Monday, October 31, 2005
Patriot Act Renewed: toughened
Here's the thing: despite claims for wanting to reduce the size and power of government, the Right Wing is authoritarian to the core. It likes the idea of forcing people to conform to standards set by the Right, and it likes the idea of major punishment for those who don't meet their standards. It's almost constant: who wants stronger laws against a constantly expanding list of crimes? Who wants maximum punishments for every single crime? Who believes they are fulfilling God's Law in doing this?
The Republicans do, that's who. They don't want a smaller or less-coercive government. They want a government that can punish and punish and punish.
Here, read this:
AlterNet
Endless sunset
By Rachel Neumann
Posted on October 28, 2005, Printed on October 31, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/rachel/27501/Most of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, including access to library records, were supposed to "sunset" this month, five years after the law's passing. Instead, both the House and the Senate have already voted to renew the entire act, with only minor revisions. While they're at it, they'd like to add some decidedly unpatriotic amendments to expand the death penalty.
These new amendments would let prosecutors shop around for another jury if the one they have is deadlocked on the death penalty; triple the number of terrorism-related crimes eligible for the death penalty; and authorize the death penalty for a person who gives money to an organization whose members kill someone, even if the contributor did not know that the organization or its members were planning to kill.
The Patriot Act was enacted during what President Bush called "a state of emergency." It wasn't even read by most of the members who voted for it. But the whole point of the sunset clause was to allow Congresspeople to actually read the bill and debate it in calmer times. Now, the Act is effectively being made permanent with little or no debate or discussion.
Still, the House and the Senate are still in negotiations over the final wording of the bill and so it hasn't been made final yet. The Bill of Rights Defense Commitee is asking people to make one last push to keep it from getting renewed. They list possible actions you can get involved in and ways to educate your communities about threats to civil liberties.
Rachel Neumann is Rights & Liberties Editor at AlterNet.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/rachel/27501/
Endangered Species Hit Men
I see "my" congressional representative's name there in the 1st paragraph: he should be ashamed of himself for signing on with these sleazeballs. Oregon's Second District Congressional Rep., Greg Walden, is sometimes described as a Republican “moderate.”
However, Walden iinevitably sides with land exploiters. He represents a varied area: yuppie outposts like Ashland and Bend, reactionary towns like Madras and White City. Much of his money comes from what are called "Extractive Industries;" the concept of sustained use is foreign to him. He’s a long time friend of the Wise Use Movement, a Republican front organization. He has sided with farmers in the Klamath Basin, who portray themselves as a last hold-out of American yeoman farmers in the tradition of Tom Jefferson. But, at least according to the latest reports, Jefferson was not in favor of agricultural uses of water subsidized by taxpayers—which is what the Klamath farmers are. Some of the major users of this subsidized water grow hay and sugar beets. No, that's not a good use of the water in the first place.
From Counterpunch Oct 21, 2005
Extinction's Big Pay OffRichard Pombo: Tom DeLay in Cowboy BootsBy MICHAEL DONNELLY
Cattle rancher, dairy farmer and Chairman of the House Resources Committee, 42-year-old Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) recently accomplished one of the top priorities of the nation's resource extraction industries. On September 29, Pombo, along with co-sponsor Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) and considerable help from Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), was able to push a gutting of the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) called the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (TESRA) through the House on a 229-193 vote.
Here is what TESRA accomplishes:
* Full compensation for "takings" which has often meant merely denying landowners the ability to pollute or threaten species. Under TESRA, any disputes over value of such "takings" "are to be resolved in the favor of the property owner" (Of course, if a government entity actually does take your property to build a Wal-Mart or some other economic development scheme, as allowed by the recent Supreme Court Kelo v. New London decision, no such resolution in favor of the homeowner is available.)
* No more Critical Habitat designations. Instead, calling habitat designation "irrelevant to recovery," Pombo gained a switch to required "recovery plans" when a species is listed as threatened or endangered;
* Much more power will be vested in the states in determining such "Recovery Plans";
* "No surprises protection." Property owners are protected against any future changes to "Recovery Plans" forever, no matter what changed conditions may require;
* Invasive Species (a huge problem with cattle ranching) are not addressed at all.
Clearly the ESA has not been working. Out of almost 1300 species listed, only 10 have recovered and been de-listed. Obviously, with a less than 1% recovery rate, the protection provisions have not been tough enough! Yet, Pombo has achieved this extraction wet dream of lessening those meager protections, while selling it as protection for private property owners.
Rep. Dennis Cardoza notes: "I am confident that this bi-partisan bill will strengthen the ability of ESA to recover species, while reducing the burden on local economies and landowners."
TESRA supporter Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) adds: "Passing the new legislation will remove burdens that have hampered job creation, community development and other improvements for the Inland Empire."
However, when one looks past the veneer of property rights, economic development and, of course, species recovery (wink, wink), it doesn't take much to find corporate fingerprints all over TESRA.
Industry's main ally in this is something called the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR). This Mother of all Astroturf groups claims in its website that "IFCNR takes a holistic view of protecting wildlife and wild places that includes preserving human cultures. Conservation & preservation of wild resources requires a measured degree of sustainable use." ("Holistic" and "Sustainable" now top of the list of weasel words that mean, well, just about whatever one wants them to mean.)
The shadowy foundation, complete with phantom directors, and Pombo have recently been the subject of an expose conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and Marketplace Radio.
These groups found that Pombo broke the law when he accepted overseas trips paid for by IFCNR. Pombo took at least two trips costing more than $23,000 paid for by IFNCR, in clear violation of tax laws. Neither Pombo nor IFNCR paid taxes on the trips. In fact, IFNCR even indicated on all of its 2000 2004 tax forms that it did not "provide a grant to an individual for travel, study, or other similar purposes."
While taking the 2000 trip to Nelson, New Zealand and a 2002 one to Shimonoseki, Japan, Pombo also was serving as the chairman of a subsidiary of IFCNR called the Sustainable Use Parliamentarians Union (SUPU).
"I really have no idea what is going on with that foundation. Obviously I will have my accountant check into this," the disingenuous Pombo told the Center for Public Integrity.
Just so Mr. Pombo's informed of "what is going on," the Center for Public Integrity thoughtfully provides this list of donors to IFNCR.
The lowlights are topped by the Darden Restaurant chain, which is the parent company of Red Lobster and Olive Garden. Darden contributed over a third of the foundation's total support this millennium --- a total of $574,000.
It all started when the Humane Society angered Darden by launching an effort to get snow crab dropped from the firm's menu as snow crabs being eaten by seals rather than American diners has been a justification for continued Canadian seal hunts.
Humane Society executive vice president for external affairs Michael Markarian said, "As far as we can tell, they are committed to coming out against any sort of humane treatment of animals. They are for commercial whaling. They are for trapping. They include cock fighters as a resource management group."
Other top contributors since 2000 are Monsanto ($115,000); the National Trappers Association ($143,890); the International Fur Trade Association ($120,000) Caspian Star Caviar ($25,000) and the Japan Whaling Association ($11,000). (Now there's a pack of "holistic and sustainable" industries.)
Marketplace's Steve Henn talked with IFNCR president emeritus Stephen Boynton about the illegal trips. Boynton claimed, "I talked to the House Committee on Ethics and they told me at that time-and so did Congressman Pombo-that was not a problem. I acted on that advice."
Pombo claims he has not even spoken with anyone from IFCNR or the Sustainable Use Parliamentarians Union for over four years, even though he was SUPU chairman until July of last year.
He also claims to have no plans to contact the groups again, even with the new info and law-breaking. "I really don't have any reason to talk to them on anything right now," said Pombo.
Really? That may be, Mr. Chairman. But, perhaps your attorney should give them a call.
MICHAEL DONNELLY of Salem, OR has fought long for Endangered Species protection. He's never eaten a snow crab. He can be reached at pahtoo@aol.com
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Ralph Reed: political predator
You've heard of sexual predators; well, I have a new term for you: political predators. A political predator is someone who does political action without scruples, simply because it's there. A political predator is someone who knows how the system works, and works it for whatever gratification he gets.
The evangelicals are suckers: we have to face it. They’re like the Mormon flocks in Utah, when it comes to sophistication. If the name of a group sounds right, and one or two members of a church hierarchy say it’s OK, then it’s OK. Out comes the support and the money.
People like Ralph Reed are political predators, out to deceive the faithful and gullible.
For lobbyist Reed, the holy profit reignsEx-activist relies on Christian Coalition connections to help his business clients.By Alan Judd
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
Saturday, October 29, 2005
ATLANTA -- Ralph Reed's clients wanted to promote a relaxed U.S. trade policy toward China. So, as he has often done since leaving the Christian Coalition to become a corporate and political consultant, Reed tapped into his vast network of conservative religious activists.
Soon the Alliance of Christian Ministries in China was telling Congress that free trade would open doors for missionaries in a nation that is officially atheist.
The alliance, however, was a facade. Reed arranged for its formation and used its evangelical goals to serve the interests of his paying clients, a coalition of businesses including Boeing Co., which had a more secular objective: to sell the Chinese government $120 billion worth of airplanes.
Such stealth defines Reed's eight years as a corporate and campaign consultant, the work that bridged his career from Christian activist to Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Georgia.
By working through grass-roots groups, some of which he formed himself, Reed has let conservative Christian groups make the case for causes that benefit his clients while obscuring the clients' identity and shielding them from controversy.
These efforts, a close examination of his consulting work shows, often capitalize on Reed's connections in the evangelical Christian community even as they contradict positions he advocated as one of the nation's most prominent spokesmen for the religious right.
Reed says his job is to represent clients by pulling together coalitions -- usually including "people of faith," in his vernacular -- to express sympathetic views.
"That is what I've done," Reed said. "I don't spend a lot of time on Capitol Hill meeting with members of Congress. I spend my time at the grass roots, organizing citizens."
The fact that he sometimes stirs grass-roots activism where it didn't exist before does not diminish its authenticity, Reed said. "We (have) formed coalitions and raised funds from a variety of sources. That's the nature of an effective coalition."
The examination of Reed's activities at his Duluth, Ga., consulting firm, Century Strategies, is based on two dozen interviews, congressional records and documents the firm created. It reveals a skilled yet secretive political operative, one whose stands have sometimes shifted to conform to the desires of his paying clients.
In one instance, Reed's company condensed quotes from the Dalai Lama to produce a newspaper ad implying the Tibetan spiritual leader supported free trade with China, the government that drove him into exile. Reed himself had opposed favorable trade status for China when he led the Christian Coalition.
In another case, Reed, a professed opponent of gambling, used a group called the Committee Against Gambling Expansion to mobilize conservative Christians to oppose casinos owned by Indian tribes. The group, however, was secretly funded by another tribe trying to squelch competition for its casinos. Reed's fees for that work totaled $4 million.
In two other instances in which gambling interests paid for his work with grass-roots Christian groups, Reed and his colleagues funneled his fees through third parties to hide the source of the money.
Reed worked for gambling interests as a subcontractor to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a longtime friend. The work has come under scrutiny by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which is conducting one of several investigations into Abramoff's activities.
Reed's penchant for secrecy as a consultant follows the philosophy of political engagement he has espoused since his days at the Christian Coalition. Using combat metaphors to urge his followers into action, Reed once suggested that Christians adhere to the teachings of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist and author of "The Art of War," who wrote that "all warfare is based on deception." For years Reed advised conservative Christians to conceal their activism so they could take their adversaries by surprise.
"I want to be invisible," Reed told a Virginia newspaper in 1991. "I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag."
'Premier' strategist
Reed's ties to the religious right account for his initial appeal to corporations trying to generate political support among conservative Christians, said Brian Lunde, a Washington-based consultant who has worked with Reed.
"Then they find out he can look at the world from 30,000 feet beyond that one slice of the electorate," Lunde said. He described Reed as "one of the premier political strategists in the country."
Reed won't name his company's clients, either corporate or political. Because he is a public affairs consultant rather than a lobbyist, Reed does not have to disclose the clients, or the fees they pay him.
"There has probably been as much press coverage of Century Strategies over the last eight years as any public relations or public affairs firm in the country," he said. "I'm confident people know what we do, and a number of our clients have been disclosed in the press."
Indeed, Reed's work for clients such as Microsoft Corp. has drawn extensive, and sometimes unwelcome, attention.
The software giant, which paid Reed a retainer of $20,000 a month, according to numerous published reports, was battling a federal anti-trust case in 2000 at the same time Reed was advising George W. Bush's presidential campaign. When news articles disclosing the arrangement stirred a political controversy, Reed denied lobbying Bush on Microsoft's behalf. Bush has said he didn't know Reed represented the company.
Reed's work for many other clients has attracted little notice.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Oct. 2, for example, that Reed worked in 2000 to defeat a proposed ban on Internet gambling, on behalf of a company in the online gambling business. Reed had earlier used his position at the Christian Coalition to condemn legalized betting as a "cancer" and a "scourge." But he worked for the Connecticut-based firm eLottery Inc. as a subcontractor to Abramoff.
Reed said that he thought the proposed ban actually would have expanded gambling. He said he didn't know eLottery was the client until "the facts emerged" from a criminal investigation into Abramoff's activities in recent months. Reed declined to elaborate.
Reed says he made no secret of his affiliation with the Channel One Network, which broadcasts news and other information, including abstinence programs on which he consulted, to 12,000 middle and high schools. Many conservative Christian organizations have complained the network airs ads for sexually provocative movies and other objectionable material.
When Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., a former client of Reed's, scheduled a hearing on the network in 1999, Reed took a furtive approach on its behalf.
Among other strategies, he hired Judson Hill, a Georgia lawyer who later became a state senator. His job, Hill said recently, was to generate letters to Congress from citizens. The letters urging Shelby and other Republicans to refrain from interfering in Channel One's business followed a script he provided.
"If Channel One broadcasts are taken out of the classroom, then something will replace it," Hill's model letter said. "I am concerned that liberal programs without good moral values will be aired in the classroom."
Reed acknowledges that neither the letters nor radio ads that made similar claims disclosed that he was behind the messages or that Channel One had paid for them.
The ads were attributed to a group called Coalition to Protect Our Children.
Reed said he tried to thwart the congressional inquiry into Channel One because he was "supportive of their right to be able to broadcast into the schools."
"I've often contacted Republican members of Congress or officeholders through grass-roots campaigns to urge them to take a particular position," he said. "I want to make sure when we have a Republican majority we adopt sound public policy."
As the eLottery and Channel One examples illustrate, however, Reed often finds himself balancing his close ties to evangelicals, a key element of his campaign for lieutenant governor of Georgia, with clients' positions that might offend those same conservative Christians.
'An open China'
No issue more starkly highlights that tension than U.S. trade policy toward China.
"What do Billy Graham and the Dalai Lama have in common?"
In large type above photographs of the two world-famous religious leaders, the June 9, 1998, newspaper ad posed a provocative question.
The answer, the ad asserted, was that both favored "an open door" to China, an extension of most favored nation trading status to a country often accused of abusing religious and human rights.
The full-page ad appeared in The Washington Post as Congress debated the then-annual trade extension. The sponsor listed at the bottom of the page: the Alliance of Christian Ministries in China.
The real sponsors: American manufacturers who stood to make billions if Congress approved relaxed trade with China. To do so, Congress would have to overlook the objections of human rights activists, many of them the religious conservatives to whom Reed gave a political voice during his tenure at the Christian Coalition.
Easing trade restrictions on China was a divisive issue for American Christians. Some thought the climate for human and religious rights in China would improve incrementally if the Chinese government had a greater presence in the worldwide economy. Others countered that the Chinese government would never relax oppressive policies unless the United States drew a hard line against giving China the same trading privileges that most other nations enjoyed.
As late as May 1997, Reed publicly stood with the latter group. Shortly before he left the Christian Coalition, Reed advocated denying favorable trade status until China reversed policies that resulted in forced abortions and intolerance of Christianity.
A year later, at Century Strategies, Reed took a different stance.
A group of companies and business interests, Boeing, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and others, Reed says, hired him to get conservative Christians to urge Congress to extend China's favored trade status another year.
Reed's approach: create a grass-roots group of missionary organizations that worked in China.
He assigned a subcontractor, the DeMoss Group of Duluth, Ga., to ask about four dozen organizations to join the group. About 25 signed on, said Mark DeMoss, the firm's president. Most, DeMoss said, wanted their names kept secret to protect their missionaries.
Then DeMoss produced ads for the newly formed Alliance of Christian Ministries in China. The message: "An open China was important to the ability to conduct Christian ministry in China," DeMoss said.
Many missionary groups that disagreed with that stand had dominated the debate, said Jim Jewell, who managed the project for DeMoss.
DeMoss' firm produced ads that appeared in several major newspapers and on radio stations in the districts of eight members of Congress in seven states. The ads listed neither the members of the alliance nor the corporations footing the bill.
As the congressional vote approached, another full-page ad appeared in The Washington Post, the one suggesting that both the Rev. Billy Graham and the Dalai Lama supported favored nation status for China.
That ad, Jewell said, came not from the DeMoss shop but directly from Reed's firm.
Misleading ad?
Less than a month before the 1998 trade vote, the Dalai Lama told The New York Times that while he favored "friendly relations" between the United States and China, American officials must continue emphasizing "moral standards."
"If you are only concerned about the economic side," he said, "that would be a terrible mistake."
The June 9 ad presented the Dalai Lama's remarks in a different light. Condensing his comments to The Times, the ad quoted him only as saying: "China should not be isolated. Confrontation or condemnation: I don't think it works. The only practical way is to be a genuine friend."
The next day, the Dalai Lama's envoy to the United States complained that the quotations were taken out of context and used without permission and that the ad falsely implied an endorsement of the trade proposal. The envoy's letter was addressed to the alliance's only public spokesman, Jewell, and mailed to its address in Duluth, which actually was the DeMoss Group's office.
The envoy demanded the alliance stop running the ad. By then, though, that demand was moot. Congress was ready to vote, and the ad had not been scheduled to appear again anyway.
But it already had served its purpose. Even two years later, as Congress voted to make China's favored trade status permanent, at least one lawmaker still was citing the Dalai Lama's purported support, according to the Congressional Record.
"My job was to represent the view of the organization," Reed said. As a consultant, "I had a very different role."
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/news_3416dcfc7631e1b3008d.html
Food Stamps: Repugnican ax-swinging
The key in this piece from Yahoo News, is that the vote is straight party line. The Repugnicans want the poor off the roles, because that's the word that's come down from the Kreml—excuse me, the White House. House panel votes $844 mln cut in food stamps
By Charles AbbottFri Oct 28, 5:17 PM ET
On a party-line vote, a Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new government report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.
About 300,000 Americans would lose benefits due to tighter eligibility rules for food stamps, the major U.S. antihunger program, under the House plan. The cuts would be part of $3.7 billion pared from Agriculture Department programs over five years as part of government-wide spending reductions.
Agriculture Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte defended the decision, saying only a sliver of food stamp spending was affected and, for the most part, the cuts would eliminate people not truly eligible.
"This is not a giveaway program that results in windfall profits," said North Carolina Democrat G.K. Butterfield in opposing the cuts. "That is not moral. That is not American."
Antihunger activists said hunger rates were up for the fifth year in a row, so the cuts were a mistake.
"It is hard to imagine any congressional action that is more detached from reality," said James Weill of the Food Research and Action Center.
"Cutting food stamps now is a scandal," said David Beckman of Bread for the World, pointing to losses from hurricanes.
Approved 25-20, the committee package now will become part of an omnibus budget-cutting bill.
The House plan would also cut U.S. crop supports by $1 billion, land stewardship by $760 million, research by $620 million and rural development by $446 million.
The Senate's budget reduction plan would not touch food stamps, but would cut $3 billion from other USDA programs.
On food stamps, the House committee agreed to require immigrants to wait seven years, instead of the current five, to apply for aid. That would affect an estimated 70,000 people.
It also would deny food stamps to people who automatically get food stamps because they receive help through other welfare programs but whose income is above food stamp levels. About 225,000 people fall in that category.
North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy complained that 40,000 children would lose free meals at school because of that provision.
"You have not even come clean that kids are going to lose school breakfast and school lunch under this," he said.
Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, said states unfairly "have taken the opportunity to expand food stamp eligibility" beyond what the federal government intended. Democrat John Barrow of Georgia said Goodlatte was punishing states for using welfare reform laws to respond to local needs.
A new Agriculture Department report found 38.2 million Americans "were food insecure" in 2004, an increase of nearly 2 million from the previous year. Tufts University food economist Parke Wilde food insecurity "now equals the worst levels" since recordkeeping began a decade ago.
USDA said 11.9 percent of households, "at some time during the year, had difficulty providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources."
Food stamps help poor Americans buy food. About 25 million people get food stamps monthly.
The USDA had an overall budget of about $85 billion in fiscal 2005. Food stamps and other nutrition programs for the poor accounted for about $51 billion, with the remainder going to crop subsidies for farmers, food aid to foreign countries, farmland conservation, meat plant inspections and other farm-related programs.
Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited.
Spin Spin Spin
Friday night, Tony Snow, from Fox News, was on Bill Maher's show. He gave the spin about Joseph Wilson lying about what he found in Niger, as well as the his-wife-sent-him schtik. That's the Repupugnican spin on what's happened with the leak investigation. I caught it again last night on Tim Russert's program, and found more of it on the National Review Online. Wilson lied, therefore what happened didn't matter; along with other countries tried to buy yellowcake too, so therefore what happened didn't matter; Valerie Plame wasn't a real spook, so therefore what happened didn't matter—and an even better one: we know Iraq had WMDs, the only question is, where did they go?
You have to hand it to the jolly Rovian Brotherhood: they never quit trying. Even if Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld all stood up and confessed, the neo-cons would still be trying to tell us that Saddam really had WMDs and Joseph Wilson didn't tell the truth. And the Jews really do have a world wide conspiracy....
Barf.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Trompling the Poor—Again
The Republican conservatives (are there any moderate Republicans left?) are cutting domestic spending programs as much as they can get away with. As I've said before, they're doing it by hurting the poor. They chose the poor because the poor don't make massive campaign donations.
Yahoo! News
House Panel Debates Medicaid Cutshttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_go_co/congress_budget&printer=1By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 27, 7:58 PM ET
A proposal to curb Medicaid spending by about $11 billion by the end of the decade withstood a challenge in a key House committee Thursday as lawmakers worked on a plan to slow the automatic growth of the program, which provides health care to the poor and disabled.
Democrats, saying Republicans were trying to cut the deficit on the backs of poor, lost a vote to block the plan. Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans countered that they were making only modest trims — about 1 percent — in a program estimated to cost $1.1 trillion over the same period.
The Medicaid measure is to be folded into a sprawling budget bill to implement Republican plans that would, for the first time in eight years, take on the automatic growth of federal programs such as food stamps, farm subsidies and student loan subsidies. The plan also would raise revenue by auctioning television airwaves to wireless companies and leasing parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.
The Medicaid plan would impose new co-payments on Medicaid beneficiaries and would allow states to scale back coverage. It also would tighten rules designed to limit the ability of elderly people to shed assets in order to qualify for nursing home care, lower pharmacy profit margins and encourage pharmacies to issue generic drugs.
***
Panel Democrats who tried to kill the Medicaid curb legislation lost by a 30-24 vote. They lost a series of votes to ease the cuts.
***
Citing budgetary restraints, the GOP-led Senate rejected mainly Democratic proposals to boost spending significantly for such programs as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, funded at $2.2 billion; Pell grants, budgeted at $13.2 billion; and the Individuals with Disabilities Act, funded at $11.7 billion.
But the chamber did approve, by voice vote, $8 billion in emergency spending to prepare vaccines and antiviral drugs and make sure health facilities are ready for an outbreak of bird flu. The amendment gives the president flexibility to decide when and how the money will be used, depending on the nature and extent of any epidemic.
The legislation now goes to House-Senate negotiations. So far Congress has completed, and the president signed, only three of the 11 spending bills that fund federal programs for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
Separately, the House Financial Services Committee met its $470 million spending cut target by cutting off a program that lets local governments buy and rehabilitate multifamily housing properties that the federal government takes over through default on government-guaranteed loans. A bipartisan package of deposit insurance reforms was also approved.
The Agriculture Committee, meanwhile, postponed until Friday a vote on a $3.7 billion plan to curb farm subsidies and tighten eligibility requirements for the food stamp program. The committee's earlier target was slightly higher but GOP leaders gave panel Chairman Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., a break after another committee exceeded its savings goal.
With a lower savings target, Goodlatte dropped one of his more controversial food stamp proposals — which would block states from extending benefits for childless adults facing hardships such as homelessness — and modified another affecting legal immigrants.
The House GOP budget plan was originally intended to cut $35 billion in spending over five years, but after pressure from conservatives, GOP leaders directed committees to cut another $15 billion to help pay the cost of hurricane recovery. The Senate will begin debate on a companion $39 billion measure on Monday.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Cheney and Libby Withheld Evidence!
I'm being unnaturally verbose, today. I feel good: it's like the little boy must have felt when somebody else said "You're right: he is naked!" Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers to Senate Intelligence Panel By Murray Waas
The National Journal
Thursday 27 October 2005
Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.
Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office - and Libby in particular - pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.
The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.
The disclosures also come as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wraps up the nearly two-year-old CIA leak investigation that has focused heavily on Libby's role in discussing covert intelligence operative Valerie Plame with reporters. Fitzgerald could announce as soon as tomorrow whether a federal grand jury is handing up indictments in the case.
Central to Fitzgerald's investigation is whether administration officials disclosed Plame's identity and CIA status in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador and vocal Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who wrote newspaper op-ed columns and made other public charges beginning in 2003 that the administration misused intelligence on Iraq that he gathered on a CIA-sponsored trip to Africa.
In recent weeks Fitzgerald's investigation has zeroed in on the activities of Libby, who is Cheney's top national security and foreign policy advisor, as well as the conflict between the vice president's office on one side and the CIA and State Department on the other over the use of intelligence on Iraq. The New York Times reported this week, for example, that Libby first learned about Plame and her covert CIA status from Cheney in a conversation with the vice president weeks before Plame's cover was blown in a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak.
The Intelligence Committee at the time was trying to determine whether the CIA and other intelligence agencies provided faulty or erroneous intelligence on Iraq to President Bush and other government officials. But the committee deferred the much more politically sensitive issue as to whether the president and the vice president themselves, or other administration officials, misrepresented intelligence information to bolster the case to go to war. An Intelligence Committee spokesperson says the panel is still working on this second phase of the investigation.
Had the withheld information been turned over, according to administration and congressional sources, it likely would have shifted a portion of the blame away from the intelligence agencies to the Bush administration as to who was responsible for the erroneous information being presented to the American public, Congress, and the international community.
In April 2004, the Intelligence Committee released a report that concluded that "much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency for inclusion in Secretary Powell's [United Nation's] speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."
Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee say that their investigation was hampered by the refusal of the White House to turn over key documents, although Republicans said the documents were not as central to the investigation.
In addition to withholding drafts of Powell's speech - which included passages written by Libby - the administration also refused to turn over to the committee contents of the president's morning intelligence briefings on Iraq, sources say. These documents, known as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, are a written summary of intelligence information and analysis provided by the CIA to the president.
One congressional source said, for example, that senators wanted to review the PDBs to determine whether dissenting views from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Department of Energy, and other agencies that often disagreed with the CIA on the question of Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were being presented to the president.
An administration spokesperson said that the White House was justified in turning down the document demand from the Senate, saying that the papers reflected "deliberative discussions" among "executive branch principals" and were thus covered under longstanding precedent and executive privilege rules. Throughout the president's five years in office, the Bush administration has been consistently adamant about not turning internal documents over to Congress and other outside bodies.
At the same time, however, administration officials said in interviews that they cannot recall another instance in which Cheney and Libby played such direct personal roles in denying foreign policy papers to a congressional committee, and that in doing so they overruled White House staff and lawyers who advised that the materials should be turned over to the Senate panel.
Administration sources also said that Cheney's general counsel, David Addington, played a central role in the White House decision not to turn over the documents. Addington did not return phone calls seeking comment. Cheney's office declined to comment after requesting that any questions for this article be submitted in writing.
A former senior administration official familiar with the discussions on whether to turn over the materials said there was a "political element" in the matter. This official said the White House did not want to turn over records during an election year that could used by critics to argue that the administration used incomplete or faulty intelligence to go to war with Iraq. "Nobody wants something like this dissected or coming out in an election year," the former official said.
But the same former official also said that Libby felt passionate that the CIA and other agencies were not doing a good job at intelligence gathering, that the Iraqi war was a noble cause, and that he and the vice president were only making their case in good faith. According to the former official, Libby cited those reasons in fighting for the inclusion in Powell's U.N. speech of intelligence information that others mistrusted, in opposing the release of documents to the Intelligence Committee, and in moving aggressively to counter Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration distorted intelligence findings.
Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee backed the document request to the White House regarding Libby's drafts of the Powell speech, communications between Libby and other administration officials on intelligence information that might be included in the speech, and Libby's contacts with officials in the intelligence community relating to Iraq.
In his address to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, Powell argued that intelligence information showed that Saddam Hussein's regime was aggressively pursuing programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
Only after the war did U.N. inspectors and the public at large learn that the intelligence data had been incorrect and that Iraq had been so crippled by international sanctions that it could not sustain such a program.
The April 2004 Senate report blasted what it referred to as an insular and risk- averse culture of bureaucratic "group think" in which officials were reluctant to challenge their own longstanding notions about Iraq and its weapons programs. All nine Republicans and eight Democrats signed onto this document without a single dissent, a rarity for any such report in Washington, especially during an election year.
After the release of the report, Intelligence Committee, Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said they doubted that the Senate would have authorized the president to go to war if senators had been given accurate information regarding Iraq's programs on weapons of mass destruction.
"I doubt if the votes would have been there," Roberts said. Rockefeller asserted, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war, in 75 votes, if we knew what we know now."
Roberts' spokeswoman, Sarah Little, said the second phase of the committee's investigation would also examine how pre-war intelligence focused on the fact that intelligence analysts - while sounding alarms that a humanitarian crisis that might follow the war - failed to predict the insurgency that would arise after the war.
Little says that it was undecided whether the committee would produce a classified report, a declassified one that could ultimately be made public, or hold hearings.
When the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee was made public, Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials cited it as proof that the administration acted in good faith on Iraq and relied on intelligence from the CIA and others that it did not know was flawed.
But some congressional sources say that had the committee received all the documents it requested from the White House the spotlight could have shifted to the heavy advocacy by Cheney's office to go to war. Cheney had been the foremost administration advocate for war with Iraq, and Libby played a central staff role in coordinating the sale of the war to both the public and Congress.
***
--------
Murray Waas is a Washington-based journalist. His previous articles, focusing on Rove's role in the case, Libby's grand jury testimony, the apparent direction of Fitzgerald's investigation, and the Secret Service records that prompted Miller's key testimony also appeared on NationalJournal.com.
Mr Strangelove not yet out of crosshairs
A good chance that Karl Rove, Mr Strangelove, will get nailed just like Scooter LIbby did. The more the merrier. I hope that Libby will crack and ‘fess up that the idea of blowing Ms Plame’s cover came from Sneaky Dick Cheney. I was re-reading the decline and fall of Nixon this morning; this is so familiar with Republican administrations: sooner or later they get caught getting dirty.
Libby indictment names Rove - or 'Official A' - as confirming Plame's identity to Libby by Jackson Thoreah
http://www.opednews.comThe indictment and resignation of Scooter Libby on Good Friday is just the beginning. The best news is that a new grand jury was impaneled.
Libby’s indictment includes a passage in which an "Official A" told Libby that he had talked with conservative syndicated columnist Robert Novak about CIA officer Valerie Plame and that Novak would be writing a story about Plame.
And who is “Official A?” None other than Karl Rove, according to my sources.
Rove and Novak go way back in such dirty tricks. In 1992, Rove, with help from Novak, with whom Rove has often dined, smeared Robert Mosbacher Jr., George H.W. Bush’s then-presidential campaign manager. Mosbacher gave John Weaver, a Rove competitor, the bulk of a $1 million direct mail contract, and Rove spread a story that Mosbacher had been replaced in Texas by another campaign manager, which Novak repeated in a column. Poppy Bush reportedly dismissed Rove from his campaign for doing that, but his son will not do so for doing worse in the Plame case.
But expect Rove to go down eventually. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is just building the case against Rove and possibly others.
It's actually good news that the indictment process didn't end Friday. It keeps the whole matter open and keeps Rove - and Bush since Rove is "Bush's Brain" - squirming.
You can read the 22-page indictment yourself at
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04ms407-i.pdf.There are reports that Rove lied to the FBI and did not disclose that he had ever discussed Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove's first interview with the FBI. So Rove could be facing obstruction of justice and perjury charges himself, the same kind that got Libby.
Veteran reporter Seymour Hersh goes deeper into Bush’s and Rove’s campaign to influence Iraq’s election and related matters here. It’s long but worth reading, if you want to know more about just how sleazy these aholes are.
Does anyone in the Washington, D.C., area need an idea on where to take your kids trick-or-treating on Monday? How about dressing yourself or your child in an orange jumpsuit and Rove mask and going to Rove’s neighborhood? It’s in northwest D.C. - the address is 4925 Weaver Terrace NW.
You won’t be the first to register your protest there. And you won’t be the last.
www.geocitiesJackson Thoreau is a Washington, D.C.-area journalist/writer. The latest book to which he contributed, Big Bush Lies, was published by RiverWood Books of Ashland, Ore. He is working on another book called "Thou Shalt Not Cheat: How Bush and Rove Broke the Rules, From the Sandlot to the White House." He can be contacted at jacksonthor@gmail.com.
Bush Heckled—Finally
When people start heckling George Bush, you know he’s in trouble. He’s been sanctified for so long he’s started believing his own bullshit and he believes having uniforms behind him protects him from the truth. Nope.
I keep telling myself that sooner or later, the harder they come (and that's clearly the roles Bush and Cheney and their junta want to project) the harder they fall.
From The Scotsman, UK
Fri 28 Oct 2005
5:02pm (UK)
Bush heckled during terror speech
At a turbulent point in his presidency, US President Bush has sought to bolster public backing for his war policies, just days after the US death toll in Iraq surpassed 2,000.
"We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory," the president said.
Bush spoke to an audience largely made up of uniformed service members, delivering a speech which was one of several he has given recently to defend his war policies.
It was nearly the same as the one he delivered recently in Washington.
Outside the Norfolk convention hall, a small group of anti-war protesters greeted him by chanting "Bush lies."
Inside, as the president spoke, a man on the second level interrupted him, yelling "War is terrorism. War is terrorism. Step down now Mr President. Torture is terrorism."
Bush continued speaking as the man left the hall.
Mindful of the public anxiety, the president attempted to underscore the danger the United States faces from terrorists, comparing leaders of al Qaida to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2005, All Rights Reserved.
This article:
http://www.scotsman.com/?id=2161102005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Clear-Cutting Medicaid
Instead of running things through Congress, the Administration is simply cutting programs by sliding around the issues. The new Medicaid program for Florida is a test-run for a new and meaner approach. This approach will put spending caps on each Medicaid patient’s care.
Each Medicaid recipient must join an HMO. The government will then send the HMO a check corresponding to what the recipient’s recent medical history has been. Should that patient in the past needed $500 worth of care, then the check will be appropriate to that amount. Should some major emergency—a transplant, say— come up that will cost, maybe $200,000, well...no more money from Medicaid. The patient will have to argue with the HMO. A cap is put on how much medical care is available for each person. Need radiation? Sorry, there’s no money. You have major broken bones that need fixing? Sorry, you’ve already reached your spending limit.
There’s no money, pleads the federal (and state) governments. Well, there isn’t any money because taxes have been clear-cut. There’s still money to fight a dishonest dirty war—or to build bridges to nowhere special, but none, they say, for health care.
This is obscene.
Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 12:00 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002585631&zsection_id=268883724&slug=harrop27&date=20051027HASH(0x893e974)Washing their hands of the sick and poor.
Let's get something straight right now. Few government programs are "unsustainable." A program is sustainable if government chooses to sustain it. Governments keep programs afloat by giving them money.
***
True, public resources are finite, and there are things to spend money on other than health care. Education, for example. But then you have leaders like*** George Bush on the federal [level] who refuse to collect enough tax revenues for these programs. They then declare the cupboard bare and pretend there's no choice but to tighten the screws on poor people.
So what happens when unemployment rises or a dozen big employers decide to stop providing health benefits? Government could simply plead poverty, squeeze the per-person limit for coverage and let the insurers deliver the bad news to patients. ...[this] in effect, helps government wash its hands of the very sickest Medicaid patients.
***
A moral society ensures that basic human needs are met, and health care should be one of them. We all know that the demand for medical services is a bottomless pit, and taxpayers can't fund every expensive treatment someone might want. But a rich society that does not guarantee its citizens a reasonable level of health coverage is not to be admired.
