REUTERS - Hundreds of leading economists urged Congress on Wednesday to boost the U.S. minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for a decade. The group recommended a $1 to $2.50 hourly increase and argued that future boosts should be indexed to inflation to protect workers purchasing power from rising prices. Dismissing the argument that better pay would burden employers and stifle job creation, these experts said a higher minimum wage was necessary to ensure a decent standard of living for low-income Americans. . . Some states have made some headway in ensuring better pay for low-income workers, by circumventing national legislation and passing increases of their own. California lifted the minimum wage to $8 an hour this summer, the highest level in the nation.
Article Here...
Monday, October 16, 2006
Israel Made Big Bucks Out Of Lebanon Invasion
GLOBES, ISRAEL - The recent Lebanon war has sharply boosted sales of Development Corporation for Israel - State of Israel Bonds in the US and Canada. Ministry of Finance representative in New York Zvi Halamish told Globes. "A comparison with bonds sales before the war with the corresponding period in 2005 shows that there has been a 20% rise in sales in the US and a 15% increase in Canada." . . . The increase in sales is especially noticeable given that the bonds' margins are lower today than in previous years. . .
Article Here...
Article Here...
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
What the Amish Are Teaching America
By Sally Kohn, AlterNet
Posted on October 10, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
On Oct. 2, Charles Carl Roberts entered a one-room schoolhouse in the Amish community of Nickel Mines, Penn. He lined up 11 young girls from the class and shot them each at point blank range. The gruesome depths of this crime are hard for any community to grasp, but certainly for the Amish -- who live such a secluded and peaceful life, removed even from the everyday depictions of violence on TV. When the Amish were suddenly pierced by violence, how did they respond?
The evening of the shooting, Amish neighbors from the Nickel Mines community gathered to process their grief with each other and mental health counselors. As of that evening, three little girls were dead. Eight were hospitalized in critical condition. (One more girl has died since.) According to reports by counselors who attended the grief session, the Amish family members grappled with a number of questions: Do we send our kids to school tomorrow? What if they want to sleep in our beds tonight, is that OK? But one question they asked might surprise us outsiders. What, they wondered, can we do to help the family of the shooter? Plans were already underway for a horse-and-buggy caravan to visit Charles Carl Roberts' family with offers of food and condolences. The Amish, it seems, don't automatically translate their grieving into revenge. Rather, they believe in redemption.
Meanwhile, the United States culture from which the Amish are isolated is moving in the other direction -- increasingly exacting revenge for crimes and punishing violence with more violence. In 26 states and at the federal level, there are "three strikes" laws in place. Conviction for three felonies in a row now warrants a life sentence, even for the most minor crimes. For instance, Leandro Andrade is serving a life sentence, his final crime involving the theft of nine children's videos -- including "Cinderella" and "Free Willy" -- from a Kmart. Similarly, in many states and at the federal level, possession of even small amounts of drugs trigger mandatory minimum sentences of extreme duration. In New York, Elaine Bartlett was just released from prison, serving a 20-year sentence for possessing only four ounces of cocaine. This is in addition to the 60 people who were executed in the United States in 2005, among the more than a thousand killed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. And the president of the United States is still actively seeking authority to torture and abuse alleged terrorists, whom he consistently dehumanizes as rats to be "smoked from their holes," even without evidence of their guilt.
Our patterns of punishment and revenge are fundamentally at odds with the deeper values of common humanity that the tragic experience of the Amish are helping to reveal. Each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done in life. Someone who cheats is not only a cheater. Someone who steals something is not only a thief. And someone who commits a murder is not only a murderer. The same is true of Charles Carl Roberts. We don't yet know the details of the episode in his past for which, in his suicide note, he said he was seeking revenge. It may be a sad and sympathetic tale. It may not. Either way, there's no excusing his actions. Whatever happened to Roberts in the past, taking the lives of others is never justified. But nothing Roberts has done changes the fact that he was a human being, like all of us. We all make mistakes. Roberts' were considerably and egregiously larger than most. But the Amish in Nickel Mines seem to have been able to see past Roberts' actions and recognize his humanity, sympathize with his family for their loss, and move forward with compassion, not vengeful hate.
We've come to think that "an eye for an eye" is a natural, human reaction to violence. The Amish, who live a truly natural life apart from the influences of our violence-infused culture, are proving otherwise. If, as Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," then the Amish are providing the rest of us with an eye-opening lesson.
Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Project of the Center for Community Change, which is interviewing hundreds of activists across the country to determine the progressive vision for the future of the United States.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
Posted on October 10, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
On Oct. 2, Charles Carl Roberts entered a one-room schoolhouse in the Amish community of Nickel Mines, Penn. He lined up 11 young girls from the class and shot them each at point blank range. The gruesome depths of this crime are hard for any community to grasp, but certainly for the Amish -- who live such a secluded and peaceful life, removed even from the everyday depictions of violence on TV. When the Amish were suddenly pierced by violence, how did they respond?
The evening of the shooting, Amish neighbors from the Nickel Mines community gathered to process their grief with each other and mental health counselors. As of that evening, three little girls were dead. Eight were hospitalized in critical condition. (One more girl has died since.) According to reports by counselors who attended the grief session, the Amish family members grappled with a number of questions: Do we send our kids to school tomorrow? What if they want to sleep in our beds tonight, is that OK? But one question they asked might surprise us outsiders. What, they wondered, can we do to help the family of the shooter? Plans were already underway for a horse-and-buggy caravan to visit Charles Carl Roberts' family with offers of food and condolences. The Amish, it seems, don't automatically translate their grieving into revenge. Rather, they believe in redemption.
Meanwhile, the United States culture from which the Amish are isolated is moving in the other direction -- increasingly exacting revenge for crimes and punishing violence with more violence. In 26 states and at the federal level, there are "three strikes" laws in place. Conviction for three felonies in a row now warrants a life sentence, even for the most minor crimes. For instance, Leandro Andrade is serving a life sentence, his final crime involving the theft of nine children's videos -- including "Cinderella" and "Free Willy" -- from a Kmart. Similarly, in many states and at the federal level, possession of even small amounts of drugs trigger mandatory minimum sentences of extreme duration. In New York, Elaine Bartlett was just released from prison, serving a 20-year sentence for possessing only four ounces of cocaine. This is in addition to the 60 people who were executed in the United States in 2005, among the more than a thousand killed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. And the president of the United States is still actively seeking authority to torture and abuse alleged terrorists, whom he consistently dehumanizes as rats to be "smoked from their holes," even without evidence of their guilt.
Our patterns of punishment and revenge are fundamentally at odds with the deeper values of common humanity that the tragic experience of the Amish are helping to reveal. Each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done in life. Someone who cheats is not only a cheater. Someone who steals something is not only a thief. And someone who commits a murder is not only a murderer. The same is true of Charles Carl Roberts. We don't yet know the details of the episode in his past for which, in his suicide note, he said he was seeking revenge. It may be a sad and sympathetic tale. It may not. Either way, there's no excusing his actions. Whatever happened to Roberts in the past, taking the lives of others is never justified. But nothing Roberts has done changes the fact that he was a human being, like all of us. We all make mistakes. Roberts' were considerably and egregiously larger than most. But the Amish in Nickel Mines seem to have been able to see past Roberts' actions and recognize his humanity, sympathize with his family for their loss, and move forward with compassion, not vengeful hate.
We've come to think that "an eye for an eye" is a natural, human reaction to violence. The Amish, who live a truly natural life apart from the influences of our violence-infused culture, are proving otherwise. If, as Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," then the Amish are providing the rest of us with an eye-opening lesson.
Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Project of the Center for Community Change, which is interviewing hundreds of activists across the country to determine the progressive vision for the future of the United States.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST SENDS LETTER TO SENATOR DOMENICI CONCERNED THAT HE COULD BE HELD INDEFINATELY UNDER THE NEW MILITARY COMMISSION ACT OF 2006
ARROYO SECO, NEW MEXICO - Keith McHenry, co-founder of the Food Not Bombs movement and life long nonviolent advocate sent letters to his Congressman and Senators expressing concern that he could be held for an for an indefinite period as “unlawful enemy combatant” the next time he returns to the United States. The new Military Commission Act of 2006 may give Homeland Security the right to hold human rights activists listed on the “Terrorist Watch List" indefinitely.
Last May Mr. McHenry was taken off a flight from London to Chicago and questioned about his political activities. His bags and wallet were searched and the contents were entered into a computer. Two groups he helped start, Food Not Bombs and Indymedia are on the “Terrorist Watch List."
The American Civil Liberties Union has discovered a number of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force memos describing investigations into Food Not Bombs. MSNBC reported that a protest Mr. McHenry helped organize was listed on the Pentagon’s 2004 TALON report as a “serious, ongoing threat.” Mr. McHenry has never advocated or participated in any acts of violence and the movement he started, Food Not Bombs has published a statement of nonviolence as one of its principles.
After the act was passed Mr. McHenry called a number of Senators and Congress people to find out if he was in any danger and they could not say for certainty that he would be safe returning from his next trip to Africa this November. He has written 12 lawmakers who either represent his district in New Mexico or who sat on committees that wrote the Military Commission Act of 2006 to get clarification about his safety. He also called and wrote to the ACLU, Amnesty International, the United Nations and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The fact that a man who has dedicated his life to peace and Gandhian nonviolence must worry that his own government could jail him for an indefinite period of time without charges indicates to extent to which Americans have lost their civil liberties and freedom during the faux War on Terrorism.
October 9, 2006
Senator Pete V. Domenici
328 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Pete V. Domenici,
I need your assistance on two related matters regarding the new Military Commissions Act and domestic surveillance. I give your office permission to make any inquiries of all Federal agencies you believe necessary.
I am the co-founder of the Food Not Bombs movement, which feeds the hungry in communities all over the world. I am the Great, Great Grandson of James McHenry who signed the U.S. Constitution and a citizen of the United States. I have been dedicated to Gandhian nonviolent social change for over 30 years. Last year I was the keynote speaker at the Celebration of Gandhi’s Birthday in Lagos, Nigeria. The American Civil Liberties Union, the media and employees of Federal agencies have made me aware that Food Not Bombs and myself are listed on U.S. government “Terrorist Watch Lists.” This May when I returned to the United States from Turkey I was taken off a plane in Chicago and questioned by Homeland Security for over an hour. All my bags and my wallet were searched and I was asked about my relationship with as Homeland Security called it “the violent group Food Not Bombs”. They typed in the information they collected into a computer. They also asked me about my connection to C.T. Lawrence Butler. He and I co-wrote a book on nonviolent social change and we plan to play an important role in the 2006 African Conference on Formal Consensus and Nonviolent Social Change in Lagos, Nigeria at the end of November.
