Fed Up With Cowardice and Duplicity

Add comment September 27th, 2007

By Rowan Wolf

I am fed up and more than ticked off by most of the Congress and by the Democratic Presidential candidates. Remember the expansion of the Bush’s illegal wiretapping? Remember the temporary expansion of the FISA extension than Representative Harman was passed based on hyped security threats? WHY are the Democrats passing these attacks on civil liberties and Constitutional protections?

This just makes my jaws ache. For our elected representatives, and in particular the Democrats, to vote for these things is not an issue of “fear.” If they are willing to destroy our rights because they are “afraid,” then one must assume that they actually believe that Constitutional abridgements are “necessary” for our security. Bull. A total surveillance society (in other words not the one we thought we were living in) is not safer, and it certainly does not have the wall of privacy that is needed for a free citizenry.

While I appreciate Harman stepping up and speaking about this, it is just pure cowardice that our elected representatives would throw away our Constitution because they were scared. Apparently, that was a fairly self-serving fear, because the “hyped” threats were to Congress. COWARDS and fools.

How many times can the administration lie, deceive, obscure, cherry pick, and “hype” before the Dems wake up? What ever happened to “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me?”

Or how about the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that passed the House on September 25, 2007? That is the bill to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (their military) a terrorist organization. Excuse me? We want to declare a government’s military as a terrorist organization? Seems to me that the U.S. is on very shaky ground there. What about the School of the Americas now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation? You remember SOA is the one that trains Latin American military and police in torture, supression of “insurgency” and other means of controlling an “unruly” population? Since this is part of our military, should it be considered a terrorist organization? Or what about the CIA? The U.S. has an fairly long list of “helping” certain factions to power, arming “insurgents” to overthrow their government, etc. In fact, the U.S. has been aiding “dissidents” inside Iran to take over that government. Sounds like any of those might make the U.S. ripe for claims that we are state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, we are even arming and training “insurgents” (or those formerly labeled “insurgents”) in Iraq.

The list could go on and on, but I’ll just add one more that sticks in my craw - the hyped indignation about MoveOn.org’s add prior to the Petreaus report. What pray tell happened to free speech? Why are our elected representatives taking time to “condemn” free speech? Why did they not do the same for Max Cleland, John Kerry, or John McCain. Shall we really get into personal attacks and defamation of character? Yet a number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate somehow felt they need to spend time and breath on some sort of display of false patriotism.

I am tired of the cowardice of Congress. I am tired of Democrats supposedly taking a stand while too many seem to be voting right in lock step with the Republicans. I am tired of excuses that are totally off the point. They can all - Dems and Republicans - start representing us, or they can get the hell out of Washington. That same message needs to be sent loud and clear to the Presidential candidates. We (and by that I mean the almost 75% of citizens of the United States) do not want more of what we have seen and experienced for the last seven years.

Below, I have included the votes on the items mentioned in this article.

