FBI plotted attack on Fort Dix

By Gary Wilson

Published May 18, 2007

He declared that he wanted to kill “Americans.” He came up with a plan to attack Fort Dix, and found an arms dealer willing to sell the necessary munitions.

One attorney said, “Everyone in the community knew him, and he was bad news.” (International Herald Tribune, May 11)

He pressured six others in their informal group to go along with his plot. He was pressing so forcefully that one of the six, Serdar Tetar, “called a Philadelphia police officer in November, saying he had been approached by someone who was pressuring him to obtain a map of Fort Dix and that he feared it was terrorist-related, according to court documents.” (AP, May 11)

And who is this plotter? His name is secret, but he works for the FBI. The six others, who were all arrested and have already been convicted by the big business-controlled news media, were victims of entrapment by the federal police. At least, that’s the only inference to be gleaned from the reports of what has been said in court so far.

The legal definition of entrapment is when law enforcement officials entice others to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed.

All the other fluff thrown up around this case in the media reports—about who the six defendants may or may not be—are like smoke in the eyes. The only one to plot an attack on Fort Dix and arrange to buy weapons for it, according to published reports, is the FBI guy.

It is almost six years since the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. This attack has been used as an excuse for a long-planned war on Iraq and also for the invasion of Afghanistan. It has also been used to curtail civil rights here and build up internal police forces.

There is growing anger and opposition over not just the wars abroad but the repression at home. Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant raids against workers at Smithfield and other workplaces across the country helped spark the May Day demonstrations that drew out millions last year and this.

Local politicians have been forced to protest the vicious Homeland Security raids for fear that the local population will dethrone them. Even one or two local police forces have complained. The governor and state legislature in Montana have gone on record that they will not go along with the requirement for a national identity card—really a national passport on a piece of plastic.

While the Bush regime appears to have record-low popularity, it has not surrendered. The Democrats too have given no serious opposition to the curtailment of civil liberties and have in fact encouraged the expansion of the federal police forces. But the rumbles of working class opposition to the crackdown on civil liberties can be heard in Washington.

What better time than now for a new “terrorist plot” to emerge—now, when Congress wants to vote for more money for Homeland Security, which is second only to the Pentagon in federal funding. Maybe Bush and the Democrats both hope this new plot scare will save them and their expanding police force.

---

Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/fbi-0524/

Weekly Radio Address

Herein, George Dubya Bush pays tribute to Christ's fallen soldier of divisiveness, Jerry "Asshole" Falwell.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/61840

Check it, yo.

Workers of the World Unite Against Starbucks

By Liza Featherstone, The Nation
Posted on May 21, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/52146/

Last week Starbucks faced legal and political trouble from its own workers. On the third anniversary of the founding of the IWW Starbucks Union, baristas in Chicago marched into a shop and told the manager they were signing up. (Starbucks workers have chosen to organize without government-mediated elections, through an interesting model called "solidarity unionism.")

Meanwhile, baristas in Grand Rapids, Michigan announced that they were filing a legal complaint against the company for violating their organizing rights through unlawful surveillance and other questionable tactics. All over the world -- Austria, England, Spain and Australia, as well as the United States -- Starbucks workers demonstrated in front of stores to protest the company's union-busting practices.

When you pay $4 for a cup of coffee-flavored foamy milk at Starbucks, part of what you're buying is an illusion of corporate social responsibility. The store exudes a warm glow of righteousness, from the recycled paper napkins to the empathetic messages about sustainable trade and ecological practices (Our farmers are happy! Buy a better lightbulb! Have some more foamy milk!).

The workers behind the counter are hoping the public will look beyond all the greenwashing and support their campaign, which has succeeded in raising wages and improving conditions for some workers.

The baristas are asking for better wages (some make as little as $8.75 an hour even in costly Manhattan), guaranteed hours with the option to work full-time and more affordable health insurance. (Despite widely-believed corporate spin to the contrary, Starbucks insures a smaller percentage of its workforce than Wal-Mart.)

In New York, the National Labor Relations Board (that bastion of radical left-wingers) has accused Starbucks of violating workers' freedom of association in about thirty different ways, including illegally firing, threatening and disciplining workers for supporting the union. Managers forbade workers from talking about the union -- even when off-duty -- or wearing union buttons. The trial is in June. I'll be attending, and covering it, so stay tuned.

Liza Featherstone is a New York City-based journalist. She is the author, most recently, of "Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights At Wal-Mart" (Basic).
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/52146/

Gotta watch those faith-based conservatives, doncha?

WAYNE MADSEN REPORT - Part of the focus on the johns in the DC Madam case, an overwhelming majority of whom are Republican political appointees and office holders, is on particular office and residential areas of McLean and Alexandria, Virginia, in addition to K, H, and Eye Street lobbying and law offices in downtown Washington, DC. The net may also ensnare two 2008 GOP presidential candidates, one declared and the other, as yet, undeclared. WMR has also learned that some of the clients arranged their own direct communications with Pamela Martin & Associates employees. Some requests by clients fell into the category of aberrant sex, including bizarre requests for urination, defecation, sado-masochism, and acts of sodomy by certain clients, some of whom have significant political profiles in Washington. These requests did not technically run afoul of prostitution laws which are based on vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by the client.

Wayne Madsen Report

Eternal sunshine

It's sold as happiness in a blister pack - a cure-all that has changed the way we think about wellbeing. As Prozac reaches its 20th birthday, Anna Moore presents 20 things you need to know about the most widely used antidepressant in the world

Sunday May 13, 2007

Observer Article

1: Depression has deepened

In 1971, when LY110141 - the compound that became Prozac - was developed, depression was rarely discussed and antidepressants largely restricted to the psychiatric unit. People went to their GPs with 'anxiety' and 'nerves'. Tranquillisers such as Valium were a likely response.

Eli Lilly, the company behind Prozac, originally saw an entirely different future for its new drug. It was first tested as a treatment for high blood pressure, which worked in some animals but not in humans. Plan B was as an anti-obesity agent, but this didn't hold up either. When tested on psychotic patients and those hospitalised with depression, LY110141 - by now named Fluoxetine - had no obvious benefit, with a number of patients getting worse. Finally, Eli Lilly tested it on mild depressives. Five recruits tried it; all five cheered up. By 1999, it was providing Eli Lilly with more than 25 per cent of its $10bn revenue.

Fluoxetine was handed to Interbrand, the world's leading branding company (Sony, Microsoft, Nikon, Nintendo) for an identity. The name Prozac was picked for its zap: it sounded positive, professional, quick, proey, zaccy. It was marketed in an easy-to-prescribe 'one pill, one dose for all' formula and came when the medical profession and media were awash with horror stories about Valium addiction.

Prozac hit a society that was in the mood for it. National campaigns (supported by Eli Lilly) alerted GPs and the public to the dangers of depression. Eli Lilly funded 8m brochures (Depression: What you need to know) and 200,000 posters. Previous antidepressants were highly toxic, lethal if overdosed on and had other nasty side-effects. Prozac was pushed as entirely safe, to be doled out by anyone. It was the wonder drug, the easy answer, an instant up, neurological eldorado. When launch day dawned, patients were already asking for it by name.

Twenty years on, Prozac remains the most widely used antidepressant in history, prescribed to 54m people worldwide, and many feel they owe their lives to it. It is prescribed for depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, eating disorders and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (formerly known as PMT). In the UK, between 1991 and 2001, antidepressant prescriptions rose from 9m to 24m a year.

Strangely, depression has reached epidemic levels. Money and success is no defence: writers, royalty, rock stars, supermodels, actors, middle managers have all had it. Studies suggest that in America, depression more than doubled between 1991 and 2001. In the UK, an estimated one in six people will experience it - and it costs more than £9bn annually in treatment, benefits and lost revenue. Meanwhile, according to the World Health Organisation, depression is set to become second only to heart disease as the world's leading disability by 2020.

More

Hillary's union problem - Top adviser is anti-labor

Mark Schmitt
May 15, 2007

U.K. Guardian Article

An American presidential election has many layers. At the top, of course, is the question of whether a Democrat or a Republican will win the office in 2008. One layer below is the question of who will be the nominee of each party - a question that is genuinely open in both parties for the first time since the 1950s.