Do you believe it would be safe for me to return to the United States under the new Military Commissions Act of 2006? Would it be possible for your office give me a letter that I could show to Homeland Security when I reenter the United States? My friends and family are worried that I may be held without charges for an indefinite period as “unlawful enemy combatant” the next time I return to the United States. This is making it difficult for me to meet my commitments abroad. I have been planning to participate at the conference and continue my work to end hunger in Africa but with the passage of this new law my loved ones are worried and asking me to cancel my trip causing our organization to loose substantial money and slow our progress towards helping the people of Africa.
The second item is a request that I be considered to testify at any future Congressional hearings on domestic spying. I believe I could be of great help in any hearing as I have been dedicated to nonviolent social change for the past 35 years and during that time I have been under investigation by the FBI, military and other U.S. government agencies and have a wealth of knowledge to share. The ACLU has filed a number of FOIA request and I should be obtaining more information about the extent of U.S. government surveillance on Food Not Bombs, Indymedia and myself. I already have a large file of documents I could email your office. Please consider referring me to any and all hearings on domestic surveillance.
Thank you so much for your help.
Sincerely,
Keith McHenry
Last May Mr. McHenry was taken off a flight from London to Chicago and questioned about his political activities. His bags and wallet were searched and the contents were entered into a computer. Two groups he helped start, Food Not Bombs and Indymedia are on the “Terrorist Watch List."
The American Civil Liberties Union has discovered a number of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force memos describing investigations into Food Not Bombs. MSNBC reported that a protest Mr. McHenry helped organize was listed on the Pentagon’s 2004 TALON report as a “serious, ongoing threat.” Mr. McHenry has never advocated or participated in any acts of violence and the movement he started, Food Not Bombs has published a statement of nonviolence as one of its principles.
After the act was passed Mr. McHenry called a number of Senators and Congress people to find out if he was in any danger and they could not say for certainty that he would be safe returning from his next trip to Africa this November. He has written 12 lawmakers who either represent his district in New Mexico or who sat on committees that wrote the Military Commission Act of 2006 to get clarification about his safety. He also called and wrote to the ACLU, Amnesty International, the United Nations and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The fact that a man who has dedicated his life to peace and Gandhian nonviolence must worry that his own government could jail him for an indefinite period of time without charges indicates to extent to which Americans have lost their civil liberties and freedom during the faux War on Terrorism.
October 9, 2006
Senator Pete V. Domenici
328 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Pete V. Domenici,
I need your assistance on two related matters regarding the new Military Commissions Act and domestic surveillance. I give your office permission to make any inquiries of all Federal agencies you believe necessary.
I am the co-founder of the Food Not Bombs movement, which feeds the hungry in communities all over the world. I am the Great, Great Grandson of James McHenry who signed the U.S. Constitution and a citizen of the United States. I have been dedicated to Gandhian nonviolent social change for over 30 years. Last year I was the keynote speaker at the Celebration of Gandhi’s Birthday in Lagos, Nigeria. The American Civil Liberties Union, the media and employees of Federal agencies have made me aware that Food Not Bombs and myself are listed on U.S. government “Terrorist Watch Lists.” This May when I returned to the United States from Turkey I was taken off a plane in Chicago and questioned by Homeland Security for over an hour. All my bags and my wallet were searched and I was asked about my relationship with as Homeland Security called it “the violent group Food Not Bombs”. They typed in the information they collected into a computer. They also asked me about my connection to C.T. Lawrence Butler. He and I co-wrote a book on nonviolent social change and we plan to play an important role in the 2006 African Conference on Formal Consensus and Nonviolent Social Change in Lagos, Nigeria at the end of November.
Do you believe it would be safe for me to return to the United States under the new Military Commissions Act of 2006? Would it be possible for your office give me a letter that I could show to Homeland Security when I reenter the United States? My friends and family are worried that I may be held without charges for an indefinite period as “unlawful enemy combatant” the next time I return to the United States. This is making it difficult for me to meet my commitments abroad. I have been planning to participate at the conference and continue my work to end hunger in Africa but with the passage of this new law my loved ones are worried and asking me to cancel my trip causing our organization to loose substantial money and slow our progress towards helping the people of Africa.
The second item is a request that I be considered to testify at any future Congressional hearings on domestic spying. I believe I could be of great help in any hearing as I have been dedicated to nonviolent social change for the past 35 years and during that time I have been under investigation by the FBI, military and other U.S. government agencies and have a wealth of knowledge to share. The ACLU has filed a number of FOIA request and I should be obtaining more information about the extent of U.S. government surveillance on Food Not Bombs, Indymedia and myself. I already have a large file of documents I could email your office. Please consider referring me to any and all hearings on domestic surveillance.
Thank you so much for your help.
Sincerely,
Keith McHenry
AK Steel workers reject ‘final offer’
By Martha Grevatt
Cleveland
Published Oct 9, 2006
Since March 1, some 2,100 members of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 1943 have been locked out at AK Steel in Middletown, Ohio. Last July, AK CEO James Wainscott said he would keep the workers out “for as short or as long as it takes.” Steel industry analyst David McGregor praised him. “It’s nice to see you’re still in fighting form,” he told Wainscott.
McGregor’s words could be applied to the locked-out steelworkers. After walking the picket lines for nearly seven months, on Sept. 25 they were asked to vote on the company’s “final offer.” Many were losing homes and cars and some were going through divorces. Yet a majority voted to stay out.
For almost 60 years the workers at AK steel, formerly Armco, were represented by the Armco Employees Independent Federation (AEIF). In July a majority voted to merge with the IAM. A sizable minority voiced a preference for the United Steelworkers (USWA), but only 10 voted to remain independent.
There was almost unanimous feeling that the workers needed the backing of an AFL-CIO union to win a decent contract. The AEIF leadership backed the IAM, hoping that access to the IAM pension fund would ease negotiations around the critical issue of retaining defined-benefit pensions.
When Wainscott took over AK from Richard Wardrop, he was portrayed as more conciliatory to the workers. It was Wardrop who had locked out USWA members for over three years at the Mansfield, Ohio, plant. Wardrop’s intransigence toward the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Middletown-area residents over the spewing of soot and metallic flakes netted AK a $1.7 million fine. A lawsuit by the U.S. EPA over illegal water pollution and waste dumping, launched when Wardrop was at the helm, is still unresolved.
Soon, however, Wainscott proved to be no less anti-union. The company presented the union with a 2-inch-thick “final offer,” giving the union only three days to review it. While it allowed for participation in the IAM pension fund, it gave AK the right to terminate that plan in five years and replace it with a 401(k). It reduced the number of job classifications and had questionable language that could allow outsourcing of jobs. It had a six-month phased return to work for the union members, forcing them to work alongside scabs during that period.
The IAM leaders, including former AEIF President Brian Daley, recommended the company’s offer be rejected. “It’s a matter of members weighing their personal financial condition or taking the risk of a proposal fraught with uncertainty,” stated Daley after the rejection vote.
The bosses immediately retaliated, getting a judge to slap on an injunction limiting the number of pickets and their proximity to the plant. But after seven months, the bosses are not the only ones “in fighting form.”
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/steel-1012/
Cleveland
Published Oct 9, 2006
Since March 1, some 2,100 members of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 1943 have been locked out at AK Steel in Middletown, Ohio. Last July, AK CEO James Wainscott said he would keep the workers out “for as short or as long as it takes.” Steel industry analyst David McGregor praised him. “It’s nice to see you’re still in fighting form,” he told Wainscott.
McGregor’s words could be applied to the locked-out steelworkers. After walking the picket lines for nearly seven months, on Sept. 25 they were asked to vote on the company’s “final offer.” Many were losing homes and cars and some were going through divorces. Yet a majority voted to stay out.
For almost 60 years the workers at AK steel, formerly Armco, were represented by the Armco Employees Independent Federation (AEIF). In July a majority voted to merge with the IAM. A sizable minority voiced a preference for the United Steelworkers (USWA), but only 10 voted to remain independent.
There was almost unanimous feeling that the workers needed the backing of an AFL-CIO union to win a decent contract. The AEIF leadership backed the IAM, hoping that access to the IAM pension fund would ease negotiations around the critical issue of retaining defined-benefit pensions.
When Wainscott took over AK from Richard Wardrop, he was portrayed as more conciliatory to the workers. It was Wardrop who had locked out USWA members for over three years at the Mansfield, Ohio, plant. Wardrop’s intransigence toward the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Middletown-area residents over the spewing of soot and metallic flakes netted AK a $1.7 million fine. A lawsuit by the U.S. EPA over illegal water pollution and waste dumping, launched when Wardrop was at the helm, is still unresolved.
Soon, however, Wainscott proved to be no less anti-union. The company presented the union with a 2-inch-thick “final offer,” giving the union only three days to review it. While it allowed for participation in the IAM pension fund, it gave AK the right to terminate that plan in five years and replace it with a 401(k). It reduced the number of job classifications and had questionable language that could allow outsourcing of jobs. It had a six-month phased return to work for the union members, forcing them to work alongside scabs during that period.
The IAM leaders, including former AEIF President Brian Daley, recommended the company’s offer be rejected. “It’s a matter of members weighing their personal financial condition or taking the risk of a proposal fraught with uncertainty,” stated Daley after the rejection vote.
The bosses immediately retaliated, getting a judge to slap on an injunction limiting the number of pickets and their proximity to the plant. But after seven months, the bosses are not the only ones “in fighting form.”
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/steel-1012/
Monday, October 09, 2006
At Reuters, a New Book and a Lost Job
By NOAM COHEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/media/09reuters.html
On Tuesday, Joe Maguire, one of two editors in charge of markets coverage at Reuters, handed his bosses the galleys of his new book, “Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter.” On Wednesday, Mr. Maguire discovered he would have plenty of free time to promote his book, which comes out this week. Neither side in this dispute would say that he was fired.
