Sunday, August 12, 2007

How the Democrats Blew It in Only Eight Months

By Alexander Cockburn, The Nation
Posted on August 10, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/59367/

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

The row over the US Attorneys and the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been something of a typhoon in a teaspoon. The Democrats love it, since they imagine it portrays them to the public as resolute guardians of the impartial administration of justice, a concept whose credibility most Americans sensibly deride. The Democrats now plan to track Gonzales's firing of the US Attorneys back to that comic opera villain of the Bush era, Karl Rove, another great provoker of dust storms.

The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.

Just as the Democrats work tirelessly to demonstrate to the voters that it makes zero difference which party controls Congress, the political establishment forces all candidates for the presidential nomination to sever any compromising ties to sanity and common sense.

Right now they're hosing down Barack Obama because he said in the YouTube debate in South Carolina that he would be prepared to meet with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to hash over problems face to face. The pundits whacked him for demonstrating "inexperience." Experienced leaders order the CIA to murder such men.

Then Obama drew even fiercer fire by saying he would take nukes off the table in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama told the AP on August 2, adding, after a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

I'm beginning to respect this man. He displays sagacity well beyond the norm for candidates seeking the Oval Office. He comprehends, if only in mid-sentence, that when you drop a nuclear bomb, it will kill civilians. He also realizes that strafing Waziristan with thermonuclear devices in the hopes of nailing Osama bin Laden is a foolish way to proceed.

So Obama is being flayed for his "inexperience," first and foremost by Hillary Clinton, who permits no table setting that does not include a couple of nuclear weapons next to the sugar bowl. To recoup, Obama has declared his readiness as Commander in Chief to order US forces to hotly pursue Osama into Pakistan, whatever the government of Pakistan might think of this onslaught on its sovereignty.

Has the left the capacity to influence the conduct of the Democrats? In terms of substantive achievement the answer thus far has been no. People didn't like it when I wrote here a month ago that the antiwar movement was at a low ebb. They invoke the polls showing that 70 percent of Americans want the troops to come home. This is presumptuous, like a barking dog claiming it made the moon go down. It didn't take an antiwar movement to make the people antiwar. People looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust. Their attention is already shifting to the economic crisis: housing meltdown, car sales meltdown, credit crisis, threats from the Chinese to destroy the dollar. What war?

The left is as easily distracted, currently by the phantasm of impeachment. Why all this clamor to launch a proceeding surely destined to fail, aimed at a duo who will be out of the White House in sixteen months? Pursue them for war crimes after they've stepped down. Mount an international campaign of the sort that has Henry Kissinger worrying at airports that there might be a lawyer with a writ standing next to the man with the limo sign. Right now the impeachment campaign is a distraction from the war and the paramount importance of ending it.

For sure, there are actions around the country: Quakers and Unitarians picketing outside shopping centers, campus vigils, resolutions by city councils and so forth. It's all pretty quiet, in a conflict that has now -- as my brother Patrick recently pointed out -- gone on longer than the First World War. At the liberal blogger convention, Yearly Kos, held the first weekend in August, the organizers nixed any serious strategy session on the war. John Stauber of PR Watch had to force an impromptu (and very successful) session with leaders of the Iraq Veterans Against the War.

A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush's police-state executive orders of July 17 -- the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them. And guess what? Just as their poll numbers are going down, Bush's are going up, by five points in Gallup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/59367/

Friday, August 10, 2007

Racist Republican Rails Against Hindu Prayer in Senate

By Steve Benen
Posted on August 10, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//59337/

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on Crooks and Liars

A few weeks ago, the Senate invited a Hindu leader to deliver the daily invocation. Apparently, this has sent Idaho's Bill Sali (R) over the edge.

"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.
Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."
"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.
According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."

Remember, as mcjoan noted, the GOP freshman picked this clown to be their class president. Classy.

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//59337/

Republican Pleads Guilty to Sexual Assault Charge, While the Right Attacks the Victim

By Guest Blogger
Posted on August 10, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/59350/

This post, written by Gavin M, originally appeared on Sadly, No!

Some choose virginity, some have it thrust upon them -- and unfortunately, some then turn it around and thrust it upon others at Young Republican events:

Michigan Young Republican pleads guilty in sex case

The former head of the Michigan Federation of Young Republicans admitted today that he sexually abused a colleague during a national convention here last summer.
Michael Flory, a 32-year-old attorney from Jackson, Mich., pleaded guilty to sexual battery on the day he was to stand trial for rape.
The plea bargain, [the prosecutor] said, doesn't include any suggestion of leniency, and the state will seek incarceration. She also said she hopes to present evidence of several "other incidents of sexual misconduct" in which Flory took advantage of vulnerable young women.

"Oh whew," Republicans are saying, "I thought it was another closeted-gay sex crime. People might've started to think there was something psychologically wrong with us."

The victim, who is 22, declined to speak after Flory's guilty plea.
She and some supporters lamented when the incident became public last winter that Flory and his followers within the Republican organization had been smearing her reputation in retaliation for accusing Flory of rape. [Prosecutor] Skutnik said she found that to be true.

Who would imagine that Republicans would do such a thing.

"People were using every opportunity to try to trash her, on Web sites or whatever," the prosecutor said. "He's been running around telling everybody what a piece of trash she is, so she was very happy to see him plead guilty."

Why, we're beginning to suspect that 'trashing' and 'smearing' are what right-wingers reflexively do when they're guilty of something.

Gavin M is a writer and designer in the New York area.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/guest/59350/

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Bush's Latest "Screw You!" to the American People

By Oliver Willis
Posted on August 9, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//59238/

This post, written by Oliver Willis, originally appeared on Like Kryptonite To Stupid

Who does he want to cut taxes for? The middle class? The lower class? No sir, he wants to cut taxes for corporations. Right before the little bugger skips out of office, he wants to screw us over financially one more time. Any Democrat who votes for this, and the Republicans who I'm sure will, is a turd.

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

A turd.

Bush will try to sell this as a boost to small business, but make no mistake - this is targeted at the GEs, Exxon-Mobils and other fattest of fat cats that in turn fill up Republican party coffers with their filthy lucre. We're in the middle of a war, a war whose costs are sinking us day in and out in debt, and the response of the Republican party is to give the robber barons another truckload of free money.

What a disgraceful man George W. Bush is. No wonder his father is so embarrassed by his failed presidency.

Oliver Willis is the blogmaster at Like Kryptonite To Stupid

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//59238/

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Pentagon Chaplain Blesses Sending Badass Apocalyptic "Convert or Die" Game to Troops

By Bruce Wilson
Posted on August 8, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wilson/59184/

"Left Behind : Eternal Forces" Game To Go To US Troops In Iraq, Afghanistan

Courtesy of the Pentagon, and the Pentagon Chaplain's Office, troops in Iraq will soon be able to unwind, after a hard day's urban warfare, by playing a video game in which they command a Christian fundamentalist army waging urban warfare in America ! On the streets of New York City ! Plus, in the game screens appear, between different levels of play, with short, helpful essays such as one that explains how the Theory of Evolution is clearly impossible. And, the game will be provided to US troops free of charge ! How cool is that ?

The United States Pentagon Chaplain likes "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" and the religious warfare the game depicts so much that the Chaplain's Office is sponsoring a prayer breakfast in the Pentagon's main executive dining room this Friday morning, where the founder of an apocalyptic fundamentalist "extreme sports" ministry that will distribute the game to US troops in Iraq (thoughtfully included in care packages along with baby wipes) will address top officials of the most powerful military on Earth.

Religious war is way cool. On the smoking battlefields of the religious wars that erupted in Europe in the wake of the Catholic/Protestant rift, victorious armies would entertain themselves by making small incision in the sides of wounded enemy soldiers and pulling their intestines out to wind those around sticks and so extract the entire intestinal tracts, very, very slowly. In Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" series, God does that to unbelievers; God pulls their guts out.

That's religious war. Way cool.

image, below: a painting of the 'St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre' depicted the radically badassed nature of religious warfare.

I guess some folks in the Pentagon think apocalyptic religious warfare is pretty badass too, and "Operation Straight Up" (OSU), that will be distributing the religious warfare video game to US troops, boasts that the President of The United States might just be there. OSU says it's waging a "Crusade" too, and that's beyond badass, because the Crusaders were even willing to impale and barbecue pagan children in their singular dedication to furthering Christianity, and so maybe the Pentagon's endorsement of a ministry that invokes the name of the Crusades will send a strong message, to America's foes, that they'd best think twice before messing with the US of A.

