Connie Schultz: HIs Lovely Wife

Thanks to Robert McChesney, and Media Matters June 17th episode, I'm now familiar with Senator Sherrod Brown's Lovely Wife, the articulate, pulitzer prize winning journalist Connie Schultz. I strongly encourage people listen to that show, particularly those who miss Molly Ivins.

Connie Schultz is a columnist with the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Her column is now carried by Creators Syndicate, which still lists Molly Ivins as a writer. She won the 2005 Pulitzer prize for commentary written in 2004. The Pulitzer citation stated the award was for

her pungent columns that provided a voice for the underdog and underprivileged.

Of course, she's just the lovely wife of newly elected, truly progressive and not-afraid-to-speak-his-mind US Senator Sherrod Brown. In 2004, I was pulling for outspoken Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, before the Democratic machine hammered him, and put in this guy named "Sherrod Brown" as the US Senate candidate. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Brown/Schultz are the real deal. Brown voted against the Iraq war, Brown truly deferred to his wife Connie before entering their race. His belief in himself and honesty to the progressive values persuaded Connie that the sacrifices would be worth it, even if he was a long shot.

And they are in love. I know that sounds a little silly, but listening to her interview with Bob McChesney revealed the power of true love. In other words, a little advice to right-wing hit men; don't piss these two people off... they're in love and that's a force you don't want to mess with. Seriously.

As revealed in her interview with McChesney, Schultz is a clear thinker. This is critical to ensure informative, concise writing. She also has a firm moral compass and stands by her principles. When you listen to her, you can't help but think, "her parents must have been solid people."

She demonstrates this with an anecdotal story. Connie was at an event in which someone introduced her as Sherrod Brown's wife, saying she's one of those women who won't change her name. Her father had just recently died at age 69. She got up to speak and explained her pride in being a Schultz. She was raised by extremely hard working parents from Appalachia who never went to college, who gave up a lot so their children could be somebody. You can be certain there's a man out there who had a rapid conversion in his views on women keeping their maiden name after marriage.

That's where I'll end it. You can have some hope in the future, because Sharrod and Connie are out there slogging away for truth, justice and the American way. Of course,they can't do it without us.

Aside: This blog entry got a slow start... it once looked like this:

I confess that this is a draft blog entry, because while I was writing it I bacame side-tracked on finding a widget for making a slide show that would make Sherrod Brown look like he was clapping. Unfortunately, the clapping slide show doesn't seem to work, and I've yet to do justice to Brown's lovely wife.... but I'm work'n on it.

... if you want him to clap faster, click the [-] minus sign... still trying to figure out how to default to 1 sec....

The Means are Important

It's too easy to get caught up in outcomes and forget that the means are important, even vital. It's OK to relish the process, even if painful or ugly. We're always in a multi-generational struggle. Take the long view. Remember MLK: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Photo Credit: LINK

Presidential Candidates That Get My Support

So far my 2008 presidential campaign donations have gone to Kucinich, Obama and Edwards. I want to support their voices in the primaries.

I'm pulling for Edwards, with the hope he'll challenge corporate power at the Constitutional level. I have, however, been critical of Edwards for pandering to the Israeli lobby. However, Edwards' true colors are revealed by his vocal warning of Israeli's potential use of nukes on Iran.

Back to Campaign '08. My assessment...

Kucinich unfortunately has no chance,
Obama is inexperienced and would likely be assassinated if elected,
Richardson is worth watching, because he has said all troops out and no US military bases in Iraq (Now there's a campaign promise I predict would be broken).
Hilary is a corporate toady (parasite)... oh, you already knew that. Sorry.

All of that said, I'm registered with the Green Party as another "vote" that sends a message to the Democrats... "You've got competition."

Desire to Hold Detainees Motivates Torture

The US military in Iraq has rules. For example, there were apparently rules against having non-trained interrogators conduct interrogations. So, according to pfc. Evan Knappenberger...

We didn’t call them interrogations. The terminology had to be changed, as is the case with many things we do in the military that we’re not really allowed to do. If you change the name, you can – you are allowed to do it but, because it’s not – it’s the same action, a different name. We call them tactical questionings.

Another set of military rules determines how to handle detainees. In a response to a question from DemocracyNow's Amy Goodman about who's in the room during a "tactical questioning" session, Knappenberger describes his experience:

Well, I can’t really go into specifics, but typically there would be one or two soldiers. At times it would be nobody more than two junior enlisted soldiers, and an Iraqi interpreter, and the suspect.

When asked about the kinds of questions asked he replied by describing the 24-hour rule:

the rule was we could hold these guys for 24 hours without doing any paperwork on them. And at the end of that 24 hours, if we had enough on them,... we’d keep them in. Otherwise we had to release them.