“There was a difference of opinion about the approval I received to write this book,” Mr. Maguire said. “I thought I had met the conditions, and proceeded accordingly. As a result, I no longer work there.”
Mr. Maguire, who joined Reuters in April, said the book “looks at Ann Coulter’s arguments, and deconstructs them to show how misguided they can be.”
He added: “When the political discourse has dropped to the unfathomable levels it has, someone has to say this is wrong.”
He said he was unable to interview Ms. Coulter for the book, or even get her to return e-mail or phone messages left through her publicist.
Reuters confirmed that Mr. Maguire was granted conditional approval to write his book on Ms. Coulter — a conservative lightning rod, author and TV talking head. When asked what changed once the book was ready, a company statement pointed to Reuters’ principles of “integrity, independence and freedom from bias.” The statement reads: “Our editorial policy and The Reuters Trust Principles are prominently displayed for all to see on www.about.reuters.com. Mr. Maguire’s book will soon be available. Both speak for themselves.”
Mr. Maguire’s publisher, the William Morrow imprint of HarperCollins, said, “It would be very disappointing if Joe Maguire’s dismissal from Reuters had anything to do with him authoring, ‘Brainless,’ ” which it described as a “compelling and witty book.”
A Reuters employee who insisted on anonymity out of concern at angering management said that the 20 or so employees at the markets desk where Mr. Maguire had been one of two editors in charge “took a group coffee break” in solidarity on Thursday.
On Friday, the employee said, there was a meeting with Reuters management informing the workers there that Mr. Maguire would no longer be working there and that they “weren’t allowed to ask why.” Printed copies of the principles of trust were handed out, however. NOAM COHEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/media/09reuters.html
On Tuesday, Joe Maguire, one of two editors in charge of markets coverage at Reuters, handed his bosses the galleys of his new book, “Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter.” On Wednesday, Mr. Maguire discovered he would have plenty of free time to promote his book, which comes out this week. Neither side in this dispute would say that he was fired.
“There was a difference of opinion about the approval I received to write this book,” Mr. Maguire said. “I thought I had met the conditions, and proceeded accordingly. As a result, I no longer work there.”
Mr. Maguire, who joined Reuters in April, said the book “looks at Ann Coulter’s arguments, and deconstructs them to show how misguided they can be.”
He added: “When the political discourse has dropped to the unfathomable levels it has, someone has to say this is wrong.”
He said he was unable to interview Ms. Coulter for the book, or even get her to return e-mail or phone messages left through her publicist.
Reuters confirmed that Mr. Maguire was granted conditional approval to write his book on Ms. Coulter — a conservative lightning rod, author and TV talking head. When asked what changed once the book was ready, a company statement pointed to Reuters’ principles of “integrity, independence and freedom from bias.” The statement reads: “Our editorial policy and The Reuters Trust Principles are prominently displayed for all to see on www.about.reuters.com. Mr. Maguire’s book will soon be available. Both speak for themselves.”
Mr. Maguire’s publisher, the William Morrow imprint of HarperCollins, said, “It would be very disappointing if Joe Maguire’s dismissal from Reuters had anything to do with him authoring, ‘Brainless,’ ” which it described as a “compelling and witty book.”
A Reuters employee who insisted on anonymity out of concern at angering management said that the 20 or so employees at the markets desk where Mr. Maguire had been one of two editors in charge “took a group coffee break” in solidarity on Thursday.
On Friday, the employee said, there was a meeting with Reuters management informing the workers there that Mr. Maguire would no longer be working there and that they “weren’t allowed to ask why.” Printed copies of the principles of trust were handed out, however. NOAM COHEN
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Let's Face It, Penises Dominate American Politics
By Larry Beinhart, BuzzFlash
Posted on October 7, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/42670/
Thank God for Mark Foley.
It proves that the American people still care about something.
It happens to be penises. But still.
They care about who talks about them, who plays with them, who covers them up, who uncovers them, who covers up the uncovering of them.
Even Jon Stewart put the big penis cover-up ahead of the fact that this government just passed a law that says that George Bush can say, "Hey you, you're an enemy combatant, "and once he says that they can whisk you away.
This is literally true. It's like that joke in the first grade.
Make me a milkshake
Poof: You're a milkshake
If George Bush says: you're an enemy combatant. Poof! You are one. And then they can take you to Guantanamo, do not pass go, do not call your attorney, do not see a judge, do not hear the charges against you, go straight to the cage they want to put you in. The cage comes with lights that stay on 24 hours a day and wake-up calls every fifteen minutes so you never get to sleep and special exercise programs where you stand for hours in 'stress' positions, upward screaming cat, squatting tortured turtle, and other lite abuses that used to quaintly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
Today's joke:
Q: What do Americans do after they commit war crimes?
A: They pass a law that says they can't be prosecuted for committing war crimes.
If you don't find that funny, if you actually think that's serious, then I ask you come nobody else does. How come CNN doesn't care, NBC, the NY Times? How come the Democratic leadership doesn't care?
How did that that bill -- that contains all those provisions and more -- got passed without a filibuster? Without a fuss?
Thank God for Mark Foley. An old congressman hitting on teenage boys, that's real news.
I was watching CNN yesterday afternoon. It was All Penis, All the Time.
Here's a quote, from one of their reporters, "One question always rises to the top: 'who knew what, and when did they know it.'"
That's true, but only when it has to do with a penis.
Last week Bob Woodward's new book came out. One of the things he revealed was an additional meeting between the head of the CIA and Condoleeza Rice, back in July 2001, in which they tried to shock her, shake her up in doing something about terrorism.
That meeting is important for several reasons.
The fact that she didn't do anything about it led to the deaths of at least 3,000 people. Call me me crazy, call me irresponsible, but that seems more important than an old queen hitting on young teens.
That meeting was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission, congress and the American people. There's no security reason for it to be secret. Only a political one. Proof, once again, that 9/11 happened because the Bush Administration was asleep at the wheel.
When the book came out, Rice denied the meeting had happened. She flat out lied about it.
Documents proved it took place.
I don't see CNN, or anybody else, hounding the White House about Condoleeza Rice's cover up and her lies.
"One question always rises to the top: who knew what and when did they know it?"
Yeah, when the warnings are about the use of a penis. But not when the warnings are about a terrorist attack on New York.
The Rice lie and cover-up is not insignificant. It's not ancient history. Because the whole point of Woodward's book is that it's still going on. The real experts are still warning the Bush administration that their policies -- and lack of policies -- are deadly disasters. Costing lives, costing money, creating enemies, with no chance of success. The president is still putting his fingers in his ears and not hearing them. His spokespeople are continuing to pretend the information doesn't exist and lying, by omission and commission, to congress and the American people.
Even if we concede that obscene instant messages are a greater danger to the Republic than a military quagmire that we entered into based on deliberate lies, the danger from Mark Foley is done. The danger from additional congressman trolling for young stuff, if there are any, is easily met (A War on Congress, does have a certain appeal and would be vastly cheaper than the War on Terror). But the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan, go on and on and on, like toxic Energizer Bunnies killing and maiming, laying waste to the landscape and breeding virulent new strains of violent jihadists.
A few years ago,there was a play -- still around -- called the Vagina Monologues.
American politics, at the same time, turned into the Penis Monologues.
Anything else, in between penises, is just marking time. Fail to get bin Laden, who cares? Discover proof that the administration made up stories so they could have their war in Iraq, no big deal, not even news, according to the New York Times. Best estimate is that US bombs and artillery killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians, it would be rude to mention it. Then there's all that money that disappeared. Paul Bremer blew through twenty billion (yes, Billion) dollars that was supposed to be held in trust for the Iraqi people and there's no records and nothing to show for it. After that was gone, the occupation authorities blew through another twenty billion that was supposed to go for the reconstruction of Iraq. Let's not ask where the money went -- no major media outlet has.
If you're in the cable news business, you're happy. This is the first really good penis since Bill's.
If you're anti-Republican, there's another bit of good news. The Republican's are slipping. It took Dennis Hastert a full week before he remembered to blame Bill Clinton.
Let me close with this. Advise to the youth of our country.
Dear youth; if you have dreams of going into politics, you should be fearless. Do not fear committing war crimes. Do not fear lying about terrorist warnings. Do not fear losing billions of dollars or reconstructions that never happen. But if you have a penis -- whether you're a man or a woman -- leave your penis at home, before you venture forth to do battle in field of America's political wars.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/42670/
Posted on October 7, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/42670/
Thank God for Mark Foley.
It proves that the American people still care about something.
It happens to be penises. But still.
They care about who talks about them, who plays with them, who covers them up, who uncovers them, who covers up the uncovering of them.
Even Jon Stewart put the big penis cover-up ahead of the fact that this government just passed a law that says that George Bush can say, "Hey you, you're an enemy combatant, "and once he says that they can whisk you away.
This is literally true. It's like that joke in the first grade.
Make me a milkshake
Poof: You're a milkshake
If George Bush says: you're an enemy combatant. Poof! You are one. And then they can take you to Guantanamo, do not pass go, do not call your attorney, do not see a judge, do not hear the charges against you, go straight to the cage they want to put you in. The cage comes with lights that stay on 24 hours a day and wake-up calls every fifteen minutes so you never get to sleep and special exercise programs where you stand for hours in 'stress' positions, upward screaming cat, squatting tortured turtle, and other lite abuses that used to quaintly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
Today's joke:
Q: What do Americans do after they commit war crimes?
A: They pass a law that says they can't be prosecuted for committing war crimes.
If you don't find that funny, if you actually think that's serious, then I ask you come nobody else does. How come CNN doesn't care, NBC, the NY Times? How come the Democratic leadership doesn't care?
How did that that bill -- that contains all those provisions and more -- got passed without a filibuster? Without a fuss?
Thank God for Mark Foley. An old congressman hitting on teenage boys, that's real news.
I was watching CNN yesterday afternoon. It was All Penis, All the Time.
Here's a quote, from one of their reporters, "One question always rises to the top: 'who knew what, and when did they know it.'"
That's true, but only when it has to do with a penis.
