Saturday, July 28, 2007

A growing toll on battlefield brains

From Afghanistan to Iraq, bomb blasts are causing the U.S., British and Canadian troops who survive them a staggering number of brain injuries. Military doctors warn we've only just started to suffer the effects
July 28, 2007

Foreign Affairs Writer, Toronto Star

On a dusty road near Kandahar, a Canadian soldier crawls from his bomb-battered vehicle as his bleeding colleagues are carried away on stretchers. Dizzy, his ears ringing, he dusts himself off and shakes his head in amazement that he has escaped injury.

Or has he?

"Everyone knows that traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in both civilian and military trauma," says Canadian military trauma surgeon Homer Tien. "It takes a huge toll."

Since the days of World War II and Vietnam, protective body armour and medical treatment received by Western troops have brought a quantum leap in survival rates of wounded soldiers.

But researchers have found that even those who walk away from an explosion may be suffering from traumatic brain injury, which has been tagged "a silent epidemic" in the United States.

Military doctors have found that mild or serious brain injury is afflicting substantial numbers of soldiers who survive the ever more powerful bombs, or "improvised explosive devices," planted by militants in Afghanistan and Iraq .

This week, a presidential panel charged that the military health care system was no longer able to meet the demands of the contemporary battlefield — including the mounting number of traumatic brain injuries.

It recommended sweeping changes to upgrade treatment and benefits of affected veterans.

So concerned is the U.S. Congress that it has authorized $450 million for care and research into head injuries, whose treatment may cost millions more over the next few decades.

Up to January 2007, more than 2,000 brain injuries were recorded by the U.S. military. But doctors treating veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan say figures are several times higher.

Canada, which is just beginning to focus on the seriousness of the problem, is no exception.

In Afghanistan, among Canadians killed between February and July 2006, brain injury and bleeding were leading causes of death, according to a study by Tien and two Canadian forces colleagues.

But those who die, or suffer severe head injury, are easier to classify as brain-damaged than soldiers who walk away from the blasts.

"People who have experienced a mild head injury might not know at first, because of medical or tactical considerations," says Col. Jonathan Jaffin, acting commander for U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. "It is important for commanders to be aware of (those injuries) because it can have great bearing on a soldier's readiness to go back to active duty."

According to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C., which routinely evaluates combat casualties for brain injury, 59 per cent of those exposed to a blast are diagnosed with traumatic brain injury – 56 per cent moderate to severe, and 44 per cent mild.

As the bombs used to attack the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan pack bigger explosive punches, those numbers could escalate.

"A blast creates a sudden increase in air pressure by heating and accelerating air molecules, and immediately thereafter, a sudden decrease in pressure that produces intense wind," writes American physician Susan Okie in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rapid pressure shifts can injure the brain, without any visible head wound. They can also cause fatal or damaging brain swelling, or drive fragments of metal through the skull. Specialists in battlefield medicine say it's the "invisible" or closed head injuries that are the most difficult to treat.

Brain swelling that results from car crash or sports injuries responds well to medication and surgical techniques. But the damage caused by explosions is a special challenge.

"When the sound wave moves through the brain it seems to cause little gas bubbles to form," neurologist P. Stephen Macedo told the Washington Post. "When they pop, it leaves a cavity. So you are littering people's brains with these little holes."

And, says Sunil Ram, an Ontario-based international security and defence analyst, "everyone in the blast zone is a potential casualty. When you look at Canadian casualties in Afghanistan, more than half of those who die are killed by IEDs. But depending on the munition and the environment, the blast wave is catching everyone within a 200- to 500-metre range."

Advanced body armour saves lives by protecting soldiers' bodies, says Dr. Ronald Glasser, author of Wounded: Vietnam to Iraq, in an essay in the Washington Post.

But he says, "neurologists worry ... at least 30 per cent of the troops who've engaged in active combat for four months or longer in Iraq and Afghanistan ... risk potentially disabling neurological disorders from the blast waves of IEDs and mortars, all without suffering a scratch."

Those who are worst hit may lose consciousness, or suffer seizures and convulsions. Moderately affected troops may experience vomiting, numbness in the arms and legs, and nausea.

But mild brain injuries can cause memory loss, sleep disturbances, confusion, dizziness and blurred vision – symptoms that zealous soldiers or their superiors might shrug off as unimportant. They may also be classified as psychological.

"Events that cause head injury are the same ones that cause post-traumatic stress disorder. And some people have components of both," says Jaffin.

Most mild brain injuries get better without treatment, he adds. But as with sports injuries, those who go back to their activities too soon risk more serious problems.

Victims of worse brain injuries need careful long-term care, which is costly and requires close monitoring and treatment of blast victims. In moderate as well as severe cases, the brain's attempts to heal itself can cause epilepsy, as it "miswires" neural circuits. In other cases, victims suffer personality changes that make them unable to lead a normal life.

Glasser, who treated soldiers wounded in Vietnam, contends that the real toll of war now goes far beyond the death count.

"The real risk to our troops is no longer the numbers of dead but the numbers ending up on orthopedic wards and neurosurgical units."

Even for those with milder head injuries, long term monitoring is crucial, says Tien. So is research on the effects of the trauma.

"The challenge is to find out about those who are further from the centre of the explosion," he says. "A blast wave hits and a soldier may be knocked unconscious for two seconds. Then he gets up and says `I feel great.' Even a CAT scan may be negative. But the question is, will he develop a problem in the future?"

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/240721

The First Victims of America’s Mega-Embassy

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070727_the_first_victims_of_americas_mega_embassy/

Posted on Jul 27, 2007


Friday, July 27, 2007

Progressive Coalition Targets Fox Advertisers

They asked for it. Pressuring JetBlue to withdraw as a sponsor of the Yearly Kos convention was low, despicable and mean-spirited. We can marshal our mean spirits as well. We certainly have 'em!--Pete

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070727_progressive_coalition_targets_fox_advertisers/

Posted on Jul 27, 2007

A group of progressive organizations and blogs is planning to hit Fox News where it hurts: the bank account. MoveOn.org, Brave New Films, DailyKos and others are working to compile a list of local advertisers as part of a larger pressure campaign. Fox News may have brought this on itself by successfully pressuring JetBlue to pull out as a major sponsor of the YearlyKos convention.


AP:

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, [Jim] Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

“It’s a lot more effective for Sam’s Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company,” Gilliam said.

Some of videos produced by Gilliam’s company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.

Read more

Bogus Media-Generated "Scandal" Undermines Democracy in Ecuador

By Mark Weisbrot, The Guardian
Posted on July 26, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/58077/

This article originally appeared in The Guardian's Comment is Free.

In his recent book, The Assault on Reason, former Vice-President Al Gore describes how "the potential for manipulating mass opinions and feelings initially discovered by commercial advertisers is now being even more aggressively exploited by a new generation of media Machiavellis." The concentration of broadcast media ownership is indeed a real threat to democracy, as we learned the hard way when more than 70 percent of Americans were convinced, falsely, that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11 - thus enabling the launch of a disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq.