Basically, it's a rule that keeps one-day detentions secret by having no paper work. But, Knappenbergers' next statement that is even more troubling:

The problem then became getting something out of them to keep them.

Hmmm.... Imagine young, junior enlisted soldiers, who likely feel angry about their situation, trying to "get something" on a detainee to "justify" holding them longer. It's a formula for abusive treatment, that is, torture.

Take Action:

If you feel a responsibility to bring this flawed situation to someone's attention, you might consider contacting the US Department of Defense.

Silencing the Deeper Attorney Firing Plot

The establishment media would have you think the US attorney firings are a "scandal" highlighted by whether or not Justice Department officials misled Congress or broke laws, whether they replaced attorneys who would more closely implement Bush policies, or at worst, whether the White House was involved. This is the superficial story.

The real story, reported by this blog, is that a much deeper plot is beginning to unravel. That plot has two complimentary elements: 1) To suppress Democratic voters, and 2) A long-range plan to elevate political operatives, "loyal Bushies," to federal judge positions by first appointing them to be US Attorneys, thereby giving them credentials in the future (as if the US Supreme Court isn't already tainted by political operatives).

One small aspect of the story is that, after firing the "eight US Attorneys," the Justice Department tried to silence them. This part of the story IS coming out in the establishment press.

According to the Associated Press, "Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty [who recently resigned], is the fifth Justice official to leave after being linked to the dismissals of the prosecutors."

Among other things, Elston is becoming known as the hatchet man who tried to silence the fired US prosecutors. As AP puts it, "Elston was accused of threatening at least four of the eight fired U.S. attorneys to keep quiet about their ousters."

According to statements from the fired US attorneys, released by the House Judiciary Committee, Elston was involved in a silencing operation.

Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Nevada, was given the impression that Attorney General Gonzalez threatened to make public statements about Charlton's poor performance. According to Charlton:

I believe that Elston was offering me a quid pro quo agreement: my silence in exchange for the attorney general's.

AP reports that, "John McKay, former top prosecutor in Seattle, said he perceived a threat from Elston during his call."

And Carol Lam, U.S. attorney in San Diego, said that:

during one phone call, Michael Elston erroneously accused me of 'leaking' my dismissal to the press, and criticized me for talking to other dismissed U.S. attorneys.

Lam's office indicted Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a senior CIA official and contractor Brent Wilkes who were involved in the Congressman "Duke" Cunningham Scandal. According to AP, "The New York Times has reported that Lam was actively investigating Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis at the time of her dismissal."

A fourth former U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark., had made a similar accusation in an e-mail released in March, 2007.

Murray Wass reports, "In the e-mail, which he sent to five of his fellow prosecutors, Cummins said that the "essence of [Elston's] message" was that if any of the fired U.S. attorneys had pressed their case in the media or before Congress, senior aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales might "feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off" and accuse the prosecutors of ineptitude or poor management."

According to Murray Waas, confidential Congressional testimony reveals that "Elston said that his boss, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, directed him to place calls to fired U.S. attorneys Paul Charlton of Arizona, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, and John McKay of Seattle, all of whom said they felt pressured to keep quiet."

It's OK to Debate the Israel Lobby

Times change. The Israel Lobby can now be analyzed and debated. Although I don't know the motives of the VPRO International "Back Light" organization, it's video is a legitimate contribution to the debate.

Here's the description that accompanies the video:

For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue to do so?

In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel.

The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby. The question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.

With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and investigative journalist Michael Massing.

Research: William de Bruijn
Director: Marije Meerman

US Backs Palestinian Executive, Not Parliment

The symbolism is emblematic of the Bush Administation's revolutionary expansion of executive power in the US: Bush backs the Fatah Palestinian executive branch, President Abbas, in his struggle with Hamas, which was elected to lead the Parliment, the branch closest to the people.

Bush can say the word "democracy," but he means the "freedom" of economic power to have its way, which invariably means a minority of the "haves" exploiting opportunities at the expense the majority "have-nots". It flies in the face of the underlying democratic principle of "one person, one vote."

The US Attorney Firings Expose a Deeper Plot

The US Attorney firings have exposed two major plots: 1) To supress Democratic voters, and 2) A long-range plan to elevate political operatives, "loyal Bushies," to federal judge positions by first appointing them to be US Attorneys, thereby giving them credentials in the future.

There's far more to this plot, but here's an outline:

The Plot

1. Timothy Griffin helped steal the 2000 election as the legal advisor to the Bush-Cheney Florida recount. Removing Floridians from the voter rolls was a key element in the 2000 election subplot.

