In the late nineties when the heroic investigative reporter, Gary Webb documented how both the Reagan and Bush I administrations used a Bay Area drug ring to sell tons of cocaine to Los Angeles street gangs in order to funnel millions to Nicaraguan Contras he was pilloried in the mainstream press. This despite the fact that ten years earlier Mass. Sen., John Kerry, had direct proof that the CIA was using illicit drug profits for covert operations in Central America in order to evade Congressional scrutiny.
Even after Webb was vindicated by the CIA's own report, The New York Times, like the Washington Post and L.A. Times, gave the story short shrift. The justly outraged black community was greeted with the newspapers' eminent 'liberal' scorn: the collective response amounted to, "what else would you expect from those people... they believe stuff like Kentucky Fried Chicken will make you sterile."
If you didn't know better you'd be tempted to think our mainstream press was complicit .
In her new book "Rogue Economics" Loretta Napoleoni describes how ties between intelligence agencies and organized crime are now woven into the new world economy: "The transition from Cold War economics ... left large regions unguarded ... the vacuum created by the absence of state authority guaranteed the survival of [what] became a rogue force."
At the same time Webb was exposing the CIA's drug running writers in India were decrying the increase in sanctioned government crime and corruption.
"The image of organised crime etched deep in the public mind in the media is of graphic and gratitude violence... these images, no doubt, have a sound basis in fact. To the extent, however, that they exhaust or dominate our entire vision of organised crime today, they are both false and misleading. The emergence of global financial and trading systems, and the progressive dismantling of trade barriers and, internal restrictions on businesses within the country over the past decade, has fundamentally changed the context in which criminal organisations operate... criminal organisations have expanded their territorial reach and augmented their wealth and power relative to national governments."
It is hard to gauge whether the neo-cons were crafty and venal or simply the elite's useful idiots. Now that the US is broke, our military mired in Afghanistan, a largely secular Iraq converted to an Islamic Republic more closely tied to Iran one wonders what-- if anything-- was their beef with bin Laden. From the billions that have disappeared from the Pentagon it is clear that for the fortunate few the WOT is a handy honey pot. To round out this macabre spectacle of the absurd members of Congress solicit funds for their election campaigns by inciting revolution, claiming the Obama leads a gangster government. Yet none call it treason.
If there is a single blunder that will haunt us long after the disastrous Bush years it is the reactionary and unconstitutional Patriot Act. By demonizing Muslims while compelling US banks to disclose their large transactions, trillions in Middle Eastern oil revenues and criminal black market funds that used to be laundered in Miami and New York have migrated to Naples and London where our simpatico partners in the "War on Terror" can now join hedge funds that make their money by ripping up public companies and auctioning them off as private equity.
Typically, “prominent investors” will buy the company’s debt, package it into “collateralized debt obligations” (financial weapons of mass destruction that were pioneered by Michael Milken’s team at Drexel Burnham Lambert), and then trade it in such a way as to make it seem as if the company is in trouble.'
In the middle of this indecipherable criminal mess are our beleaguered journalists. For them the choice is stark: tell the truth like Gary Webb, lose your job and perhaps end up dead ... or play along and make the most of it.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Monday, August 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Disabling Web of Deceit
One of the biggest differences between the Clinton presidency and our 8 year nightmare under Bush was the former president's knack for thinking strategically. The Great Game, otherwise known as the global proxy oil wars between the "East" and "West" has been likened to a chess match. Thanks to Bush and Cheney's thickheaded neocons and their fateful lust to grab that last tempting piece (Iraq) the U.S. has been left with strategic weaknesses all across the board. Not only are its pawns no longer solidly connected its once powerful pieces, having been foolishly placed, are now vulnerable and rapidly waning in strength.
For instance Cheney and McCain's greedy blundering has finally cost us one of our strategic allies in the Caucasus. Clinton had plotted a clever role for the energy-poor republic. Georgia was to become part of an "energy corridor" for the export of Caspian basin oil and gas to the West, bypassing Russia altogether. It would start with an "early-oil" pipeline built to carry petroleum from Azerbaijan's energy fields on the Caspian Sea to Supsa on Georgia's Black Sea coast. This would be followed by the tactical construction of a 1,000-mile BTC pipeline from Baku to Tbilisi then on to Ceyhan on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.
But with the typical short-sightedness that guides Bush and the neocons instead of telling Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili, (as Condi Rice supposedly advised) to chill his boots and be satisfied playing his role as pipeline guardian, they backed his crazy fantasies. By trying to retake breakaway regions of Abhkazia and South Ossetia Saakashvili and the neocons handed Putin the opening for a counterattack he craved ever since taking over from Russia's former big man and blunderer-in-chief, Boris Yeltsin.
Unfortunately as recent revelations about Jane Harman's incestuous ties to the neocon cabal have made painfully clear, the warmongering parasites that continue to profit from U.S. foreign policy have their grasping tentacles in every branch and party in Washington.
For instance Cheney and McCain's greedy blundering has finally cost us one of our strategic allies in the Caucasus. Clinton had plotted a clever role for the energy-poor republic. Georgia was to become part of an "energy corridor" for the export of Caspian basin oil and gas to the West, bypassing Russia altogether. It would start with an "early-oil" pipeline built to carry petroleum from Azerbaijan's energy fields on the Caspian Sea to Supsa on Georgia's Black Sea coast. This would be followed by the tactical construction of a 1,000-mile BTC pipeline from Baku to Tbilisi then on to Ceyhan on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.
But with the typical short-sightedness that guides Bush and the neocons instead of telling Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili, (as Condi Rice supposedly advised) to chill his boots and be satisfied playing his role as pipeline guardian, they backed his crazy fantasies. By trying to retake breakaway regions of Abhkazia and South Ossetia Saakashvili and the neocons handed Putin the opening for a counterattack he craved ever since taking over from Russia's former big man and blunderer-in-chief, Boris Yeltsin.
Unfortunately as recent revelations about Jane Harman's incestuous ties to the neocon cabal have made painfully clear, the warmongering parasites that continue to profit from U.S. foreign policy have their grasping tentacles in every branch and party in Washington.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
No Excuses
Sad but true- the Bush Administration was not the first U.S. government to approve the use of torture. Anyone who knows about the School of the Americas understands that torture and assassination have often been used to terrorize and intimidate those who have the nerve to protest U.S. foreign policy. However Bush is the first president to attempt to make torture legal. And for that Mr. Obama there can be no kicking the can down the road or simply "looking to the future." The lawyers and government officials who attempted to pronounce us a pariah nation need to be prosecuted and forever barred from government and the practice of law.
I am ashamed that despite all that the press has reported already most of us remain largely disinterested about what was and apparently continues to be done in our name. There was time when we Americans were better people. But be sure-- if we sit quietly and allow our present government to ignore such crimes we shall have become that which we once so deeply abhorred.
Honor Betrayed
The realization that her own officers were capable of such cruelty was probably what led to Alyssa Peterson's death. Unlike our "good soldiers" Army Spc. Peterson could not bring herself to torture prisoners.
"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."
We owe Alyssa Peterson an accounting for having placed her in such physical and moral jeopardy. Only after those who tried to legalize such gross atrocities are justly charged can we dare to beg for her forgiveness.
I am ashamed that despite all that the press has reported already most of us remain largely disinterested about what was and apparently continues to be done in our name. There was time when we Americans were better people. But be sure-- if we sit quietly and allow our present government to ignore such crimes we shall have become that which we once so deeply abhorred.
Honor Betrayed
The realization that her own officers were capable of such cruelty was probably what led to Alyssa Peterson's death. Unlike our "good soldiers" Army Spc. Peterson could not bring herself to torture prisoners.
"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."
We owe Alyssa Peterson an accounting for having placed her in such physical and moral jeopardy. Only after those who tried to legalize such gross atrocities are justly charged can we dare to beg for her forgiveness.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Untwisting Tortured Justice
"Unfortunately, it may have been legal..." President Obama's excuse for why intelligence officials may be immune from criminal prosecution despite engaging in torture.
Twice in U.S. history has a sitting president defied the courts and ignored the Constitution. Both Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Only Lincoln however did so without the imprimatur of Congress. So while it is distasteful in the extreme that Obama appears unwilling to prosecute Cheney and his henchmen for the disgraceful actions their "redefinitions" of torture inspired it is far from clear that such prosecutions would lead to a desirable outcome.
For that to occur Congress would first have to be pressed to undo their egregious role in this sordid chapter. But seeing the reason Bush was provided his legal fig-leaf was due to Congress' cowardice I would not hold out much hopes for seeing justice done if it depends on the same invertebrate lot that signed on to the abomination known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 .
Here is its outline as described by the NYTimes:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
Joanne Mariner explains why the Bush Administration was so eager to pass the Act before the 2006 midterm elections:
"The MCA was passed in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a ruling that called into question the legality of the Administration's secret CIA detention program. Hamdan made it clear that abusive interrogation techniques used by the CIA violated international law, and that CIA operatives could be held criminally liable for such abuses.
Reacting to Hamdan, the Bush Administration first pushed to redefine the scope of U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, in particular Common Article 3, the provision at issue in Hamdan. After opposition from within the Republican Party to such an overt repudiation of universally-accepted international norms, the Administration took a different approach. While the MCA does not explicitly rewrite the Common Article 3, it opens the door to the provision's effective redefinition. It does so by specifying that the War Crimes Act, as amended, satisfies the U.S. obligation to criminalize grave breaches of Common Article 3, and that the president may issue authoritative interpretations of the remainder of the provision.
The law also nullifies the legal impact of the Conventions in domestic courts. Section 5 of the law provides that the Geneva Conventions and related treaties are unenforceable in court in civil cases involving the U.S. government or its agents. It states, specifically, that they may not be invoked "in any habeas corpus or any other civil action or proceeding . . . as a source of rights in any [U.S. or state] court." And another provision of the law bars persons deemed unlawful enemy combatants from invoking these treaties as a source of rights.
Notably, the legislation narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act, decriminalizing certain past acts. Previously, the War Crimes Act criminalized all violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as well as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Anyone responsible for any Common Article 3 violation, including the cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment of detainees, could be prosecuted under the law.
The MCA revises this portion of the War Crimes Act, replacing the blanket criminalization of Common Article 3 violations with a list of "grave breaches" of Common Article 3, which are specified and defined in the legislation."
That cover makes bringing the actors to the bar of justice extremely complicated. As Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia University law school. explains, "If we’re talking about holding a particular individual liable, we’re talking about drawing a straight line between opinions given and acts done-- people who really were hurt by the government in ways that are legally offensive ought to have some sort of forum to get compensation or vindication-- but to go from there to say that part of that process should involve singling out one or two subpresidential actors in an area where the president really does dominate policymaking is a stretch for me.”