The problem is even worse in Latin America, where monopolized TV media is a much larger share of the news that people receive, and is even more shamelessly manipulated for political purposes. In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa, an economist with a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, was elected last November with a broad mandate for economic reform, pro-growth development policies, and poverty alleviation. One of his government's first acts was to double the monthly stipend for single mothers, the disabled and elderly that are poor.

Although Corrrea ran without a political party or candidates for the Congress, his mandate was strongly reinforced when the government won a referendum to draw up a new constitution by an even larger margin of 82% percent. As in a number of other countries in the region, which has seen a record economic failure over the last 25 years, voters endorsed the sweeping institutional and political changes they saw as necessary to enfranchise the majority.

But on May 21 the opposition TV media launched an assault on President Correa's finance minister, Ricardo Patiño. In a seven minute grainy video clip from a hidden camera, they showed the minister meeting on February 12 with two representatives of a New York investment firm, as well as a former finance minister. Patiño talks about "scaring the markets," in what looks like a plot to manipulate the country's bond market. The clip, taken out of context, was shown repeatedly for days on the TV news, spliced with gratuitous, unrelated images of faceless people counting large amounts of cash.

It turns out that the video was authorized by Patiño himself, an odd thing to do if one is meeting to plan a crime. Patiño claims that the purpose of the meeting and the taping of it was to investigate corruption. And indeed the rest of the video - not shown on TV but presented in a transcript published in Ecuador's major newspapers - supports his explanation. In the rest of the meeting, Patiño is probing for information on corrupt activities - including past market manipulations. He allows the others to present and explain the possibilities in detail, never agreeing to go along with anything - just as one would expect in an investigation of this sort. In fact he states that it would be wrong to manipulate the market. The meeting ends with one of the investors stating that nothing would be done regarding the current debt payment - which was due three days after the videotaped meeting -- but that they could think about what to do in the future.

But the TV media's repeated, propagandistic images - playing on people's cynicism from decades of corrupt government -- had the most influence. This emboldened the opposition to make more wild allegations of secret deals with foreign banks, and vote to censure Patiño in the Congress - which they control. All of this has been done without anyone presenting evidence that the finance minister was involved in any wrongdoing.

If all this seems Orwellian, it is. Ecuador currently has the most honest government it has ever had - that is why it has had so much support from the beginning. Yet the impression that is coming across in the media - both Ecuadorian and now spilling over into the international press - is one of corruption.

Correa remains immensely popular, and he has defended Patiño, who has now taken another cabinet position. The government will survive this assault, and move forward with its agenda. But the opposition, led by the traditional elite and corrupt politicians, will use this "scandal" - with the help of the media - to undermine the government and the reforms that the voters have chosen.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/58077/

Iraq news that you won't see on FOX (or CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or CBS)

US Firms in Iraq Still Using Indentured Workers Despite Crackdown David Phinney: Charges of heinous abuses of workers have long dogged the reconstruction effort.

In Iraq, Women Increasingly Targeted for Violence IraqSlogger: One of the bright spots of Saddam Hussein's brutal rule was the full recognition of women's rights. Those days are long gone.

Amid Tensions with US, Iran's Presence in Iraq Grows Sam Dagher: Economic and political ties between Iran and Iraq are growing despite US criticism of Tehran's "meddling."

In Iraq's Kurdish Zone, The Children of Arab Refugees Face Tough Times Najeeba Mohammad: In Iraqi Kurdistan, the children of Arabs who've fled violence in the rest of the country struggle to settle in their new home.

Kirkuk Vote Could Touch Off New Civil War in Iraq Ben Lando: A historic vote in Iraq's northern territories could right past wrongs, but it might also spark a new front in the country's many-sided civil conflict.

And the Next Hypocrite Republican Outed By the DC Madam Is...

Posted on July 26, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/58084/

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

The Buckeye State Blog has revealed that the next member of Congress who will be revealed as a client of the DC Madam's, the way David Diapers Vitter (R-LA) was, will be a Republican member of the Ohio congressional delegation.

If you remove Senator DeWine, freshman Jim Jordan, and the 2 women-- Mean Jean Schmidt and Deborah Pryce-- from consideration, that leaves 8 possible perps: Steve Chabot, Michael Turner, Paul Gillmor, Dave Hobson (too old), John Boehner, Pat Tiberi, Steven LaTourette, and Ralph Regula (way too old).

Most people Every single person we've contacted so far says it's Boehner.

Howie Klein was president of his freshman class, drove to Afghanistan and Nepal, became the president of Reprise Records and started a blog called Down With Tyranny. He's always hated tyrants.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/58084/

Bush Treats Bob Woodruff Like Crap

This would be unbelievable if we took the fact that it is alleged to have been stated by George W Bush out of the equation. Since we can't, it is then, sadly, entirely believable.--Pete

Posted on July 26, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/58066/

This post, written by Richard Blair, originally appeared on The All Spin Zone

George Bush is a contemptuous, spoiled little prick. Even when he's receiving the recommendations of a committee he set up to investigate poor veteran's health care at Walter Reed hospital, he just has to show how much of a smarmy little man he really is by upstaging a guy who had half his head blown off.

You know how it is when you hear something on the radio that perks up your ears, but you just can't be sure exactly what was said? This one is kind of hard to believe, but completely in keeping with the character of George W. Bush.

Yesterday, Bush held a quick news conference after accepting the Walter Reed Commission report, and ABC newsie Bob Woodruff was in the press gallery. In prepared remarks, Bush recognized Woodruff's personal journey back from near-fatal injuries that he suffered in Iraq:

I also want to recognize Bob Woodruff here. He is a -- he himself was wounded, severely wounded, and went through the system, to a certain extent. And we welcome you back, and we're glad you're with us. And we would hope that any wounded soldier, any person in uniform would receive the kind of care and the ability to return to work, just like you have done. And so we're glad you're with us, Bob. Congratulations on the will to recover...

Nice, huh? Compassionate, huh? But wait a moment. There's more to the story. Here's what the prepared remarks didn't capture. After the brief remarks, Woodruff asked Bush a question. CNN paraphrased the question thusly (an exact transcript of the exchange isn't yet available):

When Woodruff asked Bush whether the government was moving fast enough to help families, the president declined to answer.

Back to the story that I heard on the radio. David Greene, the NPR reporter who was at the ceremony, described the project and Bush's tepid acceptance of the report this morning. And according to Greene, this was Bush's response in declining Woodruff's question (this is what you didn't read or hear in the CNN report):

"Just because I recognized you, Bob, doesn't mean I'm going to answer your questions here."

In other words: "Thanks for being here as a prop for me, Bob, now shut the fuck up."

Richard Blair is the founder and blogmaster of the All Spin Zone.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/58066/

Al Qaeda: Mothers of Invention

By Matt Hutaff
Jul 24, 2007

It's been a rough year for Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

He's been shot at, captured, and executed. His corpse has been dragged in front of Iraqi-run television cameras. And that's not even the worst of it; he's also been declared non-existent by the United States military.

That's got to sting, don't you think?

Al-Baghdadi was the voice behind Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group running loose in Iraq. Since October, he's launched manifestos on the West via the Internet and galvanized insurgents against American troops. Except he hasn't, because he doesn't exist and never did. Instead, the entire organization was a ruse initiated by Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani to entice Iraqis to join al-Qaeda in general, and Osama bin Laden in specific.