But below that rests one more crucial layer that is often unnoticed but of great consequence: the battles for influence among advisors within the individual campaigns.

In this campaign, a battle is starting to brew over the role of a man said to be the de facto campaign manager for Senator Hillary Clinton, and labeled by some "the most important man in Washington you've never heard of": Mark Penn, a pollster who since getting into the business as a Harvard undergraduate in 1975 has advised Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. Penn is known for a particular approach to political polling, identifying certain demographic groups as "swing voters," and urging candidates to focus their attention exclusively on those groups, usually middle-class suburbanites.

He's also brought those insights to many corporate clients, including McDonald's and Ford Motor Company, and that is one of the things that is beginning to draw him unwanted notice. There's nothing unusual about a political pollster conducting consumer polls for corporate clients, but for most it is a sideline. Penn's immersion in the corporate world is so complete that after selling his polling firm to public relations giant Burson-Marsteller, he became "world-wide president and CEO" of the parent firm, the fifth-largest PR firm in the universe,in 2005.

In this capacity Penn runs numerous corporate lobbying subsidiaries that ought to give key Democratic constituencies pause: among his underlings are a former chair of the Republican National Committee, a former House Republican leader, and several other top Republican lobbyists. Burson-Marsteller also has advertised its expertise in "Labour Relations," making clear on its web site that labour relations means keeping unions out.

"Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labour's coordinated campaigns," the company said, advertising its close relationship with a right-wing academic who has written about the nefarious leftwing campaign against American companies, and a group of operatives with Republican credentials. (The website was changed after I called attention to it in The American Prospect.)

Organized labour is a central constituency of the Democratic Party, and Senator Clinton certainly expects the support of some if not all of the major labour unions. But why should they support someone who's top campaign strategist also holds a full-time job at a company with a union-busting operation? Shouldn't labour leaders be speaking out about Penn's role in the Clinton campaign? Will they?

As more detail's about Penn and his firm's role begin to emerge - last week, The Nation's Ari Berman revealed Burson-Marsteller's role in blocking a major union organizing drive at the industrial laundry and uniform firm Cintas - union leaders have said nothing publicly.

Perhaps they assume that Clinton is likely to be the next president, and they don't want to alienate her by criticizing an advisor to whom she is said to be personally very close. Perhaps they assume that if they can get Clinton to endorse their specific policy positions in exchange for their endorsement, her advisors don't matter. Or perhaps labour is reassured by the presence of others they trust in Clinton's circle, such as former President Bill Clinton or labour lawyer Harold Ickes. But if labor ignores Penn's influence, they will have no standing to complain when working Americans are ignored in the general election or if Clinton becomes president. Let's hope that labor leaders such as Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union and Bruce Raynor of the union that tried to organize Cintas are calling Ickes and others and quietly pointing out that unless Penn's role is visibly reduced, Senator Clinton should not expect labor endorsements for 2008.

Even if there were no issues of conflict of interest raised by simultaneously running Burson-Marsteller and the Clinton campaign, labour and progressive Democrats should be worried about the brand of politics Penn markets. It is a politics in which Democrats mouth semi-populist slogans until they win the party's nomination, and then retreat to safe appeals to affluent swing voters to win the general election. Such a politics is uninspiring, conservative, and inappropriate to an era when Americans are more deeply engaged in politics than before and concern about economic inequality and corporate power is growing. It is a politics that seems better suited to the concerns of Burson-Marsteller's clients than to the moment.

Bilking the Elderly, With a Corporate Assist - NYT

By CHARLES DUHIGG
NYT Article

The thieves operated from small offices in Toronto and hangar-size rooms in India. Every night, working from lists of names and phone numbers, they called World War II veterans, retired schoolteachers and thousands of other elderly Americans and posed as government and insurance workers updating their files.

Then, the criminals emptied their victims’ bank accounts.

Richard Guthrie, a 92-year-old Army veteran, was one of those victims. He ended up on scam artists’ lists because his name, like millions of others, was sold by large companies to telemarketing criminals, who then turned to major banks to steal his life’s savings.

Mr. Guthrie, who lives in Iowa, had entered a few sweepstakes that caused his name to appear in a database advertised by infoUSA, one of the largest compilers of consumer information. InfoUSA sold his name, and data on scores of other elderly Americans, to known lawbreakers, regulators say.

InfoUSA advertised lists of “Elderly Opportunity Seekers,” 3.3 million older people “looking for ways to make money,” and “Suffering Seniors,” 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. “Oldies but Goodies” contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece. One list said: “These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change.”

As Mr. Guthrie sat home alone — surrounded by his Purple Heart medal, photos of eight children and mementos of a wife who was buried nine years earlier — the telephone rang day and night. After criminals tricked him into revealing his banking information, they went to Wachovia, the nation’s fourth-largest bank, and raided his account, according to banking records.

“I loved getting those calls,” Mr. Guthrie said in an interview. “Since my wife passed away, I don’t have many people to talk with. I didn’t even know they were stealing from me until everything was gone.”

Telemarketing fraud, once limited to small-time thieves, has become a global criminal enterprise preying upon millions of elderly and other Americans every year, authorities say. Vast databases of names and personal information, sold to thieves by large publicly traded companies, have put almost anyone within reach of fraudulent telemarketers. And major banks have made it possible for criminals to dip into victims’ accounts without their authorization, according to court records.

The banks and companies that sell such services often confront evidence that they are used for fraud, according to thousands of banking documents, court filings and e-mail messages reviewed by The New York Times.

Although some companies, including Wachovia, have made refunds to victims who have complained, neither that bank nor infoUSA stopped working with criminals even after executives were warned that they were aiding continuing crimes, according to government investigators. Instead, those companies collected millions of dollars in fees from scam artists. (Neither company has been formally accused of wrongdoing by the authorities.)

“Only one kind of customer wants to buy lists of seniors interested in lotteries and sweepstakes: criminals,” said Sgt. Yves Leblanc of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. “If someone advertises a list by saying it contains gullible or elderly people, it’s like putting out a sign saying ‘Thieves welcome here.’ ”

More

Dinosaur Jr.'s Original Lineup Is Back!

Fuck Yeah! New Dino Jr.! Back together after 20 years!
If there's one man in all of rock who knows exactly what a Les Paul was made for, It's J. Mascis. The man can wring heaven and hell themselves from six LP strings, some distortion and a Marshall stack.

It greatly disappoints me that he's playing a fucking Danelectro in this video, but he's playing the goddamn fuck outa the thing, isn't he?!

Ladies and gentleman, J., Lou and Murph - Dinosaur Jr.!!!!

Speaking of Assholes...

Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement
Posted by Declan McCullagh
C/Net News Article

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.

"To meet the global challenges of IP crime, our criminal laws must be kept updated," Gonzales said during a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Monday.

The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy.

Here's our podcast on the topic.

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place. The IPPA would eliminate that requirement. (The Justice Department's summary of the legislation says: "It is a general tenet of the criminal law that those who attempt to commit a crime but do not complete it are as morally culpable as those who succeed in doing so.")

* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights.

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture has become popular among police agencies in drug cases as a way to gain additional revenue, and it is problematic and controversial.

* Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties.

* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes. Certain copyright crimes currently require someone to commit the "distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies" valued at more than $2,500. The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were "intended to consist of" distribution.

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder, such as photographers, playwrights or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment.

A representative of the Motion Picture Association of America told us: "We appreciate the department's commitment to intellectual-property protection and look forward to working with both the department and Congress as the process moves ahead."

What's still unclear is the kind of reception this legislation might encounter on Capitol Hill. Gonzales may not be terribly popular, but Democrats do tend to be more closely aligned with Hollywood and the recording industry than is the GOP. (A few years ago, Republicans even savaged fellow conservatives for allying themselves too closely with copyright holders.)

On behalf of Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Judiciary subcommittee that focuses on intellectual property, a representative said the congressman is reviewing proposals from the attorney general and others. The aide said the Hollywood politician plans to introduce his own intellectual-property enforcement bill later this year but that his office is not prepared to discuss any details yet.

