post said that any charges would be brought against the guards under a federal law used to prosecute cases referred to the Justice Department by the Pentagon for crimes committed by military personnel and contractors overseas.

Target letters often are a prelude to indictment.

The Post story appeared on the newspaper's Website Saturday night.

The shootings began when a Blackwater convoy, which was responding to a Baghdad car bombing, entered the Nisoor Square traffic circle.

Blackwater says the convoy was ambushed by insurgents, touching off a firefight. Iraqi witnesses, however, described an unprovoked attack in which security guards fired indiscriminately, killing motorists, bystanders and children in the square.

From Angry Arab Newservice -- (Hearts and Minds?)

"Why is she not happy? He is merely "liberating" her in Baghdad."

"When You Have to Leave the U.S. To Be Free" -- The Al-Arian Case

Portion below; whole thing (by Charles Davis) here:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43434
Because of his refusal to testify, Al-Arian is now set for an Aug. 13 trial for criminal contempt. However his lawyer, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, says he has been barred from meeting with his client and is seeking to have the trial delayed and Al-Arian released.

In a motion filed Aug. 1, Turley -- who is also seeking to take the case to the Supreme Court -- argues that Al-Arian is being illegally detained by authorities in contravention of a Jul. 10 court decision, finding that he posed no flight risk or threat to his community and should be granted bail. "Put simply, Dr. Al-Arian is being held unconstitutionally," Turley states in the motion.

Al-Arian's supporters also maintain that he is a victim of a federal prosecutor -- Kromberg. During a 2005 trial, Kromberg told jurors that the defendant in the case -- Ali Al-Timimi, a devout Muslim -- could not be trusted, as his religion required him to lie to non-believers.

And according to Al-Arian's attorneys, Kromberg told them in a 2006 meeting that he would not grant Al-Arian's request that he not be forced to testify before a grand jury during the Islamic holiday of Ramadan.

"If they can kill each other during Ramadan, they can appear before the grand jury; all they can't do is eat before sunset," Kromberg is quoted as telling Al- Arian's legal counsel. "I am not going to put off Dr. Al-Arian's grand jury appearance to assist in what is becoming the Islamisation of America."

Critics say Kromberg's comments -- and his unabashed support for the state of Israel -- show that his targeting of Al-Arian is based on politics, not terrorism.

"He's been singled out because he's been an effective, courageous man," said Mike Gravel, a former U.S. Senator from Alaska, at the event with Al-Arian's family. Like other supporters, Gravel believes Al-Arian is the victim of a politicised Justice Department eager to silence a controversial and outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

In an interview with IPS, Gravel said he was "absolutely outraged over the injustice" of the government's treatment of Al-Arian. He also singled out as "gutless" members of Congress -- such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont -- who have refused to take any action on Al-Arian's behalf.

Since Democrats took over control of Congress, Leahy's committee has held hearings on everything from polygamy to the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, but none regarding Al-Arian.

An aide to Leahy told IPS that his office continues to receive calls from Al- Arian's supporters, but offered no comment on what -- if any -- action Leahy would take regarding the case.

"This all stems from AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]," Gravel told IPS. Lawmakers are afraid of offending the powerful lobbying group -- which supports a hard-line position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in line with Israel's right-wing Likud Party -- and thus are unwilling to take up Al-Arian's case, he said. "This guy is just speaking out very effectively for the Palestinian cause, that's what is the root of this, and [the government is] trying to stifle that."

Gravel's comments on the case are echoed by Scott Horton, a former chair of the of the New York City Bar Association's Committee on International Law and a writer for Harper's Magazine.

"I believe that the defence is on firm ground saying that this is a case of political persecution," Horton stated in an interview with IPS. "In fact, I am hard pressed to find another case just like it."

Horton believes Al-Arian has been targeted not because he poses any sort of violent threat, but because he has been a high-profile and articulate critic of Israeli policies. And he believes the case shows that -- especially since 9/11 and the advent of the "war on terror" -- not even an acquittal is enough to exonerate someone accused of terrorism in the U.S.

"The prosecution's conduct is typical of the Bush AdministrationŠ in that it will not accept defeat, whether from a jury or a judge," stated Horton. "When they fail to get the relief they seek, they simply connive another way to secure it."

At the Washington event, Al-Arian's son Abdullah said that, at this point, the best his family could hope for is that the government ultimately decides to deport his father, as they promised to do in the 2006 plea agreement. "It's a sad day when you have to leave America to be free, but that's the America we live in -- for some people at least."