If, rather than tax themselves, Americans let poor and working-class neighbors suffer and die for lack of adequate health coverage, they should at least be honest about it.
Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is
fharrop@projo.comCopyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Colorado: privatization for human services...Err...
This is an addenda to the last post. Privatization, the epitomy of Repugnican thinking about government—except for the military and police, of course—has happened in Colorado. Guess what?
From a friend:
Colorado privatized certain human services programs. Guess what? Thecompanies outsourced the jobs to India. No kidding. Colorado taxpayers nowpay to employ people from India to help Coloradans find jobs and getwelfare. BRILLIANT.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Food Stamps To Be Sold Off?
It doesn’t matter how much trouble the Repugnicans are in, they’re going to go right ahead screwing everybody they can. This is part of the dismantling of the remains of the New Deal—the first legislation in America to help those who need it. The Repugnicans hate the New Deal; they hate everybody who isn’t rich and white, whether or not they’ll cop to that. The less money for the poor, the more for them. Besides, God wants the poor to be poor, right?
Lawmakers vote to allow privatizing US food stampsBy Charles Abbott 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
House and Senate negotiators working on a $100 billion agriculture spending bill voted on Tuesday to allow states to privatize the food stamp program, which helps 25 million people put food on the table monthly.
***
The so-called conference committee has the chore of writing a final, compromise version of bills passed by the House and Senate to fund the Agriculture Department and related agencies this fiscal year. The compromise bill then will be presented to each chamber for passage with no amendments allowed.
Although Senate negotiators voted 9-8 to erect barriers to letting private firms take over food-stamp office work, the House side rejected the idea, 9-6. Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, said the vote effectively killed his idea of preventing privatization without proof the change would work.
Texas has requested permission to privatize food stamps as part of an overhaul of its welfare programs. Antihunger activists say Texas wants to close dozens of local offices and do more of the work by telephone, aided by thousands of hours of donated labor from charities and other volunteer groups.
"How many poor people are going to go on the Internet to apply for food stamps?" asked Harkin in arguing that relying on call centers or electronic applications would discourage participation.
Rep. Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican, said the government should encourage experiments that could streamline service and save money.
***
Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Test Destruction of Medicaid for Florida
Leon Trotsky was a cold-hearted intellectual, first and last. He was certainly as ideological as Mao or Lenin or Kissinger. Like them, Trotsky was responsible for the death of countless people. He may have loved his wife (and maybe Frieda Kahlo), but not humanity. Hard to separate the messenger from the message.
The Trotskyniks did fight the Stalinists, and they eventually did maintain a school of Marxist thought a lot cleaner than the Soviet version. The World Socialist Web Site, down in Australia provides intelligent commentaries on world affairs—mostly; sometimes they slide into weird Marxist versions of how-many-socialists-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments.
This article is not esoteric. It makes solid points about the new Medicaid rules for Florida. This new plan is a test-run of the deconstruction of Medicaid for the entire country. It ain’t good.
World Socialist Web Site
Florida Medicaid privatization plan approvedMajor step in destruction of entitlement programBy Naomi Spencer and Joseph Kay
25 October 2005
Last week US Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt signed off on a Florida plan that will transform the state’s Medicaid program. The new plan, which will come into effect after receiving final approval from the state legislature, will largely privatize the health care program for the poor and elderly. It will also set caps on state expenditures.
The move represents a major step in the drive to dismantle the Medicaid entitlement program. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, brother of the president, voiced confidence that his proposal will have no opposition. The Florida program will serve as a guide to other state governments seeking to transform health care for the needy into a lucrative arm of the private insurance industry.
Medicaid programs are run by the states, which also determine the level and extent of coverage to recipients. However, the programs are jointly funded by the states and the federal government, and the state programs must meet federal standards. The administration and Congress are working out plans for billions of dollars of cuts at the federal level, but measures to undermine the program must be enacted by the states. While Florida’s was one of the most far-reaching of the state proposals, cuts are planned or have already been implemented in virtually every state in the country.
Governor Bush’s proposal, which changes Medicaid from a “defined benefit” to a “defined contribution” plan, caps the amount that can be spent to treat individual beneficiaries through the program. Based on personal health and expense history, Medicaid recipients will be allotted a set annual amount of funds to purchase private insurance. This means that if patients require care exceeding their predetermined allotment, they will be liable for the costs.
Recipients will be given a choice between several private insurers and if they do not choose will be automatically enrolled in a plan selected by the state. They may also choose to “opt out” of Medicaid altogether and receive payments toward an employer-sponsored insurance program.
The Florida proposal will essentially privatize Medicaid by directing funds to private insurance companies, who will have full discretion to limit “the amount, duration, and scope” of medical services. This will replace direct payments to physicians based on medical need. What is essentially involved is the transformation of the Medicaid program into a government-funded private insurance scheme. Effectively, the state would then be responsible only as a purchaser rather than provider or manager of medical care.
In justifying the new plan, Florida authorities have employed all the stock-in-trade phrases used to advance the corporate agenda of eliminating the last vestiges of the social safety net. In the state’s official fact sheet we are told that “beneficiaries are not currently empowered to make choices or rewarded for responsible behavior.” That is, the sick and disabled currently are not held financially responsible for their own desperate positions.
With the new reforms, “Consumers will be active participants in the Medicaid marketplace.” The key elements of the plan, the overview states, are “patient responsibility and empowerment,” “marketplace decisions,” “bridging public and private coverage” and, perhaps most importantly, “sustainable growth rate.” In other words, Medicaid spending will be drastically curtailed, while the program as a whole will be subordinated to the profit interests of giant corporations.
Calling the official announcement Wednesday “a day of transformation” for Medicaid, Secretary Leavitt praised the passage of Jeb Bush’s plan as a political triumph. He declared, “I believe it will be considered a milestone of national leadership.”
Joan C. Alker, a senior researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, characterized the Florida Governor’s move to privatize as “one of the most far-reaching and radical proposals we’ve seen to restructure Medicaid. The federal government and the states now decide which benefits people get,” she told the New York Times. “Under the Florida plan,” Alker added, “many of those decisions will be made by private health plans, out of public view.”
With medical decisions now to be made in company boardrooms, there is no guaranteed coverage for those whose conditions may worsen but who are locked into capped accounts. Governor Bush, Leavitt and official statements have been very careful to give reassurances while avoiding specifics on the question of the cost of AIDS treatment. For Medicaid recipients with HIV or other degenerative, terminal diseases, the expense of treatment increases as health worsens. The Florida plan contains no specific provisions to ensure that such individuals would receive the care they need. Instead, they have been issued only general reassurances that private companies will make allowances for them.
The shift to managed care will take effect next July for 210,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in Broward and Duval counties in the first phase of a five-year plan that will eventually encompass all 2.2 million Floridians dependent on the program. Broward County includes a dense swath of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach metropolitan region; Duval encompasses the Jacksonville metro area. Both counties are predominantly low-income working class areas, with large minority populations.
The Florida plan is intended as a first shot at the Medicaid entitlement program, which will then be followed in states across the country. Vernon Smith, a former Medicaid director in Michigan and advocate of Medicaid reform, told the New York Times, “Florida’s program is groundbreaking. Every other state will be watching Florida’s experience. South Carolina has developed a similar proposal. Georgia and Kentucky are waiting in the wings.”
Mike Leavitt emphasized, “Florida’s framework will be helpful to other states.”
At the federal level, the Senate Finance Committee has reached a preliminary agreement on cuts to Medicaid and Medicare totaling $10 billion. The reductions, which are being criticized by the White House as not drastic enough, are coupled with $1.8 billion in additional funds for hurricane survivors. The administration has worked actively to scuttle proposals in the Senate to extend Medicaid to victims of the hurricanes. The Bush administration and insurance companies are also angered by attempts to reduce spending by eliminating the role of the private sector in managing Medicare funds.
Copyright 1998-2005
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
The rich continue to get richer...
The cherished dream of making a better life for oneself or one’s family slips farther and farther into the fog. In the last 30 years, according to the CIA World Factbook, nearly all gains in income for households has gone to the top 20% of those households. That means the remaining 80% are not doing anywhere near as well. In the last five years, 5 million people who were not in poverty before are now below the poverty level.
This is disgusting and immoral. There is no good reason for the infant mortality rate for black children in Washington D.C. to be higher than that in Kerala, India. None. To attribute it to reasons other than economic and racial...well it is manure—cow or horse, take your pick.
For the 80% who’s incomes either stagnated or declined, things are getting worse and worse. Maybe not perceptably, bit by bit, but to sit down and consider the losses: growing bankruptcy numbers, the professionals who had to take jobs at low pay, the swelling indebtedness of families...it’s bad. We’re headed toward a two-tiered society: rich and poor. You wouldn’t know it to watch TV.
Desperate married women, Flashy sports cars to catch sexy women, friends who work in places that are one joke after another, endless parades of over-paid atheletes and silly celebrities—everything looks hunky-dory. Lots of nice cars to buy, people shopping for half-million dollar houses, great new gizmos, easy re-financing—wow, life’s a bash. Until the bills roll in and keep rolling in.
There it is: the bankruptcy of the American Dream. It’s simply a fantasy, now.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-10/24sklar.cfmOctober 24, 2005Growing Gulf Between Rich And Rest Of UsBy Holly Sklar
Guess which country the
CIA World Factbook describes when it says, "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20 percent of households."
If you guessed the United States, you're right.
The United States has rising levels of poverty and inequality not found in other rich democracies. It also has less mobility out of poverty.
Since 2000, America's billionaire club has gained 76 more members while the typical household has lost income and the poverty count has grown by more than 5 million people.
Poverty and inequality take a daily toll seldom seen on television. "The infant mortality rate in the United States compares with that in Malaysia -- a country with a quarter the income." says the 2005 Human Development Report. "Infant death rates are higher for [black] children in Washington, D.C., than for children in Kerala, India."
Income and wealth in America are increasingly concentrated at the very top -- the realm of the Forbes 400.
You could have banked $1 million a day every day for the last two years and still have far to go to make the new Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans.
It took a minimum of $900 million to get on the Forbes 400 this year. That's up $150 million from 2004.
"Surging real estate and oil prices drove up several fortunes and helped pave the way for 33 new members," Forbes notes.
Middle-class households, meanwhile, are a medical crisis or outsourced job away from bankruptcy.
With 374 billionaires, the Forbes 400 will soon be billionaires only.
Bill Gates remains No. 1 on the Forbes 400 with $51 billion. Low-paid Wal-Mart workers can find Walton family heirs in five of the top 10 spots; another Wal-Mart heir ranks No. 116.
Former Bechtel president Stephen Bechtel Jr. and his son, CEO Riley Bechtel, tie for No. 109 on the Forbes 400 with $2.4 billion apiece. The politically powerful Bechtel has gotten a no-bid contract for hurricane reconstruction despite a pattern of cost overruns and shoddy work from Iraq to Boston's leaky "Big Dig" tunnel/highway project.
The Forbes 400 is a group so small they could have watched this year's Sugar Bowl from the private boxes of the Superdome.
Yet combined Forbes 400 wealth totals more than $1.1 trillion -- an amount greater than the gross domestic product of Spain or Canada, the world's eighth- and ninth-largest economies.
The number of Americans in poverty is a group so large it would take the combined populations of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas, plus Arkansas to match it. That's according to the Census Bureau's latest count of 37 million people below the poverty line.
Millions more Americans can't afford adequate health care, housing, child care, food, transportation and other basic expenses above the official poverty thresholds, which are set too low. The poverty threshold for a single person under age 65 was just $9,827 in 2004. For a two-adult, two-child family, it was just $19,157.
By contrast, the Economic Policy Institute's Basic Family Budget Calculator says the national median basic needs budget (including taxes and tax credits) for a two-parent, two-child family was $39,984 in 2004. It was $38,136 in New Orleans and $33,636 in Biloxi, Mississippi.
America is becoming a downwardly mobile society instead of an upwardly mobile society. Median household income fell for the fifth year in a row to $44,389 in 2004 -- down from $46,129 in 1999, adjusting for inflation.
The Bush administration is using hurricane "recovery" to camouflage policies that will deepen inequality and poverty. They are bringing windfall profits to companies like Bechtel while suspending regulations that shore up wages for workers.
More tax cuts are in the pipeline for wealthy Americans who can afford the $17,000 watch, $160,000 coat and $10 million helicopter on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index.
More budget cuts are in the pipeline for Medicaid, Food Stamps and other safety nets for Americans whose wages don't even cover the cost of necessities.
Without a change in course, the gulf between the rich and everyone else will continue to widen, weakening our economy and our democracy. The American Dream will be history instead of poverty.
Holly Sklar is co-author of "Raise the Floor: Wages and Policies That Work for All Of Us" (www.raisethefloor.org). She can be reached at hsklar@aol.com. Copyright (c) 2005 Holly Sklar
Monday, October 24, 2005
More Secret Police Activity at Home
On the home front, this report out of the Washington Post on FBI violations of what laws there are against certain forms of domestic spying. I doubt the U.S. has ever quit spying on it's own citizens; the problem is that now the government has massive powers to do so.
Secret warrants, secret trials, secret judges, secret detentions—all in the name of National Security. Even what guarantees that are left are violated. And the secret police as well as the not-so-secret police want more powers. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301352_pf.html
FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations
Secret Surveillance Lacked Oversight
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; A01
The FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on some U.S. residents for as long as 18 months at a time without proper paperwork or oversight, according to previously classified documents to be released today.
Records turned over as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also indicate that the FBI has investigated hundreds of potential violations related to its use of secret surveillance operations, which have been stepped up dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but are largely hidden from public view.
In one case, FBI agents kept an unidentified target under surveillance for at least five years -- including more than 15 months without notifying Justice Department lawyers after the subject had moved from New York to Detroit. An FBI investigation concluded that the delay was a violation of Justice guidelines and prevented the department "from exercising its responsibility for oversight and approval of an ongoing foreign counterintelligence investigation of a U.S. person."
In other cases, agents obtained e-mails after a warrant expired, seized bank records without proper authority and conducted an improper "unconsented physical search," according to the documents.
Although heavily censored, the documents provide a rare glimpse into the world of domestic spying, which is governed by a secret court and overseen by a presidential board that does not publicize its deliberations. The records are also emerging as the House and Senate battle over whether to put new restrictions on the controversial USA Patriot Act, which made it easier for the government to conduct secret searches and surveillance but has come under attack from civil liberties groups.
The records were provided to The Washington Post by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group that has sued the Justice Department for records relating to the Patriot Act.
***
Catherine Lotrionte, the presidential board's counsel, said most of its work is classified and covered by executive privilege. The board's investigations range from "technical violations to more substantive violations of statutes or executive orders," Lotrionte said.
Most such cases involve powers granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs the use of secret warrants, wiretaps and other methods as part of investigations of agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups. The threshold for such surveillance is lower than for traditional criminal warrants. More than 1,700 new cases were opened by the court last year, according to an administration report to Congress.
In several of the cases outlined in the documents released to EPIC, FBI agents failed to file annual updates on ongoing surveillance, which are required by Justice Department guidelines and presidential directives, and which allow Justice lawyers to monitor the progress of a case. Others included a violation of bank privacy statutes and an improper physical search, though the details of the transgressions are edited out. At least two others involve e-mails that were improperly collected after the authority to do so had expired.
Some of the case details provide a rare peek into the world of FBI counterintelligence. In 2002, for example, the Pittsburgh field office opened a preliminary inquiry on a person to "determine his/her suitability as an asset for foreign counterintelligence matters" -- in other words, to become an informant. The violation occurred when the agent failed to extend the inquiry while maintaining contact with the potential asset, the documents show.
***
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Back By Unpopular Demand: Body Counts
United States of Amnesia again. Body counts have reappeared in reports from the front in Iraq.
Body counts first came into fashion back in the war against Viet Nam. They were ordered by military brass as p.r. b.s. to show how well the American side was doing against the N.L.F. (National Liberation Front) and the North Vietnamese. The spin was that the more bodies of the enemy, the more we were winning. As you remember, we lost. The body counts became a minor scandal, since it was revealed that any Asian body was considered an "enemy" body.
Once again we're given numbers of "enemy" dead—seventy here, fifty there, 65 somewhere else. Only there are these nagging reports that women and children are being counted as enemies, regardless of their actual status. Unless we're at the point where any dead Iraqi is, ipso facto, an enemy combatant. That's what it looks like.
washingtonpost.com
Enemy Body Counts RevivedU.S. Is Citing Tolls to Show Success in IraqBy Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; A01
Eager to demonstrate success in Iraq, the U.S. military has abandoned its previous refusal to publicize enemy body counts and now cites such numbers periodically to show the impact of some counterinsurgency operations.
The revival of body counts, a practice discredited during the Vietnam War, has apparently come without formal guidance from the Pentagon's leadership. Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said they knew of no written directive detailing the circumstances under which such figures should be released or the steps that should be taken to ensure accuracy.
Instead, they described an ad hoc process that has emerged over the past year, with authority to issue death tolls pushed out to the field and down to the level of division staffs.
So far, the releases have tended to be associated either with major attacks that netted significant numbers of enemy fighters or with lengthy operations that have spanned days or weeks. On Saturday, for instance, the U.S. military reported 20 insurgents killed and one captured in raids on five houses suspected of sheltering foreign fighters in a town near the Syrian border. Six days earlier, the 2nd Marine Division issued a statement saying an estimated 70 suspected insurgents had died in the Ramadi area as a result of three separate airstrikes by fighter jets and helicopters.
That Oct. 16 statement reflected some of the pitfalls associated with releasing such statistics. The number was immediately challenged by witnesses, who said many of those killed were not insurgents but civilians, including women and children.
Privately, several uniformed military and civilian defense officials expressed concern that the pendulum may have swung too far, with body counts now creeping into too many news releases from Iraq and Afghanistan. They also questioned the effectiveness of citing such figures in conflicts where the enemy has shown itself capable of rapidly replacing dead fighters and where commanders acknowledge great uncertainty about the total size of the enemy force.
Nevertheless, no formal review of the practice has been ordered, according to spokesmen at the Pentagon and in Baghdad. Several senior officers and Pentagon officials involved in shaping communications strategies argued that the occasional release of body counts has important value, particularly when used to convey the scale of individual operations.
"Specific numbers are used to periodically provide context and help frame particular engagements," said Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, director of communications for the U.S. military command in Baghdad. He added, however, that there is no plan "to issue such numbers on a regular basis to score progress."
During the Vietnam War, enemy body counts became a regular feature in military statements intended to demonstrate progress. But the statistics ended up proving poor indicators of the war's course. Pressure on U.S. units to produce high death tolls led to inflated tallies, which tore at Pentagon credibility.
"In Vietnam, we were pursuing a strategy of attrition, so body counts became the measure of performance for military units," said Conrad C. Crane, director of the military history institute at the U.S. Army War College. "But the numbers got so wrapped up with career aspirations that they were sometimes falsified."
The Vietnam experience led U.S. commanders to shun issuing enemy death tallies in later conflicts, through the initial stages of the Iraq war. "We don't do body counts on other people," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in November 2003, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether the number of enemy dead exceeded the U.S. toll.
That policy appeared to shift with the assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah in November, an operation considered crucial at the time to denying safe havens to enemy fighters. U.S. military officials reported 1,200 to 1,600 enemy fighters killed, although reporters on the scene noted far fewer corpses were found by Marines after the fighting.
A surge in enemy activity this year has generated a corresponding increase in offensives by U.S. and Iraqi forces -- and a rise in the number of U.S. military statements containing numbers of enemy killed.
High-ranking commanders also have contributed to the trend. In January, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, said U.S. and Iraqi forces had killed or captured 15,000 people last year. In May, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned the killing of 250 of insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" as evidence of progress in Iraq.
The Pentagon says its policy is still to try to avoid publicizing enemy body counts. But the U.S. military command in Baghdad does keep a running tally of enemy dead that is classified, and field commanders now have authority to release death tolls for isolated engagements in the interest, officials said, of countering enemy propaganda and conveying the size and presumed effectiveness of some U.S. military operations.
"For a discrete operation, it's a metric that can help convey magnitude and context," said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman.
The release of such figures also can serve to boost the morale of U.S. forces and bolster confidence "that their plans and weapons work effectively," said Marine Lt. Col. David Lapan, spokesman for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, which operates in western Iraq.
Lapan said in an e-mail message that no "threshold" exists for deciding when to release an enemy death toll, adding that such decisions are made "on a case-by-case basis."
He indicated that the numbers are frequently derived from advance estimates of how many enemy fighters are at a targeted site, which explains why the death counts can sometimes get released so soon after an attack. Lapan said improvements in surveillance and targeting techniques allow for "greater certainty about the numbers of casualties we inflict in some situations."
In the case of the disputed Oct. 16 tally in Ramadi, Lapan stood by the figure of 70 enemy dead, saying the Marines "had information from a variety of sources that gave us confidence in the number of enemy fighters killed in the engagements."
Still, defense specialists such as Crane cautioned that enemy body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan are prone to inaccuracy and are of questionable significance. The murky nature of the conflicts, they said, make it difficult to know at times who is an insurgent, a criminal or an innocent civilian.
"There still are problems in identifying who is who, just as there were in Vietnam," Crane said.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Ripping off The Government; Ripping off The Taxpayers
A couple of articles today about overcharging the government on defense and Homeland Security contracts. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise, once again, that this goes on. The thing is it’s so
blatant.
I suppose it’s just free-market economics doing it’s free-market thing with a little help from it’s friends in the federal government. If I was a cynic, I'd say there was something not quite right about this.
You have to admit, $20 for a plastic ice-cube tray is amazing.
Pentagon purchases: Millions in markupsBy Lauren Markoe and Seth Borenstein
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon paid $20 each for plastic ice-cube trays that once cost 85 cents. A supplier was paid more than $81 each for coffee makers that for years were purchased from the manufacturer for $29.
That's because instead of receiving competitive bids or buying directly from manufacturers as it once did, the Pentagon now uses middlemen who set prices. It's the equivalent of shopping for weekly groceries at a convenience store.
And the practice is costing taxpayers 20 percent more than the old system, an investigation found.
The higher prices are the result of a Defense Department purchasing program called prime vendor, which favors a handful of firms. The program, run by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), is based on a military procurement strategy to speed delivery of supplies such as bananas and bolts to troops in the field.
Military bases still have the option of seeking competitive bids, but the Pentagon encourages them to use the prime-vendor system. At the DLA's main purchasing center in Philadelphia, prime-vendor sales increased from $2.3 billion in 2002 to $7.4 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
washingtonpost.com
Contractor Accused Of Overbilling U.S.
Technology Company Hired After 9/11 Charged Too Much for Labor, Audit Says
By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 23, 2005; A01
Federal auditors say the prime contractor on a $1 billion technology contract to improve the nation's transportation security system overbilled taxpayers for as much as 171,000 hours' worth of labor and overtime by charging up to $131 an hour for employees who were paid less than half that amount.
Three years ago, the Transportation Security Administration hired Unisys Corp. to create a state-of-the-art computer network linking thousands of federal employees at hundreds of airports to the TSA's high-tech security centers.
The project is costing more than double the anticipated amount per month, and the network is far from complete -- nearly half of the nation's airports have yet to be upgraded. Government officials said last week that the initial $1 billion contract ceiling was only a starting point for the project, which they recently said could end up costing $3 billion.
Procurement specialists said the Unisys contract illustrates the pitfalls of relying on corporations to manage ambitious homeland security contracts with little oversight from a thinly stretched federal procurement force. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, several projects have experienced similar problems with cost and performance, including efforts to hire federal airline passenger screeners and to place bomb detectors and radiation monitors at airports and seaports.
In two reviews conducted last year, federal auditors found that Unisys charged higher per-hour labor rates than were justified for lower-level employees, according to copies of the audits obtained by The Washington Post. For example, Unisys billed taxpayers $131.12 an hour for a technical writer who should have made no more than $46.43 an hour. The extra money was generally not passed along to the employees but was kept by the company.
Last spring, the auditors referred findings of "suspected irregularity" to the Office of the Inspector General at the Homeland Security Department, which includes the TSA, according to copies of the audits and referral.
washingtonpost.com
Contractor Accused Of Overbilling U.S.
Technology Company Hired After 9/11 Charged Too Much for Labor, Audit Says
By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 23, 2005; A01
Federal auditors say the prime contractor on a $1 billion technology contract to improve the nation's transportation security system overbilled taxpayers for as much as 171,000 hours' worth of labor and overtime by charging up to $131 an hour for employees who were paid less than half that amount.
Three years ago, the Transportation Security Administration hired Unisys Corp. to create a state-of-the-art computer network linking thousands of federal employees at hundreds of airports to the TSA's high-tech security centers.
The project is costing more than double the anticipated amount per month, and the network is far from complete -- nearly half of the nation's airports have yet to be upgraded. Government officials said last week that the initial $1 billion contract ceiling was only a starting point for the project, which they recently said could end up costing $3 billion.
Procurement specialists said the Unisys contract illustrates the pitfalls of relying on corporations to manage ambitious homeland security contracts with little oversight from a thinly stretched federal procurement force. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, several projects have experienced similar problems with cost and performance, including efforts to hire federal airline passenger screeners and to place bomb detectors and radiation monitors at airports and seaports.
In two reviews conducted last year, federal auditors found that Unisys charged higher per-hour labor rates than were justified for lower-level employees, according to copies of the audits obtained by The Washington Post. For example, Unisys billed taxpayers $131.12 an hour for a technical writer who should have made no more than $46.43 an hour. The extra money was generally not passed along to the employees but was kept by the company.
Last spring, the auditors referred findings of "suspected irregularity" to the Office of the Inspector General at the Homeland Security Department, which includes the TSA, according to copies of the audits and referral.
Pentagon purchases: Millions in markups
By Lauren Markoe and Seth Borenstein
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon paid $20 each for plastic ice-cube trays that once cost 85 cents. A supplier was paid more than $81 each for coffee makers that for years were purchased from the manufacturer for $29.
That's because instead of receiving competitive bids or buying directly from manufacturers as it once did, the Pentagon now uses middlemen who set prices. It's the equivalent of shopping for weekly groceries at a convenience store.
And the practice is costing taxpayers 20 percent more than the old system, an investigation found.
The higher prices are the result of a Defense Department purchasing program called prime vendor, which favors a handful of firms. The program, run by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), is based on a military procurement strategy to speed delivery of supplies such as bananas and bolts to troops in the field.
Military bases still have the option of seeking competitive bids, but the Pentagon encourages them to use the prime-vendor system. At the DLA's main purchasing center in Philadelphia, prime-vendor sales increased from $2.3 billion in 2002 to $7.4 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
washingtonpost.com
Contractor Accused Of Overbilling U.S.Technology Company Hired After 9/11 Charged Too Much for Labor, Audit SaysBy Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 23, 2005; A01
Federal auditors say the prime contractor on a $1 billion technology contract to improve the nation's transportation security system overbilled taxpayers for as much as 171,000 hours' worth of labor and overtime by charging up to $131 an hour for employees who were paid less than half that amount.
Three years ago, the Transportation Security Administration hired Unisys Corp. to create a state-of-the-art computer network linking thousands of federal employees at hundreds of airports to the TSA's high-tech security centers.
The project is costing more than double the anticipated amount per month, and the network is far from complete -- nearly half of the nation's airports have yet to be upgraded. Government officials said last week that the initial $1 billion contract ceiling was only a starting point for the project, which they recently said could end up costing $3 billion.
Procurement specialists said the Unisys contract illustrates the pitfalls of relying on corporations to manage ambitious homeland security contracts with little oversight from a thinly stretched federal procurement force. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, several projects have experienced similar problems with cost and performance, including efforts to hire federal airline passenger screeners and to place bomb detectors and radiation monitors at airports and seaports.
In two reviews conducted last year, federal auditors found that Unisys charged higher per-hour labor rates than were justified for lower-level employees, according to copies of the audits obtained by The Washington Post. For example, Unisys billed taxpayers $131.12 an hour for a technical writer who should have made no more than $46.43 an hour. The extra money was generally not passed along to the employees but was kept by the company.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Howard Zinn: Telling it like it is.
Reading Howard Zinn turned on lots of lights. They're still on.
Zinn's People's
People's History of the United States is the most exciting history book I've read. Ever. It's in the title "
People's."
There are few solid histories written that do not represent the official views of this country; most of them, these days, like to present history as celebrity biography. None of them go present our country's history as it really was: gritty, greedy, mean, and violent. How many history texts include the 600,000 Filippinos who died fighting the American occupation of their lands? How foolish of them to think that once Spain was evicted they would be free. America had to take on the White Man's Burden: our destiny demanded it—and so did our business and military groups. Most of us know, finally, that the "Indian Wars" were wars of conquest; it's just hard to learn the real human costs. Conquests: the War with Spain, the War with Mexico—not to mention our attempts to grab Canada... Not too much is said about the use of troops to suppress the union movement—what we're taught is that in New York there were bad places called "sweat shops" but it's all better, now.
AlterNet
Howard Zinn: Vision and VoiceBy Terrence McNally, AlterNet
Posted on October 21, 2005, Printed on October 21, 2005
I first saw Howard Zinn when I was in college in the Boston area in the late 60s. Along with William Sloane Coffin of Yale and Noam Chomsky of MIT, he was a leader of protests against the Vietnam War. Nearly 40 years later, as Zinn speaks against another misguided foreign adventure, he's still vital at 83 and his voice and vision still vitally important. His classic, A People's History of the United States, has sold over a million copies.
Of his newest book, Voices of a People's History of the United States (co-edited with Anthony Arnove), Zinn has said, "Educators and politicians may say that students ought to learn pure facts, innocent of interpretation, but there's no such thing! Long before I decided to write A People's History, which came out in 1980, my partisanship was shaped by my upbringing in a working-class immigrant family, by my three years as a shipyard worker, by my experience as a bombardier in World War II, and by the civil rights movement in the South and the movement against the war in Vietnam. So I've chosen to emphasize voices of resistance -- to class oppression, racial injustice, sexual inequality, nationalist arrogance -- left out of the orthodox histories."
Terrence McNally: You weren't necessarily destined to be a college professor, were you?
Howard Zinn: No. I wasn't destined to be one, I wasn't prepared to be one, and certainly my parents didn't expect me to be one. I think my parents, like most working-class parents, just hope their kids will survive and be healthy and make a living of some sort. I was a shipyard worker for three years from the age of 18-21, then I was in the Air Force. But somewhere along the line I got interested in reading, in history, in politics. When I was a teenager I read Upton Sinclair and I read Karl Marx -- I'm not supposed to say that!
I think the remarkable thing is that you actually read him.
I did not read Volume Three of Das Kapital, but I read a lot of him. I read Sinclair and Jack London and Lincoln Steffens and all sorts of people who got me excited about the world around us, and interested in things like fascism and socialism and democracy and all of that.
When I got out of the Air Force, I was married and we had a kid and then two kids, and I was knocking around in various jobs and my wife was working. We were sort of a typical struggling young working class family living in a low income housing project in Manhattan, and I just decided to go to college under the G.I. Bill. Marvelous thing the G.I. Bill. Today not just Republicans but Democrats like Clinton say "the era of big government is over, we must get government out of this and government out of that." Well, the government can do marvelous things. Private enterprise was certainly not going to give working class kids an education. You leave things to the free market and the rich will go to college and the poor will go to work.
My dad, also a bombardier in World War II, came back and got an Ivy League education on that G.I. Bill, graduating with three children. Very similar situation. That isn't available today.
No, not at all. In fact, the way tuition has skyrocketed even in the state schools, it's very very difficult now for working-class kids to go to college. College is becoming again more and more a place for the well-to-do. That's just part of what has been a polarization of wealth in this country over these last decades, the rich becoming richer, the poor having children.
Was Spelman College your first teaching gig?
I had a couple of part-time teaching jobs while I was in graduate school, but Spelman was my first real, full-time teaching job. I didn't actually choose Spelman -- a black women's college.
I was thinking that was an odd fit, how did it happen?
Really an accident, I'm not black and I'm not a woman, right? I can't say I was such a socially conscious person that I wanted to teach at a black college in the South. No, not so at all. I was just looking for a job, and the president of Spelman was up north talking to my advisor at Columbia, and my advisors recommended me. So I met with the president of Spelman and he offered me a job as chair of a department. Imagine, my first job as chair of the department! I mean, a small department, but still. Frankly I hadn't even considered teaching at a negro college. I wasn't really even aware of that phenomenon, you see. Though of course at that time I was certainly very conscious of the race question.
How much did that odd turn in the road affect the rest of your life?
Oh, I think that it was critical. Seven years at Spelman, in the South, involved in the movement and involved with SNCC. I went from Atlanta to Albany, Georgia to report on the demonstrations there. Then to Selma, Alabama and Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Those seven years, those years of what is called the movement, were very exciting years and educational years and important years. I'm sure I learned more from that experience than my students learned from me.
How did you come to write first A People's History of the United States and now Voices of a People's History of the United States?
I think that those seven years in the south had a lot to do with my writing A People's History. Because here I was, a participant in some of the most exciting things happening in the country and writing about them. And realizing that so much of what was going on in the south at the grassroots in these little towns in southwest Georgia and Mississippi and Alabama, was not being reported in the newspapers. They were reporting the big events. Sure they would report the march on Washington, they would report when 10,000 people demonstrated in Birmingham. But so much was happening that was not being recorded for history.
It made me realize fully what I had up to then only realized partially: the necessity to tell the history of ordinary people and people's movements. To tell history from the point of view of people who had been left out of history; tell history from the point of view of the indigenous peoples, to tell the history of the Mexican war from the standpoint of the Mexicans.
Had you been in the ivory tower of an Ivy League school, you might have had an intuition that something was left out, but you were right among those people so the omission was all the more glaring.
That's right. So when I set out to write this book, I knew what I wanted to do. I was going to tell the story of the anti-slavery movement from the standpoint of the black abolitionists. I had been taught about the abolitionist movement in graduate school, but it seemed like mostly a white movement. We were taught about Garrison and Phillips and Lovejoy, and yes, there was Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman, but there was no real understanding of the part that black people played in their own liberation and in their own struggle against slavery.
I realized that if you look at history from the point of view of black people, of native Americans, of women, of working people, everything looks different. A lot of the heroes suddenly are not heroes any more. It's still true, in traditional history Andrew Jackson still represents democracy, and Theodore Roosevelt represents I don't know what, but...
-- trust busting, maybe ...
Trust busting, yeah. He busted more human beings in war than he busted trusts. He engineered the invasion of the Philippines, a bloody war.
I learned in your book that 600,000 Phillipinos died in that war.
I know it's startling because we don't learn that in school. We learn about the Spanish American War, which was a short and victorious war, and then there's some little item about how we went and took the Philippines. Well, the Philippine war was a long and bloody war, in many ways a precursor of the Vietnam War, with its massacres and atrocities. It was so blatant as an act of aggression, preventing a people from running their own country. Once the Spaniards were out, the Philippinos wanted to run the Philippines themselves, but no, the United States wanted the Philippines, and would take it at a cost of 600,000 lives.
Let me read a quote of yours: "I want to point out that people who seem to have no power, whether working people, people of color, or women -- once they organize and protest and create movements -- have a voice no government can suppress." Do you find that's still true today?
Well, the exercise of power by people is always something in process. It's always something that's ongoing. and so it depends on what point in the process you look at. If you look at the movement against racial segregation at an early point, you won't see the power of the people, it won't have been realized yet. It won't have resulted yet in racial desegregation or in laws passed by Congress to allow black people to vote.
If you look at the movement against the war in Vietnam. ... In the early years when it was still a minority movement and the war was still going full blast, you don't see that power. Movements suffer defeat after defeat after defeat before they break through. There's a certain moment in history where they break through. And we are at a moment now in the war in Iraq where a movement is growing against the war. You can see it in public opinion polls. You can see where two years ago Bush had 70 percent of the public behind him, now he has less than half of the public behind him in the war.
Would it be fair to say that Cindy Sheehan is a current incarnation of the people who speak in Voices of a People's History of the United States?
Oh, absolutely. You know Anthony Arnove and I carry this up to the current war. We bring it up to war resisters, to G.I.'s who refused to go to Iraq. Cindy Sheehan has become a phenomenon just in the last few months. If we were doing a new edition of Voices, we certainly would include her.
In fact, now when we have public readings from the Voices book, we include some things that aren't in the book, and one of the things we include is the voice of Cindy Sheehan.
In 1967 you wrote Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal. What would you write today in Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal?
First let me cite a couple of generals on the matter. The L.A. Times reported October 1st that "The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem. During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East."
What's the military case for withdrawal and the political case for its happening?
Certainly, from the generals' own point of view, from the military point of view, it's just disaster or loss. And when they say so, then you know that all of the elements are falling into place for a withdrawal. The only question is when, how soon?