With a Democratic POTUS hopes were high that the lawbooks would be purged of this monstrosity, but seeing that our craven leaders (over 50 Democrats voted for that horrendous legislation) are no less culpable the chances of Justice winning the day may require a radically different Congress, not to mention a far more confident White House.
Twice in U.S. history has a sitting president defied the courts and ignored the Constitution. Both Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Only Lincoln however did so without the imprimatur of Congress. So while it is distasteful in the extreme that Obama appears unwilling to prosecute Cheney and his henchmen for the disgraceful actions their "redefinitions" of torture inspired it is far from clear that such prosecutions would lead to a desirable outcome.
For that to occur Congress would first have to be pressed to undo their egregious role in this sordid chapter. But seeing the reason Bush was provided his legal fig-leaf was due to Congress' cowardice I would not hold out much hopes for seeing justice done if it depends on the same invertebrate lot that signed on to the abomination known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 .
Here is its outline as described by the NYTimes:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
Joanne Mariner explains why the Bush Administration was so eager to pass the Act before the 2006 midterm elections:
"The MCA was passed in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a ruling that called into question the legality of the Administration's secret CIA detention program. Hamdan made it clear that abusive interrogation techniques used by the CIA violated international law, and that CIA operatives could be held criminally liable for such abuses.
Reacting to Hamdan, the Bush Administration first pushed to redefine the scope of U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, in particular Common Article 3, the provision at issue in Hamdan. After opposition from within the Republican Party to such an overt repudiation of universally-accepted international norms, the Administration took a different approach. While the MCA does not explicitly rewrite the Common Article 3, it opens the door to the provision's effective redefinition. It does so by specifying that the War Crimes Act, as amended, satisfies the U.S. obligation to criminalize grave breaches of Common Article 3, and that the president may issue authoritative interpretations of the remainder of the provision.
The law also nullifies the legal impact of the Conventions in domestic courts. Section 5 of the law provides that the Geneva Conventions and related treaties are unenforceable in court in civil cases involving the U.S. government or its agents. It states, specifically, that they may not be invoked "in any habeas corpus or any other civil action or proceeding . . . as a source of rights in any [U.S. or state] court." And another provision of the law bars persons deemed unlawful enemy combatants from invoking these treaties as a source of rights.
Notably, the legislation narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act, decriminalizing certain past acts. Previously, the War Crimes Act criminalized all violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as well as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Anyone responsible for any Common Article 3 violation, including the cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment of detainees, could be prosecuted under the law.
The MCA revises this portion of the War Crimes Act, replacing the blanket criminalization of Common Article 3 violations with a list of "grave breaches" of Common Article 3, which are specified and defined in the legislation."
That cover makes bringing the actors to the bar of justice extremely complicated. As Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia University law school. explains, "If we’re talking about holding a particular individual liable, we’re talking about drawing a straight line between opinions given and acts done-- people who really were hurt by the government in ways that are legally offensive ought to have some sort of forum to get compensation or vindication-- but to go from there to say that part of that process should involve singling out one or two subpresidential actors in an area where the president really does dominate policymaking is a stretch for me.”
With a Democratic POTUS hopes were high that the lawbooks would be purged of this monstrosity, but seeing that our craven leaders (over 50 Democrats voted for that horrendous legislation) are no less culpable the chances of Justice winning the day may require a radically different Congress, not to mention a far more confident White House.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
"This Is No Small Thing"
The Bush administration was very clever at distorting the debate about what constitutes torture. From Nancy Pelosi's explosive interview aired last night on the Rachel Maddow Show it appears that she and other ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee were presented with the government's "theoretical" use of sleep deprivation and "simulated" waterboarding merely as a ruse to blur the lines of what was legal. In fact, as we know from several disturbing reports between 2004 and 2008, far worse was already being done to Iraqi prisoners and Guantanamo detainees in our name.
Despite President Obama's clear reluctance to seek indictments at least two Senators in Congress are not so willing to overlook obvious war crimes. This is indeed "no small thing". Let the hearings begin.
Despite President Obama's clear reluctance to seek indictments at least two Senators in Congress are not so willing to overlook obvious war crimes. This is indeed "no small thing". Let the hearings begin.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Wasted In America
Whether from a nagging inferiority complex attributable to its youth and borrowed cultures, or simply the fruit of its puritanical roots the USA has a self-destructive streak that is fast becoming its undoing. No nation can long survive unless it can instill a healthy amount of pride and a sense of shared commitment in its people. What was so poignant about Barack Obama's election was the tearful joy on the faces of our African-American children who appeared to range in age from five to over a hundred. Finally, they thought, their parents, those already dead or very much alive, could believe they were equal American members, allowed to indulge in all the prerequisites and privileges of their powerful country. An inspiring notion, to which we grown-ups are yet to be impressed.
With all the talk centered on rescuing the economy and ending the Iraq fiasco the giant elephant in the room, the great all-devouring threat to the nation's survival stands quiet and unseen. I'm referring to the criminal number of black and brown and native-born Americans being locked in prison and being robbed of constructive futures simply for getting involved with unsanctioned drugs.
There is something ethically grotesque about the fact that our last three presidents--Clinton, Bush and Obama--had all at one time in their youthful lives experimented with illegal drugs. Yet, since the election of Ronald Reagan the United States has incarcerated more American citizens for abusing marijuana than the total number of prisoners we had locked behind bars in 1980. (Of the 450,000 arrests during the period 1990-2002, 82% of the increase was for marijuana, with 79% for marijuana possession-- Boyum and Reuter, 2005).
As a result of these Draconian drug laws the United States has well over two million of its people in prison, the majority for non-violent drug offenses. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet retains one of the highest rankings in drug abuse. More troubling still is the rate at which we are imprisoning women, many with small children, virtually guaranteeing that the family will not escape its downward spiral, their lives given over to the hedge of self-medication against hopelessness and chronic depression.
"There is considerable evidence to show that the costs of such laws do not fall equally across all segments of US society. Between 1985 and 1995, for instance, there was an increase of 200 percent in the number of females incarcerated in state and federal institutions, most for non-violent offences. Many commentators agree that much of this was the result of stricter enforcement,increased penalties and mandatory prison sentences for drug offenders" (Reichel 2005, Bush-Baskette, 1999, Gray, 2001). Additionally, while punitive US drug policies can be seen to have significantly affected the imprisonment of women in general, the greatest increase in the percentage of inmates incarcerated for drug offences is seen in African American women.
An infuriating example of these destructive policies is the case of Yraida Guanipa. Ms. Guanipa has spent the last ten and a half years a Florida federal penitentiary, locked away from her friends, her extended family and her two young children.
At first the War on Drugs" seemed a political brain-stroke-- a real twofer for the Christian Right and their control of Washington's "new Republican majority". By building the extra prisons needed in rural and exurban counties the local Republicans could use their inmates to boost their Congressional numbers-- and since the war was centered in urban communities that consisted overwhelming of black and brown Democrats-- they were concurrently keeping potential voters away from the voting booth (and those pesky unions). The real travesty of the 1990's was the fact that a Democratic president went right along. Yet as far as reducing illegal drug use the impact was virtually nil:
A recent study comparing marijuana use in Amsterdam and San Francisco showed that relative risks of punishment make no difference on levels of use. Despite significantly different law enforcement regimes in these cities, the research found remarkable similarities in drug use patterns (Reinarman, Cohen & Kaal, 2004). Figures show that from 1990 to 2002, daily use of marijuana by high school seniors approached 6%--the exact same level as in 1975.
Not much to show for a program that is costing the Federal government upwards of $9 billion dollars each year. Put another way, the cost of keeping a non-violent drug offender in prison is greater than the cost of tuition, room and board at Yale or Harvard. So while mountains of words and barrels of ink are being spent on describing the need to stimulate the economy and "Reinvest in America" we ignore the ongoing war being waged against our own citizens. As with all wars, there is terrible collateral damage being done to our most vulnerable communities. Worse, by pretending that the problem can be solved simply by locking up the poor and probably many of our most innovative and entrepreneurial minds, we have doomed ourselves to failure. No nation has ever flourished once it becomes unable to care for its least.
Tragically, though we have a president who most certainly understands the consequence of this crippling waste and destruction, Obama fears, no doubt with a bitter dose of irony, that his instincts for change are most likely to be incarcerated by the shade of his skin.
With all the talk centered on rescuing the economy and ending the Iraq fiasco the giant elephant in the room, the great all-devouring threat to the nation's survival stands quiet and unseen. I'm referring to the criminal number of black and brown and native-born Americans being locked in prison and being robbed of constructive futures simply for getting involved with unsanctioned drugs.
There is something ethically grotesque about the fact that our last three presidents--Clinton, Bush and Obama--had all at one time in their youthful lives experimented with illegal drugs. Yet, since the election of Ronald Reagan the United States has incarcerated more American citizens for abusing marijuana than the total number of prisoners we had locked behind bars in 1980. (Of the 450,000 arrests during the period 1990-2002, 82% of the increase was for marijuana, with 79% for marijuana possession-- Boyum and Reuter, 2005).
As a result of these Draconian drug laws the United States has well over two million of its people in prison, the majority for non-violent drug offenses. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet retains one of the highest rankings in drug abuse. More troubling still is the rate at which we are imprisoning women, many with small children, virtually guaranteeing that the family will not escape its downward spiral, their lives given over to the hedge of self-medication against hopelessness and chronic depression.
"There is considerable evidence to show that the costs of such laws do not fall equally across all segments of US society. Between 1985 and 1995, for instance, there was an increase of 200 percent in the number of females incarcerated in state and federal institutions, most for non-violent offences. Many commentators agree that much of this was the result of stricter enforcement,increased penalties and mandatory prison sentences for drug offenders" (Reichel 2005, Bush-Baskette, 1999, Gray, 2001). Additionally, while punitive US drug policies can be seen to have significantly affected the imprisonment of women in general, the greatest increase in the percentage of inmates incarcerated for drug offences is seen in African American women.
An infuriating example of these destructive policies is the case of Yraida Guanipa. Ms. Guanipa has spent the last ten and a half years a Florida federal penitentiary, locked away from her friends, her extended family and her two young children.
Her offense: She agreed to pick up a package for a friend, which turned out to contain cocaine. Although Ms. Guanipa had never been arrested -- had never been a drug user--she received a thirteen-year "drug conspiracy" prison sentence. Her good standing in the community, her lack of criminal background and the fact that she had a 1-year-old and a 2-year old had no impact on her sentence.
