Splinters

Police State?

2006-05-27T16:55:00.000-07:00

I don’t know about you, but I'm getting more and more signals indicating that the land of the free and home of the brave is fast becoming a police state. That dreaded word, once absurd in any discourse about the United States, has appeared in several columns lately, not least the end of Frank Rich’s column in the recent New York Times. Is this chicken-little paranoia, or is it based on reality?

Consider recent revelations. First, we find out that the National Security Agency (NSA) the biggest eavesdropping agency in the world has been tapping the domestic phone calls of Americans suspected of making calls to Al Qaeda agents or people connected to Al Qaeda. This has been done without the necessary warrants from the FISA courts, with the NSA simply going around the law of the land, and bragging about it. Both the President, and now his nominee for CIA chief, Michael Hayden, who was NSA head when the surveillance started, have insisted that warrant less wiretapping of Americans affects only communications with Al Qaeda, and hence is limited and legal. To "protect the American people," they have both asserted the President can do whatever he wants, regardless of Congressional statute.

However, USA Today revealed last week that the surveillance wasn’t so limited after all. Its report stated that major communications corporations AT&T, Bell South, Verizon and others, have been routinely turning over their phone records to the government. This means that the government has documented proof of every phone call made by virtually every American. Of course, both the phone companies and the Bush administration insist that this does not constitute phone tapping, because only the phone numbers, not the callers’ names, are revealed. Bush has also insisted that no "data mining" or "trolling" for information is taking place. But what would the government be doing with all these phone records if not trolling through them to see who is calling whom, and why? And who is to determine what use is made of all this information?

In both the above cases, the danger is that some computer program can easily identify an American who has called someone related to a terrorist, or someone whose relations themselves are related to someone related to a terrorist or suspected terrorist, and bingo, he or she lands on the list of terrorist sympathizers. And in the climate that has been created in the so-called "Long War on Terror," that nebulous connection alone could get someone arrested, held without charges, and tortured before anyone figured out whether the original call was significant or not.

Nor is this the end of it. ABC News has learned that all of its phone calls are being monitored as well. Reporter Brian Ross, in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now says:

"The F.B.I. then, Amy, last night put out a statement essentially acknowledging that they are tracking phone calls of reporters." ("They Track Journalists, Don’t They?" 5/16/06 on Thruthout.com

The reason seems to be that the Bush administration is so apoplectic over "leaks" that it now considers all reporters suspect. The fact that this is a major attempt to intimidate the free press, not to mention its obvious violation of the First Amendment, seems not to have mattered. Rather than address the problems and even crimes exposed in such news stories, the Bush administration chooses to attack those who have the temerity to do their jobs.

Finally, a recent report ((link) has revealed that Kellogg, Brown & Root, that ubiquitous subsidiary of Vice-President Cheney’s old company Halliburton, has been given a $385 million contract to build a series of detention centers, not in Iraq, but in the United States. Now who could the government be contemplating as inmates of those domestic detention centers? Those who report the news? Those who respond with anger to the corruption they see in the government? Those who might be arrested by National Guard troops about to be dispatched as guards for our southern border, in clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Whatever the answer, one thing is becoming alarmingly clear: the police-state tactics that Americans have always been assured was a mark of totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union, China, Iraq, or Korea are increasingly becoming the hallmark of this administration and this nation.

The Free-Market Cure for Iraq

2006-05-22T13:53:00.000-07:00

To justify its invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has constantly trumpeted its plans to democratize a country long exploited by a dictator, to introduce the marvels of free-market capitalism to the long-suffering Iraqi people. "Iraq for the Iraqis" was the mantra used early and often, especially with regard to its oil. A recent report by Kathy Kelly ("The Illness of Victors," Counterpunch: 5/13/06) reminds us how deceptive this sugarcoating of aggression and gross exploitation has turned out to be.

Instead of democracy and freedom, the Iraqis have been met with staggering violence, total absence of infrastructure, a healthcare system in ruins, and shortages of what was once plentiful and dirt-cheap gasoline and fuel in a country with the second largest petroleum reserves in the world. And the reason? The rules and regulations imposed by the Bush administration, in direct violation of all laws governing occupying powers, to benefit itself and its corporate cronies. Here is what Kelly says:

"The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have now instituted programs that require Iraq to begin paying back debts incurred by the former dictator, Saddam Hussein. To pay those debts, the interim government in Iraq has agreed to cut back on subsidies that enabled every family to purchase cooking oil and petrol at low prices. The prices have already risen threefold and a tenfold increase is expected by the end of the year. Another austerity measure involves ‘monetizing the ration basket,’ which means that the meager distribution of lentils, rice, cooking oil and tea once available to Iraqi families is being cut back, causing the price of these goods in the market to soar beyond the means of many poor families."

This is called "structural adjustment," the debilitating policies poorer nations worldwide must submit to, in order to conform to the wonders of the "free" market. The result is everywhere the same: in order to pay off their debts, however they are incurred, poor nations must cut off all social programs designed to help their impoverished masses survive because such programs have the odor of that economic pariah, "socialism." No matter if starvation and penury are the result; no matter if Iraq, once the only first-world nation in the Middle East is now a third-world basket case.

A democratic Iraqi government, under the gentle guidance of Uncle Sam, has been elected, and is committed to administering the free-market "medicine" to cure all of Iraq's ills. Meantime, other countries in the Middle East--Syria, Afghanistan, Iran--must be rubbing their hands in eager anticipation wondering: can Uncle Sam's wondrous health injection for us be far off?

