Archive for September, 2007
September 30th, 2007
By Dale Allen Pfeiffer of The Mountain Sentinel
Since Bernanke cut interest rates last Tuesday (Sept. 25th), the already weak dollar has gone into a tail spin. Bernanke’s banker friends complained that they did not have enough money to cover their obligations and Bernanke responded by revving up the presses and printing up a slew of fresh funny money. In doing this he ignored the rest of the world, which was hoping that he would show some backbone and stand firm in support of the dollar. So now, everywhere you look, the dollar is losing its value against other currencies.
The Saudi’s unpegged their currency from the dollar for the first time since the oil dollar was established. They had no choice; it would have been suicide for them to follow Bernanke’s move. And elsewhere, other countries will have to follow suit or the US will drag them down. Japan is scrambling for shore.
Not long after the cut in interest rates, the dollar passed a key point against the Euro when it surpassed 1.41 dollars to one Euro. Since then the value of the dollar has continued to drop. The US dollar has been dropping against the Euro since January 2003. It now worth less than 59% of the value it had four years ago. At this point a dollar crash is nearly inevitable. US dollars may soon have as little value as confederate dollars.
For many years we have depended on foreign investors to support our economy by stockpiling our currency. These foreign investors cannot hold onto their dollars for much longer. Already they have lost over 40% of their investment. They will have to cut their losses and divest. This has already started to happen, and as the sell-off accelerates the dollar will find itself in a freefall which will quickly leave it a worthless currency. A massive sell-out could see the dollar losing as much as 90% of its value within days.
Snake Oil
You would not know any of this from the major news networks. They are trying to tell us that the drop in the dollar is actually a good thing. They reason that foreign consumers will flock to the US to buy devalued goods. This is a load of crap, and they know it.
US goods will not devalue. There are very few goods that are wholly US-made today. Most are at least partially manufactured offshore. Because of that, US goods will not devalue, they will simply go up in price. Soon, US consumers will find that their dollars can only purchase half of what they currently buy. And this ratio will worsen as the dollar continues to plunge. Once this crash is complete, US consumers will learn that they have lost everything. They will find that their salaries, their pensions, their health insurance coverage, everything is worthless.
So why is the media trying to sell us this lie? Simply to keep up consumer confidence. If US consumers understood what was really happening, there would be a panic. The truth could cause a run on the banks. Along with foreign investment, consumer spending is the only other pillar supporting the US economy. Consumer spending has already become sluggish. If the reality of our situation were understood, US consumer spending would quickly crumble.
The smart money is already fleeing the US market. It is diversifying into precious metals and a host of other currencies. It is quietly moving outside of the US. This migration has been going on for years, but now it is beginning to speed up. Yet, while this flight is going on, they want the general public to remain unalarmed. The smart money is trying to make its exit before a stampede blocks the fire doors. There were only so many lifeboats on the Titanic and the first class passengers were evacuated before anyone else was allowed out of steerage.
Black Monday and Bloody Tuesday
Monday, October 1st is the day of fiscal reckoning. October 1st is New Year’s Day for businesses, and on that day all the banks are required to open their books and honestly assess their current standing. The fear for the last couple months is that more than a few banks may close their doors. On Monday, we will find out for sure.
For several years now, the banks have been playing wide and loose with loans and investments. Spurred by low interest rates, they lured in consumers and home owners into mortgages and loans that they simply could not afford. It used to be that a bank would underwrite and fund every loan it made. But in the past decade, banks have developed the practice of making loans, storing them on their balance sheets for a short period of time and then packaging them into derivatives called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). These CDOs were then sold off to investors expecting a high rate of return on the investment. Through this mechanism, the banks did not tie up their own collateral with the loans they issued, so they could issue more and more loans.
CDOs were bought up by insurance companies, hedge fund managers, pension funds and even other banks throughout the world. Due to low interest rates, these managers even purchased CDOs with borrowed money. The CDOs themselves became collateral for more borrowing.
There are hundreds of billions of CDOs out there, and until now it has been mostly speculation as to what percentage is junk. Monday, October 1st the banks will have to fess up, and we will know once and for all whether or not they are capable of covering their losses. The losses in CDOs will be amplified and complicated by the problem of commercial paper.
“Commercial paper is highly-rated short-term notes that offer investors a safe haven investment with a yield slightly above certificates of deposit or government debt. Banks use the money to purchase longer-term investments such as corporate receivables, auto loans, credit card debt, or mortgagees.” (Wall Street Journal 9-5-07)
There is $2.2 trillion in commercial paper in the US. Much of this commercial paper is currently worthless because it is tied to toxic CDOs. Yet the banks are obligated to cover this commercial paper and refinance it regularly. Right now nobody will touch anything connected to CDOs, so the banks are sitting on whatever commercial paper they have in their possession and will have to cover its finances and make up for its losses on their own.
And here is the problem. The banks do not have the collateral to cover hundreds of billions in commercial paper and failing CDOs. So they have turned to the Fed, and their friend Bernanke has tried to come to their rescue by making billions in emergency bank loans and by lowering the interest rate. This lowering of the interest rate will not be used to lure in more shady mortgages. Nobody is offering mortgages right now. The funny money the Fed is currently printing up is supposed to help cover the banks’ losses.
Unfortunately, it is too little too late. Nor would it solve the problem anyway. The toxic CDOs are still there, as is the commercial paper. At best, the lowering of interest rates will simply buy a little time, while making the crash worse when it does come. That is all Bernanke was hoping to achieve when he lowered rates last week. And he did this as a wager that the weak dollar would not unravel as a result.
That is precisely what is happening. The dollar is unraveling, and on Monday, October 1st, we will find out just how much help Bernanke provided to his banker friends. If the banking news is as grim as many analysts believe it will be, then we will hear of banks defaulting and closing their doors. Thousands of small businesses and millions of regular customers will find that they cannot access their accounts. Where they can do so, there may be runs on the banks until they do close their doors.
A Black Monday will likely be followed by a bloody Tuesday as the banking news leads to a route on the stock market. In this climate, the dollar is likely to plummet even farther as foreign investors hurry to divest themselves of their shrinking dollars. It could all be over for the US economy before the week is out. And we may well see our once vain public standing in soup lines by the beginning of November.
Police States & the North American Union
Yes, we already live in a police state. But after the economy crashes, they will act to consolidate this police state and bring it to a new level of repression. Protests will be dealt with severely and encampments of the homeless will be aggressively policed.
It is possible that they will ram through new debt regulation that could turn the US into a nation of debt-servitude. The power-players may walk away from their financial obligations, but they will not want the general public to do so. If you can declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, do so right now. Otherwise, try to discharge all of your debts while the dollar still has some value.
Eventually the government will announce that it is abandoning the dollar and creating a new regional currency: the Amero. This new currency will coincide with plans for consolidating the US with Mexico and Canada. It will be announced as our answer to the European Union, and will be touted as the road to future prosperity.
It probably will bring some prosperity to large corporations. But for the rest of us, it will mean lower wages, environmental destruction, a strengthening of the police state and the further encroachment of fascism. The North American Union is just more snake oil to benefit the rich and oppress the rest of us.
Stock Up and Drop Out
What can be done to prepare for the worst? The best thing you can do right now is to stock up on essential goods before the dollar collapses and prices go up. Purchase dried goods such as beans, grains, flour, dehydrated milk and dried fruit. It would be wise to stock enough of these durables to last your family for a month. Keep them someplace dry and air tight.
You might also invest in other items such as soap, razor blades, batteries, gardening seeds, socks, and other small but important items. A good supply of fishing gear could come in handy. Bicycles, spare tires and bicycle trailers would also be good items to have around.
These are goods that you will find useful. They are also goods that will have a high barter value if the dollar becomes worthless. If you think about it for a while, you can probably come up with a long list of such items. Things such as deodorant, spices, solar stoves, water purification kits and/or tablets, antibiotics, vitamins and other first aid supplies could also be worth a premium.
After stocking up, it is time to wash your hands of the system which has brought us 9-11, the “War on Terror,” global warming, energy and resource depletion, environmental destruction and increased economic disparity. George Bush told us how to do this when he told us that it was our patriotic duty to consume.
Stop consuming. Find some like-minded people and work on disconnecting yourself from the system. Default on your debts if you can and pay them off if you cannot. Leave your job and find a way to support yourself outside of the system. Stop going along with business as usual and build that sustainable lifestyle that we all know is the only sane alternative. Don’t put it off any longer. Start right now while there is still a chance. Or you will find yourself slaving away in a collapsing police state in short order.