One key Republican was less guarded. "We are reviewing (the attorney general's) proposal. Any plan to stop IP theft will benefit the economy and the American worker," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary committee. "I applaud the attorney general for recognizing the need to protect intellectual property."

Still, it's too early to tell what might happen. A similar copyright bill that Smith, the RIAA and the Software and Information Industry Association enthusiastically supported last April never went anywhere.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this blog.

Wolfowitz Still an Asshole of the First Degree

Wolfowitz Said to Push for Deal to Quit
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
NYT Article

WASHINGTON, May 16 — After six weeks of combating efforts to oust him as president of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz began Wednesday to negotiate the terms under which he would resign, in return for the dropping or softening of the charge that he had engaged in misconduct, bank officials said.

Mr. Wolfowitz was said to be adamant that he be cleared of wrongdoing before he resigned, according to people familiar with his thinking.

The negotiations were still under way on Wednesday evening, and bank officials said they were increasingly hopeful that a solution was in sight, ending what had become a bitter ordeal at the bank, within the Bush administration and at economic ministries around the world.

The World Bank’s board of directors met in the afternoon on Wednesday to discuss the conclusion of its special committee that Mr. Wolfowitz was guilty of ethical and governance violations. Many were firm about not dismissing the findings that Mr. Wolfowitz violated the bank’s trust by arranging for a pay and promotion package for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion and a bank employee, when he became president in 2005.

At the same time, talks took place between emissaries of Mr. Wolfowitz and bank officials with backing from board members who favored easing him out without provoking a confrontation with the Bush administration. Bank officials said the negotiations were aimed at finding a way for the board to accept the findings of the bank committee, while also declaring that Mr. Wolfowitz acted in good faith and that mistakes were made by all sides.

People close to the negotiations said that the threat to oust Mr. Wolfowitz had, in the previous 24 hours, taken a bizarre U-turn, with Mr. Wolfowitz challenging the bank’s directors to vote him out, knowing that the United States would oppose that move. Previously, Mr. Wolfowitz had been doing everything in his power to prevent such a vote.

In effect, bank officials said, he was using the fear among European leaders at the bank of a possible rupture with the Bush administration at a time when the United States and Europe are struggling to cooperate on Iran sanctions, trade and other economic issues.

“The bank board is ready to vote Wolfowitz out of office, and Wolfowitz is calling their bluff,” said a bank official briefed on the negotiations. “It’s going to be difficult for the board to drop its charges against him, but they’re going to have to do it if they want to resolve this. They’re staring each other down, but the bank side is blinking furiously.”

Bank officials said they did not know the precise wording of what the bank might agree to and that Mr. Wolfowitz and his lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, would also accept.

They said it appeared that both the White House and the Treasury Department were involved in guiding Mr. Wolfowitz’s strategy, and that the interests of the United States were being represented at the bank by the American director on the board, Eli Whitney Debevoise II.

Mr. Debevoise, a Washington lawyer, arrived at his job at the bank in early April, the precise moment when the furor over Mr. Wolfowitz erupted.

The negotiations over Mr. Wolfowitz’s possible exit unfolded quickly on Wednesday, officials said. As recently as late on Tuesday night, they said that a last-minute appeal by Mr. Wolfowitz to deny the charges against him and to demand a fair process in which he could stay on the job seemed to backfire.

Especially galling to bank board members, various officials said, was Mr. Wolfowitz’s request that the 24-member bank board reject the conclusions of its seven-member subcommittee charging him with violating several codes of conduct and trying to cover up his involvement in Ms. Riza’s salary and promotion.

By the next morning, a flurry of second thoughts and back-channel conversations spread through the bank, officials said, in large part because of signals from the White House on Tuesday that if Mr. Wolfowitz were cleared of misconduct charges, the administration would be willing to consider the question of whether he could lead the bank in such a divisive atmosphere.

Previously the administration had rebuffed all suggestions that he could not lead the bank, as both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney declared their confidence in his abilities.

In the morning, some bank officials said they were worried that the White House signal was a feint aimed at getting Mr. Wolfowitz to stay on. They said they wanted Mr. Wolfowitz to put in writing his promise to resign under the right circumstances.

The events of the day added up, in any case, to a hairpin turn in the fortunes of the beleaguered bank president, who over his two-year tenure has alienated virtually all segments of the bank, and a fair number of economic ministries around the world. In the last few weeks, he has reinforced their anger by dismissing the charges of misconduct against him as a “smear campaign.”

The saga seemed to be playing out according to a time-honored Washington formula: confrontation, impasse and crisis, followed by sudden negotiations to avert a possible breakdown of the institution.

Bank officials said that one of the lead negotiators in trying to salvage a compromise was Thomas Scholar, the British director on the board, who is close to Prime Minister Tony Blair and his presumed successor, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer.

Speculation about Mr. Wolfowitz’s successor ranged from Paul A. Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, to Mr. Blair and Stanley Fischer, the finance minister of Israel and a former top official at the International Monetary Fund. Also mentioned have been various prominent figures on Wall Street, including Douglas A. Warner III, a former chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase and chairman of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

In addition, speculation has centered on two officials close to Mr. Bush: Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt and Robert B. Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state.

The most critical element to the negotiations was the overwhelming sentiment among bank board members in favor of endorsing the committee’s criticism of Mr. Wolfowitz in its 52-page report released Monday evening.

Officials said that the report emboldened Mr. Wolfowitz’s critics on the board and made it hard for them to conclude that he could continue to lead the institution.

But officials said that leaders of Britain, France and Germany and other smaller countries in Europe also saw the advantage of resolving the Wolfowitz matter without a trans-Atlantic rupture, especially in advance of the summit meeting of leading industrial nations in Germany scheduled for June.

That meeting will be the last for Mr. Blair and the first for the new president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. Chancellor Angela Merkel is to preside at the meeting, but her government has signaled that it favors Mr. Wolfowitz’s resignation before the meeting in Germany, according to European officials.

Democratic Congress being timid instead of tough

By Guest Blogger
Posted on May 15, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//51915/

This blog originally appeared on Shakesville:

Harry Reid has decided that he is going to permit the Senate to vote on the Feingold-Reid amendment. The Feingold-Reid amendment, if passed, would cut off all funding for the Iraq war after March 31, 2008. Greg Sargent calls this "a big deal for war opponents --

it's the first vote in the Senate on a measure of this kind. "This is a vote that folks have been clamoring for for some time now," enthuses a staffer who works for a Senator favoring the approach. […]

The staffer added that while the measure faces an uphill struggle, a vote on it will move the parameters of the debate and force Senators into a straight up-or-down vote on the war -- just as last week's House vote on Dem Rep. James McGovern's proposal to end the war did. The staffer claims that the Senate leadership was going back and forth all weekend on whether to allow this vote. "I think there are probably some people who would prefer not to see a vote on this," the staffer says. "It forces people to take a stand."

Here's the problem with that: If it took such a Herculean effort to "allow" the full Senate to vote on a bill that would fund the war for almost an entire additional year; and if committing to a vote on that bill is considered to be such an unimaginably enorrrrrmous act of courage -- when public opinion polls going back for at least a year consistently show large majorities of Americans oppose Bush's handling of the war, think the war was a mistake, think it has nothing to do with the war on terror, and want Congress to set a deadline for withdrawal -- then why is it party time when the Senate leadership finally is able to muster the fortitude, after months and months and months of dickering, to allow the Senate to vote on a bill that is exactly what the American people want? Why are we celebrating tentativeness when the American people want boldness? Why does Congress set such low standards for itself, and why do we let them?

Cross-posted at Liberty Street.

Kathy Kattenburg is a freelance writer and editor working from northern New Jersey. She blogs at Liberty Street (her own blog), and at Shakesville.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//51915/

Cheney, you want to talk domination?

By Barry Lando
Posted on May 14, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lando/51872/

Did no one detect a hint of irony in the declaration over the weekend by Vice President, Dick Cheney that one of the major U.S. missions in the Gulf was to prevent the Middle East from being dominated by a nuclear armed Iran?