The longer we wait to withdraw the more people will die. All the arguments about how if we withdraw it'll be chaos are absurd because there is chaos now. And the chaos in fact is to a large extent -- and those generals indicated that -- caused by our occupation. It's the occupation that's fuelling so much of the anger and so much of the violence. So the most healthy thing we can do is to get out of there as quickly as possible. Even from a military point of view, we're losing, we have to get out.
From a larger moral point of view, of course, we didn't belong there in the first place, we don't deserve to be there. Even if we were winning, it would be an immoral victory. We have won before at certain times where the winning was not something we could be proud of.
We won in the Philippines -- we defeated the Philippinos, and what was the result? The result was fifty years of occupation, dictatorship and poverty. So the real question, the moral question is not "are we losing or are we winning?" The question is, "why are we there?"
And we seem to be there for oil, for military bases, for the psychological kicks that people in power get from extending the American Empire. So both from a practical and military point of view, the fact that we're losing -- and from the long term moral point of view, which asks are we doing the right thing -- the best thing that we can do is to get out of there as quickly as possible.
I remember you as one of the first speakers I saw at some of the earliest demonstrations against the Vietnam war. You followed how long it took to get out of there. How do you see this one playing out? In other words, you've made the case that both politically and militarily it's really the only choice, how do you suspect it's going to play out?
Exactly how it will happen, I don't know. I can say confidently it will happen. I can't say confidently when it will happen, I can't say confidently how it will happen. I can say in a general sense it will become more and more obvious that it's a disaster.
Public opinion, which is already heavily against the war, will become even more so. The press following public opinion, always lagging behind, will finally speak up strongly. Some of the very timid politicians of the Democratic Party, who talk half-heartedly about "Oh, let's withdraw in a year or so," maybe they will be induced by their constituents and by the rise of public opinion, to come out more strongly against it.
At a certain point I think the administration will have to find a way out, and a way to explain that to the American public, to give the public a reason. They're good at that. I mean, they have a huge staff of people making up reasons for the stupid things they do. This time they'll be making up reasons for a good thing that they do.
Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org), where he interviews people he believes can help create 'a world that just might work.'
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
http://www.alternet.org/story/26869/
Thursday, October 20, 2005
This first piece may seem extreme. Read the second one, too: it’s background on why this particular Republican is in a jam. So today is two-fer day.
The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse10/20/2005
The Republican In Fall:
The Senate Republican keeps a plastic baggie of Tucks in his coat pocket, for these days, in this strangely chilled autumn, he is shitting blood on a regular basis. Every day, the Republican reads the newspapers, and every day, his stomach heaves at what he sees: Patrick Fitzgerald's Sword of Damocles, hanging by that damned single hair, ready to take off the head of the administration; the tumble of Tom DeLay; the monkeyfuck insane House of Representatives that keeps pushing the cruelest legislation possible; the debacle that is the Harriet Miers nomination; the murderous war in Iraq; the rife incompetence of the White House. The Republican tries to avoid seeing all of this information, but partly he knows he must face it - it is his party, after all, and his job; and partly he can't avoid it. Indeed, he's directed his staff to keep him updated on each scandal.
The Republican has been in the Congress for a long time now. He has seen scandals come and go. He knows of a few that never surfaced in the public, like when Bob Dole was caught in the Senate cloakroom, his penless hand being used as a dildo by a moaning Jeanne Kirkpatrick as he was being blown by Kirkpatrick's female assistant; like when Exxon gave Frank Murkowski a stuffed caribou, its fiberglass carcass filled with cash; like when Alphonse D'Amato threatened to have Lawrence Eagleburger whacked. Yes, the Republican has seen so much he has dealt with by winking and looking away. But now, now.
The Republican knows he's going to be called upon to defend his President, to defend his party, to defend conservatism. He will be given talking points on discrediting Fitzgerald that he is to repeat like a mantra of the damned on every Sunday morning talk show. He will put on a good show of playing hardball with Harriet Miers until, ultimately, as expected, he votes for her. He will grill Rumsfeld and Rice and generals big and small about the war and foreign policy before voting for whatever the White House asks. His leadership will tell him turn this around on the Democrats, that they are making mountains out of molehills, that you don't wanna fight, you just wanna move the country forward. And he knows that if he doesn't do any of this, Karl Rove or someone under him will fuck him over - ensure that his state gets few defense contracts or homeland security funds, close a base or two there, dry up that corporate campaign funding trough, put up a true blue Bush lover against him, have his children followed after school, threaten to rape his wife.
The Republican knows he's placed himself in a corner. Because he knows that chances are this time things are different. If that hair breaks, if Fitzgerald goes after the head of the snake, the public's gonna turn on his party. He's seen that happen before, too, with both parties. And he's gotta pick his side: the administration or self-preservation. His learned behavior of the last five years is gonna say to him to prop up the White House, ride this out. All those times he's been beaten by Rove, screamed at by the mad President, scowled at by Cheney - the abuse that makes his reflex tell him to cower. His natural instinct is now to go down with the ship, if necessary.
The Republican, as he looks over this morning's news, wonders what it would be like to break ranks, to name evil where he sees it. To say, as other conservatives have, that this administration has failed, that it is a shit-encrusted assault on the very foundations of the things the Republican loves about America, about politics, about governing. The Republican knows that it would only take one - that once he turns, others will join him, like a branch that pushes through a logjam. And he could save his party from this amateur, this manchild, this pretender, this Bush. He could lead the way, showing that the Republicans put the good of the nation above loyalty to criminals. God, what a magnificent thing that would be: the hearings, the resignations, the housecleaning that would elevate discourse and set the country at least back on the proper path.
For the Republican knows, at the end of the day, each and every individual in his party, in the Congress, bears the weight of complicity in letting things go this far. And if the Capitol crumbles, it will be because men and women like him failed to act as individuals with consciences instead of as good soldiers in a lost platoon.
Yes, he should act, now, but he will not. Such things are what noble men do, but he is not a noble man; he is just a Republican. And the fall has just begun.
// posted by Rude One @ 12:02 PM
__________________________________________________________
Now then, here is a smoking gun from the man who used to be Colin Powell’s chief-of-staff. I wonder how many smoking guns it will take before the Democrats (Demicans, I think they should be called, anymore).
This is a long piece, and I’ve excerpted a few paragraphs that are extremely relevant. The link is at the end of the transcript.
FT.com
Transcript: Colonel Wilkerson on US foreign policy>Published: October 20 2005 00:17 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:17
>>
The following is a partial transcript of remarks made by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell, to the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank.
***
We need something like that today. Let me tell you why I say that. Decisions that send men and women to die, decisions that have the potential to send men and women to die, decisions that confront situations like natural disasters and cause needless death or cause people to suffer misery that they shouldn’t have to suffer, domestic and international decisions, should not be made in a secret way.
That’s a very, very provocative statement, I think. All my life I’ve been taught to guard the nation’s secrets. All my life I have followed the rules. I’ve gone through my special background investigations and all the other things that you need to do and I understand that the nation’s secrets need guarding.
But fundamental decisions about foreign policy should not be made in secret. Let me tell you the practical reason and here I’m jumping over in, really into both realms. The practical reasons why it’s true.
You’ve probably all read books on leadership, 7 Habits of Successful People, or whatever. If you, as a member of bureaucracy, do not participate in a decision, you are not going to carry that decision out with the alacrity, the efficiency and the effectiveness you would if you had participated.
When you cut the bureaucracy out of your decisions and then foist your decisions on us out of the blue on that bureaucracy, you can’t expect that bureaucracy to carry your decision out very well and, furthermore, if you’re not prepared to stop the feuding elements in that bureaucracy, as they carry out your decision, you’re courting disaster.
And I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita and I could go on back, we haven’t done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it some time again.
***
But the case that I saw for 4 plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations, [inaudible], changes to the national security [inaudible] process. What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense and [inaudible] on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
And then when the bureaucracy was presented with those decisions and carried them out, it was presented in such a disjointed incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn’t know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out.
Read George Packer’s book The Assassin’s [inaudible] if you haven’t already. George Packer, a New Yorker, reporter for The New Yorker, has got it right. I just finished it and I usually put marginalia in a book but, let me tell you, I had to get extra pages to write on.
And I wish, I wish I had been able to help George Packer write that book. In some places I could have given him a hell of a lot more specifics than he’s got. But if you want to read how the Cheney Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And, of course, there are other names in there, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [inaudible], whom most of you probably know Tommy Frank said was stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.
And yet, and yet, after the Secretary of State agrees to a $400 billion department, rather than a $30 billion department, having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw themselves in a closet somewhere. That’s not making excuses for the State Department.
That’s telling you how decisions were made and telling you how things got accomplished. Read George’s book. In so many ways I wanted to believe for 4 years that what I was seeing, as an academic, what I was seeing was an extremely weak national security [inaudible]. And an extremely powerful Vice President and an extremely powerful in the issues that impacted him, Secretary of Defense, remember a Vice President who’s been Secretary of Defense, too, and obviously has an inclination that way and also has known the Secretary of Defense for a long time, and also is a member of what Dwight Eisenhower wanted that God bless Eisenhower in 1961 in his farewell address the military industrial complex and don’t you think they aren’t the [inaudible] today in a concentration of power that is just unparalleled. It all happened because of the end of the Cold War.
[inaudible] tell you how many contractors who did billion dollars or so business with the Defense Department that we have in 1988 and how many do we have now. And they’re always working together. If one of them is the lead on the satellite program, I hope there’s some Lockheed and Grumman and others here today [inaudible] if one of them’s a lead on satellites, the others are subs. And they’ve learned their lesson there in every state.
They’ve got every Congressman, every Senator, they got it covered. Now, it’s not to say that they aren’t smart businessmen. They are, and women. They are. But it’s something we should be looking at, something we should be looking at. So you’ve got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you’ve got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either.
And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call Oval Office cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what you thought were made in the formal process. Now, let’s get back to Dr. [inaudible]. For so long I said, yeah, Rich, you’re right. Rich being Under Secretary of State Richard [inaudible]. It is a dysfunctional process. And to myself I said, okay, put on your academic hat. Who’s causing this? Well, the national security advisor. Even if the framers didn’t envision that position, even if it’s not subject to confirmation by the Senate, the national security advisor should be doing a better job. Now, I’ve come to a different conclusion.”
>
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=1.html
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Imagine, if you will, a children's version of, say, Siddhartha. Imagine what the christian fundamentalists would do about that. They'd be all over any theatre that dared to show it, picket signs, operation rescue-type people dragging children away from the box office... But Florida is safely in the hands of these zealots; the Bush family has figured out how to play to them, and aside from Dubya's little flubup with Miers, will do just fine by the fundies.
PalmBeachPost.com
'Lion, Witch and Wardrobe' blitz serves up message with Florida's blessingBy Frank Cerabino
Palm Beach Post Columnist
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Now, this is what I call "intelligent design."
When you can combine the forces of Disney, the McDonald's Happy Meal and Gov. Jeb Bush in one tidy package — all of them working together to cram thinly veiled Christian theology down the gullets of Florida's schoolchildren — you've got yourself a hell of a plan.
This December, just in time for Christmas, the movie version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe will be in theaters everywhere, much to the delight of Christian evangelicals, who see the children's tale as it was intended — a way to subtly introduce the Christ story to young people.
The C.S. Lewis allegory will also be in Florida classrooms everywhere, in book form, thanks to Gov. Bush, as part of Just Read, Florida!
Yes, of all the books the state might encourage children to read, Bush just so happened to pick the book that coincides with the Disney movie, which just so happens to be co-produced by Walden Media, which just so happens to be owned by a Colorado billionaire, who through his family and foundation has donated nearly $100,000 to the Republican party. But that's just the icing on the cake.
This is about the biggest Christian media event since The Passion of the Christ.
'Opportunity for communicating the gospel'
I have read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as a bedtime story to my son. It's a charming story, and it can be read simply as a fable.
But Lewis, who wrote it and dozens of other books about his Christian faith, meant the story to be so much more. And that's why religious proselytizers are already celebrating the upcoming release of the film.
Evangelical churches are organizing group trips to theaters and generating discussion materials to be used by scout leaders and schoolteachers. The Mission America Coalition, an evangelical organization whose quest is to preach that Jesus is "the savior of the world," has called the movie a national evangelism opportunity.
The group quotes Lewis' words about the story: "I said, 'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a man in our world, became a lion there, and then imagine what would happen.' "
(Hint: The Jesus-lion allows himself to be tortured and killed to spare the life of a selfish little boy.)
The Mission America Coalition says: "As we begin to realize the potential impact of a blockbuster movie based on this premise, one that would have vast popular appeal in our culture as an epic struggle of good versus evil, but yet retain the 'deeper magic' of bedrock Christian themes such as sacrifice, resurrection and redemption, we quickly came to view the film — as we have viewed the books — as a huge opportunity for communicating the gospel message."
Marketing from Disney to McDonald's
Which is fine for them. That's their keyhole on the world.
And Disney, usually on the bad side of these culture warriors for being tolerant to homosexuals, will be happy to take their money. And McDonald's, which is making action figures based on the story's characters, will be happy to piggyback on the gravy train with its fat-saturated food for the enlightened.
And the movie will spill into marketing opportunities for breakfast cereals, video games, dental hygiene products and a long line of other marketing tie-ins.
But what's the state of Florida doing in this cabal of Christian commerce?
Oh yeah, that's right. We're opening up the public schools to some backdoor catechism lessons in the guise of getting kids to read.
Maybe, if Floridians agree to a "Choose Jesus" license plate, they'll leave our children alone.
Find this article at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/10/12/s1b_bino_1012.html
The Harriet Miers Show!
I wonder if they were serious about Harriet Miers. She's clearly a mediocre mind—she'd have to be if she things Bush is "brilliant"—has no paper trail to speak of, and her appeal seems to be in direct conflict with the Sixth Amendment.
Bush's comments about her thinking twenty years in the future is an indictment of a brain-dead political zombie.
The New York Times
October 19, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist
Naughty Harry: Lawyering Without a LicenseBy MAUREEN DOWD
I was just coming to grips with the idea that a Supreme Court nominee doesn't need to have any experience for the job.
Now it turns out that a Supreme Court nominee doesn't even need to always be a lawyer in good standing.
Harriet Miers shared a little secret about herself on her application to be an associate justice: "Earlier this year, I received notice that my dues for the District of Columbia bar were delinquent and as a result, my ability to practice law in D.C. had been suspended."
Did that little dog on the birthday card she sent W. eat her dues?
Ms. Miers, then the White House counsel, remedied the situation after she got the letter. But weren't the Bush spinners making a case for her by reporting that she was really great at managing the paper flow when she was the president's staff secretary?
Now we discover that she could be such a scatterbrain about paperwork that a little tiny thing like being able to legally practice law slipped her mind while she was serving as the lawyer for the leader of the free world?
There was another odd, unfocused episode with the Republican senator Arlen Specter this week. He said that he and Ms. Miers had talked privately on Monday and that she had expressed support for two Supreme Court rulings that established a right to privacy and are viewed as the foundation for Roe v. Wade.
Before Ms. Miers could even forget her bar dues again, the White House said that Senator Specter was mistaken, and Ms. Miers called to tell him so. Mr. Specter was willing to say he'd misunderstood, and will surely want to clear all this up in the hearings.
But maybe he'll wind up sticking by his earlier statement: "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."
The White House gambits to soothe the wrath of the right and flesh out the views of Ms. Miers, in lieu of an actual judicial record, are creating more confusion. In order to sell her, officials had to expose her by sending her anti-abortion positions from 1989 to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She's on record as favoring one of the most restrictive positions on abortion: "actively" supporting a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal except when the mother is actually about to die (never mind if her health might be severely impaired or she's a victim of rape or incest).
When she was running for City Council in Dallas, Ms. Miers answered yes to all the questions from Texans United for Life, an anti-abortion group, elaborating on only one: whether she would vote to keep anyone who supported abortion rights out of city jobs dealing with health issues. After saying yes, she added "to the extent pro-life views are relevant."
"The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade," Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said. "This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard."
With Karl Rove on grand jury watch and Dick Cheney snugly tucked into his underground bunker, W. and Andy Card are in control, and the West Wing ineptitude is comic.
First the White House tried to make Ms. Miers seem more conservative by peddling her pedigree as a member of an ultraconservative evangelical church to its right-wing base. When injecting religion into the hearings backfired, officials started backpedaling and saying she shouldn't be asked about her faith, even though the president himself had said that her faith was a big part of her appeal.
Then when her draconian views on abortion came out, the White House immediately tried to assuage the left. The White House flack Scott McClellan turned on his fog machine, saying, "The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder."
Mr. McClellan's answers about the questionnaire were opaque, but were meant to leave the impression that a Justice Miers might view abortion differently than the candidate Miers.
That's very interesting, since the president cited her constancy as one of her chief attractions, implying, to quell conservative worries, that she would not be another David Souter.
"I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today," W. said.
Some Democrats who have interviewed her recently have failed to see in her the intellectual rigor that W. saw and find her résumé so thin that it would not even earn a "Heavy Hitter" profile in The American Lawyer magazine. Answering the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, she said that in her two years on the City Council she dealt with such weighty constitutional issues as ... zoning.
Spanish Judge wants US GIs Arrested
Not everything done by our government escapes judgement...
Spanish judge issues warrant for three GIs10/19/2005, 10:20 a.m. PT
By MARIA JESUS PRADES
The Associated Press
MADRID, Spain (AP) — A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and a Ukrainian cameraman, a court official said Wednesday.
Judge Santiago Pedraz issued the warrant for Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp, all from the U.S. 3rd Infantry, which is based in Fort Stewart, Ga.
Jose Couso, who worked for the Spanish television network Telecinco, died April 8, 2003, after a U.S. army tank crew fired a shell on Hotel Palestine in Baghdad where many journalists were staying to cover the war.
Reuters cameraman Taras Portsyuk, a Ukrainian, also was killed.
Pedraz had sent two requests to the United States — in April 2004 and June 2005 — to have statements taken from the suspects or to obtain permission for a Spanish delegation to quiz them. Both went unanswered.
He said he issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial cooperation from the United States regarding the case.
The warrant "is the only effective measure to ensure the presence of the suspects in the case being handled by Spanish justice, given the lack of judicial cooperation by U.S. authorities," the judge said in the warrant.
The Pentagon had no immediate information and said it was looking into it.
U.S. officials have insisted that the soldiers believed they were being shot at when they opened fire.
Following the Palestine incident, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said a review of the incident found that the use of force was justified.
In late 2003, the National Court, acting on a request from Couso's family, agreed to consider filing criminal charges against three members of the tank crew.
Fort Stewart spokeswoman Jennifer Scales said the three no longer are assigned to Fort Stewart or the 3rd Infantry Division.
Pilar Hermoso, an attorney for Couso's family, welcomed the decision, although she recognized that it would be difficult to get the soldiers extradited to Spain, the state news agency Efe reported.
Small protests over the killing have been staged outside the U.S. Embassy in Madrid nearly every month since Couso's death.
Under Spanish law, a crime committed against a Spaniard abroad can be prosecuted here if it is not investigated in the country where it is committed.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The Unraveling Cloth of Bush's Regime
Is Penelope back at unweaving things, again? The carefully woven fabric of Reagan-esque economic reactionaries, libertarian free-thinkers, the Fundamentalist Christian Right, and big business seems to be fraying much too fast for normal wear-and-tear. The economic people are furious because Bush has indebted the nation for generations to come; the libertarian wing of the Republicans is up in arms over the expanding police power of the federal government as well as the alignment of corporate, church and state power; the Christian Right, of course, is furious because Bush hasn’t really done much more than subsidize some major churches through “faith-based programs.” The religious people would like to see more enforcement of bible-based laws—presumably by making homosexuality a capital offense and forcing non-believers into mandatory conversions.
The conservatives are finally recognizing that the current administration is a get-rich-quick scheme that carries an increasingly big stick. Nobody is happy over Iraq; dissenting over war policy means being purged. The economy isn’t growing fast enough. The outbreak of scandals and snafus is embarrassing the nation. Bush’s cowboy stance doesn’t play well in the board-rooms. (If there was a draft, and the children of the ruling class starting getting drafted, Bush and Cheney would suddenly become incapacitated, Rumsfeld fired, and Condi Rice would decide that war is not a good idea.)
However, we’re still stuck with these fools.
The New York Times
October 18, 2005
In Sign of Conservative Split, a Commentator Is DismissedBy RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 - In the latest sign of the deepening split among conservatives over how far to go in challenging President Bush, Bruce Bartlett, a Republican commentator who has been increasingly critical of the White House, was dismissed on Monday as a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative research group based in Dallas.
In a statement, the organization said the decision was made after Mr. Bartlett supplied its president, John C. Goodman, with the manuscript of his forthcoming book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."
Mr. Bartlett, who was a domestic policy aide at the White House in the Reagan administration and a deputy assistant Treasury secretary under the first President Bush, confirmed that he had been dismissed after 10 years with the center but declined to make any further comment.
The statement from the organization said Mr. Bartlett had negotiated a deal last year to reduce his workload to give him time to write a book about economic policy and taxation for which he had received a six-figure advance. The statement said that the manuscript he showed Mr. Goodman was "an evaluation of the motivations and competencies of politicians rather than an analysis of public policy." The statement said the organization did not want to be associated with that kind of work.
In response to a question about whether the administration had pressed the organization about Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Goodman relayed a reply through a spokesman saying he had never had any conversation about Mr. Bartlett with anyone in the White House.
***.
The choice "of a patently unqualified crony for a critical position on the Supreme Court was the final straw," [Bartlett] wrote.
In "Impostor," which is scheduled to be published in April by Doubleday and has already attracted attention on conservative Web sites, Mr. Bartlett expands on many of the themes he has struck in his columns and other writings. He is critical of the administration for policy decisions like backing away at times from its commitment to open trade and for failing to sell conservative ideas like introducing investment accounts to Social Security.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Monday, October 17, 2005
Cutting them loose: GOP Welfare Reform
The Repugnicans have come up with a money-saving plan. Naomi Klein, in the article below, has it down: “Purging the Poor.” The Democrats are mad because they didn’t get to do it first, although Bill Clinton’s “welfare reform” was the inspiration. Clinton’s plan went off smoothly: a few liberals spoke up about the injustice of it, but basically most of them went along to get along. Bush’s medicare prescription scam went just as smoothly, especially once the AARP was bought off.
Katrina gave the administration the opportunity. New Orleans was the perfect place, once it was evacuated: get the poor out of there and cut them loose. The incredible expense and waste of the war against Iraq is a functioning distraction. Shall we pull the troops? Shall we not? Look: an election! Now we can pull the troops, maybe, soon.
And the poor ex-residents of New Orleans are drifting around like modern-day Okies; nobody cares. Nobody important anyhow.
The plan still needs a little polish, a little more spin on the P.R. end of things. Maybe another Lee Atwater-like scam about “welfare queens” or “crack addicts roaming our streets.” Talk up the idea that welfare is a failure, and the only way we can get people off of welfare is to destroy it...some lives will be lost, but that’s only collateral damage, because you can’t make an omlette without breaking some lives—er, eggs
And if the poor start acting out? The police are already militarized, and because of the potential for terrorism among the displaced, we can use the troops...
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/kleinPurging the Poor
by NAOMI KLEIN
[from the October 10, 2005 issue]
Outside the 2,000-bed temporary shelter in Baton Rouge's River Center, a Church of Scientology band is performing a version of Bill Withers's classic "Use Me"--a refreshingly honest choice. "If it feels this good getting used," the Scientology singer belts out, "just keep on using me until you use me up."
Ten-year-old Nyler, lying face down on a massage table, has pretty much the same attitude. She is not quite sure why the nice lady in the yellow SCIENTOLOGY VOLUNTEER MINISTER T-shirt wants to rub her back, but "it feels so good," she tells me, so who really cares? I ask Nyler if this is her first massage. "Assist!" hisses the volunteer minister, correcting my Scientology lingo. Nyler shakes her head no; since fleeing New Orleans after a tree fell on her house, she has visited this tent many times, becoming something of an assist-aholic. "I have nerves," she explains in a blissed-out massage voice. "I have what you call nervousness."
Wearing a donated pink T-shirt with an age-inappropriate slogan ("It's the hidden little Tiki spot where the island boys are hot, hot, hot"), Nyler tells me what she is nervous about. "I think New Orleans might not ever get fixed back." "Why not?" I ask, a little surprised to be discussing reconstruction politics with a preteen in pigtails. "Because the people who know how to fix broken houses are all gone."
I don't have the heart to tell Nyler that I suspect she is on to something; that many of the African-American workers from her neighborhood may never be welcomed back to rebuild their city. An hour earlier I had interviewed New Orleans' top corporate lobbyist, Mark Drennen. As president and CEO of Greater New Orleans Inc., Drennen was in an expansive mood, pumped up by signs from Washington that the corporations he represents--everything from Chevron to Liberty Bank to Coca-Cola--were about to receive a package of tax breaks, subsidies and relaxed regulations so generous it would make the job of a lobbyist virtually obsolete.
Listening to Drennen enthuse about the opportunities opened up by the storm, I was struck by his reference to African-Americans in New Orleans as "the minority community." At 67 percent of the population, they are in fact the clear majority, while whites like Drennen make up just 27 percent. It was no doubt a simple verbal slip, but I couldn't help feeling that it was also a glimpse into the desired demographics of the new-and-improved city being imagined by its white elite, one that won't have much room for Nyler or her neighbors who know how to fix houses. "I honestly don't know and I don't think anyone knows how they are going to fit in," Drennen said of the city's unemployed.
New Orleans is already displaying signs of a demographic shift so dramatic that some evacuees describe it as "ethnic cleansing." Before Mayor Ray Nagin called for a second evacuation, the people streaming back into dry areas were mostly white, while those with no homes to return to are overwhelmingly black. This, we are assured, is not a conspiracy; it's simple geography--a reflection of the fact that wealth in New Orleans buys altitude. That means that the driest areas are the whitest (the French Quarter is 90 percent white; the Garden District, 89 percent; Audubon, 86 percent; neighboring Jefferson Parish, where people were also allowed to return, 65 percent). Some dry areas, like Algiers, did have large low-income African-American populations before the storm, but in all the billions for reconstruction, there is no budget for transportation back from the far-flung shelters where those residents ended up. So even when resettlement is permitted, many may not be able to return.
As for the hundreds of thousands of residents whose low-lying homes and housing projects were destroyed by the flood, Drennen points out that many of those neighborhoods were dysfunctional to begin with. He says the city now has an opportunity for "twenty-first-century thinking": Rather than rebuild ghettos, New Orleans should be resettled with "mixed income" housing, with rich and poor, black and white living side by side.
What Drennen doesn't say is that this kind of urban integration could happen tomorrow, on a massive scale. Roughly 70,000 of New Orleans' poorest homeless evacuees could move back to the city alongside returning white homeowners, without a single new structure being built. Take the Lower Garden District, where Drennen himself lives. It has a surprisingly high vacancy rate--17.4 percent, according to the 2000 Census. At that time 702 housing units stood vacant, and since the market hasn't improved and the district was barely flooded, they are presumably still there and still vacant. It's much the same in the other dry areas: With landlords preferring to board up apartments rather than lower rents, the French Quarter has been half-empty for years, with a vacancy rate of 37 percent.
The citywide numbers are staggering: In the areas that sustained only minor damage and are on the mayor's repopulation list, there are at least 11,600 empty apartments and houses. If Jefferson Parish is included, that number soars to 23,270. With three people in each unit, that means homes could be found for roughly 70,000 evacuees. With the number of permanently homeless city residents estimated at 200,000, that's a significant dent in the housing crisis. And it's doable. Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, whose Houston district includes some 150,000 Katrina evacuees, says there are ways to convert vacant apartments into affordable or free housing. After passing an ordinance, cities could issue Section 8 certificates, covering rent until evacuees find jobs. Jackson Lee says she plans to introduce legislation that will call for federal funds to be spent on precisely such rental vouchers. "If opportunity exists to create viable housing options," she says, "they should be explored."
Malcolm Suber, a longtime New Orleans community activist, was shocked to learn that thousands of livable homes were sitting empty. "If there are empty houses in the city," he says, "then working-class and poor people should be able to live in them." According to Suber, taking over vacant units would do more than provide much-needed immediate shelter: It would move the poor back into the city, preventing the key decisions about its future--like whether to turn the Ninth Ward into marshland or how to rebuild Charity Hospital--from being made exclusively by those who can afford land on high ground. "We have the right to fully participate in the reconstruction of our city," Suber says. "And that can only happen if we are back inside." But he concedes that it will be a fight: The old-line families in Audubon and the Garden District may pay lip service to "mixed income" housing, "but the Bourbons uptown would have a conniption if a Section 8 tenant moved in next door. It will certainly be interesting."
Equally interesting will be the response from the Bush Administration. So far, the only plan for homeless residents to move back to New Orleans is Bush's bizarre Urban Homesteading Act. In his speech from the French Quarter, Bush made no mention of the neighborhood's roughly 1,700 unrented apartments and instead proposed holding a lottery to hand out plots of federal land to flood victims, who could build homes on them. But it will take months (at least) before new houses are built, and many of the poorest residents won't be able to carry the mortgage, no matter how subsidized. Besides, it barely touches the need: The Administration estimates that in New Orleans there is land for only 1,000 "homesteaders."
The truth is that the White House's determination to turn renters into mortgage payers is less about solving Louisiana's housing crisis than indulging an ideological obsession with building a radically privatized "ownership society." It's an obsession that has already come to grip the entire disaster zone, with emergency relief provided by the Red Cross and Wal-Mart and reconstruction contracts handed out to Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton and Shaw--the same gang that spent the past three years getting paid billions while failing to bring Iraq's essential services to prewar levels [see Klein, "The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," May 2]. "Reconstruction," whether in Baghdad or New Orleans, has become shorthand for a massive uninterrupted transfer of wealth from public to private hands, whether in the form of direct "cost plus" government contracts or by auctioning off new sectors of the state to corporations.
This vision was laid out in uniquely undisguised form during a meeting at the Heritage Foundation's Washington headquarters on September 13. Present were members of the House Republican Study Committee, a caucus of more than 100 conservative lawmakers headed by Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. The group compiled a list of thirty-two "Pro-Free-Market Ideas for Responding to Hurricane Katrina and High Gas Prices," including school vouchers, repealing environmental regulations and "drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Admittedly, it seems farfetched that these would be adopted as relief for the needy victims of an eviscerated public sector. Until you read the first three items: "Automatically suspend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws in disaster areas"; "Make the entire affected area a flat-tax free-enterprise zone"; and "Make the entire region an economic competitiveness zone (comprehensive tax incentives and waiving of regulations)." All are poised to become law or have already been adopted by presidential decree.
In their own way the list-makers at Heritage are not unlike the 500 Scientology volunteer ministers currently deployed to shelters across Louisiana. "We literally followed the hurricane," David Holt, a church supervisor, told me. When I asked him why, he pointed to a yellow banner that read, SOMETHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT. I asked him what "it" was and he said "everything."
So it is with the neocon true believers: Their "Katrina relief" policies are the same ones trotted out for every problem, but nothing energizes them like a good disaster. As Bush says, lands swept clean are "opportunity zones," a chance to do some recruiting, advance the faith, even rewrite the rules from scratch. But that, of course, will take some massaging--I mean assisting.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Poverty Stalks Many Workers.
Two articles here from the Sunday Oregonian. Both show the reality behind the sets depicting “economic recovery.” The truth is, for many people, poverty is one or two paychecks away. Even the employed have packs of hungry wolves waiting outside their doors.
Inflation is back and wages are stagnant. This means people have less and less to spend on necessities. The “home equity” loan sharks are doing great, as are the “payday loan” usurers. Families that are on the economic edge are sliding into trouble.
It’s a bad scene. For lower-economic level workers who don’t own homes, their chances of owning are slipping away. Median wages at $43,000 and home prices starting, as an ad I saw said “in the low $200s” just doesn’t compute. In Bend, the median home price is just under $300,000. There's no way entry or mid-level workers can afford prices like that. Oregonians are turning into a group of renters; and renters of marginal housing at that. So much for “economic progress.”
Low-income Oregon workers fall behind in getting aheadSunday, October 16, 2005
BILL GRAVES
The Oregonian
Stagnant incomes and rising costs are squeezing Oregon's working class, forcing more families to turn to relatives, credit cards, payday lenders, free health clinics and food banks to get by.
The poorest Oregonians qualify for government help with child care, housing and health care. But that safety net is not there for tens of thousands of working families whose wages don't cover their mounting energy, housing and health insurance bills.
These people are not poor. They have jobs that often pay more than minimum wage, but their household incomes fall short of the state's median of $42,971.
They can be defined as the 700,000 people -- nearly one in five Oregonians - -- who earn roughly $10,000 to $20,000 for a single person or roughly $20,000 to $39,000 for a family of four, incomes that studies show are no longer enough to make ends meet.
The state's economic recovery has left these families behind, and the hot real estate market has made their struggle worse. This working class faces similar hardships nationwide, but there's mounting evidence the problem is more intense for Oregonians because their wages are rising slower than the rest of the nation's and their costs are climbing faster.
Their ranks include retirees, working single- and two-parent families with children, young college graduates and laid-off engineers employed by temp agencies. They live from paycheck to paycheck and face a financial crisis whenever a family member gets sick or a car breaks down.
And their ticket into the middle class -- a stable job with good benefits and home ownership -- is elusive.
They are the people "who are seeing their opportunities really restricted, where the situation is radically different than it was, say, 10 years ago," said Bruce Weber, a resource economist at Oregon State University who has studied Oregon's high hunger rates.
Economists say Oregon's social and economic health is weakened by having so many frayed and frustrated workers and families under so much pressure to meet basic needs. These workers spend less on services and goods, tap more resources for help and are forced to turn to health services they cannot afford, driving up costs for everyone else.
"We are all in a sense losers because our neighborhoods are more tense, and it does affect us that those we live with and live by are struggling more," Weber said.
They are people like Angela and Josh Hancock of Oregon City, who say their financial squeeze has tightened in the past year. Josh, 29, drives a truck for a beverage distributor, and Angela, 31, earns $200 a month caring for a child in addition to their three children.
Though the couple earns more than $30,000 a year, they have found themselves running so short of food in recent months that they have been visiting food banks, Angela said.
"Food prices are going up, and he (Josh) is still making the same as last year at this time," she said. "With natural gas prices going up now, I'm scared to death. We're not making it now. How am I going to make it then?"
Oregon lags behind
Statistics and new faces showing up at food banks and health clinics reflect the trend.
Oregon's average per capita income last year was $30,584, trailing the national average of $33,041. Oregon has dropped from 97 percent of the national average in 1996 to 93 percent last year.
Washington's average, by contrast, is 106 percent of the national average, or $35,023.
The state's electricity costs have climbed faster than most parts of the country. Nearly half of Oregon renters pay more than a third of their income for housing, the third-highest percentage in the nation. Cuts in the Oregon Health Plan and surging health care costs pushed the number of uninsured to 609,000 -- about one in six Oregonians -- the steepest increase in the nation.
About one in eight Oregonians receive food stamps, nearly double the number six years ago. Bankruptcies are at record highs.
And Oregon's payday loan businesses -- sometimes the only source of immediate cash for strapped workers -- are booming despite their high interest rates.
State data show payday stores loaned $215 million to workers in 2003, more than triple the amount loaned in 1999. Last year, the Oregon Center for Public Policy reported almost 250 payday lenders across the state -- so many that they have surpassed the number of McDonald's restaurants.
Free health clinics are seeing more working families. On a recent evening at the Essential Health Clinic, a part-time urgent care service for the uninsured in Hillsboro, about 30 people filled the narrow waiting room. Some were poor. Others were working without health insurance. Several told their stories but declined to give their names because they don't want to be identified as needy.
A 40-year-old manager of a retail store brought her ill teenage daughter to the clinic. She said she could not afford the $500 monthly cost of her company's health insurance, and her husband, an electrical engineer, works for a temp agency after he was laid off from a permanent job. "We have too much to be poor and too little to be OK," she said.
A 43-year-old former flight attendant who landed in Oregon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks visited the clinic with a urinary infection. She works without health insurance for a temp agency at a high-tech company and has struggled for years to find permanent work.
The Harris family
Maria and Tony Harris of Southeast Portland have been scrambling to stay afloat since Maria closed her full-time child care business three years ago to return to school.
"Right now, we're not even above water," said Tony, 46, who rises at 4 each morning and drives 17 miles to his full-time job in a Portland auto parts warehouse, from which he brings home about $1,200 a month. Maria, 39, watches her sister's children during the day, earning $300 to $500 a month.
Tony gets home after 3 p.m., just in time to take over watching their two children, Karina, 11, and Cody, 9, before Maria heads off to classes at Concorde Career College, where she's studying to become a certified medical assistant. Tony cooks dinner and helps the children with homework. Maria gets home about 10 p.m. and studies until midnight.