The "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game, is set in a "post apocalyptic" New York that looks almost exactly like New York City after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and lets players simulate commanding a paramilitary Christian army that seeks to convert Jews, mainline Christians, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, and everyone else in New York City to fundamentalist Christianity. All who resist will be killed.

Some, like Mikey Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation criticize the game because it promotes apocalyptic religious thnking and an ideology of religious war, and pushes creationism. Others, like Troy Lyndon who thinks it's way cool as a coffee-table book, just miss the point altogether :

"....this tremendous game that has it all; great graphics, strategy, depth and meaningful messages worthwhile of fascinating coffee table discussions." - Troy Lyndon, CEO of "Left Behind Games", describing the new "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game.

That's ridiculous. "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" is radical, baddass cool ; like the Crusades and the Crusaders. Jonathan Spinks, founder of Operation Straight Up, wouldn't say such wussy things. Spinks was a badass kick boxing champing

The game is based on the infinitely cool "Left Behind" book series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Soak up the coolness:

"The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God." -- 15-year old fundamentalist fan of the Left Behind series

God pulls out their guts - radical. I bet God makes their heads explode too, just like in that Cronenberg movie. "Left Behind" books are radically cool, and a video game based on the books is cooler still. Here's Max Blumenthal, for the Nation, covering this exciting new development with his usual razor-edged aplomb:

As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

"We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region," OSU declares on its website about its planned trip to Iraq. "We'll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq."

Crusades ! How radically cool are those ?

I mean, listen to the radical, crazy stuff the Crusaders did ! They were some badass dudes, impaling heathen children on spits, barbecuing them and eating them like big kebabs. Baddaaaaassss cool. Look at what I found on the Wikipedia. Crazy shit :

"The most infamous event from the city's history dates from late 1098, during the First Crusade. After the Crusaders, led by Raymond de Saint Gilles and Bohemond of Taranto, successfully besieged Antioch they found themselves with insufficient supplies of food. Their raids on the surrounding countryside during the winter months did not help the situation. By December 12 when they reached Ma'arra, many of them were suffering from starvation and malnutrition. They managed to breach the city's walls and massacred about 20,000 inhabitants, as they often did when they captured a city. However, this time, as they could not find enough food, they resorted to cannibalism.

One of the crusader commanders wrote to Pope Urban II: "A terrible famine racked the army in Ma'arra, and placed it in the cruel necessity of feeding itself upon the bodies of the Saracens."

Radulph of Caen, another chronicler, wrote: "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults alive in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

Those events had a strong impact on the local inhabitants of Middle East"

"Had a strong effect on the local inhabitants" ! Damn right. Barbecue and eat people's kids, they'll remember that for a long time. A thousand years, maybe, its so badass !

Makes todays' military look mamby-pamby by comparison. Geneva Conventions ? Hellooooooo - the Crusaders knew how to get the job done, and it's refreshingly, radically badass cool that the Pentagon and the Pentagon Chaplain's Office is endorsing that kickboxing minister guy, Jonathan Spinks, and his ministry, because Spinks invokes the noble military enterprise of the Crusades, and the Crusaders who were innovative enough to think of cooking and eating people's kids and courageous enough to do so. Was that pleasant for them ? I doubt it. But, they had the courage to do that, in the furtherance of their Crusade, and their courageous acts of Christian cannibalism sent a message of strength that let their foes know better than to mess with Crusaders.

So, it's a refreshing change of pace that the Pentagon Chaplain's Office is bold enough to stand behind Jonathan Spinks' invocation of the Crusades, because it might make Iraq insurgents in Baghdad think twice before taking on America troops to know that those troops are playing a video game that's sort of like a Crusade, in which they're waging war against their fellow Americans ! If the Iraqis can be made aware that US troops, some of them anyway - the ones who are tough like the Crusaders were tough - can be taught to wage war against their fellow Americans or pursue victory with the single mindedness of Crusaders, those Iraqis might just smarten up and stand down.

***

US troops will surely benefit from the "wholesome family" values imparted by this information packed Christian religious war video game that includes helpful creationist refutations of the Theory Of Evolution in the screens between play levels.

Major Christian leaders such as Promise Keepers co-founder coach Bill McCartney, who told a LA Times reporter that in the End-Times "The Jews will be toast", have endorsed the game. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the book series the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" game is derived from, has stated that atheistic Jews have committed some of the worst evil the world has ever seen. So as US troops playing the game manage their paramilitary Christian armies fighting to conquer NYC, which many believe to be the world capital of Jewish atheism, they can learn Christian values of ethnic and religious tolerance while they practice ridding the world of what may be, per Tim LaHaye, the locus of the greatest force for evil on Earth.

Beyond teaching US troops how to combat Jewish atheism, the game will serve to relax US soldiers fighting in Iraq to protect America from the terrorist threat there that seems to grow worse daily ; tired from bloody combat in hot, dusty Iraqi cities and towns, they can retreat to the soothing tranquility of simulated warfare from which all the mess of urban combat - the bloodshed, and the mess of dismembered, disemboweled, and burnt bodies, decapitated children and rotting dog carcasses that US troops see littering the Iraqi streets, have been thoughtfully and soothingly expurgated. In the tranquil, simulated "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" world of warfare there is none of the smell, trauma, or mess.

Some, like this cranky guy on a political website called the "Daily Kos seem dead set against bringing this fine game to troops in the field.

But, if US troops in Iraq get to wield modern high tech weaponry, the best Uncle Sam can provide, to fight and kill insurgents on the streets and alleys of Baghdad, why shouldn't they get a free game that lets them practice doing a very similar thing in New York City ? What's the harm in that ? I'm sure US troops are homesick for the good 'ol USA and if "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" can help out a bit with that, why not ? Some of those troops will be from New York, so they can revisit all the spots they know and love !

The "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" game has it all - total war, tanks, helicopters, snipers, satanic 'UN Peacekeeping Troops", goat-footed demons, Creationism smacking down Evolution, satanic atheists and rock musicians....

The Pentagon Chaplain's endorsement of distributing the game to troops, and invoking the name of the badass Crusaders to strike fear into the hearts of America's foes, is radically cool.

You go, Pentagon Chaplain. The only thing cooler would be if you had the the strength to personally send brave symbolic messages to America's enemies the way the Crusaders did.

But you're a chaplain, not a crusader, and so I guess your coolness only goes so far.

Bruce Wilson writes for Talk To Action, a blog specializing in faith and politics.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wilson/59184/

An Immoral Philosophy

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
Posted on August 1, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/58501/

When a child is enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.

Regular care, in other words, makes a big difference. That's why Congressional Democrats, with support from many Republicans, are trying to expand Schip, which already provides essential medical care to millions of children, to cover millions of additional children who would otherwise lack health insurance.

But President Bush says that access to care is no problem -- "After all, you just go to an emergency room" -- and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he's declared that he'll veto any Schip expansion on "philosophical" grounds.

It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn't about cost. One of the plans Mr. Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we'll spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes.

The House plan, which would cover more children, is more expensive, but it offsets Schip costs by reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage -- a privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.

Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children's health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments.

So what kind of philosophy says that it's O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?

Well, here's what Mr. Bush said after explaining that emergency rooms provide all the health care you need: "They're going to increase the number of folks eligible through Schip; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a -- I wouldn't call it a plot, just a strategy -- to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care."

Now, why should Mr. Bush fear that insuring uninsured children would lead to a further "federalization" of health care, even though nothing like that is actually in either the Senate plan or the House plan? It's not because he thinks the plans wouldn't work. It's because he's afraid that they would. That is, he fears that voters, having seen how the government can help children, would ask why it can't do the same for adults.

And there you have the core of Mr. Bush's philosophy. He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it's hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed.

This sounds like a caricature, but it isn't. The truth is that this good-is-bad philosophy has always been at the core of Republican opposition to health care reform. Thus back in 1994, William Kristol warned against passage of the Clinton health care plan "in any form," because "its success would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment that such policy is being perceived as a failure in other areas."

But it has taken the fight over children's health insurance to bring the perversity of this philosophy fully into view.

There are arguments you can make against programs, like Social Security, that provide a safety net for adults. I can respect those arguments, even though I disagree. But denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you're afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong.

And the public understands that. According to a recent Georgetown University poll, 9 in 10 Americans -- including 83 percent of self-identified Republicans -- support an expansion of the children's health insurance program.