September 29th, 2007
By: Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth to Power
I recently caught up with Rob Williams, volunteer editor of VERMONT COMMONS which is the online voice of Vermont Independence. The organization has been working for some time to establish The Second Vermont Republic which is a peaceful, democratic, grassroots, libertarian populist movement opposed to the tyranny of the U.S. Government, corporate America, and globalization and committed to the return of Vermont to its rightful status as an independent republic, as it was between 1777 and 1791. More of the history of Vermont and the Independence movement can be read at the VT Commons website.
CB: Please explain the Vermont secessionist movement and why many Vermonters support it. Why do you support it? What do you think might happen to Vermont if secession does not happen?
RW: The Vermont secession impulse is born out of our understanding that the United States - once a great republic - has become an unsustainable Empire governed by a very few. Beyond massive (and bipartisan) national electoral fraud, 9/11’s unanswered questions, a “war on terror” (that will not end, we are told, in our life times), the collapse of the U.S. Constitution, the erosion of civil liberties, and the practicing of “disaster capitalism” on a massive scale by political and economic elites, the U.S. is simply too big to function as a democratic republic in its current state. In other words, as astute observers from across the political spectrum have pointed out, the Empire is essentially ungovernable, unsustainable, and un-reformable.
We in the Vermont independence effort are a growing group of citizens who have moved beyond frustration with the current imperial system and are championing a more honest and hopeful paradigm - that of “small is beautiful” sustainability and, if need be, peaceable secession from the Empire, and the re-invention of Vermont as an independent republic, as it was from 1777 to 1791. Contrary to popular belief, New England was the first region of the country to openly call for secession - not once but several times - during the early 19th century, for similar reasons as our own in the 21st: concern about growing corporate and commercial power, and legitimate fears of a centralized federal/statist apparatus that trumps local decision-making and state sovereignty. Given expansive federal regulatory power over our food (USDA), our airwaves (FCC), our animals and livestock (NAIS), our educational endeavors (NCLB), and every other aspect of our lives, it makes sense to take a good hard look at some legitimate alternatives that exist as a forgotten part of the U.S. political tradition - this is what we are doing here at Vermont Commons newspaper.
While this is no small task, as a patriot and a secessionist both, I support Vermont independence (and indeed, the restoration of sovereignty for all states within this allegedly “indivisible” Union) because I think that peaceable secession is the only viable way to save what we so deeply appreciate about the ideals and values of our United States. And, without sounding too grandiose, secession may allow us to help sustain our civilization as a whole as we seek to “re-invent” our former republic-turned-Empire in the face of emerging “big picture” problems such as climate change, global peak oil, and the excesses of corporate globalization, what former Bush/Wall Street insider Catherine Austin Fitts calls the “tapeworm economy.”
CB: What does a “sustainable” lifestyle mean to you? What percentage of Vermonters would you say are living this way?
RW: “Sustainability” can be one of those vague and meaningless buzz words that is often used without thought. To me, living “sustainably” means practicing pragmatic but careful stewardship of our spiritual, physical, and economic resources - which leads, of course, to a thousand thoughtful daily decisions about how we live our lives. Vermont has a long tradition of frugality, self-reliance, community support, and what we call “Yankee ingenuity” - we’ll need all of these qualities in spades moving forward into this new century, which will look very different than the previous one.
And becoming more “sustainable” is a personal and collective process. Five years ago, my wife of fifteen years and I didn’t own land, keep chickens, split, stack and heat our home with local wood, grow and store some of our own food, and press our own cider, and now we do - thanks to continued collaboration with friends and neighbors who are as interested in these same sorts of issues, and are intent on finding local solutions to big picture problems.
CB: How and where do you see re-localization happening in Vermont? Which areas of the state are more supportive of the concept?
RW: Vermonters are speaking out on climate change (witness the Step It Up campaign, born out of a 5 day collective walk on behalf of “taking action on climate change” one year ago here in Vermont); beginning to adapt new and more local agricultural and energy/food consumption habits (our exploding Localvore movement, for example); conserving land for agricultural spaces (our vibrant land trust movement); seeking “alternative” energy solutions to fossil fuels (the explosion of local solar and wind companies here), and generally beginning to engage in some collective head-scratching about how we might steer our civilization towards more sustainable paths. Every Vermonter I know has a garden and knows how to grow food. Regarding regions, every section of Vermont is working on these dilemmas in their own ways. In one sense, I feel like Vermonters are returning to their roots by reviving practice in self-reliance and “do it yourself”-ness.
CB: Can Vermont feed itself? There is much talk of this, but in a state where the ground is frozen 8 months out of the year, how can Vermonters make this happen?
RW: You need a good-sized root cellar to pull this off! But more and more Vermonters I know are rediscovering the satisfaction that comes with canning, pickling, and preserving; of raising chickens and other livestock; of growing their own food and supporting CSAs, farmer’s markets, and farmers who are their neighbors. Specialty foods, many grown locally, are becoming a Vermont hallmark, as well. Once upon a time, one hundred years ago, Vermont proved much more self-sufficient then it is now. We have spent much time and energy these past few decades trying to preserve our family-owned dairy farms in the midst of a global dairy economy that milks them alive, while ignoring other agricultural needs - but we’re getting savvier in this arena, as well.
And one cannot exist on maple syrup, milk and cheese, and apple cider alone - ultimately, we need some state leadership on diversifying our food economy, beyond our “Buy Local” campaign, and we are, of course, continually discovering the joys of trading with our neighbors, as well as remaining plugged into a global food network while we can.
CB: How are Vermonters changing their form and quantity of energy consumption? How feasible is solar energy in Vermont? What other forms of natural energy are being used? How widespread is this usage?
RW: We Vermonters live in the midst of interesting times for energy here - 2/3 of our state’s electricity, for example, is generated by so-called “clean” non-carbon-emitting energy sources - Vermont Yankee Nuclear in the western portion of the state, and HydroQuebec, which owns the eastern border’s Connecticut River dams projects. The problem here is that Vermonters ultimately don’t have much say over the future of either of these out-of-state corporate energy sources, as “clean” as people perceive them to be in the short term. The state public service board, the legislature, and, to some extent, the governor’s office have all made some strides towards renewable and “alternative” energy. I think, though that local Vermonters and businesses are ahead of the curve. I’ve got neighbors who are growing solar panels in their back yard, bringing in wood stoves for more biomass, conducting energy audits to make their homes and businesses much more efficient, and the like. And this is what it takes - let a thousand ideas and projects bloom here in the Green Mountains.
Big picture - as with sustainable agriculture, there are many ideas on the table re: energy - my current favorite is a proposal I just read suggesting that we plant 100,000 acres of switch grass across the state. Switchgrass is a relatively carbon-friendly and renewable form of biomass energy - which could theoretically replace the entire state’s imported natural gas supply for heating our Vermont homes and businesses all winter. We’ve also gotten tremendous mileage out of our “Efficiency Vermont” energy conservation program - though there is much more work to do here. We are a state with the second oldest building stock in the Empire, too, so re-tooling our buildings to make them more energy efficient is key. In short, there is plenty of work to be done, and we’re well on our way. The bottom line is - we have to figure out how to do more with less energy, and do it more efficiently, and “incentive-ize” this in any way that we can.
CB: One of Vermont’s principle “industries” is education with the state spending more on education than many other states do. Is there opposition in the state to the No Child Left Behind Act? If so, how is this opposition being expressed? To what extent are people home-schooling their children?
RW: I’ve been a local school board member for several years now. While they have their problems, Vermont’s public schools are among the highest-performing of all fifty states within the Empire - we seem to be able to absorb NCLB’s demands - often unrealistic, opportunistic, and under-funded - without flinching too much, and, while I work with a vocal minority of NCLB critics, I am surprised there isn’t more public opposition to NCLB from the rank and file, though most teachers and administrators I know would prefer to test less and educate more. I know folks in Vermont who home school for a wide variety of reasons, but I don’t have any specific numbers here.
CB: Can you tell us a bit about Vermont’s new experiment with healthcare coverage, Catamount? What is your opinion of it? How will Catamount be funded and who will actually benefit from it? How prevalent are alternative health practitioners in Vermont? Vermont obviously sits on the Canadian border, so I’m wondering how successful Vermonters have been in obtaining medications from Canada. Please comment.