They've tapped out their credit cards and resorted to payday and car title lenders and visits to the food bank to get by. They've sold all of their jewelry, including their wedding rings.
"It seems like we just start seeing the light and here comes another cloud," Tony said.
Their children qualify for the Oregon Health Plan, and Tony gets health insurance through his job. But they cannot afford to pay the cost of adding Maria to Tony's plan, so she lives without.
Maria hopes to earn more after completing her education program next year. For now, she said, she needs to be strong for her family.
"If I don't keep going," she said, "things are not going to get better."
Why Oregon is falling behind
Economists say the structure of Oregon's economy and the steady migration of newcomers to the state may explain why incomes are not keeping pace with the nation although Oregon has been adding jobs at a faster clip than most states over the past two years.
By August this year, Oregon had 36,700 more jobs than it did in 2000. But that's not nearly enough for about 160,000 working-age people who moved here during that period. That imbalance keeps wages low as a function of basic supply and demand, economists say.
Oregon's economy also has shifted toward lower-wage jobs, according to a study last year by the Oregon Employment Department. At least half of the jobs lost during the most recent recession were in high-wage industries, such as manufacturing. Since the recession, most of the new jobs have emerged in low-wage industries, such as services and temporary employment agencies.
Oregon also may be hurt by its size. Portland is not a big enough metro center to provide a hub for banks, mortgage brokers and other financial businesses and has lost several corporate headquarters over the past decade, all of which provide high-wage jobs, said William Boggess, associate dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences at Oregon State University.
The fact Seattle has attracted financial and corporate headquarters and reaps the benefits of a major research institution in the University of Washington helps explain why Washington's average wages are higher than Oregon's, said Art Ayer, Employment Department labor economist.
Take away King County, which includes Seattle, and the average wages in Oregon and Washington are about the same, he said.
Manufacturing, logging, fishing and farming traditionally allowed working-class Oregonians to earn stable livings, but those industries have all declined. The only way to ease pressure on this group today, economists say, is to somehow lower prices, create better-paying jobs for them or make it easier and more affordable for them to get training and education for good jobs. Education is a path up
After working for 16 years at a series of waitress jobs, sometimes two or three at once, and after a failed marriage, battles with credit card debt and a continuous decline in her standard of living, DeEtte Peck, 34, a Gresham mother with two daughters, has plunged full time into Mt. Hood Community College. She plans to transfer to a four-year nursing program.
"The minimum wage is all I'm eligible for, " she said. "I've had to use food banks, and I've had to grovel. . . . Prices, inflation and everything is going up, and we have no way of keeping up with it."
She shops at Goodwill and borrowed money to fix her teeth last spring.
She volunteers for the Oregon Food Bank and said she hopes to become a community field nurse so she can help other low-income families.
When she pulls herself up, said Peck, "I'm going to take as many people as I can with me."
Bill Graves: 503-221-8549; billgraves@news.oregonian.com
©2005 The Oregonian
Single mom slips despite new jobSunday, October 16, 2005
The Oregonian
Gayle Jensen, a single mother with three boys, climbed out of poverty 18 months ago by getting a job at Human Solutions Inc., a nonprofit agency in Southeast Portland that helps low-income families with housing and other social needs.
But moving up the economic ladder has a price: The 43-year-old Portland woman lost $900 worth of government assistance for child care, housing and food stamps for which she no longer qualifies. When she was earning less, she broke even each month, but now she's finding herself about $300 in the red.
"I just don't pay some things," she says. "I juggle bills back and forth. I pay the services getting ready to be shut off."
Still, Jensen sees a brighter future now that she's more independent and helping other families with energy assistance and other needs.
"I'm learning a career now," she says. "I love my job."
©2005 The Oregonian
Congress, Under Republicans, Screws The Poor Big-Time
Congress neglected to fund that pays for a program called Qualified Medicare Buy-out. This program picked up the tab for those of us disabled or over 65 or poor. As a result, another $80 a month is going to vanish into Medicare premiums, no matter how little we get in Social Security.
Congress has ignored the poor once again. If they treated their corporate employers this way, they'd be out of work.
The New York Times
October 16, 2005
Aid Program for Recipients of Medicare Comes to EndBy ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 - About 192,000 Medicare beneficiaries with low incomes face a steep increase in costs because Congress has not renewed a program that paid their monthly premiums, the Bush administration said on Saturday.
"These are highly vulnerable beneficiaries," the administration said in an e-mail notice sent to Congress on Friday night. The notice said that legal authority for the program expired at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. So the low-income beneficiaries, who are 65 and older or disabled, will have to pay the premiums that until now were paid for them by the federal government.
The basic Medicare premium, $78.20 a month, will rise to $88.50 in January. Premiums are normally deducted from Social Security checks.
"The administration has no authority to reinstate the program," the notice said. "Congress must act. The president's 2006 budget proposed a one-year extension of the program. Without a reinstatement of the program, these 192,000 beneficiaries will be individually responsible for the payment of their Medicare Part B premiums."
Under the program, the federal government can pay premiums for Medicare beneficiaries with incomes of $1,097 to $1,464 a month. That amounts to $13,164 to $17,568 annually. Beneficiaries are known as "qualifying individuals," and the program is often called the Q.I. program.
The administration said, "States are responsible for notifying beneficiaries that the Q.I. benefit has been terminated."
The House and the Senate have passed separate bills to reinstate the program. The cost, roughly $200 million a year, would be offset by denying federal payments under Medicaid and Medicare for Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction.
Congress left Oct. 7 for a 10-day recess without resolving differences on this and other issues. The two houses disagree over parts of the legislation dealing with welfare benefits, unemployment insurance and programs to promote sexual abstinence.
Kevin W. Concannon, director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, said: "Congress just walked away and left a lot of poor people hanging. It's frustrating and disheartening. We hope Congress will extend the program, but there is no guarantee."
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Congress that it had "received requests for information on how to begin terminating beneficiaries from the program from states such as Florida, Nevada and New York."
Howard J. Bedlin, vice president of the National Council on the Aging, a research and advocacy group, said: "It's hard to believe that Congress would cut off vulnerable seniors from the help they need at such a critical time. Medicare premiums have increased more than 50 percent in three years. Do we really want to have thousands of seniors no longer able to afford to see their doctors?"
Gary R. Karr, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said, "We want Congress to renew the program."
If Congress does nothing, the agency told Congress, beneficiaries will have to pay Medicare premiums for October and subsequent months. Several months' premiums could be deducted at once from a person's Social Security check.
The agency said that if the Social Security Administration receives a list of names in November, "the beneficiary will see his or her December check reduced by $234.60" - the amount for October, November and December at $78.20 a month.
Congress is scheduled to reconvene on Monday. Proposals to reduce the federal budget deficit are high on the agenda. Republican leaders say they will work with the White House to cut $35 billion from projected spending on Medicaid and other benefit programs over five years.
But Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Finance Committee, said he would try to preserve aid for low-income Medicare beneficiaries because the program had "proved its value in helping those who live on the edge of poverty."
"Congress needs to act quickly to make sure this important benefit is not lost," Mr. Grassley said.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, has introduced a bill that would permanently authorize aid for low-income people on Medicare. "Congress should not be playing political hot potato with this issue every year," Mr. Bingaman said.
The Bush administration said the uncertainty about aid for low-income people could have "a significant impact on the Medicare prescription drug benefit" that becomes available on Jan. 1. People receiving such aid are deemed eligible for extra help with their drug costs.
But if the program no longer exists, the administration said, it will be "much harder to motivate these individuals" to sign up for drug plan.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Congress, Under Republicans, Screws The Poor Big-Time
Congress declines to help the poor; it just defunded the Medicare Buy-Out Program. They walked away from it. This is disgraceful. Would they walk away from funding something that would give either tax breaks or higher products to their corporate pals? "Their corporate Masters" would be a more truthful way of putting it.
New York Times
October 16, 2005
By Robert Pear
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 - About 192,000 Medicare beneficiaries with low incomes face a steep increase in costs because Congress has not renewed a program that paid their monthly premiums, the Bush administration said on Saturday.
"These are highly vulnerable beneficiaries," the administration said in an e-mail notice sent to Congress on Friday night. The notice said that legal authority for the program expired at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. So the low-income beneficiaries, who are 65 and older or disabled, will have to pay the premiums that until now were paid for them by the federal government.
The basic Medicare premium, $78.20 a month, will rise to $88.50 in January. Premiums are normally deducted from Social Security checks.
"The administration has no authority to reinstate the program," the notice said. "Congress must act. The president's 2006 budget proposed a one-year extension of the program. Without a reinstatement of the program, these 192,000 beneficiaries will be individually responsible for the payment of their Medicare Part B premiums."
Under the program, the federal government can pay premiums for Medicare beneficiaries with incomes of $1,097 to $1,464 a month. That amounts to $13,164 to $17,568 annually. Beneficiaries are known as "qualifying individuals," and the program is often called the Q.I. program.
The administration said, "States are responsible for notifying beneficiaries that the Q.I. benefit has been terminated."
The House and the Senate have passed separate bills to reinstate the program. The cost, roughly $200 million a year, would be offset by denying federal payments under Medicaid and Medicare for Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction.
Congress left Oct. 7 for a 10-day recess without resolving differences on this and other issues. The two houses disagree over parts of the legislation dealing with welfare benefits, unemployment insurance and programs to promote sexual abstinence.
Kevin W. Concannon, director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, said: "Congress just walked away and left a lot of poor people hanging. It's frustrating and disheartening. We hope Congress will extend the program, but there is no guarantee."
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Congress that it had "received requests for information on how to begin terminating beneficiaries from the program from states such as Florida, Nevada and New York."
Howard J. Bedlin, vice president of the National Council on the Aging, a research and advocacy group, said: "It's hard to believe that Congress would cut off vulnerable seniors from the help they need at such a critical time. Medicare premiums have increased more than 50 percent in three years. Do we really want to have thousands of seniors no longer able to afford to see their doctors?"
Gary R. Karr, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said, "We want Congress to renew the program."
If Congress does nothing, the agency told Congress, beneficiaries will have to pay Medicare premiums for October and subsequent months. Several months' premiums could be deducted at once from a person's Social Security check.
The agency said that if the Social Security Administration receives a list of names in November, "the beneficiary will see his or her December check reduced by $234.60" - the amount for October, November and December at $78.20 a month.
Congress is scheduled to reconvene on Monday. Proposals to reduce the federal budget deficit are high on the agenda. Republican leaders say they will work with the White House to cut $35 billion from projected spending on Medicaid and other benefit programs over five years.
But Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Finance Committee, said he would try to preserve aid for low-income Medicare beneficiaries because the program had "proved its value in helping those who live on the edge of poverty."
"Congress needs to act quickly to make sure this important benefit is not lost," Mr. Grassley said.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, has introduced a bill that would permanently authorize aid for low-income people on Medicare. "Congress should not be playing political hot potato with this issue every year," Mr. Bingaman said.
The Bush administration said the uncertainty about aid for low-income people could have "a significant impact on the Medicare prescription drug benefit" that becomes available on Jan. 1. People receiving such aid are deemed eligible for extra help with their drug costs.
But if the program no longer exists, the administration said, it will be "much harder to motivate these individuals" to sign up for drug plan.
![]()
Congress, Under Republicans, Screws The Poor Big-Time
Congress, ever alert to their big-time contributors and blind to anyone else, just walked away from funding the Medicare Buy-Out program. This program picks up the cost of Medicare premiums for those who are low-income.
October 16, 2005
Aid Program for Recipients of Medicare Comes to End
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 - About 192,000 Medicare beneficiaries with low incomes face a steep increase in costs because Congress has not renewed a program that paid their monthly premiums, the Bush administration said on Saturday.
"These are highly vulnerable beneficiaries," the administration said in an e-mail notice sent to Congress on Friday night. The notice said that legal authority for the program expired at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. So the low-income beneficiaries, who are 65 and older or disabled, will have to pay the premiums that until now were paid for them by the federal government.
The basic Medicare premium, $78.20 a month, will rise to $88.50 in January. Premiums are normally deducted from Social Security checks.
"The administration has no authority to reinstate the program," the notice said. "Congress must act. The president's 2006 budget proposed a one-year extension of the program. Without a reinstatement of the program, these 192,000 beneficiaries will be individually responsible for the payment of their Medicare Part B premiums."
Under the program, the federal government can pay premiums for Medicare beneficiaries with incomes of $1,097 to $1,464 a month. That amounts to $13,164 to $17,568 annually. Beneficiaries are known as "qualifying individuals," and the program is often called the Q.I. program.
The administration said, "States are responsible for notifying beneficiaries that the Q.I. benefit has been terminated."
The House and the Senate have passed separate bills to reinstate the program. The cost, roughly $200 million a year, would be offset by denying federal payments under Medicaid and Medicare for Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction.
Congress left Oct. 7 for a 10-day recess without resolving differences on this and other issues. The two houses disagree over parts of the legislation dealing with welfare benefits, unemployment insurance and programs to promote sexual abstinence.
Kevin W. Concannon, director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, said: "Congress just walked away and left a lot of poor people hanging. It's frustrating and disheartening. We hope Congress will extend the program, but there is no guarantee."
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Congress that it had "received requests for information on how to begin terminating beneficiaries from the program from states such as Florida, Nevada and New York."
Howard J. Bedlin, vice president of the National Council on the Aging, a research and advocacy group, said: "It's hard to believe that Congress would cut off vulnerable seniors from the help they need at such a critical time. Medicare premiums have increased more than 50 percent in three years. Do we really want to have thousands of seniors no longer able to afford to see their doctors?"
Gary R. Karr, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said, "We want Congress to renew the program."
If Congress does nothing, the agency told Congress, beneficiaries will have to pay Medicare premiums for October and subsequent months. Several months' premiums could be deducted at once from a person's Social Security check.
The agency said that if the Social Security Administration receives a list of names in November, "the beneficiary will see his or her December check reduced by $234.60" - the amount for October, November and December at $78.20 a month.
Congress is scheduled to reconvene on Monday. Proposals to reduce the federal budget deficit are high on the agenda. Republican leaders say they will work with the White House to cut $35 billion from projected spending on Medicaid and other benefit programs over five years.
But Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Finance Committee, said he would try to preserve aid for low-income Medicare beneficiaries because the program had "proved its value in helping those who live on the edge of poverty."
"Congress needs to act quickly to make sure this important benefit is not lost," Mr. Grassley said.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, has introduced a bill that would permanently authorize aid for low-income people on Medicare. "Congress should not be playing political hot potato with this issue every year," Mr. Bingaman said.
The Bush administration said the uncertainty about aid for low-income people could have "a significant impact on the Medicare prescription drug benefit" that becomes available on Jan. 1. People receiving such aid are deemed eligible for extra help with their drug costs.
But if the program no longer exists, the administration said, it will be "much harder to motivate these individuals" to sign up for drug plan.
![]()
AOL + Secret Police: Be Careful What You Write!
There’s not much to add to this, except that if we were keeping a list of collaborators with the secret police AOL would be at the head of the list. http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1902.htm#002DHS and AOL: An Unholy AllianceOctober 3, 2005
by Martin McKinney
The Financial Reporter (U.K.)
Washington- The American-based internet giant, AOL, wholly-owned by Time-Warner, has formed a working partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to permit unlimited surveillance of the millions of AOL online members, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
“AOL works ‘closely with the DHS’ to supply information on any AOL customer and allows agents from these entities ‘free and unfettered’ access to AOL Hq at Dulles, VA for the purpose of ‘watching over and keeping surveillance ’ on the millions of AOL customers,’ according to the report.
The legal basis for this is the recently Congress-approved Patriot Act which permits warrantless searches of persons and property. While information gleaned from delving into personal computer messages is supposed to be kept confidential, it appears that the DHS has exceeded their brief and obtained what appears to be strictly personal information which is then circulated to entities outside the DHS.
The Department of Commerce report also states that news of this surveillance has leaked out and is causing serious concern in the American, and European, business communities who are fearful that trade secrets may be given to other business entities, considered as “friendly” to the Bush Administration.
Is Dubya Drinking?
Is he or isn’t he on the sauce? I don’t know for sure, but there’re plenty of people out there who believe Dubya’s Drinking Again. Every time I see him on TV, particularly when he goes into his friendly-Texas-used-car-salesman-schtick, I wonder. It's about the only way you can explain such a lame act.
Bush claims he got sober through an experience of divine grace. Well and good, because he sounds like he was a remarkably obnoxious frat boy drunk back in the old days. I’ve known a lot of people who got sober by way of being born again. Twenty years ago, when 12-step recovery mushroomed into a cultural phenomonon, many evangelical churches became alarmed when their members started attending AA and NA meetings. It was felt that the Higher Power of 12-steppers wasn’t sufficiently christian.
Quite a few people fell away from the meetings and into groups at their local fundamentalist churches. Eventually quite a few came back, starting their sobriety over because the experience of grace wasn’t quite enough; it took a lot of footwork and a lot of support.
Support: that’s what the 12-step groups offer (most of the time, yeah—they’re not perfect by any means). One person working alongside of and with Many, connecting with some sort of Higher Power that may or may not be called “God.” That Higher Power can change, too. In the church-based sobriety movements, there’s no such things as a flexible concept of God. It’s in the Book, that’s all there is to it. The Bible Way or the Highway.
I doubt Bush gets much personal support for dealing with sobriety. If he’s having problems staying off the sauce, he might think about getting honest and telling us about it.
Saul Landau: '
Two terrorists and a lush: Luis Posada and Bush's drinking'Date: Sunday, October 16 @ 09:14:17 EDT
CounterPunch
How did a judge's decision not to deport the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela connect to the report that George W. Bush has again hit the bottle?
The answer begins in the fact the Bush never entered a recovery program for his alcohol and drug addiction, which he supposedly gave up at age 40 while jogging. God talked to him, or Jesus or some envoy. This born again phenomenon apparently substituted for AA -- along with exercise and praying.
W had ongoing problems, of course, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At home, his poll ratings fell to 40% or less by September. Yet, Bush continued on Karl Rove's path, derived from Napoleon, Frederick the Great and the Nazi Party model of politics: forget about facts, truth, integrity, ethics; rely on audacity and aggression. This formula won him two elections, placed the gutless Democrats on the defense and secured the "stupid male vote," the dumbos who adore Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh and vote against their own interests.
The impregnable success model, however, eroded quickly and, according to the The National Enquire ("Bush's Booze Crisis," Sept. 21), Laura Bush caught George throwing down a drink at his Crawford ranch. Drinking began after aides informed him of the Hurricane Katrina disaster and FEMA's failure to deal with the aftermath.
Laughing about the source? Before the "respectable" press got wind of it, The Enquirer revealed Rush Limbaugh's oxycontin habit ("Limbaugh Caught in Drug Ring," Oct. 2, 2003).
Now, Jennifer Luce and Don Gentile report that "Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First Lady Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas
"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot," said one 'insider.' "He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: 'Stop, George!'" After listening to a September 12 exchange with a journalist, Laura may have already suspected he had started nipping.
"Did they misinform you when you said that no one anticipated the breach of the levees?"
"No," Bush responded. "When that storm came by, a lot of people said we dodged a bullet. When that storm came through at first, people said, whew. There was a sense of relaxation, and that's what I was referring to. And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people, probably over the airways, say the bullet has been dodgedOf course, there were plans in case the levee had been breached. There was a sense of relaxation in the moment, a critical moment. And thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that" (White House Web Site Sept. 12).
This mangled attempt at oral clarity hardly compensated for his non-handling of Katrina's aftermath. And bloodshed in Iraq dominated daily headlines. Popularity ratings went south. Gas prices went north. W went boozing.
"The sad fact is that he has been sneaking drinks for weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him - but the word is his drinking has been going on for a while in the capital," said an Enquirer source. "The war in Iraq, the loss of American lives, has deeply affected him The result is he's taking drinks here and there, likely in private, to cope."
The nation has endured drunken Presidents, like Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding. But a "dry drunk?" Dr. Katherine Van Wormer, co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective, applied this term to Bush, meaning he stopped drinking but still thinks constantly about relieving his anxiety with alcohol (Counterpunch Jan. 22, 2003).
On September 20, he returned to "N'Oleans" which he remembered fondly from his drinking days. Bush promised to "get the debris removed, get the water up and running and get the bridges rebuilt. But what you need to do is develop a blueprint for your own future. We look forward to hearing your vision so we can more better do our job."
"More better?" More disturbed, thought Laura. The following day, W unleashed another missile. "If you want to grow something, you shouldn't tax it. If you want to encourage small business growth, we ought to incent it to grow in that part of the world. Somebody said the other day, well, that's a tax break. That region is going to have zero income anyway."
"That region" conjured up images of poor people suffering. If he stayed for photo op-s, he would have to shake dirty hands and hug smelly bodies. So, he remained "on vacation," watching TV golf, not images of floating bodies and desperate people.
The dry drunk got wetter. Van Wormer listed other traits: "A rigid, judgmental outlook, impatience, childish behavior, irresponsible behavior, irrational rationalization, projection and overreaction." Dr. Van Wormer thinks Bush exhibits these traits and "some indications of paranoia."
She selected as an example Bush's declaration: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." Such a statement indicated "projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined."
He also displays his "judgmental outlook" in a statement on Israel. To fight evil, Bush turns Biblical. "Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good" (Counterpunch, Oct. 11, 2002).
Such pronouncements of an uncompromising terrorism fighter evaporated on September 27 and provided W more reason to drink. On that day, a U.S. immigration judge denied Venezuela's request to extradite Luis Posada Carriles. The U.S. government lawyer offered no opposition to the judge's ruling, although it carried heavy implications.
Posada, who Hugo Chavez's government labeled "the Osama bin Laden of Latin America," grinned. So did Osama bin Laden when he heard Bush's October 6 remarks.
"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account" (Speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, Oct 6, 2005).
How to coincide these remarks with not deporting a terrorist? "God should have known that those anti-Castro Cubans, whom I owe for two elections, would not let me deport Posada. They call him a `zealous patriot'."
Since Posada escaped trial for his lead role in the October 1976 bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner over Barbados in which all 73 people aboard died, Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's Ambassador to Washington, accused Bush's administration of using a "double standard" on terrorism.
At his Texas trial, the White House and Homeland Security collaborated with Posada by failing to counter his lawyer's virtually unsupported claim that Venezuela would torture him. Indeed, the State department's most recent report exempted Venezuela from the list of states that practice torture.
Ironically, U.S. officials have routinely torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. One State Department official spoke anonymously, "Here we have someone who we know is a terrorist, and it's clear that we're actively protecting him from facing justice. We have zero credibility" (Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, Sept. 29, 2005).
Posada weakened W's terrorist reputation. Then a Texas prosecutor weakened his power in the House by charging Tom DeLay with multiple felony charges. "The Hammer," as frightened legislators called DeLay, had rammed through Bush's tax cuts for the richest people in the country.
In addition, the SEC began to probe Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's sale of stock in Hospital Corporation of America from his blind trust, just days before poor earnings sent HCA shares sharply down.
"Billy" claimed he sold the shares to avoid "conflict of interest" should he decide to run for president. But his kin also sold their HCA shares on that day. None of them aspired to public office. Frist denied that he saw clearly into his blind trust. Few believed him.
Then, the press chastised W for naming Julie Myers to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She was General Richard Myers' niece, who married Homeland Security head Mike Chertoff's chief of staff. So what that the agency was part of Homeland Security!
With his approval dropping, Social Security reform entombed and facing increasing voter dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, Bush also took heat for rising gas prices.
So, Posada weakened Bush's last claim to strength, fighting terrorism.
Dr. Justin Frank (Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President) thought "that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great" (Enquirer Sept. 21).
Posada grinned. Bin Laden guffawed. Bush drank. The drama of our time: two terrorists and a lush?
Saul Landau is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. His new book is The Business of America.
http://counterpunch.org/landau10152005.html
Law? What Law? Why, Cowboy Law!
As police power accumulates to the federal government—and to the president and his private club, more and more people seem to be noticing. Military law: so much easier, no nuances, no traditional body of democratic law providing guarantees for the accused...Round ‘em up and lock ‘em up. Cowboy law.
Bad law.
Ed Tant: '
Bush poised for ironic step of instituting martial law'Date: Saturday, October 15 @ 09:32:13 EDT
Topic: Commander-In-Thief
Ed Tant, Athens Banner-Herald
A specter is stalking America - the specter of martial law. Earlier this month, the Bush/Cheney administration in Washington announced that it is considering using the military forces here in the United States against American citizens in the event of an avian flu outbreak in this nation. Dr. Irwin Redlener of Columbia University's National Center for Disaster Preparedness told The Associated Press the White House plan is "an extraordinarily Draconian measure." He warned that the latest scheme by the Bush crew could translate into "martial law in the United States."
While Bush gushed on Oct. 4 that he is "still a conservative, proudly so," there is nothing conservative about the Bush team's big government and big spending approach to domestic and foreign affairs. The court-appointed president who told CNN five years ago, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I am the dictator," might not have been joking.
Rumblings are emanating from the nation's capital that the Bush/Cheney junta is considering abandoning the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that prevents the American military from being used as a domestic police force against American citizens. The United States has a long and proud tradition of civilian control of the military, but if the Bush administration has its way, Americans may one day wake up to the authoritarian specter of military control of the civilians.
The Clinton administration set the stage for a police state in the land of the formerly free in the wake of the Oklahoma City terror bombing. Clinton's 1999 Defense Authorization Act created exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, and now the Bush bunch seem to be ready to gut the act entirely.
In 2003, Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who spearheaded America's deadly invasion of Iraq, said martial law could come to this nation after another terror attack on the scale of Sept. 11. Such a military rule of U.S. citizens would fly in the face of nearly 230 years of civilian sovereignty and democratic traditions in this country. It's ironic a Bush administration that mouths the mantra "terrorists attack us because they hate our freedoms" now is poised to toss out freedoms because of a terrorist attack.
On Sept. 9, a federal appeals court ruled the president of the United States has the authority to imprison indefinitely, without criminal charges, American citizens captured on U.S. soil. The ruling, unless overturned by a higher court, gives the president the power to jail U.S. citizens as part of the "war on terror," which could last for years or even decades, like the never-ending wars in George Orwell's novel of tyranny, "1984." The three-judge decision was handed down by two Clinton appointees and a judge appointed by the president's father, George H.W. Bush.
There are many Bush League quislings here in America who would welcome a martial law, police state in this country. In August, American Legion Commander Thomas Cadmus called for an end to "public protests" against the Iraq war, repeating the same old right-wing song and dance that protests "provide aid and comfort to our enemies." Protesters of Bush's desert disaster in Iraq would tell Commander Cadmus that the real enemy is in the White House.
On Armistice Day of 1919, shortly after the American Legion was founded, members in Centralia, Wash., led a mob that attacked a radical union hall in the town and lynched a union man who had been a hero in World War I. Now, in the 21st century, some in the same American Legion would lead another "red scare" war against every American's right to dissent.
Such Bush buddies and war hawks should consider the wise words of Army general and U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Here in America we are descended in blood and spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Tant has been an Athens columnist since 1974. His work also has appeared in The New York Times, The Progressive, Astronomy magazine and other publications.
Copyright 2005 Athens Banner-Herald and Morris Digital Works.
Reprinted from the Athens Banner-Herald:
http://onlineathens.com/stories/101505/opi_20051015032.shtmlThe URL for this story is:
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=23180
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Bush Appoints "Commissars" to National Park Service
Civil Service was established to eliminate political patronage from government employment. Of course, it didn’t touch upper management, which is now, has been, and probably forever will be based on political pay-back for favors received.
Now, though, the Bush Administration is politicizing lower-and-lower level jobs. This press release from peer.org points out new policing rules are affecting our National Park Service. We’ve already read how interpretations from the Christian Bible are being placed in National Parks to further obfuscate scientific knowledge. Now, the Administration is creating a class of commissars to supervise the Park Service. (For those of you who don’t remember the Soviet Union, Merriam-Webster defines “commissar” as, “a Communist Party official assigned to a ... unit to teach and enforce party principles and policy.” Replace “Communist Party” with “Bush Administration,” and you have it.
_______________________________
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release (
www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: October 13, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337
POLITICAL SCREENING FOR ALL PARK SERVICE MANAGERS — Mid-Level Managers Picked for Fealty to “the President’s Management Agenda”Washington, DC — The National Park Service has started using a political loyalty test for picking all its top civil service positions, according to an agency directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the new order, all mid-level managers and above must also be approved by a Bush administration political appointee.
The October 11, 2005 order issued by NPS Director Fran Mainella requires that the selection criteria for all civil service management slots (Government Service grades or GS-13, 14 and 15) include the “ability to lead employees in achieving the …Secretary’s 4Cs and the President’s Management Agenda.” In addition, candidates must be screened by Park Service headquarters and “the Assistant Secretary [of Interior] for Fish, and Wildlife, and Parks,” the number three political appointee in the agency.
The order represents a complete centralization of Park Service promotion and hiring in what has traditionally been a decentralized agency. More strikingly, the order is an unprecedented political intrusion into what are supposed to be non-partisan, merit system personnel decisions.
The President’s Management Agenda includes controversial policies and proposals such as aggressive use of outsourcing to replace civil servants, reliance on “faith-based initiatives” and rollbacks of civil service rights. Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s “4Cs” is a slogan she uses to express her management approach: “4 Cs: communication, consultation, cooperation, all in the service of conservation.”
“It is outrageous that park superintendents must swear political loyalty to the Bush agenda and parrot hokey mottos in order to earn a promotion,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “The merit system is supposed to be about ability, not apple polishing.”
The order applies to all hires for park superintendents, assistant superintendents and program managers, such as chief ranger or the head of interpretive or cultural programs. Overall, the policy applies to more than 1,000 mid-level management and supervisory positions in the Park Service.
“Presidents come and go but the civil service is designed to serve whoever occupies the swivel chair in the Oval Office,” Ruch added. “It is downright creepy that now every museum curator, supervising scientist and chief ranger must be okayed by a high-level political appointee.”
###
Read the October 11 “Revised Procedures for GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 Selections”
Revisit the President’s Management Agenda
Friday, October 14, 2005
Circumstantial? Bush's Lies and "Terror Threats."
"Some circumstantial evidence is very persuasive, such as when you find a trout in the milk."MSNBC has never been noted for criticizing the President or his administration. Keith Olberman has put together an interesting list of “coincidences” between bad news for the administration and terror threats as hyped by the government. I’ve noticed that there’s been a few, but never this many. It’s true there’s no evidence of these terror threats being scripted to take the heat off the government—and particularly George Bush, but there’re enough similarities in timing to make me suspicious as hell.
Scoffers and Bush-ites will say, So what? It’s just circumstantial evidence at best.
Mark Twain said, “Some circumstantial evidence is very persuasive, such as when you find a trout in the milk.”
Thanks, Keith for pointing out the trout swimming around Washington.
• October 12, 2005 | 8:35 p.m. ET
The Nexus of Politics and Terror (Keith Olbermann)
Secaucus - Last Thursday on Countdown, I referred to the latest terror threat - the reported bomb plot against the New York City subway system - in terms of its timing. President Bush’s speech about the war on terror had come earlier the same day, as had the breaking news of the possible indictment of Karl Rove in the CIA leak investigation.
I suggested that in the last three years there had been about 13 similar coincidences - a political downturn for the administration, followed by a “terror event” - a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning.
We figured we’d better put that list of coincidences on the public record. We did so this evening on the television program, with ten of these examples. The other three are listed at the end of the main list, out of chronological order. The contraction was made purely for the sake of television timing considerations, and permitted us to get the live reaction of the former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchinson.
We bring you these coincidences, reminding you, and ourselves here, that perhaps the simplest piece of wisdom in the world is called “the logical fallacy.” Just because Event “A” occurs, and then Event “B” occurs, that does not automatically mean that Event “A” caused Event “B.”
But one set of comments from an informed observer seems particularly relevant as we examine these coincidences.
On May 10th of this year, after his resignation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge looked back on the terror alert level changes, issued on his watch.
Mr. Ridge said: “More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert)… there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said ‘for that?’”
Please, judge for yourself.
Number One:
May 18th, 2002. The first details of the President’s Daily Briefing of August 6th, 2001, are
revealed, including its title - “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.” The same day another memo is discovered - revealing the FBI knew of men with links to Al Qaeda training at an Arizona flight school. The memo was never acted upon. Questions about 9/11 Intelligence failures are swirling.
May 20th, 2002. Two days later, FBI Director Mueller declares another terrorist attack “inevitable.” The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide, and against New York City landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.
Number Two:
June 6th, 2002. Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed a chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley’s testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle-blowers.
June 10th, 2002. Four days later, speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American named Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. Padilla had, by this time, already been detained for more than a month.
Number Three:
February 5th, 2003. Secretary of State Powell tells the United Nations Security Council of Iraq’s concealment of weapons, including 18 mobile biological weapons laboratories, justifying a U.N. or U.S. first strike. Many in the UN are doubtful. Months later, much of the information proves untrue.
February 7th, 2003. Two days later, as anti-war demonstrations continue to take place around the globe, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites “credible threats” by Al Qaeda, and raises the terror alert level to orange. Three days after that, Fire Administrator David Paulison - who would become the acting head of FEMA after the Hurricane Katrina disaster - advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.
Number Four:
July 23rd, 2003: The White House admits the CIA -- months before the President's State of the Union Address -- expressed "strong doubts" about the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is issued; it criticizes government at all levels; it reveals an FBI informant had been living with two of the future hijackers; and it concludes that Iraq had no link to Al-Qaeda. 28 pages of the report are redacted. On the 26th, American troops are accused of beating Iraqi prisoners.
July 29th, 2003. Three days later, amid all of those negative headlines, Homeland Security issues warnings of further terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks.
Number Five:
December 17th, 2003. 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a Federal Appeals Court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation-bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, and the chief U.S. Weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, announces he will resign his post.
December 21st, 2003. Three days later, just before Christmas, Homeland Security again raises the threat level to Orange, claiming “credible intelligence” of further plots to crash airliners into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are cancelled after some passenger names purportedly produce matches on government no-fly lists. The French later identify those matched names: one belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year old boy.
Number Six:
March 30th, 2004. The new chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer tells Congress we have still not found any WMD there. And, after weeks of refusing to appear before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice finally relents and agrees to testify. On the 31st: Four Blackwater-USA contractors working in Iraq are murdered, their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets and left on public display in Fallujah. The role of civilian contractors in Iraq is widely questioned.
April 2nd, 2004. Homeland Security issues a bulletin warning that terrorists may try to blow up buses and trains, using fertilizer and fuel bombs - like the one detonated in Oklahoma City - stuffed into satchels or duffel bags.
Number Seven:
May 16th, 2004. Secretary of State Powell appears on “Meet The Press.” Moderator Tim Russert closes by asking him about the “enormous personal credibility” Powell had placed before the U.N. in laying out a case against Saddam Hussein. An aide to Powell interrupts the question, saying the interview is over. Powell finishes his answer, admitting that much of the information he had been given about Weapons of Mass Destruction was “inaccurate and wrong, and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.”
May 21st, 2004, new photos showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison are released. On the 24th - Associated Press video from Iraq confirms U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party - killing more than 40.
Wednesday the 26th. Two days later, Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller warn that intelligence from multiple sources, in Ashcroft’s words, “indicates Al-Qaeda’s specific intention to hit the United States hard,” and that “90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete.” The color-coded warning system is not raised, and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge does not attend the announcement.
Number Eight:
July 6th, 2004. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, producing a small bump in the election opinion polls, and a huge swing in media attention towards the Democratic campaign.
July 8th, 2004. Two days later, Homeland Secretary Ridge warns of information about Al-Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn. Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries, Junior, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming Presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.
Number Nine:
July 29th, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats dominate the media attention over the ensuing weekend.
Monday, August 1st, 2004. The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning - reconnaissance data, left in a home in Iraq - later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out-of-date.
Number Ten:
Last Thursday. At 10 AM Eastern Time, the President addresses the National Endowment for Democracy, once again emphasizing the importance of the war on terror and insisting his government has broken up at least 10 terrorist plots since 9/11.
At 3 PM Eastern Time, five hours after the President’s speech has begun, the Associated Press reports that Karl Rove will testify again to the CIA Leak Grand Jury, and that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told Rove he cannot guarantee that he will not be indicted.
At 5:17 PM Eastern Time, seven hours after the President’s speech has begun, New York officials disclose a bomb threat to the city’s subway system - based on information supplied by the Federal Government. A Homeland Security spokesman says the intelligence upon which the disclosure is based is “of doubtful credibility.” And it later proves that New York City had known of the threat for at least three days, and had increased police presence in the subways long before making the announcement at that particular time. Local New York television station, WNBC, reports it had the story of the threat days in advance, but was asked by "high ranking federal officials" in New York and Washington to hold off its story.