There is, it seems, more basic decency in the hearts of Americans than is dreamt of in Mr. Bush's philosophy.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/58501/

Good Ol' Bill, The Liberal Hero

By John Pilger, ZNET

On 14 August, you are invited to "an audience" with Bill Clinton in London. You have a choice. You can attend the "breakfast and speech" or the "brunch buffet and speech". These will take place in the white elephantine Millennium Dome, where a place in the "Kings' Row" will cost you £799. Last year, Clinton made more than £5m granting "audiences". Not only the usual corporate types attend. A few years ago, I watched a conga line of writers, journalists, publishers and others of liberal reputation shuffling towards his grotesquely paid presence at the Guardian Hay Festival.

The Clinton scam is symptomatic of the death of liberalism - not its narcissistic, war-loving wing ("humanitarian intervention"), which is ascendant, but the liberalism that speaks against crimes committed in its name, while extending rungs of the economic ladder to those below. It was Clinton's promotion of the former and crushing of the latter that so inspired new Labour's "project". Clinton, not Bush, was Cool Britannia's true Mafia godfather. Keen observers of Tony Blair will recall that during one of his many farewell speeches, the sociopath did a weird impersonation of Clinton's head wiggle.

Clinton is able to make a shed load a money because he is contrasted with the despised Bush as the flawed good guy who did his best for the world and brought economic boom to the US - the fabled American dream no less. Both notions are finely spun lies. What Clinton and Blair have most in common is that they are the most violent leaders of their countries in the modern era; that includes Bush. Consider Clinton's true record:

In 1993, he pursued George H W Bush's invasion of Somalia. He invaded Haiti in 1994. He bombed Bosnia in 1995 and Serbia in 1999. In 1998, he bombed Afghanistan; and, at the height of his Monica Lewinsky troubles, he momentarily diverted the headline writers to a major "terrorist target" in Sudan that he ordered destroyed with an onslaught of missiles. It turned out to be sub-Saharan Africa's largest pharmaceutical plant, the only source of chloroquine, the treatment for malaria, and other drugs that were lifelines to hundreds of thousands. As a result, wrote Jonathan Belke, then of the Near East Foundation, "tens of thousands of people - many of them children - have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis and other treatable diseases".

Long before Shock and Awe, Clinton was destroying and killing in Iraq. Under the lawless pretence of a "no-fly zone", he oversaw the longest allied aerial bombardment since the Second World War. This was hardly reported. At the same time, he imposed and tightened a Washington-led economic siege estimated to have killed a million civilians. "We think the price is worth it," said his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in an exquisite moment of honesty.

Clinton's economic "legacy" - like Blair's - is the most unequal society Americans have known. In his last presidential year, 1999, I walked along the ocean front at Santa Monica in California and was struck by the number of middle-class homeless, "bag gents" who had lost executive jobs and families thanks largely to Clinton's North American Free Trade treaty. As for working Americans, the boasted high employment figures concealed a reversion to real wage levels of the 1970s. It was Clinton, not Bush, who wiped out the last of Roosevelt's New Deal. Back in Santa Monica the other day, I noted the bag gents had multiplied.

These days, you see Good Ol' Bill, or the Comeback Kid, as he is variously known, wiggling his head on the TV news, campaigning for his wife, Hillary, among Americans who, terminally naive, still believe the Democratic Party is theirs and that "it's time to vote a woman into the White House". Together, the Clintons are known as "Billary" and rightly so. Like Good Ol' Bill, his wife has no plans to address the divisions of a society that allows 130,000 Americans to claim the wealth of millions of their fellow citizens. Like GOB, she wants to continue Iraq's torment for perhaps a decade. And she has "not ruled out" attacking Iran.

Those settling down in the Kings' Row at the Millennium Dome on 14 August for breakfast or brunch with GOB, having transferred another swag to the Clinton bank account, are unlikely to reflect on the blood spilt and the epic suffering caused, or on the moral corruption of the liberal ideology that courted and acclaimed Clinton, along with the criminal Blair.

But we should.

The Terror America Wrought

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070807_robert_scheer_august_8_a_bomb/

Posted on Aug 7, 2007

By Robert Scheer

During a week of mayhem in Iraq, in which terrorists have rightly been condemned for targeting schoolchildren, it is sobering to recall that this week is also the 62nd anniversary of a U.S. attack that deliberately took the lives of thousands of children on their way to school in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As noted in the Strategic Bombing Survey conducted at President Harry Truman’s request, when the bomb hit Hiroshima on April 6, 1945, “nearly all the school children ... were at work in the open,” to be exploded, irradiated or incinerated in the perfect firestorm that the planners back at the University of California-run Los Alamos lab had envisioned for the bomb’s maximum psychological impact.

The terror plot worked all too well, as Hiroshima’s Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba recalled this week: “That fateful summer, 8:15 a.m. The roar of a B-29 breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a flash, an enormous blast—silence—hell on Earth. The eyes of young girls watching the parachute were melted. Their faces became giant charred blisters. The skin of people seeking help dangled from their fingernails. ... Others died when their eyeballs and internal organs burst from their bodies—Hiroshima was a hell where those who somehow survived envied the dead.”

Like most of the others killed by the two American bombs, neither the children nor the adults had any role in Japan’s decision to go to war, but they were picked as the target instead of an isolated but fortified military base whose antiaircraft fire posed a higher risk. The target preferred by U.S. atomic scientists—a patch in the ocean or unpopulated terrain—was rejected, because the effect of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying would be all the more dramatic.

The victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were available soft targets, much like the children playing in Iraq, suddenly caught in the crossfire of battles waged beyond their control. In “White Light/Black Rain,” a devastating HBO documentary released this week, there is an interview with the sole survivor of a Japanese elementary school of 620 students. The murder of the other 619, and the 370,000 overall deaths attributed to the bombings, 85 percent of which were civilian deaths, has never compelled a widespread examination of the “end justifies the means” morality of our own state-sanctioned acts of terror. Indeed, the horrifying footage taken by Japanese and American cameramen soon after the devastation, and shown in the HBO film, was long kept secret by the U.S. government for fear that an informed American public might question this nation’s incipient nuclear arms race.

Just exactly what distinguishes the United States’ use of the ever-so-cutely-named “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” atomic bombs on cities in Japan from the car bombs of Baghdad or the planes that smashed into the World Trade Center? To even raise the question, as was found in one recent university case, can be a career-ending move.

Of course, we had our justifications, as terrorists always do. Truman defended his decision to drop the atomic bombs on civilians over the objection of leading atomic scientists on the grounds that it was a necessary military action to save lives by forcing a quick Japanese surrender. He insisted on that imperative despite the objections of top military figures, including Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, who contended that the war would end quickly without dropping the bomb.

The subsequent release of formerly secret documents makes a hash of Truman’s rationalization. His White House was fully informed that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, and their surrender was made all the more likely by the Soviets’ imminent entry into the fight.

At most, the Japanese were asking for the face-saving gesture of retaining their emperor, and even that modest demand would likely have been abandoned with the shift of massive numbers of Allied troops and firepower from the battlefront of a defeated Germany to a confrontation with its deeply wounded Asian ally. Instead, the U.S. played midwife to the birth of the nuclear monster, the ultimate terrorist weapon that presents a continuing and growing threat to the survival of human life on Earth.

This is a lesson to be pondered at a time when President Bush plays power games with a nuclear-equipped Russia while coddling Pakistan, the main proliferator of nuclear weapons to rogue regimes, and Congress authorizes an expansion of the U.S. nuclear program to better fight the war on terror by “improving” the ultimate weapon of terror, which the U.S. alone stands guilty of using.

A Reflection On Hard And Obvious Realities

By Fidel Castro

07 August, 2007
Countercurrents.org

Because of its importance, I am prioritizing this subject, among others.

I am not going to deny that the prerogatives of power, whether real, relative or fictitious, have an influence on human beings, because they were all educated this way, right from the remotest of times of the species.

I did not arrive in just a minute at what I am thinking today about power, but I consider that this is a matter of consistent thinking. I attribute the modest contribution of our Revolution to the fact that our responses to questions have never regressed, despite the harsh reality imposed upon us by the empire’s brutal blockade.

In the reflection published on July 31st, I explained what it meant for me to have spent a year gathering information and meditating in depth on the vital problems which today threaten our species as never before.

On July 24th , the Russian news agency Ria Novosti published the following information:

Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, a defense expert, stated that the main instrument of the US policy is the economic, financial, technological and military dictate.

By implementing this, the US is trying to secure the world’s hegemony for itself. Its national security strategy explicitly indicates the necessity of guaranteeing sustainable access, in other words, controlled access, to the key regions of the planet, strategic communications and global resources. It is a strategy that has been turned into a law, and this brings us to the conclusion that in the future the United States will face even tougher conflicts with Russia, China and India.