Last week Bob Woodward's new book came out. One of the things he revealed was an additional meeting between the head of the CIA and Condoleeza Rice, back in July 2001, in which they tried to shock her, shake her up in doing something about terrorism.
That meeting is important for several reasons.
The fact that she didn't do anything about it led to the deaths of at least 3,000 people. Call me me crazy, call me irresponsible, but that seems more important than an old queen hitting on young teens.
That meeting was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission, congress and the American people. There's no security reason for it to be secret. Only a political one. Proof, once again, that 9/11 happened because the Bush Administration was asleep at the wheel.
When the book came out, Rice denied the meeting had happened. She flat out lied about it.
Documents proved it took place.
I don't see CNN, or anybody else, hounding the White House about Condoleeza Rice's cover up and her lies.
"One question always rises to the top: who knew what and when did they know it?"
Yeah, when the warnings are about the use of a penis. But not when the warnings are about a terrorist attack on New York.
The Rice lie and cover-up is not insignificant. It's not ancient history. Because the whole point of Woodward's book is that it's still going on. The real experts are still warning the Bush administration that their policies -- and lack of policies -- are deadly disasters. Costing lives, costing money, creating enemies, with no chance of success. The president is still putting his fingers in his ears and not hearing them. His spokespeople are continuing to pretend the information doesn't exist and lying, by omission and commission, to congress and the American people.
Even if we concede that obscene instant messages are a greater danger to the Republic than a military quagmire that we entered into based on deliberate lies, the danger from Mark Foley is done. The danger from additional congressman trolling for young stuff, if there are any, is easily met (A War on Congress, does have a certain appeal and would be vastly cheaper than the War on Terror). But the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan, go on and on and on, like toxic Energizer Bunnies killing and maiming, laying waste to the landscape and breeding virulent new strains of violent jihadists.
A few years ago,there was a play -- still around -- called the Vagina Monologues.
American politics, at the same time, turned into the Penis Monologues.
Anything else, in between penises, is just marking time. Fail to get bin Laden, who cares? Discover proof that the administration made up stories so they could have their war in Iraq, no big deal, not even news, according to the New York Times. Best estimate is that US bombs and artillery killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians, it would be rude to mention it. Then there's all that money that disappeared. Paul Bremer blew through twenty billion (yes, Billion) dollars that was supposed to be held in trust for the Iraqi people and there's no records and nothing to show for it. After that was gone, the occupation authorities blew through another twenty billion that was supposed to go for the reconstruction of Iraq. Let's not ask where the money went -- no major media outlet has.
If you're in the cable news business, you're happy. This is the first really good penis since Bill's.
If you're anti-Republican, there's another bit of good news. The Republican's are slipping. It took Dennis Hastert a full week before he remembered to blame Bill Clinton.
Let me close with this. Advise to the youth of our country.
Dear youth; if you have dreams of going into politics, you should be fearless. Do not fear committing war crimes. Do not fear lying about terrorist warnings. Do not fear losing billions of dollars or reconstructions that never happen. But if you have a penis -- whether you're a man or a woman -- leave your penis at home, before you venture forth to do battle in field of America's political wars.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/42670/
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Impeachment Anyone?
The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths
By David Swanson
[This piece is based on seven new books on impeachment, all briefly discussed in a final note.]
Never before has the system of government established by the U.S. Constitution been as seriously threatened; never before has the built-in remedy for the sort of threat we face been as badly needed; never before have we had as good an opportunity to use that remedy exactly as it was intended.
Congress has never impeached a President and removed him from office. Once, with Richard M. Nixon, impeachment proceedings forced a resignation. Twice, with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, impeachment proceedings led to acquittals. On a few other occasions, Congressional efforts to advance articles of impeachment have had legal and political results. These have always benefited the political party that advanced impeachment. This was even true in the case of the Republicans' unpopular impeachment of Clinton, during which the Republicans lost far fewer seats than the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big. (This point -- little noted but important indeed -- was made to me recently by John Nichols, author of the forthcoming book, The Genius of Impeachment.)
In every past case, impeachment efforts were driven by members of Congress or other Washington political players, sometimes with support from the media. The public got behind Nixon's impeachment, but only after the proceedings had revealed massive presidential crimes. The public never got behind Clinton's impeachment, despite saturation news coverage and widespread support among political power players. In the case of George W. Bush's impeachment, with the media and both parties in Congress opposed to it, public support is just about all there is -- so far.
In past cases, impeachment has either focused on trivial offenses or on crimes that were serious but not tied to the administration's major foreign policy decisions or to policies in which Congress was complicit. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his sex life -- clearly a crime but not bribery, treason, or a "high crime or misdemeanor" (an old British phrase meaning an abuse of the political system by a high office holder), and so not actually an impeachable offense. Nixon was nearly impeached for obstruction of justice, warrantless spying, refusing to produce information subpoenaed by Congress, lying to the public, and other abuses of power, but not for his secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia.
For all the reasons Nixon was nearly impeached, George W. Bush could be impeached too. He has openly engaged in illegal, unconstitutional, warrantless spying, and -- while Congress has not yet used subpoenas -- Bush has obstructed its investigations, refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, and broken a variety of laws in the course of exacting retribution against whistleblowers, producing false reports, and establishing a regime of secrecy of a sort that Nixon could only dream about.
Bush has lied to the public about the warrantless spying program at the National Security Agency (NSA), the war in Iraq, the kinds of warnings he was given before hurricane Katrina arrived, and numerous other issues. While Nixon made secret audio tapes in the White House which, when discovered, doubled as evidence, this time there is video -- of Bush being warned prior to Katrina and claiming he was not warned, of Bush assuring us he was not engaged in warrantless spying and brazenly asserting that he will continue to spy without warrants, of Bush warning us about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Saddam's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks and of Bush claiming he did no such thing, of Bush claiming the U.S. does not condone torture and of the torture victims.
Bush's administration has even bribed journalists and manufactured phony news stories at home as well as in Iraq in order to deceive the public. Congressman John Conyers has introduced bills to censure both the President and Vice President Cheney for their refusal to turn over information, while Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a bill to censure Bush for his illegal spying programs.
Article...
By David Swanson
[This piece is based on seven new books on impeachment, all briefly discussed in a final note.]
Never before has the system of government established by the U.S. Constitution been as seriously threatened; never before has the built-in remedy for the sort of threat we face been as badly needed; never before have we had as good an opportunity to use that remedy exactly as it was intended.
Congress has never impeached a President and removed him from office. Once, with Richard M. Nixon, impeachment proceedings forced a resignation. Twice, with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, impeachment proceedings led to acquittals. On a few other occasions, Congressional efforts to advance articles of impeachment have had legal and political results. These have always benefited the political party that advanced impeachment. This was even true in the case of the Republicans' unpopular impeachment of Clinton, during which the Republicans lost far fewer seats than the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big. (This point -- little noted but important indeed -- was made to me recently by John Nichols, author of the forthcoming book, The Genius of Impeachment.)
In every past case, impeachment efforts were driven by members of Congress or other Washington political players, sometimes with support from the media. The public got behind Nixon's impeachment, but only after the proceedings had revealed massive presidential crimes. The public never got behind Clinton's impeachment, despite saturation news coverage and widespread support among political power players. In the case of George W. Bush's impeachment, with the media and both parties in Congress opposed to it, public support is just about all there is -- so far.
In past cases, impeachment has either focused on trivial offenses or on crimes that were serious but not tied to the administration's major foreign policy decisions or to policies in which Congress was complicit. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his sex life -- clearly a crime but not bribery, treason, or a "high crime or misdemeanor" (an old British phrase meaning an abuse of the political system by a high office holder), and so not actually an impeachable offense. Nixon was nearly impeached for obstruction of justice, warrantless spying, refusing to produce information subpoenaed by Congress, lying to the public, and other abuses of power, but not for his secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia.
For all the reasons Nixon was nearly impeached, George W. Bush could be impeached too. He has openly engaged in illegal, unconstitutional, warrantless spying, and -- while Congress has not yet used subpoenas -- Bush has obstructed its investigations, refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, and broken a variety of laws in the course of exacting retribution against whistleblowers, producing false reports, and establishing a regime of secrecy of a sort that Nixon could only dream about.
Bush has lied to the public about the warrantless spying program at the National Security Agency (NSA), the war in Iraq, the kinds of warnings he was given before hurricane Katrina arrived, and numerous other issues. While Nixon made secret audio tapes in the White House which, when discovered, doubled as evidence, this time there is video -- of Bush being warned prior to Katrina and claiming he was not warned, of Bush assuring us he was not engaged in warrantless spying and brazenly asserting that he will continue to spy without warrants, of Bush warning us about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Saddam's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks and of Bush claiming he did no such thing, of Bush claiming the U.S. does not condone torture and of the torture victims.
Bush's administration has even bribed journalists and manufactured phony news stories at home as well as in Iraq in order to deceive the public. Congressman John Conyers has introduced bills to censure both the President and Vice President Cheney for their refusal to turn over information, while Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a bill to censure Bush for his illegal spying programs.
Article...
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Chávez wins friends, angers enemies on New York visit
By A. Puigdollers Al-Kettani
New York
Published Oct 2, 2006
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/chavez-1005/
Starting Sept. 20 the corporate media-industrial-military complex here released a tsunami of lies and attacks against President Hugo Chávez FrÃas for publicly stating the sentiment of the poor and oppressed and the developing countries worldwide about President George W. Bush by calling him “the devil.” While he has drawn the anger of Washington, Chávez has won the admiration and support of people and liberation movements, especially throughout the Middle East and Latin America.
President Chávez’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly opening this year exposed the role of U.S. imperialism, which is only able to dominate the world through military might. This domination keeps the majority of the world’s population poor and underdeveloped. Some 40 percent of the world’s population live in abject poverty and another 40 percent in poverty (U.N. Human Development Report 2005), with the 80-percent total an increase from 66 percent of world population in the 1960s.
Chávez called U.S.-style of democracy, “the false democracy of elites ... a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons” at poor and working people. “I have the feeling, dear world dictator [Bush], that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.
“Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.”