If any nuclear power is dominating the Middle East these days it is not Iran.

It is not Iran who illegally invaded Iraq, has 150,000 plus troops in that country, and talks of withdrawal at the same time as it is building four sprawling military bases that are anything but temporary. It is not Iran that is attempting to shape a new petroleum law in Iraq that will allow its oil companies privileged access to one of the largest deposits of petroleum in the world. It is not Iran that has thousands more troops and special forces in Afghanistan attempting to smash the Taliban—while at the same time provoking a rising tide of revulsion by killing scores of civilians with their massive firepower.

It is not Iran that helped plan and carry out Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia earlier this year—overthrowing a militant Islamist regime on the charge that it was linked with Al Qaeda—a charge regime strongly denied—and created what the United Nations is now calling the most disastrous refugee crisis in the world today.

Nor does Iran have two massive aircraft carrier battle groups patrolling the Gulf—from the deck of one on Saturday Dick Cheney made a saber rattling speech against the government in Teheran—at the same time as the CIA spends tens of millions of dollars a year funding what one could only call “terrorist attacks” against the government of Iran—while other U.S. officials are maintain they want to open negotiations with Iran on its activities in Iraq.

(In an excellent article in April’s Foreign Affairs Ray Takeyh points out that such contradictory U.S. policy have hamstrung relations with Iran for years. )

Nor is it Iran who is offering to double the size of the Saudi Air Force with Iranian built jets. That was the offer made by Dick Cheney on Sunday. Those jets would operate out of the massive bases that the United States also constructed during the 1980’s in Saudi Arabia. Which makes one wonder whatever happened to those billions of dollars worth of now antiquated jets that the U.S. furnished to the Shah of Iran back when he was America’s designated policeman in the region.

It is not Iran that pours billions of dollars of aid each year to the corrupt and despotic Mubarak regime in Egypt—a government that was—like the Saudis and Kuwaitis– supposed to be part of the now very moribund U.S. push for democracy in the Middle East.

Nor is it Iran, but the U.S., who turned its back last summer long enough to allow Israel to lunch devastating raids into Lebanon, causing thousands of deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars in destruction to that country’s infrastructure in a failed attempt to root out Hezbollah.

Sure, Iranian leaders support Hezbollah. Sure they would like their country to become a nuclear state—like Israel, Pakistan and India, and the U.S.—whose military is currently “modernizing” its vast nuclear arsenal.

And certainly Iran would like to be a regional power. And why shouldn’t they? The United States has a certain taste for power itself—now spending more on arms than the rest of the world combined.

The way to deal with Iran is not with carrier strike forces, but with talk, serious negotiations with their leaders across the board on all the issues—as the Iranians themselves offered in 2003. That offer was rejected by the Bush White House, and there are different people in power in Teheran today. But the challenge remains. Attempting to resolve it with rockets and carrier task forces would be a disaster.

It’s time to sit down and start talking with the current leaders of Iran—not half heartedly, as seems to be the present attitude, but with the understanding that the regime in Teheran is not going to be overthrown, and that Iran does have a legitimate interest in affecting what goes on in the turbulent region around it

Barry Lando, a former 60 Minutes producer, is the author of "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush." He also blogs at Barrylando.com.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lando/51872/

Onion News Network Update! (Satire alert for the irony-challenged)

Gap Unveils New 'For Kids By Kids' Clothing Line

Posada Carriles: terrorist who killed 73 in plane bombing walks free

By Bill Van Auken 20 April 2007
http://www.wsws.org/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi

“I vowed that if you harbor a terrorist you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist. That’s a doctrine. In order for this country to be credible, when the President says something, he must mean it.” President George W. Bush, April 10, 2007, American Legion Post 177, Fairfax, Virginia.

“Part of our doctrine is if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorists.” President Bush, April 5, 2007, Fort Irwin, California.

A cell door in New Mexico swung open Thursday and Luis Posada Carriles—a man wanted for an act of terrorist mass murder—went free, making his way to Miami escorted by US Marshals and his lawyer.

So much for the Bush doctrine. Washington is now openly harboring a terrorist who murdered 73 people by organizing the planting of a bomb on a civilian airliner in 1976. The Cuban passenger plane, which had originated in Venezuela, blew up over the Caribbean waters of Barbados. At that time, it constituted the most deadly act of terrorism ever carried out in the Western Hemisphere.

Among the dead were all 24 members of the Cuban fencing team, many of them teenagers, who had just won the 1975 Central American-Caribbean championship. Also killed were several Guyanese medical students, aged 18 and 19.

It is worth remembering these young victims as shock and sorrow is felt throughout the United States over the slaughter of a similar number of students of roughly the same age at Virginia Tech.

The release of Posada Carriles followed a ruling by the US Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Tuesday rejecting a government prosecutor’s motion that the confessed terrorist be kept in prison.

He has been in custody since May of 2005. The court refused to hold him, however, because he is not charged with the crimes of mass murder, terrorism and assassination, but rather with run-of-the-mill immigration offenses: entering the country illegally and lying to US immigration officials.

He is now free on bail, awaiting a May 11 trial on charges of lying to immigration agents. The only penalty for such an offense is deportation.

No country in the world, however, will agree to take Posada Carriles off Washington’s hands, save two. The first is his native Cuba, whose citizens constitute the majority of his victims, and the second is Venezuela, where he became a naturalized citizen and secret policeman, and from which he plotted the 1976 airline bombing.

Venezuela formally demanded that the US extradite the terrorist to face trial for this crime in June of 2005 under existing treaties between the two countries. Since then, the Bush administration has simply ignored the extradition request.

As he awaited the completion of his trial and sentencing in the airline bombing case, Posada Carriles escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985, and had remained under US protection ever since, working with CIA operatives in Central America in the illegal “contra” war against Nicaragua.

Venezuela clearly has every legal right to demand that he be sent back to confront the verdict that he evaded more than 20 years ago. However, a US immigration judge, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, ruled that he could not be sent to Venezuela because he might face torture there.

This claim is both spurious and outrageous. There is no evidence of systemic torture in Venezuela. If this rule were applied consistently, no undocumented immigrant caught by border agents could be sent back to Mexico, Brazil or a number of other countries in Latin America where abuse in prisons is equally if not more common.

Moreover, coming from the US government, which has both tortured and organized the “extraordinary rendition” of its detainees to countries specifically chosen because they will be tortured there, the invocation of international treaties against torture to shield Posada Carriles is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

Finally, it is worth noting that Posada Carriles himself was employed as a senior official in the Venezuelan secret police, the DISP, in the early 1970s, when torture was endemic, and has been charged with both the torture and extra-judicial murder of leftist activists in that country.

Responding to the freeing of Posada Carriles, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez compared the fugitive to Osama bin Laden and described him as “the father of all terrorists on the American continent.”

“We demand that they extradite this terrorist and murderer to Venezuela rather than keep protecting him,” Chávez said. He continued by condemning Washington’s cynicism: “They say they fight terrorism, (but) there it is! Their mask keeps falling off.”

The Cuban government also reiterated its call for the extradition request to be honored. “For two years they have protected Posada Carriles with judicial subterfuges to evade their duty to extradite him to Venezuela or try him for terrorism,” Ricardo Alarcón, president of the Cuban parliament, said Thursday.

The Bush administration refuses to extradite Posada Carriles, because he was Washington’s own terrorist, trained and paid by the CIA to carry out acts of terrorism. To place him on trial would threaten the exposure of a long history of international aggression and criminality organized by US imperialism, ranging from terrorist attacks on Cuba and assassination attempts against its President Fidel Castro to the airline bombing—which took place when Bush’s father was the director of the CIA—to the dirty wars in Central America in the 1980s.

So the Bush administration harbors the terrorist and, under the “Bush doctrine” is “equally as guilty” as this confessed and convicted mass murderer.

Cited as a reason for invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, and now again invoked in preparation for yet another war against Iran, this supposed principle—held up to the mirror of Posada Carriles—is revealed as nothing more than cynical pretext for pursuing the aims and interests of America’s ruling elite by means of military force and massive state terror.

