Haiti news

Recent Haiti news on the ground has been much the same as I've reported before. However, out of the Washington establishment comes some interesting twists.

First of all, the USINFO Washington file reports that "prospects for holding safe and fair elections in Haiti later in 2005 have improved as all key political parties in the Caribbean nation have submitted their candidates to the country's electoral council, reports the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

Given that several election officials pulled outjust two or three weeks ago, this pronouncement seems rather odd. It would seem more likely that there has been a clear stabilization not of Haiti, but of the people who speak for it: Department of State, USAID, Canada and Europe, the IMF, and business interests. What do I mean by this? 1) The International Monetary Fund of course works hand in hand with the U.S. Government, and I suspect that here the some of main contacts are through USAID which has been funding activity in the Haitian police; 2) This announcement comes shortly after appointing a new ambassador; 3) several companies have just announced business plans in Haiti. All of the above is related to the IMF/US D. of State donor conference held in October, where final economic and political planning were done for Haiti and where the interested parties came to their final agreements.

The press release seems thus to indicate some stabilization on the diplomatic plane while, on the ground, things are as bad as they always were.

Given the importance of the situation and the flurry of recent activity, it's worthwhile paying attention to the press release in more detail.

The IMF and Department of State note improvements in stability, "safety" and "transparency," all of which set the stage for the elections. Given that only a few hundred polling sites are going to be open (compared to nearly ten thousand for the last elections), it is hard to believe that true democratic progress has been made. In spite of this obvious fact, government officials seem determined to say that everything is fine. To that effect, the press release seems to obfuscate the true conditions by waiving statistics:

Patrick Duddy, the U.S. State Department's deputy assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs, said at an October 20-21 international donors' conference for Haiti that the more than 3 million Haitians who have registered to vote will set the stage for broad participation in the elections.

Just because 3 million are registered to vote does not mean they they have access to polling places. As I said earlier, we know there are not enough polling places. Furthermore, increased spending on weapons and policing, could mean intimidation during the elections, so this is truly a misleading quote.

The press release concludes:

Duddy said that international donors and Haiti's interim government are "strongly committed" to ensuring the Haitian elections take place within the country's "constitutional timetable," and that the elections are peaceful, open, inclusive and fair. Haiti's government, he added, "must take all necessary steps to implement a work plan that results in the inauguration" of a new Haitian president on February 7, 2006

The U.S. and Europe, along with the IMF, have clearly set stringent timelines, but this seems mostly to avoid embarassment since, while the U.S. could have easily restored Aristide--universally recognized as a democratically and fairly elected president--to power, it chose to support an interim regime, citing Aristide's "corruption" as an excuse. (Amy Goodman over at Democracy Now! has reported on the likely involvement of the U.S. in Aristide's ouster.) New elections will thus legitimize current U.S. policy, so the quicker the better. Indeed, the stern language coming out of U.S. diplomatic circles underlines American concerns with having legitimacy in the wake of our substantial manipulations at the time of Aristide's ouster.

But there is more at stake than legitimacy. The donor's conferences have had a focus on privitization of Haitian companies and resources. For example, last week, Digicel Jamaica/Eriksson announced plans to work in Haiti.

Canada, Europe, and especially the U.S. want privitization, but they feel it could be in jeopardy. They are concerned about the effects of Bush's foreign policy in the Carribbean. Again, getting the diplomatic voices to speak in unison about Haiti can be seen as a response to these concerns.

The flurry of activity is not only on the the U.S. side, however. U.S. policy is creating a global backlash with vocal opponents. Of these voices, Hugo Chavez is one of the loudest and his plans to sell oil without (American) middlemen is audacious:

Haiti could be the latest Caribbean country to join the government’s PetroCaribe initiative. State-owned Petróleos de Vene-zuela (PDVSA) sent a delegation to Haiti early this month to evaluate the possibility of incorporating the impoverished country into the Caracas-led accord, which offers oil to Caribbean countries on preferential terms.

Such plans add coals to the fire already under the U.S.' diplomatic feet. Hence Washington's response is direct and, again, stern:

Washington has a different opinion. U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fisk has called PetroCaribe the result of Cuba and Venezuela’s “failed statist ideologies” and has said it “undermines the position of private sector companies in the region.”

Clearly, Venezuela would/could create enormous pressures to counter the privatization forces since energy ranks very high in Haiti's needs. The "threat" of such an oil market clearly run counter to Washington's goals, hence the stern word's from Duddy and Fisk.

So I guess it's just another week of the same: no democracy for Haiti as the West intervenes.

[Note: I came back and edited this a little for clarity's sake, though it still is not as clear as I would like!]

N(ice) P(olite) R(epublicans)

It's been a while since I've written about NPR. I guess this is because I don't listen to them anymore. I just finished a comment over at Digby's so I thought I would reproduce it here:

I started by saying:

The fundamental fallacy is this: Nowhere in evolution does it state that God does not exist. ID'ers are makeing a political argument, not a theological one. This is a battle between competing discourses, not competing ideas, since ID has very few of the latter.

I was rightly critiqued by NonyNony who pointed out that Evolution challenges the Bible, even if it does not refute God.

Then I responded:

I wanted to add some finesse to my earlier point that

"The fundamental fallacy is this: Nowhere in evolution does it state that God does not exist. ID'ers are makeing a political argument, not a theological one."

While I maintain that God's existence is not invalidated by Evolution, it is true, as NonyNOny points out, that Evolution challenges the Bible's account of creation.

If I were to rewrite this, I would underline that Evolution challenges certain readings of the Bible, and that it does so overtly. What I think is most important here is not Evolution vs. Religion, but the competing discourses between religious sects.

Jerry Falwell no more wants a modern interpretation of the Bible than the Taliban wants of the Coran. By constantly framing the argument as Evolution vs. Religion, they keep the true debate about biblical interpretation out of public discourse.

I haven't read "Don't think of an Elephant" for a while, but my main point is about framing discourse. By pointing out that Evolution does not challenge the existence of God, it allows one to argue within a religious framework and point out that one can support Evolution and Religion.

I for one have no religious beleifs, but many people I know do, so what is important for me is to bring the discourse into a different field of reference so that it can be discussed differently. The problem, of course, is that NPR time and time again does this sort of thing and lets the debate fall back to the ultra-right-wing framework.

I've stopped listening to NPR in the last year or two and I've done several posts agaist them. I'm not sure whether they are worse than before or whether I've just gotten older and can see through what they say. Who knows? All I can say is that I'm really tired of their schtick.

My point here is that NPR is really sucking and is doing the public a real disservice. I also wrote to Day to Day back in May. I actually got on the air. Here's what I wrote:

Dear Day to Day: I have no problem that Jonathan Last did not like Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. In fact, I agree. The wooden acting, the hackneyed dialogue and the silly plot are, at best, irritating. However, his review made me, well, uncomfortable. I understand that Mr. Last found the transformation of Darth Vader more interesting than the a light-saber-weilding-pseudo-philosophizing Yoda. However, we should separate falling in love with the character from falling in love with what that character means. Mr. Last's review, which lauds the Empire's order, strength and ability to effectively suppress those that disagree with it is, quite simply, praise for fascism and despotism--yes, the same fascism and despostism that can be associated with Hitler and Mussolini. While I hesitiate to convict by association, Mr. Last's employment at the Weekly Standard only reinforces the idea that his review of Star Wars III was a thinly-veiled piece of propaganda that could have emerged from his magazine. Take for example "The Case for American Empire" in which the Weekly Standard's Max Boot argues that "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role" (10/15/2001, Volume 007, Issue 05). Mr. Last's review was not about the politics in George Lucas' movie, but rather those of today and his own vision of political utopia--one where "messy" civil liberties are less important than order, one where the inherent disorder of any democratic republic (read filibuster) make it somehow less desirable than goose-stepping our way to a well-organized, smoothly operating and, ultimately, despotic empire.

On Board the Haiti-U.S. Express

A little more than a month ago Americans and, for once, the American media issued cries of despair about the plight of New Orleans, a city under attack from nature as well as an irresponsible government. “It looks like Haiti!” pundits exclaimed, aghast at the horrible spectacle.