Washington insists on building a system capable of neutralizing the nuclear potential of Moscow and Peking, its strategic rivals, in order to achieve military superiority. The United States wants to deploy its anti-missile shield not just in Europe but also in other parts of the world, to see what is going on in Russia and China. Likewise, it is seeking to increase its offensive arsenal at a pace that surpasses even that which was followed during the Cold War.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO lost the status it had as a defensive organization when it was founded in 1949, and was transformed into a powerful and aggressive instrument at the service of the world oligarchy, eager to dominate the world. The new strategic concept of the Alliance, approved on April 1999 as a result of the efforts made by the United States, comprises new functions and expands its sphere of responsibilities to include the entire world, not just the North Atlantic. The current Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, frequently visits Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The Alliance has started to ignore International Law and the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, the United States promotes the expansion of NATO and refuses to ratify the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), taking on the right to act outside of any limitations and disposing of troops as it wishes.

The United States would do anything in its power to prevent Russia from being an autonomous player. The debates on anti-missile defence, Iran and Kosovo, have not generated any formulas for compromise.

It is important for Russia to consolidate its positions and recover its geopolitical potential. Early on the 1970’s, when Moscow had achieved nuclear parity with Washington, the latter became aware of the fact that it could not beat Moscow militarily and accepted to negotiate on equal terms. Consequently, in 1972, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT) as well as all other subsequent Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties (SALT) were signed. Strength is the only thing that the United States cares about. If it feels to be in a stronger position, it will never make concessions to anyone.

In order to neutralize the plans for world hegemony it is necessary to build an alternative pole, and we already have the foundations to do so: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

In fact, it appears to be rather incorrect to speak about the United States strength. The United States has military power, a vigorous economy and an enormous amount of hard currency which it can mint in unlimited quantities, but the geopolitical level of the country is extremely low. The United States inspires very little political confidence in the rest of the world.

In 1999, China and Russia stated before the UN General Assembly the need to preserve the Anti Missile Defense Treaty of 1972. All nations voted in favour of the proposal except for four: the United States, Israel, Albania and Micronesia. The result bears witness to the United States’ total international isolation.

Without the participation of Russia, it would be impossible to resolve the situation that has taken shape in the Middle East, the Balkans, the Korean Peninsula and other regions of this planet. This also holds true for China, which is able to put up to the pressures exerted by the United States. China enjoys great prestige in the world; it has a powerful economy and a strong currency.

The SCO ought to recruit new allies and combine the potential of those countries which want to and are capable of implementing an autonomous policy. First, it is necessary to officially proclaim the rejection against the United States world hegemony. Second, China and Russia must denounce the deployment of the US anti-missile defense system before the UN Security Council, as an action altering the architecture of global security and threatening the entire international community. China, India and Russia could form a united front in the face of the United States’ dictates. It is also possible to propose the stabilization of the global financial system as a task. Within the SCO framework, a novel philosophy could be formulated, based on the harmony among civilizations and on the rational use of natural resources. The majority of States will surely support such measures, of that I am convinced. Thus, a new political pole will come into being, the pole of peace. The SCO mission is to create a new model of development for human civilization.

Only an alliance of civilizations could oppose the United States’ empire: the Russian civilization whose orbit includes the Community of Independent States (CIS); the Chinese, the Indian, the Islamic and the Latin American civilizations. It is an immense space where we could create more equitable markets, our own stable financial system, our collective security mechanisms and our philosophy, giving priority to the intellectual development of man in the face of western modern civilization, which emphasizes material goods, and measures success by the amounts of mansions, yachts and restaurants people have. Our mission is to reorient the world towards justice and intellectual and spiritual growth.

So much for Ivashov’s essential thoughts, as published by Ria Novosti.

We have been able to find out that General Leonid Ivashov is Vice President of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs; he was Secretary of the Council of Defence Ministers of the Community of Independent States (CIS) and Chief of the Military Cooperation Department at the Russian Federation Ministry of Defence. On September 11, 2001, the day when the tragic events in New York occurred, which served as a pretext to define the basis of the genocidal policy of the United States almost 6 years ago, General Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. He is a truly well-informed man. It is worthwhile that our people know about his views.

The concern which the Cuban Revolution has always had about the education of the people is obvious. Judging by my own experience, I soon came across the idea that only conscience could prevail over the instincts that govern us. Technological advances today speak of the possibility of manipulating the functions of the cells in the human brain. What good would all this do in a world ruled by the commercial value of goods and services? Who will have the final say in this regard? By this means and through the shameless brain drain, a phenomenon we should adamantly continue to discuss, the most valuable part of the human being could be destroyed: a human being's education via its conscience.

Laboratories can produce medicines to save lives, which could be something of great social value provided such products are available to all. But laboratories are also manufacturing all kinds of weapons that could put an end to human life.

Commercial advertising and consumerism are incompatible with the survival of the species. After all possible calculations, you will realize that natural resources, space, climate, weather, and the system cannot yield any other outcome, given their pace and the direction in which they are moving.

Fidel Castro Ruz

August 3, 2007.

7:15 p.m.


Tuesday, August 07, 2007

New Evidence Challenges Pentagon Testimony In "Christian Embassy" Scandal

By Bruce Wilson
Posted on August 6, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wilson/58994/

On Monday, researchers working for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation ( MRFF ) uncovered evidence calling into question the veracity of the testimony given to the Pentagon Inspector General in the investigation in the wake of MRFF's lawsuit concerning top Pentagon officials and US military officers who appeared in a promotional video, made for fundraising purposes, of an organization called "Christian Embassy", an offshoot of Campus Crusade For Christ, that evangelizes Pentagon members, foreign diplomats, and White House employees.

Last Thursday, July 26th 2007, as I subsequently reported, the Christian Embassy video scandal broke open again in the form of a Pentagon Inspector General's report [see Truthout story linked for full PDF of report] which concluded that Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, and two other officers whose names were redacted "improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform".

The Pentagon officials who participated in the Christian Embassy video told the Pentagon Inspector General that they were confused about the status of "Christian Embassy" because the organization had been given free reign in the Pentagon for 25 years. Christian Embassy members had badges to enter the Pentagon un-escorted, with guests, and one Pentagon official who appeared in Christian Embassy's video claimed he was under the impression that Christian Embassy was a "quasi governmental" agency.

But, here is Christian Embassy's description of its mission, from its fund raising video :

“There are over 25,000 Department of Defense leaders working in the rings and corridors of the Pentagon. Through Bible studies, discipleship, prayer breakfasts, and outreach evens, Christian Embassy is mustering these men and women into an intentional relationship with Jesus Christ.”


If those Pentagon members might have been tempted to claim they never actually watched the video they appeared in, claims they might make about being unaware of Christian Embassy's organizational goals have now become untenable.

MRFF determined the following, from schedules that were advertised on Christian Embassy's own website:

Bob Caslen, Lucius Morton, Cynthia Islin, along with dozens of other high ranking Pentagon officials, have led Christian Embassy’s “Weekly Discipleship Study Groups”, teaching out of Christian Embassy’s lesson plans that have printed right at the top “Our Mission: To win, build, and send Department of Defense leaders to live for Jesus Christ.”
Jack Catton and Pete Sutton have both given Prayer Breakfast talks co-sponsored by Christian Embassy and the Pentagon Chaplain, and Catton’s October 22, 2003 talk was entitled “Leadership For Christ in the Pentagon”.


Meet your new Christian theocratic military leadership...

Postscript:

In the 1970's, when MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein was a cadet, along with Jack Catton, in the United States Air Force Academy, both took a course called "Law For Commmanders" and studied the First Amendment. Teaching the First Amendment in that key USAF course is now optional for USAF instructors.

Since they graduated, both Jack Catton and Mikey Weinstein have enjoyed considerable career success, but there is a key distinction to be made between the two men :

While Catton now appears to be promoting the spread of a warlike form of Christian fundamentalism within the US military and the US government, Weinstein has taken a radically different route and spent a large part of his personal fortune in the defense of the United States Constitution and the protection of religious liberty not just for fundamentalist Christians but for all Americans, of every religious and philosophical belief.

If you like this work and want to see it continue, please consider making a donation to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation

Bruce Wilson writes for Talk To Action, a blog specializing in faith and politics.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wilson/58994/

Monday, August 06, 2007

FAIR Media Advisory

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3155


Military Atrocities Less Newsworthy Than Right-Wing Fantasies:
Press follows smears of New Republic as Nation's evidence of abuse ignored

8/6/07

The Nation's investigation into the U.S. occupation's impact on Iraqi civilians (7/30/07) and a series of columns by a U.S. soldier published in the New Republic (2/5/07, 6/4/07, 7/23/07) have given media access to compelling new documentation of egregious behavior by U.S. troops in Iraq. The New York Times and Washington Post have responded by paying much less attention to the scrupulously documented evidence of these abuses in the Nation and focusing on right-wing bloggers' unsubstantiated criticisms of the New Republic columns.