But the racist profiling, harassment and detention of Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro and some members of his staff at the JFK airport on Sept. 25 are a direct attack on the sovereignty and Bolivarian Revolution. At a news conference, Maduro called this provocation a “direct violation of international human and diplomatic rights. ...” “This is a Nazi government, a racist government that does not care for people that have darker skin, very curly hair like myself and live in the south like the Africans, the Arabs, the Asians and Latin Americans.”
This attack on Maduro came two days after President Chávez signed discounted oil agreements with 201 community organizations and Indigenous nations at Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem, N.Y.
As President Chávez was speaking in Harlem, a New York City police officer pulled the power plug from the live satellite feed broadcasting to Venezuela and either the same cop or another one accosted a Venezuelan security officer. At that time, Secret Service officers intervened and dragged the police officer away.
All these recent attacks began with the denial of entry on U.S. soil of Chávez’s medical team and chief of security, even before Chávez’s U.N. speech.
Energy aid for the poor
Chief Ian Erith of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 231 nations and “promotes self-determination,” thanked the Bolivarian Revolution for the aid it promised this coming winter. Erith said, “Alaska is rich in natural resources and 10 percent of the U.S. oil supply comes from Alaska, but we pay the highest price for gasoline—over $8 per gallon and heating fuel over $7 per gallon and we were worried about how to survive this winter, which is forecast to be long and cold.”
Though Citgo, a U.S.-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA, has no outlets in Alaska, it will still bring heat to over 12,000 homes in 151 villages in Alaska with a gift of 100 gallons of heating oil per family, at an estimated cost of $5 million.
Hosting the Harlem meeting was the Honorable Dr. Charles Curtis, reverend at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church, actor and chairman of TransAfrica Danny Glover, and Félix RodrÃguez, who is president of Citgo.
Speaking in Harlem, Chávez said, “We are not enemies of the U.S. That is a lie. We are friends of the people of the U.S., whom all of you here represent with dignity, and we would like you to work; cooperate and look for cooperative, friendship, exchange, interchange, cultural, educational routes with us.
Chávez said that people in 11 states, including more than 220 Native tribes, are taking part in the discounted-oil program this year.
Last year “40 percent [of our oil shipped to the U.S.] went to poor communities. At a discount of 40 percent. And in the case of shelters we do not charge anything. In sum, 180,000 benefited from the 2005-2006 program.”
In his Sept. 20 talk, Chávez discussed the situation at the United Nations itself: “The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.
“But we, the [General] Assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, September 20, that we re-establish the United Nations.”
He proposed that all members of the U.N. meet for a week face-to-face in a round table to discuss matters and come up with solutions.
Chávez raised four other major points: (1) That leaders of developing countries be included in the Security Council on a permanent basis. (2) Transparent decisions on solving world matters. (3) “Immediate suppression—and that is something everyone’s calling for—of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.” (4) “Strengthen the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.”
“Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence,” said Chávez. He discussed how U.S. CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles virtually confessed to his crime of blowing up a Cubana Airline over Barbados in 1976, killing all 73 people on board, but the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to and is protecting Posada Carriles now.
Along with the public talk in Harlem, Chávez also spoke on Sept. 20 at Cooper Union college to a packed auditorium, where he discussed the Bolivarian Revolution’s success in educating ordinary Venezuelans.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/chavez-1005/
New York
Published Oct 2, 2006
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/chavez-1005/
Starting Sept. 20 the corporate media-industrial-military complex here released a tsunami of lies and attacks against President Hugo Chávez FrÃas for publicly stating the sentiment of the poor and oppressed and the developing countries worldwide about President George W. Bush by calling him “the devil.” While he has drawn the anger of Washington, Chávez has won the admiration and support of people and liberation movements, especially throughout the Middle East and Latin America.
President Chávez’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly opening this year exposed the role of U.S. imperialism, which is only able to dominate the world through military might. This domination keeps the majority of the world’s population poor and underdeveloped. Some 40 percent of the world’s population live in abject poverty and another 40 percent in poverty (U.N. Human Development Report 2005), with the 80-percent total an increase from 66 percent of world population in the 1960s.
Chávez called U.S.-style of democracy, “the false democracy of elites ... a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons” at poor and working people. “I have the feeling, dear world dictator [Bush], that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.
“Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.”
But the racist profiling, harassment and detention of Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro and some members of his staff at the JFK airport on Sept. 25 are a direct attack on the sovereignty and Bolivarian Revolution. At a news conference, Maduro called this provocation a “direct violation of international human and diplomatic rights. ...” “This is a Nazi government, a racist government that does not care for people that have darker skin, very curly hair like myself and live in the south like the Africans, the Arabs, the Asians and Latin Americans.”
This attack on Maduro came two days after President Chávez signed discounted oil agreements with 201 community organizations and Indigenous nations at Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem, N.Y.
As President Chávez was speaking in Harlem, a New York City police officer pulled the power plug from the live satellite feed broadcasting to Venezuela and either the same cop or another one accosted a Venezuelan security officer. At that time, Secret Service officers intervened and dragged the police officer away.
All these recent attacks began with the denial of entry on U.S. soil of Chávez’s medical team and chief of security, even before Chávez’s U.N. speech.
Energy aid for the poor
Chief Ian Erith of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 231 nations and “promotes self-determination,” thanked the Bolivarian Revolution for the aid it promised this coming winter. Erith said, “Alaska is rich in natural resources and 10 percent of the U.S. oil supply comes from Alaska, but we pay the highest price for gasoline—over $8 per gallon and heating fuel over $7 per gallon and we were worried about how to survive this winter, which is forecast to be long and cold.”
Though Citgo, a U.S.-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA, has no outlets in Alaska, it will still bring heat to over 12,000 homes in 151 villages in Alaska with a gift of 100 gallons of heating oil per family, at an estimated cost of $5 million.
Hosting the Harlem meeting was the Honorable Dr. Charles Curtis, reverend at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church, actor and chairman of TransAfrica Danny Glover, and Félix RodrÃguez, who is president of Citgo.
Speaking in Harlem, Chávez said, “We are not enemies of the U.S. That is a lie. We are friends of the people of the U.S., whom all of you here represent with dignity, and we would like you to work; cooperate and look for cooperative, friendship, exchange, interchange, cultural, educational routes with us.
Chávez said that people in 11 states, including more than 220 Native tribes, are taking part in the discounted-oil program this year.
Last year “40 percent [of our oil shipped to the U.S.] went to poor communities. At a discount of 40 percent. And in the case of shelters we do not charge anything. In sum, 180,000 benefited from the 2005-2006 program.”
In his Sept. 20 talk, Chávez discussed the situation at the United Nations itself: “The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.
“But we, the [General] Assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, September 20, that we re-establish the United Nations.”
He proposed that all members of the U.N. meet for a week face-to-face in a round table to discuss matters and come up with solutions.
Chávez raised four other major points: (1) That leaders of developing countries be included in the Security Council on a permanent basis. (2) Transparent decisions on solving world matters. (3) “Immediate suppression—and that is something everyone’s calling for—of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.” (4) “Strengthen the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.”
“Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence,” said Chávez. He discussed how U.S. CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles virtually confessed to his crime of blowing up a Cubana Airline over Barbados in 1976, killing all 73 people on board, but the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to and is protecting Posada Carriles now.
Along with the public talk in Harlem, Chávez also spoke on Sept. 20 at Cooper Union college to a packed auditorium, where he discussed the Bolivarian Revolution’s success in educating ordinary Venezuelans.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/chavez-1005/
Monday, October 02, 2006
Senate Wins Fight To Lower Allowable Amperage Levels On Detainees' Testicles
September 29, 2006
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53539
WASHINGTON, DC—Led by a bipartisan group of senators critical of White House policy on suspected terrorists, the Senate passed a bill Thursday that prohibits interrogators from exceeding 100 amps per testicle when questioning detainees.
"Even in times of war, it is counterproductive and wrong to employ certain inhumane interrogation techniques, and using three-digit amperage levels on the testicles of captives constitutes torture," said Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has also supported reducing the size of attack dogs and the height of nude pyramids. "Using amperages of 99 and lower, with approved surge protectors on the jumper-cable clamps, are the hallmarks of a civilized society."
The legislation did not address amperage restrictions on suspected terrorists' labia.
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53539
WASHINGTON, DC—Led by a bipartisan group of senators critical of White House policy on suspected terrorists, the Senate passed a bill Thursday that prohibits interrogators from exceeding 100 amps per testicle when questioning detainees.
"Even in times of war, it is counterproductive and wrong to employ certain inhumane interrogation techniques, and using three-digit amperage levels on the testicles of captives constitutes torture," said Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has also supported reducing the size of attack dogs and the height of nude pyramids. "Using amperages of 99 and lower, with approved surge protectors on the jumper-cable clamps, are the hallmarks of a civilized society."
The legislation did not address amperage restrictions on suspected terrorists' labia.
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
Willie Nelson Speaks
Willie Nelson's public statement regarding being arrested with a bag of marijuana last week:
"It's a good thing I had a bag of marijuana instead of a bag of spinach. I'd be dead by now."
Friday, September 22, 2006
Pot Busts Exceed Arrests for Violent Crimes Nationally
by Megan Tady, The NewStandard
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3690
Sept. 21 – A person is arrested for a marijuana-related crime every 40 seconds in the United States, according to data from an FBI report released this week.
The annual Uniform Crime Report announced that a record 786,545 marijuana-related arrests were made in 2005. The number comprised almost 43 percent of all drug arrests in the country and exceeded the total number of arrests for all violent crimes in the US.
Eighty-seven percent of the marijuana-related arrests were for possession of the drug.
"These numbers belie the myth that police do not target and arrest minor marijuana offenders," said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), in a press statement. "This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal-justice resources that diverts law enforcement personnel away from focusing on serious and violent crime."
© 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3690
Sept. 21 – A person is arrested for a marijuana-related crime every 40 seconds in the United States, according to data from an FBI report released this week.
The annual Uniform Crime Report announced that a record 786,545 marijuana-related arrests were made in 2005. The number comprised almost 43 percent of all drug arrests in the country and exceeded the total number of arrests for all violent crimes in the US.
Eighty-seven percent of the marijuana-related arrests were for possession of the drug.