RW: Vermont is a great state to be sick in, aside from occasional life-threatening traumas that demand the kind of intense and immediate care that only a high-powered and high-tech urban hospital might be able provide. I think it is too early to tell how successful Catamount will be - the jury is still out, though I know that much is riding on its performance. Our once and future republic is a refuge and an incubator for a wide variety of alternative health practitioners - you can’t swing a live catamount in this state without hitting a physical therapist, yoga mistress, Reiki guru, or massage specialist. It is nice, actually - when we get sick or stressed, we have so many affordable options in our communities, and I know many folks who go over the border for surgeries of various kinds - it is good to have options.
CB: We hear much about “community” in Vermont, but what do you actually see happening in terms of people “living in community”? Are there intentional communities in Vermont? Please explain to readers the “village green” tradition in Vermont. Why is it important?
RW: The annual town meeting tradition, in which Vermonters take the first Tuesday in early March to attend their town and school board meetings to vote on budgetary matters, is under siege here - according to some recent figures, only 20% of Vermonters polled actually attend their town meetings on a yearly basis, and some towns are switching to Australian Ballot measures. This is too bad, as there is much to celebrate with our town meetings, which Henry David Thoreau called “the true Congress,” because we look at our neighbors face to face and deliberate matters vital to our communities.
And there is this funny paradox here - because we have no intermediate governing structures between town governments and the state, for the most part (no county seats, for example) - political decision-making is very centralized, in some ways.
But local Vermonters also donate tremendous amounts of time to school and select boards, planning commissions, ad hoc committees, neighborhood groups, volunteer fire and ambulance services, and the like.
And we in the Vermont independence effort have just started our “Free Vermont” campaign - to use annual town meeting as a way to jump start a debate about peaceable secession. Find out more at www.freevermont.net/.
CB: What do you absolutely love about Vermont? What are some of the challenges of living there? What would you like to change about Vermont?
RW: Vermont is a small, rural, poor, sparsely populated, beautiful, and quiet place. This is both a blessing and a curse - it is easy to live and work out of doors, and the skiing and other recreational opportunities are phenomenal, if you can put up with cold, long, dark winters, as well as the aesthetic pleasures of “mud” and “stick” season.
But for someone who grew up in the suburbs and then spent ten years living in cities as a young man in my twenties, I love Vermont’s size, Vermont’s neighborliness, Vermonters’ “live and let live” approach, and what might be called Vermonters’ “jack of all trades” quality: everyone I meet here is involved with all kinds of fascinating projects, working with their minds, and hands, and hearts, and all are passionately dedicated to this place we call Vermont, despite our disagreements about the specifics.
I’d like to see more ethnic and racial diversity here - we have had historically and still have a very small population of color here (though trends like a growing number of African refugee resettlement programs in cities like Burlington are changing this, and for the better, I think). We also have 2,000 Mexican migrant workers, for example, working on Vermont’s farms, who tend to keep a low profile, for obvious reasons. Vermont’s legal support for “civil unions” after much contentious conversation is another example of our “live and let live” philosophy, and this, from state with gun laws so liberal you don’t even need a permit to carry a hand gun! And this sort of fascinating combination of factors is what makes Vermont unique. We’re 630,000 citizens who are not so easily pigeonholed, though the national media tries and fails to most every time.
Ultimately, I think it is Vermont’s balanced combination of fierce independence and “live and let live” attitude, of community-mindedness and self-reliance.That is most compelling to me.
CB: This question probably should have been asked first, but what is your background? Where did you grow up? How long have you lived in Vermont? Do you work with Vermont Commons full-time, or do you do other work?
RW: I am not only a “flatlander” (as Vermont natives like to call us new arrivals), I am what Ethan Allen called almost pejoratively, (I should add) a “Yorker” - I grew up in the New York suburbs just four hours south of where I now live in central Vermont’s Mad River Valley. I’ve lived in Vermont for six years - and I am volunteer (web) editor for Vermont Commons. I am an historian, teacher, and musician by training, and I teach history and media studies courses at Champlain College in Burlington, when I am not out and about at our home tending to kids, chickens, and chores.
September 29th, 2007
By: Anwaar Hussain of Truth Spring
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that Iraq and Afghanistan are just the latest victims of the colonial behemoth in a continued saga of American imperialism and not any thing else. That throughout its imperialistic expedition, Americans have firmly believed that the United States was God’s chosen nation and, therefore, on course to divine destinies. They would have known Senator Albert J. Beveridge’s speech to Congress that exemplifies this American attitude as nothing else does, “…and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world…” If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that, consequent to this belief of American leaders, the U.S. had, even before the deployment of troops for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, around 752 military installations located in more than 130 countries with actual American military contingents stationed in 65 different foreign countries. They would have known that like all occupying powers, Americans have around 70,000 U.S. troops in Germany, 40,000 in Japan and about 37,000 in South Korea, where they have been since 1951. Add to it now around 140,000 troops (not counting the 100,000 Blackwater type mercenaries) in Iraq and another 27,000 in Afghanistan and one gets a fair inkling of American’s idea of ‘regeneration of the world’ the American way. If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that that is THE reason their leaders believe that they could, by divine privilege, take any land they pleased. And that the land on planet earth, not just at home, was rightfully theirs and that every one else was merely squatting on their territory. Historically, therefore, their country has come off as an obstinate nation that would take what it wanted at any cost, 9/11 or no 9/11, the world opinion be damned. They would have known that surpassing by far the brutal ventures typical of European colonizers, the U.S. has, during the past several hundred years, annihilated millions of Native Americans, conquered half of Mexico, occupied Hawaii, subjugated the Philippines and taken the whole of Iraq and Afghanistan butchering a colossal number of the indigenous populations in all these places. If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that not only has their country rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law, their country itself is a leading terrorist state and has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in 1986). The ‘War on Terror’, therefore, is unwinnable because America needs to then declare a war on its own self and that it won’t. If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that if by ‘terrorism’ only the ‘terrorism of others’ is meant then bombing the countries from where those terrorists come is not the solution to the problem but in fact a part of the problem. For if that had been the case the British would have bombed Belfast for IRA’s bombing of London and one earlier American administration would have bombed Timothy McVeigh’s home town for Oklahoma bombing. They did not. If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known the sordid history of their country’s contemptuous attitude toward smaller countries of this planet. They would have known, for example, that back in the 80s, a tiny country by the name of Nicaragua was subjected to violent assault by their country in which tens of thousands of people died with that country itself substantially destroyed. They would have known that rather than responding by setting off bombs in Washington, a la the American way, the poor Nicaraguans went to the World Court that ordered the U.S. not only to stop the atrocities but also to pay reparations. The U.S. scornfully responded by escalating the attacks. The Nicaraguans next went to the Security Council who ruled in their favor. The U.S. derisively vetoed the resolution. The Nicaraguans then obtained a similar resolution from the General Assembly. The U.S. and Israel opposed that one for two years in a row. If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that the world does not hate them for the values cherished by them; it rather aspires for the same. It abhors their duplicitous attitude, their hypocritical behavior and their cruel conduct on the world stage. It loathes them for their ‘freedom’ cries while sitting atop massive piles of human corpses. It despises their double embrace of the dictators the world over while singing sweet ‘democracies’ to their subjects. It hates them for their ruthless killing of half a million Iraqi children and then calling the effort, “worth the price”. If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that the whole world is cognizant of the horrible injustice to the Palestinians and America’s blind allegiance to the perpetrators. And that their bosom buddy Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza 35 years ago and over the course of these 35 years Israel has killed, blinded, mutilated, crippled and disfigured thousands of men, women and children, destroyed thousands of homes, businesses, hospitals, and schools, incarcerated and tortured hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. If wishes were horses.
If wishes were horses, most Americans would have known that over the years they have become too strong for their own good. They are all muscle and sinew now and no brains. They would have known that with the deadly, single minded purpose of a troll, they trample on through the blood and bones of their diabolical administrations’ innocent victims without hearing their cries. They would have known what their great country has come down to. They would have heard the windy, lonely, desperate last cries of the soul of America across its forlorn skies each night as it continues to crash into black nothingness;
Oh! Oh! This fiery height!
Oh, my feet of fire!
My burning feet of fire
(Algernon Blackwood, The Wendigo)
If wishes were horses.