The Nation's article was based on interviews with 50 combat veterans of the Iraq War, whose accounts were recorded in thousands of pages of transcripts. According to the report's authors, Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian, their "investigation marks the first time so many on-the-record, named eyewitnesses from within the U.S. military have been assembled in one place to openly corroborate these assertions." Meanwhile, the New Republic series was based on eyewitness accounts by a single soldier, Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who wrote under the pseudonym Thomas Scott for fear of reprisals by his superiors. Beauchamp later explained (New Republic, 7/26/07) that his columns were intended merely to offer "one soldier's view of events in Iraq."

Despite the New Republic columns' more modest scope, the series has garnered much more extensive media coverage over the past three weeks than the Nation's report. It has been mentioned in six Washington Post articles and has been the topic of two New York Times news articles, while the Nation article has been covered only in one column by Bob Herbert (New York Times, 7/10/07) since it was published online on July 9.

The Weekly Standard (7/19/07) responded to the New Republic series by openly challenging the authenticity of the columnist's accounts, and was soon joined in this effort by the U.S. military public affairs department. A U.S. military public affairs officer confirmed to blogger Matt Sanchez (American Spectator blog, 7/21/07) the military's "intent to engage the CENTCOM blog team." (According to the Department of Defense's publication DefenseLink--3/2/06--the U.S. Armed Forces' Central Command "blog team" was formed to "work with more than 250 bloggers to try to disseminate news about the good work being done by U.S. forces in the global war on terror," and to correct online information about the U.S. military that is, in the view of U.S. military public affairs personnel, "inaccurate" and "incomplete.")

In the midst of these efforts, hundreds of bloggers weighed in with their evaluations of the New Republic series. Their efforts were given standing in the mainstream media by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, who wrote an account of the criticism on July 21.

As Kurtz wrote, the columnist "recounts soldiers getting their kicks by running over dogs with Bradley Fighting Vehicles and playing with Iraqi children's skulls taken from a mass grave." The Weekly Standard called these stories doubtful, and Kurtz offered one reason for giving the doubts such a prominent hearing: "The issue of veracity is especially sensitive for the New Republic, which fired associate editor Stephen Glass in 1998 for fabrications that editors concluded had appeared in two-thirds of his 41 articles."

While this is true, Kurtz should have also taken into account the Weekly Standard's own track record: The magazine relentlessly advocated for the Iraq invasion, and were among the most prominent outlets that alleged serious links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda (see Extra!, 1?2/04)

After Kurtz's piece came the Times' first story on the topic, published under the headline "Doubts Raised on Magazine's 'Baghdad Diarist'" (7/24/07). However, the actual "doubts" hardly warranted the attention granted them through the article's headline. The only example the Times furnished of the New Republic columnist's dubiousness was a quote from an editor at the Weekly Standard, who noted that in response to a call by the Standard for knowledgeable people to help discredit the New Republic series, "There's not a single person that has come forward and said, 'It sounds plausible.'"

On August 2, the New Republic posted an online response to the criticism, declaring that the magazine had found one minor discrepancy: An incident Beauchamp reported happening at a base in Iraq seems to have happened at a base in neighboring Kuwait. The Washington Post and New York Times (8/3/07) printed short updates based on the New Republic's investigation.

On one of the disputed counts - the bloggers claimed that Bradley vehicles could not possibly be used to kill dogs - the Post noted, "A spokesman for the vehicle's manufacturer confirmed to the New Republic that it can be maneuvered in the way Beauchamp depicted." Why the Post failed to investigate this matter themselves before airing the unfounded criticism is hard to fathom.

The disparity in media treatment is striking - when right-wing bloggers make unfounded criticisms of reporting that portrays U.S. soldiers in Iraq in a bad light, the "controversy" makes it into papers like the Post and the New York Times, and becomes fodder for cable news. But the Nation's thorough and meticulous investigation of the U.S. military's mistreatment of Iraqi civilians is all but ignored. Apparently critical war reporting is more useful to the mainstream media when specious right-wing doubts can be cast on it.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Dispatch from Post-Constitutional America

Near Albany, New York, Stephen Downs went to a mall with his son Roger, and the two of them bought shirts in a T-shirt shop. Downs put his shirt on, went to eat in the food court—and was arrested. The T-shirt's message?

"Peace on Earth."


Thanks for the warning, Mr. Orwell. Apparently no one was listening.

Underfunded Mandate Department.

Rarely is the question asked, "Is our children learning?"--GW Bush, 1/11/2000

Markets Fall as Lender Woes Keep Mounting

By VIKAS BAJAJ, NYT

Stocks tumbled yesterday on fears that the worsening ills in the mortgage and debt markets could soon take a significant toll on consumers, businesses and the overall economy.

The latest decline capped a volatile two weeks on Wall Street in which the stock market has swung wildly from day to day, reflecting rising uncertainty about the outlook for markets and the risks plaguing the economy. The biggest moves lately have often occurred shortly before trading closed.

Indeed, the market dropped particularly sharply yesterday afternoon after investors were rattled by remarks by executives at Bear Stearns, the investment bank that has been heavily involved in mortgage securities. The firm’s assurances about its own financial position were overshadowed by bleak comments by its chief financial officer about the credit markets.

“I have been at this for 22 years, and this is about as bad as I have seen it in the fixed-income market,” said Samuel L. Molinaro Jr., Bear Stearns’s chief financial officer.

The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fell 2.7 percent yesterday, with much of the decline coming after Bear’s conference call started around 2 p.m. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 281.42 points, or 2.1 percent. And the dollar fell noticeably against the euro and the British pound.

While consumers continue to express confidence in the outlook for the economy, the government’s monthly employment report, released yesterday morning, added to worries about the spreading impact of the housing slump. The economy added only 92,000 jobs last month, down from 126,000 in June and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.6 percent.

Mortgage companies have significantly tightened credit lately to borrowers with weak credit histories and are even cracking down on those with solid records who are taking on riskier loans.

On Thursday, the credit worries were so severe that even Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage company, felt compelled to tell investors that it did not face any difficulties raising money.

Lenders say they are increasingly unable to persuade investors to buy packages of home loans made to borrowers with little or no down payment or those who cannot fully document their incomes. As a result, many companies are no longer offering such loans to potential buyers.

“I have never seen it happen so quickly,” said Steve Walsh, a mortgage broker in Scottsdale, Ariz. “Banks always do these little cutbacks here and there. What they are doing now is a liquidity crunch. It’s a credit freeze.”

Richard F. Syron, chief executive of Freddie Mac, the large buyer of mortgages created by Congress in the 1970s, said yesterday that the speed and severity of the tighter credit terms are surprising, but perhaps necessary given the excesses in the market in recent years.

In a telephone interview from Washington, he was wary of the calls by some mortgage industry officials that Freddie Mac and its cousin, Fannie Mae, step in to buy loans and securities that private investors will no longer purchase. Mr. Syron noted that his company was operating under an agreement with its regulator that limited the size of its portfolio.

“There are some loans that are in difficulty” because credit pools are drying up, Mr. Syron said. “There are other loans that probably should never have been made and providing more liquidity will make that situation worse in the long term.”

The interest rates on many popular mortgages have risen by as much as a full percentage point, if they are available at all, said George J. Jenich, founder of FreeRateSearch.com, a consumer Web site. But rates on conventional fixed-rate 30-year mortgages have held steady.

Bear Stearns scheduled its conference call to reassure investors after Standard & Poor’s, one of the agencies that rates the creditworthiness of companies, said it was considering downgrading Bear’s credit rating because of the collapse of two hedge funds it recently put into bankruptcy after they made losing bets on mortgage securities.

Despite all the worries about credit markets, however, the economy continues to plow ahead and even yesterday’s jobs report was not weak enough to suggest that the Federal Reserve would cut its benchmark short-term interest rate when it meets next week.

But the risks to the economy do seem serious enough that investors now expect the Fed to cut its rate to 5 percent, from 5.25 percent by November, based on the price of a trading instrument that is tied to Fed policy. And the yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 4.68 percent from 4.77 percent Thursday evening.

Wall Street analysts say they are increasingly concerned that consumer spending will weaken as more people in housing and related sectors lose their jobs. They also worry that many homeowners will cut back as they find it harder to refinance or borrow against the value of their homes.