"These numbers belie the myth that police do not target and arrest minor marijuana offenders," said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), in a press statement. "This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal-justice resources that diverts law enforcement personnel away from focusing on serious and violent crime."
© 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Massive Tag Body Spray Slick Spreading From Jersey Shore
September 20, 2006 | Issue 42•38
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52985
TOMS RIVER, NJ—A weekend spillage of Tag Body Spray being described as the worst personal fragrance-related natural disaster in the history of the Eastern Seaboard continued to spread along New Jersey's Atlantic shore late Tuesday morning as disaster-management crews worked to contain the slick before it reached international waters.
Coast Guard officials said that the massive Tag slick—an estimated 20 million gallons, or the equivalent of 45 million Body Shots—has further contaminated the New Jersey coastline with a pungent combination of the Midnight and After Hours scents.
"We were not prepared for this," said Toms River, NJ firefighter Tony Carliano, choking back tears. "I've been dealing with noxious chemical fumes for 35 years, but I've never smelled anything on this scale before."
An Environmental Protection Agency spokesman said that Tag levels were already becoming dangerously high in recent years due to the thousands of migratory bros and dudes who flock to the area's beaches during the summer months. Worsening the crisis was the additional arrival of a yet-undetermined number of vacationing convention-goers, Maxim subscribers, and middle-aged divorcees trying to pass for twentysomething party girls. Thirteen-year-old boys attempting to imitate their older brothers have also not been ruled out as a source.
It is not yet known what caused the rupture in the hull of The Manly Torso, a fragrance supertanker which had been scheduled to make a delivery to the regional Tag receiving facility in Ocean City this week, which sank, apparently killing everyone on board, late Saturday.
Many beachgoers, as well as seabirds and marine mammals, have been covered in a thick glaze of Tag. Progress on containing the spill has been hampered by the fact that rescue workers, even those wearing HAZMAT suits and respirators, can only work hour-long stints due to the overpowering, ultra-concentrated odor. Chemical decontamination showers on the scene have repeatedly run out of water.
"It's the equivalent of a military-grade nerve agent, so mucous membranes are highly vulnerable," Federal Emergency Management Agency Director R. David Paulison said. "Without proper and immediate decontamination, it can cause severe rashes, sloughing of skin, and can even strip the lining of your throat if unprotected."
Also undermining the relief efforts, rescuers on the scene said, is the unwillingness of many beachgoers to cooperate with the cleanup.
"It's an uphill battle," volunteer Frank Hagen said. "We spend five hours scrubbing the toxins from the hair and skin of a victim, and then the next day, they douse themselves in it all over again and head back to the beach."
Some environmental experts said that the biological ramifications of the spill may not be fully known for decades. A disaster of this magnitude could have a profound and adverse effect on the breeding patterns of Mid-Atlantic populations for generations, according to Princeton University biologist Leslie Platz.
"There are billions of insects who release sex pheromones to attract mates and their ability to receive these messages could be overwhelmed by the Tag odor," Platz said. "And human females may become too repulsed to ever consider mating with another male."
Even if the spill is successfully contained and cleaned, Platz added, the lingering odor "could still make our grandchildren feel awkward and uncomfortable 50 years from now."
While Paulison expressed hope that progress will be made with the arrival of chemical skimming boats later this week, the spill is already being likened by many to the worst health-and-beauty-aids disaster in American history, the 2001 explosion of a Mitchum deodorant plant in Chicago's South Side, which covered the city in a toxic Mitchum Man cloud for three months.
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52985
TOMS RIVER, NJ—A weekend spillage of Tag Body Spray being described as the worst personal fragrance-related natural disaster in the history of the Eastern Seaboard continued to spread along New Jersey's Atlantic shore late Tuesday morning as disaster-management crews worked to contain the slick before it reached international waters.
Coast Guard officials said that the massive Tag slick—an estimated 20 million gallons, or the equivalent of 45 million Body Shots—has further contaminated the New Jersey coastline with a pungent combination of the Midnight and After Hours scents.
"We were not prepared for this," said Toms River, NJ firefighter Tony Carliano, choking back tears. "I've been dealing with noxious chemical fumes for 35 years, but I've never smelled anything on this scale before."
An Environmental Protection Agency spokesman said that Tag levels were already becoming dangerously high in recent years due to the thousands of migratory bros and dudes who flock to the area's beaches during the summer months. Worsening the crisis was the additional arrival of a yet-undetermined number of vacationing convention-goers, Maxim subscribers, and middle-aged divorcees trying to pass for twentysomething party girls. Thirteen-year-old boys attempting to imitate their older brothers have also not been ruled out as a source.
It is not yet known what caused the rupture in the hull of The Manly Torso, a fragrance supertanker which had been scheduled to make a delivery to the regional Tag receiving facility in Ocean City this week, which sank, apparently killing everyone on board, late Saturday.
Many beachgoers, as well as seabirds and marine mammals, have been covered in a thick glaze of Tag. Progress on containing the spill has been hampered by the fact that rescue workers, even those wearing HAZMAT suits and respirators, can only work hour-long stints due to the overpowering, ultra-concentrated odor. Chemical decontamination showers on the scene have repeatedly run out of water.
"It's the equivalent of a military-grade nerve agent, so mucous membranes are highly vulnerable," Federal Emergency Management Agency Director R. David Paulison said. "Without proper and immediate decontamination, it can cause severe rashes, sloughing of skin, and can even strip the lining of your throat if unprotected."
Also undermining the relief efforts, rescuers on the scene said, is the unwillingness of many beachgoers to cooperate with the cleanup.
"It's an uphill battle," volunteer Frank Hagen said. "We spend five hours scrubbing the toxins from the hair and skin of a victim, and then the next day, they douse themselves in it all over again and head back to the beach."
Some environmental experts said that the biological ramifications of the spill may not be fully known for decades. A disaster of this magnitude could have a profound and adverse effect on the breeding patterns of Mid-Atlantic populations for generations, according to Princeton University biologist Leslie Platz.
"There are billions of insects who release sex pheromones to attract mates and their ability to receive these messages could be overwhelmed by the Tag odor," Platz said. "And human females may become too repulsed to ever consider mating with another male."
Even if the spill is successfully contained and cleaned, Platz added, the lingering odor "could still make our grandchildren feel awkward and uncomfortable 50 years from now."
While Paulison expressed hope that progress will be made with the arrival of chemical skimming boats later this week, the spill is already being likened by many to the worst health-and-beauty-aids disaster in American history, the 2001 explosion of a Mitchum deodorant plant in Chicago's South Side, which covered the city in a toxic Mitchum Man cloud for three months.
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Americans in Denial about 9/11
By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com
Posted on September 14, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/41635/
So, why did they hate us after all?
We sure blew off that question nicely. As with everything else in this country, our response to 9/11 was a heroic compendium of idiocy, cowardice, callow flag-waving, weepy sentimentality (coupled with an apparently bottomless capacity for self-pity), sloth, laziness, and partisan ignorance.
We dealt with 9/11 in many ways. We instantly dubbed everyone who died in the accident a hero and commissioned many millions (billions?) in mawkish elegiac art. We created a whole therapy industry to deal with our 9/11 -- related grief, made a few claustrophobic two-star Hollywood movies about the bombings, read Lisa Beamer's book and bought that DVD narrated by Rudy, watched Law and Order entertainments about sensational murders committed that morning and left for Jerry Orbach to solve, made bushels of quasi-religious references to "hallowed ground." We made many careers out of assigning blame for the attacks, with the right blaming Bill Clinton, Michael Moore blaming George Bush, and the clinically insane blaming those mysterious demolition experts who allegedly wired the bottoms of the towers with the explosives that "really" caused the tragedy. And we talked about 9/11 -- to death. We blathered on so much about the attacks and whined so hard about our "lost innocence" that the rest of the world, initially sympathetic, ended up staring at us in suicidally impatient agony, a can of kerosene overturned above its head, like the old lady sitting next to Robert Hays in Airplane!
We did just about everything except honestly ask ourselves what the hell really happened, and why.
That process of self-examination was flawed from the start. We were screwed the moment Fareed Zakaria wrote his infamous "The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?" essay for Newsweek a few weeks after the attacks. The question -- why do they hate us? -- was maybe the right question, but that was only if everyone could have agreed on what it meant. For what do we mean by they, and what do we mean by us? I for one am not entirely sure we're clear on these points, even now.
That we couldn't agree on who they were should be obvious by now. To the Bush administration the answers to the they/us questions were, respectively, "Foreigners" and "America." From the outset the Bush crew showed that they were both unwilling and unable to budge from the post-WWII political paradigm they'd all grown up under, and viewed the 9/11 events purely as an attack on the American nation-state by a belligerent foreign power. Their solution to the terrorism problem revolved entirely around a strategy for dealing with those foreign nation-states that were the "sponsors" of terrorism -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. It was characteristic of the fourth-rate minds in this White House that they not only immediately got lost in the wrong political paradigm in response to the bombing, but picked the wrong country, Iraq, to punish for the crime. If we give them another ten years at it they'll probably end up introducing market reform to Antarctica as a backup plan.
Bush and his buddies grew up in the Cold War, an era where two countries dominated the world and even the scraggliest warlord in the central African jungle was usually a client of one or the other. It was a fun time for the overgrown Risk-playing nerds inhabiting America's think-tanks, who spent half a century describing all human life as an ongoing chess match between life-affirming American capitalism on the one hand and, on the other, the bloodsucking communist religion cruelly foisted upon the world by a conspiratorial bund of grubby German Jews (Hitler was eighty years too late!) and French homosexuals. That was what it came down to: world politics for half a century was a pissing match between two warring factions in the sociology department of the international University of Well-Fed White People. Things were so simple, even George Bush could understand them.
Well, things have changed since then. The operating conflict on earth now is no longer capitalism vs. communism, but one pitting organization vs. anarchy. All over the world, the borders of nation-states are blurring and becoming more and more meaningless. From the north Indian subcontinent, to the jungles of the Amazon basin, to the Middle East, and especially to west and central Africa, nations are fast losing their integrity while local warlords and gangs are taking over.