Curious. If al-Qaeda already has a legitimate foothold in Iraq (President Bush said on July 17 "the same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people" there), why the need to craft another one? For the competition? Is it for reasons mentioned above or about putting a face to a largely faceless movement?

Was al-Baghdadi the Emmanuel Goldstein for the Middle East wars?

"In [al-Mashhadani's] words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaeda in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq," said U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner.

No kidding! It's not the first time something like this has happened, either. In fall of 2002, the Palestinian Authority captured Mossad agents attempting to set up a fake al-Qaeda terror cell in Gaza. They are, to this date, the only "al-Qaeda" to be detained. Similarly, Adam "Azzam the American" Gadahn, the English-speaking "face" of al-Qaeda treasonous enough to make the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list, is more commonly known to friends as Adam Pearlman, a California native whose grandfather was a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League.

In fact, since 2001 investigations have exposed British (who have a history of false-flag operations), American, Israeli, and Egyptian agents posing as al-Qaeda, but no actual al-Qaeda. Is the organization even real, or is it a "front organization masking foreign influences" sanctioned by various intelligence agencies? I have to admit, a network of terror cells that targets the West just when they need to crack down on security is mighty handy.

Even the Grand Poobah of terror, Osama bin Laden, is suspect. It's well known that prior to commanding his shadow army from the caves of Pakistan, bin Laden was an asset of the CIA; he helped American interests by fighting off Soviet forces during their invasion of Afghanistan. He was also a friend to the wealthy and powerful, including the Bush family. While there's no arguing his hatred of western diplomacy and Israel-coddling, he repeatedly denied having any involvement in September 11. Yet he, too, becomes available the moment the administration needs to amp up some fear and intimidation.

In any event, recent video tapes of bin Laden may show his participantion is as reluctant as al-Baghdadi's. New footage can be dismissed as material filmed just after 9/11, and other video of him over the years is a fascinating study in re-casting, since several people play the role. Many feel bin Laden died of renal failure years ago (he was using dialysis equipment in 2001, difficult machinery to transport over rough terrain), including Fox News and the Bush administration.

"Bin Laden's voice was detected regularly until two weeks ago by intelligence operatives monitoring radio transmissions in Tora Bora, according to the Pentagon," the Telegraph wrote in December, 2001. "Since then, nothing has been heard from the al-Qaeda leader and President Bush has hinted in private that bin Laden's silence could mean he has been killed." Bush confirmed these feelings in 2002 when he noted in a press conference he was not worried about bin Laden.

Why drag him into the spotlight, then? Why not celebrate the death of of the mastermind of September 11? If he's not dead, why not triumph at his media silence? What's the benefit of propping up one's nemesis?

In the wake of al-Baghdadi's unmasking, reporters asked that of White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend. Her reply was to ignore the question and end the press conference.

"Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age," bin Laden himself said in 2001, "and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that."

Al-Qaeda may be little more than an on-going psychological operation against the world. It is easier, after all, to panic a populace by revealing an organization with a defined hierarchy. Giving someone a face to hate or a name to fear is easy, and we can identify with that. People aren't difficult to dupe; life bears that assessment out on a daily basis.

But take a look at the evidence. Al-Qaeda has consistently been observed as a playground for Western intelligence, and it serves the needs of those who want to dominate the Middle East. Who benefits from that arrangement? If al-Qaeda was looking for legitimacy, wouldn't they stage some raids that don't benefit their enemies?

The American people have been fed a steady stream of lies for many years. As we consider what we've been told about war with Iraq and September 11, so is it time to examine everything, even the evidence surrounding al-Qaeda. As you've read, it could be as real as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.



Copyright © 1998-2006 TheSimon.com
View this story online and more at: http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01429_al_qaeda_mothers_invention.html

FBI Planning Stasi-Style Spy Network

ABC NEWS BLOTTER - The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities. According to a recent unclassified report to Congress, the FBI expects its informants to provide secrets about possible terrorists and foreign spies, although some may also be expected to aid with criminal investigations, in the tradition of law enforcement confidential informants. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this story. . .

The aggressive push for more secret informants appears to be part of a new effort to grow its intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations.

To handle the increase in so-called human sources, the FBI also plans to overhaul its database system, so it can manage records and verify the accuracy of information from "more than 15,000" informants, according to the document. While many of the recruited informants will apparently be U.S. residents, some informants may be overseas, recruited by FBI agents in foreign offices, the report indicates.

The Case For Free Transit

David Olsen, The Tyee

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/

The time has come to stop making people pay to take public transit.

Why do we have any barriers to using buses, trolleys, SkyTrain? The threat of global warming is no longer in doubt. The hue and cry of the traffic jammed driver grows louder every commute. Yet since 2000, TransLink has hiked fares 50 per cent, and its board has just agreed to follow the staff’s recommendation to raise them higher still.

That kind of thinking is so last century. Just ask the mayor of San Francisco, a city similar in size to Vancouver, who ordered his staff to seriously explore the cost efficiency of no longer charging people to ride public transit.

Listen to Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, who recently voiced to a reporter his top dream: "I would have mass transit be given away for nothing and charge an awful lot for bringing an automobile into the city."

Consider this sampling of communities providing free rides on trolleys, buses, trams, and ferries: Staten Island, NY; Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Vail, Colorado; Logan and Cache Valley, Utah; Clemson, South Carolina; Commerce, California; Châteauroux, Vitré, and Compiègne, France; Hasselt, Belgium; Lubben, Germany; Mariehamn, Finland; Nova Gorica, Slovenia; Türi, Estonia; Övertorneå, Sweden.

Or speak, as I have, with transit officials in locales of Washington State and Belgium, where Fare-Free Transit has hummed along smoothly now for years.

It's time B.C. joined the trend because forcing people to pay ever higher fares is not just tough on the planet and people with tight budgets, it's bad economics and self-defeating public policy, as I will explain in this five part series funded by a Tyee Fellowship for Solutions-oriented Reporting.

Tough sell?

Over the course of the next few days, I'll be doing my best to explain why taking the fare box out of our buses -- wherever you live in B.C. and beyond -- makes both dollars and sense.

Believe me, I know that's a tough sell for skeptics.

Just seven years ago TransLink stated that their "market research" indicated that people wanted to pay when boarding the bus. But as Tania Wegwitz, senior transit planner in the Municipal Systems Program for BC Transit recently wrote: "Prepaid fares are better than cash fares, I don't think there is anyone -- passengers, municipalities, transit staff -- who would disagree with you."

Well, fare-free transit is simply the ultimate implementation of prepaid fares. We would prepay for all public transit through taxes, and then we'd ride for "free."

Why Fare-Free Transit?

Perhaps the skeptic in you is saying: without fares, public transit would run out of money and break down. Or you worry that a free ride would attract riff-raff threatening other passengers' safety and comfort. Or you doubt that sober, number crunching officials would ever take the idea seriously.

By the time you are done reading this series, I will have shared real life examples and expert findings to counter all those concerns.