At first the War on Drugs" seemed a political brain-stroke-- a real twofer for the Christian Right and their control of Washington's "new Republican majority". By building the extra prisons needed in rural and exurban counties the local Republicans could use their inmates to boost their Congressional numbers-- and since the war was centered in urban communities that consisted overwhelming of black and brown Democrats-- they were concurrently keeping potential voters away from the voting booth (and those pesky unions). The real travesty of the 1990's was the fact that a Democratic president went right along. Yet as far as reducing illegal drug use the impact was virtually nil:
A recent study comparing marijuana use in Amsterdam and San Francisco showed that relative risks of punishment make no difference on levels of use. Despite significantly different law enforcement regimes in these cities, the research found remarkable similarities in drug use patterns (Reinarman, Cohen & Kaal, 2004). Figures show that from 1990 to 2002, daily use of marijuana by high school seniors approached 6%--the exact same level as in 1975.
Not much to show for a program that is costing the Federal government upwards of $9 billion dollars each year. Put another way, the cost of keeping a non-violent drug offender in prison is greater than the cost of tuition, room and board at Yale or Harvard. So while mountains of words and barrels of ink are being spent on describing the need to stimulate the economy and "Reinvest in America" we ignore the ongoing war being waged against our own citizens. As with all wars, there is terrible collateral damage being done to our most vulnerable communities. Worse, by pretending that the problem can be solved simply by locking up the poor and probably many of our most innovative and entrepreneurial minds, we have doomed ourselves to failure. No nation has ever flourished once it becomes unable to care for its least.
Tragically, though we have a president who most certainly understands the consequence of this crippling waste and destruction, Obama fears, no doubt with a bitter dose of irony, that his instincts for change are most likely to be incarcerated by the shade of his skin.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Color of Goodness and Poverty
There is an astonishing disconnect or perhaps more accurately, disengagement, taking place in American politics. Having been exposed as the party void of ideas beyond cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans and without a shred of interest in governing, the Republicans have seen their representation in Washington at its lowest level in thirty years. And yet were it not for the population's changing demographic we could have easily been facing a President McCain and Vice-president Palin.
In "The State of Working America 2002-03," the Economic Policy Institute estimated that the bottom 80 percent of American households now control only about 17 percent of the nation's wealth. Since the advent of the Bush administration wages, benefits, and working conditions for workers across the board decreased at a precipitous rate while the rich made out like bandits. Now we learn that the few safeguards that the S.E.C supposedly had in place to prevent unscrupulous bankers from ripping off the public were not only not being enforced, but when the thefts were discovered by several states the federal government bluntly refused to prosecute.
Here is where it gets truly cynical and why Obama's attempt to bring Republicans on board may be D.O.A. What the banks were doing was essentially preying on borrowers who had been historically disadvantaged, primarily because of the race. I can assure you I have first hand evidence that the color of your skin can effect the points on your mortgage. It was Eliot Spitzer who first identified the illegal pattern that underlay the sub-prime fiasco-- what he did not realize when he asked the Bushies to prosecute was that their supporters had specifically sanctioned the game, believing that when all was said and done their voters would be inclined to blame the victims (and just in case their scam was exposed, they had Rush Limbaugh ready with the appropriate "spin".)
As Greg Palast humorously explains:
Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota. Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.
There is saying in the ghetto--you want to see the next scam that's gonna rock the country?-- just take a look at what's going down in the 'hood. Just like the IRAN/Contra drugs for smuggled weapons triggered the 80's crack and cocaine epidemic, the sub-prime racket, thanks to some clever Wall Street sleight of hand eventually blossomed into a worldwide infection. One would think that after seeing their 401k's reduced to rubble and their pensions looted the Republican faithful would be hunting heads, or at least for an honest party. But here is where Rove and his minions have displayed their true genius. Theirs is a party guided not by the actions of imperfect political men but the inscrutable designs of the Almighty.
By identifying Republicanism with Southern Evangelism the Bushies have updated and codified "Manifest Destiny". So that the political debate centers not on economic concerns but religious and social philosophy. Thus the crisis of Christian faith as propagated by the Dispensationalists and the prophets of End Times blends seamlessly with the notion that America itself, as it continues its "browning" is seeing its "Last Days" before the inevitable "Rapture". When the end is at hand and one's eternal soul hangs in the balance what is the significance of an emptied bank account. Indeed, what the republicans are banking on, now that they have destroyed our manufacturing base and stolen our money, is that as the crisis deepens their faithful will tune out government completely and tune in the preachers they've kept extremely well paid to be the voices of God.
As Kevin Phillips suggests in "American Theocracy":
"It is not coincidental that at the time the leading sector of the economy was assumed by finance and oil (a declining global resource) that right wing Christianity emerges as a state ideology under Republican rule."
Nor that we've seen a foreign policy that is defined by imperial overreach and where religious dogma denies science in the name of biblical inerrancy.
Judas Capitalism and End Times
Indeed, Business Week's William Wolman has described the American economy as a 'Judas economy'; one dominated by debt and unscrupulous financiers. As he and Anne Colamosca point out in "The Triumph Of Capital and The Betrayal of Work": what our business and government leaders are unwilling to admit, but most Americans know in their gut is that: in the brave new global economy, big money holds all the cards while workers -- including white-collar professionals -- are increasingly expendable.
All symptoms of banking imperialism wedded to late stage capitalism. It is no great stretch to perceive that Fundamentalist Christianity’s concern with the End of Times actually reflects its followers sense that American democracy itself is approaching its end.
The kicker here is that by embracing the vanity embedded in Manifest Destiny the white American worker by in large refrains from making common cause with his darker-skinned colleagues. In so doing he enables the rich and disables his potential power. As Wolman and Colamosca note:
"in the new economy you need capital, and contrary to the hype only a lucky few will prosper on their own. The dynamics of the global securities markets, and the control of interest rates by the Federal Reserves and Bundesbanks of the world, perpetuate a system where fast economic growth is allowed only in developing countries. Meanwhile in the U.S. and the rest of the developed world inflation is kept low, so as to protect the value of the wealthy's financial assets. Any nation which strays from this policy is punished by a devastating outflow of investment capital. The result: few economic opportunities for American workers."
Obama is to be commended for wanting to bring more Republicans into the fold. Unfortunately, those willing to lavish the Limbaughs of the world with millions are betting that for the fundamentalist Evangelical faithful all ends well so long as God's heart is pure and His favored children are white.
In "The State of Working America 2002-03," the Economic Policy Institute estimated that the bottom 80 percent of American households now control only about 17 percent of the nation's wealth. Since the advent of the Bush administration wages, benefits, and working conditions for workers across the board decreased at a precipitous rate while the rich made out like bandits. Now we learn that the few safeguards that the S.E.C supposedly had in place to prevent unscrupulous bankers from ripping off the public were not only not being enforced, but when the thefts were discovered by several states the federal government bluntly refused to prosecute.
Here is where it gets truly cynical and why Obama's attempt to bring Republicans on board may be D.O.A. What the banks were doing was essentially preying on borrowers who had been historically disadvantaged, primarily because of the race. I can assure you I have first hand evidence that the color of your skin can effect the points on your mortgage. It was Eliot Spitzer who first identified the illegal pattern that underlay the sub-prime fiasco-- what he did not realize when he asked the Bushies to prosecute was that their supporters had specifically sanctioned the game, believing that when all was said and done their voters would be inclined to blame the victims (and just in case their scam was exposed, they had Rush Limbaugh ready with the appropriate "spin".)
As Greg Palast humorously explains:
Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota. Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.
There is saying in the ghetto--you want to see the next scam that's gonna rock the country?-- just take a look at what's going down in the 'hood. Just like the IRAN/Contra drugs for smuggled weapons triggered the 80's crack and cocaine epidemic, the sub-prime racket, thanks to some clever Wall Street sleight of hand eventually blossomed into a worldwide infection. One would think that after seeing their 401k's reduced to rubble and their pensions looted the Republican faithful would be hunting heads, or at least for an honest party. But here is where Rove and his minions have displayed their true genius. Theirs is a party guided not by the actions of imperfect political men but the inscrutable designs of the Almighty.
By identifying Republicanism with Southern Evangelism the Bushies have updated and codified "Manifest Destiny". So that the political debate centers not on economic concerns but religious and social philosophy. Thus the crisis of Christian faith as propagated by the Dispensationalists and the prophets of End Times blends seamlessly with the notion that America itself, as it continues its "browning" is seeing its "Last Days" before the inevitable "Rapture". When the end is at hand and one's eternal soul hangs in the balance what is the significance of an emptied bank account. Indeed, what the republicans are banking on, now that they have destroyed our manufacturing base and stolen our money, is that as the crisis deepens their faithful will tune out government completely and tune in the preachers they've kept extremely well paid to be the voices of God.
As Kevin Phillips suggests in "American Theocracy":
"It is not coincidental that at the time the leading sector of the economy was assumed by finance and oil (a declining global resource) that right wing Christianity emerges as a state ideology under Republican rule."
Nor that we've seen a foreign policy that is defined by imperial overreach and where religious dogma denies science in the name of biblical inerrancy.
Judas Capitalism and End Times
Indeed, Business Week's William Wolman has described the American economy as a 'Judas economy'; one dominated by debt and unscrupulous financiers. As he and Anne Colamosca point out in "The Triumph Of Capital and The Betrayal of Work": what our business and government leaders are unwilling to admit, but most Americans know in their gut is that: in the brave new global economy, big money holds all the cards while workers -- including white-collar professionals -- are increasingly expendable.
All symptoms of banking imperialism wedded to late stage capitalism. It is no great stretch to perceive that Fundamentalist Christianity’s concern with the End of Times actually reflects its followers sense that American democracy itself is approaching its end.
The kicker here is that by embracing the vanity embedded in Manifest Destiny the white American worker by in large refrains from making common cause with his darker-skinned colleagues. In so doing he enables the rich and disables his potential power. As Wolman and Colamosca note:
"in the new economy you need capital, and contrary to the hype only a lucky few will prosper on their own. The dynamics of the global securities markets, and the control of interest rates by the Federal Reserves and Bundesbanks of the world, perpetuate a system where fast economic growth is allowed only in developing countries. Meanwhile in the U.S. and the rest of the developed world inflation is kept low, so as to protect the value of the wealthy's financial assets. Any nation which strays from this policy is punished by a devastating outflow of investment capital. The result: few economic opportunities for American workers."