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
|
|
|
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
|
September 24th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
I must say that I never thought I would enjoy reading an economics book, but one has come to my attention that is just that - a enjoyable and interesting read. The book is Mindful Economics: Understanding American Capitalism and Alternatives by Joel Magnuson. I want to clarify up front that Joel Magnuson is a fellow faculty member at Portland Community College. I knew him in name only until he reached out to me about this book. Since then we have talked via email and in person several times. I do feel that I am offering my honest appraisal of his work.
The first part of the book takes the reader on a cogent journey through some basic economic theory in a way that is accessible. Magnuson then examines two nexuses of capital: households, corporations and the market system; and labor unions and business associations. He then moves into the role that government has played in the ascent of capitalism in the U.S. These build a story that launches us into the world of finance in its various forms and ultimately brings us to the current capitalist form.
Now if this sounds like a snore thus far, it certainly is not. Magnuson tells a story that traces the connections of the development and transformation of U.S. capitalism. I certainly do not have the economics background to tell the cogent story that Joel Magnuson weaves. This historical economic tale includes the human side (and costs) of the development of what I have referred to as “hegemonic capitalism” though he does not use that term.
Joel Magnuson approaches this topic holistically with the focus on the human, social and political implications of the development of American capitalism. I learned some things I did not know in the process of reading this book. I knew of some of the changes and forms that capitalism has taken, but did not have the players and details which Magnuson supplies.
He goes into great detail about the construction and operation of the financial system, and how even “instabilities” are organized to maximize the gains and power of the capitalists. All of this sets the stage for Magnuson’s proposal of what he refers to as “Mindful Economics.” The title itself is nudging the savvy reader towards Joel Magnuson’s “bias” in his work - namely Buddhism. While the work is not Buddhist in a religious sense, that approach certainly colors his work.
Magnuson’s idea of mindful economics is that we can transform this social institution by changing the goals and center of the economy and how it works. In other words, we can reclaim the institution and restructure it to work for the betterment of all and the planet by changing the goals of capital and economic activity. While I generally agree with this argument, I do believe that there is a basic problem with what Magnuson proposes - time. Magnuson seems to present a belief of a relatively gentle and long term transition of the economic system to serve the higher good. I see this as a problem as the I personally don’t think that we have that kind of time. However, the premise is good, though I believe the transition will be much quicker because the current system is headed for either a total loss of the middle class and the peonage of the masses, or a chaotic collapse.
Magnuson argues at the beginning of the book, and then again Chapter 12, the fundamental incompatibility of capitalism and democracy. I must say that I found it affirming that a point I have argued for years was being seriously dealt with by an economist. He details this incompatibility in discussing how the economy needs to change to actually be reinforcing of true democracy rather than inimical to it. Magnuson offers a direction and a model for that change with his “mindful economics.”
If you want to learn more about the development and functioning of U.S. capitalism, and an interesting approach to a different economic focus and organizations, take the time to read “Mindful Economics” by Joel Magnuson. For sure check out the Mindful Economics web site. In addition to more information about the book, Magnuson offers some interesting resource links.
September 21st, 2007
By: Phil Rockstroh
One would think that from the cries of (feigned) indignation and calls for repentance arising from conservatives regarding Move-On.org’s ad in the N.Y. Times that the liberal-leaning group had not simply questioned the insights and intentions of a public servant, promoting, in a public forum, the policy of an illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign nation; rather, the folks of Move-On.org had committed blasphemy against the holy name of some revered saint — General Mary Petreus, Mother of God.
The false outrage of perpetually offended conservatives serves as cover for the true outrages of our era, including: truncated civil liberties, rising levels of social and economic inequality and injustice, and foreign wars of aggression waged by an insular and secretive executive branch and fought by a permanent underclass. The outrages keep arriving, because the collective imagination of the citizen/consumers of the US, arbitrated by a careerist media elite, has been, for decades, in the thrall of false narratives that serve the interests of the elite of the corporate/militarist classes.
Concurrently, a sense of unease and despair, due to a sense of personal and collective powerlessness before exploitive power, has created the tone and tenor of the times, and begot the phenomenon of supine liberalism and Viagra conservatism. (In this way, liberals stand fecklessly by, as the public is, time and time again, screwed by the decrepit schemes of the right.)
In this way, liberal paternalism is insufferable; worse, it is dangerous. This has been the right’s craftiest accomplishment: inducing “reasonable” liberals and “sensible” centrists to enable their crimes, from stolen elections to their present preparation for a massive bombing campaign of Iran, by intimidating them with the fear that any protest on their part will cast them among the ranks of America-hating, lefty moonbats, who wish to see the terrorist win, dumpsters piled high with discarded fetuses and metro-sexuality made the official state religion.
Moreover, these assaults upon both reason and the republic (what’s left of it) will persist until progressives begin to effectively counter the narratives of the predatory right. Some call it shameful demagoguery; although, conservatives call it career advancement. This is not a novel situation. Throughout history, these kinds of pernicious mindsets have always been with us; it is our tragedy that they have been allowed to prevail.
Conservatives are eager to embrace false narratives: The surge is working; the terrorists hate us for our freedom; Fred Thompson is Ronald Reagan incarnate, but with a touch of Jed Clampett “folksiness.” Accordingly, when the times are roiled with uncertainty, when thoughts of the future are tinged with dread, conservatives, like a character in Southern Gothic literature, will fall into a swoon, longing for the return of an imagined, purer past that never was. One can picture these rightwing sorts wandering the streets, wearing a faded prom dress and a broken, prom queen tiara, twittering and cooing, while repeating over and over again, “the surge is working; Anbar Province is now a beacon of freedom unto the world…”) in an imaginary dialog with the ghost of their long lost beau, Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan, an ungifted actor, by means of playing the role of a “resolute” Cold Warrior, was able to gain the approbation and wealth that had alluded him as a contract player in Hollywood. In truth, Reagan’s greatest accomplishment was convincing himself of his own sincerity.
Constantin Stanislavsky, who is considered the father of modern acting technique, is reputed to have said that when an actor starts to believe he is the character he’s portraying it is time to escort him from the theatre. Withal, Fred, Rudy, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, et al., can you find the exits on your own or will you need to be medicated, strapped to a gurney, and wheeled from the public arena? Rather than being candidates for President of the United States, most of the Republican field seems to be vying for the title of National Crazy Uncle — the kind of guy who corners you at a family gathering and rants that the PTA is a terrorist front group and gangs of illegal aliens are engaged in a vast conspiracy to steal single socks from his washer-dryer.
The Republican candidates for president and their fantasy-prone constituents wish to set the Way Back Machine to the golden days of the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was impersonating a man just arrived via the 1940s. This phenomenon is known as the Law of Republican Special Relativity, which states: When events begin to accelerate forward, the conservative mind will be cast, at an equal rate of speed, backwards in time. But the paradox is: they arrive in a parallel universe, an alternative past that never existed on this earth — a low probability dimension, comprised of platitudes and false pieties, where white male privilege is sacrosanct, only for the reason (according to their reality-proof perspective) that it serves to provide all mankind with all things good and holy.
This law can be tested by performing the following simple exercise: Engage a conservative true believer in a dialog regarding the manner by which “state’s rights” was misused in the Jim Crowe dominated Deep South of the pre-Civil Rights Era in order to propagate and maintain segregation, and your conservative-minded test subject will respond as if those realities transpired long ago and far away on a planet that he has never visited.
Yet, paradoxically, rightists have manage to create a Time Retrieval Device, a device that has summoned from the past wonders, such as the following: a reversal of many of the rights of working people; the return of unsafe and unsanitary practices in the food industry; widening gaps of wealth, health and privilege between social, racial and economic classes; in short, many the excesses of plutocratic rule inherent to unfettered capitalism.
As a result, a generation has inherited power who are devoid of the concept of causation and consequence. Ergo, we have developed a political class who rule by narratives of denial and shallow self-justification. An example of this is the blaming of the people of Iraq for the blood-drenched debacle that has resulted from the illegal and immoral invasion of their nation. As well as, an enabling cadre of media elitists who served as cheerleaders for the invasion, because they deemed it to be good for business, and, to this day, are unwilling to admit their complicity.
All of the above leads to the question: What are present day conservatives striving to conserve? Historically, conservatives gave their utmost to conserve institutions such as slavery, Jim Crowe, child labor — and, of course, the use of leeches for medical purposes. (Perhaps, they simply couldn’t stand the thought of a fellow blood-sucker being deemed dangerous, and they feared the start of a trend.) At present, the central paradox of contemporary conservatism is this: How does one practice conservatism within an all-encompassing economy based on disposability? This is analogous to establishing a brothel devoted to the goal of abstinence.