2. Timothy Griffin, helped steal the 2004 election, working under the direction of Karl Rove [a] for the Republican National Committee (RNC). Griffin runs a caging list operation [b] to suppress the Democratic vote by removing people from voter rolls and creating false evidence to 1) use in challenging voters and, 2) create an impression of wide-spread voter fraud. Caging is illegal and the RNC has been caught doing it in the past.[c]

3. Republicans inserted a provision into the reauthorized USA PATRIOT Act allowing US Attorneys to be appointed without Senate confirmation. Does this action originate with Karl Rove?

4. Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzalez's Justice Department lead a campaign to create artificial concerns about individuals committing voter fraud. [d]

5. With hyped-up concerns of voter fraud swirling, Rove's operation influences State legislators to pass "Voter ID" laws designed as another prong in the plot to suppress Democratic votes. [e]

6. The Justice Department and White House (Karl Rove) develop a list of US attorneys to be fired, which consists of attorneys who would not go along with the plot to suppress Democratic votes

7. Timothy Griffin was appointed US Attorney in Arkansas, replacing Bud Cummins. The hope being that one day Griffin would become a federal judge to do the bidding of the dark side. He could be counted on to do thier bidding because the dark side has dirt on him (his role in this plot).

The Plot Unraveling:

- Fired US Attorneys are instructed not to speak about the subject publically, but they do speak.

- Fired US Attorney David Iglesias testifies to Congress that New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici illegally called to pressure him to file criminal charges against a Democrat before the 2006 election. Iglesias, the military attorney upon which the Tom Cruise charicter in "A Few Good Men" is based, reports he felt "sick" after Domenici hung up on him.

- Greg Palast interviews former US Attorney Iglesias and reports on DemocracyNow. In addition to not filing charges on behalf of the RNC before the November 2006 elections, Iglesias reports,

They were telling Rove that I wasn’t doing their bidding. I wasn't filing these voter fraud cases.

- The Seattle times reports on Washington Attorney John McKay,

Some believe McKay's dismissal was retribution for his failure to convene a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud.

- Rep. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, initiates investigation of Timothy Griffin.

- Timothy Griffin resigns as US Attorney.

- Former Karl Rove aide, Sara Taylor, is subpoenaed to testify to Congress. White House counsel, and failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, is also subpoenaed.

- The US establishment media remains silent, but that can't last too much longer on a story this big, or can it?

- The unraveling continues....

Notes:

[a] This is known because e-mails with caging lists attached were obtained by BBC when the e-mails were accidently sent to GeorgeWBush."ORG" rather than ."COM" These e-mails include the many sent by Karl Rove from RNC computers that he claimed had been lost.

[b] Cagging works this way to suppress approximately 3 million Democratic votes: Huge numbers of people are identified as likely Democratic voters (using ethnic names and other demographic indicators) who are also likely to be away from their address when the letter arrives (people who use a homeless shelter address as their primary residence, students on vacation and US military personnel in Iraq). Certified mail is sent to them with instructions, "Do Not Forward, Return to Sender" if the person isn't at the address. The returned mail was used by the RNC to develop a "caging list," used to either petition for removal of people from the voter lists or challenge the votes during the election. Duped or corrupt secretaries of state, like Ken Blackwell who oversaw elections in Ohio, go along with the plot. The BBC, and now the US Congress, have these caging lists.

[c] Caging people by ethnicity is a felony under the Voting Rights Act. In addition, the RNC was caught caging in the 1980s and, to avoid criminal prosecution, the RNC
signed a consent order not to engage in any form of caging with the courts. The RNC has surely created means of plausible deniability in this case, but is significantly exposed at this time.

[d] At the direction of Washington, US Attorneys across the Country hold press conferences to generate hysteria about individuals committing voter fraud, despite very little evidence that significant fraud is occuring. Some US Attorneys conduct prosecutions on thin evidence, others refuse to initiate cases despite pressure from the Justice Department.

[e] Although State legislators might have been duped by the intent of Rove plotters, many of the state voter ID laws suppress Democratic votes. For example, the RNC plotters know that, statistically, inner city poor people tend not to have ID and tend to vote democratic. Thus, by requiring two forms of ID, many inner city people who don't have drivers licenses and may not maintain good records, e.g., birth certificates, are prevented from voting.

Sources:

Thanks to the investigative work of Greg Palast for BBC

Ring of Fire, June 9th, 2007

Democracy Now, May 14, 2007, Investigative Journalist Greg Palast Reports on the Firing of New Mexico Attorney David Iglesias

David Bowermaster, "Was McKay ousted over 2004 election?", Seattle Times, February 16, 2007.