Obama is to be commended for wanting to bring more Republicans into the fold. Unfortunately, those willing to lavish the Limbaughs of the world with millions are betting that for the fundamentalist Evangelical faithful all ends well so long as God's heart is pure and His favored children are white.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
President Obama's Shoes
Responding to the instantly famous "shoe attack" Bush quipped, "That’s what happens in free societies – people try to bring attention to themselves.”
No, Mr. Bush, that's what oppressed people do when their lives are being destroyed and people like you aren't listening.
"In Baghdad’s Shiite Sadr City, thousands rallied to demand the reporter's release: "Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head." They called the reporter a "hero."
"I’m sure many Iraqis want to do what Muntazer did. Muntazer used to say all the orphans whose father were killed are because of Bush," his brother, Udai al-Zaidi, told Reuters Television.
Dividing the SpoilsJoe Biden's proposition in 2006 to divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions arrived in Baghdad virtually DOA after having won hands-down support in the U.S. Senate. As Biden laid out in an Op-Ed to the NYTimes, the notion that the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites would each be responsible for their own laws, administration and security was hardly radical, after all, the Iraqi Constitution already provided for a federal structure in which "the provinces combine to form regional governments."
His argument ran thus: [Iraq] was already heading toward partition:"The Sunnis, who until recently believed they would retake power in Iraq, are beginning to recognize that they won't and don't want to live in a Shiite-controlled, highly centralized state with laws enforced by sectarian militias. The Shiites know they can dominate the government, but they can't defeat a Sunni insurrection. The Kurds will not give up their 15-year-old autonomy."
Ironically, there are many in Iraq who believe that the Senate's approval of the Biden proposal actually helped to quell the sectarian violence that had been rising exponentially, as more and more tribes and neighborhood gangs sought revenge. Even the Kurds who already enjoy de facto autonomy were said to "oppose" the “Biden plan”.
“We don’t support establishing federal regions on a sectarian basis. For example our region is not ethnic, it contains Kurds and non-Kurds. The regions should be established on a geographic basis,” said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.
Ezzet al-Shabender, a member of parliament from the secularist Iraqi List of former prime minister Ayad Allawi, credited the broad-based disgust triggered by Biden’s proposal for helping Iraqi politicians bury their differences.
“His project was the reason behind the unity of many political blocs that once differed in viewpoints,” he said, comparing it to the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 British note that backed the creation of Israel andis regarded across the Arab world as the ultimate colonial injustice.
Indeed one wonders, now that Obama has Biden as his chief-counselor, whether the original neocon plan to divide up Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, is to be continued under a Democratic face. It certainly seems that way to the Iraqis, most of whom viewed the Senate resolution with near-apoplectic outrage.
"The Iraqi government categorically rejects the resolution. Iraq is not a US property," said a spokesman for the Sunni-led National Dialogue Front. The Association of Muslim Scholars, which calls itself the political arm of the Iraqi armed resistance, stated, "The Senate's adoption of [the] resolution…is not shocking, because [partitioning the country] was one of the objectives behind the invasion of Iraq."
Indeed, from Richard Perle to David Wurmser, who recently resigned as Vice President Cheney's chief Middle East adviser, the neoconservatives who pushed for the war eagerly embraced the notion of redrawing the map of the region, and it didn't stop at Iraq's borders.
Map of an imaginary reconstituted Iraq, published by the Goals For Americans Foundation. Note the placement of Mosul, the biggest city of north-western Iraq, in the middle of the “Kurdish Republic”. Another version is available here, with Najaf located approximately in the marshlands north of Basra instead of in central Iraq
The wild-card in all this remains Iran which has gained the most from Bush's poorly planned invasion. There is little doubt that if such a partition were put into effect the Shia region would be Iran's closest ally and Iraq would cease to exist as an Arab state. Stranded without direct access to the country's oil one need not be a pessimist to see the Sunnis, sandwiched between Kurds and Shia, becoming like the Tamil Tigers , prompting more chaos. In fact a mere cursory reading of Sri Lankan history suggests that all the ingredients: regional, religious and ethnic division are there waiting to be exacerbated. This is the heavy price of "divide and conquer". Replace Iraq for "Sri Lanka" and Sunni and Shia for "Buddhist and Hindu" or "Sinhalese and Tamil" you have a tendentious state where the region's powerbrokers depend on constant turmoil.
"The Tigers need a ‘Sinhala Sri Lanka’ (as opposed to a pluralist Sri Lanka) to justify the creation of Tiger Eelam; the Southern extremists need Tigers and their quest for Tiger Eelam to justify ‘Sinhala/Buddhist Sri Lanka’. Co-existing side by side these two opposing but mutually dependent extremisms endeavour to expand themselves and wipe out the middle ground, thereby destroying the environment necessary for the survival of the democratic Tamils and the centrist Sinhalese."
Haytham Hashim: “[Any] Iraqi federal system should be demarcated in a spirit free from racism and sectarianism..."
Nuha Zaki: “I think the concept of regions is a bad idea, especially in the current situation ... we should do our utmost to combat sectarianism and make Iraq return to its past as a unified country and a unified people from north to south. The establishment of regions will lead to barriers that will have consequences for such areas as the economy and trade,”
Abu Usama: “Iraq, the Land of the Two Rivers, was from the days of the monarchy a centralised state from north to south, and when the republic was declared, the late leader Abd al-Karim Qasim held on to every square inch (dharra, literally, “atom” or “tiny particle”) of our dear fatherland of Iraq. But today we live under fire of the loathsome occupation which is aimed at splitting Iraq into races and sects… Not everything that is workable in the West may be in harmony with Arab and Muslim Iraq.”
But then, bringing hope and democracy to Iraq was never why we went there.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Golden Bulls and Selling Heaven
Back in the late 1920's H.L. Mencken had a field-day mocking booze-snitching preachers he called "red-nosed Prohibitionists". Now, as then, it seems our pious bible-thumpers are quick to damn every temptation save greed. To rid the land of the evils of gin our Christian commanders stomped righteously across the Beatitudes and set neighbor to spy upon neighbor. As the country sank into its Great Depression, America's salvation demanded that every bootlegger be locked in prison, his victims denied the comfort of drink even as they stomached the open thievery of their corrupted government.
Aroused by what might ensue from the taking of alcohol our moral fanatics were not restrained by charity nor the counsels of Timothy (5:23): "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake..." So consumed had our zealous Christians become with careless vices, that being fixed so long on their neighbors' sins has made them not only lose sight of the Mount of Olives but flirt with idolatry.
Evangelicals pray before a statue of a golden bull on Wall Street.
"We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the 'Lion's Market,' or God's control over the economic systems. While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble."
They defend this "innocent laying on of hands" but Matthew objects quite unambiguously: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matt; 6-24
But with another Elmer Gantry popping up daily spouting a "prosperity gospel" the notion of the meek inheriting the earth seems almost quaint. Why wait to be rewarded in heaven when God promises the blessed shall die rich? It should come as no surprise that when the faithful saw their portfolios shrinking they forgot the fourth and fifth commandments since clearly poverty, like imbibing French wine, was a greater damnation.
The original Bush Doctrine
When in response to the 9-11 tragedy George W. told the worried nation to "go shopping" he revealed the very essence of his faith. For Bush and his religious disciples, Christ died so that the chosen could reap 20% dividends. God's Word was the gospel of globalization with its promise of an ever-expanding bottom line-- that so long as we believed would remain everlasting.
This New Order, for which the sainted Ronnie was sent to prepare the Way, had been years in the making. As Business Week prophesied in 1974--the public would have to be won over to the new religion: "It will be a hard pill for many Americans to swallow - the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more ... Nothing that this nation, or any other nation, has done in modern economic history compares with the selling job that must be done to make people accept this reality."(October 12, 1974 p. 120)
And as with any lasting creed it must first be absorbed and then sold by good surrogates. To this end no paper has published more faithful converts than the devout NYTimes. Brought to the altar by Safire, Brooks and Friedman then finally Kristol, the nations all bowed down to the global free-market-- unburdened consumption was the savior of pensions and manna from heaven for all mankind.
Chris Suellentrop shows the metaphysical reach of Bush's doctrine in his LA Times review of David Brooks' "On Paradise Drive":
"Brooks sees consumption as so imbued with transcendent significance that he describes the transformation of spiritual desire into physical objects that occurs while shopping as a 'transubstantiation of goods.' With shopping, Brooks seems to be saying we commodify our assent to John Winthrop's Puritan dream."The crash of the free market temple has sent the flat-earth believers into a breathless panic. The faithful blindly scurry on rightwards, shrieking kill the Marxists!--reject the devil's potion of intoxicating socialism! Meanwhile, like the pulpit grifters who continue to grab from their followers' wallets, the discredited Bush-men have set about looting the treasury. No doubt faced with a lengthy banishment to the political wilderness our unrepentant free-marketeers are praying to go on living as they've long grown accustomed to-- at our trusting expense.
Aroused by what might ensue from the taking of alcohol our moral fanatics were not restrained by charity nor the counsels of Timothy (5:23): "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake..." So consumed had our zealous Christians become with careless vices, that being fixed so long on their neighbors' sins has made them not only lose sight of the Mount of Olives but flirt with idolatry.
Evangelicals pray before a statue of a golden bull on Wall Street.
"We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the 'Lion's Market,' or God's control over the economic systems. While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble."
They defend this "innocent laying on of hands" but Matthew objects quite unambiguously: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matt; 6-24
But with another Elmer Gantry popping up daily spouting a "prosperity gospel" the notion of the meek inheriting the earth seems almost quaint. Why wait to be rewarded in heaven when God promises the blessed shall die rich? It should come as no surprise that when the faithful saw their portfolios shrinking they forgot the fourth and fifth commandments since clearly poverty, like imbibing French wine, was a greater damnation.
The original Bush Doctrine
When in response to the 9-11 tragedy George W. told the worried nation to "go shopping" he revealed the very essence of his faith. For Bush and his religious disciples, Christ died so that the chosen could reap 20% dividends. God's Word was the gospel of globalization with its promise of an ever-expanding bottom line-- that so long as we believed would remain everlasting.
This New Order, for which the sainted Ronnie was sent to prepare the Way, had been years in the making. As Business Week prophesied in 1974--the public would have to be won over to the new religion: "It will be a hard pill for many Americans to swallow - the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more ... Nothing that this nation, or any other nation, has done in modern economic history compares with the selling job that must be done to make people accept this reality."(October 12, 1974 p. 120)
And as with any lasting creed it must first be absorbed and then sold by good surrogates. To this end no paper has published more faithful converts than the devout NYTimes. Brought to the altar by Safire, Brooks and Friedman then finally Kristol, the nations all bowed down to the global free-market-- unburdened consumption was the savior of pensions and manna from heaven for all mankind.