When engaged in a dialog with many conservatives, the question becomes: Are their reactions and responses evoked therein simply borne of plain ignorance, willful ignorance, or outright lying? Or are their responses the result of a group hallucination? All progressives have experienced the following nonsensical encounter of the conservative kind. Present a reasoned argument to a conservative — and, all at once, completely ignoring the tenet, tone and thrust of the point, they begin hallucinating a creature, only known to exist in the rightwing bestiary, known as a “moonbat” — a mythological beast that, ironically, seems to appear when a conservative is confronted with reality.
Accordingly, the time has come for a study of political zoology and to posit who are the true moonbats now making their habitat in the United States. Case study: Unregulated, wish-fulfillment-based conservative economic policy has created those suburban arrays of mold-incubating petri dishes known as products of the housing boom. Moreover, the bursting of the whole bubble-prone Ponzi scheme has sent shock waves throughout international economies and is surging the economy of the US towards recession. Furthermore, conservative anti-regulatory policies have rendered us babes in a cheap, plastic Toyland.
What has an era of conservatism wrought? Answer: a culture that has all the value, integrity, sustainability and safety as a toy manufactured in China. Apropos, contemporary life, as conceived and manufactured by conservative “values”, is shoddily made, toxic and not a lot of fun.
In addition, it has spawned a culture ridden with public relations fabulists and media-savvy confidence artists who tell us that the taste of corporate ass-suck is the ambrosia of the gods. The locked-down, stultifying mindset and ideological barbarianism of present day conservatism is directly linked to the steep decline of the quality of life in the United States.
The recent revelations regarding the I’m-not-gay-I-simply-engage-in-same-sex-encounters-in-puplic-restrooms” wing of the Republican Party are instructive in understanding the rightist’s worldview and its effect on our times. Covert sex in a public bathroom stall is an apt metaphor for how contemporary conservatism limits and restricts the possibilities of human life. In the same way that a closet-case gay conservative stunts the possibilities of his love life, the conservative mindset limits the scope of a culture’s possibilities. Accordingly, economic life must be ruled by ruthless, unregulated competition, and the nation’s meaning can only be found in war. Hence, under the Bush Junta, we are told, as far as international relations go, that the nation has few options other than its present policy of predatory capitalism and “wide-stance” militarism.
Regarding perma-fools such as these, Ernest Becker wrote: “Once you base your whole life striving on a desperate lie, and try to implement that lie, you instrument your own undoing.” Accordingly, the republic is dead; it’s ghost howls online only in pixelated protests such as this one. This grim reality will remain, until we rise up and repudiate the false narratives that have created and continue to comprise these tragic times.
Phil Rockstroh, a self-described auto-didactic, gasbag monologist, is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at .
September 19th, 2007
By: Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth to Power
s nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air-however slight-lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness. ~Justice William O. Douglas~
In April, 2007 I was pleasantly surprised to find Naomi Wolf’s article, “Fascist America, In 10 Easy Steps” posted in several places online. I have been a fan of Wolf for many years, greatly appreciating her works and especially her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth. I had been looking for a list-or more specifically, an encyclopedia of the losses of civil liberties in the United States that might clarify for my history students the extent to which America has become a fascist empire. Wolf’s “10 Easy Steps” was perfect, but her just-published book, The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot, from which the 10 easy steps was compiled, offers an even fuller picture-a succinct and engaging explanation of how our civil liberties have been hijacked in the past decade. It is the most poignant, powerful, genuinely patriotic piece of literature I have encountered since Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. No wonder then, that the book’s cover greatly resembles that 46-page tract by Paine written in 1775-as well it should.
One of the most frightening realities of teaching college history is that most students rarely have a clue what fascism is. They know about Hitler and the extermination of Jews, but they see little connection with Nazi rule in the 1930s and 40s and the current political milieu in the United States. Overwhelmingly, they cannot define fascism, nor can they define socialism or democracy. After all, they were pre-occupied during grammar school with becoming standardized human beings by way of taking standardized “No Child’s Behind Left” tests, five hours a day, four days a week. So why would they know the definitions of fascism, socialism or democracy?
Refreshingly, Wolf is not shy about using the term fascism and lets the reader know why. “I have made a deliberate choice in using the terms fascist tactics and fascist shift when I describe some events in America now. I stand by my choice. I am not being heated or even rhetorical; I am being technical.” (20) She explains that where Americans tend to see the various political “isms” as all-or-nothing, that perception is often inaccurate because of what she calls a “range of authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and varieties of Fascist states…there are many shades of gray on the spectrum from an open to a closed society.” (20)
Wolf also emphasizes that America has flirted with fascism openly in the 1930s when numerous corporations and robber barons helped finance Hitler and when as Edwin Black notes in IBM And The Holocaust, some American corporations assisted the Nazi regime in carrying out its “final solution” to the “Jewish problem.” In fact, several of these corporate tycoons attempted to stage a coup d’ etat to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and restructure the American government under fascist control. A thorough investigation of American politics and society from the end of the Civil War until the present moment reveals, as I have carefully traced in my book U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn’t Tell You, that much of recent American history is replete with a preference on the part of corporations and the politicians they own for an economic and political system on the far right end of the spectrum. In fact, resistance to fascism in the United States has been an arduous and daunting struggle for those who have been able to understand and oppose the appeal that fascism has to the corporatocracy, and in fact, take seriously Mussolini’s fundamental definition of fascism: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
As an historian who views American history as the complex unfolding of events that it is, I feel invigorated upon hearing someone like Wolf-especially the Wolf of feminist Beauty Myth fame-part company with the presentation of the Founders as “dead white men” inwardly tormented by various hypocrisies, such as the ownership of slaves and the subordination of women. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves and fathered six children by one of them, but what gets lost in that drama and other colorful stories of the Founders is that they were also thinking, speaking, and writing highly subversive thoughts. “You are not taught,” says Wolf, that “these men and women were radicals for liberty; that they had a vision of equality that was a slap in the face of what the rest of their world understood to be the unchanging, God-given order of nations; and that they were wiling to die to make that desperate vision into a reality for people like us, whom they would never live to see.” (27) I do not wish to romanticize the Founders and their generation living in a milieu replete with racism, misogyny, and classism, but neither will I throw their achievements out with the bathwater of political correctness, nor is Wolf willing to do so in her examination of them.
In the “10 easy steps” outlined by Wolf, countries move from open to closed and repressive societies by devolving past certain markers, and Wolf makes a powerful case for the way in which the United States is following a similar pattern without any significant deviation. In each instance she compares and contrasts how America’s adherence to the pattern compares or contrasts with the pattern in pre-World War II Germany. The 10 steps are:
- Invoking an external and internal threat
- Establishing secret prisons
- Developing a paramilitary force
- Surveiling ordinary citizens
- Infiltrating citizens’ groups
- Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens
- Targeting key individuals
- Restricting the press
- Casting criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
- Subverting the rule of law
As noted in the quote from Justice Douglas above, the fascist shift is a protracted process; it never happens overnight, and in U.S. History Uncensored, I offer an historical narrative describing exactly how we have arrived where we are-at “the end of America”. Some aspects of the process were generated before the U.S. Civil War, but our recent history is nothing less than the story of the acceleration of the fascist agenda and the death of the Republic.
Frequently, books come into our lives with momentous timing. Several weeks ago a friend of mine was traveling through a small town in upstate New York looking for the location of a meeting he was scheduled to attend. Realizing that he was lost, he spotted a police officer in a marked car and waived to the officer to pull over. The officer pulled over, and my friend innocently got out of his car to walk back to the officer’s car. Suddenly, the officer’s voice came blasting across a loud speaker, “Get back in the car! Stop where you are! Get back in the car!” My friend returned to his vehicle and waited for the officer to approach his driver’s side window. The officer, with a hand on his holstered firearm, angrily asked my friend what he wanted. When my friend asked him for directions, he replied with hostility that he didn’t know the location of the place for which my friend was searching and once again repeated, “Never get out of your car when you’re dealing with a police officer.” So much for asking directions from a police officer these days.
On another occasion, two friends of mine returning from Canada were detained at the U.S./Canadian border, and while one of them had a U.S. passport, the other had forgotten to bring his. He produced a variety of identification but was taken aside, questioned, shouted at, and harassed in an extremely hostile manner as if he were an enemy of the state. Fortunately, after over-the-top intimidation from a couple of surly customs officers, he was allowed to enter the U.S.