In some places in the world, authority changes more from block to block than nation to nation. In countries like Pakistan, which last week was forced to sign a humiliating peace accord with belligerents on its own territory of Waziristan, a tribal leader can twist the nipples of a nuclear power and not only keep his neck but come out ahead of the game afterward. In the late '80s and early '90s the Risk nerds squealed with delight over the supposedly unipolar world created by the fall of the Berlin Wall, but actually the change was from bipolar to apolar. There was anarchy and a crisis of international identity on the other side of that wall. Our pole, one might say, turned out to be a lot smaller than we thought it was.
So what happened? We never got that far in our reasoning. The farthest we ventured, before returning to our regularly scheduled programming, was a vague concession that the world was now "different." "All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world,' said George Bush in his "Churchillian" State of the Union address that next January. "The United States confronts a very different world today," opined the 9/11 commission report. It was "After 9/11, A Different World," as CBS News put it. Different how? Well, that's the part we haven't really figured out yet.
For the most part, America looks pretty much like it looked before 9/11. We spend most of our time pounding Ding-Dongs and Sonic burgers, watching ESPN, and surfing porn sites, while transnational corporations -- the silent allies of drug cartels and warlords in the dismantling of the traditional nation-state -- install turnstiles in congress and steadily move our entire manufacturing economy overseas. Our culture is a parade of idiot reality shows where ordinary citizens eat caterpillars for money and southern jocks drive moving billboards in a circle at 200 mph in front of euphoric crowds of a hundred thousand. In the intellectual north, our braver political dissidents dress in t-shirts with the face of George Bush morphed onto a pig's body and watch documentaries in which other intellectuals brag about being tricked by the Republicans into voting to invade the wrong country.
So what's changed? Well, we now hang our heads when we remember that dark day, kneel before the appropriate icons (Pat Tillman, firefighters, the flight 93 passengers) at the appropriate times, and periodically make sure to remember the Big Lesson, AKA Anything Can Happen, Even To Those Such As Us. The Monday Night Footballcrew this week commemorated 9/11 by bringing a firefighter named Tim Buckley into the booth; when asked what was different now, the humbled Buckley said that after 9/11, you have to think about things more when you go out on a call. "You don't know what to expect, after something like that," he sighed, shaking his head.
Somber nods all around to that in the booth, and then, with the snap of a finger; back to the field --- 3rd and 16 for the struggling Raiders...
In this light one could almost view our response to 9/11 as a triumph of the American system. If 20 knife-wielding lunatics blowing a hole in the middle of Manhattan on international television can't even temporarily knock us out of "What, me worry?" mode, you have to feel pretty good about our future chances for remaining just as cheerfully numb through even a more serious disruption of our fantasy existence.
America's response to 9/11 was basically to blow off the entire question of why it happened, change the set-design behind the same old us-vs.-evil commies cowboy-movie worldview, and to patch the hole blown in our self-esteem with a crude mix of stage-managed self-congratulation and sentimental claptrap. Our failure to actually win our subsequent self-declared war on the evildoers we explained away by using a modern innovation, i.e. taking a New-Agey approach to our shortcomings and forgiving ourselves for our little imperfections. In the Dr. Phil age, actual achievement isn't important, so long as you're comfortable with yourself! Make a list every morning, think about the good things in life! Living in Madison Avenue's irony age helps also -- when even Tony Sopranos pours his heart out to a shrink every week, it's not hard to convince Americans that they're still tough, even though Osama bin Laden is still doing bong hits on Al Jazeera five years after we boldly promised to kick his ass.
Whatever happened to actually being tough? What happened to speaking softly while we carry that big stick? Of staring problems bravely in the face, of taking the world seriously? History long ago washed that generation of "us" away, along with the world we still think we live in.
Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/41635/
Posted on September 14, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/41635/
So, why did they hate us after all?
We sure blew off that question nicely. As with everything else in this country, our response to 9/11 was a heroic compendium of idiocy, cowardice, callow flag-waving, weepy sentimentality (coupled with an apparently bottomless capacity for self-pity), sloth, laziness, and partisan ignorance.
We dealt with 9/11 in many ways. We instantly dubbed everyone who died in the accident a hero and commissioned many millions (billions?) in mawkish elegiac art. We created a whole therapy industry to deal with our 9/11 -- related grief, made a few claustrophobic two-star Hollywood movies about the bombings, read Lisa Beamer's book and bought that DVD narrated by Rudy, watched Law and Order entertainments about sensational murders committed that morning and left for Jerry Orbach to solve, made bushels of quasi-religious references to "hallowed ground." We made many careers out of assigning blame for the attacks, with the right blaming Bill Clinton, Michael Moore blaming George Bush, and the clinically insane blaming those mysterious demolition experts who allegedly wired the bottoms of the towers with the explosives that "really" caused the tragedy. And we talked about 9/11 -- to death. We blathered on so much about the attacks and whined so hard about our "lost innocence" that the rest of the world, initially sympathetic, ended up staring at us in suicidally impatient agony, a can of kerosene overturned above its head, like the old lady sitting next to Robert Hays in Airplane!
We did just about everything except honestly ask ourselves what the hell really happened, and why.
That process of self-examination was flawed from the start. We were screwed the moment Fareed Zakaria wrote his infamous "The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?" essay for Newsweek a few weeks after the attacks. The question -- why do they hate us? -- was maybe the right question, but that was only if everyone could have agreed on what it meant. For what do we mean by they, and what do we mean by us? I for one am not entirely sure we're clear on these points, even now.
That we couldn't agree on who they were should be obvious by now. To the Bush administration the answers to the they/us questions were, respectively, "Foreigners" and "America." From the outset the Bush crew showed that they were both unwilling and unable to budge from the post-WWII political paradigm they'd all grown up under, and viewed the 9/11 events purely as an attack on the American nation-state by a belligerent foreign power. Their solution to the terrorism problem revolved entirely around a strategy for dealing with those foreign nation-states that were the "sponsors" of terrorism -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. It was characteristic of the fourth-rate minds in this White House that they not only immediately got lost in the wrong political paradigm in response to the bombing, but picked the wrong country, Iraq, to punish for the crime. If we give them another ten years at it they'll probably end up introducing market reform to Antarctica as a backup plan.
Bush and his buddies grew up in the Cold War, an era where two countries dominated the world and even the scraggliest warlord in the central African jungle was usually a client of one or the other. It was a fun time for the overgrown Risk-playing nerds inhabiting America's think-tanks, who spent half a century describing all human life as an ongoing chess match between life-affirming American capitalism on the one hand and, on the other, the bloodsucking communist religion cruelly foisted upon the world by a conspiratorial bund of grubby German Jews (Hitler was eighty years too late!) and French homosexuals. That was what it came down to: world politics for half a century was a pissing match between two warring factions in the sociology department of the international University of Well-Fed White People. Things were so simple, even George Bush could understand them.
Well, things have changed since then. The operating conflict on earth now is no longer capitalism vs. communism, but one pitting organization vs. anarchy. All over the world, the borders of nation-states are blurring and becoming more and more meaningless. From the north Indian subcontinent, to the jungles of the Amazon basin, to the Middle East, and especially to west and central Africa, nations are fast losing their integrity while local warlords and gangs are taking over.
In some places in the world, authority changes more from block to block than nation to nation. In countries like Pakistan, which last week was forced to sign a humiliating peace accord with belligerents on its own territory of Waziristan, a tribal leader can twist the nipples of a nuclear power and not only keep his neck but come out ahead of the game afterward. In the late '80s and early '90s the Risk nerds squealed with delight over the supposedly unipolar world created by the fall of the Berlin Wall, but actually the change was from bipolar to apolar. There was anarchy and a crisis of international identity on the other side of that wall. Our pole, one might say, turned out to be a lot smaller than we thought it was.
So what happened? We never got that far in our reasoning. The farthest we ventured, before returning to our regularly scheduled programming, was a vague concession that the world was now "different." "All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world,' said George Bush in his "Churchillian" State of the Union address that next January. "The United States confronts a very different world today," opined the 9/11 commission report. It was "After 9/11, A Different World," as CBS News put it. Different how? Well, that's the part we haven't really figured out yet.
For the most part, America looks pretty much like it looked before 9/11. We spend most of our time pounding Ding-Dongs and Sonic burgers, watching ESPN, and surfing porn sites, while transnational corporations -- the silent allies of drug cartels and warlords in the dismantling of the traditional nation-state -- install turnstiles in congress and steadily move our entire manufacturing economy overseas. Our culture is a parade of idiot reality shows where ordinary citizens eat caterpillars for money and southern jocks drive moving billboards in a circle at 200 mph in front of euphoric crowds of a hundred thousand. In the intellectual north, our braver political dissidents dress in t-shirts with the face of George Bush morphed onto a pig's body and watch documentaries in which other intellectuals brag about being tricked by the Republicans into voting to invade the wrong country.
So what's changed? Well, we now hang our heads when we remember that dark day, kneel before the appropriate icons (Pat Tillman, firefighters, the flight 93 passengers) at the appropriate times, and periodically make sure to remember the Big Lesson, AKA Anything Can Happen, Even To Those Such As Us. The Monday Night Footballcrew this week commemorated 9/11 by bringing a firefighter named Tim Buckley into the booth; when asked what was different now, the humbled Buckley said that after 9/11, you have to think about things more when you go out on a call. "You don't know what to expect, after something like that," he sighed, shaking his head.
Somber nods all around to that in the booth, and then, with the snap of a finger; back to the field --- 3rd and 16 for the struggling Raiders...
In this light one could almost view our response to 9/11 as a triumph of the American system. If 20 knife-wielding lunatics blowing a hole in the middle of Manhattan on international television can't even temporarily knock us out of "What, me worry?" mode, you have to feel pretty good about our future chances for remaining just as cheerfully numb through even a more serious disruption of our fantasy existence.
America's response to 9/11 was basically to blow off the entire question of why it happened, change the set-design behind the same old us-vs.-evil commies cowboy-movie worldview, and to patch the hole blown in our self-esteem with a crude mix of stage-managed self-congratulation and sentimental claptrap. Our failure to actually win our subsequent self-declared war on the evildoers we explained away by using a modern innovation, i.e. taking a New-Agey approach to our shortcomings and forgiving ourselves for our little imperfections. In the Dr. Phil age, actual achievement isn't important, so long as you're comfortable with yourself! Make a list every morning, think about the good things in life! Living in Madison Avenue's irony age helps also -- when even Tony Sopranos pours his heart out to a shrink every week, it's not hard to convince Americans that they're still tough, even though Osama bin Laden is still doing bong hits on Al Jazeera five years after we boldly promised to kick his ass.