Little did they know how right they were.

For many who live in poverty in the U.S., and for those citizens who do not close their eyes to it, it is well known that the similarities between our countries run deep. U.S. policy has continuously shaped Haiti’s economic and political existence, to the extent that Haiti is like America—the worst of it. Likewise, the worst of America is a lot like Haiti.

During Katrina, television commentators were drawing conclusions based on color. A more appropriate and disturbing conclusion is that parallel economic and political strategies—paired with a deliberate lack of strategies—continue to determine the fate of many in Haiti and the U.S. (Unfortunately for Louisiana, Republican measures such as suspending the Davis-Bacon Act seem likely to maintain this trajectory.)

A short list of Haiti's current woes is also a dim reflection of us:

• A Texas corporation owner, originally from Haiti, is running for president of that country and, though his candidacy has been deemed illegal, he seems poised to do better than many others. Why let an illegal election stop you?
• Elections are being delayed until February. Only a few hundred polling places are currently planned; compare this to over 10,000 in the previous elections. The inability of the current U.S.-approved puppet government—following the ouster/kidnapping of Aristide—to organize a credible but corrupt election has been much criticized. But the U.S. continues its support...
• A donor’s conference took place this week for Haiti under the auspices of the State Department. In other words, as for Iraq and Louisiana, it’s pay-to-play in the current Haitian economy run by American, European and Canadian-approved politicians.
• As the American Enterprise and Cato Institutes did for the Bush administration in the aftermath of Katrina, policy in Haiti is being dictated by far right-wing organizations such as the International Republican Institute via the National Endowment for Democracy. (Supposedly “dedicated to advancing democracy worldwide,” the IRI pushes for semi- or even non-democratic privatization measures.)

A look at the results of a donor conference that took place this week for Haiti reveals an oppressive triangulation of Western governments, the International Monetary Fund and the few but powerful Haitians that are profiting from this mess. Quoting an IMF statement, an October 21st release from the State Department says that in 2005-2006 Haiti has a strategy that "adequately maintains the focus on preserving macroeconomic stability, enhancing governance and transparency, and increasing spending on infrastructure and social services."

Condoleeza Rice probably used such language in the talking points of her “surprise” visit to Haiti at the end of last September.

Of course, the language of the IMF, of the Department of State, of USAID and many others is duplicitous. It behooves us translate "macroeconomic stability" with toeing a multinational corporate philosophy on privatizing Haiti's infrastructure. The true meaning of the conference is thus evident. Moreoever, the strategy is not Haiti's, but that of the current U.S. administration, one particularly apt at imposing onerous economic regimes abroad and at home.

The unjust imprisonments of Father Jean-Juste and former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, who both have popular support from the Lavalas party that elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide with a huge majority, reflect odious, criminal judicial practices. Such practices are gaining legal traction here in the U.S., as anyone familiar with the Patriot Act and similar legislation knows.

The purpose here is not to trivialize matters. Haiti’s woes are countless, deeper and more widespread than those of the U.S. They affect the staggering majority of Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, and one of the poorest on the planet.

But Americans should not be fooled either. This week's State Department "donor conference" for Haiti was a meeting to bring business and corrupt politicians into line while pushing for "elections" to add a superficial air of legitimacy to Washington's (Canada's, France's) economic regime. All of this is the standard modus operandi that was seen in the wake of Katrina as politicians handed out contract after contract to "friendly" (read: "contributor") corporations.

So let us take a moment to remember that we are Haiti, and Haiti is us. We are more than alike, we are intertwined. So far only the Congressional Black Caucus has any sort of stable position on this situation in Washington, and even they are not as unified as on other positions. As "elections" approach in Haiti, we should write our representatives to bring this situation further into the open because, in too many ways, the situation is simply our own.

Bill O'Reilly

This is very funny. According to Media Matters, Bill O'Reilly said:

O'REILLY: Yeah, they love me. [Laughing] I'm real big over in France. You know, it's amazing, we're on in France but on the satellite, so we're not, you know -- masses of people don't speak English in France. One of the few countries in Europe that really doesn't speak English on a large level is France, because they don't like us. They don't like the British. So they look down upon our language and our culture --

HILL: But they like their own culture and they try to preserve it.

O'REILLY: And there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, you want to have a croissant, knock yourself out. You like the little escargot; hey, I'm down with that. But when, you know, you don't take a shower for 18 days, you know --

HILL: Stop it.

O'REILLY: I'm sorry. Come on, you know what I'm talking about. Some things they can copy from us. But anyway, so France isn't a country that speaks English, you know, on a wide level like Scandinavia or Holland or even Italy now. You're getting a lot of English speakers. Germany, it's half and half. Up north they speak English, but in the southern part, the more conservative part, they don't.

A part from being ridiculous, racist and quite typical of O'Reilly's and a lot of people's understanding of France, this is also hilarious. I will now resort to Bill's sort of humour--What would Bill do if his young femail colleagues only took showers every 18 days? I mean, his loofah's would last for years that way. I now understand Bill's English-Only position: English for the whole world! Good boy, Bill. Good fascist lackey.

Paris

Juan Cole has put an interesting, balanced and on-the-dot commentary up on his site. It is simply the best one I have read. It takes France to task for the racism embedded in its policies, even the "liberal" ones, which were only marginally decent in the first place. France has a problem. Though there are many middle-class HLM, there are also many that have become ghettos because of a failure of the social system, and it is this system that needs color-blind reform.

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I find racism in U.S. policy as well, but the U.S. is mostly across the board class-based in its discrimination, which also tends to trap Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans and other groups, including huge numbers of Whites. In fact, just like Sarkozy and VIllepin in France are doing now, politicians in the U.S.--especially those on the right--are more than happy with the situation since it allows them to divide the voting public and therefore conquer. Given that, I simply abhor the coverage France gets in the U.S.. It is biased, horrible stuff, and this is primarily because America cannot look itself in the mirror.

Paris is not Burning--I repeat

Here's an interesting conversation on "Source Code," a Boston-Based radio program. It includes Jerôme à Paris (Of dailykos.com) and Jeremy Rifkin.

Revue de presse / Haiti

Today, Bush, brings in a member of the State Department's Foreign Service is to be nominated by President Bush to be the US ambassador to Haiti, as see in Bush taps ex-Tucsonan for Haiti envoy. This person will no doubt be a proud member of the "let's keep crushing Haiti into the ground" team of France, Canada, the IMF and the IRI--all led by the U.S.

Meanwhile, Haiti election supervisors 'quit' according to the BBC. Hmm. Maybe these elections will happen after all once there are no decent supervisors left.

Finally, in Haiti, the UN keeps playing hitman for the US: As Guerillas Strike and UN Troops Kill Again:Election ...,, as seen in Political Affairs Magazine. But, no worries, South Korea will be sending its troops: UN Asks South Korea to Dispatch Troops to Haiti. What a surprise. I'm sure South Korea will bring it's long history of democracy (not!) to Haiti.

France is burning / France is rising up

A lot of people are asking me what I think. I tend to give them a convoluted answer to the many problems in France. What is essential to understand is that France has exactly the same problems as the rest of the West, it is simply becoming "symptomatic," while we remain "asymptomatic," at least in the mainstream consciousness. (If we all understood that men in Harlem and Bangladesh have the same life expectancy, would we still be so convinced of our difference from France, Spain, England, Bolivia, Argentina and, of course, Bangladesh?).

Sterling Newberry has a great piece I completely agree with. I will cite in entirely here:

Mon Nov 7th, 2005 at 10:20:25 AM EDT :: Healthcare

The European political class is in crisis, filled with non-solutions, and unable to lead or persuade its own public, and hoping that another round of neo-liberalization will do what 25 years of it have not done - they now face an open revolt. One which is spreading. 10 officers were shot in last night's riots in France. This rioting is not going to move the core of French public opinion, but will instead harden the battle lines. This bodes ill for the right in France, which has governed because the center-right coalition was far more unified than the center-left coalition.

::

The reality of economics in Europe and the United States is that both places have the same problem, and they are dealing with it by making different choices on how to spread the pain.