About three weeks ago I was returning from a routine visit to the dentist in Mexico and had a U.S. passport with me, even though none will be required for returning from Mexico until January, 2008. I was told by a very aggressive female customs agent to pull over to the center where vehicles are detained. I was ordered in a very hostile manner to give her my driver’s license and the keys to my vehicle and stay in my vehicle. When I asked what the problem was, I was told to be quiet and again, to stay in my vehicle. Having taught in Mexico for three years, returning to the U.S. every day and rarely having to show any identification whatsoever, I found this procedure to be astonishingly rigid and unnecessary. I have made many trips to Mexico in recent months and have never had any problem when the automatic photos that are taken of every license plate crossing the border appeared on U.S. Customs computer screens.
After what seemed like an eternity the female officer returned and told me that it appeared that I had had an expired vehicle registration four years ago which I had not taken care of and that I needed to do so at once. She gave me the name of the court where the offense was allegedly registered. The very next day I contacted the court and discovered that indeed I had been stopped four years ago for an expired registration for which I was given a warning. Every year since, I have purchased my annual registration well before the deadline, but the offense was never brought to my attention, and I even acquired a new driver’s license last year through the motor vehicles division and was not informed of the offense. Not wanting any further hassle regarding the “heinous crime” of having an expired registration four years ago, I agreed to pay the small fine imposed by the court. Some readers may assume that I was harassed because of who I am and my open delivery of alternative news and opinions on this website daily. I, on the other hand, do not believe that this was “all about me.” Whether or not it was, it is blatantly obvious to me that the behavior of law enforcement in the United States has shifted dramatically in recent months. Whether or not I was targeted, which I sincerely doubt, this kind of treatment is becoming standard in law enforcement procedure throughout the United States.
And now fast-forward to yesterday, September 18, 2007, at Florida State University and the tasering of a student questioning John Kerry regarding the 2004 elections and Kerry’s membership in Skull and Bones-an incident which has been viewed by millions on the internet and on mainstream TV news broadcasts. Writing of this debacle, Wolf’s article “A Shocking Moment For Society” appeared on various internet sites this morning, and in it she states:
There is a chapter in my new book, , entitled “Recast Criticism as ‘Espionage’ and Dissent as ‘Treason,’” that conveys why this moment is the horrific harbinger it is. I argue that strategists using historical models to close down an open society start by using force on ‘undesirables,’ ‘aliens,’ ‘enemies of the state,’ and those considered by mainstream civil society to be untouchable; in other times they were, of course, Jews, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals. Then, once society has been acculturated to that use of force, the ‘blurring of the line’ begins and the parameters of criminalized speech are extended - the definition of ‘terrorist’ expanded - and the use of force begins to be deployed in HIGHLY VISIBLE, STRATEGIC and VISUALLY SHOCKING WAYS against people that others see and identify with as ordinary citizens. The first ‘torture cellars’ used by the SA, in Germany between 1931 and 1933 - even before the National Socialists gained control of the state, during the years when Germany was still a parliamentary democracy - were informal and widely publicized in the mainstream media. Few German citizens objected because those abused there were seen as ‘other’ - even though the abuse was technically illegal. But then, after this escalation of the use of force was accepted by the population, students, journalists, opposition leaders, and clergy were similarly abused during their own arrests. Within six months dissent was stilled in Germany.
What is the lesson for us from this and from other closing societies, some of them democracies? You can have a working Congress or Parliament; newspapers; human rights groups; even elections; but when ordinary people start to be hurt by the state for speaking out, dissent closes quickly and the shock chills opposition very, very fast. Once that happens, democracy has been so weakened that major tactical and strategic incursions - greater violations of democratic process - are far more likely. If there is dissent about the vote in Florida in this next presidential election - and the police are tasering voters’ rights groups - we will still have an election.
What we will not have is liberty.
We have to understand what time it is. When the state starts to hurt people for asking questions, we can no longer operate on the leisurely time of a strong democracy - the ‘Oh gosh how awful!’ kind of time. It is time to take to the streets. It is time to confront those committing crimes against the Constitution. The window has now dropped several precipitous inches and once it is closed there is no opening it without great and sorrowful upheaval.
As I read Wolf’s latest article, I realized that despite my enormous admiration for her and The End Of America, there are a number of areas where I must disagree with her.
First, the only thing shocking to me about the University of Florida incident is that so many Americans are shocked that it happened. Last night I posted a communication to her mailing list regarding the incident from former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who says:
No police officer should be in the business of denying Constitutional rights to anyone; I am particularly chagrined when it appears that a black police officer participated in this attack on an innocent student.
What is happening to us???? How much more will the people accept?? I was outraged as early as 2000 when Florida was stolen and the Democrats said nothing!!!! Now, innocent students get tasered just for asking questions.
What kind of US Senator do we have who can’t or won’t answer a question about his own election that affects all of us???
Wolf has given us a compendium of civil and Constitutional rights stolen from us during the past eight years of the Bush administration. If one understands this odyssey of oppression, then yesterday’s tasering of a questioning student makes perfect sense. I appreciate why Wolf used the word “shocking” in her most recent article, but I’d be willing to bet that she isn’t shocked at all-not after the extraordinary documentation she has given us in The End Of America. What I do believe she wishes to clarify is the intentionally traumatizing methodology of law enforcement to maintain social control.
Secondly, I must take issue with Wolf regarding her statement that “…we on the left must snap out of our ‘it’s-all-the-WTO-the-two-parties-are-the-same’ torpor…We have to reengage in an old-fashioned commitment to democratic action and believe once again in an old-fashioned notion of the Republic. We need to help lead a democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas.” (141)
Again, let’s fast forward not to yesterday, but today and the headline ““-a decision which supports the Bush administration’s denial of habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners who want to challenge their imprisonment in court. Need we reiterate one more time that since the 2006 elections, the Democrats have done virtually nothing to end the occupation of Iraq? Need we watch the video one more time of John Kerry standing mute and statue-like on the University of Florida auditorium stage-saying or doing nothing as a student was tasered for asking him why he handed the 2004 election to George W. Bush? Does anyone seriously believe that in a world where fellow students applaud as police remove and taser a questioning student and do nothing to speak up against such an outrage that we will see a viable, effective “democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas”?
As for Wolf’s suggestion in today’s article that we “take to the streets”, the police state is preparing for that eventuality as well by letting us know that it has developed severely injuring electromagnetic crowd control technology that will dramatically limit how many and how often people can “take to the streets.” Welcome to full-spectrum “1984″.
I repeat: the police state is right here, right now!
Moreover, some pivotal factors that Wolf has not addressed are global energy depletion, climate change, and global economic meltdown which are exacerbating the fascist shift about which she so brilliantly writes and which will continue to embolden that shift as energy scarcity, climate chaos, and financial crises add fuel to the fires of terrorism that the ruling elite have so consciously and carefully incited and fanned throughout America. As American society continues to unravel, the fascist shift will escalate, and what is left of our civil liberties will further evaporate.
As for political parties, I prefer the definition offered by Mike Ruppert in “America: From Freedom To Fascism” in which he explains that the two major parties are like two crime families-the Genoveses and the Gambinos. They function like players in a crap game that feign opposition to each other, but when the chips are down, they will always unite to serve their common interests. (If the Iraq occupation is not a case in point, then I don’t know what is.) When we vote in presidential elections for corporately-owned candidates or “the lesser evil”, we are merely choosing between the two crime families, and even if one candidate were not a crime family member, our votes in the past two presidential elections, as Bev Harris has so astutely demonstrated, have been hacked. In the throes of the current, and I might add, rapidly-accelerating fascist shift, what evidence do we have for assuming that if there is an election in 2008, anything will be different? Tell me again, what’s the definition of insanity?
At this moment another Naomi comes to mind-Naomi Klein whose book Shock Doctrine I shall soon review on this site. In that work Klein documents one of the key strategies of fascist empires: shocking their citizens into submission in a variety of ways from widespread societal terrorism to the administering of electroshock therapy to individuals. What we witnessed at the University of Florida yesterday, and what we are likely to see more frequently in America, are deliberate shock tactics applied by law enforcement to citizens for the purpose of achieving massive social control.