---

Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

If You Live YOur Life As A Glaring Example Of Hatred...

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/05/15/18416558.php

Gays staging anti-Falwell speak out today; 5 pm, Castro, 18th Streets

by Michael Petrelis
Tuesday May 15th, 2007 1:14 PM

Gays to Stage Speak Out Today Over the Death of Rev. Jerry Falwell

For Immediate Release
May 15, 2007
Contact: Michael Petrelis, 415-621-6267

An anti-memorial is being planned in San Francisco to mark the death and hate-filled life of the Rev. Jerry Falwell who died today. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals andtransgenders will speak out about Falwell relentless crusades demonizing the gay community and his political organizing to consign gays to second-class citizenship.

What: Anti-Memorial & Speak Out

Why: The death of Rev. Jerry Falwell

Date: Tuesday, May 15

Time: 5:00 pm

Location: Castro and 18th Streets, (Bank of America building)

With the obituaries for the bigoted Falwell pouring forth, many news organizations are noting his career of singling out gays for hatred. From the New York Times obit:

As a result, he was a lightning rod for controversy and caricature. He apologized, for example, after televised remarks suggesting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks reflected God’s judgment on a nation spiritually weakened by the American Civil Liberties Union, providers of abortion and supporters of gay rights, and after he called Muhammad a terrorist. He was ridiculed for an article in his National Liberty Journal that suggested thatTinky Winky, a character in the “Teletubbies ” children’s show, could be a hidden homosexual signal, because the character was purple, had a triangle on its head and carried a handbag.

An organizer of today's anti-Falwell street action, Michael Petrelis, said he expects many gay people will recall Falwell's vile bigotry. "While Falwell is dead, unfortunately his legacy of hatred in the name of God will be felt legislatively for years to come. Now is the time to roll back the domination that fundamentalist religious leaders have imposed on the American body politic," said Petrelis from San Francisco.

People attending today's speak out are asked to bring signs calling for religious acceptance of gays, and Tinky Winky dolls. The organizers of today's event will be bringing a 3-foot high Tink Winky pinata replica of the cartoon character Falwell labeled as gay.

© 2000–2007 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact

Raging Grannies - The Anti-Xenophobia

Golden Gate Minutemen Confronted in Campbell

Mon May 14 2007 (Updated 05/15/07)
Raging Grannies and Immigrant Rights Groups Stand Up to Minutemen

A newly formed branch of the Minutemen, joined by other anti-immigration groups, are targeting San Francisco Peninsula and South Bay cities bringing their message to the streets. What they didn't count on was this: at least three times in the month of May so far, a group of middle aged and elderly woman called the Raging Grannies with signature flowered bonnets have sounded the alarm to local community activists to react quickly in response. Calling on peace and immigrant rights groups to counter demonstrate on short notice, the Peninsula Raging Grannies Action League set up a quick response team to get the word out that, "our street corners ARE our communities; our communities will NOT be divided along lines of immigrant vs. citizen."

Amongst the organizations that have responded by sending participants to the Raging Grannies' counter-protests are youth groups such as Lucha (Community College Latino students), Maiz (young Latino activists), and Revolutionary Youth (a multi-racial group working for an end to the Iraq War and for immigrant rights). Veterans for Peace members show up in fatigues and the largest peace group in the San Jose area, South Bay Mobilization, contributes signs saying "No a la Guerra: Contra Irak, Contra Iran, Contra los Immigrantes". The Raging Grannies sing songs in Spanish and English they have written to honor immigrant labor and other contributions to America.

May 12 in Campbell: Read More | Photos: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Report from San Mateo and Redwood city rallies against Minutemen of May 3 and 5, 2007 | Labor Day 2006 "Clean Up the Hate" response to anti-immigrant demonstration (San Jose) | Raging Grannies

Right Wing Abortion Terrorist Taunts Victims From Jail

By Cliff Schecter
Posted on May 14, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//51899/

This post appeared first appeared on cliffschecter.com

Imagine this a little differently

Extremist Taunts His Victims From Prison

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer

Monday, May 14, 2007

(05-14) 11:12 PDT Birmingham, Ala. (AP) --

Victims of Eric Rudolph Osama Bin Laden, the anti-abortion America extremist who pulled off a series of bombings across the South world, say he is taunting them from deep within the nation's most secure federal prison, and authorities say there is little they can do to stop him.

(snip)

But Rudolph's Osama's long essays have been posted on the Internet by a supporter who maintains a Army of God Taliban Web site. The Army of God Taliban is the same loose-knit group that Rudolph bin Laden claimed to represent in letters sent after the blasts.

In one piece, Rudolph bin Laden seeks to justify violence against abortion clinics Americans by arguing that Jesus Allah would condone "militant action in defense of the innocent."

Any of the prisoners in Gitmo get to send mail to their fans?

Terrorism is Terrorism, no matter which God you offer it up to.

Cliff Schecter is a political consultant and author. He writes on cliffschecter.blogspot.com.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Michael Moore Responds to Treasury Secretary's Investigation Threat

By Michael Moore, AlterNet
Posted on May 12, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51794/

Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

Secretary Henry Paulson

Department of the Treasury

Secretary Paulson,

I am contacting you in light of the document sent to me dated May 2, 2007, which was received May 7, 2007 indicating that an investigation has been opened up with regards to a trip I took to Cuba with a group of Americans that included some 9/11 heroes in March 2007 related to the filming of my next documentary, on the American Healthcare system. SiCKO, which will be seen in theaters this summer, will expose the health care industry's greed and control over America's political processes.

I believe that the decision to conduct this investigation represents the latest example of the Bush Administration abusing the federal government for raw, crass, political purposes. Over the last seven years of the Bush Presidency, we have seen the abuse of government to promote a political agenda designed to benefit the conservative base of the Republican Party, special interests and major financial contributors. From holding secret meetings for the energy industry to re-writing science findings to cooking the books on intelligence to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, this Administration has shown time and time again that it will abuse its power and authority.

There are a number of specific facts that have led me to conclude that politics could very well be driving this Bush Administration investigation of me and my film.

First, the Bush Administration has been aware of this matter for months (since October 2006) and never took any action until less than two weeks before SiCKO is set to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and a little more than a month before it is scheduled to open in the United States.

Second, the health care and insurance industry, which is exposed in the movie and has expressed concerns about the impact of the movie on their industries, is a major corporate underwriter of President George W. Bush and the Republican Party, having contributed over $13 million to the Bush presidential campaign in 2004 and more than $180 million to Republican candidates over the last two campaign cycles.

It is well documented that the industry is very concerned about the impact of SiCKO. They have threatened their employees if they talk to me. They have set up special internal crises lines should I show up at their headquarters. Employees have been warned about the consequences of participating in SiCKO. Despite this, some employees, at great risk to themselves, have gone on camera to tell the American people the truth about the health care industry. I can understand why that industry's main recipient of its contributions -- President Bush -- would want to harass, intimidate and potentially prevent this film from having its widest possible audience.

And, third, this investigation is being opened in the wake of misleading attacks on the purpose of the Cuba trip from a possible leading Republican candidate for president, Fred Thompson, a major conservative newspaper, The New York Post, and various right wing blogs.

For five and a half years, the Bush administration has ignored and neglected the heroes of the 9/11 community. These heroic first responders have been left to fend for themselves, without coverage and without care. I understand why the Bush administration is coming after me -- I have tried to help the very people they refuse to help, but until George W. Bush outlaws helping your fellow man, I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide.

I demand that the Bush Administration immediately end this investigation and spend its time and resources trying to support some of the real heroes of 9/11.

Sincerely,

Michael Moore

Michael Moore is an Academy award-winning filmmaker and author of "Dude, Where's My Country?"
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/51794/

We Are Not Disrupting Traffic, We Are Traffic, continued...