Fare-free transit brings many benefits, some of which include:

  1. a barrier-free transportation option to every member of the community (no more worries about exact change, expiring transfers, or embarrassment about how to pay)
  2. eliminating a "toll" from a mode of transportation that we as a society want to be used (transit is often the only way of getting around that charges a toll)
  3. reducing the inequity between the subsidies given to private motorized vehicle users and public transport users
  4. reducing, and in some cases eliminating, the need for private motorized vehicle parking
  5. reducing greenhouse gas emissions, other air pollutants, noise pollution (especially with electric trolleys), and run-off of toxic chemicals into fresh water supplies and ocean environments
  6. reducing overall consumption of oil and gasoline
  7. eliminating the perceived need to spend billions on roads and highways (now up to $7 billion for the proposed Gateway Project in Vancouver)
  8. eliminating the perceived need to spend billions on bigger car-carrying ferries ($2.5 billion for BC Ferries' new super-sized boats and ramps)
  9. contributing significantly to the local economy by keeping our money in our communities
  10. reducing litter (in Vancouver, the newer transfers/receipts have overtaken fast food packaging for most common garbage found on our streets)
  11. saving trees by eliminating the need to print transfers and tickets
  12. allowing all bus doors to be used to load passengers, making service faster and more efficient
  13. allowing operators (drivers) to focus on driving safely
  14. giving operators more time to answer questions
  15. providing operators a safer work environment since fare disputes are eliminated
  16. eliminating fare evasion and the criminalization of transit-using citizens
  17. fostering more public pride in shared, community resources

Pampered cars

If it's hard economic arguments you prefer, bear in mind that making use of free public transit eliminates the significant costs of fare collection and combating fare evasion (more on this later in the series). It also cuts costs associated with global warming, air and noise pollution, litter collection and garbage removal.

As our own premier trumpets a green agenda, more people are taking a hard look at just how many of their tax dollars subsidize the private car versus less polluting buses and trains. You have to figure in roads, parking and other infrastructure, tax breaks for car and fuel companies, as well as subsidies for car ferries throughout the province and federal income tax reductions and write-offs for companies that use motor vehicles.

Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute has estimated that in 2000 the government subsidy to each private vehicle owner was about $5,378 in Canadian dollars.

In that year, the average cost of providing each trip taken by transit in Vancouver was approximately $5. The equivalent subsidy for transit users would have been 1,075 free trips. Few of us could even use that many.

In fact, if the subsidy given private car owners were simply handed over to each car-free transit user, bus riders would make money for taking transit!

Why raising fares impoverishes the system

Big or small, most transit systems are scraping by or on the brink of financial collapse, paradoxically because of their reliance on the fare box. Revenue for any system drops when ridership dips or when fares are increased. Yes, when fares are increased. This is so well proven it has a name: the Simpson-Curtain rule. Most often the dip in ridership is caused by the hike in fares.

To understand this cycle better, let's imagine that you are in charge of a transit system. You feel pressure to increase service or to maintain service despite increasing costs. You need to raise more money. Politically and practically, for most systems, the easiest way is to raise fares. But soon after, ridership goes down. It drops 3.8 per cent for every 10 per cent increase in fares, researchers have found (Cervero, R., 1994). Which means you either haven't gained much new revenue, or worse, you've started spiraling downward.

In 1955 and 1959, fare increases helped send Vancouver's transit system into an 11-year tailspin, reducing ridership from 109 million trips in 1954 to less than 63 million in 1966, a decrease of 42 per cent!

Further fare increases in 1970, 1978, and 1987 were followed by a decrease of 9 million, 7 million, and 13 million trips, respectively (even with the new SkyTrain line!).

More recently, in a context of explosive population growth and rapidly rising fuel prices, TransLink's first two of three recent fare increases (with another to come in 2008!) in 2000 and 2002 resulted in 400,000 fewer riders in 2002 compared to 2000.

Meanwhile, Toronto's transit system went into a 12-year downward spiral throughout the 1990s after a series of fare increases and resultant service cutbacks.

The Transit Cooperative Research Program creates expert panels (appointed by the Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC) to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the transit industry. In their 2004 publication, Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, the chapter on Transit Pricing and Fares clearly documents how fare increases always result in lower ridership.

Reality check

What the trends above tell us is that if you want a strong public transit system, then we need to figure out how to slash or eliminate the fares riders pay.

That said, let's make a few important guiding principles clear:

Taking the farebox out of any bus without a plan is just a recipe for disaster. That's why we'll be looking at operations like Island Transit on Whidbey Island that have proven beyond doubt that fare-free systems can be safe, clean and very friendly.

Making transit free of charge won't in itself allow huge numbers of people to abandon their cars. We'll need more public transit vehicles, running more frequently, too. The decade-old experience in Hasselt, Belgium, has shown that investing in the service prior to the removal of the fare boxes not only makes the transition smoother, it will get people on the bus and out of their cars.

We need to pay, one way or another. There isn't a transit system on the planet that pays for itself solely through the fare box. If we want a transit system that is adequate, reliable, and gets those lonely drivers out of their cars, we need to find funding formulas that are adequate and reliable.

From Aukland, New Zealand's Residents Action Movement to Scotland's Socialist Party and Vancouver's own Bus Riders Union, advocates are putting cheap and abundant public transit on politicians' agendas.

To sample the utopia they imagine, I took a trip by bus and public transit to Whidbey Island, Washington and visited Island Transit, fare-free since 1987.

More on that tomorrow.

Related Tyee stories:

Global Markets Tumble as Credit Worries Deepen (NYT)


Stock prices tumbled on Wall Street and across much of the rest of the world yesterday. They were driven sharply lower by worries over slowing economic growth in the United States and worsening borrowing conditions that could make everything from huge corporate buyouts to buying a new home more difficult.

Major stock market gauges — including the Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — were down more than 2 percent.

It was the worst one-day decline on Wall Street since markets plunged worldwide in late February after an investing scare in Shanghai, and it occurred amid the biggest volume of trading on the New York Stock Exchange in five years. Losses were comparable throughout Europe, and larger in many developing countries.

“The preconditions for a shock are in place,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “Until very recently investors were very nonchalant about risks.”


Entire NYT Article

U.S. City Issues IDs To Illegal Immigrants

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/64320

New Haven, CT is the first city in the nation to offer ID cards to illegal immigrants, thus granting them privileges such as library cards and bank accounts. What do you think?

Young Man

Carl Richmond,
First Aid Instructor
"But I have always been told that immigrants have no identity."

Old Man

Waylon Helstrom,
Baker
"Oh, great. Now the library waiting list for The Secret will be months."

Old Woman

Patty Walker,
Drywaller
"It's bad enough they're taking the jobs I don't want, but now they're getting the services I don't use!"

US Relations with Venezuela Take Center Stage in the US Presidential Campaign

Will North Meet South? Obama Said Yes, Clinton Said No, Edwards said sorta, and It's a Whole New Ballgame in the US Presidential Campaign.

Of course, the only viable answer was "Yes!", but this is overtly media-saturated politics, and reality doesn't seem to figure in anywhere.

read more | digg story

If we ever "stabilize" Iraq, will anyone still live there?

From BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6916791.stm

An international conference in Jordan on the more than two million Iraqi refugees uprooted by war has pledged to help them with their difficulties.