The United States, with both more energy and more land, has taken the mode of generating sprawl to generate employment, and selling the US to other nations one barrel of oil at a time, hoping that the rate that the US can generate paper wealth will outpace the rate at which we import energy. This bet is failing, and is, in fact, falling further and further behind. In essence, the US is borrowing to generate employment.

The European core nations have selected an austerity route - higher unemployment, higher social safety net, lower accumulation of foreign debt, and therefore more local control.

However, both roads have been about managing depletion of extraction, most notably oil, and they interlock with the decision of extraction countries to do so as well. While there have been swings in the relative economic power of the different blocs, the road leads in the same direction.

It is dangerous to read too much into these riots, other than the reality that Europe's circulatory system is ebbing, they are having to cut at the margins of their social safety net, and they are under pressure to close the borders. But prosperity will be equalized, whether slowly or quickly, and the attempts to slow down that equalization by protectionism are only worthwhile if they are buying time for preparation. The difference between temporizing and procrastinating is what you buy with the time.

Right now there is little in the way of clear thinking about what to do in the coming post-extraction world, or even a realization that the post-extraction world is coming and it will be beneficial. Right now we are sketching the edges of that world, while people are trying to bring outmoded rental paradigms to bear.

These rental paradigms largely stem from arrangements made almost a century ago as our current economy was emerging in outline.

That economy was based on two important technological ideas - mechanization and broadcast. Our current economic struggles are largely a struggle over keeping the rent flowing on these two - now quite old - innovations in society. It is foolish to blame the French system for a global phenomenon of the playing out of an old economic order. Unrest is rising, because the increase in productivity that it provides is now much smaller than the number of people who want to be part of it. It is exploding in China as inflation is crushing those not attached to the export economy, and the government makes moves to keep wages down by swamping the cities with country dwellers. This is "the city problem," and it is a very poor idea to encourage it.

The unrest is in South America, in Iraq, and in a host of other nations. The amount of global growth available is shrinking, and most of it is consumed by the US, China's export economy, and the resource extraction sectors of a few other nations. The rest of the world is close to what would be

defined as a global recession.

Of course, there is a lot more to this than mentioned here. There are indeed some deep-seated cultural issues, but these are the issues that allow the Center-Right and Right-Wing government to exclude these areas from the current economic plan. The revolt is about exclusion, exclusion, and more exclusion. The Right in particular is interested in allowing these things to continue, just as Bush is interested in keeping America at war. Fortunately, the Left, and perhaps the Center-Left are begining to react, and, because the press in France is slightly more rational, these people actually have a voice and the public generally agrees with them--at least in the sense that they see Villepin, Sarkozy and Barloo manoeuvering to exploit this situation.

Update: Earlier I referred to this situation as Symptomatic. Well, I just read this piece on Tom Paine by Rami Khouri. He states an obvious truth:

Burning cars in Paris and interrupted terror bombings in Sydney may achieve that which a generation of indigenous, patient scholarship, analysis and activism in the Middle East and North Africa have not elicited: serious political and economic reforms that assert the basic rights of Arab citizens to live in societies defined by decency and equality, and the indelible humanity of Arab youth who have been deformed beyond recognition by the inequities of their own tortured political cultures.

Genetically Modified Cropshttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

From Common Dreams:

WASHINGTON - November 7 - The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has decided to expand a controversial give-away in which local farmers grow genetically modified soybeans and corn on Delaware’s at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) today released a letter protesting the move as wreaking ecological havoc and violating the Service’s own policies.

People who follow this know what is happening here. The acreage is relatively minute, but the symbolism is huge. This is a signal to the corporate purveyors of genetically modified organisms saying "we support you." There is absolutely no need for this ecologically or scientifically speaking. It's only use is to push the conservative agenda a little further and keep the government moving on its slippery slope. Public land should not be for private use without just compensation, and here the trespassing is even more dastardly because the likes of Monsanto and ADM are using farmers to further their corporate agenda.

Revue de Presse: Haiti / Press Review Haiti

Une semaine d'action au Canada / Canadian Action Wee
http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=561

The U.S.-led shakedown continues:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=55&ItemID=9059

Old news, new news: Texas Creole
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/11/02/uproar.shtml

Disney

Well, Disney certainly was a magic place yesterday. We went there with students studying gender, race, and class. As usual, there's nothing like going into the beast. It was fun riding the rides, and also the critiques.

The commercialization is absolutely astounding. To the left is a "Kodak picture Spot" near Thunder Mountain (I think that's the ride, you know, the hommage to mineral extraction).

Once you start paying attention to it, it can drive you a little crazy. There's the Brawny-sponsored horse show, home to the "happiest horses on earth." There's the Minute-made-sponsored café. The list is long. I suppose that's why the trash cans have the very ambiguous phrase "waste please" on them. What the hell?

Haven't I seen you here before?

She's gone, I'm back

Well, Sandra of the Supreme Court has just resigned. First of all, we should all know that the Bush administration has been planning for this since before 2000. This is their dream. While abortion rights will be the media battle most Americans see, this is only half the story.

1. Republicans do not want to really repeal Roe vs. Wade. This is an election issue that has served them all too well. What they want is a fight, then lose it and blame it on "crazy liberals." This "loss" will provide fodder for years to come and motivate anti-abortion activists for years to come while...

2. In through the backdoor comes a well-heeled corporatist who will defend at all costs corporations against the rights of consumers. This is the true story.

The right will present a right-wing, anti-abortion nut, lose, then get a seemingly moderate person on abortion through who is actually a radical corporation-rights person.

Out of town..

I'm outta here. Graduation is over and now I'm off to see friends and family. I'm taking a little work with me, for sure, and hopefully I'll blog a little too.

See you June 21.

This is the best link of the day...

How to lose your country in 7 easy steps: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7954027/#050526

Corporations and War and Profits

Halliburton is under investigation in at least 12 different areas according to Corpwatch:

• The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating allegations by an Army official claiming that the Army Corp of Engineers illegally excluded Halliburton’s competitors from bidding on Iraq contracts.Bunnatine Greenhouse, an Army whistleblower, says the line between government officials and Halliburton had become so blurred that a conflict of interest exists.The conduct appears to have violated specific federal contract-related regulations and calls into question the independence of the contracting process.

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting a criminal investigation into Halliburton’s admission that it “may have paid” $180 million in bribes to officials in the Nigerian government to win a multibillion dollar construction con-tract. Some of the bribes were paid during Dick Cheney’s tenure as chief executive officer. Halliburton terminated its relationship with former KBR chief Albert Jack Stanley after discovering that $5 million of the bribe money was allegedly deposited into his Swiss bank account.

• 
  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investi-gating a second bribery case involving Nigeria. Halliburton admitted that its employees paid a $2.4 million bribe to a Nigerian government official for the pur-pose of receiving favorable tax treat-ment. As the Houston Chronicle points out, “left unanswered is how a ‘low-level employee’ could channel that much money from the company to the pockets of a corrupt official.”

• 
  The DOJ has opened a criminal investigating of Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran.The company sells goods and services to Iran through a Cayman Islands sub-sidiary. The sales appear to have violated the U.S. trade embargo against Iran.

• 
  The criminal division of the DOJ has issued a subpoena to a former employee of KBR to determine whether the company criminally over-charged for fuels imported into Iraq.Meanwhile Pentagon auditors investigating the same matter found that KBR and its Kuwaiti subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company, had overcharged the military by $174 million for importing fuel into Iraq under the Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) infrastructure contract. Other alleged over-charges under the same contract (not fuel imports) add up to another $38 million, bringing the total overcharges to at least $212 million. The Kuwaiti government, which has also been investigating the fuel overcharging, recently com-plained about the “lack of cooperation” by KBR and the U.S. military.

• The DOJ indicted Jeff Alex Mazon, a former KBR manager, and a Kuwaiti businessman on charges of defrauding the U.S. government of $3.5 million over a fuel supply con-tract. The two men are charged with rigging bids to favor KBR subcontractor LaNouvelle over other subcontractors and then with overcharging the U.S. military for fuel trans-port services at a Kuwait airport. The alleged fraud cost the U.S. military $5.5 million for services KBR initially estimated would cost only $685,000.