Iraqi Deaths: Three Independent Sources

This Entry is a Work-in-Progress

Despite what the establishment media is willing to report, three credible, independent sources estimate hundreds of thousands.

First, everyone should be familiar with what's called the Johns Hopkins Study on excess deaths between March 2003 and July 2006, published in The Lancet British medical journal. The study estimates a range of about 400,000 to 900,000, with a average of about 655,000.

Second, former US military intelligence analyst, pfc. Evan Knappenberger, cites an independent number:

At the time we had concluded that there were close to 3/4 of a million civilian deaths over the course of the Iraq war. Now I would guess it is probably upwards of a million.

Knappenberger bases his statement on his own involvement in intelligence analysis:

I personally read through about 30,000 separate reports of civilian casualties in Iraq and put together a picture over a very long period of time, of the situation around Baghdad as far as what they call SECMAK now, which is sectarian murders and killings. After a month of reading through these reports, we started to get a picture of what was going on. Unfortunately, it was pretty much ignored by the chain of command.

In response to Knappenberger's estimate, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow made the following statement, leading me to search for a third independent source:

Well that actually coincides with the two studies done most recent, a million, and before that The Lancet, the British medical journal published that study from Johns Hopkins University, saying around 655,000.

Editorial Note: I'm trying to track down Amy Goodman's reference to another study that estimates 1,000,000 excess Iraqi deaths since the US assault.

Sources:


Johns Hopkins Study Press Release, October 11, 2006.

DemocracyNow, June 12, 2007.

As many as 86% of Guantanamo Detainees Handed to US for Bounties

Professor Mark Denbeaux at Seton Hall Law School has conducted a profile of 517 Guantanamo detainees using data from the US Department of Defense. Among other things, he found that only 5% were captured by the US.

86% were turned over by Pakistan and the Northern Alliance at a time when the US had bounties for the capture of suspected Taliban, al-Qaeda and people's personal enemies that they pawned off on the US as the former.* The detainees were handed over to the US when strong political pressure was on Pakistan and the Norther Alliance to curry favor with the US.

The classification of the detainees breaks down as follows:

8% were "fighters for" a variety of poorly defined organizations.
30% were considered "members of" such groups, and
60% were merely considered "associated with" some organization.
2% had no classification.

55% were deemed not to have committed any hostile act against the US or coalition allies. In other words, the majority of these so-called "enemy combatants" weren't actually "combatants."

Some of the cases are pathetic. In one example, they cite someone who was conscripted to fight for the Taliban (as in forced to join or be executed). So, some guy who doesn't want to be shot, goes to work as a cook's assistant for Taliban forces in Narim, Afghanistan under the command of Haji Mullah Baki. The detainee fled from Narim to Kabul during the Northern Alliance attack and surrendered to the Northern Alliance. "Whew!" Finally freed from the clutches of the crazy Taliban... oops! Now it's off to be tortured and held without charge by the US, because the US has to show it's serious about the "war on terror."

Other "evidence" includes possession of a gun (common in Afghanistan), staying in a guest house *shrug*, captured by bounty hunters*, associated with unidentified groups or individuals.
------------------------

* Bounty Announcements: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams. Help the Anti-Taliban Forces rid Afghanistan of murderers and terrorists." or

"You can receive millions of dollars for helping the Anti-Taliban Force catch Al-Qaida and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people." or

Turn in your personal enemy in the chaos of war and make a buck at the same time!

Wow. Isn't the United States of America a shining example of truth and justice?

Sources:

Seaton Hall Law School report [PDF].

A Crack of Honesty from Rick Lynch

Frustration might be leading to more honest statements by Third Infantry Division commander Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, whose forces control the area of a bridge bombing in Mahmoudiya.

There are tribal sheiks out there who say 'Hey, just allow me to be the local security force. I don't care what you call me. ... You can call me whatever you want [e.g., "insurgent"]. Just give me the right training and equipment and I'll secure my area.' And that's the direction we're moving out there.

In a meeting with reporters, Lynch said contacts with the Sunnis, who make up the bulk of the insurgency, were a matter of pragmatism.

They say: 'We hate you because you are an occupier, but we hate al-Qaida worse and we hate the Persians (Iranians) even worse' ... you can't ignore that whole population.

Lynch's division, he said, had lost 43 soldiers since the beginning of the U.S. troop surge on Feb. 14.

Sources:

Associated Press, Iraq bridge collapse traps U.S. soldiers, CHARLES J. HANLEY, June 10, 2007.

Lou Dobbs: White Supremacist Links

Perhaps Lou Dobbs is a dupe, or just sloppy, but his drum beat against undocumented workers exposes a number of white supremacist links.