But it insisted the solution to the problem lay in their return home and that the Iraqi government was directly responsible for its displaced citizens.

The UN refugee agency, Unrwa, said some 50,000 more Iraqis were escaping the violence in their homeland each month.

Most are ending up in Jordan and Syria, which want help to ease the burden.

Unrwa said the wave of displacement sparked by the war in Iraq was the biggest in the Middle East since 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled the newly created Israel.

A final statement at the end of the conference, which was attended by Iraq's neighbours, as well as the UN, US and UK, called on the international community to provide all possible support to the Iraqi people.

It also insisted countries hosting refugees were given assistance "so that they can continue to provide an adequate level of services to Iraqi nationals", particularly in health and education.

The host countries should have the authority to regulate the entry and residence of Iraqi nationals "in line with their law and considerations", the statement added.

But the conference stopped short of addressing calls by Jordan and Syria earlier in the day for rich western nations to take in greater numbers of refugees.

The Iraqi government said it would make available a promised $25m for those straining under the load of the burgeoning numbers of refugees.

'Real humanitarian crisis'

Earlier, the secretary-general of the Iraqi foreign ministry, Muhammad Hajj Hamoud, said the refugee problem should not be underestimated.

He added that efforts to stem the flow of refugees by Iraq's neighbours - who now impose tougher entry restrictions - resulted in cases of mistreatment at border crossings.

One refugee in Jordan, Najla Abda Karim Saleh, fled with her son and daughter. Another daughter was killed in sectarian violence.

She told the BBC she wanted help from the UN to bring her four grandchildren to safety in Amman, the Jordanian capital.

"We have lost [our] house, we are lost, my daughter is lost, my son [is] lost... help this family please," she wept.

Read the entire article

Thursday, July 26, 2007

A PRIMER FOR ERISIAN EVANGELISTS

by Lord Omar

The SOCRATIC APPROACH is most successful when confronting the ignorant. The "socratic approach" is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. You approach the innocent and simply ask "Did you know that God's name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?" If he should answer "Yes." then he probably is a fellow Erisian and so you can forget it. If he says "No." then quickly proceed to:

THE BLIND ASSERTION and say "Well, He Is a girl, and His name is ERIS!" Shrewedly observe if the subject is convinced. If he is, swear him into the Legion of Dynamic Discord before he changes his mind. If he does not appear convinced, then proceed to:

THE FAITH BIT: "But you must have Faith! All is lost without Faith! I sure feel sorry for you if you don't have Faith." And then add:

THE ARGUMENT BY FEAR and in an ominous voice ask "Do you know what happens to those who deny Goddess?" If he hesitates, don't tell him that he will surely be reincarnated as a precious Mao Button and distributed to the poor in the Region of Thud (which would be a mean thing to say), just shake your head sadly and, while wiping a tear from your eye, go to:

THE FIRST CLAUSE PLOY wherein you point to all of the discord and confusion in the world and exclaim "Well who the hell do you think did all of this, wise guy?" If he says, "Nobody, just impersonal forces." then quickly respond with:

THE ARGUMENT BY SEMANTICAL GYMNASTICS and say that he is absolutely right, and that those impersonal forces are female and that Her name is ERIS. If he, wonder of wonders, still remains obstinate, then finally resort to:

THE FIGURATIVE SYMBOLISM DODGE and confide that sophisticated people like himself recognize that Eris is a Figurative Symbol for an Ineffable Metaphysical Reality and that The Erisian Movement is really more like a poem than like a science and that he is liable to be turned into a Precious Mao Button and Distributed to The Poor in The Region of Thud if he does not get hip.

Then put him on your mailing list.

Mommy, why is the lying man still in charge of the law?

“So if I can get this straight, and I’m sure I can’t. Alberto Gonzales is saying basically there are problems, of which he can not speak, for which he is responsible, yet not to blame, and that he is the only one who can clean up the mess… that he can neither confirm nor deny exists.”--Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Video downloads here (well worth it!):

Part 1

Part 2

Related post

Racism ramped up in Berrien County, Mich.

Published Jul 22, 2007 9:52 PM

This could be the strangest story to emerge from the Berrien County, Mich., courthouse in a long time. It’s getting almost impossible to believe that Michigan’s governor or the Department of Justice doesn’t intervene.

Addie Kyle, a 40-year Benton Harbor resident was sitting at a table outside the courthouse, taking a break as court observer in late June. A juror, also on break, walked by and had a friendly conversation with Kyle. She commented to him that the courthouse is racist and Black people need to stick together more.

The next day two police officers showed up at her door wanting to know what she had said to the juror, so she told the truth. They immediately issued a warrant for her arrest.

Kyle hired an attorney, who went to the courthouse asking Judge LaSata to recuse himself from the case since the attorney may have to call him as a witness. The judge said, “If you say another word I will send you to jail.” A back-and-forth ensued with the attorney asking repeatedly if he was being threatened and the judge yelling, “Shut up!”

Kyle’s hearing was on the morning of July 2.

A few hours before her hearing, at 4 a.m., someone burned a cross in her front yard. In court, the juror she spoke to the previous week defended her by saying she did not talk about the trial she was observing, he was in no way intimidated by her, and she was not “jury tampering.”

The judge and prosecutor became angry (because the juror didn’t lie), and Judge LaSata pronounced Kyle guilty of jury tampering. He sentenced her to 60 days in jail, one year’s probation, and she may not enter the courthouse ever again. She will be tried in October and could be sentenced for up to 10 years on a felony charge.

It seems that those who run the courthouse have figured out recently that “jury tampering” may just be an easy way to jail more Benton Harbor residents. About two weeks ago a woman was laughing in the courthouse parking lot when the bailiff called her into the building and escorted her into a courtroom, where she was charged with jury tampering. For laughing in the parking lot. After she hired an out-of-county attorney, the charge was dropped.

Part of the success of the Berrien County thugs is that they have operated in isolation for years.

Is this the worst courthouse in the U.S.? It sure seems like a distinct possibility.

As for cross burning—

The Supreme Court ruled in April 2003 to uphold a state law banning cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate. Cross burning is an instrument of terror and not a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.

Cross burning in the U.S. is inextricably intertwined with the history of the KKK which, following its formation in 1866, imposed a reign of terror throughout the South, whipping, threatening and murdering Black people.

Death threat

Wilson Chandler’s household was a good place to enjoy yourself this June 28. Shortly before 10 p.m., Chandler was selected in the first round of the NBA draft by the New York Knicks. A 2005 graduate of Benton Harbor High School, Chandler went to New York for the draft. That year he was selected as Mr. Basketball in Michigan. Chandler is the first player from Benton Harbor to be selected in the first round of the NBA.

What was Berrien County’s response? Several people called him with death threats, i.e., “Mr. N——-, you will never sign that million dollar contract.”

When will the people of Berrien County admit to the worst racism since earlier last century in the South?


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/benton-harbor-0726/

Community groups assail police raids

Published Jul 22, 2007 9:56 PM

This spring the Cleveland police department conducted sweeps in targeted communities, arresting over 150 Black youth in the St. Clair/Superior neighborhood and over 90 in the Central neighborhood. Many of the young men could face long sentences without parole under RICO sentencing guidelines for alleged gang activities. In many cases the “gangs” amount to no more than neighborhood friendship groups.