May Berkeley Critical Mass Ride Ends With Three Bikes Trapped Under Car

Sun May 13 2007 Three Bicycles Destroyed By Mini-Van During Berkeley Critical Mass

On Friday, May 11th, Berkeley Critical Mass was stopped by a car that destroyed several bicycles. The cyclists had been through much of Berkeley, including a sojourn to Indian Rock, and were heading back down The Alameda. The riders entered an intersection on a green light, and several were struck by a mini-van. Three bicycles were crushed and trapped under the car, and at least two bicyclists sustained injuries. They and dozens of others had been participating in a monthly bicycle ride around Berkeley, promoting bicycling and the reduction of automobile and oil dependency. Police sided with the driver, denying the rights of the demonstrators.

Bicyclists reportedly managed to stop the attack when one was able to reach into the van’s window and turn off the vehicle. Cyclists were terrified that the driver would continue and crush bicyclists, particularly when they were trapped between their bicycles and the ground. Two riders reported that the motorist brandished a knife in a threatening manner. The motorist reportedly honked and shouted as he drove forward. As the crowd of Critical Mass riders stood in the street, cars revved their engines and tried to get around the scene.

The officers reportedly did not protect the rights of the bicyclists despite video evidence that showed the incident. They failed to press charges on behalf of the injured victims; to execute a citizen’s arrest; or to search for and impound the motorist’s knife, as they claimed he had a right to protect his car. Police claimed that bicyclists were pushing their bicycles under the vehicle. Riders say that they believe that this incident demonstrates the need for critical mass demonstrations.

Video and Report | "Berkeley Critical Mass Out of Line" (an attack on videographer) | Berkeley Critical Mass | Bicycle Civil Liberties Union | Indian Rock Park

Dispatch from the Encroaching Police State

"Arcata People Project" Encampment Attacked By Police

Wed Apr 25 2007 (Updated 04/28/07) Arcata Homeless Rights Encampment Attacked

On April 21st, activists from the Arcata People Project established an encampment on a lawn at 11th and D streets in Arcata California. According to an organizer, the protest aimed to "reclaim common spaces and create awareness about the issue of homelessness in the country and the fact that folks just don't have a place to sleep and be safe." About thirty people spent Saturday night in the encampment, sleeping in tents and under tarps.

On April 25th, shortly after 6am, police raided the protest encampment. About 16 protesters sat in a circle, locking arms. A large crowd formed across the street. About 20 of those locked arms and chanted. A girl was arrested at about 8:45, when she approached the police and started talking to them. The police then began to pull protesters from the circle and drag them to a van. One handcuffed protester went into a seizure, while police held him face down on the street. The crowd was disturbed by the police conduct, leading at least one onlooker to cross the street and get arrested.

As of Friday April 28th, Homeless protesters are continuing their protest on the lawn in front of The Arcata City Hall, where they intend to stay until the city gives back the property siezed by the police in Wednesday's raid.

Reports: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Photos: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Arcata Reporter Coverage: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Humboldt Revolution | De Tod@s Para Tod@s

Strap-On Veterans for Truth

An organization dedicating to exposing the truth about the former drag queen now known as Ann Coulter
Via: http://www.rawilson.com/jokes.shtml

We are a coalition of former friends and co-workers of Ann Coulter who are upset by her vicious anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-feminist rhetoric and feel the truth should be told. Our organization, Strap-On Veterans For Truth, is dedicated to exposing the true past of America’s number one hatemonger.

Ann Coulter is actually a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans. Ms. Shenanigans was famous for her renditions of “Dude Looks Like a Lady” “I Will Survive” and “You Shook Me All Night Long” as well as an extensive Barbra Streisand repertoire. We who used to work with her are concerned for her as well as upset by the vile hatred she has spewed towards her former friends in the gay community. We feel that by bringing the truth to light perhaps Ann will come to grips with her past and change her wicked ways.

As Pudenda Shenanigans, she was well known on the drag circuit in Key West. Whether she actually had a full sex change or not is a matter of debate, although her adam’s apple is still visible in photos, under the appropriate light. We who laughed, cried, worked and danced with her feel her story should be told. We are not out to punish her, but feel it’s time she owned up to what she really is.

The person known today as Ann Coulter was born Jeremy Levinsohn in the village in New York in 1960. His parents were typical latte-drinking liberals, religiously conservative, but socially and politically radical. His father taught Russian Literature at CUNY and his mother was a social worker. His childhood friend Rodger Mihalot described him, “The Levinsohns were nice people, but his father was distant, so Jeremy seemed to seek a strong male figure in his life. Although they were Jewish, he often hung out at our church, and really seemed to spend a lot of time with Fr. Donatella Nowunn. I also think he was really looking to rebel against his overly liberal parents. Otherwise he was a typical kid, he liked to play cowboy, sailor and gladiator a lot. His favorite movie was always The Sheik, he really seemed to have a fascination with Arabs, I don’t know why.”

In the 70’s Jeremy went to Brandeis, where he majored in Sociology, with a minor in comparative religions. His lifelong fascination with Muslims really seemed to take root at Brandeis. But college roommate Ima Gaiboyye described an unhappy man, “He was never really interested in women, but did go see the theater company’s production of “The Wizard of Oz” 10 times, I thought he liked the girl who played the lead, he really talked about her outfit a lot. After college Jeremy just dropped off the face of the earth, we never heard from him again.”

Jeremy drifted for awhile before finding himself in Key West. Co-worker Licky Dickenstein described these early years, “Jeremy was a natural, I never saw anyone take to drag so quickly. Once he found his persona, he WAS Pudenda Shenanigans. For most of us drag was a part time thing, but Pudenda was 24-7, always in character, always in costume. She really shook things up, she was a goddess on stage.”

By 1985 Ms Shenanigans was dating a Lebanese businessman, Ustahav Toubohls and the two were believed to be deliriously happy. Friends report Pudenda always had a fetish for Muslims and was considering a marriage proposal. But then she opened up the New York Times one day and saw a picture of Mr. Toubohls with a famous actress in New York. Former friend Gaivit Tuhym described the result, “Pudenda was devastated, she couldn’t stand seeing her Toubohls with another woman. She cried and cried, ‘I miss my Toubohls, I want my Toubohls back!’ I don’t think she ever forgave him, the New York Times, or Muslims in general.”

After that Ms. Shenanigans disappeared for years, only resurfacing in the 90’s as Ann Coulter. Her hatred for Muslims, gays and feminists is odd for her former coworkers. Long Dick Gone, a former co-worker stated, “At first I thought there was something funny about this Ann Coulter. I mean here’s a woman who claims to hate feminists, but is in her 40’s, single, no kids, is very opinionated and outspoken and concentrates on her career. Ann Coulter is the biggest example of a feminist I ever saw. Then I noticed that in just the right light you could see that adam’s apple and that’s when I recognized our little Pudenda Shenanigans, the hottest drag queen this side of Fire Island.”

Strap-On Veterans For Truth

Once they realized who Ann Coulter was, Strap-On Veterans For Truth was formed.

Ann’s former friends and co-workers realized that her intense hatred of gays, feminists and Muslims was really self-loathing and continuing hurt from the loss of her beloved Toubohls. Although we know she’s been through a lot, we feel hurt by her turning against everything she used to hold dear. We love you Ann, or Pudenda, or Jeremy. We respect whatever lifestyle of gender you choose. We just want you to be true to yourself and please stop the hatred. Come back to us and share the love of your friends and community again.

Strap-On Veterans for Truth is a proud partner of The Hoolinet.
(Our apologies to drag queens everywhere.)

How Many "Free Trade" Senators Can PhRMA Turn Into Corporate Protectionists?

How many self-described "free" trade lawmakers in Congress can the drug industry make head to the floor of the Senate and bare their true corporate protectionist loyalties for all to see? Based on a key vote yesterday, the answer appears to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 49 (including 14 Democrats) - well over what's necessary to control the federal government.

That's right, as the Associated Press reports, "In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings from domestic prices." The legislation to allow imports of FDA-approved medicines from other industrialized nations (a practice used by other industrialized nations themselves) was sponsored by North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) and has long been supported by the vast majority of the American public in opinion polls. Yet right there on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday afternoon, 49 senators voted through a poison pill amendment, invalidating Dorgan's legislation and protecting drug industry profiteering. The sheer disregard for the truth and for consistency when it came to both the policy and politics of this vote was, in a word, stunning.