Less than four days after revealing the threat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "Since the period of the threat now seems to be passing, I think over the immediate future, we'll slowly be winding down the enhanced security."
While news organizations ranging from the New York Post to NBC News quote sources who say there was reason to believe that informant who triggered the warning simply ‘made it up’, a Senior U.S. Counter-terrorism official tells the New York Times: "There was no there, there."
The list of three additional examples follows.
Number Eleven:
October 22nd, 2004. After weeks of Administration insistence that there are terrorist plans to disrupt the elections, FBI, Law Enforcement, and other U.S. Intelligence agencies report they have found no direct evidence of any plot. More over, they say, a key CIA source who had claimed knowledge of the plot, has been discredited.
October 29, 2004. Seven days later - four days before the Presidential election - the first supposedly new, datable tape of Osama Bin Laden since December 2001 is aired on the Al-Jazeera Network. A Bush-Cheney campaign official anonymously tells the New York Daily News that from his campaign’s point of view, the tape is quote “a little gift.”
Number Twelve:
May 5th, 2005. 88 members of the United States House of Representatives send a letter to President Bush demanding an investigation of the so-called “Downing Street Memo” - a British document which describes purported American desire dating to 2002 to "fix" the evidence to fit the charges against Iraq. In Iraq over the following weekend, car bombings escalate. On the 11th, more than 75 Iraqis are killed in one.
May 11th, 2005. Later that day, an instructor and student pilot violate restricted airspace in Washington D.C. It is an event that happens hundreds of times a year, but this time the plane gets to within three miles of the White House. The Capitol is evacuated; Vice President Cheney, the First Lady, and Nancy Reagan are all rushed to secure locations. The President, biking through woods, is not immediately notified.
Number Thirteen:
June 26th, 2005. A Gallup poll suggests that 61 percent of the American public believes the President does not have a plan in Iraq. On the 28th, Mr. Bush speaks to the nation from Fort Bragg: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
June 29th 2005. The next day, another private pilot veers into restricted airspace, the Capitol is again evacuated, and this time, so is the President.
--
To summarize, coincidences are coincidences.
We could probably construct a similar time line of terror events and warnings, and their relationship to - the opening of new Walmarts around the country.
Are these coincidences signs that the government’s approach has worked because none of the announced threats ever materialized? Are they signs that the government has not yet mastered how and when to inform the public?
Is there, in addition to the "fog of war" a simple, benign, "fog of intelligence”?
But, if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country - questions about what is prudence, and what is fear-mongering; questions about which is the threat of death by terror, and which is the terror of threat.
Comments? E-mail: KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann each weeknight at 8 p.m. ET
"No religious test"?
In case the president and his junta haven't noticed, in the Constitution of the U.S., Article 6, paragraph 3, it is stated, very clearly, there will be NO religious test as a requirement for office. Bush
is applying a religious test: he's emphasizing Ms Miers religious position as a qualification for her appointment to the SCOTUS.
This is unconstitutional. It's also bullshit. Will anybody do anything about it?
More Secret Powers
More Secret Power Given to Federal Government.The administration has been working overtime on establishing major new intelligence operations and agencies. Almost all of these are unaccountable to anyone except the president (and, I presume, his closest cohorts); as far as money goes, nobody has to answer about where it’s spent. Congress writes checks on taxpayers’ money and that’s that.
It’s the power, though, that’s really scary. The government keeps on gathering more and more power over the population. They don’t want the power to help us: they want the power to police us. This is not the sideways power of regulatory agencies, but the raw power of a police state. Considering the Republicans’ constant theme song of getting the government out of peoples’ lives, this sort of power-grab is hypocritical—but mainly it’s just frightening. John Negroponte is one of the men responsible for the establishment of the Death Squads in Central America.
washingtonpost.com
CIA Spies Get a New Home BaseAgency Will Set Up the National Clandestine ServiceBy Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 14, 2005; A06
Intelligence officials yesterday announced establishment of a National Clandestine Service at the CIA, saying the step is necessary because of the dramatic expansion in U.S. human intelligence collection abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The NCS, which will be based at the CIA, will carry out that agency's espionage, taking over what has been called the Directorate of Operations, and will coordinate, though it will not actually direct, the increasing spying and covert activities conducted worldwide by the Pentagon and FBI, officials said.
"This is another positive step in building an intelligence community that is more unified, coordinated and effective," Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said in a statement yesterday.
President Bush had ordered increases of 50 percent in the number of CIA case officers and analysts, and there has been similar, if not greater, growth since the late 1990s in Pentagon and FBI human intelligence collection operations, the officials noted.
That growth requires greater coordination of efforts and "has for the first time since 1947 forced us to redraw the lines," said a senior intelligence official, one of two who briefed reporters yesterday on the condition they not be identified by name. One official was from Negroponte's Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all U.S. intelligence agencies; the other was from the CIA.
Yesterday's announcement gives CIA Director Porter J. Goss another title, national humint manager, incorporating the intelligence community's shorthand for human intelligence, which refers to information collected from people rather than from technical sources such as electronic intercepts. The director of the National Clandestine Service will report to Goss, but the new agency's work will be overseen by Negroponte's staff.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
More Secret Powers
More Secret Power Given to Federal Government.The administration has been working overtime on establishing major new intelligence operations and agencies. Almost all of these are unaccountable to anyone except the president (and, I presume, his closest cohorts); as far as money goes, nobody has to answer about where it’s spent. Congress writes checks on taxpayers’ money and that’s that.
It’s the power, though, that’s really scary. The government keeps on gathering more and more power over the population. They don’t want the power to help us: they want the power to police us. This is not the sideways power of regulatory agencies, but the raw power of a police state. Considering the Republicans’ constant theme song of getting the government out of peoples’ lives, this sort of power-grab is hypocritical—but mainly it’s just frightening. John Negroponte is one of the men responsible for the establishment of the Death Squads in Central America.
washingtonpost.com
CIA Spies Get a New Home BaseAgency Will Set Up the National Clandestine ServiceBy Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 14, 2005; A06
Intelligence officials yesterday announced establishment of a National Clandestine Service at the CIA, saying the step is necessary because of the dramatic expansion in U.S. human intelligence collection abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The NCS, which will be based at the CIA, will carry out that agency's espionage, taking over what has been called the Directorate of Operations, and will coordinate, though it will not actually direct, the increasing spying and covert activities conducted worldwide by the Pentagon and FBI, officials said.
"This is another positive step in building an intelligence community that is more unified, coordinated and effective," Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said in a statement yesterday.
President Bush had ordered increases of 50 percent in the number of CIA case officers and analysts, and there has been similar, if not greater, growth since the late 1990s in Pentagon and FBI human intelligence collection operations, the officials noted.
That growth requires greater coordination of efforts and "has for the first time since 1947 forced us to redraw the lines," said a senior intelligence official, one of two who briefed reporters yesterday on the condition they not be identified by name. One official was from Negroponte's Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all U.S. intelligence agencies; the other was from the CIA.
Yesterday's announcement gives CIA Director Porter J. Goss another title, national humint manager, incorporating the intelligence community's shorthand for human intelligence, which refers to information collected from people rather than from technical sources such as electronic intercepts. The director of the National Clandestine Service will report to Goss, but the new agency's work will be overseen by Negroponte's staff.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
College GOPers For War (As Long As They Don't Have To Go)
The group Young Americans For Freedom has been around for a long time. Sometimes they're on TV—like on C-SPAN, and it's always entertaining to see such charmingly well-dressed, well-scrubbed, and over-weight young cheerleaders for the GOP. All they really need is brown uniforms. They're the somewhat grown-up children of privelege, hoping for good careers.
Clarisse Profilet:
'Meet the young chickenhawks'Date: Friday, October 14 @ 10:14:43 EDT
Topic: War & Terrorism
The Nation
The cheeky website buzzflash.com recently posted a petition calling for Jenna and Barbara Bush to serve in Iraq. But the famously private Bush twins have never disclosed their views on the war; they may even be opposed. So calling for them to serve might not be fair. But there are young and prominent Bush-backers who deserve to be targets of such a petition: The assorted leaders of the College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) are cheerleaders for a war they are unwilling to fight.
Both YAF and College Republicans have staged prowar demonstrations on college campuses across the country. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the College Republican National Committee released a statement proclaiming, "As our troops prepare for battle, the College Republican National Committee and its 100,000 members are prepared to show the world that the majority of students support the efforts of the president and our troops to liberate the people of Iraq and to rid the world of this murderous dictator and his weapons of mass destruction." The CRNC's website praises George W. Bush for "defending the peace by taking the fight to the terrorists."
The even more zealous YAFers have made it clear that they not only support the war but are openly hostile to those who oppose it. Their rowdy prowar rallies have attracted plenty of press. In March 2003, CBS news reported on a YAF event held in Minnesota at which the chapter's executive director Chris Hill had strong words for antiwar activists: "The top of the antiwar movement is led by communists, and I will call them that," he said. "Unlike these communists, we have truth on our side.... We say to those who oppose this war, Go to France." Hill's YAF chapter has also publicly denigrated antiwar demonstrators as "cowards." All of this raises the question: If opponents of the war should go to France, shouldn't Hill--and other members of YAF and College Republicans--go to Iraq? In response to a query by The Nation about whether any leaders have volunteered to fight the war in Iraq, Shauna Moser, the chairman of Penn State YAF, said only that information on YAF officials could be found with a simple "search in a search engine."
Indeed, YAF chairman Erik Johnson, vice chairman Darren Marks and fourteen other national officials have posted brief autobiographies on YAF's website. According to these bios, not one of them has served in the military or has any intention to do so in the future. YAF official Chris Hill told The Nation that he had been a member of his university's Navy ROTC program and the moderator of a blog where he offered advice to aspiring soldiers on how to obtain a military commission. But he chose to seek a master's degree rather than join the armed forces. Asked about this decision, he said, "But I know people over there, and that's a fact." Does it undermine his group's prowar position if all the YAF higher-ups are unwilling to participate directly in the war? "I don't think so," Hill replied. "You don't have to be involved in something to believe in it."
And that appears to be the sentiment of the College Republicans' board members as well. None of them--the controversial chairman Paul Gourley and officers Jess Beeson, Nathaniel Harding, Britton Alexander, Dan Schuberth and Tom Robins--boast any military experience. Their posted bios do not refer to any past, present or future military service, though they do describe in detail the postgraduate work and political aspirations of these young right-wingers.
Conservative campus groups like YAF and College Republicans are growing in strength and numbers. And since the start of the Iraq War, these outfits have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush to support the war, but they have not stood alongside the soldiers doing the actual fighting and dying. They want someone else to do the hard work.
Copyright © 2005 The Nation
Reprinted from The Nation:
http://
www.thenation.com/doc/20051031/the_young_chickenhawks
Thursday, October 13, 2005
2000 Young Americans Serving Life Terms
Do as I say, not as I do —the US talking to the world about democracy, fairness, equality. But the reality is this:
America Has 2,000 Young Offenders Serving Life Terms in JailBy Andrew Gumbel
October 12, 2005, The Independent / UK
http://
news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article318840.eceTwo leading human rights organisations have accused the
United States of in effect throwing away the lives of more
than 2,000 juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole - a punishment out of step
with international law but one increasingly popular with
tough-on-crime US legislators.
According to a report being published today by Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch, the United States is
the only country to punish juveniles so severely on a routine
basis. They counted 2,225 child offenders locked up for life
across 42 American states. In the rest of the world, they
found only a dozen other cases, restricted to three countries
- Israel, South Africa and Tanzania.
"Criminal punishment in the United States can serve four
goals: rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence and
incapacitation," the report concludes, and that no punishment
"should be more severe than necessary to achieve these stated
goals. Sentencing children to life without parole fails to
measure up on all counts."
Some American states permit the imposition of a life sentence
without parole to offenders as young as 10. The youngest
actually serving such a sentence are 13. Roughly one-sixth of
those locked up for life committed their offences when they
were under 16. Almost 60 per cent were given their life
sentence for their first offence.
In most cases, the crime in question was murder. But about a
quarter of those locked up, the report found, were not the
actual murderers, merely participants in a robbery or
burglary in which a murder was committed by someone else. In
many American states, draconian laws stipulate that being
present at the scene of a murder can be equivalent to being
guilty of the murder, with punishment meted out accordingly.
The report found that while the number of juvenile offenders
being sentenced to life had gone up markedly over the past 25
years, the rate of serious juvenile crime had gone down. In
most years since 1985, juvenile offenders have been sentenced
to life without parole at a faster rate than adult murderers.
The imposition of severe sentences on juvenile offenders has
coincided with a general crackdown on crime in the United
States over the past generation. Politicians have found that
it pays electoral dividends to advocate an attitude of "lock
'em up and throw away the key".
As a result, state and federal legislators have introduced
ever tougher regimes of mandatory minimum sentencing,
including one notorious law in California whereby even non-
violent offenders can face life without parole if they are
caught three times. One of the mantras often heard in
political circles is that offenders should do "adult time for
adult crimes".
Amnesty and Human Rights Watch said it was inappropriate to
deny the possibility of rehabilitation to teenagers.
Sentencing them to life inside a prison removed motivation to
pursue an education or any self-improvement. Being in an
adult prison rather than a juvenile facility also exposed
them to a heightened risk of assault and rape.
Sentencing children to life without parole is forbidden under
the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child,
which has been ratified by every member state except the US
and Somalia. Out of 154 countries surveyed in the report, 13
were found to have laws on their books permitting life
sentences for minors, but nine of these had never actually
imposed one.
Peter A, 29, lifer: A sentence disowned by the judge forced
to deliver it
Peter A, a black child from a broken home in Chicago, was
just 15 when he went on a crime spree, ostensibly to recover
some stolen money and drugs stolen from his older brother.
The outing resulted in the shooting of two men, but Peter
neither participated in nor witnessed the killings.
In fact, he later testified, one of the murder victims was a
friend of his who had nothing to do with the original theft.
While the shootings took place, Peter was sitting in a van
parked in the street. He was charged with "felony murder"
anyway because he had accompanied the two killers and, by his
own admission, stolen the van in which they travelled to the
house where the murders took place.
The trial judge, Dennis Dernback, sympathised with Peter,
calling him a "bright lad" with rehabilitative potential and
accepting that, in the absence of his father, he had fallen
under the bad influence of his older brother. Judge
Dernback's hands were tied, however, by Illinois' sentencing
code.
In his written sentence condemning Peter to life imprisonment
without parole, he stated: "That is the sentence that I am
mandated by law to impose. If I had my discretion, I would
impose another sentence, but that is mandated by law."
Peter (not his real name) is now 29. He has obtained a high-
school equivalence diploma and completed a course in legal
studies. He works in the prison library. The only strike
against his disciplinary record has been a single bad report
- for the offence of possessing an extra pillow and stashing
extra cereal in his cell.
2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
_______________________________________________________
portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
discussion and debate service of the Committees of
Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
provide varied material of interest to people on the
left.
Douglas County, OR, anti-Indian Feelings
Anyone care to say that Oregon has good relations with Indians?This newspaper article has a great, great quote about "Indians stealing our land." Apparently, nobody in the land of the Cow Creeks—Canyonville, OR, has any sense of irony. Above and beyond that, though, anyone who believes that Indian-white relations in the great state of Oregon are peachy probably thinks George Bush is telling the truth and we are winning the war of conquest in Iraq....
Second witness said she heard Kittelman disparage tribeNews Review (The)
JOHN SOWELL, jsowell@newsreview.info
October 11, 2005
A second person has stepped forward to accuse Douglas County Commissioner
Marilyn Kittelman of maligning the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of
Indians while eating at a Rice Hill restaurant on Aug. 27.
The second witness said she saw Kittelman pump an imaginary shotgun and
heard her say things against the tribe while the commissioner dined with her
husband at the Homestead Restaurant that day.
Last week, The News-Review reported that a person accused Kittelman of
entering the restaurant, raising her hands up as if she were pumping a
shotgun and firing it. At the same time, Kittelman reportedly said “I’m
fighting Indians. Anyone want to join me?” the first witness claimed.
The second witness said she did not observe Kittelman firing the
make-believe weapon. However, she said she saw the commissioner reach behind
her and act like she was removing arrows from her back.
She said Kittelman explained her actions by saying “I been fighting Indians
all week,” the second witness told tribal officials Friday during a taped
interview.
Kittelman this morning again denied that the incident took place. She said
she was in the restaurant that day with her husband and a client from
Creswell, but said she did not raise an imaginary gun, remove arrows from
her back or make disparaging comments about the tribe.
“The only thing you need for a lie to be a really good lie is to have an
ounce of truth,” Kittelman said.
The second witness, whose identity The News-Review agreed not to reveal,
said from Kittelman’s actions she did not believe the commissioner planned
to shoot anyone, only that “she was still armed and ready to fight,”
according to a transcript of the interview provided by the tribe.
“And I thought to myself then that I hoped the wrong person did not see what
this young woman (Kittelman) did because politically it was like shooting
herself in the foot,” the witness said.
The woman also said Kittelman referred to several members of the tribe by a
derogatory term. However, the witness did not take the comment as a
criticism of the entire tribe.
The first witness said Kittelman while speaking on her cell phone told a
caller that the county stood to lose millions of dollars if the tribe was
allowed to continue to move land into tribal trust. The first witness said
Kittelman said “It’s time to stop Indian growth. I’m the cowgirl to do it.”
Kittelman said she never refers to herself as a cowgirl, only as a horse
trainer. However, the second witness said she also heard Kittelman make the
statement.
The second witness was not able to corroborate, however, another statement
attributed to Kittelman by the first witness. That person, whose identity
The News-Review also agreed to withhold, said another person in the
restaurant asked Kittelman whether her actions might offend American
Indians. The first witness said Kittelman replied by saying she had “nothing
against Indians but they are stealing our land.”
The second witness said she did not hear Kittelman accuse the tribe of
taking land by removing it from the property tax rolls. She said she only
heard Kittelman say “I have nothing against the Indian people.”
However, the second witness said Kittelman’s denials printed in last
Thursday’s paper did not ring true.
“If she is denying jacking one in the chamber and she is denying the cowgirl
statement and she is denying the digging out of my back and fighting with
Indians all week, if she is denying ever making those statements, the woman
is lying,” the second witness said.
• You can reach reporter John Sowell at 957-4209 or by e-mail at
jsowell@newsreview.info.
From Our Fearless (hah!) Leader
Here's Georgie-boy:
"See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction."
-- Washington, D.C., Oct. 8, 2003
Robert Fisk on Iraq
Robert Fisk is an interpretive reporter: he reports on what he sees and interprets it. This is what all reporters do, to a greater or lesser extent. There’s an assumption that a good reporter is utterly objective. That’s impossible. What makes a good reporter is the honesty to admit to where he or she is coming from.
Fisk is honest: he admits his position: the Iraq War is a mess.
Here are two pieces: one is a reporter reporting on what he said at a speech and the other is an interview from the Brit paper, The Independent.
WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq
Robert Fisk addresses Sydney audience on history, journalism and IraqBy James Cogan
11 October 2005
Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for the British Independent, addressed an audience of over 500 at the University of Sydney on October 5. The well-known journalist was visiting Australia to speak at the Edward Said memorial lecture and to promote his forthcoming book, The Great War of Civilization.
Fisk is one of the few journalists who have sought—or been permitted—to present an honest account of events in US-occupied Iraq. He has more than 30 years of experience as a war correspondent. Before taking up his first Middle East assignment in 1976, he worked for six years covering the conflict in Northern Ireland. He subsequently reported on the Lebanese civil war, the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq war, the crisis in Algeria, the communal conflicts that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia, the NATO assault on Serbia in 1999 and, over the past four years, the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Throughout his speech, Fisk conveyed that the death, destruction, cruelty and inhumanity he has seen had left him determined to report “history as it happens”, so no one could say “we didn’t know, nobody told us”. Over the past three decades, he has built up a library of over 350,000 documents, notebooks and files on the conflicts he has covered.
Quoting an Israeli journalist who had told him the role of journalists was to “monitor the centres of power”, Fisk declared: “I think that is the best definition of my job I’ve ever heard. Especially when governments and politicians take us to war, when they have decided that they will kill and others will die.”
Fisk writes from a liberal—not a socialist—political standpoint. Nevertheless, his greatest strength is a deep-going concern with the historical processes that have shaped the events he has witnessed.
Fisk told his Sydney audience: “I used to argue, hopelessly I’m sure, that every reporter should carry a history book in their back-pocket. In 1992, I was in Sarajevo and once, as Serb shells whistled over my head, I stood upon the very paving stone where Gavrilo Princip stood as he fired the fatal shot that sent my father to the trenches of the First World War. It was as if history was a giant echo-chamber ...
“How did we go from that titanic war, the war of 1914-1918, through the making of the Middle East, through the Second World War, through the Arab-Israeli War, through such a bolt of historical tragedy, and reach Iraq?...
“After the Allied victory in 1918, the victors divided up the lands of their former enemies. And in the space of just 17 months, they created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and most of the Middle East. I have spent my entire career, in Belfast, and Sarajevo, and Beirut, and Baghdad, watching the people within those borders burn.”
Fisk is keenly aware of the role of great power intrigues in determining the course of events in the Middle East—throughout the 20th century and up to the present day. “America invaded Iraq not for Saddam Hussein’s mythical ‘weapons of mass destruction’ which had long ago been destroyed,” he said, “but to change the map of the Middle East, much as father’s generation had done more than 80 years earlier.” The war stemmed from not only the desire to dominate oil supplies, but a “visceral need to project power on a massive scale” on the part of the United States.
Answering official proclamations that the war was “going well”, Fisk attempted to give a sense of what the occupation forces, western journalists and, above all, the Iraqi people were confronting as a result of the invasion.
During the month of July, 1,100 victims of violent deaths were brought into the mortuaries of Baghdad. Fisk pointed out that if that figure were extrapolated across other cities and towns, it would most likely be tripled. “That is 36,000 a year,” he noted. “People say 100,000 [Iraqi] dead since the beginning of the invasion is an exaggeration? I doubt it.” The US and British forces have released no public figures on Iraqi casualties.
Fisk described the insurgency against the US-led forces and US-backed government in Baghdad as having taken on a “savage, epic quality”, with constant attacks and daily suicide bombings targeting foreign troops, government security forces and western contractors. Such was the popular hatred of the occupation, any westerner was a potential target.
Replying to a question on the role of Islamic extremism in the insurgency, Fisk stated: “The problem in Iraq is not ‘extreme Islamic ideology’. It is about foreigners running the country. And in these circumstances, all kinds of factions and groups will find that they have a common interest. One of the problems in the Arab world is that because of all the emergency legislation, which we were quite happy to see on the books, you couldn’t have open freedom of expression or opposition. So what happened? The only place people could meet was the mosque. And then we call them extremists, fundamentalists ...
“You just can’t keep saying ‘extremists’. When you put a foreign army in someone else’s land, that [the insurgency] is what is going to happen. You can call them ‘extremists’, ‘fundamentalists’, ‘terrorists’, ‘killers’ and, believe me, they are. But that is why they are who they are.”
Fisk noted that the Iraqi insurgents he had met in Fallujah were veterans of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, part of a generation that had “grown up knowing nothing but suffering and death”.
In contrast to the official propaganda, Fisk observed that for some Iraqis, the US capture of Saddam Hussein was a factor in convincing them to take up arms: “The one reason they would not join the resistance to the US occupation was the fear that if the Americans withdrew, Saddam would return. That fear had now been taken away.”
The scale of the insurgency was such that US-led forces and the Iraqi government used helicopters to transport dignitaries between the Green Zone fortress in the centre of Baghdad to the airport just 10 miles away. “All they see of the country they rule”, he said, “is through the gun-slits of their own defences”. Iraq’s capital had become a “city of walls, 20-feet high, running for mile after mile along highways, and shopping streets and the Tigris River”.
Reporters in Iraq were largely practising what Fisk labeled “hotel journalism”—staying in their guarded rooms and using mobile phones to get information from American and British spokesmen, who were “marooned in their own quarters”. He described how he and other journalists still moved around Baghdad in an attempt to carry out independent reporting. “We do so in private cars, with Iraqi friends, even traveling the airport road,” he said. “But we do so quietly and quickly, often hiding behind an Arabic language newspaper, peaking out the window, stopping only for a minute after a suicide bombing to look at the carnage.... One quick word with a witness, then back in the car before the crowd comes over.”
Fisk spent some time detailing the evidence he had seen of some of the horrors inflicted on the Iraqi people by the Baathist regime, and drew attention to how they were used to justify the actions of the occupation forces.
He commented: “It is a dark comparison that Bush and Blair are making. Saddam tortured and executed women in Abu Ghraib. We only sexually abused prisoners and killed a few of them, and murdered some suspects in Bagram and subjected them to inhuman treatment in Guantanamo. We’re not as bad as Saddam! Thus it became inevitable that the symbol of Saddam’s shame, the prison of Abu Ghraib, subsequently became the symbol of our shame too ...”
“I think it is finished in Iraq. I think the war is lost,” Fisk stressed during questions and answers. “At some point I think there will be some type of cataclysmic event—the over-running of an American base, an attack on the Green Zone—that forces governments to tell the truth.”
In conclusion, the journalist told his audience: “We have to accept that our tragedies lie always in our past. We have to live with our ancestors’ follies and suffer for it, just as we are making the next generation suffer now.”
Fisk’s book, The Great War of Civilization, is being published by Fourth Estate and will be available in bookshops in November.
--------
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article319160.ece
* from The Independent & The Independent on Sunday
13 October 2005 10:12
Iraq has descended into anarchy, says Fisk
By Nigel Morris Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 13 October 2005
Most of Iraq is in a state of anarchy, with insurgents controlling parts of Baghdad just half a mile from the so-called Green Zone, an Independent debate was told last night.
Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, whose new book The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East has just been published by 4th Estate, painted a picture of deepening chaos and misery in Iraq more than two years after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
He said that the "constant, intensive involvement" in the Middle East by the West was a recurring pattern over centuries and was the reason why "so many Muslims in the Middle East hate us". He added: " We can close doors on history. They can't."
Fisk doubted the sincerity of Western leaders' commitment to bringing democracy to Iraq and said a lasting settlement in the country was impossible while foreign troops remained. "In the Middle East, they would like some of our democracy, they would like a couple of boxes off the supermarket shelves of human rights as well. But I think they would also like freedom from us."
Recalling the sight of an immense US convoy rolling into the country's capital, he said: "A superpower has a visceral need to project military power. We can go to Baghdad, so we will go to Baghdad."
He told the debate in London: "The Americans must leave Iraq and they will leave Iraq, but they can't leave Iraq and that is the equation that turns sand to blood. At some point, they will have to talk to the insurgents.
"But I don't know how, because those people who might be negotiators the United Nations, the Red Cross their headquarters have been blown up. The reality now in Iraq is the project is finished. Most of Iraq, except Kurdistan, is in a state of anarchy."
He said that the portrayal of Iraq by Western leaders of efforts to introduce democracy, including Saturday's national vote on the country's proposed constitution was "unreal" to most of its citizens. In Baghdad, children and women were kept at home to prevent them from being kidnapped for money or sold into slavery. They faced a desperate struggle to find the money to keep generators running to provide themselves with electricity. "They aren't sitting in their front rooms discussing the referendum on the constitution."
With insurgents half a mile from Baghdad's Green Zone, Fisk said the danger to reporters from a brutal insurgency that did not respect journalists was increasing. "Every time I go to Baghdad it's worse, every time I ask myself how we can keep going. Because the real question is is the story worth the risk?"
He attacked television reporters for flinching from depicting the everyday bloodshed on the streets of Iraq. "You can go and see Saving Private Ryan or Kingdom of Heaven people have their heads cut off. When it comes to real heads being cut off, you can't. I think television connives with governments at war." He added: "Newspapers can tell you as closely as they can what these horrors are like."
Asked if the "anger and passion" he felt over the events he witnessed had affected his objectivity, he said: "When you are at the scene of a massacre, you are entitled to feel immense anger and I do."
He rejected suggestions that graphic pictures of the dead in newspapers took away their dignity. He said: "My view is the people who are dead would want us to record what happened to them."
Most of Iraq is in a state of anarchy, with insurgents controlling parts of Baghdad just half a mile from the so-called Green Zone, an Independent debate was told last night.
Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, whose new book The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East has just been published by 4th Estate, painted a picture of deepening chaos and misery in Iraq more than two years after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
He said that the "constant, intensive involvement" in the Middle East by the West was a recurring pattern over centuries and was the reason why "so many Muslims in the Middle East hate us". He added: " We can close doors on history. They can't."
Fisk doubted the sincerity of Western leaders' commitment to bringing democracy to Iraq and said a lasting settlement in the country was impossible while foreign troops remained. "In the Middle East, they would like some of our democracy, they would like a couple of boxes off the supermarket shelves of human rights as well. But I think they would also like freedom from us."
Recalling the sight of an immense US convoy rolling into the country's capital, he said: "A superpower has a visceral need to project military power. We can go to Baghdad, so we will go to Baghdad."
He told the debate in London: "The Americans must leave Iraq and they will leave Iraq, but they can't leave Iraq and that is the equation that turns sand to blood. At some point, they will have to talk to the insurgents.
"But I don't know how, because those people who might be negotiators the United Nations, the Red Cross their headquarters have been blown up. The reality now in Iraq is the project is finished. Most of Iraq, except Kurdistan, is in a state of anarchy."
He said that the portrayal of Iraq by Western leaders of efforts to introduce democracy, including Saturday's national vote on the country's proposed constitution was "unreal" to most of its citizens. In Baghdad, children and women were kept at home to prevent them from being kidnapped for money or sold into slavery. They faced a desperate struggle to find the money to keep generators running to provide themselves with electricity. "They aren't sitting in their front rooms discussing the referendum on the constitution."
With insurgents half a mile from Baghdad's Green Zone, Fisk said the danger to reporters from a brutal insurgency that did not respect journalists was increasing. "Every time I go to Baghdad it's worse, every time I ask myself how we can keep going. Because the real question is is the story worth the risk?"
He attacked television reporters for flinching from depicting the everyday bloodshed on the streets of Iraq. "You can go and see Saving Private Ryan or Kingdom of Heaven people have their heads cut off. When it comes to real heads being cut off, you can't. I think television connives with governments at war." He added: "Newspapers can tell you as closely as they can what these horrors are like."
Asked if the "anger and passion" he felt over the events he witnessed had affected his objectivity, he said: "When you are at the scene of a massacre, you are entitled to feel immense anger and I do."
He rejected suggestions that graphic pictures of the dead in newspapers took away their dignity. He said: "My view is the people who are dead would want us to record what happened to them."
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Preparing for Martial Law?
A news item from today’s Yahoo brings up the threat of military law within the United States. I think they’re trying to worry the general population to death with constant stories about catastrophes, and worry the rest of us to death with threats of a dictatorship.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051012/ts_nm/birdflu_usa_pentagon_dc_1;_ylt=AmLSGc9LSCiTbFkSrYU7okuTvyIi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Yahoo! NewsUS mulls federal troops for bird flu quarantineBy Will DunhamWed Oct 12, 3:11 PM ET
The Pentagon is looking at the possibility of using federal troops to enforce a quarantine in the event of an outbreak of pandemic bird flu in the United States, a senior official said on Wednesday.
President George W. Bush said last week he would consider using the military to "effect a quarantine" in response to any outbreak of avian influenza, but provided few details.
Bush at the time also suggested he might place National Guard troops, normally commanded by state governors, under federal control as part of the government's response to the "catastrophe" of such a flu pandemic.
Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said quarantine law historically has been under the primary jurisdiction of states, not the federal government.
"And my expectation is that any quarantine measures that would be put in place would likely involve a substantial employment of the National Guard, probably under command and control of the governor of an affected state," McHale told a group of reporters.
"However, we are looking at a wide range of contingencies, potentially involving Title 10 forces (federal troops) if a pandemic outbreak of a biological threat were to occur," McHale added.
The H5N1 avian influenza virus has killed or forced the destruction of tens of millions of birds and infected more than 100 people, killing at least 60 in four Asian nations since late 2003.
Experts fear that the virus, known to pass to humans from birds, could mutate and start to spread easily from person to person, potentially killing millions worldwide. Experts have questioned America's preparedness.
McHale said he believed there would be a clearer understanding within a few weeks of the military role in response to pandemic bird flu as part of a broader federal response. Pentagon officials were meeting on Wednesday to discuss the department's role in a flu pandemic.
LEGAL BARRIERS
One issue that could face the U.S. government in the event of an outbreak is whether or how to cordon off parts of the country to prevent the disease from spreading.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, enacted during the post-Civil War reconstruction period, prohibits federal military personnel from taking part in law-enforcement within the United States. But a president can waive the law in an emergency.
National Guard troops under the command of state governors are permitted to perform law enforcement duties, but would not be permitted to do so if they were put under federal control.
McHale noted that the military has been used only under extraordinary circumstances for domestic law enforcement and restoring civil order.
While not specifically referring to enforcing a quarantine, McHale said the Pentagon has active-duty federal military units on alert and deployable at the direction of the president "to deal with occurrences of massive civil disturbance." He did not identify the units.
On the topic of possible domestic attack involving biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, McHale said the government needs "a more robust civilian capability" to respond so the country is not exclusively dependent on the military.
McHale said the Pentagon is working to help make the Department of Homeland Security better able to make strategic plans for natural disasters or domestic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. The department's Federal Emergency Management Agency was strongly criticized for its slow response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster on the U.S. Gulf Coast in August.
Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Republicans Make The Poor Pay for Everything
We call them “neo-cons,” but the more accurate name is “reactionaries.” Hurricane Katrina, along with the staggering deficits of the Iraq War, has allowed the current administration to enthusiastically shred the legacy of the New Deal—to shred, really, the entire progressive legislation of the last 100 years.
In a John Steinbeck novel, a character is described as having “never blamed [Herbert] Hoover for getting the country into the Depression, nor forgiven Roosevelt for getting the country out of it.” That’s a paraphrase, but it pins down the philosophy of our current Ruling Party. And it describes the Ruling Party’s financial base. To be elected to office costs lots and lots of money. More money than the donations of ordinary people: only gigantic transfusions of money into campaigns gets politicians into office. The pols know this. They also know where the money comes from. It comes from Defense Contractors, internationally operating construction companies, the oil industry, mega corporations.
The big corporations—most of which are transnational—depend on “our” politicians to do what they’re told. To make sure this happens, thousands of lobbyists apply pressure and give marginally-legal bribes to Washington policy makers. These corporate employees button-hole, coerce, and simply buy politicians. They operate in the Pentagon, as well, with promises of lush jobs if contracts go to certain clients; retiring out of a procurement position in government is a first-class ticket into a largely ceremonial job at high pay.
The cost of rebuilding after Katrina is estimated at about $200 billion dollars. The war against Iraq—never mind what that costs. Or how much is spent on spying; nobody knows that one. It used to be that government revenues came from taxes. Over the last few decades, taxes have been cut and cut. To suck up to the rich, the reactionaries insist that cutting taxes on the wealthy will stimulate the economy. Corporations now pay less in taxes than the middle-class. The rich pay almost nothing—and the Republican plan is to cut those taxes even farther. The country is deeply in debt; borrowing more money is as popular an idea as catching mumps.
Republicans plan to pay for the rebuilding efforts to come out of “entitlements.” When they say “entitlements,” though, it’s code for domestic spending in general, and social programs in particular. Cutting off the war spending might seem like a very good idea, particularly since the war is a bigger disaster than Katrina and Viet Nam put together—but the administration is determined to “stay the course.”
“Stay the course.” What bullshit. That’s all it is. It’s a justification to spend more on arms, supplies, give out more contracts to companies like Haliburton and General Motors and Blackwell, and of a policy to never ask for receipts. The war is a gift to the big donors. But people, friends of the Administration—owners of the Administration, are very happy with the results.
That’s the major difference between now and the time of the Great Depression: the big corporations like the status quo. Labor is cheap, profits are up, and the stockholders are deliciously happy. Luxury car sales are up, destination resorts are packed, home prices are skyrocketing.
How to keep this going? Keep the mega-donors happy. Raise taxes on them and they’ll look for alternatives. Get the country farther into debt and they’ll look for alternatives. But where will the money come from? It will come from the people who have no voice in decision-making: the poor. How can money come from them? It will come from the programs that help the poor keep their heads above water: medicare and medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers, even welfare checks. Who cares about them?
It’s obvious the Republicans don’t. They didn’t back in the Thirties during the Depression; they didn’t during the Gilded Age, the time of sweat shops and child labor, or during any of the struggles between labor and capital in the 19th Century. They still don’t. They have a rationale: “we’ve tried these programs for years and people are still living in poverty—we need to make the poor responsible for their own predicament. Make them responsible and then they’ll get out of poverty. It worked for Herbert Hoover.”