Madeleine Cosman, Darling of White Nationalist Anti-immigrant Leaders

One of Lou Dobbs' correspondents reported that there had been about 900 case of leprosy for 40 years, but 7,000 cases of leprosy in the US over the previous three years. The story implied that the increase in this disease was caused by undocumented immigrants. Eventually, Lou Dobbs was confronted by Lesley Stahl of 60-Minutes. His response to Stahl was, "If we reported it, it's true."

Eventually, Dobbs had to issue a correction. Lou Dobbs' producer, Christine Romans, eventually said the Lou Dobbs Tonight program got the figures from Madeleine Cosman, published in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a discredited radical right-wing pseudo journal that includes things like friendly book reviews of How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter, and Minutemen – The Battle To Secure America’s Border by Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi.

Madeleline Cosman appears to have been a darling of white supremacists opposed to immigration. The following two clips give an idea of the source used by Lou Dobbs:


Madeline Cosman: Lou Dobbs' Unreliable Source on Leprosy Statistics


Madeline Cosman: Lou Dobbs' Source Unreliable Source on Leprosy Statistics

Mexican Plans to Recapture the Southwest

When Lou Dobbs reported that the Mexicans had a plan to recapture the Southwest, he used a graphic from the web site of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the largest white supremacist group in the US (The CCC is considered the successor of the White Citizens Councils, both headed by St. Louis-based Gordon Lee Baum. Basically, Dobbs served as a mouth piece for the CCC in telling this nutty story. Just another "regrettable" mistake or a patter?

Lou Dobbs Tonight: Platform for Joe McCutchen

Joe McCutchen is a member of the CCC and headlined their meeting in 2006. McCutchen, head of Protect Arkansas Now, appeals to skin heads and neo-nazis, as well as the hardcore, boarder patrol anti-immigrant movement. Just Google the guy, and you'll find gems like this (search for McCutchin) and you'll have to wonder why Dobbs would give him a platform.

There are More

I could go on, but the work has already been done for my by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC, 2005). SPLC tracks hate-groups among other things.

Wanna Take Action?

Contact CNN and provide feedback on the Lou Dobbs Tonight show.

Say "No" to Dick Armey Blogging at Time.com

I'm having trouble with my gag reflex today.

Gag #1, I was visiting Time.com bloggers to remind Ana Marie Cox, Washington Editor of Time.com, to continue honoring Molly Ivins by maintaining a high level of integrity in her work. A footnote from Libby trial Judge Reggie Walton, included in Ana Marie Cox's recent blog, made me gag. It referred to attorneys like Alan Dershowitz and Robert Bork as "distinguished" "luminaries." They were arguing that "the Libby verdict could possibly be overturned on appeal because of the "close question" about the constitutionality of the special prosecutor." These men are political operators who exploit and abouse the justice system. Hopefully Walton is just playing nice, and mumbling the same words as I am under his breath.

Update:

On June 14 Judge Reggie Walton held a hearing on whether or not Scooter Libby should remain free on bond pending the outcome of his appeal. The Next Hurrah excerpted Walton's response to the brief [2]:

Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish. [Reggie pissed]

Robbins: These 12 schoars believe this is a close question.

Walton: If I had gotten something more of substance from them, maybe.

Gag #2, I noticed a photo of Dick Armey looking back at me from the upper right of Time.com's list of bloggers. I was forced to write the the following letter to Time, and urge you to write Time as well mailto:letters@time.com.

Dear Time:

I hope you're not actually paying Dick Armey to blog for Time.com.

Why would you want to give a cloak of legitimacy to one of the Masters of Mean?

In addition to the "Barney Fag" incident, here's another example of the integrity of the man that Time Magazine is now employing (from the piece linked above):

For years, Armey told the story of Charlie, a janitor at North Texas State when Armey taught there. According to Armey, Charlie was a retarded man who loved his job; then in 1977, the federal government raised the minimum wage, and Charlie was fired because the university couldn't afford to keep him on anymore. A month later, Armey saw Charlie in a grocery store with his wife and infant child, buying provisions with food stamps. "My heart's been broken about it ever since," Armey often lamented.

Unfortunately, no one else who worked at the university at the time had any memory of Charlie. What's more, the chancellor explained, janitors at North Texas are state employees, so the federal minimum wage would not have applied to any "Charlie." [1]

Contact Time:

letters@time.com

Sources:

1. Mother Jones The Masters of Mean, Commentary by Molly Ivins, March/June 2002.

2. Department of Justice, Office of the Special Counsel Documents.

United States: International Dictatorship

Are we so totally desensitized that the notion of "Secret US Prisons" elicits no ground swell of condemnation?

Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch asks, "where are these 39 people now, and what's happened to them since they 'disappeared'?"

"Disappeared." I thought that's what dictatorships did... make people disappear. Actually, knowing the recent history of Central America, I know that the US has a history of making people dissapear; Chile's Pinochet was supported by the US. And, actually, it's corporate power, which runs the US, that is behind the dictatorial behavior of the US government.

We're told we don't live under a dictatorship. That might be technically true domestically, but the United States of America is behaving like a dictator internationally.

Some have theorized that the US dictatorial behavior cannot be stopped from within the United States. They argue that it will have to be stopped from the outside. If so, it would be critical to have a massive internal movement linked with the external one to avoid a major war.

Sources:

Associated Press, "Report: 39 Secretly Imprisoned by U.S." RAPHAEL G. SATTER, June 7, 2007.

KIlled in Iskandariya

Have you seen Reuter's daily "Factbox" on Iraq? I've started using it to update my Statistics on Green Zone Attacks. I'm scanning it today and see "Iskandariya."

Four policemen were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near a police station in Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

Iskandariya is a predominantly Shia town. When Bush proposed his Troop escalation, I thought it unlikely to succeed because it was too focused on Baghdad, among more obvious reasons. Iskandariya, the town few have heard of provides one example of the fact that the war isn't confined to, nor will be won in Baghdad... of course, it won't really be "won." Here's a little dated chronology of incidents in Iskandariya:

On June 19, 2003, a soldier from the 804th Medical Brigade was killed when the military ambulance in which he was traveling was hit by a rocket propelled grenade near Iskandariya. Another attack, on November 9, killed a soldier from the 18th Military Police Brigade. Three more US soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb on January 28, 2004 and another bombing on February 4 killed yet another soldier. [2]

Note, these are US soldier incidents, that is, the tip of the iceberg in one town of many siginficant towns and cities:

• Arbil (ܐܪܒܝܠ) (أربيل)
• Baghdad (ܒܓܕܐܕ) (بغداد)
• Baiji
• Baquba (بعقوبه)
• Basra (بصرى)
• Nuhadra/Dahuk (ܢܘܗܕܪܐ)
• Al Diwaniyah (الديوانية)
• Fallujah (الفلّوجة)
• Halabja
• Al Hillah (الديوانية)
• Karbala (كربلاء)
• Kirkuk (ܟܪܟܘܟ) (كركوك)
• Kut (الكوت)
• Iskandariya (إسكندرية)
• Mosul/Nineveh الموصل
• Najaf (النجف)
• Nassiriya (الناصرية)
• Osiraq (أوزيراك)
• Samawah (السماوة)
• Samarra (سامراء)
• Ar Ramadi (الرمادي)
• Ar Rutba (الرطبة)
• As Sulaymaniyah (السليمانية)
• Tadji
• Tikrit (تكريت)
• Umm Qasr (أم قصر)

Of 18 Iraqi governorates, the US escalation focused on two, Al Anbar and Baghdad. Here's alist of the 18 provinces:

• Al Anbar
• Al Basrah
• Al Karbala
• Al Muthanna
• Al Qadisyah
• An Najaf
• Arbil
• As Sulaymaniyah
• At Ta'mim
• Babil
• Baghdad
• Dahuk
• Dhi Qar
• Diyala
• Maysan
• Ninawa
• Salah ad Din
• Wasit

Now the establishment media finally reports that a Bush military war advisor (czar), Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, was skeptical of the surge policy.[3] This was reported in non-corporate, alternative media on May 16 by DemocracyNow:

President Bush has tapped Pentagon General Douglas Lute to be the administration's first war czar. If confirmed by the Senate, Lute will be responsible for overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lute was selected after several retired generals refused to take the job. The selection of Lute has surprised some because he has repeatedly questioned the size of the U.S. force in Iraq and has criticized the so-called surge. [4]

Sources:

1. Reuters Factbox for Iraq, May 5, 2007.
2. Art History Club Iskandariya link.
3. Associated Press, June 6, 2007, ANNE FLAHERTY, "Bush war adviser was skeptical on Iraq."
4. DemocracyNow, May 16,2007, News Headlines.

Iskandariyah, Iskanderiyah, Iskanderiya, Iskanderiyeh or Sikandariyeh

GOP Ruse on Iraq by Default?

So we hear that GOP leaders and Bush loyalists are concluding that the Baker / Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommendations are the best way to go. That is, take the establishment route. Duh.

Sorry, but "duh" is what comes to mind. The fact that it is supposedly bipartiasn doesn't mean it isn't imperialist, colonial.