Chris Suellentrop shows the metaphysical reach of Bush's doctrine in his LA Times review of David Brooks' "On Paradise Drive":
"Brooks sees consumption as so imbued with transcendent significance that he describes the transformation of spiritual desire into physical objects that occurs while shopping as a 'transubstantiation of goods.' With shopping, Brooks seems to be saying we commodify our assent to John Winthrop's Puritan dream."The crash of the free market temple has sent the flat-earth believers into a breathless panic. The faithful blindly scurry on rightwards, shrieking kill the Marxists!--reject the devil's potion of intoxicating socialism! Meanwhile, like the pulpit grifters who continue to grab from their followers' wallets, the discredited Bush-men have set about looting the treasury. No doubt faced with a lengthy banishment to the political wilderness our unrepentant free-marketeers are praying to go on living as they've long grown accustomed to-- at our trusting expense.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The GOP's 1st Commandment: Blame The Victim
As I outlined in my previous post, "Mission Accomplished", the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department allowed Bush and his cronies to assume extra-constitutional powers in order to rape and steal with impunity. As James Galbraith explains in his most recent book, The Predator State, during the last decade, the neoconservatives in Washington and on Wall Street have conspired to steal elections and occupy the most powerful political and financial institutions in the land so that they might abuse that power. And while it is true that Cheney and Bush could not have achieved so much without the complicity of the courts and Congress, it cannot be overstated that a crucial role continues to be played by the corporate right-wing media.
In psychology the term "projection" is described as belonging to one who perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. It is a characteristic increasingly on display now that the neocons have had their greed and lies exposed.
Take the latest talking points being spouted on Fox News and by CNN commentators like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs. First they blamed the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods. Now that the public is onto their game the right-wing's strident mouthpieces have turned to braying that everything would have been rosy were it not for "those white liberals" and their "need to appease" those unworthy blacks and latinos.
Blaming the CRA has been peddled by Charles Krauthammer, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and the National Review. But as the global markets continue to tumble and the truthtellers finally get a hearing, it is clear that their dog won't hunt.
Take the recent conservative claim that it was the government's push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans that precipitated the current crisis. Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked it from early last March:
"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans. The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
In fact, Federal Reserve Board data show that:
It is crucial to note that it was Angela Merkel's promise to back her own German banks that put pressure on the rest of the Europeans who (at least for the moment) have successfully averted the neocons' $780 billion swindle. It is also encouraging to see Barack Obama finally finding the courage to lead the way: he now proposes that "government buy ownership in the major banks to keep them afloat while cutting capital gains taxes for investments in small business"
It's a start but as president Obama will have to ignore the right-wing noise machine and take more drastic action, such as the Nation's William Greider has previously proposed:
First, he should take due bills from any financial firms providing there is a hard contract that repays taxpayers from any future profits. Second, Wall Street must be prohibited from exercising their usual manipulations of the political system. They must call off their lobbyists, bar them from the bribery disguised as campaign contributions. Any contact or conversations between the assisted bankers and financial houses with government agencies or elected politicians must be promptly reported to the public, just as regulated industries are required to do when they call on government regulars.
To get out of this financial mess at the very minimum we need a Second New Deal. One that allows government to lend directly to established businesses, solvent banks, as well as the consumer markets. Only time will tell if Obama and/or the American public have the savvy and guts to demand it.
In psychology the term "projection" is described as belonging to one who perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. It is a characteristic increasingly on display now that the neocons have had their greed and lies exposed.
Take the latest talking points being spouted on Fox News and by CNN commentators like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs. First they blamed the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods. Now that the public is onto their game the right-wing's strident mouthpieces have turned to braying that everything would have been rosy were it not for "those white liberals" and their "need to appease" those unworthy blacks and latinos.
Blaming the CRA has been peddled by Charles Krauthammer, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and the National Review. But as the global markets continue to tumble and the truthtellers finally get a hearing, it is clear that their dog won't hunt.
Take the recent conservative claim that it was the government's push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans that precipitated the current crisis. Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked it from early last March:
"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans. The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
In fact, Federal Reserve Board data show that:
-More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
-Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
-Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
When their racist smear did not catch on the right-wing pundits shifted to claim it was those government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created the financial meltdown. In reality, Fannie and Freddie don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else. They purchase loans from private lenders who actually underwrite those loans. And it was Bush's deliberate expansion of these security transactions made possible by the Gramm/Bliley Act that repealed Glass/Steagall that led Wall Street to indulge in their decriminalized shenanigans.
As the McClatchy Papers explain: Fannie and Freddie didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
As the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote back in 2007 "only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, 'that this new lending is good business.'"It is crucial to note that it was Angela Merkel's promise to back her own German banks that put pressure on the rest of the Europeans who (at least for the moment) have successfully averted the neocons' $780 billion swindle. It is also encouraging to see Barack Obama finally finding the courage to lead the way: he now proposes that "government buy ownership in the major banks to keep them afloat while cutting capital gains taxes for investments in small business"
It's a start but as president Obama will have to ignore the right-wing noise machine and take more drastic action, such as the Nation's William Greider has previously proposed:
First, he should take due bills from any financial firms providing there is a hard contract that repays taxpayers from any future profits. Second, Wall Street must be prohibited from exercising their usual manipulations of the political system. They must call off their lobbyists, bar them from the bribery disguised as campaign contributions. Any contact or conversations between the assisted bankers and financial houses with government agencies or elected politicians must be promptly reported to the public, just as regulated industries are required to do when they call on government regulars.
To get out of this financial mess at the very minimum we need a Second New Deal. One that allows government to lend directly to established businesses, solvent banks, as well as the consumer markets. Only time will tell if Obama and/or the American public have the savvy and guts to demand it.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
"Mission Accomplished"
Buried in the avalanche of dire news on the financial meltdown is a scathing report from government investigators from both the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility who now confirm that political pressure led to the firing of United States Attorneys.
Just as the Bush Administration's refusal to oversee Wall Street has led the markets into chaos, it's politicization of the Justice Department has produced a cancer threatening the very heart of our wounded democracy. It is impossible to firmly assess the extent of the tumor without a proper biopsy, but we know that it grew from the intent to suppress Democratic voters in the 2004 elections. As the Boston Globe reported: the Bush appointee in the Civil Rights Division, Bradley Schlozman, clearly disregarded voting rights law in order to elect Republicans.
Joseph Rich, who was chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division under Schlozman, stated that: "Schlozman didn't know anything about voting law. . . . All he knew is he wanted to be sure that the Republicans were going to win."
When U.S. attorneys refused to bring bogus charges against Democratic candidates Karl Rove's political appointees in the Justice Department simply replaced them illegally. At the same time, the Guardian's investigative reporter, Greg Palast had begun to uncover that: "In the 2004 presidential election, Republican operatives blocked a quarter-million new voters nationwide from voting on grounds they brought the wrong IDs to the polls."
But the rot in the Bush Justice Department was not confined to corruption of our vote. Not only was it discovered on the eve of the elections that Halliburton had received no bid contracts from the Pentagon worth billions of dollars, the same company formerly run by Vice President Richard Cheney, had obtained a secret $7 billion deal for its subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), to restore Iraq’s oil fields from before Bush ordered the invasion.
It has since come to light that several of Halliburton's female employees had been sexually harassed and in at least one case, gang-raped by co-workers in Iraq. Yet despite dozens of similar charges having been lodged by women working for US defense contractors in the Middle East, the Justice Department has so far declined to pursue their cases. As a result, claims that US security contractors are abusing their employees continue to emerge. One lawyer in Houston, says that at last count his firm had fifteen clients who had suffered incidents of sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation.
But as destructive as the corrosion of our judicial system has been for victimized citizens, the unprecedented power that the Bush Administration has managed to obtain in order to insulate itself from criminal prosecution becomes even more alarming when one realizes that the power grab was facilitated by both the federal courts and the U.S. Congress.
Destroying the "Balance of Powers"
The Bush White House basically declared war on our laws supporting open government. In an article entitled: "Is Cheney 'Beyond the Reach of the Law'?" former Nixon White House counsel John Dean finds it extraordinary that the vice-president would attempt to claim that he is immune from Congressional oversight and that members of the Supreme Court would seek to validate such a radical "expanse of executive powers.”
For the last 8 years we have not been a country governed by Law but a land ruled by men who proved ruthless in pursuing their lust for wealth and power. It is not hard to appreciate the irony of our present predicament. In 2003, George Bush declared that he was invading Iraq to remove an "evil dictator" who defies the "rule of law" and in achieving that end Bush now presumes to possess the prerogatives of Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin.
[Legal scholar, Jonathan Turley on the signing of the Military Commissions Act had warned that, "Congress just gave the president despotic powers…I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking - overtaking - almost absolute power."]
Of course, just as we watch the craven cowards stampede us into a second Depression, Bush and Bin Laden succeeded by stoking our fears.
"Thanks to the overreaction by the Bush/Cheney administration along with the neocons and free market fundamentalists of the Republican Party, Bin Laden has succeeded in harming America far beyond his wildest dreams, much as the overreaction by the leaders of the Politburo to Reagan's arms build-up undermined an already faltering Soviet system"-- Miles Mogulescu.
No doubt, as they watch the financial markets crumble after an eight year binge of lawlessness, corruption and greed, those who supported Messrs Bush and Bin Laden are boasting "Mission Accomplished."
Just as the Bush Administration's refusal to oversee Wall Street has led the markets into chaos, it's politicization of the Justice Department has produced a cancer threatening the very heart of our wounded democracy. It is impossible to firmly assess the extent of the tumor without a proper biopsy, but we know that it grew from the intent to suppress Democratic voters in the 2004 elections. As the Boston Globe reported: the Bush appointee in the Civil Rights Division, Bradley Schlozman, clearly disregarded voting rights law in order to elect Republicans.
Joseph Rich, who was chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division under Schlozman, stated that: "Schlozman didn't know anything about voting law. . . . All he knew is he wanted to be sure that the Republicans were going to win."
When U.S. attorneys refused to bring bogus charges against Democratic candidates Karl Rove's political appointees in the Justice Department simply replaced them illegally. At the same time, the Guardian's investigative reporter, Greg Palast had begun to uncover that: "In the 2004 presidential election, Republican operatives blocked a quarter-million new voters nationwide from voting on grounds they brought the wrong IDs to the polls."
But the rot in the Bush Justice Department was not confined to corruption of our vote. Not only was it discovered on the eve of the elections that Halliburton had received no bid contracts from the Pentagon worth billions of dollars, the same company formerly run by Vice President Richard Cheney, had obtained a secret $7 billion deal for its subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), to restore Iraq’s oil fields from before Bush ordered the invasion.