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Speaker Pelosi Stunned by Effective Critics at Her Book Event

Portion below; whole thing here: http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/1-nationworld/255-pelosi-clashes-with-protesters-over-impeachment.html

Halfway through [Pelosi's] discussion at The American University of Judaism, where more than 300 people paid $30 each to hear Pelosi speak about her upbringing and her family's impact on her political career as detailed in her book Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters, the topic shifted to Congress's historically low approval rating and how it reflected on Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker.

American University of Judaism's Rabbi Robert Wexler, who moderated the 75 minute discussion, asked Pelosi to analyze a recent Rasmussen poll that found nine percent of voters dpolled believed Congress was doing a good job, far lower than President Bush's overall approval rating.

According to the results of the July poll, 72 percent of voters believe Congress is more interested in furthering their own political careers. Fourteen percent believe members of Congress are genuinely interested in helping people.

Pelosi responded to the statistics by defending her performance and the performance of her Democratic colleagues in Congress.

"I preside over the greatest collection of integrity and idealism," Pelosi said.

Prior to her appearance in West Los Angeles Monday evening, CNN’s Larry King interviewed Pelosi. She told King she was willing to drop her staunch opposition to offshore drilling and would likely allow the House to vote on the issue.

She said, in her opinion, the reason behind Congress’s historically low approval rating was largely due to the fact that Democrats could not muster up the votes to end the Iraq war, which the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco said she could not do much about because of the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in both Houses.

Wexler, however, continued to press Pelosi to elaborate on her response given that the Rasmussen poll suggested that a wide-range of issues beyond the Iraq war was responsible for Congress’s single-digit approval.
Pelosi, visibly flustered, said she was well aware that “much more work needs to be done.”

In November 2006, Pelosi explained the significance behind the record voter turnout that helped shift the balance of power in Washington for the first time in 12 years.

“People voted for change and they voted for Democrats who will take our country in a new direction,” Pelosi said during a victory speech in San Francisco on Nov. 8, 2006.

But Pelosi, who became House Speaker, never managed to exact the change she promised. She explained that she and her colleagues tried vigorously to pass legislation to end the war in Iraq.

"The public doesn’t want to know about process and 60 votes, they want outcomes, they want results," Pelosi said, explaining why Democrats could not end the war as promised prior to the midterm 2006 elections.

But Pelosi’s comments appeared disingenuous to many, since she was largely responsible for crafting an appropriations bill in backroom discussions with House Democratic leaders, passed in June, and then worked secretly with the White House budget director offering up concessions on Iraq war benchmarks if Bush would agree to the domestic spending attached to the final bill with little debate preceding a vote on the measure.

In fact, since the electoral victories in November 2006, the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved more than $300 billion in emergency spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan without the benchmarks or withdrawal timetables that Pelosi and other leaders said they would demand.

When Pelosi launched into the reasons an administration led by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain would be dangerous for the country, identifying the candidate's support for an endless war in Iraq and his intention to uphold many of the questionable constitutional interpretations relating to torture and civil liberties during the Bush administration, Pelosi said the only way to "dig our way out" is by electing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Whether it’s the deficit or the challenges to the constitution we have to dig our way out,” Pelosi said, adding “this election is like death for life on this planet as we know it today."

Her response led Peter Thottam, founder of the LA Impeachment Center, to demand Pelosi "do her job" and pursue impeachment hearings against President Bush for launching a war on false pretenses.

"Who gave you the right to take the constitution and shove it down the toilet? Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Nobody told them to do this,” Thottam shouted at Pelosi moments before Secret Service agents removed him from the packed auditorium and turned him over to officers with the Los Angeles Police Department. “One million Iraqis are dead. Five thousand Americans are dead. You have destroyed the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments."

Pelosi seemed stunned by the outburst, but the way she addressed Thottam’s charges further fanned the flames and led to additional verbal protests over her decision not to hold the administration accountable for what many individuals in the audience believe are High Crimes and Misdemeanors by President Bush.

When a member of the activist group Code Pink stood up and insisted Pelosi brush up on her reading regarding evidence of the Bush administration's long list of alleged constitutional violations, Pelosi reacted angrily.

"I take an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United States and don't tell me that I don't do that,” Pelosi said, using hand gestures to emphasize her disdain over the impeachment demands. "Why don't you go picket the Republicans in Congress that will not allow us to have a vote on the war. This is not very effective. Not very effective."

"As Speaker of the house, the third highest office, first is the president, then vice president, and then Speaker, I take my responsibilities deadly seriously,” Pelosi said. “I try to promote bipartisanship but that's not what the other side wants."