• The Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has issued several audit reports related to task orders under KBR’s RIO contract that reported $212 million in questioned and unsupported costs. The Pentagon fired Halliburton from its gasoline importation con-tract and assigned it to an office within the Pentagon known as the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). The result was a 50 percent reduction in gasoline prices charged to U.S. taxpayers.

• The DOJ is investigating possible over-billing for government service work done in the Balkans between 1996 and 2000. The charges stem from a General Accounting Office (GAO) report that found Halliburton billed the Army for questionable expenses for work in the Balkans, including charges of $85.98 per sheet of plywood that cost them $14.06. A follow-up report by the GAO in 2000 also found inflated costs, including charges for clean-ing some offices up to four times a day.

• 
  The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), a watchdog established by the United Nations, is investigating the management of Iraqi finances by the now-disbanded U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The Bush administration refused numerous IAMB requests for U.S. government audits about the payment of approximately $1.66 billion in Iraqi funds to Halliburton, which is the single largest private recipient of Iraqi oil proceeds. In October 2004, after failing to cooperate for months, the Pentagon finally sent the IAMB six of its audits. It was later found that portions of the audit were withheld from the IAMB to conceal damning evidence about KBR, including $212 million in overcharges and “unreasonable costs” associated with importing fuel into Iraq. The evidence was concealed from the public at KBR’s request.

• 
  In March 2005, the DOJ opened a criminal inquiry into possible bid-rigging on foreign contracts by Halliburton. The company admitted it “may have” criminally rigged contract bids and said “information has been uncovered” that former employees of KBR “may have engaged in coordinated bidding with one or more competitors on certain foreign construction projects and that such coordination possibly began as early as the mid-1980s....”
  

• “Coordinating” with competitors to secure contracts with foreign governments is anticompetitive and a violation of U.S. antitrust law. The practice, known as “bid rigging,” is punishable by criminal fines and denial of future contracts with the U.S. government.

The EPA is investigating complaints by Wes Wilson, one of its senior engineers, who said the agency distorts sci-ence in order to shield Halliburton from pollution laws. The engineer said the Bush administration purposely tam-pered with environmental science in order to shield a lucrative drilling technique, known as hydraulic fractur-ing, from all regulations. He believes the technique, pioneered by Halliburton, is harmful to drinking water sup-plies. Halliburton has spent years trying to get the federal government to exempt the technique from environmental regulations

Freedom, Fries, and Lies

French Fries Protester Regrets War Jibe
by Jamie Wilson in Washington
It was a culinary rebuke that echoed around the world, heightening the sense of tension between Washington and Paris in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But now the US politician who led the campaign to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against the war. Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no justification". Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings ban the word french from menus, said it was meant as a "light-hearted gesture". But the name change, still in force, made headlines around the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its pettiness. Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a constituent's request - he replied: "I wish it had never happened." Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his office is lined with photographs of the "faces of the fallen". "If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," he told the newspaper. "Congress must be told the truth."

We must burn them

The stem cells. We must burn them. They must not be used. Burn! Burn! Burn! Too dangerous! Too usefule to the people! Burn! Burn! Burn! Bad idea! Dangerous! Burn!

It's what's for dinner!!!!!

What is for dinner? Not the truth, anyway. Read this latest in corporate-owned government:

May 23, 2005 Beef Makers Can Be Forced to Pay for Ads By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 6:07 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government can make cattle ranchers pay for ads proclaiming ''Beef: It's what's for dinner,'' the Supreme Court ruled Monday. Some ranchers object to paying for the ad campaigns because they don't like the generic message that all beef -- American or foreign -- is good. But the court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the beef program amounts to government speech that is shielded from First Amendment challenge. The government is allowed to promote its own message and compel producers to pay fees, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. ''The message of the promotional campaigns is effectively controlled by the Federal Government itself,'' Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer. The agriculture secretary, a public official, controls the program, appoints and dismisses key personnel and has ''absolute veto power'' over the ads, even when it comes to their wording, Scalia wrote. At issue is a program passed by Congress in 1985 requiring cattle producers to pay $1 for every head of cattle sold in the United States for industry advertising and research. The Agriculture Department collects the ''checkoff'' fees, which total more than $80 million annually, and distributes the money to an industry group appointed by the department to run the program. The program is intended to boost demand for beef and boost profits for producers, said Monte Reese, chief operating officer of the Cattlemen's Beef Board, the group that runs the program. ''We have seen a 25 percent increase in our demand in just the last few years,'' Reese said Monday. ''We're enjoying record high prices. We've been able to make strides in beef safety. '' Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns called the ruling ''a win for the many producers who recognize the power of pooled resources.'' Similar programs run by federal and state authorities promote pork, milk, eggs, soybeans and cotton. Lower courts have struck down the ''Got Milk?'' dairy promotion and pork ads promoting ''the other white meat.'' An appeal of the pork decision is pending now before the Supreme Court. ''We'll be extremely surprised and disappointed if the judgment is not applied to the pork case as well as the beef case,'' said Dave Culbertson, president of the National Pork Board. Opponents of the fees argued the program is not government-run. The government speech defense is ''news to me,'' said Mabel Dobbs, an Idaho rancher and member of the Montana-based Western Organization of Resource Councils. ''We've long been told that the beef checkoff is producer-run, producer-driven and producer-funded,'' Dobbs said. In a dissenting opinion, Justice David H. Souter argued that the beef campaigns are not government speech. If the government wants to use targeted taxes to fund speech, it must be accountable for indicating the speech is a government message, he wrote. ''No one hearing a commercial for Pepsi or Levi's thinks Uncle Sam is the man talking behind the curtain. Why would a person reading a beef ad think Uncle Sam was trying to make him eat more steak?'' Souter wrote in a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy. The government was sued by ranchers in South Dakota and Montana, and an appeals court ruled that the program violated the First Amendment. The government and Nebraska cattlemen appealed to the high court. The court has gone both ways in earlier cases, upholding advertising programs for California fruit in 1997 and striking down a campaign for the mushroom industry in 2001. But the court had never ruled on whether those programs were government speech. The cases are Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1164, and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1165.

While I cannot argue one way or the other as to the constitutionality of the decision, what I can say is what this means: large agribusiness firms (the "industry group" referred to in the article) will continue to make huge profits (look at the sidebar for campain contributions...), we will continue to have little testing compared to Europe for Mad Cow (BSE), the American consumer will not see any serious accross-the-board labeling campaign for organic or grass-fed beef, and the government will continue to promote (free speech?) a generic beef PRODUCT with dubious environmental and health consequences.

Now, before anybody hate-mails me, I eat beef. I love steak. I just think that a local rancher who raises high-quality beef should be able to identify his product and get promotion for it that distinguishes it from the sickly hormone infested meat we otherwise relish. But, you see, our government acquisitions this 1$ per head and gives it right back to an industry group controlled by the largest and most powerful ranchers and meatpackers.

Some places are getting smart (and making schools better):

Connecticut Nears Strict School Junk Food Ban

by Noreen Gillepsie

Lawmakers want to make sure Connecticut students aren't part of the Pepsi Generation. Connecticut is on the verge of adopting the most far-reaching ban in the country on soda and junk food in public schools, in an effort to curb rising rates of childhood obesity. Similar but weaker proposals have been introduced in at least 17 states this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Policies are on the books in a few states, such as Arkansas and California. Advocates say Connecticut's ban would be the strongest because it is so broad, applying to all grades and all school sites where food is sold. "Connecticut would be the first state to apply those standards to high schools," said Margo Wootan, director of nutritional policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Most of the recently passed policies are limited in that they only apply to elementary and middle schools."

Genetically Modified Food = Bad.

Monsanto cries foul but...

Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

Worker Victory

I heard about this a while ago, but it's worth mention because victory is so rare--and so sweet:

This from Common Dreams quoting the AP:

IMMOKALEE, Fla. - Tejano music bounced off the one-story buildings of this farming town and the smell of tamales filled the air as scores of revelers danced into the night outside the headquarters of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers.