Monday, October 10, 2005
Subway Bomb Threat: A Hoax to Gain More Power?
The Nazis said that if you lied to the people enough times, telling them there was an outside enemy, they would come to believe it. Our Neo-con administration appears to have studied that Nazi technique. They seem to be trying to apply it to the American citizens. I presume it's for the same reasons: they want to obtain permanent and total power.
chicagotribune.com >> Nation/World
ACROSS THE NATION
Officials find no evidence of subway bombing plot
Items compiled from Tribune news services
Published October 10, 2005
NEW YORK -- A reported plot to bomb subways with remote-controlled explosives has not been corroborated after days of investigation, law enforcement officials said Sunday amid an easing sense of concern.
Interrogations of suspects captured in Iraq last week after a tip about bomb-laden suitcases and baby carriages have yet to yield evidence that the plot was real, officials said.
"The intelligence community has been able to determine that there are very serious doubts about the credibility of this specific threat," Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke said.
Homeland Security officials have been skeptical about the threat since it was publicly announced Thursday, but officials who were more assertive about the potential danger last week also appeared to be softening their assessment.
A Homeland Security memo said the attack might have been planned to take place on or around Sunday.
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
Ex-honcho of OR Christian Coalition Accused of Molestation
The more rigid the belief system, the more questionable the behaviors?I've always believed that that the people who make the most noise about evil and sin are people who fight big big battles with those parts of their personality they see as being dark and dangerous. A lot of them lose those battles, but to counter the shame they become even more strident about the presence of Satan all around them.
So this report isn't very surprising:
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/112885559554010.xml?oregonian?lcen&coll=7&thispage=2
Coalition leader faces sex abuse allegationsInvestigationSunday, October 09, 2005
MICHELLE ROBERTS
The Oregonian
and JEFF MAPES
Law enforcement officials said Saturday they are investigating complaints that Louis Beres, longtime chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon, molested three female family members when they were pre-teens.
"There is an investigation of allegations that have been made," Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk said Saturday.
The Oregonian talked to three of Beres' female relatives, including two who told reporters that he molested them. All three said they have been interviewed for several hours by detectives.
"I was molested," said one of the women, now in her early 50s. "I was victimized, and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the same room with (Beres)."
Beres, 70, whose group champions socially conservative candidates and causes, confirmed he is under investigation for alleged molestation. He blamed "personal and political enemies" for the reports and said, "I never molested anybody."
Two of the alleged molestations occurred decades ago and likely would not result in criminal charges because state law limits prosecution of certain crimes. For example, the statute of limitations on sex abuse expires after six years.
One case, however, may fall within statutory timelines, authorities confirmed. That investigation involves a female family member who was allegedly molested by Beres when she was in elementary school, authorities said.
Beres family members told The Oregonian that they called the child abuse hot line last month after several women in the family said they openly discussed for the first time what happened with Beres. The names of the family members have been withheld because The Oregonian generally doesn't identify alleged sex abuse victims.
Another family member said she does not recall being abused by Beres, but said she would often wake at night and see him in bed with another young female family member.
Rich Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif., is Beres' nephew. He said he told detectives that Beres has molested several female family members over two generations.
"My family has gone through hell," Galat said. "Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination. . . . It must stop."
Beres, of Clackamas County, is state chairman of the Christian Coalition, a political action group that endorses candidates and causes, publishes voter guides, lobbies the Legislature and Congress, and campaigns for and against ballot initiatives.
Its Web site describes the group as "Oregon's leading grassroots organization defending our Godly heritage." The group opposes abortion, gay rights and stem cell research.
The Oregon group is affiliated with the national Christian Coalition, which was founded in 1989 by television evangelist Pat Robertson. At its height in the late 1990s, the Christian Coalition claimed a network of nearly 3 million people in 48 states -- including 20,000 in Oregon -- publishing an estimated 40 million voter guides and distributing them at evangelical churches.
However, the national group's organization and influence have waned in recent years. Robertson resigned in 2001 as president of the Christian Coalition amid growing debt and declining membership. It wasn't known Saturday how many members remain in Oregon.
Beres is also former chairman of the Multnomah County Republican Party.
Michelle Roberts, 503-294-5041; michelleroberts@news.oregonian.com
©2005 The Oregonian
Slouching Toward a Police State?
“Something is going on here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mister Jones?” —Bob Dylan.
Whatever it is that’s going on should give all of us shivers. Katrina showed us just how inept the government can be, when it wants to be, about actually helping anybody. Our government is very good at throwing money to corporations it likes, and these days it’s very good at stripping away our rights.
In New Orleans, the government hired what are essentially private militias—like Blackwell, the big security contractor in Iraq, and a large Israeli company made up of ex-Israeli security agents and secret police—to provide law enforcement and protect private property. The government was also effective at blocking outside help. Paratroopers were called in to patrol and set up roadblocks. New Orleans was successful—in government terms—at low-profile ethnic cleansing. Thousands and thousands of black people were relocated to places where it’s likely they’ll never come to their homes.
________
The president recently announced that in case of a flu epidemic, he believes federal troops should be able to quarantine areas of outbreaks. He wants the presidency to have authority to use troops, within the country and without restrictions, when he believes it necessary. “Martial law,” is what it’s called, whether or not he calls it that.
There is, on the books, the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878; the Act prevents the military from performing law enforcement in situations other than national disasters. It isn’t guaranteed: during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, troops were used as law enforcement against strikers and others unhappy with the status quo. Troops were used against miners’ strikes in Idaho and Arizona, against small ranchers and business owners in New Mexico, and against demonstrating World War One veterans in Washington D.C.—wherever the ruling groups seemed threatened. So it’s happened here. The problem is, Bush wants it to happen whenever he and his handlers think it’s necessary, without having to justify it to anybody.
There is now an agency known as the National Security Service—the NSS, which operates without congressional oversight. The president is the only superior. Not quite a KGB—but close.
The 4th Circuit Court recently ruled that the president has the power to declare any American citizen to be an “enemy combatant,” and to be locked up. No trial, no jury, just the president’s signature. That person wouldn’t even have to be told why she or he is being locked up. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
The new version of the Patriot Act includes “administrative subpoenas.” These are search warrants that law enforcement agency thinks it needs. Fishing licenses, really. Just a suspicion or a “tip” is enough. No judge has to sign off on such a warrant.
Here’s an article from the Washington Post about the latest request by the Defense Intelligence Agency:
Request for Domestic Covert Role is Defended By Walter Pincus The Washington Post Saturday 08 October 2005 As part of the expanding counterterrorism role being taken on by the Pentagon, Defense Intelligence Agency covert operatives need to be able to approach potential sources in the United States without identifying themselves as government agents, George Peirce, the DIA's general counsel, said yesterday. "This is not about spying on Americans," Peirce said in an interview in which he defended legislative language approved last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The provision would grant limited authority for DIA agents to clandestinely collect information about US citizens or emigres in this country to help determine whether they could be recruited as sources of intelligence information.It
is about spying on Americans: “clandestinely collect information about US citizens...” is precisely about spying: “clandestinely collect information” meets the very definition of spying.
Is it that the government thinks such dummies we won’t notice, or they know if they repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it?
In the Declaration of Independence, there’s this phrase: “inalienable rights.” Not now.
George Orwell doesn’t know what he missed.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
And now for something...entirely different
Bend is a lovely location, right on the border of the Cascade's conifer forests and the sagebrush and juniper of the high desert. I can't help but think it deserves a better fate than to become simply another Vail or Aspen or Beverly Hills—but the developers and real estate hucksters and their assorted p.r. flacks sure do. That crowd looks at Bend and sees nothing but dollar signs. Too bad our local newspaper joined up with them, but thanks to Steve Duin and
The Daily Oregonian for at least giving an objective article on what's happening around here.
Around Bend, expensive is in, eclectic out Third in a seriesThursday, October 06, 2005
The OregonianT he growth curve is so dramatic, the invasion of real estate agents so relentless, the panic over available lots so contagious, that a broad look at the Bend land rush is difficult at best. But for a sweet, little snapshot of the forces at work and the factors in play, you can't beat the downtown corner of Brooks Street and Newport Avenue.
In September, this block -- yards from the Deschutes River -- was an eclectic mix of hair salons, home decor and clothing stores, and an underground art gallery, gathered comfortably around the restaurant and patio of the Bend Brewing Company.
In October, the low-rent tenants are gone, many for good, as Eriksen Properties cleared the block -- most of it, anyway -- to ready the world for Northbrook on Mirror Pond, one of those "vibrant, urban neighborhoods" where the condos top $1 million and the retail vibe costs as much as $2.25 per square foot, plus trip net: fees, taxes and percentage of profits.
Bend's Mill Quarter has proved that some of the new arrivals to Central Oregon will pay seven figures for a downtown town house. The town continues to welcome new residents (the metro area is the sixth fastest growing in the nation), new money and new Realtors: the Central Oregon Association of Realtors has added 305 bodies, a 24 percent increase, in 2005 alone.
"Everyone," said Fred Johnson at The Hasson Co., "feels they have a million-dollar property in Bend."
Eriksen Properties, alas, has been forced to bend theirs around Bend Brewing after contentious and futile negotiations to buy the building from owners Wendi Day and Terry Standly.
Bend Brewing would seem to be an ideal complement to Northbrook, which features eight condos and 50,000 square feet of retail space, but Bruce and Brad Eriksen never made the company a reasonable offer, Day said. "Because we refused to work with them," Day added, the Eriksens planted a row of arborvitae in May 2004 that blocked the view of the river from the restaurant patio.
According to
The Bulletin in Bend, Bruce Eriksen insisted the row of trees was meant to mitigate the fallout from construction, which, 17 months later, has yet to begin. The developers refused to come up with a better explanation for me.
Mayor Bill Friedman opposed the project, considering Northbrook too big for the property and an unfortunate screen of the river views.
But Northbrook's three-story brick boxes -- and the ongoing boom in lease rates -- draw mixed reviews from the very retailers they will displace.
Ariane Thomas, the owner of Voila -- "affordable clothing for local girls" -- said she couldn't afford the 300 percent increase in rent or the cost of relocating her shop downtown. "I would not only have had to pay more rent, but to hire more girls," Thomas said. "For me, that's insane."
But Thomas grew up in Bend and remembers how desperate she was to leave: "It was the people: Millworkers and ski bums. That's all there was. Now, we have an economy. You can go to a show. You can go dancing. It's just gotten hard to live here for people with no money."
Laurie Tellez is moving her salon, Chop Hair, to a part of town she said used to be known as "Heroin Heights." Her boyfriend, Reuben Valdivia, will once again use the building's basement to showcase local artists. Because both arrived from Los Angeles, they're taking the upheaval in stride.
"I watched Orange County change from oranges to 'The O.C.,' " Valdivia said. "We used to drive from L.A. to San Diego and there'd be change; now, it's just one gigantic city.
"Places don't stay the same. There's a lot of people on the planet, and the population is growing exponentially. That's how the math works when you're multiplying like rabbits."
And that's how the landscape along Highway 20 evolves.
Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; Steveduin@aol.com; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
©2005
The Oregonian
Bush's Lies: The List:
Andy Ostroy compiled this list. It deserves to be copied and posted on every bulletin board, read at every Democratic club meeting, and in general spread all over the country.
The List of Bush's Lies and Policy Failures
President Bush's campaign mantra in the 2000 election was that he and the Republican Party would
"restore honor and integrity to the White House." Five and one half years later, it's utterly mind-boggling the amount of lies, controversies and scandals that have been perpetrated by Bush and his closest aides. It's even
more unsettling when we realize the dire straits America is in today at the hands of this incompetent, dangerous administration.
Let's review Bush's impact since 2000 at home and abroad, in no particular order:
1. Lied about WMD.
2. Unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation without provocation and justification.
3. Lied during State of the Union speech re: Niger Uranium.
4. Responsible for pre-9/11 intelligence failures in White House, CIA, FBI.
5. Allowed 9-11 murderers to remain free while diverting precious military and financial resources to his vanity war in Iraq.
6. Lied about Saddam/bin Laden connection.
7. Turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground.
8. Lied about nation-building.
9. Opposed creation of 9-11 Commission and Homeland Security Department.
10. Disrespected and alienated the U.S. from French, German and other key allies.
11. Lied to Americans about the real cost of war.
12. Fostered an environment of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
13. Lined Halliburton's pockets in Afghanistan and Iraq with fat no-bid contracts.
14. Under-manned and under-equipped our armed forces in Iraq, resulting in unnecessary death and injuries.
15. Ignored the nuclear build-up in both Iran and N.Korea; marginalized Kim Jong Il.
16. Shunned Kyoto Treaty.
17. Lied about effects of man-made pollutants on the environment to support corporate pals.
18. Lied about the insolvency of Social Security.
19. Gave huge cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers.
20. Lied about true cost of health care bill.
21. Lied about Free Trade stand.
22. Bitterly divided the nation along religious, party and sexual preference lines.
23. Guilty of numerous cronyism appointments (Homeland Security, Supreme Court, etc)
24. Rewarded failures of Condi Rice and other cronies with key promotions.
25. Dreadful energy policies lead to record gas and oil prices.
26. Responsible for the largest debt in U.S. history.
27. Colossal failure of preparedness, rescue and relief during Hurricane Katrina.
28. Fostered a culture of corruption among GOP and top leadership (Tom Delay, etc).
29. Allowed Donald Rumsfeld to keep job despite utter failure in Iraq.
30. Presided over the U.S.'s lowest popularity throughout the world.
31. Saw
No Child Left Behind fail.
32. Lied last week about Iraqi troop strength during Saturday radio address. Directly contradicted by testimony given earlier in the week by Gen. Abizaid.
This is just a partial list, mind you. One can only imagine what our country will look like by the time he's done. Somebody please wake me up in 3 years. Andy
Friday, October 07, 2005
White House Still Fighting Cold War
Administration knows little about communism or Arab nationalism. Zero. None.Here's an excerpt from a White House Press Conference (Oct 6), that I found on the
Editor and Publisher web site. This is disturbing because it shows how out of touch these guys are about not just the present situation, but about 20th Century history (I think Scott McClellon might have read Paul Johnson's
Modern Times too often). They see Arab nationalism as a monlithic movement just as they used to see Communism as a centrally driven wedge ever-hammering at the west. That's probably because the neo-con thinkers are a bunch of thinly galvanized ex-Trotskyites.
Sometimes I wonder of Scott McClellan ever has had a spontaneous moment in his life. If I was casting a movie about the Puritans in New England, I'd definitely cast Scott as one of those preachers out looking for witches.
Q But again, does he really believe that they could take over western
countries like Spain and France?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's what their strategy -- go back and look at what
the President said in his remarks, because he clearly spelled out
what their strategy is. I'm not sure that he characterized it the
same way as you just did.
Q Does he think that's realistic?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look at his remarks. They very much have a strategy --
Q He warned of a radical Islamic empire stretching from Spain to
Indonesia.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- much like the strategy of communism to dominate and
intimidate the world.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Darkness in the Hearts and Minds of America
I recently posted about white privilege and how it mimics racism, and even feeds on it. This is more on that dynamic. But it’s more rooted in racist stereotyping. New Orleans, in its own tourist-hype way, has brought that up, too: Congo Square, Voodoo, Zombies—evil magic. The folks from Peoria love it: wow, just like Africa, sort of. Safer.
Underneath is the assumption that non-white people are just not as together. They’re wired differently—they’re superstitious, more susceptible to mob thinking, more emotional, less rational, easier led—all those things the dominant Euro-American culture isn’t. Isn’t supposed to be. The Noble Savage lives on in the imagination.
Well, let’s take a look. Superstitious? How many white people believe in the Immaculate Conception? The bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary? That God does love Americans more than any other people on earth? Mob thinking? Check out the aftermath of a Big Ten college football game or a soccer match. Whites are more rational not non-whites? They can’t be easily led? What ever happened to those WMDs?
Savagery. After World War II, nobody should have preserved any doubts that Europeans were not savage.
But that thinking doesn’t go away. It just lies in the dark parts of our hearts and minds, waiting for the opportunities to erupt. The reportage on New Orleans, in many instances, was a ready-made funnel for that twisted thinking to bubble up.
PopPolitics.com
Where Popular and Political Cultures Meet
10.04.05
Heart of Darkness Still Beating: Race, Quatrain and American Blindness
I've been reading Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness with my students over the past few weeks. I cannot help but see how it speaks to the latest news out of New Orleans.
Conrad's story is a tale of a European man, Marlow, making a trip up the Congo River during the height of Belgium's imperialist project in the late 19th century. He sees himself as entering the "heart of darkness" -- a place of savagery that has degraded and ruined at least one other European man, Kurtz.
While the novel is certainly a damning critique of King Leopold's genocidal methods and a more universal exploration into the "darkness" that is part of every human soul, it is also a tale of entrenched prejudice and blindness.
Marlow, despite his often enlightened introspection, represents the native Africans as little more than savages, at home only in the "wild and passionate" jungle and out of place in the "civilized" world. Although he admits repeatedly and obsessively that he cannot "see" into the jungle and, presumably, into the individuals lives and societies that populate it, he never questions the "truth" of his representation.
It appears as if the 21st-century American media works from the same imaginary premise and has been infected, even more inexcusably, with the same systemic blindness.
Almost all of those reports -- about the rapes, murders, shootings and riots in the Superdome, the Convention Center, and on the streets of New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina -- well, uh, how do I say it?
They weren't true.
Yep -- no kidding -- they were made up. They were lies to feed the media frenzy.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune has done amazing work in cataloging and contextualizing all that it and others got wrong.
What is most remarkable as you read through the list is the massive distance between the truth and reality
"I think 99 percent of it is bulls---," said Sgt. 1st Class Jason Lachney, who played a key role in security and humanitarian work inside the Dome. "Don't get me wrong, bad things happened, but I didn't see any killing and raping and cutting of throats or anything. ... Ninety-nine percent of the people in the Dome were very well-behaved."
And to say race didn't play a role in the coverage would be perpetuating another kind of blindness.
The Los Angeles Times offered a shorter report on the latest revelations, but it includes a revealing interview with Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss:
Amoss cited telephone breakdowns as a primary cause of reporting errors, but said the fact that most evacuees were poor African Americans also played a part.
"If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people," Amoss said, "it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering."
David Carr's piece in The New York Times, "More Horrible Than Truth: News Reports," doesn't make such a pointed critique, but the stories speak for themselves:
''I talked to a friend and, after the flood, they heard on the radio that a gang of 400 armed black looters were coming over the bridge to Hanrahan, where he lived,'' said Ken Bode, a professor of journalism at DePauw University and a former correspondent for NBC. ''He and his neighbors were sitting in the street with guns and they decided to load up all they could and caravan out. He said the looters never got there because the National Guard turned them back.''
There was no band of looters coming their way.
"There is a timeless primordial appeal of the story of a city in chaos and people running loose," Carl Smith, a professor of English and American studies at Northwestern University and the author of Urban Disorder and the Shape of Belief, tells the NYT. Urban chaos narratives, he adds, offer "the fulfillment of some timely ideas and prejudices about the current social order."
The best antidote for this disturbing media mea culpa might be taking refuge in honesty -- an admission of our own prejudice and how it shapes our behavior. In the Times-Picayune report, for example, a National Guardsman experiences a productive cognitive dissonance about those "thugs" he had heard about:
As the authorities finally mobilized buses to evacuate the Dome on Sept. 2, many evacuees were nearing the breaking point. [Maj. David] Baldwin said soldiers could not have controlled the crowd much longer. They ejected a handful of people attempting to start a riot, screaming at soldiers and pushing crowds to revolt.
"We're not prisoners of war - y'all are treating us like evacuees and detainees!" he recalled one of them shouting.
But many others sought to quiet such voices. On the deck outside the Dome on Sept. 1, the day before buses arrived, preachers took it upon themselves to lead the agitated crowd in prayer and song.
"Everybody needs to help the soldiers," Baldwin recalled one of them saying. "We're all family here."
About 15 others joined the medical operation, as people collapsed from heat and exhaustion every few minutes, Baldwin said.
"Some of these guys look like thugs, with pants hanging down around their asses," he said. "But they were working their asses off, grabbing litters and running with people to the (New Orleans) Arena" next door, which housed the medical operation.
If only more of us could step through the mediated jungle we live in and emerge on the other side -- in the light of day.
Posted by Bernie at October 4, 2005 10:23 PM
Racism or Privilege?
“Well, if I can do it, why can’t they?”That’s a question hiding a political statement: “I didn’t have any help, so nobody else should, either.” It isn’t quite true, though. Anybody who is born white and male has points over someone born non-white; male over female equals a few extra points; having a middle-class family is a few more, assured of a college education, more. Born of college-educated parents is worth yet more points. Parents out of jail, more; encouraged to follow dreams, here’s a couple more points. It goes on. Privilege goes with race: "if you're white, you're right...".
Priveleged white folks like the playing field to be level to their eyes. That there’s a slant in their favor just isn’t visible. When the field is indeed leveled up, it looks to them like it’s titled against them. Is it normal? Privilege isn’t a personal characteristic people normally notice in themselves.
But privelege transfers into the way you’re regarded when you walk into a store, when you’re looking for a job, negotiating a loan to buy a house or a car...Dozens of different ways.
Or Just Another Soulless Son of PrivilegeBy Robert Jensen, CounterPunch
George W. Bush has been unfairly tagged with the label "racist" in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
It's true that the response of the government -- at all levels, but especially the federal government and it's feeble emergency agency -- was inadequate and incompetent, and that the poor suffered the most, and that the poor of New Orleans are disproportionately black. It's also true that Bush displayed an appalling lack of basic human compassion in his slow reaction to the suffering.
But our president is almost certainly not an overt racist. He's just a run-of-the-mill overly privileged American who appears to have no soul. I'm reasonably sure he doesn't harbor ill will for anyone based solely on race. Instead -- like many people in similar positions and status -- he's incapable of understanding how race and class structure life in the United States. His privilege has not only coddled and protected him his whole life, but also has left him with a drastically reduced capacity for empathy, and without empathy one can't be fully human.
This is not a partisan attack; such a soulless existence is not a feature of membership in any particular political party. Nor is it exclusive to men. Though we tend to assume women will be more caring, this deficiency among the privileged crosses gender lines; probably the most inhuman comment by a public figure after Katrina was made by the president's mother, Barbara Bush. After touring the Astrodome stadium in Houston, where many who were displaced by the disaster were being warehoused, she said, "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this -- this is working very well for them."
In our president all we see is an extreme version of a more general problem in an affluent but highly unequal society, in which people on the top have convinced themselves they are special and therefore deserve their positions.
For his entire life, Bush has sat on the very top of the privilege pile. He is white in a white-supremacist society; a heterosexual man in a patriarchal culture; born into wealth in a capitalist economy; and a U.S. citizen in a world dominated by his nation. In the identity game, it's hard to get a better roll of the dice.
The downside to all this for folks like Bush is that privilege doesn't guarantee intelligence, empathy, wisdom, diligence, or humanity. Privilege allows people without those qualities to skate through life, protected from the consequences of being dull-witted, lazy, arrogant, and inhumane. The system of privilege allows failed people to pretend to be something more.
And, unfortunately, that system often puts those failed people in positions of power and forces everyone else to endure their shortcomings.
That's probably the most pressing race problem in the United States today -- a de facto affirmative-action program for mediocre middle- and upper-class white men that places a lot of undeserving people in positions of power, where their delusions of grandeur can have profound implications for others.
If the deficiencies of George Bush and people like him were simply their problem, well, most would find it hard to muster much sympathy. But they become our problem -- not just the United States', but the world's problem -- when such folks run the world.
Let's go back to Bush's resume. Whatever one's ideology or evaluation of Bush policies, it's impossible to ignore how race, gender, class, and nation privilege have worked in his life. By his own admission, Bush was a mediocre student, gaining access to two of the most prestigious universities in the United States (Yale and Harvard) through family connections, not merit. His lackluster and incomplete service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War was, to say the least, not the stuff of legend that will be told and retold around the family hearth.
After that he went into the oil business, where he also failed. He then used money he had managed to take out of a failed oil endeavor to buy into the Texas Rangers baseball team, his one great "success" in the business world. From there, despite having no relevant experience, he was molded by Republican Party operatives into a successful gubernatorial candidate. After a thoroughly uninspired first term, he was re-elected governor before moving on to the White House, where the most successful public-relations team in U.S. political history has kept him afloat despite two illegal and failed wars, a frightening rise in the national debt, tax cuts for wealthy that have contributed to the gutting of the already weak social safety net, and most recently the criminally negligent response to Hurricane Katrina.
Welcome to the United States of Meritocracy. How is it that a society can hold onto fantasies about level playing fields and equal opportunity when every day we turn on the television sets and see Smiling George the Frat Boy President?
The problem, of course, isn't limited to Bush; he's a fraud, but only one of many. In my life I have worked in offices of the federal government, non-profit organizations, for-profit corporations, and universities. In each, I have seen mediocre white men rise to positions of power for reasons that have more to do with the informal networks based on identity than on merit. No doubt, as a white man, my own career has been aided by this system. I also have seen women and non-white people advance by playing a similar game, but far less often and typically only when they internalize the value system of the dominant culture.
That does not mean there are no white men who are talented and hard-working or who do not deserve the success they have achieved. It is only to recognize that this system of unearned privilege will regularly put into positions of power people who are unfit for the duties they take on.
That means -- independent of the strong moral argument for equality and justice -- subverting a system of white supremacy and white privilege is in all our interests. In fact, the fate of the world may depend on it.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and a member of the board of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center, http://thirdcoastactivist.org/. He is the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (both from City Lights Books). He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Reprinted from CounterPunch:
http://counterpunch.org/jensen10052005.html
The URL for this story is:
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=23038
Site Meter
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Power, Secrecy and Control: Is That A Coup?
Something is going on here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mister Jones?
Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Kennedy, Clinton—all of these presidents swung back and forth between waving their power around and actually showing concern for people’s problems. They looked for remedies of domestic problems between bouts of penis-display.
Can’t say that about the Bush administration, though. I can’t remember a presidency so consistently hostile to people’s needs and national problems. The people running this country want to punish rather than help—even giving aid seems to be opposed to their belief systems.
Their drive is to consolidate their own political power, punish people who get in their way, and maintain secrecy. They know that knowledge is power; the way they see it, concealment means more and more power. The government is made up of mean and rigid people. Power-hungry people.
That’s why Bush is proposing the use of troops to quarantine areas where there are outbreaks of contagious diseases; why detainees have been disappeared into the catacombs of god-knows-where, why FEMA has eagerly employed private security outfits like Blackwell, why the plans are to turn New Orleans into a white-majority city, environmental protections are shoved aside, and so on until you feel like throwing up over the vindictiveness of it all. It’s all about control. By truly nasty people.
Some left of center groups have accused the Republicans of pulling off a coup. It’s certainly not like the one the neo-cons promoted in Chile, with overt displays of domestic military and police force, no. But there has been a steady gathering of power unto a small group of like-minded politicians and businessmen. The government reduces taxes for the rich and takes money from the poor in order to promote the military-industrial-security machine. There’s no doubt that the money sent to promote the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast will come from Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs. It certainly is not going to come from Military spending. The Military would overthrow the government if their precious budget was slashed.
Bush continues to push the neo-con agenda. Here’s some commentary about his latest attempt to ensure the dominance of Republican power for years to come:
Ted Rall:
'Night and fog revisited: Is Harriet Miers a closet sadist?'Date: Wednesday, October 05 @ 10:05:37 EDT
Topic: Laws, the Courts and the Legal System
By Ted Rall, Yahoo
Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel, supreme chief of the German armed forces, explained the thinking behind the Nazis' "Night and Fog" (the term comes from Goethe) decree: "Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved...by measures by which the relatives of the criminals do not know the fate of the criminals...These measures will have a deterrent effect because the prisoners will vanish without a trace and no information may be given as to their whereabouts or their fate."
Anyone who doubts the extravagant pain of not knowing what happened to a loved one should talk to Natalee Holloway's parents.
Night and Fog came to the United States when federal agencies built and filled a global, ad hoc network of prisons and concentration camps during the months following 9/11, and began filling it with Muslims of varying status. Officials promising to update lapsed visas lured foreign-born residents to immigration offices and arrested them when they showed up. Captured Taliban soldiers, stripped of their rights under the Geneva Conventions, were thrown together with civilian shopkeepers sold by local warlords for bounties to the CIA in Afghanistan, to whom were added anti-communist rebels from China and democracy activists from Pakistan. Some were shipped to Cuba, where many were tortured, some to death. Others were delivered for "extraordinary rendition" via covert CIA jets to countries reputed for their pain-inflicting expertise, including Syria, Yemen and Uzbekistan. No one knows what happened to them.
Four years after 9/11, the U.S. government still refuses to release information about the disappeared. We do not know how many there are, where they are being held, how many are dead and alive, or even their names. The vanished have access to neither their families nor legal representation. They cannot send or receive mail or packages. Because there was no evidence against them, none have been charged with a crime. But catching terrorists was never the purpose of America's new Night and Fog policy. The goal was to instill fear, particularly among Muslims. It has also worked with other "enemies of the state": since 9/11, "See you in Gitmo" has become a standard joke among activists on the left.
The legal cover for the Bush Administration's updating of Night and Fog comes courtesy of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, since promoted to attorney general. In his January 22, 2002 memo, for example, Gonzales repeatedly twisted the facts in order to obtain the result Bush desired.
Gonzales' contradictory linguistic contortions, here to argue that the Taliban were not covered by Geneva and could thus be vanished into thin air because they were not a viable government, would be comical if not for the man's chilling willingness to suspend intellectual honesty along with fundamental human rights: "It is unclear whether the Taliban militia ever fully controlled most of the territory of Afghanistan. At the time the United States air strikes began, at least ten percent of the country, and the population within those areas, was governed by the Northern Alliance."
Since when does 90 percent, or nearly 90 percent, fail to qualify as "most"?
Harriet Miers, Bush's nominee to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, replaced Gonzales in November 2004. Has she ever questioned Gonzales' extreme and bizarre legal opinions justifying the torture, indefinite detention and disappearing of countless innocent people? We don't know. Her legal opinions have yet to be released and Senate Republicans, in keeping with the Bush Administration's obsession with keeping the people's business secret from the people, say they'll fight to keep them shrouded by the night and fog.
We know that Miers has chosen not to issue a full-fledged rebuttal of Gonzales' disappear-'em-and-torture-'em philosophy, which remains in full force at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantánamo, Camp Mercury and other giant memory holes. Reports continue to emerge, most recently from a former Muslim chaplain at Gitmo, that top officials encourage soldiers to abuse inmates.
This comes as little surprise, given that Miers' reluctance to rock the boat appears to be more highly developed than the average striver. "In [a] White House that hero-worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met," right-winger David Frum writes in the National Review.
Senate Democrats and patriotic Republicans should insist on a full review of Miers' advice to Bush on torture and disappearances before voting on confirmation to the Supreme Court. No one who agrees with Alberto Gonzales' monstrous contempt for human rights ought to be elevated to such a powerful post--even if her consent is expressed through tacit silence.
Reprinted from Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20051005/cm_ucru/nightandfogrevisited
The URL for this story is:
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=23023
Miers: A Stealth Candidate
A stealth nomineeOver the years I’ve become just paranoid enough to look behind every single government pronouncement. The president’s current nominee for the SCOTUS bench, Harriet Miers is both more and less than he would have us believe.
Ms Miers has taken a previous stand against Roe v. Wade. She’s against it. She is active in her church—which believes in the “inerrancy” of the Bible (7 days for Creation, etc.), she is “absolutely devoted” to the president, and has a smile that reminds me of a hyper-vigilant moray eel.
The president announced she is “a strict constructionist,” which is, anymore, code for someone out to shrink the government and return to the old discredited idea of States Rights, ever popular with the anti-civil rights people in the southern states. So, she’s more than this oddly-smiling grandmother-type. The president told us she will have the same philosophy she has now twenty years down the road. That’s an indication of a rigid petrified mind, as far as I know.
Pat Buchanan and other far right-ists claim she’s too untried, too inexperienced, too unknown. Trent Lott claims to have doubts. Seems Rovian to me. I think they’re full of malarky. I think they’re running a play to relax the Democrats and have them believe Ms Miers is a reasonable centrist. She’s not: she’s a conservative from the get-go. She’s about as close to an old-time Dixiecrat as anyone out there. The question is, will the democrats roll over on their backs and play dead again?
I think they will.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
More Plans to Militarize the Nation
Here's the source on that Bush and quarantine story:
(by the way, Bush claims to have read a book)
Bush considers military role in flu fight
10/4/2005, 11:02 a.m. PT
By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, increasingly concerned about a possible avian flu pandemic, revealed Tuesday that any part of the country where the virus breaks out could likely be quarantined and that he is considering using the military to enforce it.
"The best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins," he said during a wide-ranging Rose Garden news conference.
The president was asked if his recent talk of giving the military the lead in responding to large natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and other catastrophes was in part the result of his concerns that state and local personnel aren't up to the task of a flu outbreak.
"Yes," he replied.
After the bungled initial federal response to Katrina, Bush suggested putting the Pentagon in charge of search-and-rescue efforts in times of a major terrorist attack or similarly catastrophic natural disaster. He has argued that the armed forces have the ability to quickly mobilize the equipment, manpower and communications capabilities needed in times of crisis.
But such a shift could require a change in law, and some in Congress and the states worry it would increase the power of the federal government at the expense of local control.
Bush made clear that the potential for an outbreak of avian flu is much on his mind, and has had him talking with "as many (world) leaders as I could find," consulting a book he read over the summer on the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed 40 million and meeting with staff and experts.
"I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean," he said.
He acknowledged that a quarantine — an idea sure to alarm many in the public — is no small thing for the government to undertake and that enforcing it would be tricky.
"It's one thing to shut down airplanes," Bush said. "It's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu."
He urged Congress to give him the ability to use the military, if needed.
"I think the president ought to have all ... assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant," he said.
As a standby precaution, Bush in April signed an executive order that added pandemic influenza to the government's list of communicable diseases for which a quarantine is authorized. It gives the government legal authority to detain or isolate a passenger arriving in the United States to prevent an infection from spreading.
At the time the order was signed, a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the Public Health Service would probably recommend home quarantines when possible, but said they would be voluntary. It's unclear whether the federal takeover of state and local quarantine powers that Bush discussed Tuesday would be limited just to travel or involve broader home quarantines as well.
Bush also said he has been urging world leaders to improve reporting on outbreaks of the virus, and exploring how to speed the production of a spray, now in limited supply, that "can maybe help arrest the spread of the disease."
"One of the issues is how do we encourage the manufacturing capacity of the country, and maybe the world, to be prepared to deal with the outbreak of a pandemic?" he said.
Yet it is the pill Tamiflu, which makes symptoms less severe and shortens the duration of the illness, that is in short supply — not its harder-to-use inhaled competitor Relenza.
Experts agree there will certainly be another flu pandemic — a new human flu strain that goes global. However, it is unknown when or how bad that global epidemic will be — or whether the H5N1 bird flu strain now circulating in Asian poultry will be its origin.
Just in case, experts are tracking the avian flu, which has swept through poultry populations in large swaths of Asia since 2003, jumped to humans and killed at least 65 people.
Most human cases have been linked to a contact with sick birds, but the World Health Organization has warned the virus could mutate into a form that spreads easily among humans — changing it from a bird virus to a human pandemic flu strain.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Bushy notes
Who's directing this farce?Bush has picked his personal lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court. She's never been a judge. She did urge the ABA to not support Roe v. Wade. We hear she's absolutely dedicated to Our Leader. She ran the Texas Lotto. Nobody really knows squat about her.
Perfect. Our weasel-ish Democrats will kiss her ass from here to SCOTUS.
In the meantime, Bush has said that if there's a serious outbreak of avian flu, he'll consider using the military to quarantine areas where there're outbreaks. Gee, he could set up work-camps, too, because we all know there're slackers everywhere, and there's nothing like a little work to help people fight off illness, and it would help increase our national domestic product. He could even put up signs that say "Work Makes Us Free!"
Minute Men, Patriots, Militias, Klans...
Lawn Chair Militianmen on Guard!The first article references a current incarnation of the old America First b.s.. Back in the 1930s, there was an eruption of fascist-inspired groups here: Silver Shirts and Khaki Shirts, various Legions of this or that, and a group called the Minutemen. They all admired strongarm leaders like Hitler and Franco, and wanted America to go down that same road. They were just about seventy-five years ahead of their time, though.
Whenever I read about the “Minutemen” or other pseudo-patriotic groups claiming to be out protecting our borders, I think back at the history of groups like the Klan. A history of the Klan’s early activities in Southern California is the 2nd article below. When they couldn't find enough uppity blacks, they went after Mexicans; not enough Mexicans, Catholics would do...