Who Voted How?
Link for Senate Roll Call Votes
Link for House Roll Call Votes

S. 1927 Expansion of FISA Public Law No: 110-55 Yeas 60 Nays 28 Not Voting 12

YEAs —60 NAYs —28 Not Voting - 12

H. R. 3356 Yeas 227 Nays 183 Not Voting 23 (Dem Yeas 215) Plain text Democrats / Italics Republicans

Yeas Aderholt Akin Alexander Altmire Bachmann Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bean Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boustany Boyd (FL) Brady (TX) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Carney Carter Castle Chabot Chandler Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Costa Cramer Cubin Cuellar Culberson Davis (AL) Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Lincoln Davis, Tom Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Donnelly Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Ellsworth Emerson English (PA) Etheridge Everett Fallin Feeney Ferguson Flake Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hobson Hoekstra Hulshof Inglis (SC) Issa Jordan Keller King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) Lamborn Lampson Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers Melancon Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Mitchell Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rodriguez Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Royce Ryan (WI) Salazar Sali Schmidt Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shays Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Snyder Souder Space Stearns Sullivan Tanner Taylor Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walberg Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Walz (MN) Wamp Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (FL) Nays Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boucher Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carson Castor Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Costello Courtney Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Ellison Emanuel Engel Eshoo Farr Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Giffords Gillibrand Gonzalez Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Hinchey Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kind Kucinich Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shea-Porter Sherman Sires Slaughter Smith (WA) Solis Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tauscher Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth Not Voting Becerra Clarke Clay Coble Crenshaw Davis, Jo Ann Delahunt Goode Hastert Hayes Hinojosa Hunter Jindal Johnson, Sam Kilpatrick Klein (FL) LaHood Lantos Paul Saxton Skelton Tancredo Young (AK)

H.R. 1400 Iran Counter-Proliferation Act Passed in House, engrossed in Senate Yeas 397 (209 Dem) Nays 16 (12 Dem) Not Voting 19 (10 Dem)Yeas Ackerman Aderholt Akin Alexander Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Bachmann Bachus Baird Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Barton (TX) Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd (FL) Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carter Castle Castor Chabot Chandler Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Coble Cohen Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Lincoln Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly Doolittle Doyle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Ellsworth Emanuel Emerson Engel English (PA) Eshoo Etheridge Everett Fallin Farr Fattah Feeney Ferguson Filner Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Frank (MA) Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Giffords Gillibrand Gingrey Gohmert Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hall (TX) Hare Harman Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Heller Hensarling Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hinojosa Hirono Hobson Hodes Hoekstra Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Inglis (SC) Inslee Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Jordan Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Klein (FL) Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) LaHood Lamborn Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Marchant Markey Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCaul (TX) McCollum (MN) McCotter McCrery McGovern McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Tim Murtha Musgrave Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Neugebauer Nunes Oberstar Obey Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pearce Pence Perlmutter Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reyes Reynolds Richardson Rodriguez Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Rothman Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Salazar Sali Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Saxton Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Sestak Shadegg Shays Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solis Souder Space Spratt Stearns Stupak Sullivan Sutton Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Taylor Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiberi Tierney Towns Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walberg Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Walz (MN) Wamp Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Wexler Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth Young (AK) Young (FL) Nays Abercrombie Baldwin Bartlett (MD) Blumenauer Conyers Ellison Flake Gilchrest Hinchey Lee McDermott Miller, George Moore (WI) Olver Paul Stark Not Voting Berry Bishop (GA) Carson Cubin Davis (IL) Davis, Jo Ann Delahunt Herger Jindal Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Kucinich Lampson Platts Poe Ross Schmidt Snyder Tiahrt

Senate Vote Condemning MoveOn.Org’s ad regarding General Petreaus Vote #344 Yeas 72 Nays 25 Not Voting 3 YEAs —72 NAYs —25 Not Voting - 3

Race(ing) Backwards With Boost From SCOTUS

Add comment June 28th, 2007

By Rowan Wolf

Well, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has dealt yet another “conservative” blow to the nation. This time by essentially overturning Brown vs the Board of Education. Schools are still expected to achieve racial “diversity.” However, accomplishing racial integration is very difficult if it is unconstitutional to use race as a criteria. Justice Roberts argument was:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” (NY Times, 6/28/07)

University of Alabama Students burn desegregation literature, 1956. - Image courtesy of Library of Congress
Roberts’ statement is a tautological argument that is based on a false premise - that race would not be an issue if we did not attempt struggle against institutionalized racism. His quote is reflective of the bumper sticker political analysis which has become all too familiar. However, the assumption of a color blind society, which is enforcing discrimination through attempts at racial integration, is faulty to the point of criminality.

What the Bush administration, “conservatives,” and now Bush’s Court, are attempting is the elimination of civil rights and affirmative action advancements over the last 50 years. Why? Is it because they do not want a society with increasing levels of equality and participation? Do they want a society of peasants and patricians? Do they oppose a representative democracy, but support a feudal government run by a monied (white) elite?