A Crisis in Competence

2006-05-11T13:11:00.000-07:00

What’s to be our fate
With a gang that can’t shoot straight?
They hire the whores
And jump into wars
While building the debts
And losing the bets
In every national sector
While playing the latest trifecta

The Bush Administration seems unable to win a war but is quick to start them. They have prosecuted the war in Afghanistan as though it did not matter. In fact, it took them over a year to employ artillery. That was Rummy’s idea of a new light offense. Four years later, we are losing to the Taliban there and to the insurgents in Iraq. Could it be that this War President wants to play the Trifecta by opening a new front in Iran? Every indication is that Bush is simply drooling to attack Iran and to fill out his death wish for our fighting men and women. He deliberately outed an undercover agent and likely all her contacts. Valerie Plame was assigned to develop the intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program but that was all thrown away when Bush “declassified” her mission to cover up his lies about the yellowcake in Niger. If it were anybody else on the planet, the offender would be prosecuted for grave security violations if not treason. Instead, we listen to lame excuses by Bush that he was trying to present the truth about the yellowcake nuclear materials. As was said in the movie A Few Good Men, he can’t take the truth, and the truth is that Bush is completely incompetent.

In case you are wondering about the whores in the verse, we now know that professional prostitute Jeff Gannon visited the White House more than 80 (recorded) times while he pretended to be a reporter. Were those social or professional visits? More recently, we learned that “Duke” Cunningham was paid off by Bush Administration military contractors in money and women who serviced him in Watergate, of all places. What kind of vetting process produces whores and losers in position after position? The answer is that cronyism trumps vetting for this gang of losers. Return to the scene of the crime in New Orleans and you will discover incompetence in depth. Sometimes 15 feet under water! “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” The contracts went out to the cronies again without a bidding process and yet their performance was abysmal. The chaos and lack of planning was tied to cronyism could not be repainted by FOX to look pretty. New Orleans is still suffering from presidential incompetence in selecting administrators or personally directing recovery. We will say more about White House imaging, but first let us consider fiscal prowess.

Bush has rung up MORE national debt than ALL preceding presidents COMBINED. He has boasted about making tax cuts for the super wealthy a permanent artifact for his legacy, but what he has done is to put every man, woman and child further in debt than anybody can possibly pay off in a lifetime. That is his inevitable legacy. This is the administration that used Dick Cheney to draft up our energy policy in secret. Now you know why it was a secret set of meetings. You can see the reasons at the gas pump as the dollars spin up like a Las Vegas slot machine, except that sometimes you can win at Las Vegas. This is the Bush that claimed, “Of course, you have to have a court order to wiretap.” He then commanded NSA to wiretap with out court orders. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he might not know the difference. Yes, he could be that incompetent.

As for the Bush penchant to spin the news, events have a way of building up where the truth becomes ever more difficult to hide. How many disasters can be rephrased as successes? Yes, he has fired Scott McClellan, but is it Scott’s fault that lies and failure got to the podium before him? Will Tony Snow and FOX be able to paint Iraq and Afghanistan as wins? Will he be able to continue to speak of the “wild speculation” of our likely attack on Iran? At some point, the pattern that is already identical to the buildup for Iraq will become apparent. “No options are off the table.” I once felt that Bush was misguided but capable, but the evidence is building that incompetence is the root cause of tragedy. Don’t look for Bush to solve his own problem. He can’t. Will people in the streets do it?

The Problem with Immigration

2006-05-01T23:47:00.000-07:00

The current turmoil over illegal immigration--including the largest demonstrations in U.S. history--has resulted in reams of foolishness. Whether it be the standard complaint that "these people" are lawbreakers and should be criminalized (the approach of House Republicans), or the boilerplate lament that all immigrants, legal or illegal, always help rather than hurt the American economy (the approach of the protesters and their supporters), or the guest-worker program pushed for years by the Bush administration, nearly all arguments have so far suppressed a critical fact: the nefarious role of the North American Free Trade Agreement in stimulating emigration from Latin America. An article by Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter, "Immigration Flood Unleashedby NAFTA," (THRUTOUT.com) makes this crystal clear.

Where NAFTA was supposed to "solve" the problem of immigration, it has done just the opposite. It has allowed American corporations like Walmart to flood the Mexican market with cheap goods, thus putting small Mexican companies out of business, and forcing already underpaid Mexican workers to compete with labor in China and elsewhere. It has encouraged American agribusiness to overwhelm Mexico with U.S. grown corn, which is so heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers that Mexican growers cannot compete (this is reminiscent of what happened in Italy in the 1880s, with exactly the same result: impoverished peasants who fled to America in droves). All this, plus American factories in border towns paying starvation wages, has created such massive displacement (poor farmers and workers moving to overburdened cities with no jobs) and misery that the rate of immigration has dramatically increased since 1996 when NAFTA was signed. Whereas only about 2.5 million Mexican illegals were here in 1996, more than 8 million have crossed the border illegally since then, thanks in large part to NAFTA. "Free trade" has turned out to be the "free fall" of wages and living standards not only in Mexico, but in all of the Americas, and that includes the United States.

As Bybee and Winter put it:

The wholesale surge of Mexicans across the border dramatically illustrates that NAFTA was no attempt at a broad uplift of living conditions and democracy in Mexico, but a formula for government-sanctioned corporate plunder benefiting elites on both sides of the border. NAFTA essentially annexed Mexico as a low-wage industrial suburb of the USA.