Some of my students who are criminal justice majors tell me that the latest strategies now being taught to police officers are “shock doctrine” techniques which terrorize and intimidate civilians in order to control them. Law enforcement officers are no longer encouraged to “keep a cool head” but to “follow their own instincts” (which usually means their own internal, adrenaline-charged state of terror) and react with full force because it’s easier to apologize (or encounter a lawsuit) than to ask permission or risk being killed. Terrified people should not be wearing a badge and carrying a gun, and when they are, a fully terrorized society is guaranteed.
In spite of my disagreements with Naomi Wolf’s suggested solutions, I cannot recommend The End Of America enthusiastically enough. It is now a permanent part of my U.S. history curriculum and is an ideal tool not only for educators, but for parents who want to teach their children where all those civil liberties we used to have actually came from as well as how and why they are disappearing in the present moment.
September 18th, 2007
By: Greg Palast of GregPalast.com
A special investigative report from inside Iraq
Did you see George all choked up? In his surreal TV talk on Thursday, he got all emotional over the killing by Al Qaeda of Sheik Abu Risha, the leader of the new Sunni alliance with the US against the insurgents in Anbar Province, Iraq.
Bush shook Abu Risha’s hand two weeks ago for the cameras. Bush can shake his hand again, but not the rest of him: Abu Risha was blown away just hours before Bush was to go on the air to praise his new friend.
Here’s what you need to know that NPR won’t tell you.
1. Sheik Abu Risha wasn’t a sheik.
2. He wasn’t killed by Al Qaeda.
3. The new alliance with former insurgents in Anbar is as fake as the sheik - and a murderous deceit.
How do I know this? You can see the film - of “Sheik” Abu Risha, of the guys who likely whacked him and of their other victims.
Just in case you think I’ve lost my mind and put my butt in insane danger to get this footage, don’t worry. I was safe and dry in Budapest. It was my brilliant new cameraman, Rick Rowley, who went to Iraq to get the story on his own.
Rick’s “the future of TV news,” says BBC. He’s also completely out of control. Despite our pleas, Rick and his partner Dave Enders went to Anbar and filmed where no cameraman had dared tread.
Why was “sheik” Abu Risha so important? As the New York Times put it this morning, “Abu Risha had become a charismatic symbol of the security gains in Sunni areas that have become a cornerstone of American plans to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq though much of next year.”
In other words, Abu Risha was the PR hook used to sell the “success” of the surge.
The sheik wasn’t a sheik. He was a fake. While proclaiming to Rick that he was “the leader of all the Iraqi tribes,” Abu lead no one. But for a reported sum in the millions in cash for so-called, “reconstruction contracts,” Abu Risha was willing to say he was Napoleon and Julius Caesar and do the hand-shakie thing with Bush on camera.
Notably, Rowley and his camera caught up with Abu Risha on his way to a “business trip” to Dubai, money laundering capital of the Middle East.
There are some real sheiks in Anbar, like Ali Hathem of the dominant Dulaimi tribe, who told Rick Abu Risha was a con man. Where was his tribe, this tribal leader? “The Americans like to create characters like Disney cartoon heros.” Then Ali Hathem added, “Abu Risha is no longer welcome” in Anbar.
“Not welcome” from a sheik in Anbar is roughly the same as a kiss on both cheeks from the capo di capi. Within days, when Abu Risha returned from Dubai to Dulaimi turf in Ramadi, Bush’s hand-sheik was whacked.
On Thursday, Bush said Abu Risha was killed, “fighting Al Qaeda” - and the White House issued a statement that the sheik was “killed by al Qaeda.”
Bullshit.
There ain’t no Easter Bunny and “Al Qaeda” ain’t in Iraq, Mr. Bush. It was very cute, on the week of the September 11 memorials, to tie the death of your Anbar toy-boy to bin Laden’s Saudi hijackers. But it’s a lie. Yes, there is a group of berserkers who call themselves “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.” But they have as much to do with the real Qaeda of bin Laden as a Rolling Stones “tribute” band has to do with Mick Jagger.
Who got Abu Risha? Nothing - NOTHING - moves in Ramadi without the approval of the REAL tribal sheiks. They were none-too-happy, as Hathem, noted, about the millions the US handed to Risha. The sheiks either ordered the hit - or simply gave the bomber free passage to do the deed.
So who are these guys, the sheiks who lead the Sunni tribes of Anbar - the potentates of the Tamimi, Fallaji, Obeidi, Zobal and Jumaili tribes? Think of them as the Sopranos of Arabia. They are also members of the so-called “Awakening Council” - getting their slice of the millions handed out - which they had no interest in sharing with Risha.
But creepy and deadly or not, these capi of the desert were effective in eliminating “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.” Indeed, as US military so proudly pointed out to Rick, the moment the sheiks declared their opposition to Al Qaeda - i.e. got the payments from the US taxpayers - Al Qaeda instantly diappeared.
This miraculous military change, where the enemy just evaporates, has one explanation: the sheiks ARE al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Just like the Sopranos extract “protection” payments from New Jersey businesses, the mobsters of Anbar joined our side when we laid down the loot.
What’s wrong with that? After all, I’d rather send a check than send our kids from Columbus to fight them.
But there’s something deeply, horribly wrong with dealing with these killers. They still kill. With new US protection, weapons and cash, they have turned on the Shia of Anbar. Fifteen thousand Shia families from a single district were forced at gunpoint to leave Anbar. Those moving too slowly were shot. Kids and moms too.
Do the Americans know about the ethnic cleansing of Anbar by our erstwhile “allies”? Rick’s film shows US commanders placing their headquarters in the homes abandoned by terrorized Shia.
Rick’s craziest move was to go and find these Shia refugees from Anbar. They were dumped, over a hundred thousand of them, in a cinder block slum with no running water in Baghdad. They are under the “protection” of the Mahdi Army, another group of cutthroats. But at least these are Shia cutthroats.
So the great “success” of the surge is our arming and providing cover for ethnic cleansing in Anbar. Nice, Mr. Bush. And with the US press “embedded,” we won’t get the real story. Even Democrats are buying into the Anbar “awakening” fairy tale.
An Iraqi government official frets that giving guns and cover to the Anbar gang is like adopting a baby crocodile. “A crocodile is not a pet,” he told Rick. It will soon grow to devour you. But what could the puppet do but complain about his strings?
This Iraqi got it right: the surge is a crock.
********
Greg Palast is the author of “Armed Madhouse: from Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild.” See Palast’s reports for BBC Television’s Newsnight, now filmed by Rick Rowley and partners, at www.GregPalast.com
On his departure from Iraq, Al Jazeera’s English language network agreed to broadcast the Rowley/Enders film. I urge you to see it:
Part 1 of People and Power - al-Anbar progress? 09 Sept 07 at this .
(11:55)
Part 2 - People and Power - al-Anbar progress? - 09 Sept 07 at this .
(10:24)
September 17th, 2007
By Dale Allen Pfeiffer of The Mountain Sentinel
Bush now has the ability to declare martial law at his own discretion, and in so doing dissolve the other branches of government, throw out the constitution, and suspend elections. He appropriated the right to do this largely by executive order. He can declare martial law whenever he deems there is sufficient cause; cause being an act of terrorism, an economic crisis, an act of war, civil unrest, or a natural catastrophe. For more information about the executive orders and legislation granting Bush these rights, please watch the short video at mountainsnetinel.com (What We Choose to Ignore), or visit the US Martial Law Timeline.
Hard as it might be to believe, there is a very real possibility that Bush will exercise these rights before his term ends. All he needs is an excuse. At present, the economy is on the verge of collapse, the Iraqi Occupation is going badly no matter what Bush and his chosen generals say, energy supplies are unable to keep pace with demand, disapproval of the Bush administration is growing, and Bush wants to attack Iran and so complete his Middle East conquest. He has all the reason in the world to declare martial law. All he lacks is a sufficient excuse.
Many people who follow the news are worried that Bush will declare martial law sometime in the months ahead. If natural crises prove insufficient, they are afraid that he will stage another 9/11. The current economic climate is very similar to the climate at the time of 9/11, though the present brewing economic hurricane will be much worse than the dot.com bust. The economic crises we currently face could very well result in bank closings, the crash of the US dollar, and the impoverishment of a large segment of the US population. What is more, with peak oil and the dawn of a new era of energy depletion it is unlikely that we will be able resuscitate our economy once the collapse is complete.