Before Election 2006, Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table,” in part, to avoid alarming centrist voters. Now, with Democrats hoping to gain additional seats in Election 2008, a similar political calculation applies, fearing a backlash against a last-minute drive to impeach Bush and Cheney. Bush knows that Pelosi long ago rejected impeachment proceedings, the one instrument included in the Constitution for Congress to wield against a President who has abused his powers.

Pelosi's refusal to consider impeachment hearings or cut off funding for the Iraq war prompted antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan last year to launch a campaign for Pelosi's congressional seat. On Monday, San Francisco election officials said Sheehan has obtained enough registered voters on her petitions to be placed on the November ballot. Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, is running as an Independent.

At the conclusion of Monday evening’s presentation, Pelosi signed books but refused to answer questions about her policy decisions. The Public Record asked Pelosi whether she would authorize the full House to vote on contempt charges against former White House political adviser Karl Rove, who has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

Immediately following his query to Pelosi, The Public Record's Alan Breslauer was grabbed by Secret Service and dragged away from the table where Pelosi was signing copies of her book. The Speaker did respond to Breslauer's question, however, saying a vote on contempt charges against Rove is "up to [House Judiciary Committee Chairman John] Conyers."

Social Security: Here today, Still Here Tomorrow

Portion below; whole thing (via Counterpunch) here: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib246

Why today’s young workers should be confident about the program’s future

By Alexander Hertel

This August 14th Social Security will celebrate its 73rd anniversary, a good time to reflect upon a program that allows us to retire after a lifetime of work and keeps millions of people out of poverty.

But advocates for privatization continue to paint a bleak picture of Social Security’s future, and the message has reached young adults in particular: 73% born between 1977 and 1994 believe the program will no longer exist when they retire.1

The reality is far more optimistic.

Since the early 1980s, Social Security has been taking in more in worker contributions than it has been paying out in benefits. This has resulted in a growing trust fund of more than $2 trillion. These reserves are projected to grow for another decade, and then will decline and run out in 2041. If no action is taken, benefits will have to be cut by about 25%, as they will be funded entirely from current contributions. Even if lawmakers allowed this to happen, future retirees will receive benefits that are more generous than those received by previous generations. Retiring at 65, the typical young adult born between 1980 and 1990 will receive retirement benefits valued at $188,000 in 2007 dollars, up from $181,000 for retirees born between 1960 and 1970.

The bottom line is that Social Security is in good shape—we should all be so lucky at age 73. Changes to shore up the program’s financing and make it more progressive are warranted, but there is no crisis, and certainly no need to rush to dramatic reform.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Dennis Perrin: Another Chokehold Routine

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/

If it wasn't for the thousands of dead, and the tens of thousands running for their lives, the American pundit-politico reaction to Russia's pummeling of Georgia would be a dark laugh riot. Okay, it is a dark laugh riot, with blood and broken bone spewing out of cynical American mouths. What a nasty, predictable sight: US elites condemning "Russian aggression" from the heart of Murder Central, which gave Mikheil Saakashvili what he thought was imperial-backed carte blanche. McCain, of course, is feasting on as many bodies as his aging frame will allow, bellowing between bites about "international law." Obama, naturally, is going the pragmatic route, calling for UN intervention, a review of Russia's global status, and most telling of all, "deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO."

The President-In-Waiting clearly understands what his upcoming gig demands. NATO expansion is but one of many tasks on the docket. The only "change" we can believe in is how Obama will polish the same old bullshit using fresh, uplifting rhetoric. Yet I suspect in the short-run, when shoved and slimed by a desperate McCain, Obama may very well dispense with the niceties that have endeared him to so many hopeful consumers, and show that he too can growl and promise sadistic punishment for our many enemies. Not that his liberal followers will mind all that much. A few may wince and wish it weren't so, but they will be kicked into place by heartier mules and angrily reminded that winning is the only thing that matters.

One cannot assume state power without proving you can and will kill. To McCain, such a demonstration will come easily and with a wicked grin. Obama's version will be no less deadly, only painted in cooler colors. Unlike their hippie predecessors, Obama Youth will remove daisies from the rifle barrels, their strawberry fields forever aflame. You won't need to play Obama's speeches backwards to discover what that mea

Study: Most Companies Avoid Income Taxes

Portion below; whole thing here ON MSNBC!:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26145921/

WASHINGTON - Unlike the rest of us, most U.S. corporations and foreign companies doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax, according to a new report from Congress.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, and about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO’s estimate.