It has since come to light that several of Halliburton's female employees had been sexually harassed and in at least one case, gang-raped by co-workers in Iraq. Yet despite dozens of similar charges having been lodged by women working for US defense contractors in the Middle East, the Justice Department has so far declined to pursue their cases. As a result, claims that US security contractors are abusing their employees continue to emerge. One lawyer in Houston, says that at last count his firm had fifteen clients who had suffered incidents of sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation.
But as destructive as the corrosion of our judicial system has been for victimized citizens, the unprecedented power that the Bush Administration has managed to obtain in order to insulate itself from criminal prosecution becomes even more alarming when one realizes that the power grab was facilitated by both the federal courts and the U.S. Congress.
Destroying the "Balance of Powers"
The Bush White House basically declared war on our laws supporting open government. In an article entitled: "Is Cheney 'Beyond the Reach of the Law'?" former Nixon White House counsel John Dean finds it extraordinary that the vice-president would attempt to claim that he is immune from Congressional oversight and that members of the Supreme Court would seek to validate such a radical "expanse of executive powers.”
For the last 8 years we have not been a country governed by Law but a land ruled by men who proved ruthless in pursuing their lust for wealth and power. It is not hard to appreciate the irony of our present predicament. In 2003, George Bush declared that he was invading Iraq to remove an "evil dictator" who defies the "rule of law" and in achieving that end Bush now presumes to possess the prerogatives of Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin.
[Legal scholar, Jonathan Turley on the signing of the Military Commissions Act had warned that, "Congress just gave the president despotic powers…I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking - overtaking - almost absolute power."]
Of course, just as we watch the craven cowards stampede us into a second Depression, Bush and Bin Laden succeeded by stoking our fears.
"Thanks to the overreaction by the Bush/Cheney administration along with the neocons and free market fundamentalists of the Republican Party, Bin Laden has succeeded in harming America far beyond his wildest dreams, much as the overreaction by the leaders of the Politburo to Reagan's arms build-up undermined an already faltering Soviet system"-- Miles Mogulescu.
No doubt, as they watch the financial markets crumble after an eight year binge of lawlessness, corruption and greed, those who supported Messrs Bush and Bin Laden are boasting "Mission Accomplished."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Too Much, Too Late (Updated)
Back in 2005, days before Christmas, I wrote this:
Bush's push to "privatize" social security is a
desperate attempt to revalue the stock market and give
a temporary boost to the dollar (while rewarding his
cronies). It is another short-sighted "fix" that could
not only destroy what is left of our middle class but
in the long run the market itself.
I'm convinced (as I mentioned previously) that Kerry rushed
to concede because the markets were tumbling
after our fraudulent presidential election.
Bottom line:- ever since Reagan destroyed the U.S.
manufacturing base to usher in "free markets" and
transform US into a military Brobdingnagian we have
become a nation of gangsters.
(update 2) What I should have said was that the entire international finance system was being managed by crooks and scoundrels.
"How SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse
Barry Ritholtz--Sep 18, 2008
Is Financial Innovation just another word for excessive and reckless leverage? Apparently so. As we learn this morning via Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge build up in financial sector leverage over the past 4 years -- as well as the massive current unwind Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms. You read that right -- the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1.
So almost three years later, here we are. After scamming the public by pretending to create value out of air through means of spurious instruments comprised of esoteric bundles and magic-market derivatives, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury (the man Goldman Sachs paid 18 and a 1/2 million dollars when he was nominated) proposes that we, the taxpayers, ameliorate the debt threatening to swallow the financial markets and cover for Bush's hand-picked cronies and thugs.
{Update addition} Go Kaptur!
Surprise, Surprise! (not!)
Paulson Debt Plan May Benefit Mostly Goldman, Morgan (Update2)
Now surely, if ever a system cried out for destruction, it is the Ponzi scheme that passes for financial wizardry on Wall Street. When the French chose to throw off their corrupted masters the workers made up the bulk of the Paris Guard and could stand in battle against the Bonapartist army. Unfortunately for us, whether by luck or sinister design, our National Guards are off fighting our imperial war in Iraq, and despite the separate loyalties of our quasi-autonomous states, I suspect that few, if any, would consider confronting the United States Army.
Given that reality, it seems that either our Democrats in Congress will discover the spines they misplaced in the early 80's or not only will we be saying "we are all socialists now" as Jonathan Alter of Newsweek quipped to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, but we will be begging to trade our dollars for yuan.
A year ago I regretted not having bought more euros, but now the rot has been spread through the entire system. So while some say Prussia, by annexing part of France in the 1870's, saved the French Commune and its valiant workers, our new Germans will not be offering much of a counter as they seem no less prone to a blind fling with Wall Street than our die-hard libertarians who see transparency as a plot against free enterprise.
Sadly, this is no longer 2005 and for the last eight years we have pretended a country can be run without competent management. Now the entire world is about to discover that wealth is neither produced by sheer might nor right out of thin air.
From Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel-Prize-winning Economist:
"America's financial system failed in its two crucial responsibilities: managing risk and allocating capital. The industry as a whole has not been doing what it should be doing - for instance creating products that help Americans manage critical risks, such as staying in their homes when interest rates rise or house prices fall - and it must now face change in its regulatory structures. Regrettably, many of the worst elements of the US financial system - toxic mortgages and the practices that led to them - were exported to the rest of the world."
Yet here comes Treasure Secretary, Paulson, after saying just last week that "no further bail-outs were warranted" seeking to extort 700 billion dollars from the government's coffers to be applied at his sole discretion:
His proposal's crowning paragraph reads like a bad joke:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
We'll have to wait and see if Congress falls for it.
Bush's push to "privatize" social security is a
desperate attempt to revalue the stock market and give
a temporary boost to the dollar (while rewarding his
cronies). It is another short-sighted "fix" that could
not only destroy what is left of our middle class but
in the long run the market itself.
I'm convinced (as I mentioned previously) that Kerry rushed
to concede because the markets were tumbling
after our fraudulent presidential election.
Bottom line:- ever since Reagan destroyed the U.S.
manufacturing base to usher in "free markets" and
transform US into a military Brobdingnagian we have
become a nation of gangsters.
(update 2) What I should have said was that the entire international finance system was being managed by crooks and scoundrels.
"How SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse
Barry Ritholtz--Sep 18, 2008
Is Financial Innovation just another word for excessive and reckless leverage? Apparently so. As we learn this morning via Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge build up in financial sector leverage over the past 4 years -- as well as the massive current unwind Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms. You read that right -- the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1.
So almost three years later, here we are. After scamming the public by pretending to create value out of air through means of spurious instruments comprised of esoteric bundles and magic-market derivatives, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury (the man Goldman Sachs paid 18 and a 1/2 million dollars when he was nominated) proposes that we, the taxpayers, ameliorate the debt threatening to swallow the financial markets and cover for Bush's hand-picked cronies and thugs.
{Update addition} Go Kaptur!
Surprise, Surprise! (not!)
Paulson Debt Plan May Benefit Mostly Goldman, Morgan (Update2)
By Jody Shenn
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp.
``Its benefits, in its current form, will be largely limited to investment banks and other banks that have aggressively written down the value of their holdings and have already recognized the attendant capital impairment,'' Jeffrey Rosenberg, Bank of America's head of credit strategy research, wrote in a report dated yesterday, without identifying particular banks.
Now surely, if ever a system cried out for destruction, it is the Ponzi scheme that passes for financial wizardry on Wall Street. When the French chose to throw off their corrupted masters the workers made up the bulk of the Paris Guard and could stand in battle against the Bonapartist army. Unfortunately for us, whether by luck or sinister design, our National Guards are off fighting our imperial war in Iraq, and despite the separate loyalties of our quasi-autonomous states, I suspect that few, if any, would consider confronting the United States Army.
Given that reality, it seems that either our Democrats in Congress will discover the spines they misplaced in the early 80's or not only will we be saying "we are all socialists now" as Jonathan Alter of Newsweek quipped to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, but we will be begging to trade our dollars for yuan.
A year ago I regretted not having bought more euros, but now the rot has been spread through the entire system. So while some say Prussia, by annexing part of France in the 1870's, saved the French Commune and its valiant workers, our new Germans will not be offering much of a counter as they seem no less prone to a blind fling with Wall Street than our die-hard libertarians who see transparency as a plot against free enterprise.
Sadly, this is no longer 2005 and for the last eight years we have pretended a country can be run without competent management. Now the entire world is about to discover that wealth is neither produced by sheer might nor right out of thin air.
From Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel-Prize-winning Economist:
"America's financial system failed in its two crucial responsibilities: managing risk and allocating capital. The industry as a whole has not been doing what it should be doing - for instance creating products that help Americans manage critical risks, such as staying in their homes when interest rates rise or house prices fall - and it must now face change in its regulatory structures. Regrettably, many of the worst elements of the US financial system - toxic mortgages and the practices that led to them - were exported to the rest of the world."
Yet here comes Treasure Secretary, Paulson, after saying just last week that "no further bail-outs were warranted" seeking to extort 700 billion dollars from the government's coffers to be applied at his sole discretion:
His proposal's crowning paragraph reads like a bad joke:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
We'll have to wait and see if Congress falls for it.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Proud To Be An American
Barack Obama may be struggling to beat John McCain in our quadrennial presidential sweepstakes but the rest of the world is cheering for him to capture the White House. According to a BBC poll, people in all 22 of the countries surveyed prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of John McCain by a 4-1 margin.
In 17 of the 22 nations, people expect relations between the US and the rest of the world to improve if Senator Obama wins.
So what does this say about the overall image of the United States? I would argue that it shows that after 7 and a half years of George W. Bush the world sees America as more insular and indifferent towards the rest of humanity than ever before.
History suggests this antipathy for the "ugly American" has been well earned.
"[I] know of no human right that is one-tenth as valuable as the simple right to utter what seems to be the truth"
--H.L. Mencken
People across the world understand that the United States is the Unrivaled Empire with the military might to exert its will and pursue its interests wherever it pleases. And yet they seem convinced that this hegemonic power can be employed benevolently -- or at the very least, less dangerously at a time when human beings as a whole are facing existential challenges. Climate Change, resource depletion, pollution, HIV-Aids, just to name the most pressing, should be of utmost priority yet here we are, roughly 50 days from electing the most powerful leader on earth and these issues are mostly absent from our political discussions.
Rather than being pressed to articulate, exactly how, he as president will go about tackling these problems Barack Obama is being constantly forced to explain:
a)--who he never was and b)--things he never said.