Roberts’ trite argument plays well to the mythology of race and privilege in the United States. The rhetoric - particularly now - is that everyone in the U.S. is equal, and there is no structured inequality. Race is a non-issue which we dealt with long ago. Race-based policies and considerations are not “fair” to whites, and place whites at a disadvantage. This is sometimes ridiculously referred to as “reverse” discrimination. Of course there is no acknowledgment that without the body of legislation and policy under the umbrella of “affirmative action,” whites could not argue they had been discriminated against. The legislation refers to “race” - not as confined to people of color, but also to whites.

The often posed solution is to use socioeconomic status, rather than race, as a basis for social policy and integration. The argument is that class is the only real divider after all. Unfortunately, that is a false argument.

There is no proxy for race in the United States. Race is its own system of inequality, though it is certainly reinforced by social class. That reinforcement is not accidental - but structured into social policy. Social policy is, after all, a form of social engineering.

The United States started out with the restriction of citizenship to whites. At that time citizenship carried with it the right to own property, to testify in court, to access public education and public services - and eventually - the right to vote. These privileges of citizenship were granted largely on the basis of race - not social class. However, they certainly had (and continue to have) social class implications. These policies gave whites a social class advantage which was passed down from generation to generation. It facilitated an opportunity path for whites that did not exist (or was significantly restricted) for those who were deemed “not white.”

The institutionalization of race, and race separate policies, continued for more than two centuries, and they continue today. Unimaginably, we are still fighting voting rights and gerrymandering based on race in 2007 (among a myriad of other race-based disparate impacts). Are the images of who was left to drown or starve during Hurricane Katrina so easily forgotten? At that time racial disparity stood clearly in front of the eyes of every person who turned on a television. Also remember, that very quickly the interpretation was put forward that this was not about “race,” but social class. The dominant white population is much more comfortable talking about social class (which is largely perceived as an “individual” issue) than about race - where we must examine the costs of racial privilege.

Race and social class intertwine, they are not the same. While there are more poor who are white than any other racial group, whites are disproportionately under represented in the ranks of the poor. Whites are also dramatically over represented in the ranks of the middle class, and even more so in the upper class. This is largely due to race based policies that subsidized the accumulation of wealth (most significantly with home ownership) for whites, while denying that access to those who were not white.

So what does all of this have to do with the Supreme Court ruling regarding education? Education is strongly related to people’s ability to participate and advance in the social class environment in the US (though this is changing). Without equal access to education the doors of social class mobility once more start to close. Brown vs Board of Education ruled that there was no legality or validity to “separate but equal.” The decision to desegregate public education was not to make a more “diverse” environment, but to equalize the playing field for social class participation.

There has been a terrible transformation in education systems’ arguments about the importance of racial and cultural diversity to education. While those arguments are valid, it is not why we integrated schools. Diversity in education (race, culture, age, class, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc) is tremendously valuable for all kinds of reasons, Brown was not about the value of diversity. It was about addressing institutionalized inequality based on race.

That fundamental inequality based on race has not been resolved. Look at test scores, high school completion rates, college entrance and graduation rates or even the status and reputation of different school districts. All show there are significant racial divides. Racial integration is not a relic of some bygone day. In our schools; in our neighborhoods; in our health and infant mortality; in the work force; race still stands as hugely significant to social and personal outcomes.

Contrary to the rhetorical argument put forward by Roberts, the promoter of discrimination is not efforts to have schools that mirror the racial demographics of their districts and population. The discrimination happens at virtually every level of social interaction and organization. It is reinforced by racial segregation which fosters the mythology of stereotypes, and the reality of disparate economic opportunity. Education (and not simply K-12 education) is an important component of social maintenance and change. Race and social class inequality are principal among the systems being maintained or changed.

The most common example of past in present discrimination is: segregated neighborhoods lead to segregated schools lead to segregated job opportunities. We have done a rather pathetic job of changing housing segregation (both in terms of race and class) which is why integration in education becomes monumentally important.