Marchers protest police harassment
of community.
WW photo: Sharon Danann

In addition, there have been 96 deaths of Cleveland youths aged 25 and under to date. Alarmed about violence and the widespread incarceration of young people, Black on Black Crime Inc., a community organization, reached out to other groups to make a protest and a positive statement with an event called “One Voice, One Vision.”

The organizers set up an encampment on Cleveland’s Superior Avenue between East 87th and East 89th and occupied it around the clock for a week, from July 9-15. Flags of red, black and green—the colors of Black nationalism—proclaimed liberated territory.

During the days, groupings from the encampment walked the streets of the neighborhood listening to the concerns of the residents. At night there were programs at the base camp with workshops, affirming hip-hop performances, speeches, prayers, poetry and free food. In between the air vibrated with the words of Martin Luther King Jr. and the music of James Brown, “Say it loud, I’m Black and Proud.” There was talk of the police, the prison system, the criminal justice system, the politicians, the lure of gang life and the need for jobs.

Participating organizations included Hip Hop Workshop, New Alliance of Black Nationalists, Future of Cleveland Under Scrutiny (FOCUS), the Cleveland Lucasville Five Defense Committee, Black Contractors Association, the Nation of Islam, and Survivors/Victims of Tragedy, Inc.

The event culminated in a march through the neighborhoods with security provided by the men and women of a Black motorcycle club, the Rough Riders. Families were on their porches to watch the march and members of the core group from the encampment went up to shake their hands. Neighbors of all ages joined the march as participants kept up the vigorous chanting with many fists in the air.

The chant, “What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!” took on a whole new meaning. This was a march for peace in the community which was taking matters into its own hands to stop the violence rooted in police occupation.


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/cleveland-0726/

You Have No Rights!

From Alternet:

The following is an excerpt of Matthew Rothschild's "You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression" (The New Press, 2007).

To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists. ... They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends.
-- former attorney general John Ashcroft

You're either with us or against us. -- George W. Bush

Today's America is a much less free place than the America of 2000. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has, by word and by deed, erected an edifice of repression here in the United States.

We've been living in it ever since. And it's not a comfortable place. The government is monitoring your phone calls and can read your e-mails and open your snail mail.

The government can access records of your large financial transactions, such as buying a house.

Law enforcement officers can bust into your home when you're not there, riffle through your belongings, plant a recording device on your computer, and leave without notifying you for at least thirty days -- and maybe a lot more.

You no longer have the right to protest where the president or vice president can see you, or at major public events when they aren't even present.

Law enforcement officers can now monitor you in public if you are merely exercising your political rights.

They can infiltrate your political organizations.

And they can keep track of you at your place of worship. The government can find out from bookstores and libraries the material you've been reading, and the bookstore owner and the librarian can't talk about it, except to their lawyers, for a whole year -- or more.

The government can hold you in preventive detention for months on end as a "material witness."

If you're not a citizen the government can deport you on a technicality or for mere political association.

If you're not a citizen the government can label you an "enemy combatant" and send you to secret prisons around the world, where you may never see the light of day again -- much less a lawyer or a judge. And even if you are a citizen, the government can label you an enemy combatant and hold you in solitary confinement here in the United States.

Under George W. Bush's interpretation of the president's powers during the so-called war on terror he can do just about whatever he wants. He cites the Authorization for Use of Military Force bill, which Congress passed on September 18, 2001, as the justification for this enormous leeway.

"Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics,"Bush said in a speech at Kansas State University on January 23, 2006. Those tactics, he presumes, are totally up to him. Under this rationale Bush could send F-16s to attack a residential area in, say, Indianapolis if he thought Al Qaeda suspects were there.

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, check out the February 13, 2006, issue of Newsweek:

A Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the President might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. ... Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate Intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said Administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the ex- tent of Presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.

Yes, the U.S. government has a primary obligation to protect us all from another attack. But there needs to be a legal limit; there needs to be a respect for our Constitution and our liberties. Otherwise, as Senator Russ Feingold pointed out, "this country won't be America."

Read the entire excerpt

Buy the book

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

War games show Bush wrong on Iraq pullout; Qaeda unlikely to succeed

07/19/2007 @ 5:43 am
Filed by David Edwards and Will Menaker
From Raw Story

Supporters of the war in Iraq -- including President George W. Bush -- claim that a withdrawal of US forces would lead to an al Qaeda takeover of Iraq. Yet according to Pentagon war games, this scenario is highly unlikely.

On Wednesday's Countdown Keith Olbermann interviewed Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks who discussed his article on Pentagon war gaming for a post-US Iraq.

Pentagon simulations on US withdrawal find the most likely scenario would be a three-way split of the country between Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. Ricks warns while the breakup would be "very ugly," with possibly "tens of thousands of people dying," an al Qaeda takeover of Iraq would not be possible by "any stretch of the imagination."

In addition, the war games also found Iran would not benefit from US withdrawal, and in fact would be sucked in to the same kind of destabilizing sectarian conflict the US finds itself embroiled in.

Olbermann asked Ricks whether it is fair to draw the conclusion that the best way to stop Iran from interfering in Iraq is to leave, to which Ricks responded, that while there are no "good answers" left in Iraq, leaving would make it significantly easier to deal with Iran.

Ricks noted that while these lessons appear to be taken to heart by members of the military, it is ultimately up to them to convince the White House come September, when this war will become "General Petraeus' war" just as much as it is Bush's.


Pentagon Calls Bushit on White House Al Qaeda Claims

By Joshua Holland
Posted on July 23, 2007, Printed on July 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/57690/

The WaPo's Thomas Ricks was on Keith Olbermann's show last week to discuss his recent article about the Pentagon's war-gaming for a post-occupation Iraq [ht: Raw Story].

It should come as no surprise to anyone following the war over the past four years that the Pentagon's planners concluded that the reality in Iraq is the exact, 180-degree opposite of the claims most commonly made by the White House -- and other supporters of the president's War on Terr'r -- to justify the continuing occupation of Iraq, a country whose only "terrorists" prior to the invasion of 2003 were groups opposed to the rule of Saddam Hussein himself.

The Pentagon's war-gamers found that a U.S. withdrawal would not lead to al Qaeda taking over the country and it would not strengthen Iran's hand. In fact, if the U.S. were to pull out, the DoD planners believe Iran would get sucked into the same situation that we're in now: mediating between factions in a multi-faceted civil war.

More at Alternet (plus Olbermann Video)


Sunday, July 22, 2007

The Legal Pervert's Parade: Executive Privilege Über Alles

by Chris Floyd
http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd80.html#

Just in case you haven't noticed before, the United States of America has become a presidential tyranny. We've been clanging this bell here (and elsewhere) since late September 2001, and have seen it confirmed over and over through the years – with torture edicts, domestic spying, rendition, secret prisons, indefinite detention of uncharged, untried captives, etc. – and most recently and most baldly with the "Military Commissions Act," which enshrined the principle of arbitrary presidential power in law and gutted the ancient privilege of habeas corpus. This was rubberstamped by the Republican-led Congress last year – and is still standing strong under the Democratic-led Congress.