The celebration marked a hard-fought, unlikely victory by the workers, a coalition of mostly Guatemalan and Mexican tomato pickers, over one of the nation's fast-food giants, Taco Bell.

They led a four-year boycott against the chain until it agreed in March to pay a penny more per pound for Florida tomatoes and to adopt a code of conduct that would allow Taco Bell to sever ties to suppliers who commit abuses against farmworkers.

With that triumph, the farmworkers group is turning to a larger target: the rest of the fast-food industry. The coalition has sent letters to executives at McDonald's, Subway and Burger King asking them to follow Taco Bell's lead.

End of Suburbia...

As a follow to my last post on the various links between economy, religion and space--particularly suburban space--I thought I just might bring you a picture from my neighborhood.




Yes, there are a couple of oil wells down the street from me and, yes, Virginia, they blow up. So, according to the Whittier Daily News, "One of the workers, a 49-year- old man, suffered second- and third-degree burns over 70 percent of his body. He was taken to a local hospital and later transferred to a burn center in Sherman Oaks."

I guess that's another argument for driving your car on vegetable oil, huh?

To get back to the larger point, the fire I saw bellowing from the well the other day reminded me of the real economy of the suburban "dream," which is built on fire and oil. Usually we are able to hide it, usually we ignore its costs (wars, pollution, etc.). What are those costs? As I was driving in to work, I saw yet again one of those magnetic ribbon car stickers with the American Flag on it and the words "The Price of Freedom." Well, if people really knew what the "price of freedom" was, they would understand that the real price of that oil burning in their--my!!!--backyard.

So, I decided to do a little calculation, just for fun. (Don't laugh, I'm not an economist or a mathematician).

According to Nationmaster we use 19.7 million barrels of crude per day in the United States. That comes out to 7.19 billion barrels per year. According to the Energy Department, "One barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil , when refined, produces approximately 19.9 gallons of finished motor gasoline." That means about 47% of a barrel of oil is use for gasoline. That means we burn about 3.3 billion "barrels" of gas, or 138.6 billion gallons.

So, now let's trot on over to Cost of War.

So far we have spent at least 171 billion dollars on the war, and that's not counting our annual defense bugdet.

So, let's just calculate this over a two year period (171/2) to make things simple (March 2003-March 2005).

138.6 billion gallons of gas per year / 85.5 billion dollars per year in Iraq= .61 cents per gallon surcharge per year.

So, we should add at least 61 cents per gallon to our gas to pay just for this war. This is just a rough calculation, of course, and I'm not counting increased disability payments, family services, manpower lost in many communities, harm to families, on-going mental health issues....

And, yet, the economic-religious-political triumvirate of the Right marches on, self-reinforcing, self-centered, hell-bent on securing power at home and abroad--no matter how disengenuous their leaders are, now matter how many fabrications proffer to the media.

And now a link to: End of Suburbia

Fast Food Nation--THE MOVIE

Hmmm... I wonder what this will be like?

This from the CBC:

LOS ANGELES - Director Richard Linklater, the filmmaker behind Dazed and Confused, is set to make a big-screen version of the book Fast Food Nation.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/05/20/Arts/ffnation050520.html

How Chain Restaurants Win the War

The connection between space and psyche are well-known, but little are they employed (by the mainstream media) to help us understand the predicament of America. This month's Harper's deserves widespread dissemination. Its portrait of the modern-day conservative movement and religion is insightful and scary without casting its characters as moronic. What they are, and this is what is scary, is different. Their otherness comes through and every page. What becomes apparent is that this difference is played out over and over again, not only in their beliefs, but in their economic choices. The authors could not have captured the strange marriage of religiosity, economy, politics and human feeling that feeds the Religious Right any more accurately. Take the following passage:

...[Linda] opened her eyes and explained the process she had undergone to reach her refined state. She called it "spiritual restoration." Anyone can do it, she promised, "even a gay activist." Linda had seen with her own eyes the sex demons that make homosexuals rebel against God, and she said they are gruesome; but she did not name them, for she would not "give demons glory." They are all the same, she said. "It's radicalism."

She reached across the table and touched my hand. "I have to tell you, the spiritual battle is very real." We are surrounded by demons, she explained, reciting lessons she had learned in her small-group studies at New Life. The demons are cold, they need bodies, the long to come inside. People let them in in two different ways. One is to be sinned against. "Molested," suggested. The other is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could walk by sin--a murder, a homosexual act--and a demon will leap onto your bones. Cities, therefore, are especially dangerous.

It is not so much the large populations, with their uneasy mix of sinner and saved, that make Christian conservatives leery of urban areas. Even downtown Colorado Springs, presumably as godly as any big town in America, struck the New Lifers as unclean. Whenever I asked where to eat, they would warn me away from downtowns neat little grid of cafés and ethnic joints. Stick to Academy, they'd tell me, referring to the vein of superstores and prepackaged eateries--P.F. Chang's, California Pizza Kitchen, et al.--that bypasses the city. Downtown, they said, is "confusing."

What is fascinating and brilliant about Jeff Sharlett's "Soldiers of Christ" (Harper's May 2005) is that he brings out the elisions of belief and action at the most automatic of levels. It is not the "mission" and the overt behaviors that is most revealing of the right-wing religious movement, it's the nearly invisible shift in behavior that define them. The fear of a demon entering one's body renders downtowns "dangerous" while consuming processed food from a corporate entity is considered "normal," "safe," "good." The economic spaces of division are the echoes of a hyper-fundamentalist religion. The the need to eat is coupled with, on one hand, the desire to remain "pure" and, on the other, the fear of the other's race, gender or sexuality.

While one might argue that religion and food have often looked to each other for definition--strict Kosher practices, for example--what is most interesting and historically contradictory about the Religious Right's iteration of this practice is that the content and preparation of food remain unimportant. What is important is where one eats and with whom, and the food itself is neither pure nor impure, save drugs or alcohol. Fundamentalist Christian food practice is not about the body or the incorporation of belief systems in food (the substance), but, rather, it focuses on an implicit "corporate cleansing" of food. (This is radical. If one looks at Jewish Kosher practices, Sharia or Transubstantiation--the Catholic practice of Communion--ingesting or refusing specific foods is tightly wound with absorbing something more than the food itself, such as the body of Christ.) Fundamentalist Christians must embrace the chain restaurant not only as a "neutral" food substance, but as a spatial embodiment of its racism. Moreover, "Corporate Cleansing" (processing) of food is an extension of power, of dominion; it is a reminder that humans, master of plants and beasts, retain control and have no moral obligation to think about sustainability, the environment, or other terms that would imply humans' less-than-central role on the planet.

Dear Day to Day

Here's what I sent to NPR this morning.


Dear Day to Day: I have no problem that Jonathan Last did not like Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. In fact, I agree. The wooden acting, the hackneyed dialogue and the silly plot are, at best, irritating. However, his review made me, well, uncomfortable. I understand that Mr. Last found the transformation of Darth Vader more interesting than the a light-saber-weilding-pseudo-philosophizing Yoda. However, we should separate falling in love with the character from falling in love with what that character means. Mr. Last's review, which lauds the Empire's order, strength and ability to effectively suppress those that disagree with it is, quite simply, praise for fascism and despotism--yes, the same fascism and despostism that can be associated with Hitler and Mussolini. While I hesitiate to convict by association, Mr. Last's employment at the Weekly Standard only reinforces the idea that his review of Star Wars III was a thinly-veiled piece of propaganda that could have emerged from his magazine. Take for example "The Case for American Empire" in which the Weekly Standard's Max Boot argues that "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role" (10/15/2001, Volume 007, Issue 05). Mr. Last's review was not about the politics in George Lucas' movie, but rather those of today and his own vision of political utopia--one where "messy" civil liberties are less important than order, one where the inherent disorder of any democratic republic (read filibuster) make it somehow less desirable than goose-stepping our way to a well-organized, smoothly operating and, ultimately, despotic empire.