Policy-wise, the poison pill amendment to ask the White House to certify the safety of drug imports seems at first glance to be utterly forthright - a testament to the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying genius. Yet, the only reason to include such certification requirements is to give the pharmaceutical industry-owned White House the power to block cheaper medicines from entering the U.S. market, not to protect U.S. consumers. Why? Because the federal government has already testified to Congress that it has absolutely no evidence that FDA-approved medicines from countries like Canada are unsafe. Oh, and by the way, if drugs from those industrialized countries were such a danger, why haven't we been hearing about a wave of deaths in Europe and Canada? Here's an excerpt from Hostile Takeover to better illustrate these points:

"As Minnesota Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty said in pushing to legalize imports, 'My first response to that [safety argument] is show me the dead Canadians. Where are the dead Canadians?'...The answer is, they don't exist. As Knight-Ridder reported in 2003, 'FDA officials can't name a single American who's been injured or killed by drugs bought from licensed Canadian pharmacies.' Similarly, Canada's health ministry reported that it 'does not have any information that would indicate that any Americans have become ill or have died as a result of taking prescription medications purchased from Canada." It is why, under pressure, President Bush suddenly forgot his politically-motivated opposition to drug imports and said in 2004 the United States would try to buy flu vaccine from Canada to deal with a domestic shortage - because there really is no safety concern. Even some drug executives are now coming clean about the lie. Dr. Peter Rost, the Vice President of Pfizer who oversees the company's European operations, first blew the whistle in 2004. 'The safety issue is a made-up story,' Rost said. "The real concern about safety is about people who do not take drugs because they cannot afford it.'"

Why is it a made up story? Because pharmaceutical companies already produce many of their medicines in factories outside of the United States. These companies are allowed to import these drugs themselves, but American wholesalers or consumers themselves are not allowed to do the same. Put another way, importation is already happening in this country safely - so we know it can be done safely. It's just that American consumers are not allowed to benefit from such importation with lower prices.

The politics of this vote are just as hypocritical. On the very day the New York Times publishes as story about the divide in the Democratic Party over lobbyist-written "free" trade agreements, you'll notice that those voting for the poison pill represent the bloc of Senators that is usually responsible for passing these pacts - the market fundamentalists who tell Americans that we must prevent any restrictions on international commerce, even those that protect the basic safety and well-being of our citizens. Yet, at the mere whiff of drug industry campaign cash, these "free" traders suddenly become ultra-protectionists, saying no, no - we can't allow FDA-approved medicines into the United States from other industrialized nations. Apparently, these "free" traders believe our trade pacts should be freely exposing Americans to, say, poison-tainted pet foods, diseased vegetables that create Hepatitis outbreaks, and even potentially Mad Cow-infested beef, but not to the lower-priced medicines that would be needed to treat the illnesses such unregulated imports cause. These people still haven't answered the very simple question Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) asked in 2005: "Why allow bad beef to enter the U.S. from Canada and not allow safe medicine?"

The answer, of course, is simple: Because in 2006, agribusiness gave lawmakers $44 million in campaign contributions to pose as a "free" traders when doing so supports their efforts to destroy domestic family farming, and the drug industry kicked in another $19 million to get the same lawmakers to be the corporate protectionists they really are, whether they are voting to ban importation or to create price-inflating patent protections in our trade policies.

To understand the power of the drug industry over Congress and how a vote like this can be engineered even in a Democratic Senate, we can look past the macro numbers about the drug companies' lobbying army in Washington, and to an individual example right here in Montana - a state with a 500+ mile long U.S.-Canada border. You may recall that in 2000, Schweitzer ran a spirited campaign for U.S. Senate against Republican Conrad Burns. You may also recall that the primary way this farmer who had never run for office before came as close as he did to winning the race against a two-term Republican senator in a Republican state had much to do with the fact that he led bus trips to Canada to pressure Congress to allow drug importation (attracting millions of dollars in attack ads against him by drug company front groups). This is, in short, a state that knows about drug importation and wants its political leaders to support the legislation as a way to lower medicine prices.

Nonetheless, Montana Sen. Max Baucus (D) was one of those senators voting for the poison pill that kills the drug importation legislation. He cast his vote, mind you, less than a week after holding an widely publicized Economic Summit in Butte where he invited the captains of industry to deliver speech after speech after speech stressing the value of allowing unbridled international commerce and free trade. How could this happen? Take a look at this excerpt from The Nation magazine about Baucus's support for the Bush Medicare bill for some clues:

"During the debate over whether to add a $400 billion privately run prescription-drug plan to Medicare, his former chief of staff, David Castagnetti, and legislative aide, Scott Olsen, were part of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's $8 million lobbying effort. Shortly after the legislation--written largely by the pharmaceutical industry--passed, Baucus's top staffer on the Finance Committee, Jeff Forbes, left to open his own lobbying shop, with clients including PhRMA, the drug maker Amgen and the American Health Care Association. These companies have in turn donated generously to Baucus; almost $700,000 between 2001 and 2006 from the healthcare industry and pharmaceutical lobby."

This is how it works in the Beltway - a place where the K Street's tentacles reach not just for the Republicans, but for top Democrats as well. That bipartisan corruption makes sure that populist lawmakers like Dorgan, who work overtime to successfully attract peel-off Republican support for initiatives like drug importation, are undermined at every step. And the result is that on every issue - from drug prices to energy prices to job security to wages - Washington's war on the middle class continues.

For more, see U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) speech on the floor of the Senate about this bill. Sanders was the first Member of Congress to take seniors to Canada to pressure Congress to allow importation.

Media find too many candidates—at only one debate

5/8/07

In the wake of the first candidates' debate among the Democratic contenders for the White House (4/26/07), many media outlets and commentators seemed annoyed that the so-called "second-tier" candidates are even bothering to run. Oddly, similar complaints about a surplus of GOP contenders in the first Republican debate (5/3/07) were hard to find in the corporate media.

As FAIR noted recently (4/26/07), early election polls are a terrible way to predict the likely nominee. So using them to determine which candidates are viable and which campaigns are merely a nuisance is unwise. What's more, because the electoral process is about more than who takes office, but is also a chance to debate national priorities and policies, it's healthy to allow as many legitimate candidates as possible a chance to make their case directly to the voters.

That's not the way it's seen by many Washington pundits, though—at least when it comes to Democrats. The Washington Post's David Broder declared (4/27/07) that "six of the eight declared candidates" at the Democrats' debate in South Carolina "showed themselves to be both substantive and direct in their responses." That left two—former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio—who did not measure up to Broder's standards, as they "provided a counterpoint of left-wing ideas that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness from [Delaware Sen. Joe] Biden and [Illinois Sen. Barack] Obama."

"Left wing" ideas such as Kucinich and Gravel's opposition to the Iraq War are shared by a majority of the U.S. population; it's telling that this is insufficient to make them "serious" for Broder. By contrast, after the Republican debate, the Post reported (5/4/07) that "the three candidates who top most national polls—Giuliani, McCain and Romney—made forceful presentations, but those struggling for attention also generally acquitted themselves well." In response to three of the candidates expressing support for creationism, the Post noted their public support (5/6/07): "But a look at public polling on the issue reveals that the three men aren't far from the mainstream in that belief."

Describing the Democratic debate, the Los Angeles Times argued (4/27/07) that the wide debate format "allowed each candidate a total of 11 minutes to talk—giving Kucinich and Gravel, both of whom have a negligible showing in polls, equal time with the front-runners, which they used to take aggressive hits at [New York Sen. Hillary] Clinton and Obama." At this point, more than half a year before the first actual voters have a chance to weigh in, poll numbers should not be the prime determiner of who gets to participate in a debate; even so, Kucinich and Gravel are in what amounts to a statistical dead heat in many polls with candidates treated more seriously by the corporate media, like Biden and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

While Kucinich and Gravel were asked only eight questions in the April 26 debate, Biden received 11 and Richardson 10—nearly as many as the 12 each answered by "front-runners" Clinton, Obama and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards. This despite the fact Kucinich was tied with Richardson and Biden in the latest Pew poll (4/18-22/07) and actually beat Biden in the latest Fox poll (4/17-18/07).