In the past couple weeks, we have heard about nuclear weapons being “mistakenly” shipped across the country onboard B-52 bombers. These weapons, which have a very limited capacity, were accidentally shipped to one of the bases that coincidentally functions as a staging grounds for the Middle East . While it is possible that these weapons were intended to be used for tactical strikes against Iran , I think it more likely that they were going to be used on US troops in Iraq , or perhaps even citizens within the US . A nuclear terrorism attack would clear the way for an immediate attack on Iran and provide a sufficient excuse to declare martial law within the US . (See Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.)
This sounds far-fetched and paranoid, doesn’t it? Well, word is circulating around Wall Street that billions in put options were made at the end of August. Put options are short term bets that a corporation will do poorly. From the number and size of these puts, some big players are betting that the stock market is going to take a major fall before the end of September. The last time there was a move in put options this large was just prior to 9/11.
(See Dispelling the ‘Bin Laden’ Options Trades, ‘Bin Laden’ Options Trades Have Wall Street Whispering, and $4.5b bet on another 9/11 within 4 weeks)
Whether or not there are plans to stage another terrorist event, the fact remains that Bush has cleared a path towards establishing a dictatorship within the US . Given Bush and Cheney’s psychological profiles, it is unlikely that this pathway was cleared for altruistic purposes, and it seems equally unlikely that they will not now take advantage of it. No r d id Bush clear this pathway for some future president. Bush and Cheney are both far too selfish and egotistical for that. So it is likely that Bush will walk this path sometime before the next election.
Now the question arises, what will we do if Bush declares martial law and usurps our government?
What to Do
Should Bush declare martial law, life in this country will quickly become untenable for a great many of us. Halliburton subsidiaries are currently building internment camps to house detainees. The first sweep will pick up radicals and known dissenters, along with Blacks and Hispanics. Successive sweeps will capture more disruptive minorities, along with any newly vocal critics.
Knowing this, my first impulse was to head for the woods and disappear in the event of martial law. Yet this would not solve the problem. And I would have to hide forever, while my family and friends suffered the consequences. Hiding is not an option; the only recourse is to fight back.
The establishment of martial law and dictatorship depends on a majority of the public going on with thei r d aily lives as usual. They cannot arrest everyone; they cannot even arrest a sizable portion of the population should they all decide to resist in solidarity. Therefore, the key to defending our country against martial law and dictatorship lies in massive resistance and solidarity.
If martial law is declared we must, each of us, tell everyone we know that the US government has been overthrown. Everyone must know that it is time for each of us to stand up and resist. Do not go to work, do not go to school. That is what they want us to do. Far from complying, it is ou r d uty to rise up for freedom and justice. Our forefathers and foremothers would be ashamed of us if we did anything less.
Simply refusing to serve is not enough. Nor is a march through downtown an adequate response. Short-term protests will be dismissed as soon as they end. Nor is any resistor safe so long as he or she remains at home. We must rally, for safety and power. And we must stay together until the dictatorship is toppled and martial law is ended.
Rallying
There are a few possible targets for rallying. Progressive communities such as college towns would be relatively safe places to rally, and might attract large numbers of people supported by the local community. Yet for greatest effect, rallies should target seats of government and finance. The most effective targets would be state capitals, Wall Street, and Washington DC . For those desiring an even more confrontational approach, you could rally at military bases and National Guard armories. Bear in mind that these military targets have the greatest potential for bloodshed.
It would be best to plan rallying locations ahead of time. There is no telling how disrupted communications might be after martial law is declared. If the internet is still functioning, that would be great. But do not plan on it.
Print up flyers explaining what is taking place and what needs to be done about it. Tell people that it is thei r d uty to resist. Let them know where they can rally to protest. If need be, drive down the street with banners and/or megaphones.
Above all, make it clear that these rallies will not end until the coup leaders have been arrested and martial law has ended. Ceasing our efforts before our goals are achieved is simply not an option. What is more, we will all be safer if we stay together. They cannot pick us off separately; they will have to deal with us en masse.
Breaking Hard
We should be prepared for the worst. It is likely that they will try to break our rallies with force. Stand fast and be prepared. It would be wise to learn how to improvise body armor, procure helmets with safety visors, and gas masks. First aid stations should be established at all rallies.
Above all, resist any impulse towards violence. Violence will achieve nothing, but will provide them with an excuse to crack down. The violent overthrow of government by the masses simply isn’t possible in this day and age, nor is it desirable. Our strength lies in our solidarity and our ability to bring the machine to a screeching halt. When we resort to violence, we have compromised our strength and made ourselves weak.
Appeal to the police and the National Guard that you are the citizens they were hired to serve and protect. Help them to understand what has happened. It may be that many of them will side with you.
If the military does attack, stand firm, but be prepared to give up ground and reform elsewhere. Do not simply scatter and give up. In the face of a military advance, pass along word of a secondary rallying point. And send an advance team to secure that area and prepare.
Remember, martial law and the establishment of dictatorship will only succeed if we let it. Know that if you do nothing as martial law is declared and nothing as they come for your neighbors, then the day will arrive when they come for you. Or you will be left to answer for what has happened while you were looking the other way and going on with your own life.
We, the people, have the power, and never let us forget that.
September 16th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Many people have been saying that the invasion (and occupation) of Iraq is about oil. I believe that there is more than oil involved, but certainly oil was a driving motivator. Now we can add Alan Greenspan to the list of those who reinforce that claim. Greenspan writes in his new book :
‘I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.’
Yes, it is sad indeed, “politically inconvenient” or not, that we invaded, decimated, and continue to occupy a nation to control its oil reserves. Or to perhaps be a bit more specific, to turn over control of that oil to private oil corporations.
How much is it costing? Well there are the measurable costs, such as $10 Billion a month, or the almost 3,800 U.S. troops that have given their lives, or the almost 38,000 U.S. troops who are casualties, or the 144 who have taken their own lives. But all of that pales in magnitude to the estimated 1.2 million Iraqi’s who have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and the dominoes that has set falling.
According to a recent poll by Opinion Research Business (ORB), it is estimated that 1,220,580 Iraqi’s have lost their lives as a direct consequence of the conflict since 2003. Almost 50% of the households in Baghdad have lost at least one family member.
ORB notes that the murder rate in Iraq now exceeds the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The poll also revealed the displacement of Iraqi’s. While roughly 52% are displaced within Iraq, 48% have crossed into Syria or Jordan with the majority going to Syria.
Oil has often been a bloody business, and it continues to get more so as the resource becomes scarcer. Now we have word from the horse’s mouth that peak oil is on the way. Lord Oxburgh, former CEO of Shell oil predicts oil prices at $150 a barrel with production peaking within the next 20 years. Oxburgh was interviewed by the Independent. He is scheduled to address the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) meeting in Ireland this week. In the Independent interview he stated:
“We may be sleepwalking into a problem which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time we are fully aware.”
The argument against oil being the motivator for the invasion of Iraq has been that Iraqi oil production has shrunk dramatically since the invasion. And indeed this is true. However, there is as much (if not more) profit from restricting the flow of oil as there is in increasing the flow of oil. All one has to do is to look at the major oil company profits since the “instability” in Iraq has manifested itself in the market. Namely record profits one quarter after another. The continued U.S. armed presence in Iraq, has been linked to Iraq’s “government” making headway on Iraq’s oil. Namely, that it approves highly biased PSAs (Production Sharing Agreements) put in place by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority shortly after the collapse of Hussein’s government.
Recognizing the centrality of oil in the Iraq occupation, Oil Change International has started an fundraising campaign to Support Iraqi Resistance to the Oil Law. The also have a number of informational and local action links that I recommend. I highly applaud and support their efforts. They have a sad but true short video on the issue called Addicted to Oil.
Increasingly, the people of the United States are calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This weekend there was a march in Washington D.C. of almost 100,000 people calling for withdrawal and for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Approximately 200 protesters were arrested. Across the country there have been marches, demonstrations, and campaigns to inform our elected representatives. To date, those representatives have shown more talk than action on the issue. It is critically important - both for the people of Iraq as well as the people of the United States - to continue applying pressure to representatives and the White House. However, it is also critically important to recognize the driving forces in the current occupation - controlling increasingly scarce oil resources.
All to often, recognition of this central issue gets expressed as “ending our dependence on foreign oil. No. We need to end our dependence on oil. There are not adequate reserves in the United States to meet the continued U.S. levels of consumption. This was acknowledged by Shell President John Hofmeister. We need (and the world needs) to refoot our life styles and our expectations. The cost of the path we are on is simply too high.
Previous Posts