A report by Dan Hoyle on voters in small-town America bears the first point out:
"Obama, he's not our kind of people," said Middleton in a gruff, bitten-off speaking style, taking a break from canning green beans at the couple's double-wide mobile home. As a retired coal miner and a die-hard union man he should be a Democratic candidates natural supporter. He won't vote for Obama: "He don't believe in the hereafter, and the Lord, the way I look at it ... he's Muslim."
Such views are common in what the corporate media tenderly refer to as America's heartland. Polls taken in Canada and Australia show that citizens in those countries know Senator Obama to be a devout Christian (he spent his early twenties working on behalf of Catholic Charities), so when similar polls in rural USA indicate that over 19% agree with Mr. Middleton is it ignorance or simple excuse-making cussedness?
I'd say probably a little of both.
"[Our]ecclesiastics are responsible for all the turmoils and black hatreds that now rage in the bleak regions... they are to blame for every witches' pot that now brews in the backwoods of the Union."
Mencken penned those words for the American Mercury in 1924. His fear was that the Ku Klan Klan's infiltration of the Baptists and Methodists had inspired their ministers to oppose "every attempt to meet ignorance and prejudice with enlightenment." He charged religious zealots with preaching "not only the most bitter, savage morality of the Old Testament," but its "contempt of obvious facts."
And there you have it. In Mr. Middleton's America facts are malleable not concrete. Knowledge must first be filtered through prejudice. As for taking on the great ills of the day: Belief not Action confers Redemption. It is a way of viewing life, as well as others, that is necessarily both self-referential and self-reverent.
The ugly truth for Obama may simply be this. He might impress those foreign non-believers who offend God with their atheistic modern notions, he will never be what good Christians folks in our faithful hinterland think of as devoutly and proudly American.
I think Gary Ball, a former coal miner and editor of the firebrand Mountain Citizen newspaper in Inez, Kentucky said it best: "We know Obama's plenty book-smart ... but I liked Harry Truman, the last president to have a simple high school education."
I don't believe John McCain needs to worry about not understanding much about the "internets". He may have a millionaire wife and more homes than he can count, but he likes us Americans just the way we are. Just the way we've always been.
In 17 of the 22 nations, people expect relations between the US and the rest of the world to improve if Senator Obama wins.
So what does this say about the overall image of the United States? I would argue that it shows that after 7 and a half years of George W. Bush the world sees America as more insular and indifferent towards the rest of humanity than ever before.
History suggests this antipathy for the "ugly American" has been well earned.
"[I] know of no human right that is one-tenth as valuable as the simple right to utter what seems to be the truth"
--H.L. Mencken
People across the world understand that the United States is the Unrivaled Empire with the military might to exert its will and pursue its interests wherever it pleases. And yet they seem convinced that this hegemonic power can be employed benevolently -- or at the very least, less dangerously at a time when human beings as a whole are facing existential challenges. Climate Change, resource depletion, pollution, HIV-Aids, just to name the most pressing, should be of utmost priority yet here we are, roughly 50 days from electing the most powerful leader on earth and these issues are mostly absent from our political discussions.
Rather than being pressed to articulate, exactly how, he as president will go about tackling these problems Barack Obama is being constantly forced to explain:
a)--who he never was and b)--things he never said.
A report by Dan Hoyle on voters in small-town America bears the first point out:
"Obama, he's not our kind of people," said Middleton in a gruff, bitten-off speaking style, taking a break from canning green beans at the couple's double-wide mobile home. As a retired coal miner and a die-hard union man he should be a Democratic candidates natural supporter. He won't vote for Obama: "He don't believe in the hereafter, and the Lord, the way I look at it ... he's Muslim."
Such views are common in what the corporate media tenderly refer to as America's heartland. Polls taken in Canada and Australia show that citizens in those countries know Senator Obama to be a devout Christian (he spent his early twenties working on behalf of Catholic Charities), so when similar polls in rural USA indicate that over 19% agree with Mr. Middleton is it ignorance or simple excuse-making cussedness?
I'd say probably a little of both.
"[Our]ecclesiastics are responsible for all the turmoils and black hatreds that now rage in the bleak regions... they are to blame for every witches' pot that now brews in the backwoods of the Union."
Mencken penned those words for the American Mercury in 1924. His fear was that the Ku Klan Klan's infiltration of the Baptists and Methodists had inspired their ministers to oppose "every attempt to meet ignorance and prejudice with enlightenment." He charged religious zealots with preaching "not only the most bitter, savage morality of the Old Testament," but its "contempt of obvious facts."
And there you have it. In Mr. Middleton's America facts are malleable not concrete. Knowledge must first be filtered through prejudice. As for taking on the great ills of the day: Belief not Action confers Redemption. It is a way of viewing life, as well as others, that is necessarily both self-referential and self-reverent.
The ugly truth for Obama may simply be this. He might impress those foreign non-believers who offend God with their atheistic modern notions, he will never be what good Christians folks in our faithful hinterland think of as devoutly and proudly American.
I think Gary Ball, a former coal miner and editor of the firebrand Mountain Citizen newspaper in Inez, Kentucky said it best: "We know Obama's plenty book-smart ... but I liked Harry Truman, the last president to have a simple high school education."
I don't believe John McCain needs to worry about not understanding much about the "internets". He may have a millionaire wife and more homes than he can count, but he likes us Americans just the way we are. Just the way we've always been.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Death By Laziness, Corruption and Greed
In an era when investigative journalism has to be expensively packaged, hyped and sold it is unsurprising that most Americans seem largely disengaged from the great challenges of the day.
It's hard to blame them.
At a time when we are increasing despoiling our land, air and water the corporate-run media have been steadily reducing the amount of time they spend discussing the environment. Worse, half of that is crap and hot air. Somehow the lack of interest in the planet's destruction (compared to coverage of Lindsey Lohan or the O.J. trial it could be called near indifference) seems fitting seeing that the modern reporter's idea of using a little "shoe-leather" is checking the internet for the latest on "Drudge".
One would think even our laziest reporters would want to expose the extent to which we are poisoning the land and what even they will have to eat. But since 2001 the Bush Administration has been able to pretend it is running a government when in fact big business is now running the country and free to bombard us with ecological "shock and awe".
Safeguards are ignored, the EPA neutered while rivers are polluted and wetlands are destroyed. Livestock left to sicken and make sick. Even when an industry pleads for regulation the Bushites can't be budged.
The president of the United Fresh Produce Association pleaded that the industry’s problems “can’t be solved without strong mandatory federal regulations”: without such regulations, scrupulous growers and processors risk being undercut by competitors more willing to cut corners on food safety. Yet the administration refuses to do more than issue nonbinding guidelines because it fears that might lead to the regulation of other industries.
It's not hard to figure once you realize that George Bush supporters are the worst offenders
Sixteen years ago that marvelous 14-year-old put us to shame. Although our grown-up Severn Cullis-Suzuki has been shoved offstage so we can obsess about Paris and Britney, she is still fighting the good fight. Watching our vapid media circus there must be times Ms. Cullis-Suzuki shakes her head and wonders if it is all a waste of breath.
It's hard to blame them.
At a time when we are increasing despoiling our land, air and water the corporate-run media have been steadily reducing the amount of time they spend discussing the environment. Worse, half of that is crap and hot air. Somehow the lack of interest in the planet's destruction (compared to coverage of Lindsey Lohan or the O.J. trial it could be called near indifference) seems fitting seeing that the modern reporter's idea of using a little "shoe-leather" is checking the internet for the latest on "Drudge".
One would think even our laziest reporters would want to expose the extent to which we are poisoning the land and what even they will have to eat. But since 2001 the Bush Administration has been able to pretend it is running a government when in fact big business is now running the country and free to bombard us with ecological "shock and awe".
Safeguards are ignored, the EPA neutered while rivers are polluted and wetlands are destroyed. Livestock left to sicken and make sick. Even when an industry pleads for regulation the Bushites can't be budged.
The president of the United Fresh Produce Association pleaded that the industry’s problems “can’t be solved without strong mandatory federal regulations”: without such regulations, scrupulous growers and processors risk being undercut by competitors more willing to cut corners on food safety. Yet the administration refuses to do more than issue nonbinding guidelines because it fears that might lead to the regulation of other industries.
It's not hard to figure once you realize that George Bush supporters are the worst offenders
- Top polluters identified.The study ranks the top 50 power plants for each of three pollutant categories – mercury, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide.According to the report, the three worst polluters in terms of SO2 are: Bowen (Georgia); W.H. Sammis (Ohio); and Keystone (Pennsylvania).The three worst polluters in terms of CO2 are:Martin Lake (Texas); Scherer (Georgia); and Bowen (Georgia). The three worst polluters for mercury are:Keystone (Pennsyvlania); Mount Storm (West Virginia); and Monticello (Texas). Of this group, only one – Mount Storm, operated by Dominion Electric – has agreed to a comprehensive clean up of its pollution, particularly sulfur dioxide.
- Key campaign contributors identified.The study looked at the 89 plants that comprise the three top 50 lists and found that the majority of the plants were owned by 30 corporations. Those utility companies and their trade association engaged in an intense fundraising campaign that netted $6.6 million for Bush and the RNC since 1999. They also produced 10 Bush Rangers and Pioneers who have between them raised at least $1.5 million.
- Key pollution indicators are up. The EPA’s recently released 2003 emissions data show that power plant SO2 emissions increased by more than 400,000 tons between 2002 and 2003, rising from 10.19 million tons to 10.59 million tons, or 3.9 percent.Carbon dioxide emissions increased by roughly 47 million tons during the same period, from 2.425 billion tons in 2002, to 2.472 billion tons in 2003, a 2 percent increase.Nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants declined 5.6 percent, dropping from 4.36 million to 4.12 million tons.
- Over half of major polluters have been in hot water.Of the 89 plants that made it onto one or more of the dirtiest plant lists, 47 – well over half – either have been sued or placed under investigation by the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review requirement.Of the top 50 SO2 emitters, 18 plants have been brought to court and another 11 were placed under investigation by the government.In August 2003, the EPA relaxed the rules for New Source Review – exempting many facilities from the law’s permit and pollution control requirements – only to have a court stay the rules. Nonetheless, the result of the administration’s policy, coupled with the program’s current legal limbo, is that many of these companies have either had the cases against them undermined or simply dropped by the Bush administration.
- Major harm inflicted by pollution. In addition to causing major environmental and property damage from acid rain, sulfur dioxide inflicts a serious health toll in terms of asthma attacks and lung ailments.According to EPA studies, pollution from power plants is linked to heart and lung diseases, which contribute to more than 20,000 premature deaths a year.Mercury is a highly toxic metal that, once released into the atmosphere, settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans.In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that roughly 10 percent of American women carry mercury concentrations at levels considered to put a fetus at risk to neurological damage.