No amount of half-baked solutions by politicians trying to appease an aroused electorate will fix this mess. Only a serious and courageous look at the dominant reign of corporatism and globalization can ever hope to stop the massive migration of the world's new wage slaves.

Bush’s Balancing Act

2006-04-11T18:32:00.000-07:00

As the price of labor goes down
Half the Right wears a frown
Mumbling bring on the beagles
And chase the illegals
Across the South border
And build a high wall
To keep law and order
Before we all fall
While the other half praises
The lowest of wages
At home and abroad
And legislates fraud

In a strange way, it is fun to watch the Republicans in a schizoid stance trying to balance the hatred of the far right with the greed of the far right. We have racist ideologues facing off with free market ideologues. Of course, the free market ideologues have an edge with Bush pushing for a guest worker (no citizenship) program. This keeps wages low here and keeps the status quo in Mexico so that the oligarchs there, including Fox, don't have to invest in a middle class and we can reduce our middle class at home. Meanwhile, we are in a war that takes all the fun out of the Republican dilemma because in that ultimate reality program real people are really being killed and the money is our tax money being paid out through no-bid contracts.

If you happen to stop in a bookstore, pick up Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor. It will confirm all your suspicions about how soon in his first term Bush and his accomplices decided to go to war and how weak the planning became as Donald Rumsfeld bullied General Officers to whittle down the size of the invasion force while speeding up the process. As Condi Rice put it so well, "thousands of mistakes were made." Of course, the most frightening scenario is that the administration has not learned from its mistakes.

Planning for Katrina was no better than Iraq and the same no-bid contracts were let to the same contractors with the same underachievement. Cronyism ruled contracting both home and away. Indeed, the administration used the Katrina aftermath as an opportunity to combine the incompetence of senior appointees with the economic disadvantages of low wages so Halliburton and others are hiring manual laborers from Mexico to clean up New Orleans.

For the Bush administration and its cronies, Katrina may, in fact be the perfect storm. It has permitted, through an act of God, the enrichment of the few while so changing the demographics as to make a Democratic district a wasteland and simultaneously deny the former residents an opportunity to vote. We boasted how we encouraged ex-patriot Iraqis to vote from remote locations here in the United States, but refused to allow displaced New Orleans residents the same. It is difficult to distinguish the effects of nefarious intentions from sheer incompetence and I am not sure which label best fits the Bush Leaguers. The result will be conversion of a Democratic district in Louisiana into a Republican district. Above all, (including outing a CIA undercover agent) it is politics above the good of the nation. DeLay in Texas redistricting and Bush in Ohio and Louisiana disenfranchisement. Now that is teamwork.

For those of you who wonder how the Congress will resolve the "immigration" issue, look no further than the immediate past for your best prediction. There will be a compromise for the racist right with the "free market" right. The racist right will get its Berlin Wall West and the corporate right will get its no-bid contracts and a franchise for low priced labor. Look for the invocation of "national security" to build a wall and then look for some compassionate consideration by permitting Mexicans and Central Americans as guest laborers. This is essentially the gastarbeiter system of Germany that has failed so miserably. The connected will get the no-bid contracts to build the wall and with a minimum wage here that is three times the average wage in Mexico, the infiltration will continue to the delight of the Right.

Corporate Crime

2006-04-10T15:55:00.000-07:00

After the claim about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was proven baseless, the Bush Administration retreated to the fallback position occupied by the great American myth: our selfless nation's divinely-ordained mission was to bring democracy and all its benefits to the Iraqi people. As soon as it was feasible, our noble conquerors would return the country's governance to Iraq¹s newly elected leaders, and the gifts of self-government and private enterprise would flow upon the Iraqi people like manna from heaven.

As we have been seeing lately, however, this promise is turning out to be yet another cruel joke. Far from benefiting the bleeding people of Iraq, the American-imposed "regime change" was clearly meant to open yet another country to the corporate giants who control our world. The latest scholar to point this out is Antonia Juhasz. In several articles and now in a new book, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time, Juhasz argues that the invasion of Iraq was about turning that ancient country into a free-fire zone for America's corporate-welfare elite. The orders imposed by L. Paul Bremer, former head of the now-defunct Iraqi Provisional Authority, make this abundantly clear. For what those orders did (and they are still in effect) was to cancel Iraq's planned economy which had given the Iraqi people food, jobs, and control of their massive oil reserves in favor of the mass privatization of virtually every resource: the oil, the water, the power, the security, the whole shebang. All were made available to takeover by private American corporations like Bechtel (rebuilding the water works destroyed by American bombers), Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Lockheed-Martin and their ilk. And what these American "benefactors" have done is increasingly brought cheap foreign labor and goods into Iraq, leaving most of the Iraqis themselves jobless.

What's worse, far worse, is that all of these orders by Bremer violate international laws overturning occupying powers, which state that such interference with an occupied nation's existing laws is wholly illegal. To quote Juhasz in a recent article:

Transformation of an occupied country’s fundamental laws is illegal under international law. It directly violates the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the U.S. Army's own code of war as stated in the Army field manual "The Law of Land Warfare." Article 43 of the Hague Regulations requires that an occupying power "re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." (See "The Economic Colonization of Iraq," at The Bush Agenda.)

In brief, the occupying power is required to protect the people of the occupied nation and obey its existing laws. True to its disdain for all international law, the Bush Administration has done just the opposite. It has completely overturned Iraq's legal system and economy in favor of one benefiting its corporate cronies. And it knows this, which is why it is so impatient for the Iraqis to form a puppet government to ratify what has already been done.