“You have a broad sell-off because people don’t know how far the subprime cloud is going to hang over U.S. industries,” said Jake Dollarhide, chief executive of Longbow Asset Management, an investment firm based in Tulsa, Okla. “If they don’t get assurance, they are just selling off rather than asking questions.”

The S.& P. has fallen 7.7 percent, to 1,433.06, since July 19, the day it established a record. The last two weeks were the worst such period in more than four and a half years, and the broad market index is now up just 1 percent for the year. The Dow is doing somewhat better; it has fallen 5.9 percent, to 13,181.91, since July 19, but it is still up 5.8 percent for the year.

And through it all, businesses have been reporting strong earnings. Profits are up 9.6 percent in total for the 80 percent of the companies in the S.& P. index that have released results for the second quarter, noted Douglas M. Peta, chief market strategist at J. & W. Seligman & Company, an investment firm based in New York.

Despite that, Mr. Peta said, he was not particularly optimistic about the near-term outlook for stocks and far less so about the market for debt.

“It seems to me things got every bit as silly in the credit markets in the last few years as they did in tech stocks in the late 1990s,” he said. “I still think we may have a ways to go in this.”

Eric Dash and David Leonhardt contributed reporting.

Capitalistas!

Don't ya just love it when someone tells you that the economy is "robust" and "sound"? You can always rest assured that the speaker is in the top 20% on the economic food chain! The rest of us, down here in the bottom 80%, obviously have no clue since we don't read the masturbatory economists' writings. We must be naive as hell to believe the economy is the most stratified since feudalism!--Pete

Is the US Heading for 'Developing Nations' Inequality Levels?
By Paul Harris, The Observer UK
Posted on July 30, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/57727/

On the surface, Mark Cain works for a time-share company. Members pay a one-off sum to join and an annual fee. They then get to book holiday time in various destinations around the globe.

But Solstice clients are not ordinary people. They are America's super-rich and a brief glance at its operations reveal the vast and still widening gulf between them and the rest of America.

Solstice has only about 80 members. Platinum membership costs them $875,000 to join and then a $42,000 annual fee. In return they get access to 10 homes from London to California and a private yacht in the Caribbean, all fully staffed with cooks, cleaners and "lifestyle managers" ready to satisfy any whim from helicopter-skiing to audiences with local celebrities. As the firm's marketing manager, Cain knows what Solstice's clientele want. "We are trying to feed and manage this insatiable appetite for luxury," Cain said with pride.

America's super-rich have returned to the days of the Roaring Twenties. As the rest of the country struggles to get by, a huge bubble of multi-millionaires lives almost in a parallel world. The rich now live in their own world of private education, private health care and gated mansions. They have their own schools and their own banks. They even travel apart -- creating a booming industry of private jets and yachts. Their world now has a name, thanks to a new book by Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank which has dubbed it "Richistan." There every dream can come true. But for the American Dream itself -- which promises everyone can join the elite -- the emergence of Richistan is a mixed blessing. "We in America are heading towards 'developing nation' levels of inequality. We would become like Brazil. What does that say about us? What does that say about America?" Frank said.

In 1985 there were just 13 US billionaires. Now there are more than 1,000. In 2005 the US saw 227,000 new millionaires being created. One survey showed that the wealth of all US millionaires was $30 trillion, more than the GDPs of China, Japan, Brazil, Russia and the EU combined.

The rich have now created their own economy for their needs, at a time when the average worker's wage rises will merely match inflation and where 36 million people live below the poverty line. In Richistan sums of money are rendered almost meaningless because of their size. It also has other names. There is the "Platinum Triangle" used to describe the slice of Beverly Hills where many houses go for above $10m. Then there is the Jewel Coast, used to describe the strip of Madison Avenue in Manhattan where boutique jewelry stories have sprung up to cater for the new riches' needs. Or it exists in the MetCircle society, a Manhattan club open only to those whose net worth is at least $100m.

The reason behind the sudden wealth boom is, according to some experts, the convergence of a new technology -- the internet and other computing advances -- with fluid and speculative markets. It was the same in the late 19th century when the original Gilded Age of conspicuous wealth and deep poverty was spawned by railways and the industrial age. At the same time government has helped by doling out corporate tax breaks. In the 1950s the proportion of federal income from company taxes was 33 per cent, by 2003 it was just 7.4 percent. Some 82 of America's largest companies paid no tax at all in at least one of the first three years of the administration of President George W. Bush.

But who are the new rich? Some of the names are familiar, Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates and savvy stock investor Warren Buffett. But most are unknown, often springing from the secretive world of financial hedge funds. Men like James Simons, who took home compensation of $1.7bn last year. Last year the 25 top earning hedge fund bankers in the US earned an average of $570m each. The average US household income is $50,000.

It is such men -- and they are usually men -- who feed the outlandish luxury goods economy of Richistan. It is they who are responsible for the rebirth of the butler industry, which was all but dead in the Seventies and is now facing a shortage of trained staff. So keen is the demand that many can expect to earn a six-figure salary when they graduate from booming butler schools.

Then there is the runaway feeder-industry of luxury consumer items. The new ultra rich turn up their noses at Rolexes; the sought-after brand is Franck Muller, which sells a high-end timepiece for $736,000. Or try a Mont Blanc pen, encrusted in jewels, for $700,000. Louis Vuitton's most exclusive handbag sells for $42,000. Only 24 were ever made and none ever touched a shelf as all were pre-sold to Richistani clients.

In places such as Manhattan and Los Angeles, restaurants and bars outdo themselves in excess. New York's Algonquin Hotel has a $10,000 "martini on a rock" (it comes with a diamond at the bottom of the glass). City eateries sell burgers for more than $50. One offers a $1,000 omelette. In Los Angeles there is a craze for Bling mineral water -- at $90 a bottle.

Then there are the boats. The private yacht industry in America has been caught in an arms race of size and luxuriousness. So far, there has been a clear winner: Oracle-founder Larry Ellison's 450 foot water palace, the Rising Sun. More than 80 rooms on five stories and a landing craft that carries a Jeep, a basketball court doubling as a helipad and a fully-equipped cinema.

Now an Oregon-based company is taking things further: private submarines. An estimated 100 or so private subs are now drifting around the world's oceans. Then there are the rockets -- several notable billionaires are now leading the way in private exploration of space. One of them is Robert Bigelow who has ploughed $500m into trying to build an inflatable space hotel. A miniature prototype model was successfully launched and tested last month. In a scene that perhaps James Bond would find familiar, armed guards now patrol the fences of Bigelow Aerospace's headquarters wearing badges decorated with an alien as their corporate logo.

But this is not just a world of riches gone mad that the rest of America can ignore. The growth of such a large super-rich class, coupled with a deepening poverty in many communities, is starting to tear at the fabric of society. Even some of the most wealthy -- like Gates and Buffett -- have spoken openly of the needs to address the massive "inequality gap" that they have come to exemplify. In effect, some of the very richest Americans are calling for themselves to be taxed. In a speech last month Buffett -- the third richest man in the world -- pointed out that his tax rate was 17.7 per cent of his income while his secretary was taxed at 30 per cent. "Many of the new super-rich are looking long term at the world and they see a collapsing US education system and health-care system and the disappearance of the middle class and they realize: this is bad for everybody," said Frank.

Defenders of low tax for the very rich point to the theory of trickledown economics -- the spending power of the rich benefiting the poor. But while the super-rich have boomed, the earning power of the average and poor citizen has not nearly matched the performance of the elite. In 2005 the top one per cent of earners in the US gained 14 per cent in income in real terms, while the rest of the country gained less than one per cent. The situation is especially bad for the severely poor -- those living at half the poverty level -- whose numbers are at a 32-year high. The rich are getting richer but are not bringing everyone else with them. "If you look at the impact of the last 20 years it seems pretty clear that trickledown just does not work," said Paul Buchheit, economics professor at Chicago's Harold Washington College.

There are some signs of a change in attitude. Recent huge Wall Street flotations such as the listing of private equity giants like Blackstone have created a push in Congress for taxes on the instant billionaires they have created. Scandals of excess such as Enron and WorldCom and the trial of Conrad Black have been high-profile. But few politicians, needing campaign cash from new millionaires, will get far preaching higher tax. Calls for more equality tend to have come from men like Buffett and Gates whose fortunes are so enormous that a little extra tax would make no difference. Bush has pushed to phase out taxes like the estate tax, which benefit only the rich. "I don't see it changing. No matter what administration is in power," said Buchheit.

But many think it must change. To a large degree, the debate over the booming lives of the super-rich is an argument about the American soul. America is a country that has always worshiped wealth, where the creation of a fortune was seen as virtuous and a source of pride.