- Major lobbying clout for polluters. Once President Bush was in office, many of the utilities that had helped to elect him hired lobbying and law firms with Rangers and Pioneers to lobby the government or defend them against the EPA’s pollution lawsuits. The 30 big companies on the three dirtiest plants lists hired at least 16 firms that between them have 23 different Rangers and Pioneers who raised at least $3.4 million for Bush’s campaigns. Their firms, together with the trade association for most coal-fired electric utility corporations (whose president is himself a Pioneer for 2000 and 2004), met with Cheney’s national energy task force at least 17 times to help formulate the country’s energy and pollution policies.The recommendations of that task force led directly to EPA’s reassessment and rewriting of the Clean Air Act rule that the utilities had been accused of violating.
Sixteen years ago that marvelous 14-year-old put us to shame. Although our grown-up Severn Cullis-Suzuki has been shoved offstage so we can obsess about Paris and Britney, she is still fighting the good fight. Watching our vapid media circus there must be times Ms. Cullis-Suzuki shakes her head and wonders if it is all a waste of breath.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Anthrax Mystery (updated 8/5/08)
"On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved."
The story literally disappears until Newsweek mentions it in passing in a profile of Cheney from 2006. The article claims that "knowledgeable former officials" had recently revealed that a "mysterious letter" had turned up at the vice president's mansion three weeks after 9/11. Except, as Judicial Watch notes in its suit against the White House it had been widely reported that Cheney and his staff had received their doses immediately after the attacks.
The story literally disappears until Newsweek mentions it in passing in a profile of Cheney from 2006. The article claims that "knowledgeable former officials" had recently revealed that a "mysterious letter" had turned up at the vice president's mansion three weeks after 9/11. Except, as Judicial Watch notes in its suit against the White House it had been widely reported that Cheney and his staff had received their doses immediately after the attacks.
Now with a new administration looming we learn that "one of the nation's top biodefense researchers has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was to file criminal charges against him in the anthrax mailing"
"Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the past 18 years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., had been informed of the impending prosecution, people familiar with Ivins, his suspicious death and with the FBI investigation said.
Ivins died Tuesday at Frederick Memorial Hospital after having ingested a massive dose of prescription Tylenol mixed with codeine, said a friend and colleague who declined to be identified out of concern, he said, that he would be harassed by the FBI."
The death -- without any mention of suicide -- was announced to Ivins' colleagues at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, through a staffwide e-mail.
Suddenly a string of baffling murders that seemed impossible to solve is put to rest with barely a question.
This is how the AP reports the response of the victims:
"Closure for families of anthrax attack victims"
But is that assertion even close to the truth? Let's see what a few local papers are reporting about the victims' reactions: "There is no closure " Burrus said. "It's still an open issue. If the government decides to go forward with a complete review of the evidence and a final decision as to who was responsible, we'll weigh that as it's presented."
Survivor Patrick O'Donnell: "It seems like it just never ends," he said. "This is the last thing I wanted to hear. I do not want to say anything bad. This [Ivins] family is going through enough."
For reasons that appear more and more disturbing ever since November of 2000, the Associated Press, like the Washington Post and the NYTimes, feels free to concoct a story that is fundamentally backwards.
How does Ivins committing suicide square with the rest of his story.
Anthrax slip-ups raise fears about planned biolabs
"Bruce Ivins was troubled by the dust, dirt and clutter on his officemate's desk, and not just because it looked messy. He suspected the dust was laced with anthrax.
In 2001, a scientist opens a letter addressed to Sen. Patrick Leahy that contained anthrax.
And he was in a position to know. Ivins, a biodefense expert, and his officemate were deeply involved in Operation Noble Eagle — the government's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans and the anthrax attacks that killed five more less than a month later.
It was December 2001. Ivins, an authority on anthrax, was one of the handful of researchers at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Md., who prepared spores of the deadly bacteria to test anthrax vaccines in animals. He knew enough to grow alarmed when his officemate complained, as she had frequently of late, about sloppy handling of samples coming into the lab that could be tainted with anthrax.
"I swabbed approximately 20 areas of (her) desk, including the telephone computer and desktop," Ivins later reported to Army investigators. Half of the samples, he found, "were suspicious for anthrax," betraying the clumpy brown appearance of anthrax colonies under a microscope."
"If he in fact was the correct person, he was actually put in charge of analyzing the evidence of his own crime," said ABC News consultant Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent who worked on the anthrax case until his retirement from the bureau last year.
"All of the scientists there who worked with us were supposed to have been investigated and given polygraph tests," Garrett said....
Friends there say he [Ivins]was well known to be susceptible to deep depression and was concerned he would be falsely linked to the anthrax attacks.
"They took an innocent man, a distinguished scientist, and smeared his reputation, dishonored him, questioned his children and drove him to take his life," said one outraged colleague, who asked that his named not be used for fear "the FBI will come after me."
Why the Cover-Up?
If the FBI was truly interested in a criminal investigation it would have had to ask the primary question -- cui bono?
September 1998-- A small government lab in Michigan developing an anthrax vaccine is bought for $24.8 million by a secretive group calling themselves BioPort. These investors include George Bush Sr, James Baker III, and Frank Carlucci under the name of the Carlyle Group. It also includes Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., former chair of the joint chiefs of staff under Reagan who also served as US ambassador to Britain under President Clinton. According to Maj. Glenn MacDonald USAR, Crowe abetted the sale of anthrax to Saddam Hussein in the hopes Iraq would use the deadly disease against Iran.
A major stockholder is Fuad El-Hibri, a man known to be close with the wealthy bin Ladens. El-Hibri became BioPort's CEO. El-Hibri ran a vaccine manufacturing company called Porton Products International of Porton Down in the 1990's, located in the UK. One of the anthrax strains originating from Ft. Detrick and related to the isolates used in the anthrax attacks is called the Porton strain for the Porton lab. Timothy Read, provides evidence that a potential route for the anthrax that ended up in the 2001 attacks was via Porton Down.
Later that Sept-- BioPort wins a contract from the Dept. of Defense worth $45 million to produce an anthrax vaccine. The DOD agrees to pay three times the cost of the original contract, upping payment for vaccine from $3.50 a dose to $10 a dose.
November of '98-- Crowe and Bush, Sr. travel to Saudi Arabia where they meet with members of the bin Laden family.
Between 1997 and Oct of 2001-- BioPort repeatedly fails to pass FDA inspections. These inspections were termed by experts to be "an unmitigated disaster," expose contamination, sloppy record-keeping and careless procedures.
March 1999-- testimony presented to Congress reveals the company's sordid history, an Army cover-up of negative responses elicits questions about the anthrax vaccine. Over 50 adverse symptoms are substantially linked to the subjects of the vaccine regimen. The report also reveals that the ONLY veterans of the first Gulf War not displaying symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome were the French -the LONE population among Gulf War soldiers who did not receive the vaccine.
Gulf War vets appeal to Congress
February 17, 2000-- Congressional report recommends terminating anthrax vaccine program due to BioPort's mismanagement and injury reports.
July, 2000-- Congressional hearings are held on BioPort which reveal that the company has engaged in Enron-style accounting, manipulating earnings projections and drawing secret funds directly from the Pentagon violating official recommendations.
November, 2000-- The Hartford Courant reports that BioPort has failed to track deadly reactions in people receiving its anthrax vaccine, including deaths. Approximately 1,200 servicemen and women have had severe reactions, with some deaths traceable to the vaccine. US Rep. Chris Shays of Ct. accuses BioPort of indifference
July 2001-- FDA gives BioPort the go-ahead to use quarantined lots of anthrax vaccine on the public in the event of an attack -giving the company carte blanche to dump questionable, perhaps dangerous vaccines onto the public.
August 2001-- News leaks that the White House has started passing out Cipro to staff. Recipients include both George Bush and Dick Cheney.
September 2001-- the Associated Press suggests that Battelle Memorial Institute in West Jefferson, Ohio is engaged in a secret project in which "a new and highly lethal strain of anthrax" was being developed at its labs. Meanwhile Battelle hires anthrax expert, William C. Patrick III, to test the possibility of mailing powdered anthrax through the post. Battelle is said to have a "working relationship" with BioPort.
September 20, 2001-- The first anthrax attack kills photographer Robert Stevens in Florida.
October 2001-- BioPort fails another FDA inspection.
October 2001-- Bush sends the national guard to "protect" BioPort 24/7. No such protection is provided for nuclear power plants or other facilities engaged in biological warfare research.
October 2001-- Donald Rumsfeld presses to get BioPort approved despite FDA objections
November 2001-- Manuals from BioPort are discovered in an Al Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan -the report promptly disappears from the mainstream news within hours.
January 2002-- Bush administration gives BioPort go-ahead to begin shipping anthrax vaccine.
1) why was Ivins, presumably a prime suspect, put in charge of the anthrax investigation?
2) Why did ABC consistently report the White House's false claim that the anthrax strain had conclusively come from Saddam Hussein?
3) Why of all his targets would Ivins' first victim be the very Florida photographer who just happened to have snapped embarrassing pictures of Bush's daughters?
4) And how did a homicidal psychopath under psychiatric treatment manage to retain his top security clearance in a bio-weapons lab?
5) And just how does a first-year social worker with an associate's degree learn the details of a terrorism case before it even makes it to a grand jury-- and why is she in hiding?
Interestingly, it would not be first time an insider ended up committing "suicide" after running foul of Rumsfeld and Cheney. The circumstances surrounding Olsen's death are eerily similar.
Four days later, his mood had improved and he was eager to come home the following day. But six hours later he plunged to his death from a window on the thirteenth floor of the Hotel Statler (now the Hotel Pennsylvania), across Seventh Avenue from Pennsylvania Station.
In 1975, as this information was exposed, the government paid $750,000 restitution to Army biochemist Dr. Frank Olson's family, after admitting the CIA slipped Dr. Olson LSD days before his 1953 fall from a New York City building. When the Ford administration finally came clean, they promised they'd revealed everything. Yet key officials, including White House aides Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, pushed to continue to conceal information. "The family has learned that the Ford administration was keeping information from the family," the Baltimore Sun reported in 2002. "Among those who advocated keeping quiet were Dick Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the vice president and defense secretary, the Olsons learned from memos and other papers received last year from the Gerald R. Ford Library."
Perhaps one day when we've finally exposed a few of the disinformation specialists infecting our news media we will learn the truth.*
*Latest: Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)