Now we can see the "frustration" of officials like Condoleeza Rice and the "tough" members of Congress in a new light. They keep threatening the Iraqi government with dire consequences if they don’t resolve their differences and form a government. Why? Because such a government is desperately needed as cover for war crimes, i.e., as an entity to make official the theft already committed, and to welcome with open arms the American corporations eager to rush in and glut themselves on the economic bonanza that has been prepared for them.

How craven and calculating and cruel this will one day appear to all those who have sacrificed their lives in this criminally commercial endeavor, can only be imagined.

Can the Democrats Win?

2006-04-07T13:20:00.000-07:00

We hear a great deal these days from Democrats about the Fall elections, about the increasingly strong chances for a Democratic retaking of Congress, and especially about how best to accomplish this feat. All of this is fine, but one fact threatens to make all this speculation moot: Republican control of the elections process and the high probability that the theft of the most recent elections will be repeated. If nothing is done to change these conditions, all the election strategy in the world will not bring victory.

Consider the recent article posted on AlterNet.com (see bottom of link) (Mar. 2, 2006) by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Ohio authors of How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008. What they pointed out as the product of their latest research adding to the more than 100 different ways in which the Republican Party perverted the democratic process in Ohio is the purging of more than 300,000 mostly Democrat voters from the Ohio voting rolls!

In traditional Democratic Party strongholds like Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), some 175,000 voters were purged and 10,000 who were registered were lost due to "clerical error." This in a state where George W. Bush's margin of victory was only 119,000 votes. An additional 133,000 voters were eliminated from the registration rolls in Cincinnati and Toledo, the excuse being that they had failed to vote in two previous elections (note that no law requires this). The result of this and other purges was that thousands of voters turned up to vote at their regular polling places, only to be told that their names had been somehow removed from the rolls. When many of these voters used the government-mandated provisional ballots, they found that the Republican Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, had instituted unprecedented requirements for provisional ballots, such as supplying the voter's birth date, which poll workers failed to mention. As a result, thousands of such "disqualified" ballots were then thrown out.

Anyone who doubts that the 2004 election was stolen should read another book on the Republican theft, Fooled Again, by Mark Crispin Miller. Among the literally hundreds of dirty tricks employed by legions of Republicans throughout the nation, Miller cites (a) New Mexico, where 19,000 under votes were cast (an under vote is where no vote is cast for president on an otherwise completed ballot), with 17,147 of these under votes coming from notoriously "fixable" electronic voting machines this in a state where Bush won by only 7,047 votes (Miller, p. 149); (b) the expatriate voting scandal, where of 7 million eligible voters living or working in foreign countries (with civilians outnumbering service personnel by 15 to 1 and hence favoring Kerry by large margins), at least 43% were prevented from voting according to the Overseas Voting Foundation, because they were either prevented from registering on time, or they received their ballots late or not at all (Miller, pp. 249 ff).

There is far more to Miller's book, as well as to the accounts of Fitrakis and Wasserman in Ohio. The sum total is chilling. Most important, it makes all too clear that short of a major Democratic Party effort to closely monitor and fiercely contend any inkling of chicanery in future elections, all the strategy in the world will be useless. For the truth is, John Kerry was declared the winner in every exit poll, and he still "lost."

If such unprecedented fixing can be done once, it can be done, and will be done, repeatedly. In short, democracy and all strategies to ensure it are simply meaningless if the very basis of Democracy a fair and free election can no longer be counted on.

Iraq House Training, er, Nation-Building

2006-03-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

MSNBC's catoonist, Daryl Cagle, after hearing Bush explain his Adminstration's failure in Iraq this week after so many years, captures in living color the fact that looking backwards, "house training" (aka "nation-building") in Iraq has gone rather badly.

Nations are just not very good at nation-building and a long serious review of history informs us of that fact. The issue was addressed last week-end in many of the pundit talk shows like Hardball, the McLaughlin Group, This Week, and others: the commentators were all, by and large, in agreement.

The neo-con idea that the USA could start a pre-emptive war and then hope to nation-build was flawed from the begining.

The Truth About Iraq

2006-03-20T13:35:00.000-08:00

Our myopic president, G. W. Bush, has been traveling the country recently, hoping to head off the bad news emerging as America observes the 3rd anniversary of his disastrous venture in Iraq. Like a broken record, he keeps repeating his mantra: We’re doing better than the media lets on, we can’t retreat, we must fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. And Americans in increasing numbers are responding that the war was a mistake, and not worth what it is costing in lives and treasure (upwards of $400 billion at last count).

If there still remain Americans unconvinced of the folly of this war, they should take a look at the stunning article by Orville Schell, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, to be printed in the April issue of The New York Review of Books (available now on Tomsdispatch.com and truthout.com). The piece is almost wholly descriptive of Schell’s trip to Baghdad to assess the state of the journalism there, and it is a sobering reminder of the horrors that we, the United States of America, have perpetrated upon the people and culture of that long-suffering country.

Pretending that we are "liberating" them, and educating them into our democratic ways, we have turned a once-prosperous and modern nation into a medieval nightmare resembling nothing so much as the landscape in the distopic film, Blade Runner. Trash and debris from abandoned military vehicles line the roads. The roads themselves are a no-man¹s land upon which it is only safe to drive in armored vehicles manned with private security forces. No American reporter can venture out alone.