Whatever happened to actually being tough? What happened to speaking softly while we carry that big stick? Of staring problems bravely in the face, of taking the world seriously? History long ago washed that generation of "us" away, along with the world we still think we live in.
Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/41635/
Study: Herb May Curb Progression Of Many Diseases
NORML - Recently published research on the therapeutic use of cannabis indicates that cannabinoids may curb the progression of various life-threatening diseases - in particular, autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's disease) - according to a comprehensive new report by the NORML Foundation. The NORML Foundation report summarizes over 120 recently published trials.
REPORT
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002
REPORT
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Judge Keeps Oil Drillers from Alaskan Reserve
by Michelle Chen, NewStandard
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3641
Sept. 12 – Environmentalists are celebrating a recent court decision that bars the leasing of sensitive wetlands in the Alaskan wilderness for oil drilling.
Alaska US District Court Judge James Singleton issued a temporary injunction last week blocking a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land sale near Teshekpuk Lake, a part of Alaska's North Slope region that has historically enjoyed federal protection. The groups take the preliminary decision as a sign that the court intends ultimately to strike down the initiative in a later ruling.
The land in question spans about 1.7 million acres in a government-designated oil-rich region known as the National Petroleum Reserve. The BLM had planned to sell off tracts surrounding the pristine Teshekpuk Lake to developers on September 27. The tracts hold an estimated 1.4 billion barrels of oil.
While targeted for its fossil-fuel resources, the Teshekpuk Lake area also provides a crucial habitat for migratory waterfowl, fish and caribou. Local indigenous peoples in turn rely on wildlife in the area for food.
The Alaska Wilderness League, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and other organizations sued the government in 2005 to stop the sale. The groups argued that the BLM and the US Fish and Wildlife Service had not fully evaluated the long-term threat that industrialization would pose to the area's natural resources. The groups further contended that the government had not comprehensively analyzed the relative impact of alternatives to the leasing plan and had failed to develop an adequate plan to address the environmental effects.
Judge Singleton noted in his ruling that the agencies had admitted to omitting some future environmental impacts and had argued that an in-depth evaluation in the early stages of the development plans would be "premature."
The judge found that the agencies violated federal environmental-protection statutes in failing to analyze the cumulative impact of the leases and that evidence indicated the resulting ecological damage "would constitute an irreparable injury."
The Department of the Interior opened 3.9 million acres of the Northeast Planning Area to energy development in 1998, and also recently allowed leasing on another 8.8 million acres in the northwestern part of the Reserve. In January of this year, the Department authorized additional leasing and development surrounding Teshekpuk Lake, though permanent drilling operations have not yet begun in the Northeast Planning Area.
© 2006 The NewStandard.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3641
Sept. 12 – Environmentalists are celebrating a recent court decision that bars the leasing of sensitive wetlands in the Alaskan wilderness for oil drilling.
Alaska US District Court Judge James Singleton issued a temporary injunction last week blocking a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land sale near Teshekpuk Lake, a part of Alaska's North Slope region that has historically enjoyed federal protection. The groups take the preliminary decision as a sign that the court intends ultimately to strike down the initiative in a later ruling.
The land in question spans about 1.7 million acres in a government-designated oil-rich region known as the National Petroleum Reserve. The BLM had planned to sell off tracts surrounding the pristine Teshekpuk Lake to developers on September 27. The tracts hold an estimated 1.4 billion barrels of oil.
While targeted for its fossil-fuel resources, the Teshekpuk Lake area also provides a crucial habitat for migratory waterfowl, fish and caribou. Local indigenous peoples in turn rely on wildlife in the area for food.
The Alaska Wilderness League, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and other organizations sued the government in 2005 to stop the sale. The groups argued that the BLM and the US Fish and Wildlife Service had not fully evaluated the long-term threat that industrialization would pose to the area's natural resources. The groups further contended that the government had not comprehensively analyzed the relative impact of alternatives to the leasing plan and had failed to develop an adequate plan to address the environmental effects.
Judge Singleton noted in his ruling that the agencies had admitted to omitting some future environmental impacts and had argued that an in-depth evaluation in the early stages of the development plans would be "premature."
The judge found that the agencies violated federal environmental-protection statutes in failing to analyze the cumulative impact of the leases and that evidence indicated the resulting ecological damage "would constitute an irreparable injury."
The Department of the Interior opened 3.9 million acres of the Northeast Planning Area to energy development in 1998, and also recently allowed leasing on another 8.8 million acres in the northwestern part of the Reserve. In January of this year, the Department authorized additional leasing and development surrounding Teshekpuk Lake, though permanent drilling operations have not yet begun in the Northeast Planning Area.
© 2006 The NewStandard.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Terrorism: It's Time to Get a Grip
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on September 11, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/41444/
"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror." -- FDR, 1933
American public policy shouldn't be made by 19 reactionary right-wing fundamentalists with box-cutters or some Saudi culture warrior holed up in a cave in Pakistan, and it shouldn't be based on the public's basest emotional responses. But for the past five years that's largely been the case.
Of course, that assumes that sound policy, based on realistic analyses of the issues, is lawmakers' primary goal. It's not; that would only be in the interests of ordinary people. Terrorism has become intensely politicized, and fear is now an organizing principle for the Right.
Last week, journalist Mathew Stannard wrote about a new study by researchers at Columbia University that showed empirically what many of us have long known intuitively: The Bush administration hypes the threat of terrorism, the media embrace that hype, President Bush's approval ratings rise and the cable news channels get their ratings.
University of California scholar Mark Juergensmeyer told Stannard: "This public panic benefits the terrorists whose work is made easier by an overactive government response that magnifies their efforts. In an odd way this puts the government and the terrorists in league with one another," he said. "The main loser, alas, is the terrified public."
Aside from the political consequences of a freaked-out populace, the constant drumbeat of fear has been used to justify the detention of U.S. and foreign citizens without trial, warrant-less surveillance of Americans and an unprovoked war of aggression against a sovereign state that has proved to be disastrous. It's also been used to justify the greatest expansion of military spending since the start of the Cold War, paid for with large deficits and deep cuts in domestic priorities.
For all of those reasons, we have to put the threat of international terrorism in perspective. That doesn't mean denying that Islamist terror is a real threat -- it certainly is -- but it does mean evaluating how great that threat is, and questioning whether the strategies that the U.S. has adopted to counter it are the appropriate ones.
With that, here are some things you should know to put international terrorism in the proper perspective.
More...
Posted on September 11, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/41444/
"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror." -- FDR, 1933
American public policy shouldn't be made by 19 reactionary right-wing fundamentalists with box-cutters or some Saudi culture warrior holed up in a cave in Pakistan, and it shouldn't be based on the public's basest emotional responses. But for the past five years that's largely been the case.
Of course, that assumes that sound policy, based on realistic analyses of the issues, is lawmakers' primary goal. It's not; that would only be in the interests of ordinary people. Terrorism has become intensely politicized, and fear is now an organizing principle for the Right.
Last week, journalist Mathew Stannard wrote about a new study by researchers at Columbia University that showed empirically what many of us have long known intuitively: The Bush administration hypes the threat of terrorism, the media embrace that hype, President Bush's approval ratings rise and the cable news channels get their ratings.
University of California scholar Mark Juergensmeyer told Stannard: "This public panic benefits the terrorists whose work is made easier by an overactive government response that magnifies their efforts. In an odd way this puts the government and the terrorists in league with one another," he said. "The main loser, alas, is the terrified public."
Aside from the political consequences of a freaked-out populace, the constant drumbeat of fear has been used to justify the detention of U.S. and foreign citizens without trial, warrant-less surveillance of Americans and an unprovoked war of aggression against a sovereign state that has proved to be disastrous. It's also been used to justify the greatest expansion of military spending since the start of the Cold War, paid for with large deficits and deep cuts in domestic priorities.
For all of those reasons, we have to put the threat of international terrorism in perspective. That doesn't mean denying that Islamist terror is a real threat -- it certainly is -- but it does mean evaluating how great that threat is, and questioning whether the strategies that the U.S. has adopted to counter it are the appropriate ones.
With that, here are some things you should know to put international terrorism in the proper perspective.
More...
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Pocket Paradigm
From Sam Smith, UnderNews
One reason the Democrats lose so many elections is that they seem to care more about Valerie Plame and who said what on an ABC TV show than they do about healthcare, pensions, jobs or how much it costs to own a house.
One reason the Democrats lose so many elections is that they seem to care more about Valerie Plame and who said what on an ABC TV show than they do about healthcare, pensions, jobs or how much it costs to own a house.
Bush Regime A Gift To Opium Growers In Afghanistan
CARLOTTA GALL, NY TIMES - Afghanistan's opium harvest this year has reached the highest levels ever recorded, showing an increase of almost 50 percent from last year, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said Saturday in Kabul. He described the figures as "alarming" and "very bad news" for the Afghan government and international donors who have poured millions of dollars into programs to reduce the poppy crop since 2001.
He said the increase in cultivation was significantly fueled by the resurgence of Taliban rebels in the south, the country's prime opium growing region. As the insurgents have stepped up attacks, they have also encouraged and profited from the drug trade, promising protection to growers if they expanded their opium operations. He said the harvest increased by 49 percent from the year before, and it drastically outpaced the previous record of 4,600 metric tons, set in 1999 while the Taliban governed the country.
The area cultivated increased by 59 percent, with more than 400,000 acres planted with poppies in 2006 compared with less than 260,000 in 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
He said the increase in cultivation was significantly fueled by the resurgence of Taliban rebels in the south, the country's prime opium growing region. As the insurgents have stepped up attacks, they have also encouraged and profited from the drug trade, promising protection to growers if they expanded their opium operations. He said the harvest increased by 49 percent from the year before, and it drastically outpaced the previous record of 4,600 metric tons, set in 1999 while the Taliban governed the country.
The area cultivated increased by 59 percent, with more than 400,000 acres planted with poppies in 2006 compared with less than 260,000 in 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)