The 5-4 decision by the Roberts court reversed the decisions of two appellate courts. It has also virtually reversed Brown vs the Board of Education -one of the most important court decisions impacting racial equality in the United States.

One might wonder what happened to both Roberts’ and Alito’s highly touted respect for stare decisis - legal precedent (see end notes). Justice Breyer issued a stinging rebuke which is pertinent and hopefully not prophetic: “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.” In regard to the importance of precedent, he stated: ““It is my firm conviction that no member of the court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision..” This pretty much rules out any confusion over the context and intent of Brown v. Board of Education.

END NOTES
Supreme Court Cases involved: Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association v. Brentwood Academy and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.

Voting in the majority: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

Voting in the minority: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens (NY Times

Text of the Court’s opinion - Justice Breyer’s dissent starts on page 109 of the 185 page opinion.

REGARDING stare decisis

From Day 2 of Roberts’ Confirmation Hearing in response to a question regarding Roberts agreed with the importance of stare decisis:

ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. I would point out that the principle goes back even farther than Cardozo and Frankfurter. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, said that, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.”

So, even that far back, the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability, adherence of integrity in the judicial process.

AND

ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. I would point out that the principle goes back even farther than Cardozo and Frankfurter. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, said that, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.”

So, even that far back, the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability, adherence of integrity in the judicial process.

AND particularly for the current decision:

ROBERTS: Obviously, Brown v. Board of Education is a leading example, overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, the West Coast hotel case overruling the Lochner-era decisions.

Those were, to a certain extent, jolts to the legal system, and the arguments against them had a lot to do with stability and predictability. But the other arguments that intervening precedents had eroded the authority of those cases, that those precedents that were overruled had proved unworkable, carried the day in those cases.

So it is clear that even at his confirmation hearing Roberts was aimed at “jolting the legal system” in relationship to Brown vs the Board of Education regardless of his support for stare decisis.

And from the Alito confirmation:

ALITO: Well, I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It’s a fundamental part of our legal system.

And it’s the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents. And it’s important for a variety of reasons. It’s important because it limits the power of the judiciary. It’s important because it protects reliance interests. And it’s important because it reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions.

It’s not an exorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents.

Warren Court that Ruled on Brown - Library of Congress

Roberts Court 2006 - Wikipedia

Shame on You CBS

Add comment May 14th, 2007

By Rowan Wolf

Shame on CBS and Katie Couric for their report Behind the Sticker Price. Piggybacking on Daimler’s sale of Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management, they went straight into the U.S. auto makers’ lack of profitability due to so-called “legacy costs.” Tied into the upcoming union negotiations this summer, the report cited the “excessive” burden of health and retirement plans for current and retired employees. The gist being that the UAW was going to have to “give back” to GM because it was in nobody’s interest to see U.S. automaking go out of the country. LIES DAMN LIES!

I guess that CBS, and likely other “news” media, think that we have forgotten (or perhaps never saw) the Wall Street Journal article “Hidden Burden: As Workers’ Pensions Wither, Those for Executives Flourish.” The article exhaustively reports on corporations (including GM) who are claiming massive burdens and losses due to worker’s (particularly union) health insurance and retirement costs. It is not these costs, but executive plans that are running the companies into the ground. Reneging on commitments to workers on the basis of costs is an outright lie

“To help explain its deep slump, General Motors Corp. often cites “legacy costs,” including pensions for its giant U.S. work force. In its latest annual report, GM wrote: “Our extensive pension and [post-employment] obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us.” Early this year, GM announced it was ending pensions for 42,000 workers.

But there’s a twist to the auto maker’s pension situation: The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come.

Another of GM’s pension programs, however, saddles the company with a liability of $1.4 billion. These pensions are for its executives.