Most are trapped in their hotels and must depend on Iraqi stringers to bring them news from outside. Any place that can afford it is hidden behind twelve-foot highway "T-walls" which, Schell says, "looks something like giant tombstones, totems perhaps from some long-lost Easter Island culture gone minimalist.:" The entire city is barricaded behind these "Bremer walls" placed edge-to-edge to serve as blast walls. There are no services to speak of, no infrastructure, with electricity and water available only part time, with fuel, in which Iraq should be drowning, available only after waiting in line for hours and days, and with no police worth the name (those police there are remain so fearful of being identified as American collaborators that they "wear black stocking caps with eye, nose, and mouth holes pulled down over their faces so they look like so many bank robbers.") Baghdad, outside the American-fortified Green Zone, is a city virtually abandoned to monarchy, a city in the hands of militias, criminals, and private security forces the latter numbering above 25,000, according to Schell, all earning many times what American troops earn, the result being that the aspiration of many American troops is to finish their tour of duty and begin their civilian careers in the booming private security sector.

Schell's account does not even begin to assess the terrible damage that has been inflicted upon individual Iraqis trying to survive in this living hell, but the impact of the article, and many other accounts, leaves no doubt that it has been brutal and all consuming.

One can only hope that some day, and soon, those who have inflicted this disaster upon an innocent people will be held to account, and that Americans will rise up and demand an end to and reparations for this outrage—the wanton, random destruction of the very civilization that gave birth to us all.

A Lost Cause

2006-03-18T11:00:00.000-08:00

Mike Lester, with the Rome News Tribune in Georgia, captures Senator Russ Feingold's dilemma last week.

The thing is that Feingold has not been consistent lately: to wit, he voted for Bush's boys on the Supreme Court. Shame!

On Immigration

2006-03-12T22:10:00.000-08:00

Guest Blogger: Charlie Ara, Cerritos, Calif.

This morning I attended the Cerritos Optimist Club's annual Oratorical Contest at the Sheraton Hotel. In addition to a delicious meal with parents, teachers and fellow Optimists, I heard the excellent inspirational speeches of seven students from the ABC School District.

As I listened, I noticed that all seven students had dark black hair. I reflected that all were either immigrants or the children of immigrants and that the future of our country will be denriched with their contributions and talents.

To me, the Oratorical Contest was a teaching moment for all the adults present. It was an opportunity to reflect on the immigration debate now raging in the United States.

I do not know if each of these students or their parents are documented or undocumented. However, this was on my mind as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee takes up a series of proposed immigration reforms.

At the present time there exists a hysterical anti-immigration sentiment sweeping even Cerritos as evidenced by the Cerritos Republican Club inviting Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, to address their meeting.

Recently, Cardinal Roger Mahony spoke out against this hysteria. He framed the immigration debate in moral and ethical terms. He suggested that the Judeo-Christian Tradition welcomed the immigrant.

Yes, some reforms are needed. As we say in our Optimist Creed "...to spend so much timeon our own self improvement that we have no time to be critical of others..."

The Minutemen type would have it be a felony to help an undocumented immigrant. The priest, rabbi, iman, minister, etcetera would have to have everyone show their papers before entering a house of worship.

What are we coming to as a country? What can we do about the mean spirited hysteria?

As we are all immigrants or children of immigrants (except for Native Americans) why can't we find ways to deal with our problems without being mean-spirited?

What are some considerations for reforming immigration?

Here are some ideas being considered:

(1) Visas for family members of migrants to reduce what can be decades-long waits to reunify.
(2) A guest worker program with a path to permanent residency.
(3) Legalization of undocumented migrants.
(4) Better legal process to guarantee immigrants rights.
(5) Economic development in poor countries to reduce the need to migrate.

Yes, let's debate the issue of immigration but let us do it with a sense of justice, fairness and concern for all our fellow human beings on planet earth.

Harboring Terrorists

2006-03-08T23:24:00.000-08:00

As the Parker political cartoon describes well (and after today's vote in the House), Bush's plan for our harbors seem like a lost idea.

Iran's Oil Bourse

2006-03-03T14:25:00.000-08:00

The warning signs are rising again that the Bush administration really does intend to initiate another aggressive action against Middle East oil giant, this time Iran. Part of the problem most Americans have imagining such a drastic scenario is the lack of information about the real cause of such action perhaps because the situation is too dire for the media to handle. I am referring to the plan by Iran to open an Oil Bourse, or oil exchange of its own.

As explained by Mike Whitney on Op-Ed News, "The Bush administration will never allow the Iranian government to open an oil exchange (bourse) that trades petroleum in euros. If that were to happen, hundreds of billions of dollars would come flooding back to the United States crushing the greenback and destroying the economy. This is why Bush and Company are planning to lead the nation to war against Iran. It is straightforward defense of the current global system and the continuing dominance of the reserve currency, the dollar."

Whitney goes on to explain that because the world oil market is denominated in U.S. dollars, oil nations hold enormous dollar reserves, which forces them into the U.S. orbit. Add to this the huge national debt now in excess of $8 trillion and continuing record trade deficits, which also force nations like China and others to hold huge reserves in dollars, and it becomes clear why the U.S. is worried about Iran’s bourse.

If oil-producing nations were to suddenly no longer have to hold their dollar reserves, it could start a stampede of dollars rushing back into the U.S. The result could either be hyperinflation or depression, depending on whether the Fed decides to raise interest rates to leading to recession, or print more money, leading to hyperinflation.

Thus, the war rumblings echoing throughout Washington have nothing to do with Iran’s supposed nuclear development plans. That is just the cover story, as countless analysts have pointed out that it would be at least 10 years before Iran might have a bomb. Iran poses no threat to anyone, not even Israel, which has over 200 (unacknowledged) nuclear weapons of its own.