I will say that if the original inhabitants of North America had decent border patrols, none of this nonsense would be happening today. It’s ironic—and painful—that these defenders of America’s borders are protecting a country that was ripped from its original citizens by a group of white people.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
ELLEN M. BANNER / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Mike Forest, an accountant from Salem, Ore., looks over the gate yesterday near Blaine on the Washington-British Columbia border. Forest is a citizen volunteer with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, whose members are on the lookout for illegal immigrants trying to cross into the U.S.
ELLEN M. BANNER / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Star, a dog owned by Claude "Bear" LaBas, volunteer with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, waits yesterday at the Minuteman headquarters in Ferndale, Whatcom County.
Minutemen watch U.S.-Canada border
By Lornet Turnbull and Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporters
BLAINE — Civilian volunteer Mark Forest of Oregon took a week off from work, left his wife and five kids at home in Salem and drove north to stand guard near here as a Minuteman at the U.S.-Canada border.
Yesterday, the 49-year-old accountant was on the lookout for any suspicious activity — namely, illegal immigrants trying to cross into the United States — at one of eight posts set up between Blaine and Sumas by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
The group of citizen volunteers says its mission is not to try to apprehend suspects themselves, but rather to report them to the local sheriff and the U.S. Border Patrol.
Yesterday, though, among the thicket of trees that surrounded Forest and separated him from Canada, there was little activity, save for a startled black cat that darted from the bushes, spotted Forest and quickly retreated.
Forest believes the Minuteman project has drawn attention to the problem of illegal immigration in this country.
"It's not about being a vigilante," he said. "I served my country in the Air Force. It should be the job of the government to take care of the problem of illegal immigration, but we can see that they are not doing their jobs."
Minuteman facts
When founded: The Minuteman Project launched its first border patrol in Arizona in April and expanded Saturday to cover the rest of the Mexican border and states along the Canadian border, including Washington. Before April, one of its founders conducted militia-run border patrols along the Mexican border, under the name Civil Homeland Defense.
Mission: The project has two main arms: The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which runs the border actions, and The Minuteman Project, which focuses on internal goals, such as locating employers that hire a large number of illegal immigrants.
Founders: Chris Simcox, owner of The Tombstone Tumbleweed in Tombstone, Ariz.; and Jim Gilchrist, a retired accountant from Orange County, Calif., who is running for U.S. Congress as an American Independent Party candidate.
Numbers: Tom Williams, head of Minutemen in the Northwest, claims 4,000 people have been accepted into the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps nationally.
Membership: $50 application fee covers the cost of a background check. Members are trained not to physically apprehend or speak to possible illegal immigrants but rather direct proper authorities to them via two-way radios. Members also are instructed to remain courteous and not to respond to taunts or threats.
Sources: www.minutemanhq.com, Minuteman member Tom Williams, www.jimgilchrist.com, www.salon.com
Forest is one of about 15 Minutemen patrolling the border in Washington, part of an operation the group began Saturday and expects to continue all month. The group is trying to vastly expand its reach, placing temporary citizen-border patrols in states that border Mexico or Canada.
Here in the Northwest, between 60 and 100 volunteers are expected to come through for the monthlong operation, according to Tom Williams, a retired police psychologist who lives in Deming, Whatcom County, and is heading up the operation here. Most are from the Northwest and many are retired from careers in the military or law enforcement, he said.
Saying it was concerned about the vast number of immigrants crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, the Minuteman group formed a year ago, conducting its first patrols along the border in Arizona in April. Even before a major tunnel for smuggling marijuana from British Columbia into Washington was discovered in July, the group had decided it also would set up patrols along the 4,000-mile northern border,.
In parts of its most remote sections, more than 200 roads snake between the two countries. While authorities on both sides beefed up staffing and security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, many think the stretch remains highly vulnerable to illegal crossings, drug smuggling and especially terrorism.
The U.S. Border Patrol does not endorse what the Minutemen are doing, nor does it stop them as long as they follow the law.
The Minutemen have agreed to provide the Border Patrol with rosters of people they will have on-site and lists of which people are armed, and the volunteers have agreed to wear colored armbands so they can be easily identified, said Joe Giuliano, deputy chief of the Blaine Border Patrol Sector.
"They're here to present their political agenda," he said. "It is their right. They can keep doing that until they interfere with us or break the law."
Giuliano said it's too soon to say "whether we'll derive a benefit from this."
For now "it comes down to: We have to peacefully co-exist with one another for a month."
The group vigorously disputes concerns of critics that its members are vigilantes or racist at heart.
According to its Web site, www.minutemanhq.com, the aim is not a call to arms but rather an attempt to avert the "political, economic and social mayhem" that could result from the "chaotic neglect" of America's borders and immigration laws by the local, state and federal governments charged with enforcing them.
" ... The men and women volunteering for this mission are those who are willing to sacrifice their time, and the comforts of a cozy home, to muster for something much more important than acquiring more 'toys' to play with while their nation is devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens," the Web site reads.
"Future generations will inherit a tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures with no common bond to hold them together, and a certain guarantee of the death of this nation as a harmonious 'melting pot.' "
Democratic U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, whose district includes Whatcom County and the Blaine sector's border crossings, said the Minutemen are not prepared to deal with the unique challenges of the northern border.
"Where our Southern Border battles a great deal of illegal immigration, the Northern Border's threats are more often drug, gun, and money smuggling by criminal organizations," Larsen said in a statement. "These unique threats call for trained law-enforcement professionals who are skilled in dealing with organized crime and our border's unique geography."
Doug Honig, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said his group would be working with citizen groups in Whatcom County to monitor the Minutemen.
"We want to make sure nobody is physically accosted or harassed," Honig said, citing earlier reports of people being stopped and harassed at the Mexico border while the Minutemen were patrolling in Arizona earlier this year. Honig did not know if those incidents involved Minutemen or people from other groups who may have been drawn to the action.
Magdaleno Rose-Avila, director of the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, is concerned that some Minutemen are armed.
"Every other citizens-watch committee I've heard of doesn't have guns," Rose-Avila said.
"How would people feel if there were large groups of African Americans, Somalis, Latinos going to any border and happening to have weapons on them? There would be a cry from many sectors of the enforcement community and the general community.
"Any time that you have vigilantes running around with guns, the history in America is not good. Do we have to wait till somebody gets killed or seriously injured?" she asked.
Each day here, the organization sends the local Border Patrol and the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office a roster with the names and location of volunteers, including those who are armed. As of yesterday, only two — a retired police officer and a Marine officer — were armed.
Williams said his members have seen no suspicious activity so far.
"It's not easy to keep motivated staring at the cornfields," he joked yesterday.
Williams acknowledges that in California, some organizers called for people to show up at a Minutemen event armed with Mace and baseball bats. They were asked to leave the organization, Williams said. He said any volunteer who talks to or approaches a suspicious person would be thrown out of the organization. "That's all we are — it's just a neighborhood watch on the border."
To join the Minutemen, volunteers pay $50, which covers the cost of a background check.
From his position along H Street Road, Forest, the Minuteman from Oregon, faced a padlocked gate across a dirt road. But much of the fencing had been ripped down. A person could simply walk across the border from either country. Nearby, a state Department of Transportation sign read: "No trespassing."
From his post along Harvey Road near H Street Road in Blaine, Minuteman Robert Inge could see a Canadian flag waving from a pole in front of a house.
A retired social worker who lives in Lynden, Inge said that once he learned what the group was about, he was glad to volunteer. "As I learn that these are not a bunch of gun-toting reactionary conservatives, I'm going to reasonable people — friends of mine, golfing buddies — to get them to sign up.
"I see myself as supplementing the Border Patrol," he said. "I have all the respect in the world for these people."
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
______________________________________________________________________
The Journal of San Diego History
Spring/Summer 2000, Volume 46, Number 2-3
Contents of This Issue
San Diego's Ku Klux Klan
1920-1980
By Carlos M. Larralde and Richard Griswold del Castillo
Photographs from this article
During the 1920's, San Diego, along with many other Southwestern cities and towns, witnessed a new emergence of the Ku Klux Klan, a rebirth of the older secret organization that, in the nineteenth century, had targeted newly freed slaves in the South. The new Klan of the 1920s was a racist as well as a anti-immigrant organization targeting new immigrants and Jews as well as African Americans. In San Diego, the Ku Klux Klan particularly targeted Mexican immigrants. Thousand of Mexican newcomers were crossing into California every year lured by the demand for laborers in the fields and in the newly developed suburbs. There the Mexicans encountered other immigrants, white Midwestern Protestants, who were eager to find fortune in the west. For many of these white immigrants the Klan, as well as fundamentalist religious organizations, offered a solution for the anxieties they felt as they encountered a new environment and new peoples.1
While there have been several monographs on the Klan in the 1920s, Klan activities in Southern California have been ignored by most scholars. The Klan continues to exist under a new name, the White Aryan Resistance, and some of its main forerunners are from San Diego. There is an unbroken narrative of this hateful association in San Diego and its legacy has never been told.2
This is one of the first attempts to trace the activities of the Klan in San Diego using newly available records. Most of the San Diego Ku Klux Klan materials were donated to the San Diego Historical Society by local businessman Wayne Kenaston, Sr. in the 1980s. Also, the San Diego Historical Society's oral history project interviewed Wayne Kenaston, Jr. gathering further documentation on the Klan and his father's role in it.3
Needless to say, it is difficult to get reliable primary documentation about the Ku Klux Klan since they have attempted to keep their membership and many of their organizational activities secret. Their public actions have surfaced periodically in the press. But during the 1920s, Klan crimes were rarely recorded. Newspapers refused to investigate cases of Klan hatred because editors feared that negative publicity might create a bad image for San Diego and hurt its commercial growth.4
The resurgence of Klan activity in San Diego in the 1920s was led by descendants of old American stock.5 They presented themselves as defenders of Christian morality and law enforcement, and they were also chosen to be members of grand juries where they were able to influence district attorneys.6 About 1922, the active branch of the K.K.K. in San Diego was the Exalted Cyclops of San Diego No. 64. It flourished throughout the county.7 The Klan center was a large hall west of 30th Street near Idaho Street and University Boulevard in North Park. The San Diego chapter flourished even while the national Klan headquarters was overwhelmed with problems of graft, mismanagement, and personal clashes.8 The Los Angeles chapter also seemed to prosper as colorful pamphlets poured from their office and, used-automobile-parts dealer John Porter thrived as Klan leader and became mayor of Los Angeles in 1928.9
The San Diego Klan members paid $10 to join and usually met on the second Wednesday of every month. Faithful participants included Fred Crandall, a prosperous paint store owner, E. D. Goodwin, a mechanic who worked in Gilmore's Bicycle and Toy Store, W. J. Simpson and his wife Myrtle, Earl S. Barr, and John S. Burbank. Actually, these cardholders were hard working, thrifty, middle class church-going individuals. Nevertheless, the Klan used the Bible and the old concept of manifest destiny to see themselves as superior and Mexicans as inferior and in need of control. "Keep in mind that some harmless members envisioned a gregarious Klan, ignoring its grim horrors to those it detested," stated the attorney Carey McWilliams.10
San Diego Klan participants formed their own traditions. V. Wayne Kenaston, Jr., whose parents were members of the Klan, reminisced, "If my memory serves me correctly, my mother made me a miniature Klan outfit with a little hood...."11 A number of women joined the Klan and were strongly encouraged to participate so as "to propagate in or through such meetings, either directly or indirectly..." the Klan's message.12 The San Diego Klan affiliates saw themselves as humanitarians, similar to other Klans who established schools and hospitals.13 The testimony of Kenaston, Jr., revealed white Catholic voters, mostly from the Blessed Sacrament Church on 56th and El Cajon, supported the Klan's political committee. As Kenaston, Jr., stated, "I'm wondering if, in San Diego, there were actually Catholic Klan members of the Klan, or whether they were referring to the fact that Klan members might have voted for the people that the Catholics might have liked."14 The Klan did influence some religious groups. In parts of Southern California, "Many [Catholics and Protestants] who were suspected of being Klansmen at first denied their affiliation, but when confronted with their official Klan and number and date of entry, they could do nothing but admit membership."15 Some of them were members of Catholic War Veterans and the Knights of Columbus.
"Most Irish-American clergy had no sympathy for Mexicans who were seen as an endangerment to traditional American values," noted economist Ernesto Galarza. "They often ignored the Klan's abuses toward Hispanics."16 McWilliams noted, "For the most part, the Church later ignored Klan atrocities and focused on Communism. One was Father Thomas J. McCarthy, editor and scholar, who later provided funds to the Klan to continue its anti-Communist crusade." Also, the Klan received comfort from anti-Semitic, right-wing broadcasters: Gerald L. K. Smith, Father Charles Edward Coughlin, and William Pelley, a self-professed fascist.17
Anti-Mexican Activities in the 1920s and 1930s
Kenaston, Jr., somewhat disingenuously, avowed that the Klan never intimidated any ethnic groups even as he admitted that their main zeal was in "chasing the wetbacks across the border." 18 Most Klan activities were clandestine, aimed at keeping recently arrived Mexicans from participating in community politics. As McWilliams noted, "They opposed white-collar jobs for Mexicans, who at one time were merchants or professionals in war-torn Mexico, and demanded a policy to force them into manual labor." 19 Luisa Moreno, a labor union leader, stated, "The California Fruit Growers Exchange, the tuna cannery industry that had its base in San Diego, and other local businesses enthusiastically supported this concept."20
There are some testimonies as to Klan activities by their intended victims. Kenaston, Jr. remembered that years ago east of 55th Street and El Cajon Boulevard, past College Avenue, there were lemon orchards.21 Among these citrus orchards in suburban San Diego and in the rural areas, Mexicans were occasionally discovered dead, sometimes disfigured by torture. An expatriated soldier of the Mexican Revolution, Mercedes Acasan Garcia, reminisced that in San Diego, "any Mexican worker who challenged authority or appeared suspicious of one thing or another would forfeit his life."22 Garcia, who was a young maid for Mrs. Alice Victoria Hamilton, recounted, "At first the Mexican field hands were curious at the sight of these strange men on horses shrouded with snowy gowns and huge, spotless cardboard hoods over their faces. Others had white cone shaped hoods to add height and also disguise their faces. They had painted red crosses on them." The workmen believed that they were pious Catholics who were penitents and wanted alms.23
In response to the danger posed by the Klan, Mexican workers sought the support of their local mutual benefit societies. Garcia was active in one of them. In tears, she described how she saw Mexican laborers being dragged and lynched; others whipped or burned. "Since they were ragged Wetbacks, nobody cared who they were and nothing was done about it."24 When traveling to visit her relatives, Garcia took back roads to cross the U.S./Mexico border to avoid contact with the Klan who were trying to intimidate immigrants. Farm owners who required immigrant workers often opposed Klan harassment tactics. She recounted how, "These laborers in rural areas had their homes or barns burned. Several growers patrolled their fields to calm their sad and worried field hands; their crops were worthless without Mexicans."25
Carey McWilliams, a Los Angeles Times writer, explained that Mexicans who were transported from the farm regions "probably saw conditions better than those in their homeland until they were exposed to the erratic temper and violence of the Klan."26 Several groups like the California Cavaliers, the American Legion, and the Associated Farmers of California favored stopping the influx of Mexican foreigners into the United States. McWilliams characterized the Associated Farmers as "Farm Fascists."27 The Klan's publication, The Imperial Night-Hawk, noted that "foreigners are taking the places of our native sons.... These foreigners want a place in the sunlight, and our money, but when we trade with them, we build them up at our own expense...."28 The Klan Imperial Wizard H. W. Evans proclaimed, "To the South of us thousands of Mexicans, many of them Communist, are waiting a chance to cross the Rio Grande and glut the labor marts of the Southwest." This Klan ideology influenced government officials and indeed some members of the local county and city bureaucracy were members of the Klan.29
During the depression of the 1930s, numerous Mexicans were deported from Southern California. Known as the repatriados, or repatriated ones, they were sent to Mexico. Some families were shipped from Northern California in trucks or cattle trains to San Diego and then dumped at the Mexican border. In several cases, mothers or fathers were separated from children. Some families never found their relatives.30
Under the leadership of Wayne Kenaston, Sr., from 1930 to 1931, the San Diego K. K. K. expanded. As a reward for his effective leadership and service, he received the title of "Klan Giant" from T. S. Moodie, the Grand Dragon of all Klans.31 An "Organizing Committee" met regularly in the 1930s to inquire about how to further expand the Klan. As their questionnaire and application stated, "The purpose of this investigation, being conducted among the membership, is to increase our attendance, strengthen our organization, and to further the spirit of the Klancraft...."32
Political and religious pamphlets and books such as Coin Harvey's Tale of the Nations, published in 1894, which glorified the White Race as the custodian of civilization, were distributed as part of the educational program of the California Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Another book was Madison Grant's The Passing of the White Race, warning that unrestricted immigration would create a degenerate nation of different races like Mexico.33
During this era, Frank G. Ellis of the U.S. Immigration Service in Calexico, recalled how he obtained information about immigrant smugglers. "We used to pay the informants out of our own pockets -- I spent a lot of money for the government along that line."34 He also related how some of the Mexican smugglers got Chinese immigrants across the border. Ellis was a Catholic family man who belonged to the Elks Lodge in Calexico. He soon dropped out of it because, "it became too much control by the Ku Klux Klan."35
Even while K.K.K. activities threatened the safety of immigrants, Mexican families fought against discrimination. In 1931 in Lemon Grove, parents of 75 Mexican American students refused to send their children to an all-Mexican school built for them by the school board. The parents sued the school board and won in a landmark case. The Lemon Grove case was the first legal victory by Mexicans in challenging their separation in the school system.36
The San Diego Klan, meanwhile, announced it had a new leader, Richard A. Floyd. As one account reported, "He is fearless, honest, devoted to the cause of Protestantism, and I consider him an outstanding man among men of high repute and capable." He and other new officers were installed in 1933.37 Floyd suffocated the Klan with his fierce iron will and pitted Klan individuals against each other in order to control the organization. Active in the local Republican Party, Floyd also dominated the American-Mexican Republican League, organized on July 2, 1934. Ironically, the league was designed to promote business relations with Mexico. Distinguished Mexican merchants joined it and their dues and other funds secretly went to the Klan.38
In 1937 Mexican President Plutarco Calles was exiled to the United States. According to historian Enrique Krauze, Calles stayed in San Diego for five years. Despite his cold and firm personality, Calles made friends with the influential Mexican businessmen of the American-Mexican Republican League. They all shared the same traits: anti-Communism, anti-Semitism, and anti-liberalism, sentiments the Klan also held. Carlos Montalvo, a local community activist, stated, "While reading Hitler's Mein Kampf with interest and respect, Calles disregarded the Klan's crimes against Mexicans as a frivolous matter. His biggest concern was getting back to Mexico."39
Ironically, numerous Mexican Cristeros were also exiled in Southern California. They were named after their battle cry of "Christ is King," and had bitterly fought Calles's government. In 1934 the Cristeros carried huge crucifixes and other religious relics during several parades in Los Angeles and San Diego against the atheistic Russian and Mexican governments. At first most of them supported the Klan. They believed that the Klan's painted crosses on their white gowns and their burning crosses symbolized Christ, Mary, and the saints. As Montalvo explained, "A few of the Cristeros attempted to join the Klan, only to be rejected. To their sorrow, they later discovered what the Klan was all about."40
Bitter conflicts meanwhile erupted between Floyd and the Klan. In August 1939, Kenaston received an urgent letter from organizer S. E. Mendenhall, stating that "There will be a special Klan meeting at Hawthorne Hall...on August 25.... We wish to talk about reorganizing here, and wish your attendance."41 To Mendenhall's regret, Floyd prevailed as the Klan leader. He saw himself as the father of a family of minors that needed to be disciplined. With Floyd's parsimonious budget and strict rules of discipline, the Klan survived by gaining respectability.
During the 1930s, the Klan began to merge with like-minded organizations such as the Silver Shirts League, the MinuteMen, and the White Guards. Historian Stephen Schwartz affirmed, "Many adherents of the Silver Shirts were former members of the Ku Klux Klan." The San Diego Silver Shirts League, "a deadly fascist inspired group," was planned with the purpose of attacking blacks, Hispanics, and Jews. Inspired by the Nazi SS mystique, the Silver Shirts saw themselves as an American counterpart, enforcing Aryan racial superiority through intimidation and violence.42
The Silver Shirts had other branches scattered throughout the United States. The San Diego chapter was well-known but ignored by most city officials who did not consider their anti-Semitic and anti-Mexican propaganda a problem. The San Diego Silver Shirts soon split into two groups, one under the leadership of Donald J. Niswender and the other led by C. T. Lee.43 Niswender's groups held clandestine meetings where they performed mysterious rituals before a flag with the swastika. One confirmed tactic of the Silver Shirts was to seize governmental weaponry and learn military tactics that would enable them to "cleanse society of undesirable characters."44 For the Silver Shirts the Mexicans were considered particularly undesirable, for in addition to being non-Aryan, they were from a country that, in their opinion, had a socialist president, Lazaro Cardenas.45
By the late 1930s the U.S. government was concerned about the activities of the Silver Shirts and Corporal E. T. Gray of Marine Corps intelligence was assigned to infiltrate and report back on the activities of the San Diego Silver Shirts. Soon Niswender discovered that Gray was an undercover agent and five Silver Shirts attacked Gray in downtown San Diego between C and Broadway Streets. They slit his face, fractured his skull, and sent him to Balboa Naval Hospital for two weeks. Later, two Silver Shirts shot at him.46 Cherishing the spirit of the Klan, the Silver Shirts rehearsed war games and practiced shooting their rifles, reportedly using Mexican wetbacks as targets. During their rallies, they dressed in blue corduroy knickers and a silver gray shirt with a crimson "L" (for liberator). They also wore blue ties and jackboots.47
Despite Hispanics' attempts to avoid the Klan and the Silver Shirts, labor organizer Luisa Moreno vividly recollected how the groups helped the tuna industry, a major employer of Latinos, combat unionization by breaking up unions, and physical intimidation and violence. The Klan fight against unionism enabled the tuna packing companies to pay low wages. Companies like California Packing Corporation, Marine Products Company, Van Camp Seafood Company, and several others, financed the Klan to battle against union leaders like Moreno. Also, the Associated Farmers of California, the American Legion, and other extremists supported the Klan. In the end, Moreno was convinced that some of the tuna executives and the growers had employees that were members of the Klan and the Silver Shirts. Although she openly fought them, Moreno privately feared the Klan and other right wing radical groups. As she later recalled, "With the Klan, you never knew what they planned to do next or who they actually were. With the Silver Shirts, their ugly mouths were their worst enemies."48
Bert Corona, another labor organizer in Southern California, stated, "The Klan and other radical groups were ruthless and intimidated many of our people with fear. They broke up our union strikes and clubbed several of our members."49 Mercedes Garcia admitted, "Most Mexicans were staggered by the obstacles to stay in Southern California. The greatest adversary to stay alive was not the Klan but one's determination to go on."50
A Zealous Renewal
The 1940s saw a growth of Klans in California, with Los Angeles serving as its western headquarters. In 1940, it offered to aid the House Un-American Activities Committee and passed out anti-Communist brochures in downtown Los Angeles.51 The Klan burned a cross protesting Harry Bridges speaking in Huntington Park and attempted to sabotage a speaking engagement he had later in San Diego.52
During World War II, San Diego grew into a major port for the U.S. Navy and a center for the aircraft industry. Old prejudices endured, however. Several religious leaders throughout Southern California, like Methodist Bob Shuler, propounded a fundamentalist message from the pulpit defending the Klan against its Jewish opponents. He castigated the Mexicans who he thought were guilty of lewdness. To prove his point he labored over the rumor that Reverend Sister Aimee Semple McPherson had been kidnapped at Agua Prieta, Mexico. Later it was revealed that she had eloped with a lover.53
Klan associates like V. W. Kenaston, Sr., stayed active against Hispanic labor and civil rights activities. While a member of the Klan, he was on the Building Trades and Labor Council and also an affiliate of the Federal Mediation Service.54 Kenaston was well acquainted with the city's mayor and councilmen, and with local bankers and merchants. With the friendship of Senator Jack Tenney, head of the California Un-American Activities Committee, it put Kenaston in an ideal position to incapacitate Mexican American civil and labor rights.
Meanwhile in war-time Los Angeles, former K.K.K. leaders ran for Congress and State Attorney General Robert W. Kenny was concerned how to prevent a resurgence of Klan activity.55 Fiery crosses were discovered in the front yards of some African Americans in Los Angeles and Kenny persuaded Superior Court Judge Alfred A. Paonessa to move to limit the Klan's ability to organize since it "taught social hatred through violence." Finally, on May 21, 1946, the Klan's charter was revoked and it was denied the right to obtain a permit to operate in California. As Kenny affirmed, "The real victim, [of the Klan] the final victim is American democracy."56
Following World War II, the Mexican American community was politically divided. A super-nationalist group arose, composed of members of the Alianza Hispanico-Americana, and was led by John B. Calderon. Another conservative group was the "Loyal Democrats," which included figurehead Hispanics such as Oceanside resident, Hollywood actor Leo Carrillo. Together they ignored Klan activities and sided with Senator Jack Tenney, who conducted a witch hunt for Communists and militant labor organizers like Luisa Moreno.57 The Hispanic nationalist group, "Loyal Democrats," simplified their views in a leaflet: "Leave us Mexicans out of your Communistic sneaky underhanded [activities].... Any Mexican with a religious background would grind you...into meat."58 Petrified by the threat of deportation, most Mexicans refused to testify against the Klan or discredit Tenney's California Un-American Activities investigations. Moreno was soon brought before the committee and subsequently deported to Mexico. Tenney meanwhile concluded that most Mexicans in the civil rights organization, Mobilization for Democracy, "deliberately manufactured Ku Klux Klan acts of terrorism for political purposes. The Communist plan to utilize this front for agitational purposes in California..." was aided by the labor movement.59
To avoid deportation, discrimination, or the Klan, several Mexican aliens attempted to "whiten their skin" with the chemical hydroquinone. The San Diego lawyer, Alfredo Montoya, hated by the Klan and Loyal Democrats for helping Mexicans, tried to stop these dangerous skin treatments. According to Bert Corona, "He was a very self-sacrificing individual, with an almost priest-like dedication to his work." Loyal Democrats and the Klan opposed Montoya as he assembled evidence of abuses against Mexicans by the Klan and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Another effort to combat hate crimes was the work of two trade union leaders in San Diego, Phil and Albert Usquiano. Together in the 1950s, they founded the Hermandad Mexicana Nacional (Mexican National Brotherhood), an association dedicated to helping immigrants preserve their civil rights. They chartered chapters throughout San Diego County, and were also affiliated with the Carpenters' Union and the Laborers' Union.60
They warned their members about the Klan. Moreno noted that "The Klan operated where there were few witnesses. One of their areas was remote farms. As before, they preyed on innocent, defenseless Mexican field workers. Local law enforcement refused to do much about these foreign Mexicans when they were murdered."61 Even during the 1950s and 1960s, the F. B. I. refused to devote funds to curtail the Klan violence. Instead, they infiltrated those labor unions which they saw as supporting "extreme left-wing activities associated with violence."62
Not much was heard about the Klan until the 1970s. People believed that the Klan in San Diego County was dead. Nevertheless, San Diego's Police Chief Bill Kolender was aware that strong Klan groups had resurrected in San Diego and in Oceanside. A state of California report declared in 1980 that the Klan was stockpiling weapons, "allegedly preparing for the race war its members believed to be inevitable." The United Klans of America put up posters that declared, "Don't be half a man: Join the Klan."63 Several Klan demonstrations took place in San Diego in this period.
By the late 1970s, a San Diego television repairman, Tom Metzger, emerged as California's Klan leader. In the early eighties Metzger and forty Klansmen provoked a riot in Oceanside when they marched into John Lander's Park to rid it of Mexicans and other aliens. In the ensuing melee, several people were injured as the Klan encountered a rock-throwing mob.64
Metzger warned in his publications, "Our nation will sink into the swamp of racial pollution known as the third world." He preached that Mexico was the real threat since its population doubled every twenty years. By the year 2000, when Mexico's population would expand to 125 million it would, in his words, "create a racial attack on the United States."65
Chicano leaders like Chole Alatorre, Roberto Martinez, Bert Corona and others were active in the Hermandad Mexicana Nacional during the 1980s to protect minorities from Klan abuses. They were confronted by several ghastly revelations. On December 10, 1983, the Klan boasted of beheading undocumented aliens. Alatorre declared, "Several Mexican men in remote regions disappeared. Their wives saw them for the last time when they were driven out to work in the fields. Nobody saw them again. I believe that the sadistic Klan had fun with them and dumped their bodies in a crevice."66 A former police officer, Douglas K. Seymour, testified at a six-hour hearing of the state Fair Employment Housing Commission in Oceanside on December 9, 1989, that the San Diego County Klan remained "one of the strongest chapters in the country." As a reserve officer he attended Klan rallies, demonstrations, and cross burnings throughout Southern California. He rose in the organization to become one of the Klan's leaders, Tom Metzger's right-hand-man, a member of the inner circle of the white-supremacist organization. Seymour admitted that members frequently boasted of beheading and burying undocumented Mexicans. Roberto Martinez, a leader of the San Diego Chicano Foundation's Law and Justice Committee, said most of the complaints he received from Mexican immigrants were police harassment and Klan beatings. "What we have here in North County is selective law enforcement," Martinez announced.67
The police infiltrator, Seymour, kept undercover in the Klan in the late 1980s. As he declared, the Klan attempted to "adopt a more low-key underground type of activity" chiefly to undermine Mexican aliens and Chicanos. Eventually Seymour alleged that the San Diego Police refused to acknowledge his activities, declaring that his supervisor "ordered him to lie to the F.B.I., the county grand jury, Escondido police officers, and Palomar Hospital, who treated him for a gunshot wound."68 Finally, Seymour was awarded $531,000 in a lawsuit against the police, claiming that the top command of the San Diego Police Department "had disavowed its undercover officer inside the Klan and destroyed his intelligence reports to deny allegations that police were illegally spying on a [mysterious] right-wing congressional candidate."69
The full story of the Ku Klux Klan in San Diego and Southern California has yet to be told. What emerges from the scanty evidence drawn from the archives is a tenacious legacy of hate toward Mexican immigrants, Jews, and others who were branded as un-American. San Diego's proximity to the U.S.-Mexican border along with its growing population drawn from all over the United States has made for a favorable environment where the Klan could recruit and sustain an organization that has died out in other areas of the country. The persistence of the K.K.K. and its offshoots thriving in "AMERICA'S FINEST CITY" is one of the disturbing realities of twenty-first century California.
Notes
1. The classic work on the rebirth of the KKK is Charles Alexander, The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1965).
2. See Richard Melching, "The Activities of the Ku Klux Klan in Anaheim, California, 1923-1925," Southern California Quarterly, LVI, 2, Summer, 1974.
3. V. Wayne Kenaston, Jr., Interviewed by Nancy B.Cuthbert, 8 February 1978, San Diego Historical Society Oral History Program. Hereafter, Kenaston, Jr.
4. House Executive Document, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Special Committee on UnAmerican Activities at Los Angeles, California. 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1934, 4-6, hereafter, Congressional Hearings. See also, Cater Tarrance, "San Diego Silver Shirts," 12, seminar paper, 1976, San Diego State University, item S.S., SDHS.
5. Arnold S. Rice, The Ku Klux Klan in American Politics (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs, 1962), 13. See also "Well Organized New California Klans," The Imperial Night-Hawk, June 13, 1923, 5. This illustrated magazine was one of the official KKK publications printed in Atlanta, Georgia.
6. The Klan and other radical groups flourished in Southern California. See the Los Angeles Times, April 23, 30, 1922; Santa Ana Register, May 1, 1922; Anaheim Bulletin, December 31, 1924, June 4 and November 16, 1925; La Habra Star, July 2, 1924; Balboa Times, January 27, 1927.
7. The K.K.K. in San Diego was formed about 1922. See Constitution and Rituals, 1927-1928, Mss 203, V. Wayne Kenaston Papers, San Diego Historical Society, Research Archives, Box 1, File 1, Item 3, hereafter KKK, SDHS. For California Klan activities see, Ed Cray, Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 52-54, 56-57.
8. "Imperial Kloncilium Brands Charges Against Klan Officers 'Absurd False and Malicious,'" Imperial Night-Hawk, June 27, 1923, 2-3. See also Kenaston, Jr. 3.
9. Kevin Starr, Material Dreams: Southern California through the 1920's (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 138-139. Starr has written several books on California history. He said, "I have a deep respect for Carey McWilliams and Robert Kenny for their struggle against the Klan in Southern California. As attorneys they curtailed Klan abuses against Mexicans." Interview with Kevin Starr, October 12, 1994. See, Carey McWilliams, It Can Happen Here: Active Anti-Semitism in Los Angeles (Los Angeles: Privately Published, 1934), 11. Interview with Carey McWilliams, June 12, 1979.
10. "Letters, Miscellaneous, 1931-1939," KKK, SDHS. See also item 19, a portion of a Klan member list, ibid. On several of these members' occupations, see the San Diego City and County Directory from 1929 to 1935. Interview with Carey McWilliams, September 12, 1978.
11. Kenaston, Jr., 3.
12. "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Recognize Combine of Women's Orders as Auxiliary," The Imperial Night-Hawk, June 13, 1923, 5.
13. For example see "Will Break Ground for $125,000 Hospital to be Erected by Klansmen at El Dorado, Ark.," The Imperial Night-Hawk, June 27, 1923, 8.
14. Kenaston, Jr., 4.
15. Rev. Donald Montrose, ed., The Story of a Parish" Its Priests and Its People, 1860-1960: The Centennial of St. Boniface Church, Anaheim, California ) Anaheim, CA: St. Boniface Parish, 1961), 153.
16. Interview with Ernesto Galarza, January 12, 1978. With few Latinos as priests or nuns, Latino Catholics remain largely segregated from other Catholics in the nation's parishes. In this country, there is just one Latino priest per 10,000 Latino parishioners. See Margaret Ramirez, "Study Finds Segregation of Latinos in Catholic Church," Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2000. See also David Rieff, Los Angeles: Capital of the Third World (New York: A Touchstone Book, 1991) 164-165.
17. McWilliams Interview, September 12, 1978. Interview with San Diego civil rights leader Luisa Moreno, April 17, 1971, and Carlos Montalvo, January 7, 1992. For more on Thomas J. McCarthy see Carolina Walker, "Speakers Assail Reds," Los Angeles Evening Herald & Express, March 10, 1949. On anti-Semitism, see Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legend of America's Hated Senator (New York: the Free Press, 2000), 81, 82.
18. Kenaston, Jr., 5.
19. McWilliams Interview, June 12, 1979. The Klan used the same policy on Mexicans in El Paso. See Mario T. Garcia, Desert Immigrants: The Mexicans of El Paso, 1880-1920 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 250. See also Shawn Loy, War, Revolution, and the Ku Klux Klan: A Study of Intolerance in a Border City. (El Paso: University of Texas, 1985). Loy wrote about how the Klan dominated El Paso during the 1920s.
20. Interview with Luisa Moreno, April 17, 1971. Some of the same conditions could be applied to regions like El Paso. See, Desert Immigrants, 84.
21. Kenaston, Jr., 8.
22. Interview with Mercedes Acasan Garcia, June 12, 1979. For her military activities see Josefina Rendon, Justo Homenaje al Valor Herocio: Album 1911 (Tijuana: Artes Graficas, 1976), 28. She was fifteen years old when she aided the army with water and bullets.
23. Garcia Interview, June 14, 1979. In F 1, Garcia Papers, there is a thank you note from Mrs. Hamilton "for Coming." Apparently, Garcia did some extra chores for her.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid. Another Klan victim was Heliodoro Barragan. See his testimony in Marilyn P. Davis, Mexican Voices American Dreams: An Oral History of Mexican Immigration to the United States (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1990), 11-15. For a comparison see the interview with Wally Sanchez, July 15, 1994, interviewed and edited by Robert Gonzalez, transcribed by Kathleen Case, conducted for the Redlands Oral History Project, AK Smiley Public Library Heritage Room, Redlands, CA.
26. McWilliams Interview, June 12, 1979.
27. For more on this era see Kevin Starr, Endangered Dreams: the Great Depression in California (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 161-162.
28. "Every Influence Needed on Side of Restrictive Immigration Bill," The Imperial Night-Hawk, March 5, 1924, 5.
29. H. W. Evans, Attitude of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan toward Immigration (Atlanta: Imperial Palace, c1926), Imperial Instructions, p. 7. See also Evans's The Practice of Klanishness (Atlanta: Imperial Palace, 1924), Imperial Instruction, Document No. 1 Series AD, 5.