Fertilizer

The London Observer, November 18, 1822:

It is estimated that more than a million bushels of human and inhuman bones were imported last year from the continent of Euope into the port of Hull. The neighborhood of Leipzig, Austerlitz, Waterloo, and all of the places where, during the late bloody war, the principle battles were fought, have been swept alike of the bones of the hero and the horse on which he rode. Thus collected from every quarter, they have been shipped to the port of Hull and thence forwarded to the Yorkshire bone grinders who have erected steam-engines and powerful machinery for the purpose of reducing them to a granularly state. In this condition they are sold to the farmers to manure their lands. (War is a force that gives us meaning 31)

I'm now wondering about Rwanda, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, Guatemala... Wars

Gingerbread Hearts anyone? (Don't get it? Read Hedges' book.)

I am sure, in America, we are consuming more mint tea, more couscous, more hummus than ever before. Is the fruit of trade, of open-mindedness, goodwill? No, it is the ancient way of the cannibals, their desire to incorporate the other and the other's power into one's own body in order to grow stronger.

Chris Hedges

I'm just reading Chris Hedges' book, War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, and just wanted to post some quotes:

War is a crusade. President George W. Bush is not shy about warning other nations that they stand with the United States in the war on terrorismor will be counted with those that defy us. This too is jihad. Yet we Americans find ourselves in the dangerous position of going to war not against a state but against a phantom. The jihad we have embarked upon is targeting an elusive and protean enemy. (4)

I don't know why I'm quoting that. It's so well-known, so repeated, almost cliché, but, still, it is so true and so important. He goes on to tell of war's narcotic effects, its thrills, its sense of purpose--the very one it conveys to societies--like ours--that fall under its spell. "Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose" (2).

I am often amazed, as I drive down the street, as I purchase food, gas, clothes and other things we call necessities, at how the spell of war and of capital flowing through me and endowing me with something I don't intrinsically have. War is the ultimate form of branding: live or die, win or lose, right or wrong. Our brutish, wanna-be dictator that we call The President is sucessfully branding himself and pulling all into his manichean system in which our daily actions allow us to portray ourselves as patriotic ("Let's buy a car!" "Support our troops!") because of what we say, wear or worship. But, don't worry. We still have our imagination, right?

"It’s a strange thing when a letter from the school principal arrives on lime green and aqua stationery. Stranger still when the postmark is Burbank, California, and the return address reads “Imagineer That!” But it was real. The communique trumpeted “Disney Channel is coming to our school to help spark our creativity”—in a pre-packaged 90-minute assembly.

“Imagineer That! The Creativity Adventure” is designed to “help empower students to unleash their creative powers.” It folds “an imagination skills building workshop” and a sighting of Disney Channel star Ricky Ullman into the middle-school day, and follows up with a celebratory evening “wrap party.” Full participation is guaranteed by a chance to win a family vacation to (where else?) Walt Disney World. The principal described this hoopla as “a fantastic opportunity.”

(From In These Times)

I'm back

I've taken a hiatus from writing here and now I'm back. Whatever. I'm gonna start talking about my car now.

I have a '77 Mercedes 240D. Yes, it's kinda slow. However, it runs on vegetable oil and I thought it might be interesting to chronicle some of its adventures since, as you may know, one of my main interests is food. Oil (vegetable oil) is food. It has caloric content. It is also combustible, especially at high pressure. It therefore works in a diesel engine. So, I'm telling you, as will every other "Greasel" owner, that every drop of vegetable oil we burn (either as straight veggie oil or thinned out into biodiesel), in our car is a good thing. It is a very good thing.

Don't believe me? Well, read about biodiesel here:

Journey to Forever
Energy loss or gain of fuesl at the University of Minnesota
Biodiesel Now

Enough about biodiesel. I don't want to have to brew my own. Like for my beer, I just want to pour and go! Read this from the boys at Greasel. See what I mean? waste vegetable oil is cheap, much better for the environment, and easy to use in your diesel engine.

Better yet, we're not spending our money supporting Bush's wars, his businesses or his friends' businesses. Can't afford a Prius? you can still be good.

More postings and pictures to come, but, for the meantime, let's stop here.

Andy

The Nascar Nightly News: Anchorman Get Your Gun

Sorry I've been away! Read this by The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich

I don't always agree with FR, but this has some good insights.

Fresh (Mad) Cow!

Get your prions here! America has just found its second case of Mad Cow Disease. But, Dear Consumer, do not be alarmed. Your government is taking care of you!

That's right, thanks to Republicans, we have:

-Less testing of meat for BSE (Mad Cow)
-Less testing for E. Coli
-Little or no label of meat origins
-Legislation in favor of giant meat processors that slaughter 400 000 lbs of semi-fresh cow per day
-Legislation to keep those slaughterhouses moving fast so that more and more workers can be maimed
-Legislation favor union-busting activities

That's right, even though farmers and ranchers are overwhelmingly in favor of telling you the origins of their fine products, ConAgra, IBP, etc., are getting their way. But, Dear Consumer, you voted for Bush! What he knows so well is that even people whose brain begins to turn into a sponge, who lose coordination and cannot walk, who go into convulsions and turn catatonic in the months preceeding their inevitable death, well, these people will vote Republican because, perhaps, having a spongy brain makes that more, not less, likely.

You think that last statement is underhanded, don't you? You are right. My apologies to anyone with Mad Cow Disease who voted Democrat. Please contact me, if you are still alive.

Moral Values

Working at an institution that has a strong religious tradition, even if it is no longer affiliated to any religious entity, has become important to me, especially since we are formerly Quaker. Say what you will about it, the Society of Friends is commited to a global view of moral values. Got an email from a former student today for this meeting in Pasadena. GO!
Go, even if you are not a member of Quaker church, or any church for that matter.

Here's the email I got:

American Friends Service Committee
980 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
Pasadena  91103
Map


In this past election, we saw "morality" redefined to be little more than opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
But, what about war's cost to civilians and society? What about taxes being cut for the wealthy while poor and working poor people were forced out of social programs that support basic needs?  What about the pollution of our environment?  What about spreading fear against GLBT and immigrants?  What about the death penalty?These are moral values and we cannot allow morality to be defined to not include them.

Please join faith-based and other activists for a meeting to design a strategy for speaking the truth about our broader agenda and definition of morality through the media, our places of worship and other organizing.Sign up online to attend, or to receive information on future events.

AFSC office is wheelchair accessible.

For more information contact Steven Gibson at (626) 791-1978 ext. 130, sgibson@afsc.org, or Jochen Strack (626) 791-1978 ext. 138, jstrack@afsc.org.

Sponsors:
Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace
American Friends Service Committee

Today: Cyclopsis...

I only heard a story about the ravages of depleted uranium (DU) today. It noted the increase of children in Baghdad born with no ears, without eyes, and, yes, some are born with one eye in the middle of their forehead. Of course, government lawyers, like Gonzales, are poised to fight establishing any link between DU and the increased rates of deformities or leukemia at birth. This is exactly what they have done with Gulf War Syndrome, also thought to be related to DU. While the ultra hard DU warhead penetrates enemy tanks with ease and immediately kills those near the explosion, the particles released by the impact kill indescriminately.

Half life: 4.5 Billion years.

So, of course, the Sun will swell and die, and so will the human race before any of these particles loose their radioactive properties. I am assuming that will be the moment people in this administration will look up from Hell and admit they were wrong for the first time.

Here is a link These images are horrendous.

Of course, I could put images like these on street signs and I would be called an unpatriotic SOB by the very pro-lifers that supported Bush.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, W is clearing brush....clearing brush...clearing brush. It is beautiful to see the hypocrisy, the lies, the smirk, the demeanor. Save these babies, George.

Chirac Says War in Iraq Spreads Terrorism

Common sense?
Chirac Says War in Iraq Spreads Terrorism

Jacques Chirac

Those savvy French......Je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit dans la nature de nos amis américains, en ce moment, de rendre systématiquement des faveurs." C'est aussi ce que pensent aujourd'hui la majorité des Britanniques.

Translation: I am not sure that, presently, it is in the nature of our American friends to systematically return favors.