Bush is out at the radical edge of the spectrum, making the establishment position seem middle-of-the-roas; the "bipartisan" plan actually constitutes a diplomatic imperial incursion designed to control Iraq. It's just a smarter way of doing it, that is below the radar of the American public. In other words, its a ruse that looks appealing in contrast to the wacko dominionist position of Bush.

Sources:

Associated Press, June 5, 2007, GOP: Bush should adopt bipartisan plan.

Why Capitalism Will Fail

Capitalism will fail for the same reason America rejected Britain; Capitalism consolidates wealth and power, and people want freedom from consolidated power and they want justice through meaningful democracy.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. is quoted,

the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

Elaboration:

Capitalism is not democratic, and in its pure free-market, profit-seeking form, it is technically amoral (if a moral CEO passes up a legal, but immoral profit, a slightly less moral CEO will remove that inefficiency from the market).

But you don't need economic theory to prove capitalism is undemocratic. Our own work place experiences are rife with examples. Decisions are generally made by the higher-ups, and frustration among middle managment and the the workers reflects this undemocratic structure. Everyone has their own stories to tell about this.

On a global scale, transnational corporations fly into a developing world town, cut a deal with a the elite, who typically control the government, extract the natural resources, and pocket the wealth while the mass population gains no benefit at best, or is injured or killed at worst. Same undemocratic phenomenon at a large scale.

After the American Revolution, the Federalist Paper #10 was very open about the fact that a small number of wealthy people held great power. Even if pluralistic democracy was desired, the wealthy elite wasn't going to give up their power immediately. The U.S. Constitution was written with this in mind, to protect the power of the "minority," but to also allow a slow evolution and transition in power to the populace. So the theory goes.

However, corporations came into prominence after the US Civil War. They consolidated power, influenced the centers of government, and have corrupted the evolutionary process described above. But, that's only temporary; King's quote still rules, assuming humans don't go extinct first.

There are more classic reasons given for the eventual demise of capitalism, such as two reason predicted by Marx and Engles [1]:

The first reason is that capitalism basically leads to overproduction. The aim of capitalism is to make everything cheaper and faster. This will eventually lead to overproduction, once the means of production how become efficient enough. The markets will fail, the prices fall.

We see this playing out with the great China production phenomenon. We see capital seeking labor markets, raw materials and sales markets around the world, and creating blowback in the process. This reason leads into the second reason:

The management class will not be able to maintain living standards for the working class. The working class won't stand for it, and the system will change.

Efficient production itself leads to layoffs. US corporations moving jobs to China mean these layoffs are permanent. True, we could produce other "things" in addition to the things that are produced so much more efficiently, like environment-saving services and technologies, but these remain outside of the market, and there is good reason to keep environmental protection outside the market: consolidated wealth can afford to pollute or destroy the environment; only a collective, democratic decision can make environmental protection sacred.

Another argues that DEBT is why capitalism will fail. Others argue that lack of morals is why capitalism will fail, but it could be argued that the lack of morals will simply let capitalism reach its natural conclusion, that is, the reasons given by Marx.

With its eventual demise in mind, one has to wonder about the alternatives to capitalism.... a topic for another time.

Sources:

1. Sourced on Marx.

why will capitalism fail?

Senate Public Funding Bill S.936

The Senate has a "public financing bill" S.936, introduced March 20, 2007 by Richard Durbin (D-Ill) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Here's how it works in a nut-shell:

Step 1: Collect Seed Money
+ this is the "operating cost" money
+ Limited to $100 per doner

Step 2: Collect Qualifying Contributions
+ This is like a petition to show the candidate has support
+ Must be $5 each (not sure if the operating donations count toward this)
+ Need 2,000 contributions plus another 500 contributions from each congressional district.

Step 3: Follow Spending Limits
+ After candidates commit to and qualify for public funding, they cannot use private donations or their own money.

Step 4: Comply with Simple Rules

Step 5: Receive Enough Public Funding to Campaign
+ Senate candidates receive $750k plus $150k for each congressional district for the general election.
+ "Fair Fight" funds are provided if a privately funded candidate is highly funded.
+ Smaller amounts are provided for the primary election.

Remember: It's Voluntary
+ Because money has been defined as "free speech" by the US Supreme Court, public financing cannot be mandatory, unless we change the US Constitution.

Sources:

Public Citizen News, May/June 2007.

Dubai Ports Deal not "worst" Example of a Security Issue being Used for Political Gain

Guest Contributor: L. Vincent Sebastian

The following short article appeared a few days ago. I started reading it and then said to myself, "you've gotta be kidding". Everything Tom Ridge is quoted saying about the failed Dubai Ports deal applies even more so to, you guessed it, the IRAQ WAR and the run up to it. In spite of a setback last November, the right wing, corporate propaganda machine hasn't stopped, and the bullhorn of doublespeak hasn't been silenced....