But now that huge wealth has started to squeeze the "middle class" out of existence, leaving the haves and have-nots in very separate worlds. It is possible that political will may develop to address the problem or that the problem will correct itself. The notorious end of the Gilded Age came in the panic of 1893 that sank America into depression.

Frank believes the signs of a coming storm are there. "The trick is to spot when prosperity turns to excess," he said. "When a large amount of people make a lot money very quickly it's a sign you are near the top of the market."

In a world of mega-yachts, private submarines and space hotels, that peak might be close at hand. And it's a long way down.

Billionaire's row

-- There are 7.5 million households in America worth up to $10m. A further two million are worth $10m-$100m and thousands are worth more than $100m.

-- There is now a two-year waiting list for 200ft yachts. If put end to end, the boats on that list, which cost $50m each, would be 15 miles long.

-- Sebonack Golf Club in the Hamptons, Long Island, charges $650,000 for membership. That doesn't include the $12,000 annual dues, or tips for caddies.

-- Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have a private Boeing 767.

-- John D. Rockefeller was America's first billionaire. Adjusted for inflation, he had $14 billion -- less than the net worth of each of Sam Walton's five children today. There were 13 US billionaires in 1985. Now there are more than 1,000. There are as many millionaires in North Carolina as in India.

-- "Affluent" is Richistani for "not really rich." According to Frank, you need about $10m to be considered entry-level rich.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/57727/
Related:

Fear and Loathing in Middle America

By Sasha Abramsky, The American Prospect
Posted on July 30, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/57490/

This article is reprinted from the American Prospect.

Reviewed: Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War by Joe Bageant (Crown, 288 pages)

Every so often, you pick up a book and two pages in your nose is glued to it. Not necessarily because of the subject matter per se -- though good subject matter certainly helps -- but because the prose is so damned electric.

Usually, I've found, when it comes to reportage like this, the book's author has a single name: Hunter S. Thompson. Recently, though, I've added another name to my stuck-nose lexicon, having been utterly ensnared by Joe Bageant's Deer Hunting With Jesus.

Bageant grew up in a fundamentalist Christian, ultra-working-class family in a claustrophobic little Virginia town named Winchester. Then, in his own terminology, he made his escape. He moved west and made a pretty decent career for himself in the world of journalism. A few years ago, though, he felt a craving for his childhood home and, now deep into middle-age, decided to relocate once more.

So the self-proclaimed socialist, atheist, heavy-drinking, three-times-married Joe returned home, to a landscape dominated by rabid, demon-battling fundamentalists (including his younger brother, a fire-and-brimstone preacher); NASCAR; overpriced mobile homes; greasy food; depressing, dead-end, anti-union workplaces; and gung-ho patriots whose pick-up trucks boast bumper stickers such as "Kick their ass. Take their gas."

Lucky for us, Bageant didn't hop on the next plane back west, and didn't chalk it all up to a terrible, misconstrued nostalgia. Instead, he stuck to his guns -- literally -- and tried to understand why people in his part of the country, people he genuinely loves despite his utter detestation of their politics, are so dyed-in-the-wool conservative that it'd take the Apocalypse to prize them away from supporting George W. Bush.

"In the days before the spine of the labor movement was crushed, back when you could be a gun owner and a liberal without any conflict, members of the political left supported these workers, stood on the lines taking beatings at the plant gates alongside them," he argues. "Now there is practically no labor movement, and large numbers on the left are comfortably ensconced in the true middle class... From that vantage point, liberals currently view working whites as angry, warmongering bigots, happy pawns of the American empire -- which begs the questions of how they came to be that way, if they truly are."

Deer Hunting With Jesus gets down-and-dirty with Bageant's friends, acquaintances, beer buddies, family members. He tells stories of jobs lost, of health catastrophes brought on by lifetimes of overwork and under-privilege, of huckster subprime mortgage brokers preying on near-illiterate clientele, of grown men chasing nickel-an-hour pay raises and people a paycheck away from bankruptcy swearing blind everyone can make it rich in America. He reports on karaoke nights, fundamentalist church gatherings, civil war re-enactors, and premillenialists longing for a foreign policy that can nudge nearer a nuclear apocalypse and the onset of End Times.

A common theme throughout his book is fraud, and the peculiar vulnerability to fraud of closed-in, under-invested-in communities such as Winchester: religious charlatans pushing dodgy theories into the heart of the political process; wealthy, educated men and women deliberately curtailing the educational opportunities of the poor, giving them just enough schooling to know how to dream the American Dream, but not nearly enough to ever be able to challenge their poverty and make that dream a reality; workers "encouraged" by companies like Wal-Mart to be hostile to the "special interests" represented by trade unions.

Bageant finds it tragic that the good citizens of Winchester lap all of this up, yet he clearly also relishes it as the stuff of great human drama. Life, after all, is at least [in] part an ongoing saga of pathos.

Throughout the past century, extreme insecurity and poverty has tended to pull societies in one of two directions: either toward a radical critique of the existing social order, a move toward, say, communism; or, if revolutionary organizations and philosophies are absent, toward an evermore conservative, hostile-to-outsiders, embrace of a romanticized national image -- a quasi-fascist retreat into a world of paranoia and fear and conspiracy theories.

In many ways, Bageant's description of Winchester, a place of endemic white poverty in a country whose pundit classes tend to assume modern-day hardship has almost exclusively a brown or black face, fits into the latter category.

"The working class here in what they are now calling the 'heartland,' (all the stuff between the big cities)" he writes, "exists on a continuum ranging from complete insecurity to the not-quite-complete insecurity of having a decent but endangered job. It is a continuum extending from the apathy of the poorest to the hard-edged anger of those with more to lose. Which ain't a lot, brother, when your household income hovers around $30,000 or $35,000 with both people working... Until those with power and access decide that it's beneficial to truly educate people, and make it possible to get an education without going into crushing debt, then the mutt people here in the heartland will keep on electing dangerous dimwits in cowboy boots."

Part ethnography, part sociology, part just good, old-fashioned storytelling, Deer Hunting With Jesus uses an insider's perspective to explain, generally successfully, why parts of rural America, especially in the South, are so conservative, so suspicious of "big city liberals," and so willing to cast their lot with right-wing politicians who swiftly turn around and bite these working class supporters in their collective ass.

Imagine a cross between Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas?, Hunter S. Thompson's booze-and-dope fueled meditations on Nixon's political potency, and C. Wright Mills' understanding of the durability of the power elite... put 'em all into the hopper, mix them around at high speed, and you end up somewhere about where Bageant did. In other words, it's informative, infuriating, terrifying, scintillating, and, at the end of the day, when HST's ghost finally emerges triumphant, it's just downright fun.

Unlike Frank, Bageant is unapologetically the product of redneck America. As a result, in the same way as I can get away with Jewish jokes, so Bageant can get away with redneck jokes that probably shouldn't be told by a man not of the "Borderers" tribe -- the conservative descendants of the Ulster Scots -- that he so vividly describes.

"After a night of political discussion at Royal Lunch [his local greasy spoon diner-cum-tavern]," Joe recounts deadpan, "a British relative, a distant continental member of the Bageant clan, called our gang of locals 'the most intellectually squalid people I have ever met' -- and he had chewed qat with Ugandan strongman Idi Amin's bodyguards."

No single book will ever be able to fully explain why so much of impoverished America so consistently votes against its own economic self-interest. Likewise, no single book will ever fully explain the unique confluence of historical and cultural forces that created and continues to bulge the Bible Belt. But Bageant, a newcomer to the world of book writing, takes a pretty good stab at it. And he does so in a way that's accessible, raucous and unapologetically foul-mouthed. It's fun reading, and, given his depressing subject matter, that's quite a feat.

This article is available on The American Prospect website. © 2007 by The American Prospect, Inc.

Sasha Abramsky is a senior fellow at the New York-based think tank Demos and the author of three books. His most recent is American Furies: Crime, Punishment, and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/57490/

In Violation of Federal Law, Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed or Missing

Probably just a coincidence, though, right? For w's take on the matter, see pic to the left.--Pete
By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet
Posted on July 30, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/

Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records, according to letters from county election officials to the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner.

The lost records violate Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day, and a U.S. District Court order issued last September that the 2004 ballots be preserved while the court hears a civil rights lawsuit alleging voter suppression of African-American voters in Columbus.

The destruction of the election records also frustrates efforts by the media and historians to determine the accuracy of Ohio's 2004 vote count, because in county after county the key evidence needed to understand vote count anomalies apparently no longer exists.