Translation of the translation: Cher Tony [Blair], I think you have been royally screwed and will get nothing for it. Of course, I could have told you that. In fact, I did. Not that I am rubbing it in, I have my own problems. Colin was a good chap, wasn't he. We'll miss him...

etc., etc.

Why Dems are running scared

There is something too cerebral to all this talk about Dems "standing" their ground. Though I have to say that I strongly believe Dems should be more fervent in their critiques of the Right and more deeply rooted in their own political philosophy, I have to remind myself everyday that there are serious financial circumstances involved in political life.

This article in The Hill says it all, though it doesn't speak broadly to the issue, only hints at it in its title "Dems fear lobbying blacklist"

...Several Democratic aides said that a midsize Washington lobbying firm, the Alpine Group, declined last week to hire a Daschle staffer with whom the group had been in long-standing discussions about a possible job. They said the Daschle aide, who The Hill agreed not to name, believed he would get the job based on conversations with the firm about three months before the election.

According to one Senate aide familiar with the situation, the firm told the Daschle aide, “This is a cold town for Democrats. It’s especially cold for Daschle’s staff.” Asked whether DeLay or any of his associates had specifically conveyed a message to the firm, the Senate aide said, “The implication was that DeLay had put the word out that Daschle staff should not be hired.”

Now, I think Washington had a LOT of problems when a certain bonhomie reigned, when Senate rules of engagement actually reflected certain polite beliefs. But in some ways, those days also meant survival of those who disagreed with you and survival of their ideas. Those days are gone, and they are gone for the political underclass as well.

The Repubs are remaking the town in their own image. It is scary.

No wonder Democrats seem so timid. They are afraid for their livelihood.

How to Be an Opposition Party

Great comments by Matt Stoller in How to Be an Opposition Party.

Quote:
Currently, the pitiful candidate Kerry is busy setting himself up for 2008 by shitting on the base operatives striving to have every vote count.  This is a mistake.  When you are in opposition, every ally is important, and you do not sacrifice allies to stay in game, because you are not in the game.  Kerry and many Senate Democrats do not understand this.  They are not players anymore.  

Kevin Brennan and Ian Welsh, two brilliant Canadians who have a deep interest in American politics, lay this out.  In Learn How to Lose, Kevin shows that there is a right way to lose that scores you points in later elections, and a wrong way to lose that just fosters the perception of ineffectiveness.  In The Bright Red Line, Ian talks about the battles that need to be fought and filibustered, the things upon which we cannot compromise or we lose the American polity for a generation.

In other words, being an effective opposition is about resisting structural changes that tilt the playing field away from you while allowing the governing party to enact policies you do not agree with, all the while proposing clear alternatives and publicizing them.  Meanwhile, at the state and local level, governing well is essential to showcase how effective the Democratic alternative really is.  At the federal level, though, we have no power, so we can be honest, like Al Sharpton in the primaries.  Imagine that, a party of Sharptonian rhetoric.

Messaging The Mossad, clearing brush...

As America begins to straddle one-party rule and one-party ruled government institutions , Steve Clemons gives us a glimpse of the model: Isreal's Mossad. Sharon executed his purge. Now Bush is doing his.

As I said yesterday, the world is becoming our West Bank. Now we are becoming Israel, and more than just metaphorically. I am pro-Israel, but I am 100 percent anti-Sharon and anti- theocracy.

Clearing brush, clearing brush, clearing brush...

Fallujah in Pictures, Clearing Brush, Pharma-gov

As I'm going through the day's news, trying to forget them long enough to plan class, to grade some papers, to find some distance from everything that is going on, I inevitably fall on something like this: Fallujah in Pictures

Look at it. Think about it.

I don't know what's going to happen. I can't pretend to. But we are making enemies faster than we are making friends and, unless the Bushites get lucky and the Iraq election leads to a request for America to leave, we're in Iraq for a long time to come. Regardless, we have given the Muslim world ammunition for decades. Welcome to America's West Bank. I guess everybody knows that.

Meanwhile, back at the homestead, Holy George, is purging the ranks of the CIA. Like Homeland Security, he's setting it up to be a publicity apparatus, a research institution whose findings are guaranteed to be 100% in line with administration doctrine, or should I say dogma. This is ritual. This is like clearing brush. What are these darn weeds doing here? That's not the landscape I'm after. By golly, this here needs to be a golf course where I can drive the ball 250 yards without any water obstacles. That is my right. That is my priviledge. Serve me. Watch this drive.

Yes, clearing weeds.

It dawns on me that the administration is actually modeling itself not on the energy companies (though that is true to a certain extent as well), but on the drug companies. They do their own self-serving research, they spend luxuriously on advertisement and sell a lifestyle that finds its potency in a balance of fear (of death, of illness, of impotence) and often ambiguous results riddled with side-effects. Think Vioxx.

But hey, these manly men are tough right? They've got hard-ons that would make a mule blush. WEll, that's what they would like you to think. I think they are first-class sissies, policy hacks, and, unfortunately, politicians.

I'm depressed today.

Howard Dean for Chair.

Signing off.

King James Speak

I've been keeping up with Bob Jones's letter to the president, the one the Josh Marshall keeps coming back to.

My own take on this, besides the scary thought that Bush might actually think like this rather than just be playing the role of someone who thinks like this, is that the whole Red-Blue divide is increasingly an aesthetic and linguistic choice.

As I read Bob Jones's [Jones', if you prefer] letter, I can help but to keep coming back to the language:

Dear Prez:

The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!

In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.

Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.

Christ said, “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour” (John 12:26).

The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit ourselves to pray for you—that you would do right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.

Best wishes. Sincerely your friend,
Bob Jones III
President


This whole "king-james" speak reeks of the Old Testament to me.
What's funny, is that the evangelicals that I know, use this phraseology all the time in their normal speaking. Last year we had a family of missionaries staying in our house. I spare you the whole story: very nice people, 26 years old, 4 young boys, living in beat-up RV until they moved to Madgascar to setup a charity school to teach english AS IT IS SPOKEN IN THE KING JAMES VERSION of the bible. Yes, they actually consciously or unconsciously adopted the same rhetorical figures. On some level, it sounded absurd. It was absurd. On the other, it was chilling.

The problem is not that we're going back linguistically to the late Middle Ages/Early-Modern period--I don't beleive in linguistic progress, only linguistic change. The problem is that we're going back to the the same friggin' mentalities of that enlightened time. The linguistic codes mirror this and seem to be a trait of recognition among the "beleivers."

The world is getting stranger. Teaching King James's English is both a symptom of these groups' subjugation (mental, linguistic...) to thier cause and a trope for recognizing the knowing.

Amen.

Andy

Ivory Coast...

La Côte d'Ivoire is going to hell in a handbasket. Not many resources, but a vital rail line into Burkina Faso's gold and magnesium. I don't think this will make the administration's radar, so the French will maintain a foothold.

Oh, Thank you, mighty Howler

The Daily Howler

It is time for some class "warfare" of the reality-based type.... From The Daily Howler.

CONTEMPTUOUS VALUES: Many readers—many readers—sent us the Tax Foundation tables which show which states are federal free-loaders. And yes, the “red states”—the states whose denizens love to preach that bracing self-reliance—routinely take in more federal money than they submit in taxes. Meanwhile, who subsidizes these free-loading states? Who else? “Contemptuous” “elitists” from northeastern blue states, whose troubling values red-staters love to ponder! In 2003, for example, blue-state New Jersey received only 57 cents in federal spending for every dollar submitted in taxes. But then, the top ten states whose pockets are picked include eight which are nominally blue:
1) New Jersey: 57 cents
2) New Hampshire: 64 cents
3) Connecticut: 65 cents
4) Minnesota: 70 cents
5) Nevada: 70 cents
6) Illinois: 73 cents
7) California: 78 cents
8) Massachusetts: 78 cents
9) New York: 80 cents
10) Colorado: 80 cents
Eight of the ten donor states are “blue,” including Massachusetts, New York, California and Illinois—home base to the contemptuous elitists whom red-states denizens love to scold. Throughout the campaign, George Bush mocked the troubling values of liberal Massachusetts voters—people who send big bags of money to support Bush’s red-state supporters.