After the GOP debate, the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of the wide debate (5/4/07): "The breadth of small-fries in the field makes it hard to define a coherent Republican message, but that's a sign of intellectual ferment in the troubled GOP. The silver lining for a party on the verge of the wilderness is the need to go 'off message' and entertain a variety of ideas."

CNN's Larry King blurted out (4/26/07) to his panel of political journalists discussing the Democrats: "We were talking around in agreement. I mean, a lot of people were saying, 'Boy, if Dennis Kucinich were 6'2.'" It's unlikely that the media would give Kucinich different treatment if he would only manage to grow a few inches; the disdainful treatment of Kucinich and Gravel seems motivated by their politics.

As CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer complained (4/29/07): "Is it fair to have all these people out there? I mean, it is a free country. Everybody wants to run for president should have that opportunity and does. But clearly, somebody like senator—former Sen. Mike Gravel is not going to be a serious candidate, and yet he gets equal time, and... I would just say it honestly: In my view, it just wastes time."

ABC host George Stephanopoulos sounded a similar note (4/29/07): "Setting aside Mike Gravel, who provided the comic relief, everyone else seemed credible, seemed intelligent, seemed like they knew what they were talking about. That has to bring the front-runners down a bit." CNN's Howard Kurtz seemed annoyed (4/29/07) that Gravel was being paid any attention at all by the media: "He was sort of a bomb thrower on that stage. Why should a network allow somebody with, say, zero chance of becoming president into these debates?"

Expressing precisely the sort of cynicism that turns millions of Americans off the electoral process, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza responded to Kurtz that money, not popular support, ought to be all that mattered: "The reality is...two candidates raise about $25 million, one candidate raises $100,000 or less. At some point you need to say, this is not us making a subjective decision. This is an objective analysis of what it takes to win a campaign." (NY1, Time Warner's local cable news channel, actually instituted such a debate policy, refusing to hold a debate for the New York Democratic Senate primary because Hillary Clinton's opponent Jonathan Tasini, who had reached 13 percent in the polls, hadn't raised enough money—FAIR Action Alert, 8/4/06.)

Time magazine's Karen Tumulty, though, dissented: "Could I argue that...that same criterion would be used to eliminate Dennis Kucinich, who on the other hand does in fact have a coherent worldview that represents a significant segment of the Democratic party base and, therefore, he should be on the [stage]."

Some pundits made the political argument more explicit. After the debate, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod (4/26/07): "Do you think that [Obama] was hampered by the fact that you had a radical critique going on of all mainstream Democrats and elected officials by Mike Gravel, and to some extent, by the congressman from Cleveland, that it made your guy seem more like he was part of the establishment than he would like to have seemed?"

Matthews' comment is, in a sense, remarkably honest. Often reporters and pundits act, when they're trying to winnow the field, as if they're only aiming to improve the democratic process (Extra!, 9-10/03). But Matthews' observation makes clear that he is aware that there is a sizeable segment of the population whose opinions are hardly included at all in the national political debate. Whether the subject is withdrawal from Iraq, impeaching Republican officials, or single-payer healthcare, journalists seem to bristle at the thought of having to listen to such talk from the more progressive candidates. It stands as a reminder of how little time such ideas are given in the national media.

By contrast, MSNBC viewers tuning in before the GOP debate could hear network analyst Pat Buchanan declare his fondness for the lesser-known GOP candidates—precisely because they are closer to representing "classic conservatism" than the front-runners. Buchanan singled out representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas), Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.).

And in an online column, Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared (5/3/07), "Let's hear it for the 'second-' and 'third-' tier presidential candidates.... But if you know, as I do, some of the other, putatively lesser, GOP contenders, you have to be impressed with the depth of their political passion, their knowledge, and even their track records. They represent, in undiluted form, the vivid primary colors of the conservative movement."

The disparity is striking: The lesser-known (and generally more conservative) Republican candidates are cheered for participating in the process, and a cable commentator like Buchanan can use his perch in the media to support those candidates. Progressive voices have no similar presence in the media debate—and the Democratic candidates that most represent progressive ideals are derided for taking up the time of other, more worthy candidates.

FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair@fair.org

Solidarity Forever - (Pete Seeger)

Northwest Carpenters Fight Back!

Two Meals a Week Cut for Santa Cruz Homeless

by Becky Johnson ( becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com )
Saturday May 5th, 2007 9:00 AM

Suppose you could only eat one meal a day that had any nutritious value? And then suppose that in a round of budget cuts (that don't affect police, fire, or Parks and Rec Rangers) your meals were cut to FIVE days a week instead? No need to imagine such a scenario. The Homeless Services Center in Santa Cruz has done just that. And more.

homelessfamilyshelter-1.jpg

May 3 2007

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- In the latest rounds of budget woes, the Santa Cruz Homeless Services Center, in order to balance out the loss of some hoped for grant money, and a food service budget which has caused a deficit for 2 years in a row, the Saturday and Sunday afternoon dinners will be cut along with staffing cuts, and fewer hours of service.

"They are taking the cuts right out of the homeless," said James Sherman, who is homeless himself, but volunteers at the center. "They used to have three mental health counselors. But now they only have one, and she works exclusively at the family shelter." The Rowland Rebele Family Homeless Shelter which opened 2 years ago, and currently houses only 20 people, has been the centerpiece of tangible proof that Mayor Emily Reilly's cares about the needs of homeless people to sleep, eat, or live. The Family shelter cost $5 million to build, and due to strict federal requirements, has failed to fill completely, despite record need.

Meanwhile the heavily used HSC's hygiene bay includes 2 washing machines, 4 dryers, 3 showers, and toilets for 2500 homeless clients. Hours will be cut to 5 days a week instead of seven. But the biggest loss are those two, weekend meals which feed between 65 and 160 each afternoon. Without these meals, people will go hungry.

Sherman is skeptical that anyone really cares about the survival of homeless people. Shelter which is chronically inadequate, is especially so since the National Guard Armory closed its doors on April 15th. The same people which the City and County sheltered on April 15th, are now being cited with $90 sleeping ban tickets as of April 16th by Santa Cruz Park Ranger Rick Wallace. As soon as the Armory closed, he began issuing a rash of citations to homeless campers in the Pogonip and other greenbelt areas in the area. The City of Santa Cruz (population 54,000) has over 2000 acres of parkland, greenbelt or watershed within the City limits alone, but not even one acre is set aside for legal camping.

Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom (HUFF) has long held that the City needs to open a homeless campground for legal camping options, or stop writing citations under MC 6.35.010 which outlaws the act of sleeping out of doors between 11PM and 8:30 AM.

Human Rights Organization member, Bob Patton has called for the public to contact 17th district Rep.Sam Farr to facilitate budget help that the HSC needs to restore vital, life-saving services, and prevent starvation.

Sherman is also concerned with winning back the right to camp somewhere legally. "I am putting out the call to the general public to take the kids and come down to the river and go camping overnight or over the weekend. Camp out to help the homeless." HUFF member, Robert Norse, who supports a public campout to protest the double-bind homeless people are in, with no place to go and a sleeping ban crackdown in force, also supports using the courts to fight the Sleeping Ban. "Since April of 2006 and the Jones decision in Los Angeles, issuing tickets to homeless people for sleeping at night in a situation in which inadequate shelter exists constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

City Council point man, Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty disagrees. He steadfastly supports enforcing the Sleeping Ban despite the 9th circuit court ruling. Mayor Reilly and the council have been briefed by City Attorney John Barisone regarding city liability for continued enforcement of the ban in a post the Jones decision world. But Reilly refuses to divulge the contents of the Barisone's memo citing "confidentiality of a client with legal counsel."

Photo by HUFF


Mayor Emily Reilly can be contacted at: (831) 420-5020 and press 2

Or write the entire council at: citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruzca.us

See also: http://www.huffsantacruz.org (831)423-HUFF

Congressman Sam Farr can be reached at (831)429-1976 and at: samfarr [at] mail.house.gov

http://www.huffsantacruz.org

Take back Mother's Day from the profiteers!