This is the pension squeeze companies aren’t talking about: Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers — complaining of the costs — their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies’ financial obligations for them to balloon.” WSJ article.

Such reporting is consistent with the continuous presentation of a corporate perspective of the world, and particularly of the work environment. What is stunning is that the corporate media will tell the same lies over and over again.

In CBS’s run-up story to the greedy, over paid, union workers at GM (and other U.S. automakers), was the story of Chrysler’s ongoing failure to be a profitable company. Lee Iacoca was introduced as having pulled Chrysler out of bankruptcy in the early 1980s. Yet another lie. Iacoca did not pull Chrysler out of bankruptcy - the U.S. tax payers did. Chrysler received a massive bailout of $1.5 billion in loan guarantees under the arguments that it was a primary defense contractor and could not be allowed to fail, and the impact of job losses (Carter administration). Now the albatross is back in U.S. hands via Cerberus - an investment firm run by none other than former Secretary of the Treasury John Snow. Snow served as Secretary of the Treasury in the current Bush administration from 2003-2006.

Lies like these are not simply bad reporting. They are outright propaganda.

[Of interest: Snow earned his Republican street cred by serving in the Nixon administration, and as an advisor to the Reagan campaign, and then on a series of Reagan commissions.]

Related Article: Schultz & Francis, 4/24/03, Wall Street Journal. Executives Get Pension Security While Plans for Workers Falter

Disinformation or Hypocrisy?

1 comment May 9th, 2007

By Rowan Wolf

The Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report (17 November 2006) was released to the public this week. It is a damning report. It sites a number of mental health problems among the troops in Iraq, which are increased by the number, length, and frequency of deployments. Along with mental health issues, the MHAT found there were considerable ethical behavior concerns. General Patreaus reports being “very concerned” by the findings, and that we need to “make sure that folks remember that that’s (not dropping to the level of the enemy) a foundation for our moral compass.”

Moral compass? Exactly what moral compass is that? Is it the moral compass of the Bush administration which has said that none of the international agreements - from preemptive attack, through the Geneva Convention - apply to the United States? Is it the moral compass which came up with a lengthy justification for approving the use of torture? Is it the moral compass of those who hired contractors to oversee U.S. forces while they “softened up” prisoners for interrogation by using torture? Perhaps it is the moral compass that has shown such high regard for the lives of Iraqi non-combatants that the Bush administration and Department of Defense have refused to count either the number of Iraqi casualties or even fatalities (meanwhile denying the figures that have been released utilizing internationally accepted methodologies).

I think the “ethical behavior” assessment is very much in line with the moral compass that has set the “rules of engagement” in Iraq. In fact, I am surprised that the report shows the troops as “ethically minded” as they are.

What exactly is Patreaus going to “remind” the forces in Iraq of? The ethics that have been put forward by the Bush administration, or the ethics that are part of the U.S. Military Code of Ethics? If it is the latter, how long would Patreaus last as head of command in Iraq?

If the U.S. were following an ethical “moral compass” we wouldn’t even be in Iraq.

Summary of Findings (page 42)
Soldier and Marine Battlefield Ethics was assessed using survey items and focus questions developed ny the MHAT IV members per the request to CG, MNF-1. Four Battlefield Ethics areas were assessed: attitudes, behaviors, reporting and training. Less than half of the Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect and well over a third believed that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow team member. About 10% of Soldiers and Marines reported mistreating an Iraqi non-combatant when it wasn’t necessary either by destroying their property or hitting or kicking them. Less than half of Soldiers or Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior, instead preferring to handle it themselves at a team level. Although reporting receiving ethical training, nearly a third of Soldiers and Marines reported ethical situations in Iraq in which they did not know how to respond. Having a unit member become a casualty or handling dead bodies and human remains were associated with increases in mistreatment of Iraqi non-combatants. High levels of anger and screening positive for a mental health problem we also associated with the mistreatment of Iraqi non-combatants.
– Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report (17 November 2006)