Is this a silly, pointless critique? In some ways, yes, as one e-mailer claimed in a semi-spot-on analysis:
E-MAIL: Here is the source of those tax numbers. I have to say that, while I generally agree with you and am also a bit tired of the whining, your prejudices are showing here. Most of the "red states" (other than those in the Midwest) have extractive economies and many are in effect internal colonies. Their current poverty is historically constructed by these facts and the relative prosperity of the “blue states” has created and

is dependent on their continued poverty (the existing economic development of the blue states in effect inhibits the red states from developing). The relationship here is essentially the same as the relations between the first world and the third world. There is a general correlation here between relative prosperity (even within red and blue states) and voting patterns. I think what the red states have in common is economic deprivation and a sense (justified) of a lack of control over their future. Unfortunately, they have wrongly identified "liberals" as the cause of their problems—in part because, as Thomas Franks points out, we have stopped talking about economic and class issues while still pushing for minority and gender enfranchisement.

Keep up the good work, but try to have a little sympathy for the unlovely lot of those red staters (if not for their infernal and unseemly whining).
But the mailer misconstrues our incomparable fairness. It’s that infernal whining we have specifically criticized—and the bogus attempt to blame “elitist liberals” as the source of red-staters’ problems. We’re not economists, and the e-mailer surely knows more than we do about red-state status as internal colonies. But, as Michael Lind discusses in Made In Texas, Southern red states became “internal colonies” with “extractive economies” because of the choices and values of Southern elites—the same Southern elites who feed their boo-hooing red-state voters their phony grievances against “contemptuous eastern liberals.” Historically, Texas elites helped make Texas an “extractive economy,” and blubbering Texans need to be told that, even as they stick their hands deep into northeastern pockets.

Eschaton

Atrios puts up some interesting Ohio numbers....

Highland Heights: 1385
Mayfield Village: 1385
Seven Hills: 2147
Broadview Height: 2540
Berea: 3146
Olmstead Falls: 3146
North Royalton: 4009
Maple Heights: 4744
Brook Park: 5295
Oakwood Village: 5460
Euclid: 5724
South Euclid: 5724
Cleveland Heights: 6007
East Cleveland: 6007
Garfield Heights: 6170
Lakewood: 6226
Middlebury Heights:
Parma: 7284
Bedford: 8553
Bedford Heights: 8553
Warrensville Heights: 8553
Bay Village: 9948
Fairview Park: 9948
North Olmstead: 9948
Rocky River: 9948
Westlake: 9948
Cleveland: 49324

http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/110003866197985353

Jeffersonians unite

If--and it's a big 'if'--we are going to really talk about injection religion even deeper into our PUBLIC lives, well, listen to
Gary Hart

"If we are to insert 'faith' into the public dialogue more directly and assertively, let's not be selective. Let's go all the way. Let's not just define 'faith' in terms of the law and judgment; let's define it also in terms of love, caring, forgiveness. Compassionate conservatives can believe social ills should be addressed by charity and the private sector; liberals can believe that the government has a role to play in correcting social injustice. But both can agree that human need, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and sickness must be addressed. Liberals are not against religion. They are against hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that one side or the other possesses 'the truth' to the exclusion of others. There is a great difference between Cotton Mather and John Wesley.

There is also the disturbing tendency to insert theocratic principles into the vision of America's role in the world. There is evil in the world. Nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents is there support for the proposition that the United States was given a special dispensation to eliminate it. Surely Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. But there are quite a few of those still around and no one is advocating eliminating them. Neither Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world's avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy concerned them above all else. Mr. Bush's venture into crusaderism frightened not only Muslims, it also frightened a very large number of Americans with a sense of their own history."

CIA, Inauguration

It was announced today that the security level for this year's inauguration is going to be the very highest possible. Read: we will do everything to exclude protesters from the scene. Of course, it is highly likely for the networks to oblige. What interest does GE have in curbing the president's enthusiasm?

None.

What are we going to do about this inauguration? Hopefully nothing since, in some ways, I don't think we should protest. It takes our eye off the ball--namely, the Senate and Congress, whose members will be attempting hijinks previously unseen in Washington now that they seem to beleive they have a "mandate."

Le Monde.fr : Mais o? sont pass?s les votes d?mocrates de Floride ?

Le Monde is asking about missing votes in FLA according to the GAO Heres the article...

Fallujah

1.
Well, we're attacking Fallujah, which is what we should have done a long time ago. Or, if the invasion had been done properly, perhaps we wouldn't have to be doing it at all... But, hey, it'll make for some exciting TV! Blood, explosions, RUmsfeld. It'll be great, I promise. Just watch your LOCAL news and see how much they talk about it.

Let's not be too coy. We're there and be have to do it now....

2.
I'm feeling a bit depressed today as I look across the Democratic board and see the same old actors doing the same old thing. We're not going to win unless there is a major shake up/shake down of the self-loving, pandering folks.

More later.

As I thought on Wednesday without even

looking at the results. Things are not as bad as they may seem for Dems. Yes, the national party is, as it has been, in need of inspiration, new blood, etc. I firmly believe however that there is a liberal message and that it is getting out that the bottom of the ticket. The problem is the communication alleys between top and bottom. We have got to quit playing the Republican's game and create a coherent elevator message for the party. Unfortunately, I'm talking about branding it. We need persistent messages sent out, we need them starting yesterday. We must attack Frist and co.

MyDD (Chris Bowers) looks at all the stats and sums it up nicely:

"Democrats also made state legislature gains in Michigan and Ohio, and in both cases are now within only three seats of taking at least one of the two branches of the legislature. Vermont saw notable Democrats gains in the state legislature as well. Finally, Republicans wrested the Missouri and Indiana governorships from Demcorats, while Democrats wrested the Montana and New Hampshire governorships from Republicans.

Do I need to go on? The pattern is clear. We have been thoroughly routed out of the South, but are making significant gains in virtually every other part of the country. We are well on our way toward building a new post-Dixiecrat, and entirely post-New Deal majority coalition. If we cling to some foolish believe that our problems in the South can be fixed by nominating a conservative Southern governor who talks faith, we might as well fold up our tents right now. It has taken us twenty years to come close to building a national majority since the fracturing of the Democrat-Dixiecrat coalition in the early 1980's, but we are finally close. For a long time we were propped up by the false impression that the Southern wing of the Democratic Party was not completely dead, but after Tuesday it is time to put that false hope out to pasture. I'm not saying we should not keep trying in the south, as I believe we should keep trying everywhere. However, it is time to stop believing that just having a southerner on the ticket, or talking a little faith is somehow going to turn our fortunes around in the region. For that matter, we should not even believe that doing these things would even make us competitive in the region anytime soon. The Blue-Gary divide in the country is once again rearing its ugly head, and the Mike Easley's, Wesley Clark's, Mary Landrieu's and Phil Bredesen's of the party are not going prevent that from happening.
MyDD :: Due Diligence of Politics, Election Forecast & the World Today

This is essentially what I said the other day. This is about belief in the system, in progress. If the Republicans have gotten this far it is because they have a core base of believers integrated into a cynical political machine. The democrats have never been nor will they ever be as cynical or as manipulative as the Repubs. The Dems have realists. Now these folks must coordinate with the believers--who are very different from the glossy-eyed Republican ones.

There is a realignment going on and we must catch this wave with our own coherent ideology that is based neither on hate nor exclusion, but belief in a better, fairer America. Forget gay marriage--propose civil unions for everybody. Talk about debt-relief--this makes more sense to most folks than tax-relief. Talk about good, well-paying jobs. Talk about health care. Talk about family, food, property. Talk about MORALITY--There has b een an increase in abortions since the Bushite coup of 2000. What does that mean? What does that say about this administrations dedication to family? I say that we must learn to hear and speak of a moral truth that goes beyond us while not preaching or sounding haughty, which has been the case for so many righteous Dems in the past.

The Dems are well-positioned for this, but will the national party learn or will it be an eat-your-child-power-grabbing party? Folks, we need some vision.

Andy