As for the United States, which has launched unprovoked attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq, not only is there no threat, but any thinking person must reflect back on the identical situation that prevailed in 2002 and 2003, when Americans were told the same story about the growing threat of Iraq’s WMDs. In fact, no WMD were ever found. The whole threat was a ruse, an excuse for the Bush administration to begin its Middle East aggression, and for similar reasons: Iraq, too, had threatened to switch from dollars to Euros. Such open defiance of United States hegemony could not be allowed to stand then, and it appears it will not be allowed to stand now.

The only question is, are Americans and the world dumb enough to be fooled into yet another phony war? Stay tuned. Or better yet, let Washington know that you object to their plans, by going to the web site Stop War on Iran.

Note: For additional information and some historical tid-bits read a Krassimir Petrov, PhD article. Dr. Petrov teaches Economics at the American University in Bulgaria.

George W. Nixon

2006-03-02T00:46:00.000-08:00

Paul Conrad's view of the Bush, er, Bush-Nixon Administration.

Mr. Conrad always gets to the core of the argument.

Plutocracy versus Democracy

2006-03-01T01:32:00.000-08:00

It was widely reported in the Associated Press recently that the US Coast Guard raised some red flags when the proposed take-over by Dubai Ports World of certain US ports was brought to their attention. Last December the Coast Guard warned of potential intelligence gaps and, as such, made it difficult for the Guard to evaluate the true security threat before the business deal was approved. We still do not know why their concerns were ignored (or ameliorated) but I have a view, and to me it seems the plutocrats continue to wield power in America.

It’s such a tragedy that so many Americans do not see the irony as this little political brouhaha developed vis-a vis our policy towards Iraq the last four years. Our Splinters team member George Giacoppe wrote a sizzling post a few days ago as he unmasked the realities of life for many living in the UAE, especially foreigners. As Mr. Giacoppe discussed, in the UAE there is no democracy, but the Bush Administration, it seems, can care less.

By contrast, let’s remember than one of the goals (later stated) of invading Iraq was to bring democracy and freedom to a country under the control of a political strongman. Yet, as the Bush Administration cozies up to the UAE regime demonstrably shows it’s not about democracy that concerns Bush when it comes to the conflicts in the Middle East, but, what else, the eternal lucre and getting along with other plutocratic regimes in the area. All the arguments made about the UAE being America’s friend in the “so-called” war on terrorism is just a red herring. We Americans have to keep our eye on the events that are developing without relying on the faux arguments made by the ever-lying White House.

When plutocrats—like the ones in power in Washington DC (mostly the executive branch, but not exclusively) and the UAE—have the same agenda they are all too willing to work together. This is the same throughout the Middle East as we work warmly with the non-democratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Before the fall of the Shah (1979), America was so nice to Iran, another plutocratic regime. We never criticize these regimes, not even a little bit. I'll say it out loud, “There is a hidden agenda, and it’s about money, oil, and control.”

And I have heard zero about the political background of the UAE that Mr. Giacoppe addressed in his post in the mainstream media, yet the media networks continue to parrot Bush’s democratic goals in Iraq daily. Shameful.

Yet, for Bush, the problem with plutocratic regimes, especially in open societies, is that not everyone with spheres of governmental influence is in adherence with the plans of the leadership in power at any point in time. In this fiasco many Republicans in Congress who worry about re-election next year have determined the Bush Administration is not concerned about their needs, and as expected, they are fighting Bush on this contentious issue. Look at the public opinion polls: 75% of Americans oppose the UAE taking charge of our ports. So it comes to no one’s surprise that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said, "I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed. I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment."

I've mentioned in my posts that the legislative goals of Democrats in Congress lie with moderate Republicans. Now it seems that Republicans concerned about loosing the next election can also help, at least in this instance. I strongly believe that in the end Congress will stop this very strange deal and override Bush’s threatened veto.

United Arab Emirates: Worse Than You Thought

2006-02-25T11:02:00.000-08:00

The War Prez is true to his sport
And now can bring war to our ports
With terror at home and away
As a new form of play
With Dubai at our feet
We’ll have warlords to beat
And we’ll outsource Logistics
And plan with our mystics
While making some hay
By selling away
The home of the brave
To the UAE with her slaves

Lots of good Americans are wondering how the best politicians that money can buy including Snow and Bush himself could go so far into power and ego as to have selective memory on the UAE. Perhaps Bush feels a need to move us firmly into the 18th Century and the days of princes and slaves. Camel jockeys alone account for about 40,000 slaves in the UAE. The wealthy there buy boys as young as two to race on camels as early as age four. They are bought in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India for about $3,000 each and fed as little as possible to minimize the weight on the camels being raced. Of course, young girls are bought to be used as child sex slaves for the rich of Dubai. I guess that King George overlooked that since he has promoted these scions of sin to these United States. King George has claimed that he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East, yet the UAE has never held an election. There is a new twist on the old question. How can you tell when Bush is lying? It is when Scott McClellan is moving his lips.

As you may recall, two of the suicide hijackers in the 9/11 attack were UAE citizens. The UAE was one of only 3 nations in the whole world that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan. UAE money financed the training of the UAE hijackers here in our United States. Millions of dollars were laundered through Dubai banks to support bin Laden and, in fact, the US attack planned on bin Laden in 1999 was called off because he was meeting with the princes of the UAE at that very moment and we did not want to hurt the princes or the Bush I investment deals. Al Qaeda and the UAE princes are banking buddies and, of course, George Bush Sr. is an investment buddy of the bin Laden family through the Carlisle Group. If this does not model on the royal privilege of the 1700’s, it is close enough for government work.