30. George Kiser and David Silverman, "The Mexican Repatriation During the Great Depression," Journal of Mexican American History, 3, 1973, 153; Abraham Hoffman, "Stimulus to Repatriation: The 1931 Federal Deportation Drive and the Los Angeles Mexican Community," in Norris Hundley, ed., The Chicano (Santa Barbara, CA: Clio, 1975), 110.
31. Letter form T. S. Moodie, Grand Dragon, to V. W. Kenaston, April 14, 1932, Los Angeles. K K K SDHS, file 3, item 4.
32. Questionnaire from the KKK Committee, June 7, 1933, KKK, SDHS, Item 12A. See also eight copies of a card advertising KKK, no date, ibid., item 13AH.
33. Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997), 667. See also, "Body of Minutes," February 2, 1933, Exalted Cyclops, San Diego, No. 64, KKK, SDHS Item 10.
34. Edgar F. Hastings interview with Frank Garfield Ellis, March 28, 1961, 17, San Diego Historical Society Oral History program. Hereafter, Ellis.
35. Ellis, 17.
36. Annie Reynolds, The Education of Spanish Children in Five Southwestern States (U.S. Department of Interior Bulletin No. 11 (Washington, D. C., 1933) in Carlos E. Cortes, ed., Education and the Mexican-American (New York: Anno Press, 1974), 13.
37. Exalted Cyclops to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, San Diego, January 3, 1933, KKK SDHS, Item 7. See notice of Election of Officers, no date, Item 18A-C, ibid.
38. "Spanish G. O. P. Group Formed," San Diego Sun, July 2, 1934; McWilliams Interview, August 12, 1979.
39. Interview with Carlos Montalvo, January 7, 1992. See Enrique Krauze, Mexican Biography of Power: A History of Modern Mexico, 1810-1996 (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997), 412, 436. See also Jean Perier to A. Poincare, April 29, 1924, Box 25, File 1, Correspondencia Diplomatica Francesa, Paris.
40. Montalvo Interview. See also, Jack Williams, "Carlos Montalvo, 82; active in early days of Chicano Movement," San Diego Union-Tribune, February 15, 2000. See also Rieff, Los Angeles, 163-164.
41. Letter from S. E. Mendenhall to Klansman Kenaston, August [no date], 1939, Item 8A, KKK, SDHS.
42. Los Angeles Examiner, August 6, 1934. See Henry Schwartz, "The Silver Shirts: Anti-Semitism in San Diego, 1930-1940," Western States Jewish History, XXIV, 1, October 1992, 52-60. See Stephen Schwartz From West to East: California and the Making of the American Mind (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 296. For more on these radical groups, see A. B. Magil and Henry Stevens, The Perils of Fascism (New York: USA International Publishers Co., 1938), 106-111.
43. San Diego Sun, August 6, 1934.
44. San Diego Union, August 8, 1934. A unique source of San Diego's Silver Shirts was C. Leon de Aryan, the eccentric editor of San Diego's The Broom. See the report of how the Silver Shirts were fighting for "Christian control," The Broom, February 12, 1934. See also another issue with the headline, "Silver Shirts-Second Edition-Why?" The Broom, August 27, 1934.
45. Life, September 20, 1937, 37; Time, August 29, 1938, 19; McWilliams Interview, August 12, 1979.
46. Interview with Luisa Moreno, April 17, 1971; Montalvo Interview, January 7, 1992. See Congressional Hearings. Richard M. Sola, "The Case of Silver Shirts: Criminal Proceedings Against two San Diego Fascist Leaders, 1934-35," legal history category, miscellaneous manuscript, SDHS.
47. San Diego Evening Tribune, October 25, 1934.
48. Moreno Interview, April 17, 1971. See also the Waterfront Worker (San Francisco), January 2, 3, 1933; March 5, 1934. See also Mss. 009 Box 16 of 27, Harry Bridges Legal Collection, Southern California Library for Social Studies and Research, Los Angeles (SCL). In this collection, see Box 19, File 1, letter, June 22, 1939, Los Angeles lawyer Lee Coa to San Francisco attorney Aubrey Grossman concerning the Klan and the Silver Shirts.
49. Ibid. Interview with Bert Corona, April 25, 1980. The Klan remained active in San Pedro. See the Waterfront Worker, March 5, 1934, and Waterfront Worker, January 2, 1933. On page 3, it stated, "Ben Gusick and his gang were fired for this accident, and a Ku Klux Klan organizer, scab-herder, and a tool who helped to break the 1923 strike was put in his place...." For copies of this Southern California periodical see Mss. 009, Box 16 of 27, the Harry Bridges Legal Collection.
50. Garcia Interview, June 14, 1979. Even McWilliams wrote, "In short, the history of labor in California is really not a history of the struggle of unions to achieve recognition but of a
struggle for power between organized labor and organized capital...[which] accounts for the periodic convulsions in the state's social history." See Carey McWilliams, The Great Exception (New York, A. A. Wyn, Publisher, 1949), 130.
51. Los Angeles Times, March 31, 1940.
52. Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1940. McWilliams Interview, January 12, 1979.
53. McWilliams Interview, January 12, 1979. Daniel Mark Epstein, Semple Aimee: The Life pf Aimee Semple McPherson (New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1993), 264, 296, 314. For more on Shuler see Starr, Material Dreams, 136-137. Klan supporters used proverbs from the Bible, such as Deuteronomy, 7:3, 23:2 and Joshua 23: 12, 13. One Klan defender, the Rev. Bertrund L. Comparet, abused Biblical Proverbs in his pamphlet, "God Commands Racial Segregation" (Los Angeles: privately published, 1980).
54. Kenaston, Jr., 2.
55. See the commentary columns in Los Angeles Times, April 9, 10, 12, 1946.
56. New York Times, May 23, 1946, p. 23. See "Attorney General Robert W. Kenny's Address Olympic Auditorium, June 14, 1946," Box 22, Miscellaneous Files, I-M, file Ku Klux Klan, B 22, F 6, in Civil Rights Congress, Los Angeles Collection (SCL). Un-American Activities in California, 1947 (Sacramento, CA: Government Printing Office, 1947) 57-58.
57. Robert E. Burke, Olson's New Deal for California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953), 22. Interview with Emil Freed, March 12, 1980. Carrillo remained a friend to Tenney and helped him with conservative causes. For more on Tenney's blacklists, see, "Give Filmsters Chance to Erase Their Names Off Tenney Reports, " Variety (Los Angles), July 23, 1954. In the end, he destroyed the careers of many people in the film industry, both Anglos and Mexicans. As McWilliams said in a UCLA conference in October 1976, "If Tenney did not like you, your career was in danger."
58. See "FREE CLEAN AMERICAN MEXICANS 100%" to Civil Rights Congress, August 8, 1950, Miscellaneous Files, I-M, Ku Klux Klan Clippings, B 22, F 7, Civil Rights Congress, Los Angeles Collection, (SCL) Most Free Clean American Mexicans were composed of G. I. Form members, LULAC associates, and several religious groups like the Knights of Columbus. As McWilliams stated in an interview January 12, 1979, "Jack Tenney played on their sympathies to promote his career and destroyed those who questioned him"
59. For more on Moreno see Steve Murdock. " A Question of Deportment," in Our Times (Los Angeles and London), 1949, p. 3; Evening Tribune (San Diego), 27 June 1950, Sec. B, 1. See also, Carlos Larralde and Richard Griswold del Castillo, "Luisa Moreno: A Hispanic Civil Rights Leader in San Diego," Journal of San Diego History, vol. 41, no. 4, Fall 1995, 285-311, and "Luisa Moreno and the Beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement in San Diego," Ibid. Vol. 43, no. 3, Summer 1997, 159-175. See California Senate, Un-American Activities in California, 1947, (Sacramento, CA: Government Printing Office), 369.
60. See "From Black to White: Chemicals Lighten Dark Negro Skins," Los Angeles Times, August 16, 1949, P-11. See also Ann M. Simmons, "Quest for LIght Skin is Darkening Lives in Africa,"Los Angeles Times, August 15, 2000. Different methods are still being used in an effort to bleach dark skin. Mario T. Garcia, Memories of Chicano History: The Life and Narrative of Bert Corona (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp. 290-291. Interview with Bert Corona, April 25, 1980. See "Meeting Proceedings," April 30, 1950, Box 8, F 15, Conference and Convention, Park Manor, 1950, Civil Tights Congress, Los Angeles Collection (SCL). It reveals how effective Luisa Moreno, Frank Lopez, Henry Schmidt, Carlos Montalvo, and others were fighting deportations, loyalty oaths, intimidation, police brutality, and other issues. Their attempts were later sabotaged by the McCarthy era.
61. Moreno Interview, April 17, 1971. See the California Eagle (Los Angeles), November 7, 1946; see the Los Angeles Sentinel, September 19, 1946, and October 31, 1946.
62. The F. B. I. continued to do the same thing during the 1970s. See Bryce Nelson, "Violence by Informants Indicated in FBI Memo," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1971.
63. Joe Gandelman, "Racism: Infiltrator requests federal investigation of Klan," San Diego Union, December 10, 1983; Bill Callahan, "Kolender doesn't recall approving KKK Spying," San Diego Tribune, April 27, 1988. For more details see "Klan Storing Weapons in State for Race War, Deukmejian Says," The Ventura County Starr-Free Press, (Venture, CA), September 30, 1980.
64. Bill Olsen, "Racial Discrimination hearing due in Oceanside," Blade-Tribune (Oceanside), November 3, 1983; Eric Bailey, "O'side Police Prepare for Racial Hearing, " Blade-Tribune, December 11, 1983.
65. Tom Metzger, "Viewpoint from the State Organizer," in Ruben Botello, "Chicanos in Ventura County: A Demographic Analysis of Oppression," (Ventura County Community Action Organization, 1983), 12.
66. Interview with Chole Alatorre, April 12, 1992.
67. Elizabeth Wong, "Klansmen here boasted of beheading aliens, infiltrator says," San Diego Tribune, December 10, 1983. See also Tom Gorman, "Klan Infiltrator Settles With City, Takes His Story to Television, " Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1989. Seymour had dreams for a best-selling book of his infiltration of the KKK for use as a movie or television miniseries.
68. Bill Callahan, "KKK Spy Seymour Claims Police Boss Ordered Lies," San Diego Tribune, April 13, 1988; Richard Serrano, "Police Kept Infiltrator in Klan Despite Political Race," Los Angeles Times, April 27, 1988.
69. Andrea Estepa, "Klan Infiltrator Is Awarded $531,000 in Suit Against Police," Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1988.
Authors
Carlos M. Larralde is an independent scholar who has written several monographs and articles in Mexican American studies. He has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Larralde is the author of Mexican American Movements and Leaders (1976)Richard Griswold del Castillo is Professor of Mexican American Studies at San Diego State University. He received his Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Griswold is the author of The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1990) and with Richard Garcia, Cesar Chavez: A Triumph of the Spirit (1995).
Monday, October 03, 2005
Disasters and disabilities
Once in a while, somebody states something so obvious, that once I read it, I slap my forehead like Homer Simpson: “Duh!” That’s what happened when I read Michael Berube’s blog post. During the hurricane coverage, I’d had some vague discomforts thinking about how ghastly it would be if I was laid up and in a similar scene. But that was really frightening and I kept away from going into too much detail. It was scary.
There is a strong kind of calvinist thinking in this country that just as the poor are in god’s disfavor for some ancestral sin, so are the disabled. It’s too hard, sometimes, to maintain optimism in the face of disabilities, wars, hurricanes, earthquakes and various awfulnesses that we’ve seen all too much of in our lifetimes. That it's an absurd or at least neglectful universe is too hard for people to accept.
The money it’s going to take to clean things up down in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana is astronomical amount. We have to find the money somewhere. This wouldn’t be quite as bad as it is, because we’ve already lost one and are spending a second astronomical amount in Iraq, we’re kind of, you know, strapped for cash...
Where is the money for the clean up from Katrina and Rita Hurricanes going to come from? The government has announced once again there will be tax cuts for the rich because these kinds of tax cuts “stimulate the economy.” A cynic might note that we’ve had five years of this policy and our economy is still stuck. The money, we’re told, will come from cuts in wasteful government expenditures. These cuts won’t be in defense, nor in any area where people have a real voice in politics. By “real voice” I mean big campaign contributions and gifts. That narrows the search for areas in which to cut funds. The vast pool of the voiceless poor is always a productive place to reduce spending.
People with disabilities have an unemployment rate of somewhere around 60-70%. The estimates vary: people opposed to government programs (like the current government) put the figures lower; people in favor of entitlements for other than the defense industry put the unemployment rate higher. Whichever, this means a lot of disabled people are poor and are only able to survive because of entitlement programs.
One third of all adults with disabilities live in households with total incomes of $15,000 or less. And Bush wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid. When you’re poor, those programs are where your primary medical care comes from. Bush has consistently appointed people opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act. One judge he appointed dismissed charges against nursing homes where the food had maggots in it, patients sat for hours in wheelchairs with shit in their diapers, even maggots on the patients, saying the Government had no business interfering on behalf of the disabled, trying to help them. Yeah, it's almost enough to make me want to see that judge stuck in a nursing home like that! The first person he picked to be secretary of labor (Linda Chavez) said that the ADA was "special treatment in the name of accommodating the disabled." The director of FEMA who preceeded Good-Job-Brownie said that the "business of the government is not to provide services." At least he was honest. Mean, but honest.
When Bush was in college, he said he thought the New Deal was “socialistic.” He hasn’t learned anything since then.
thttp://www. michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/disability_and_disasters/ Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Disability and disastersSo I did my little ten-minute presentation this morning, to help kick off the Pennsylvania Association of Rehabilitation Facilities conference here at Penn State—together with disability studies scholars Doug Biklen of Syracuse University and Michael Dorn of Temple University. We were asked to speak very generally on the representation of people with disabilities; Michael offered a historical overview of institutions charged with “administering” disability in the Philadelphia area, and Doug spoke of the representation of mental retardation in films like There’s Something About Mary, The Eighth Day, and Rain Man. And then I went on a rant about Hurricane Katrina and disability issues. The next couple of paragraphs (up until the asterisk break) are part of that rant.
I’m sure you’re aware (I said to a breakfast audience in the Nittany Lion Inn ballroom) of the debate that erupted in the media in the days after the levees broke—first when it became clear that many of the individuals trapped in the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center were black, and then when it became clear that so few reporters knew what to make of this. When the media did get around to noticing the obvious, the results were often embarrassing, as when, on September 1, Wolf Blitzer said, “You simply get chills every time you see these poor individuals . . . many of these people, almost all of them that we see are so poor and they are so black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold.” One wondered just how black these poor people would have to be to be “so black,” but yes, it did raise lots of questions for people who watched that story unfold. Some of those people raised legitimate questions about race and poverty, and some simply associated black people with looting. And once again, race became “visible” in American politics in the way it does every decade or so—which means, unfortunately, that lots of white people slapped their foreheads and said, “oh yeah! we forgot about race! dang!” while lots of other white people said, “we never forgot about race, and that’s why we keep our shotguns ready just in case those people want to escape New Orleans by walking into Gretna,” and still other white people said, “why are you making an issue out of race again?” You know, we had another one of those conversations about race.
But even as we watched the stunning spectacle of people dying of starvation and thirst in the streets of an American city that seemed to have been abandoned by every form of government, I was struck time and again at the fact that while race had become “visible,” disability had not—even though we were watching the deaths of so many people with disabilities. Again, most of them were so poor and so black, but Wolf Blitzer did not go on to say that many of them were also so disabled. It is not that their disabilities were invisible; paradoxically, it was quite the contrary. Who among us can forget that iconic image of the dead woman in the wheelchair outside the Superdome, covered only in a blanket? That might well have been the very symbol of Katrina’s devastation in New Orleans, the wheelchair—not the woman, who was not visible, but the wheelchair itself. For if you used a wheelchair, and you lived in New Orleans in late August, you were very likely subject to something I will not hesitate to call terror. From the Cox News Service:
SLIDELL, La.—Alone in her one bedroom house, confined to a wheelchair, Fluffy Sparks did the only thing she could think of when Hurricane Katrina’s flood waters rushed into her home: she prayed.
“I prayed like I’ve never prayed in all my life,” said the 46-year-old woman, who watched in terror as the waters rose to under her chin as she sat in her wheelchair. “I told God, ‘I can’t believe you’re ready for me now. Don’t let me die in this water here by myself.’”
Somehow Sparks managed to haul herself up onto her small, wooden-legged kitchen table. Miraculously, the water stopped rising just as it reached the table’s top.
“I’m breathing,” she said Tuesday morning, sweating in a mud-stained gown and watching a parade of people wading and passing in small fishing boats down Fremaux Street, which was still covered by thigh-deep, but thankfully receding waters. “It was horrible, and it’s still horrible, but I’m breathing.”
Sparks’ terrifying story is just one of hundreds, possibly thousands, that will be shared for generations in Katrina’s aftermath.
One more of those stories, from USA Today:
Mark Smith of the Louisiana office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness said at midday that it was still “too severe for us to put people on the ground.” He had supplies and National Guard troops poised to go in to help those stranded.
“We’re not going to add to the list of victims by going in prematurely,” he said.
As he spoke, his Blackberry rang with a text message.
“Oh, this sucks,” he said. He held it up, showing the message: “Help!” It described an emergency call from a person who uses a wheelchair in Metairie, a New Orleans suburb.
Smith shook his head. “There’s nothing we can do for this person right now."
That, I think, might well have been the motto of our Department of Homeland Security: there is nothing we can do for this person right now.
Now, of course, disability groups knew perfectly well what the hurricane meant for people with disabilities. They knew also that in Biloxi, Mississippi, a city of about 50,000 people, 26 percent of residents are people with disabilities. That in Mobile, Alabama, a city of 198,915 people, 24 percent of the residents are people with disabilities. And that in New Orleans, a city of about 484,000 people, 23.2 percent of residents are people with disabilities. But if you got your reports about Katrina from anyone other than groups organized to serve people with disabilities, disability simply not was mentioned as such. What do I mean by “as such”? We saw people in wheelchairs. We saw patients on gurneys. We read about people abandoned in nursing homes; we heard of people with cognitive disabilities trapped in houses with rising water. We heard about the sick and the elderly and the dying . . . but nowhere in mainstream media was this rendered, or understood, under a more general heading of “disability.” And at no time did anyone say, my god, what does all this mean for people with disabilities?
And the consequences of that, I believe, were devastating. First, of course, because it demonstrated that our government is so profoundly inadequate when it comes to disability preparedness in emergencies. Second, because as the floodwaters rose, you could actually hear politicians and pundits blaming the people of New Orleans for failing to evacuate. This was our very own senator, Rick Santorum, on September 4:
I mean, you have people who don’t heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving.
You might object that Senator Santorum wasn’t thinking about people with disabilities when he made this remark. And if that’s what you’re thinking, well, thanks—that’s precisely my point.
Now, it’s quite true that many politicians and pundits have no idea whatsoever what it is like for a poor person not to have the money on hand for an evacuation. But it’s apparently even more true that many politicans and pundits never stopped to consider that one-quarter of the population of an American city might be made up of people who cannot, for physical or other developmental reasons, pick up and leave when they are told. And that’s what I mean when I say that in the Gulf Coast, disability was invisible as such, even when we were looking right at it. Individual persons with disabilities were depicted as objects of charity, or horror, or pity; but disability as a category of human identity, disability as a social and political fact, disability as a factor in public policy remained inconceivable.
*****
My point, of course, was that Katrina is not an aberration. On the contrary, it is a horrific example of business as usual that no one is talking about Katrina or Rita in terms of its impact on people with disabilities except for that tiny handful of groups whose job it is to administer care for people with disabilities. Think about this way: at no point in our national debates does an issue turn on the question of how policy X or policy Y will affect people with disabilities. Here and there, an elected official might take to the floor for five minutes to say, “these proposed budget cuts will have a devastating effect on services for people with disabilities,” but once those five minutes are up, the country moves on to other things, like tax cuts. Even worse: on the rare occasions when disability is acknowledged in the public sphere, people with disabilities appear as infantilized props for right-wing extremist crusades – as in the Terri Schiavo Media Circus of this spring, or Sam Brownback’s Opus Dei showcase last week.
And because my plenary panel at PARF was followed immediately by a panel on rights and responsibilities in disability law and policy in Pennsylvania, I quickly learned that I didn’t even know the half of it. To wit: you may have already heard that the ghouls who infest (and govern!) our body politic are planning to pay for Katrina cleanup by lining the oily pockets of Cheney’s Halliburton kleptocrats and taking the money from public radio and other “liberal” causes. And you may have heard that Medicaid is going to be slashed to the bone and beyond. But unless you work with a disability organization, I bet you didn’t know that Medicaid is the major funding source for hundreds of disability-advocacy organizations, from residential to vocational to medical facilities across the nation. In other words: hundreds of people with disabilities were killed in Katrina. The health crisis associated with Katrina will have a disproportionate impact on—indeed, will produce—still more people with disabilities. And the crony-capitalist kleptocrat kleanup of Katrina (with Karl Rove in charge of budgetary oversight) will be paid for by cuts in services to people with disabilities. When I say people with disabilities are invisible even in their visibility, this is what I mean.
Two of the speakers in the followup panel explained why this is so in Pennsylvania. One remarked that our state legislators are loath to increase “welfare spending,” and have to be “better educated” on the subject. This means, as the speaker explained, that legislators have to be made to understand that increases in Pennsylvania’s “welfare spending” are in fact increases in local health care costs, and that—as one legislator advised him—“not welfare spending as you traditionally know it.”
What does that mean, you ask? Good thing you asked! Another speaker quoted a legislator who was still more explicit, though not so explicit as to say what he really meant: Medicaid, said this lawmaker, is seen by many of my colleagues as a program that allows poor single mothers to have more babies.
And there you have it, my fellow Americans. We already knew that the United States has the worst health-and-human-services policies, for people in poverty, of any industrialized nation, and we already knew that this had everything to do with the fact that many Americans, and their elected representatives, think of the poor as so many shiftless Negroes. But now we have another dynamic to consider: according to the logic of stigma and abjection by which American politics operates, disability advocacy groups will be funded under Medicaid to the extent to which they can rhetorically distinguish people with disabilities from African-Americans in poverty. From single mothers and their innumerable babies. From welfare spending as you traditionally know it.
Again, if you’re familiar with the issues and policies concerning disability in the U.S., you know that many people with disabilities are poor: the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is somewhere between 60 and 70 percent. And you know that some people with disabilities are, in fact, African-American. And so you’re probably wondering how disabled African-Americans in poverty—like many of the people who remained in New Orleans, who were so poor, so black, and so disabled—can possibly distinguish themselves from “welfare spending as you traditionally know it” and “poor single mothers,” since, of course, these are our elected officials’ traditional code terms for race.
I’m wondering that too. I was kind of hoping that we could retool the entire national logic of stigma and abjection so that unbearable shame would accrue to any elected official who tried to blame people for not leaving New Orleans, or any elected official who tries to pay for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast by cutting disability services, but, as always, I’m open to more practical suggestions.
If Bush Was Emotionally Honest—
If George W. Bush were emotionally honest (if nothing else!), this is what he might have said:
The post-hurricane speech Bush won't deliver
- Robert S. Rivkin
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
In his weekly radio address to the nation Saturday, President George W. Bush attempted to sanitize the blistering criticism from virtually all shades of the political spectrum that his administration had received for its handling of the tragic (and partly avoidable) Hurricane Katrina calamity. Words like "death," "chaos," "anarchy," "squalor," "incompetence" and "national disgrace" -- among the most descriptive and emotive ones uttered last week by thousands of people -- were omitted from the president's speech. So, I am offering here a straightforward address to the nation that President Bush could give next Saturday. This speech might restore his credibility as a leader:
My fellow Americans: First, I want to apologize to you, and particularly to the citizens of Mississippi and Louisiana, for my administration's failure to prepare for Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. I apologize for our excruciating slowness in getting life-supporting essentials -- food, clean water and medicine -- to the flood victims in New Orleans. Sadly, I realize that the federal government's inexcusable delay of at least two days in providing these essential items caused many unnecessary deaths, and unnecessarily prolonged the agony for thousands of mostly poor, black citizens of the United States, who were barely surviving in disgusting conditions. For that I am truly sorry.
I confess that last week, I tried to excuse our neglect by claiming that "I didn't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Also, I'm aware that my Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, has claimed that this was an "ultra-catastrophe" (a hurricane plus a flood) and that nobody could have reasonably predicted that both would happen at the same time. Our comments were wrong -- and actually misleading. My administration will no longer try to shift blame to others, nor to an "uncooperative" Mother Nature. Years ago, experts tried to warn the Army Corps of Engineers that a category 4 or 5 hurricane would likely overwhelm the levees and flood most of New Orleans. These reports were also widely published in newspapers and magazines. The Corps dismissed these experts' warnings as overblown.
What happened late last month was almost exactly what the scientists had predicted. The result was that by Sept. 2, when life-sustaining aid and National Guard units finally began to arrive, many people -- mainly the elderly and seriously ill -- had perished. This did not have to happen.
We must now look to the future. So far as I am aware, nobody in the federal government has leveled with you yet about the enormity of the tasks that confront us as a nation. I want to do that now. We must not only repair the physical damage to the Mississippi coast and New Orleans. We have a moral obligation to the hundreds of thousands of surviving victims of this mammoth calamity to restore a sense of normalcy to their lives. Let me tell you right now that the losses resulting from this national nightmare will almost certainly total half a trillion dollars in the next five or six years. Maybe more. Included in that number are the costs not only of rebuilding, but of relocating hundreds of thousands of people, not in temporary shelters like the Astrodome, but in homes -- at least for the medium term -- by which I mean six months to three years.
It is the federal government's obligation to find housing quickly for the evacuees, so that their continued suffering -- being forced to live communally in sports stadiums -- is not prolonged. It must be done so they can have privacy. So they can have dignity. So they can have hope for the future.
Therefore, I am instructing the Secretary of Defense to provide a list of domestic military bases where empty and underutilized barracks, apartments and houses are located. For those evacuees who want to be housed in federal military housing, we will also provide educational facilities, medical care and the possibility of finding new jobs. For others, we will provide funds to help integrate these American citizens into other communities throughout the country. The federal government will also provide jobs for those evacuees who want to work on rebuilding their own communities in New Orleans and Mississippi.
Insurance companies, private industry, charitable and religious organizations will of course all pitch in to help make life livable again for our fellow citizens. But they cannot provide the guidance, the infrastructure and the financial muscle. In a crisis as huge as this one, that is the obligation of the government -- any government. Therefore, I am submitting legislation to Congress to make this happen. It will be expensive. It will necessitate an increase in the tax burden, especially for those Americans who are better off than others. But, in the long run, it will be worth it by enhancing cohesiveness, equality and justice in our society. And it will enhance our prosperity as well.
I realize that I am urging a new approach toward disaster relief. I realize that this noble project may not generate as many profits for private contractors that earlier projects have done. I realize this approach may surprise and disappoint some who, like myself, have long embraced the concept of "the less government, the better." Philosophically, it still appeals to me. But we must be pragmatic. Monumental catastrophes require extraordinary flexibility. Fixed ideological positions must be abandoned. We are a country in crisis. We need to pull together. We cannot neglect those most desperately in need. Everyone needs to share the burdens.
For those who may find this new approach difficult -- get used to it.
Thank you, and God bless America.
Robert S. Rivkin is a San Francisco-based author and lawyer who has trained foreign judges and prosecutors on human-rights issues.
Page B - 7
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/06/EDG2DEHKND1.DTL
Hurricane Speech Bush WON'T Deliver
If we had a president who was emotionally honest, this is what he or she might have said (and large thanks to Allan F. who forwarded this on to me):
In his weekly radio address to the nation Saturday, President George W. Bush attempted to sanitize the blistering criticism from virtually all shades of the political spectrum that his administration had received for its handling of the tragic (and partly avoidable) Hurricane Katrina calamity. Words like "death," "chaos," "anarchy," "squalor," "incompetence" and "national disgrace" -- among the most descriptive and emotive ones uttered last week by thousands of people -- were omitted from the president's speech. So, I am offering here a straightforward address to the nation that President Bush could give next Saturday. This speech might restore his credibility as a leader:
My fellow Americans: First, I want to apologize to you, and particularly to the citizens of Mississippi and Louisiana, for my administration's failure to prepare for Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. I apologize for our excruciating slowness in getting life-supporting essentials -- food, clean water and medicine -- to the flood victims in New Orleans. Sadly, I realize that the federal government's inexcusable delay of at least two days in providing these essential items caused many unnecessary deaths, and unnecessarily prolonged the agony for thousands of mostly poor, black citizens of the United States, who were barely surviving in disgusting conditions. For that I am truly sorry.
I confess that last week, I tried to excuse our neglect by claiming that "I didn't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Also, I'm aware that my Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, has claimed that this was an "ultra-catastrophe" (a hurricane plus a flood) and that nobody could have reasonably predicted that both would happen at the same time. Our comments were wrong -- and actually misleading. My administration will no longer try to shift blame to others, nor to an "uncooperative" Mother Nature. Years ago, experts tried to warn the Army Corps of Engineers that a category 4 or 5 hurricane would likely overwhelm the levees and flood most of New Orleans. These reports were also widely published in newspapers and magazines. The Corps dismissed these experts' warnings as overblown.
What happened late last month was almost exactly what the scientists had predicted. The result was that by Sept. 2, when life-sustaining aid and National Guard units finally began to arrive, many people -- mainly the elderly and seriously ill -- had perished. This did not have to happen.
We must now look to the future. So far as I am aware, nobody in the federal government has leveled with you yet about the enormity of the tasks that confront us as a nation. I want to do that now. We must not only repair the physical damage to the Mississippi coast and New Orleans. We have a moral obligation to the hundreds of thousands of surviving victims of this mammoth calamity to restore a sense of normalcy to their lives. Let me tell you right now that the losses resulting from this national nightmare will almost certainly total half a trillion dollars in the next five or six years. Maybe more. Included in that number are the costs not only of rebuilding, but of relocating hundreds of thousands of people, not in temporary shelters like the Astrodome, but in homes -- at least for the medium term -- by which I mean six months to three years.
It is the federal government's obligation to find housing quickly for the evacuees, so that their continued suffering -- being forced to live communally in sports stadiums -- is not prolonged. It must be done so they can have privacy. So they can have dignity. So they can have hope for the future.
Therefore, I am instructing the Secretary of Defense to provide a list of domestic military bases where empty and underutilized barracks, apartments and houses are located. For those evacuees who want to be housed in federal military housing, we will also provide educational facilities, medical care and the possibility of finding new jobs. For others, we will provide funds to help integrate these American citizens into other communities throughout the country. The federal government will also provide jobs for those evacuees who want to work on rebuilding their own communities in New Orleans and Mississippi.
Insurance companies, private industry, charitable and religious organizations will of course all pitch in to help make life livable again for our fellow citizens. But they cannot provide the guidance, the infrastructure and the financial muscle. In a crisis as huge as this one, that is the obligation of the government -- any government. Therefore, I am submitting legislation to Congress to make this happen. It will be expensive. It will necessitate an increase in the tax burden, especially for those Americans who are better off than others. But, in the long run, it will be worth it by enhancing cohesiveness, equality and justice in our society. And it will enhance our prosperity as well.
I realize that I am urging a new approach toward disaster relief. I realize that this noble project may not generate as many profits for private contractors that earlier projects have done. I realize this approach may surprise and disappoint some who, like myself, have long embraced the concept of "the less government, the better." Philosophically, it still appeals to me. But we must be pragmatic. Monumental catastrophes require extraordinary flexibility. Fixed ideological positions must be abandoned. We are a country in crisis. We need to pull together. We cannot neglect those most desperately in need. Everyone needs to share the burdens.
For those who may find this new approach difficult -- get used to it.
Thank you, and God bless America.
Robert S. Rivkin is a San Francisco-based author and lawyer who has trained foreign judges and prosecutors on human-rights issues.
Page B - 7
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/06/EDG2DEHKND1.DTL
©2005 San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, October 02, 2005
America Today: Crisis Upon Crisis
Paul Krugman is a remarkable thinker. His columns are insightful and stimulating, and his points come across as sharp as a new fishook.
This column is useful because it provides a summary of the various facets to the mess the administration has made and is making in America today. The Administration is probably the most un-American administration this country ever has had.
AMERICA TODAY: CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
He sold all his stock in HCA, which his father helped found, just days before the stock plunged. Two years ago, Mr. Frist claimed that he did not even know if he owned HCA stock.
According to a new U.S. government index, the effect of greenhouse gases is up 20 percent since 1990.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a 33-year-old Wall Street insider with little experience in regulation but close ties to drug firms, was made a deputy commissioner at the F.D.A. in July. (This story, picked up by Time magazine, was originally reported by Alicia Mundy of The Seattle Times.)
The Artic ice cap is shrinking at an alarming rate.
Two of the three senior positions at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are vacant. The third is held by Jonathan Snare, a former lobbyist.
Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group, reports that he worked on efforts to keep ephedra, a dietary supplement that was banned by the F.D.A., legal.
According to France's finance minister, Alan Greenspan told him that the United States had "lost control" of its budget deficit.
David Safavian is a former associate of Jack Abramoff, the recently indicted lobbyist. Mr. Safavian oversaw U.S. government procurement policy at the White House Office of Management and Budget until his recent arrest.
When Senator James Inhofe, who has called scientific research on global warming "a gigantic hoax," called a hearing to attack that research, his star witness was Michael Crichton, the novelist.
Mr. Safavian is charged with misrepresenting his connections with lobbyists - specifically, Mr. Abramoff - while working at the General Services Administration.
A key event was a lavish golfing trip to Scotland in 2002, mostly paid for by a charity Mr. Abramoff controlled. Among those who went on the trip was Representative Bob Ney of Ohio.
It's not possible to attribute any one weather event to global warming. But climate models show that global warming will lead to increased hurricane intensity, and some research indicates that this is already occurring.
Tyco paid $2 million, most going to firms controlled by Mr. Abramoff, as part of its successful effort to preserve tax advantages it got from shifting its legal home to Bermuda. Timothy Flanigan, a general counsel at Tyco, has been nominated for the second-ranking Justice Department post.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans is awash in soldiers and police. Nonetheless, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has hired Blackwater USA, a private security firm with strong political connections, to provide armed guards.
Mr. Abramoff was indicted last month on charges of fraud relating to his purchase of SunCruz, a casino boat operation.
Mr. Ney inserted comments in the Congressional Record attacking SunCruz's original owner, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, placing pressure on him to sell to Mr. Abramoff and his partner, Adam Kidan, and praised Mr. Kidan's character.
James Schmitz, who resigned as the Pentagon's inspector general amid questions about his performance, has been hired as Blackwater's chief operating officer.
Last week three men were arrested in connection with the gangland-style murder of Mr. Boulis. SunCruz, after it was controlled by Mr. Kidan and Mr. Abramoff, paid a company controlled by one of the men arrested, Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello, and his daughter $145,000 for catering and other work.
In court documents, questions are raised about whether food and drink were ever provided. SunCruz paid $95,000 to a company in which one of the other men arrested, Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, is a principal.
Iraq's oil production remains below prewar levels. The Los Angeles Times reports that mistakes by U.S. officials and a Halliburton subsidiary, which was given large no-bid reconstruction contracts, may have permanently damaged Iraq's oilfields.
Tom DeLay, who stepped down as House majority leader after his indictment, once called Mr. Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends."
Mr. Abramoff funneled funds from clients to conservative institutions and causes. The Washington Post reported that associates of Mr. DeLay claim that he severed the relationship after Mr. Boulis's murder.
Public health experts warn that the U.S. would be dangerously unprepared for an avian flu pandemic.
As Walter Cronkite used to say, That's the way it is.
Paul Krugman
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Bush Vs. The Generals
Diff’rent truths for diff’rent folks? No, just more evidence of the mind-numbing dishonesty of the Bush administration.
Two interesting quotes here. The first is the President, telling us how well the Iraqi army is progressing. The second is from the allied honcho in Iraq, giving us a different story.
Different stories. Different truths for different folks, maybe? I don’t think so: the administration is continuing to confabulate about our successes in Iraq; they know the truth, they just don’t think the people should know it. But, why not? The America citizenry is so numbed-out by the tons of bullshit heaped on them they can’t respond to anything less than a jolt from a stun-gun.
Compare this:
"At this moment, more than a dozen Iraqi battalions have completed training and are conducting anti-terrorist operations in Ramadi and Fallujah. More than 20 battalions are operating in Baghdad. And some have taken the lead in operations in major sectors of the city. In total, more than 100 battalions are operating throughout Iraq. Our commanders report that the Iraqi forces are operating with increasing effectiveness."
-- President Bush, 9/28/05
With this:
"The number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support has dropped from three to one, the top American commander in Iraq told Congress Thursday."
-- Associated Press, 9/29/05