Tel Aviv to Tbilisi: Israel's Role in the Russia-Georgia War -- Ali Abunimah

Israelis wave both Georgian and Israeli flags as they chant anti-Russian slogans during a demonstration outside the Russian embassy in Tel Aviv, 11 August. (Gali Tibbon/AFP/Getty Images)

End portion below; whole thing here: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9756.shtml


Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been steadily encroaching on Russia's borders and expanding NATO in a manner the Kremlin considers highly provocative. Shortly after coming into office, the Bush Administration tore up the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and, like the Clinton administration, adopted former Soviet satellite states as its own, using them to base an anti-missile system Russia views as a threat. In addition to their "global war on terror," hawks in Washington have recently been talking up a new Cold War with Russia.

Georgia was an eager volunteer in this effort and has learned quickly the correct rhetoric: one Georgian minister claimed that "every bomb that falls on our heads is an attack on democracy, on the European Union and on America." Georgia has been trying to join NATO, and sent 2,000 soldiers to help the US occupy Iraq. It may have hoped that once war started this loyalty would be rewarded with the kind of round-the-clock airlift of weapons that Israel receives from the US during its wars. Instead so far the US only helped airlift the Georgian troops from Iraq back to the beleaguered home front.

By helping Georgia, Israel may have been doing its part to duplicate its own experience in assisting the eastward expansion of the "Euro-Atlantic" empire. While supporting Georgia was certainly risky for Israel, given the possible Russian reaction, it has a compelling reason to intervene in a region that is heavily contested by global powers. Israel must constantly reinvent itself as an "asset" to American power if it is to maintain the US support that ensures its survival as a settler-colonial enclave in the Middle East. It is a familiar role; in the 1970s and 1980s, at the behest of Washington, Israel helped South Africa's apartheid regime fight Soviet-supported insurgencies in South African-occupied Namibia and Angola, and it trained right-wing US-allied death squads fighting left-wing governments and movements in Central America. After 2001, Israel marketed itself as an expert on combating "Islamic terrorism."

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez recently denounced Colombia - long one of the largest recipients of US military aid after Israel -- as the "Israel of Latin America." Georgia's government, to the detriment of its people, may have tried to play the role of the "Israel of the Caucasus" -- a loyal servant of US ambitions in that region -- and lost the gamble. Playing with empires is dangerous for a small country.

As for Israel itself, with the Bush Doctrine having failed to give birth to the "new Middle East" that the US needs to maintain its power in the region against growing resistance, an ever more desperate and rogue Israel must look for opportunities to prove its worth elsewhere. That is a dangerous and scary thing.



Monday, August 11, 2008

More on Obama's Triangulating on Russia Georgia Conflict [Surpise Surprise]

Portion below; whole thing here: http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008/08/obama-turns-mor.html

[Obama's] statement [go to link above to see the actual statement referred to] contains more condemnation of Russian aggression against Georgia, and its trespassing on Georgian sovereignty, than Obama's first well-balanced statement. It's playing right into McCain's camp, as Obama is obviously moving towards the hawkish anti-Russian rhetoric emanating from there.

There's no apparent mention of Georgia actually, you know, starting the thing by sending its entire army into an unstable area which doesn't want to be Georgian sovereign territory in the first place and in which Russia had an internationally-recognised and CIS-mandated duty as a protector of the local's lives and liberty. No mention that Georgia, a CIS member, violated its own obligations to the CIS brokered deal over South Ossetia. But at least Obama's correct that Russia can no longer continue that role. It's just not a neutral enough actor and never was - which didn't stop anyone approving said role before now.

No mention either that a senior State Dept. official was in Georgia just last week or that the US actually has a small permanent military base in Georgia - a tripwire pretty much guaranteed to ensure that Russia doesn't try to annex georgia proper, even if it really wanted to - and so the Bush administration must have known which way Saakashvili intended to jump and seems to have done diddly-squat to dissuade him.

It looks, at first glance, like Obama's been listening too hard to old Cold Warriors like Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wants to compare Putin to Stalin and Hitler. (Is it required by American hawks that any foreign leader they don't like be compared to Stalin and Hitler?) Brzezinski also backed McCain's call to throw Russia out of the G8, saying the G8 Group is "an impotent fiction anyway", and included a call to add Georgia to the NATO membership action plan forthwith - so that the West is obligated to get militarily involved next time out too!

Yet another disappointing move by triangulating Obama. "Change you can believe in" shouldn't include swapping the last set of hawks for the previous ones, but apparently it does - and it also includes playing to decades old American fear of the Soviet/Russian "menace". I can console myself with the thought that Clinton would have been even more hawkish and McCain is dreadfully warlike in comparison still, but it doesn't really give me a warm-fuzzy about the elections.