But now the Bush Regime has taken an even more brazen step into the light with its frankly fascist doctrine of the "Unitary Executive." As the Washington Post reports, the Administration's legal perverts are getting ready to claim – openly, officially – that the president's arbitrary will transcends every law in the land, every section of the Constitution. All he need do is arbitrarily assert "executive privilege" over any operation of government whatsoever to remove it beyond the reach of any legal action, Congressional inquiry – or criminal investigation. As Atrios notes, Bush has already arrogated to himself the "right" to interpret the law, through the "signing statements" he attaches to the bills he signs, declaring that he will obey only those strictures of the law that he sees fit. Now, the Administration is declaring that Bush need not be bound even by those laws he does deign to acknowledge. As the Post reports:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege...

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege...

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

This new authoritarian claim grows out of the Congressional investigation of the illegal politicization of the Justice Department – and the many instances of perjury that the investigation has produced, as Bush's legal perverts twisted, squirmed and lied outright under oath. Bush is frantically seeking to keep his top perverts – such as Harriet Miers, the loyal factotum who wiped the dribble from Junior's jim-jams and handed him the state papers he didn't read (i.e., "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.," etc.) – from testifying before Congress about the White House machinations to fire U.S. attorneys for failing to file bogus cases against targeted enemies of the Leader. The slimy trail of this scheme leads straight to Bush's main minder, Karl Rove. Bush has already demonstrated that he is prepared to sacrifice anything – including the nation's chief undercover operation against the spread of nuclear weapons – to shield his porcine puppeteer. So the new assertion of authoritarian power – yet another slashing knife attack on the dying body of the Constitutional Republic – is small potatoes for this thug.

Yet the assertion, when it comes, will be an important step forward in the revolutionary remaking of the American state that the Bush Regime launched with its judicial coup in 2000. For note well, this "breathtaking" assertion – that Bush can stop any investigation of government wrongdoing simply by claiming "executive privilege" – is not based on Bush's role as "commander-in-chief in wartime," which has been the perverted basis of previous edicts licensing torture, rendition, indefinite detention, unrestricted domestic eavesdropping and the whole sinister schmeer of Bush's Terror War policies. Even this false "justification" – "stern but temporary measures taken as a military necessity while the nation is in peril" – is missing in the new assertion. The new power is seen as a permanent right of the head of the executive branch: an entirely new structural role for the president, who clearly stands above legislative oversight, judicial restraint and the laws of the land.

There is nothing "temporary" about this claim. (Of course, in practice, there is nothing "temporary" about Bush's authoritarian "Commander" powers either, since he claims the "war" which justifies them will go on for decades, perhaps generations; but theoretically at least, these "wartime" powers have a time limit.) Bush is saying that any action taken by the federal government can be cloaked by "executive privilege" as a matter of course, not as a wartime exigency. The Regime has once again – and very deliberately – provoked a constitutional crisis of the highest order. They are very clear about what they are doing. They are overthrowing the laws, traditions and constitutional structures that have maintained the American republic – imperfectly but steadily – for more than 200 years. (As John Gray notes in his new book, Black Mass, the basic structure of the American system has undergone almost no fundamental change since the adoption of the Constitution, unlike the systems of almost every other state around the globe, including such bastions of tradition like the UK; indeed, says Gray, with the possible exception of Switzerland, the United States could claim to be the oldest government in the world.)

The Bush-Cheney regime wants to change all that – and has been changing it, from the very beginning. They believe that the time for democracy and the rule of law has passed. Constitutional government and legal accountability are "quaint notions" that can no longer be indulged by a massive state with "responsibilities" for managing the affairs of the entire world – and a myriad of "enemies" challenging this benign domination. Only a Leader-state – run by a small, secretive cadre of dedicated elites able to operate beyond any restraints of law or outside supervision or public consent – is supple enough to deal with the duties and challenges faced by the "world's only hyperpower." This is their vision of government. It is a radical transformation, in both substance and structure, from what we have known before. It is authoritarian. It is arbitrary. It is ruthless, corrupt, brutal and vile, but because it is clothed in modern garb, in business suits, PR-packaged, slick and airbrushed, we don't see it for the barbaric throwback that it is. As I wrote in November 2001:

It won't come with jackboots and book burnings, with mass rallies and fevered harangues. It won't come with "black helicopters" or tanks on the street. It won't come like a storm – but like a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality has taken its place.

To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among this elite, and a degree of free debate will be permitted, within limits; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to govern or influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized – usually by "the people" themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by an impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, not thoughtful citizens, and left ignorant of current events by a media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.

The rulers will often act in secret; for reasons of "national security," the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, the murder of "enemies" selected by the leader, undeclared war, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new "security structures" targeted at the populace. In time, all this will come to seem "normal," as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone.

We are already living in that new reality. And the Democratic-led Congress has shown no sign of recognizing the seriousness of the situation. They refuse to assert the powers given to them by the Constitution for redress of executive tyranny. Not only have they taken impeachment "off the table" (while keeping war – even nuclear war – against Iran "on the table"), but even in the impasse over the subpoenas for Bush's legal perverts, they are refusing to use the legal powers they possess to compel obedience to the law. As the Post notes:

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

No, these Democrats definitely have no appetite for concrete action – as opposed to pointless stunts like their all-nighter over their "anti-war" measure that would actually guarantee the long-term presence of a substantial American force in Iraq – which was of course one of the chief aims of Bush's invasion in the first place. (Sean O'Neill makes quick work of this ludicrous carnival here.) Their most likely response to this latest authoritarian power grab will be weeks of hand-wringing fulmination followed by months, if not years, of court action, as the matter winds its way slowly to the waiting arms of a Supreme Court dominated by Bushist apparatchiks. Meanwhile, the authoritarian regime will roll on, growing ever more entrenched, more emboldened and more radical. By the time this particular manifestation of the Bush tyranny is adjudicated, we will almost certainly be hip-deep in war with Iran – or under martial law following another terrorist attack (of whatever provenance) – or perhaps both.

And if you think this prognostication is too grim, too unlikely, or too exaggerated, then you have been sleepwalking through the last six years.

July 21, 2007

Chris Floyd [send him mail] is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.

Copyright © 2007 Chris Floyd

If This Is Such a Rich Country, Why Are We Getting Squeezed?

By Heather Boushey and Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on July 18, 2007,
http://www.alternet.org/story/57180/

The commercial media is telling us two perfectly contradictory stories about the American economy. The first is how wonderfully rich we are in the United States. The stock market's booming -- some analysts predict the Dow will break the 15,000 this year -- the economy is expanding at a healthy clip, productivity growth is up and unemployment and inflation are relatively low.

But, at the same time, we're also told that we don't have the money to pay for a robust social safety net. When it comes to paying for universal health coverage, affording retirement security for our elderly, investing in programs for the poor or educating our children, we need to pinch pennies. According to this story line, we face a looming "entitlement crisis" -- we won't be able to afford to keep the Baby Boomers in good health and out of poverty, we're told, unless we slash their benefits and privatize the programs that their elderly parents enjoy today.