The "foreign company" that Bush has defended is not a private entity, but a direct arm of the sovereign UAE, the princes and the slave-holders. If we do not do business with Cuba that is 90 miles from our coast based on principles, what does this say about bringing the corruption of Dubai to our shores? We select our principles? Poor Cubans bad; rich princes good? There are no human rights in the UAE, but the Emirates have enough money to attract investors like Bush and Snow. Incidentally, the administration has probably lied about the scope of the deal and what was originally reported as a contract for 6 ports is now 21 ports. I guess that Bush’s dog Barney ate his homework. Even in a pass/fail system, Bush flunks this one.

As a token of respect and privilege for the princes of Dubai, the Administration has agreed not to require the UAE to keep its business records on US soil. This means that we have no audit trail. We have no way to trace the money or the manifests or the communications to the bank that has already been caught financing terrorism in the US and in Afghanistan. With no audit trail, we will have no way to demand production of paper for a court or even for a Congressional investigation. We should trust them based on the administrative skills that led us through Katrina. The license to the UAE becomes a license to steal and to kill. Bush, consistent with his Pharmaceutical Protection Act (Medicare, Part D) provides for government exclusion from control. If the Coast Guard cannot demand a manifest or a bill of lading, how can it defend us from a repeat of prior UAE support of our enemies? Maybe security is not a priority, but WAR is a priority.

Allow me to offer a few reasons beyond the usual Bush incompetence:

1. Cronyism. The sport of kings and princes (along with camel racing).
2. Union busting. The living wage is a 20th century anachronism. Slaves are cool.
3. War is good for business and the UAE is a trusted broker for profiteering.
4. No audit trail means no impeachment trial. Plan for success now.
5. Democracy is for Iraq, not for Palestine or the UAE.

Peace

Again: What Liberal Media?

2006-02-24T00:05:00.000-08:00

Yes, journalist Eric Alterman reminds us one more time about the non-existent so-called Liberal media.

Please see here.

Donna Shalala, Hypocrite of the Month

2006-02-23T00:23:00.000-08:00

Did you hear about Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Clinton Administration?

Well these days Dr. Shalala, as president of University of Miami, is battling campus janitors who, God forbid, are trying to unionize in order to bargain for living wages and health benefits.

Wow, doesn’t Shalala, a life long Democrat, believe the role unions play in order to bring about a just society? I think she is clueless and/or a complete sellout. No two ways about this issue.

Currently the janitors make as little as $6.40 per hour and have zero, yes, zero health benefits. Shalala on the other hand makes over a half a million per year. Moreover, the university is not hurting for money and has recently raised over one billion dollars in a single fundraising drive. Woman, I ask, what happened to your Democratic values?

The irony: Shalala's 9,000 square-foot digs, paid by the university, was featured recently in the New York Times magazine. The article shows off her Coral Gables estate and discusses her other worldly possessions including the fact that her dog "Sweetie" has four dog beds. This case makes her the top candidate for the hypocrite of the month.

In unity, carajo!

Sí se puede.

For more information read here.

Uber blogger Wonkette has a super take on the topic here.

Tone Deaf Bush

2006-02-22T09:19:00.000-08:00

Bush has fallen into some very hot, if not boiling, political water with his proposed approval of the purchase by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates owned firm, of the London based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which runs six major United States ports. Bush even threatens a veto if Congress takes any action preventing the sale. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) calls the move foolish and said the Bush Administration was "unbelievably tone deaf politically." To quote the great fictional moral philosopher Forrest Gump, "Stupid is what stupid does."

The ports involved are very important and vital to our economy. They include some of our busiest: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The bipartisan angst felt about this issue brings about a good question: Why should we worry? Well, the company that will run the ports can select the personnel of their choice and have oversight of the cargo brought into the country. Moreover, the firm will have complete knowledge of the security plans along the eastern seaboard--an inviting opportunity for any terrorist organization with proactive plans that have hatred towards the U.S.

Rep. Edward Markey, (D-Mass.) said:

Almost none of the cargo that enters our ports is ever inspected. While the federal government is ultimately responsible for security at ports, much of the day-to-day security responsibilities, such as hiring security guards and ensuring adequate access controls and fencing are in place, are delegated to the companies that operate at the port.

Yet, the Republican in Congress will not go quietly into the night on this issue. They’re ticked off and are willing to challenge the Bush Administration on this strange decision. In fact, House Speaker Hastert called for an "immediate moratorium" to be placed on the deal. Oh, oh, those sound like fighting words.

We have enough problems in combating terrorism domestically to add another headache to worry about. As such, this issue is a winner for Democrats, and we can rightly make the case that we’re tougher on security issues than the Bush Administration. Dems can rightly argue that Bush allowed "bombs in a box" to be potentially brought into the country by outsourcing the management of ports.

We have a winner folks.

Update: Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly blog has a diferent take. See here.

Jeff Parker Captures Bush in Action

2006-02-21T11:09:00.000-08:00

We have another super political cartoon from Jeff Parker who is with Florida Today.

Mr. Parker captures Bush true interests in this drawing, and it’s not the same interests of the men who wear the uniform in our armed forces.

For more of Jeff Parker please visit here.

Republicans: Have You No Sense of Decency?