May 31, 2007 (Reuters)

"Former U.S. security boss blasts furore over Dubai Ports"

A former top U.S. security official attacked American politicians over their handling of the disputed Dubai Ports World deal last year, saying it was "the worst example" of a security issue being used for political gain.

Dubai Ports, owned by the United Arab Emirates, became the centre of a bitter debate in Congress after buying assets at six U.S. ports within its $6.8 billion purchase of Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The Bush administration approved the purchase of facilities, but lawmakers had security concerns about an Arab state-owned company running U.S. port terminals, and Dubai Ports responded by saying it would sell those U.S. assets.

The uproar "sent the wrong signal to the rest of the world," former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told a group of Hong Kong businessmen and reporters at an event organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong on Thursday.

"It was a classic triumph of politics over reason, politics over facts," he said. "It was not about security. It was about politics. Like a bunch of lemmings, everyone went off that cliff."

Ridge was the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which was created by Congress in 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

He is now a business consultant and adviser to Republican Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.

Rice: No Plans for War in Iran

The Associated Press reports that

The U.S. is not preparing for war against Iran and Vice President Dick Cheney supports that policy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, taking a swipe at a U.N. official who says he's worried about "crazies" who want to start bombing.

Actually, the US is already at war with Iran, as described below.

The AP reporting makes it sound more like Rice is taking a swipe at Cheney. The fact that Rice needs to single out Cheney exposes the Vice President as a major source of the administratin's lack of credibility. In Rice's words:

The president of the United States has made very clear what our policy is. That policy is supported by all the members of his Cabinet and by the vice president of the United States.

Of course, this isn't the first time the President has said, according to Rice, "The president has made clear that we are on a diplomatic course," regarding Iran. He said the same thing about Iraq, yet had already decided to initiate a war of aggression on Iraq. This is documented in the Downing Street memo of July 23, 2002. It also shows the US gave little thought to post-invasion Iraq:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Yet Bush regularly gave the American public the false impression that he was following a "diplomatic course" well aftr July 23, 2002, as documented in the Mother Jones Timeline. For example:

December 1, 2001: According to Bob Woodward, Rumsfeld orders [General] Franks to begin work on an Iraq war plan. Bush will meet with military leaders regarding the plan on a regular basis starting late December, despite public assurances that the administration is seeking a diplomatic solution to its showdown with Saddam.

We know there's a plan to attack Iran, because it has been exposed by Seymour Hersh through the establishment media, and of course stated more clearly in the alternative non-establishment media. According to Hersh [1]:

This is not wild speculation. It's simply a fact that the planning has gone beyond the contingency stage, and it’s gone into what they call the operational stage, sort of an increment higher. And it's very serious planning, of course. And it's all being directed at the wish of the President of the United States.

The Washington Post also reported that the "U.S. has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran." [2] According to Hersh, US military leaders have since forced the Bush administration to take this option off the table. It has not, however, necessarily been taken off of Israel's table of military options.

But the "planning" debate is a distraction. According to Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner, US military operations have already been initiated against Iran:

The issue is not whether the military option would be used, but [rather] who approved the start of operations already?.... It's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran. [2]

In other words, the US is already conducting military actions against Iran. This is substantiated, in part, by the proxy "terrorist" military actions led by the CIA against Iran. ABC News reports [3]:

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has hired a Pakistani terrorist group that has carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran, ABC News has reported on Wednesday (April 3, 2007).

It is also consistent with advanced military "spikes" in advance of the "official" war of agression against Iraq. The Downing Street memo of July 23, 2002, demonstrates this fact, and the fact that the timing of the Iraq war was planned with electoral politics in mind:

The [British] Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the [Iraqi] regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

So, the establishment media story is that US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is assuring the World that the delusional Dick Cheney is on board with a "diplomatic" approach to Iran. However, this little smoke screen can't hide the fact that the US is already conducting military actions against Iran.

Contact The Media (LINK):

Tell the media you want more coverage of what's really happening in Iran. Ask them to interview Sam Gardiner and Seymour Hersh.

Sources:

1. DemocracyNow, April 12, 2006 Seymour Hersh: Bush Administration Planning Possible Major Air Attack on Iranmo.

2. DemocracyNow, April 17, 2006, Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner on Iran War Plans: "The Issue is Not Whether the Military Option Would Be Used But Who Approved the Start of Operations Already."

3. Downing Street Memo, To: DAVID MANNING, From: Matthew Rycroft, Subject: IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY, Date: July 23, 2002, as originally reported in the The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.