"The extent of the destruction of records is consistent with the covering up of the fraud that we believe occurred in the presidential election," said Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney representing the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, which filed voter suppression suit. "We're in the process of addressing where to go from here with the Ohio Attorney General's office."

"On the one hand, people will now say you can't prove the fraud," he said, "but the rule of law says that when evidence is destroyed it creates a presumption that the people who destroyed evidence did so because it would have proved the contention of the other side."

Brunner's office confirmed the 2004 ballots were missing, but declined to comment.

"Because this case is still pending, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is unable to comment on this," said Jeff Ortega, a spokesperson. "Ultimately, whether the boards of elections are in violation of a federal court order is a matter for the court to decide."

The missing presidential election records were discovered this past spring by Brunner, a Democrat and former judge who was elected Secretary of State in 2006. Her predecessor, Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell, was sued in August 2006 by a Columbus community organization that alleged the former Secretary of State and other "unnamed" officials "selectively and discriminatorily designed and implemented procedures for the allocation of voting machines in a manner to create a shortage for certain urban precincts where large numbers of African-Americans resided," according to the complaint.

Under federal and Ohio law, all ballots and election records from federal races must be preserved for 22 months after Election Day, which fell on Sept. 2, 2006. While election integrity activists and reporters from a Columbus website, FreePress.org, had sought the ballots and other election records soon after the presidential election, Blackwell would not allow county boards to release the ballots, citing court challenges to the 2004 results and a 2005 suit from the League of Women Voters alleging the state was not following the newest federal election law, the Help America Vote Act. By spring 2006, after the League's lawyers stipulated they were not challenging the 2004 election results, some counties began to release their 2004 election records. Scrutiny of those records raised questions about the conduct of the election and some county vote totals.

On Aug. 23, 2006, lawyers for the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association notified the Secretary of State's office of their voter suppression suit. The following day Blackwell's office sent letters to all 88 of Ohio's county Boards of Election, notifying them of the suit. It is customary for public officials to preserve potential evidence when notified of pending litigation. Blackwell negotiated with opposing attorneys and agree to send a directive to election boards saying the ballots should be retained. Ian Urbina, a New York Times reporter working on the story, reported that Blackwell said he would be creating a process whereby county election officials could eventually review and dispose of the 2004 ballots.

On Sept. 11, 2006, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley ordered the election boards "to preserve all ballots from the 2004 Presidential election, on paper and in any other format, including electronic data, unless and until such time otherwise instructed by this Court."

Two months after Marbley's order, Blackwell lost the race for governor to Democrat Ted Strickland and Brunner was elected Secretary of State. During the following winter and spring, Brunner and the state's attorneys began negotiating a settlement for the voter suppression suit, according to lawyers involved in those talks. Part of that agreement, which has not yet been brought before the federal district court, was the creation of a statewide repository of the 2004 presidential ballots. When conducting an inventory and attempting to collect those records, Brunner's office learned that seven counties had no ballots to turn over and 56 counties only had partial records from the 2004 vote.

"This is not just a violation of a 22-month ballot retention law. It is a violation of a court order," Arnebeck said. "Blackwell told the New York Times that he would create a clearance procedure before destroying any ballots. The combination of Blackwell's directive and my letter should have been enough to give the counties notice."

What happened to the 2004 ballots

The presidential ballots and election records were lost, misplaced, damaged by water, taken to landfills -- all apparently by mistake, due to miscommunications, or because the local election administrators were not aware of the state ballot preservation law or the federal court order, according to letters to Brunner's office from the various county election boards.

"Our staff unintentionally discarded boxes containing Ballot Pages as requested in (Brunner's) Directive 2007-07 due to unclear and misinterpreted instructions," wrote Butler County Board of Election Director Betty McGary and Deputy Director Lynn Kinkaid in a May 9 memo. "Several boxes containing all the wire-bound ballot pages were discarded into a Rumpke dumpster. The dumpster would have been emptied into the local landfill."

"The Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Board of Elections was unable to transfer the unvoted precinct ballots and soiled precinct ballots," wrote John Williams, Hamilton County Director of Elections on May 16, 2007. "To the best if my knowledge, the above ballots were inadvertently shredded between January 19th and 26th of '06 in an effort to make room for the new Hart voting system."

"No one could remember the disposition of said ballots," wrote Mike Keeley, of Clermont County's Board of Elections on May 10, 2007, referring to the "unvoted" or unused ballots from the 2004 presidential election.

Since the 2004 election, a handful of media organizations, civil rights groups, attorneys, historians and authors have been investigating how the president won in Ohio by 118,775 votes. These inquiries have had two primary focuses: examining Republican-led voter suppression tactics and problems with the vote count, suggesting vote count fraud.

The partisan voter suppression tactics have been easier to document. Before the election, Blackwell, who was co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign, issued numerous administrative orders that fueled an extreme partisan climate. One of the most notable came as Ohio was seeing large voter registration drives in mid-2004. Blackwell issued an order, which he later rescinded under pressure, saying only voter registrations on 80-pound paper would be accepted and processed. At the time, Republican Gov. Robert Taft told reporters that directive could disenfranchise 100,000 voters. The state Republican Party also threatened to send thousands of poll challengers to local precincts, to ensure only properly registered voter exercised that right.

On Election Day in many Ohio cities, the turnout -- or voter accommodation rate -- in these traditional Democratic strongholds was markedly lower than in nearby suburbs, where Republicans have tended to be the majority. In Columbus, the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association sued saying African-American voters in Franklin County were disenfranchised because urban precincts received fewer voting machines per capita than the whiter, wealthier suburbs. They noted urban precincts had many more voting machines during the spring primary.

Ohio's Secretary of State and Attorney General are engaged in settlement talks in the neighborhood association suit, suggesting the voter suppression claims have merit. In contrast, the case for Republican vote count fraud in the rural areas has been much harder to prove, even as the certified vote count is problematic in some counties.

Compared to Ohio's Democratic urban core, turnout in the Republican districts was higher than the 2000 election. Moreover, in a handful of counties there were vote count anomalies that made post-election observers question whether Bush's vote was padded. The most notable example is more than 10,000 voters from several Bible belt counties who voted for Bush and voted in favor of gay marriage, if the results are true. In a dozen rural counties, virtually unknown Democrats at the bottom of the ballot received more votes that Kerry, an oddity in a presidential year.

Reporters associated with FreePress.org and Arnebeck's legal team hoped the court order preserving the 2004 ballots would enable them to investigate how these results occurred. Depending on the ballot type and vote-counting machine used, they have theories about how Bush's vote could have been inflated. But because many of these rural counties apparently have destroyed the very 2004 election records that would clarify what happened, it is now virtually impossible to determine what happened.

In Warren County, where county election officials said on Election Day that the FBI had declared a homeland security alert -- which they later retracted -- ballots were diverted to a warehouse before counting. The local media was not allowed to observe the vote count. According to a letter from the Warren County Board of Election to Brunner's office, the election board cannot find 22,000 unused ballots from the election.

"The missing records reveal where the fraud occurred," said Arnebeck. "You take as an example, Warren County. It is well documented that there was a phony homeland security alert and that was the excuse for excluding the public and the press from observing what was going on during Election Day. So the missing unused ballots would suggest that ballots were remade to fit the desired result."

"The same situation occurred in Clermont County," he said. "We have sworn affidavits from people who saw white stickers placed over the Kerry-Edward ovals in this optical scan county," he said, referring to one way of masking a would-be Kerry vote, because optical-scan machines read ink marks on paper ballots. "So the missing unused ballots would suggest they were used to remake ballots to reflect the desired vote for Bush."

Many rural Ohio counties did not have vote count problems, Arnebeck said. But enough did have significant problems that called for further investigation.

"The Attorney General says the rural counties all say human error was to blame (for the missing ballots)," he said. "There are some counties where ballots are missing and we don't believe anything was wrong with the vote count. But there are others where that human error covers up what we think was vote count fraud."

Another big category of votes that will never be explained are the nearly 129,000 ballots that were rejected by voting machines and not counted. Many of these 2004 ballots -- a mix of computer punch cards, paper ballots to be marked by ink and electronic votes -- are among the incomplete 2004 election records. One post-election analysis found 94,000 of these ballots come from Democratic-majority precincts, and estimated these that ballots could have cost Kerry an additional 26,000 votes.

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/

Bernie Sanders' Tussle With Nussle

If Jim Nussle wants to be director of the Office of Management and Budget, he is going to have to get around Bernie Sanders, who announced yesterday that he will put a hold on Nussle’s nomination to prevent it from coming to a vote in the Senate. Sanders said the hold will stay until the Bush administration starts talking sense about the economy.

read more | digg story