This is the line we hear from the administration when it talks about entitlement "reform": Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says that "the biggest economic issue facing our country is the growth in spending on the major entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security." The solution, according to the Heritage Foundation, is to cut entitlement spending. "Reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the only way to get the budget under control," it says.

How can two narratives that are so clearly at odds with each other be so pervasive? Are we seriously supposed to believe that Paris Hilton has to dig between the cushions of her sofa to buy a can of tuna?

What reconciles these two themes is absent from our mainstream economic discourse: We "can't afford" all sorts of programs that are clearly in the common good because most of the benefits of our growing economy have gone to a very small group of Americans, who have, in turn, seen their taxes slashed again and again in the past six years. It's a story that isn't told as often as it should in the commercial press, because it's a supposedly "liberal" narrative -- never mind that über-conservative former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that there is a "really serious problem here, as I've mentioned many times … in the consequent concentration of income that is rising."

Saying that the majority of the country's economic gains in recent years have gone to the top 1 percent of the income ladder understates the trend. You have to cut the pie into even smaller slices to get the full picture. Because, while the bottom half of the top 1 percent of the income distribution have done far better than the average wage slaves, it is a smaller slice still -- the top .01 percent -- that has grabbed most of the gains, seeing an impressive 250 percent increase in income between 1973 and 2005 from an economy that's grown by 160 percent.

An analysis by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez gives us the best perspective of what's going on for everyone else. They found that despite several periods of healthy growth between 1973 and 2005, the average income of all but the top 10 percent of the income ladder -- nine out of ten American families -- fell by 11 percent when adjusted for inflation. For three decades, economic growth in the United States has gone first and foremost to building today's modern Gilded Age. The recipients of those gains don't care about a fully funded Social Security system or a healthy Medicare program -- they don't need them.

Meanwhile, even as the top earners' incomes have gone through the roof, their tax burden has shriveled. At the same time, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined -- by two-thirds since 1962.

It's important to understand how that plays out in our national economic discourse. When people tell us that our economy cannot "afford" things like universal healthcare or paid sick days, it fits with the economic experience that most Americans have had in their real lives -- the benefits of our boom-boom economy have not gone to the great masses but to "someplace else."

Americans feel pinched. Polls show that they feel a time crunch -- not having enough time for family and friends -- and that they're anxious about getting into or staying in the middle class. Over the past generation, the economy has not been good to the typical, married-couple family (let alone single-parent families) and families feel, rightly, that they need to be careful about where their dollars go.

It's not that they're not working hard. The typical U.S. family puts in more time at work than ever before. The typical married couple works an additional 13.3 weeks per year -- 533 hours -- compared to a generation ago. But even though families are working more, their incomes have grown by only a third between 1973 and the present. That's much worse than the generation before; between 1947 and 1973, the typical married-couple family saw their income rise by 115 percent, and that was often just one parent's income. This was a period when most families could afford a stay-at-home mother. Of course, fewer families have that luxury today -- those with stay-at-home moms have the same inflation-adjusted median income in 2007 as they did in 1973. They haven't gained a penny from three decades of growth.

When we talk about the slow growth of family income, economists like to mention globalization, mechanization or other factors that require us to be lean and mean and more "competitive." The story line is that U.S. families have not seen their income grow because America has had to fight it out in a wide-open global economy, and these are lean times for workers.

But that's simply not true.

The economy -- as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) -- has grown by over 160 percent since 1973 (PDF). This is only slightly less than the period from 1947 to 1973 when GDP grew by 176 percent. That has come as Americans have become much more productive -- by over 80 percent since 1973 -- meaning it now takes fewer workers to produce the same number of widgets as it did in the past.

As each worker in the U.S. economy produces more "stuff" per hour, be that DVD players or clients served, those goods and services are being sold in greater numbers. In a healthy economy, that growth is shared between workers and investors, and wage growth should rise with productivity. This was the case in the decades between World War II and the early 1970s, when productivity and median wages both increased by an average of two percent to three percent every year. But since 1973, productivity has increased sharply, especially after the late 1990s, but median wage growth has been flat. So firms are getting much more output per worker, but they're not paying for it. They've pocketed the difference in executive compensation and corporate profits. The share of national income going to wages is at the lowest level ever recorded, while the piece of the pie gobbled up by corporate profits is at its highest point since 1960.

But when the masses ask for help paying for health insurance or child care, or request that everyone be given the right to paid sick days, we're told we cannot afford it. "Afford" seems to be a very special term in the current American context: Letting the wealthy take ever-bigger pieces of our national product is something we always seem able to afford.

We work hard. We -- the 99.9 percent -- and deserve a bigger piece of the pie. With a growing economy, we can afford it, and we all know just where to look for how to pay for it.

Heather Boushey is a senior economist with the Center for Economic Policy and Research. Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/57180/

Friday, July 20, 2007

Suddenly, it's al-Qaeda everywhere

Published Jul 19, 2007

U.S. operations in Iraq, it seems, are no longer against “insurgents.” No, the “insurgent,” a vague term not nearly as appropriate as “resistance fighter” or “partisan” in the case of occupied Iraq, has mostly disappeared from the scene these days.

Currently all U.S. strikes are against “al-Qaeda.” Scratch a U.S. general and he will say, “We have eliminated 37 al-Qaeda operatives in Ramadi today.” Or, “the Air Force has bombed three buildings in Anwar Province housing suspected al-Qaeda terrorists.”

Bush, too, and all administration spokespeople name only al-Qaeda as the U.S. enemy. And the media—they like to call themselves the “free press”—all repeat after them: “al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.”

This ploy became so obvious that the official New York Times newspaper critic on July 9 wrote an entire column on it, criticizing the Times itself for going along unquestioningly with the new terminology.

Why the change in propaganda? Consider this: Bush’s popularity ratings are below 30 percent. That’s in the United States, where he won the elections—or stole them, according to many—in 2000 and 2004. Outside the U.S., according to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s talk in Argentina last spring, Bush’s popularity index is “negative.” Chávez’s comment was loudly applauded by 40,000 Argentines.

How then to find some enemy even less popular than Bush for the propaganda war? Impossible outside the U.S., perhaps, but inside the U.S., whatever al-Qaeda really is, it has been blamed for the strike on the World Trade Center that killed nearly 3,000 people here. Thus, it may be hated even more than Bush, although Bush is responsible for the deaths of 3,600 U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

So the public relations experts of the Bush gang decided that from now on all fighting would be described as against al-Qaeda, and that’s what all the media must also write and say. Then, they thought, people would support Bush.

No matter that in Iraq there is so much hatred of the U.S. occupation that even puppet troops rebel and wage firefights against the Pentagon’s forces. No matter that al-Qaeda—whatever it is—didn’t exist in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. No matter that dozens of Iraqi groups, from tribal to religious to nationalist to socialist organizations, all carry out armed resistance against the occupiers. Al-Qaeda gets the blame for everything.

It would seem like a stupid ploy, but the Bush gang is using it to prepare for new escalations and new wars, so the al-Qaeda lie campaign must be resisted, just like all the other lies from Bush and his gang.


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/editorials/al-qaeda-0726/