2006-02-20T09:31:00.000-08:00

Photo: Senator Jay D. Rockefeller IV

In 1954 during the contentious Army-McCarthy hearings, Army general counsel Joseph Welch reprimanded daffy Senator McCarthy by saying, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

The recent illegal domestic wiretapping inquiry by the Senate has been stonewalled by GOP operatives from the White House working in conjunction with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I say it's fair to ask the same question in this instance, "Chairman Roberts, have you no sense of decency."

Sen. Jay D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) said that Sen. Roberts had abdicated his responsibility as the leader of the committee that is supposed to oversee the intelligence activities in the Unites States. Clearly an important job if one believes in oversight and the proper role of Congress.

One could easily conclude that there is no separation of powers when it comes to the Republican controlled Senate. It appears the Senate is beholding to the executive branch, as the Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Roberts, seems under the commander-in-chief’s spell.

There is still hope for Americans who believe in justice as Congresswoman Heather A. Wilson (R-New Mexico), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is considering its own inquiry. As they say in pop culture, “You go girl.”

On the bright side these conservative Republicans are giving lots of ammunition to Democrats running for office this year. This election cycle will be an interesting one politically. Let’s hope Americans eschew jingoism and an extreme nationalistic mentality for the sake of our Republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Republican-English Dictionary

2006-02-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

Over at The Reality-Based Community Blog there is a super post by Mark Kleiman named "Entries from the Republican-English Dictionary." It's a complete hoot.

Two of my favorites are:

*class warfare/ n./* Any attempt to raise the minimum wage.

*pro-life/ adj./* Valuing human life up until birth

There are so many other good ones.

Check it out here.

Deadeye Dick

2006-02-17T06:30:00.000-08:00

The more we hear about it, the more it becomes clear that Vice-President Cheney’s mishap, wherein he shot his hunting companion, Harry Whittington, stands as the perfect metaphor for this administration.

Consider: Here we have the man who, as Vice-President, is arguably the most powerful VP in United States history, one who is in large part responsible not only for the rush to invade Iraq without provocation, but also the man in charge of what Lawrence Wilkerson, military aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, calls a "cabal" operating out of his office. He is the man who snarls and snaps not only in secret but also in public; a man whose office "outs" CIA agents in order to punish the perceived disloyalty of their husbands. He also may be responsible for a lot more that we don’t know about, or at least don't yet have proof of.

And yet, this is the man who has so little regard for the rules that he simply whirls and fires at an alleged quail and whacks his 76-year-old companion dressed in orange jacket and in the line of fire. And then keeps it secret for a day or two, while his minions try to make sure the story will disappear. Only it doesn't. Whittington ends up in the intensive care ward, is said to be happy and jolly and certainly not holding the Veep responsible, until suddenly, he has a heart attack and we find out the shotgun pellets not only pierced the skin, but one pellet has migrated into the heart!

Our Vice President shot his friend in the heart.

This is the man we are supposed to trust. This is the man whose selection as VP was supposed to assure us that even though George W. was a rookie, Dick Cheney was a veteran, cool, calm, collected, "old reliable" who would be capable of engineering both foreign and domestic policy. Only that the game plan began to unravel as early as 9/11, when, during the chaos following the initial attacks, we find that it was "old reliable" Cheney who ordered the planes that finally scrambled to "shoot to kill" flight 93.

Flight 93 which eventually crashed in a Pennsylvania field, supposedly brought down by the heroics of the passengers on board. Only now, perhaps we have to revise our notions. This is, after all, the "chicken hawk" so eager to get off a good shot and prove his manhood that he shoots his companion.

It’s all almost too symbolic. The old reliable "chicken hawk" the man too busy for such mundane matters as military service‹turns out to be trigger-happy. And if that doesn't symbolize and epitomize American foreign policy since the Bush administration took office, I don't know what does. The man and all he represents is a clear and present danger to himself, to his friends, to our country, to the entire world. At the very least, Deadeye Dick should resign.

Keefe on Cheney

2006-02-16T10:04:00.000-08:00

Mike Keefe, an award winning political cartoonist with the Denver Post, explains why VP Dick Cheney was able to dodge the draft back in the 1960's. Forget that going to school business.

Congress Blames Homeland Security Dept.

2006-02-15T04:02:00.000-08:00

Photo: Rep. Shays (R-Conn.)

A U.S. District Judge ruled that FEMA could evict 12,000 families staying at hotels, all causalities of America’s worst natural disaster: hurricane Katrina. It’s another example that the US government cares little about its citizens. The feds are more concerned about waging idiotic wars in far away lands and spending billions and billions on arms and fattening the coffers of companies like Halliburton than bringing some sense of normalcy to Louisiana.

FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said, ”People kind of get into a routine living in these hotels, and it’s not necessarily a good routine.” So what’s FEMA’s answer: to put the families on the street. Let’s not forget that the federal government via the Homeland Security Department totally bungled the relief effort. A House Report will state exactly how badly the feds blew it.

Expect the Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff, to be grilled by both Republicans and Democrats alike when he testifies in Congress. Yesterday Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) was on ABC’s Good Morning America making the case that The White House was clearly in “a fog." Shays, a member of the committee that will produce a sizzling House report scheduled for released today added, "We wanted the Homeland Security Department to be an asset to help FEMA, and instead it stood and watched it fail."

Of course Chertoff will begin to cover his behind just like former FEMA director Michael Brown did last week. And Republicans always talk about accepting responsibility. Ha, ha. ha, ha!