Go Amy

Amy Goodman asks the simple question: Why didn't the U.S. send in troops before to support Aristide, rather than telling him to leave. Why not protect a democratically elected leader? Lawrence Wilkerson is revealed as an apologist for the ouster. No big secret is revealed here. Just the usual: "You have to understand Haiti...blah, blah, blah."

Canada in Haiti

I haven't read this yet, but it's on order. I came across it today on Black Commentator and thought it was worth a mention.

A new book, Canada In Haiti: Waging War On The Poor Majority by Yves Engler and Anthony Fenton opposes Prime Minister Martin on the question of Haiti. Fenton is a Vancouver-based independent investigative journalist, radio correspondent, and activist, who traveled to Haiti one month after the coup that removed former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power. Montreal-based Engler, who is also author of Playing Left-Wing - From Rat to Student Radical, is an activist who traveled to Haiti in December 2004. Canada, France and the United States are all in bed in Haiti.

Engler and Fenton spoke at a public forum and book launch at Osie and discussed the growing support in Canada for the people of Haiti against the Canadian, U.S., French, and Brazilian occupation. The meeting was packed. Canada In Haiti exposes Canadian government and business responsibility for anti-Aristide coup against democracy. The chapter "Responsibility to Protect or A Made in Ottawa Coup?" points out the coup against Aristide was actually planned on Canadian soil.

You can see some of my links below for more information.

This land is my land, this land is...

For sale! The LA Times is reporting that a certain little provision has "slipped" into a Senate bill.

Slipped into a massive budget-cutting bill late last month by the House Resources Committee, headed by Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), the provision has been eclipsed by higher-profile battles over two other controversial plans that would expand oil drilling offshore and allow it in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Those proposals have been dropped for now, but the land-sale provision remains.

The bill would lift an 11-year-old moratorium on the patenting — or sale — of federal lands to mining companies for a fraction of their mineral worth. While the patent fees would rise from $2.50 or $5 an acre to $1,000, the price would continue to exclude the mineral worth, which can amount to billions of dollars

I am for wise-use policies of public lands, and sometimes selling them is the right thing to do. However, this is clearly a gift to the mining industry, which might make huge profits while paying a pittance for the rights. Mineral rights are the epitome of the public/private debate. Given that, once extracted, Americans may never see these minerals again as they dissapear into value-added products, industrial processes, shouldn't we be charging more for their use? Shouldn't the extractors pay for what is a one-time shot at their use? Shouldn't we demand that extractors be more like caretakers than exploiters? Apparently not.

Since some 60% of large corporations pay no income tax, I'm just wondering where along the line they are supposed to contribute to our society. Really, such land giveaways are poised to become the worst examples of corporate welfare, the kind which has no long-term benefit for Americans but instead huge risks: depletion of resources, pollution from strip mining, and lack of corporate responsibility.

The Politics of Food (not what you think)

The politics of food are taking an interesting twist. A man was arrested by the FB I for burning some SUVs. One suspect, who was mistakingly arrested was eventually released. It turns out the the basis for the arrest, as Newsweek is reporting, seems quite dubious:

In their wrongful-arrest lawsuit, Connole's lawyers demanded to know why the FBI looked at Connole in the first place. Court documents show agents were initially tipped off by a neighbor to "suspicious" activity at the commune the night of the attacks. (In fact, says Connole, members were simply helping one of the residents move out.) Agents placed the commune under surveillance and developed a political profile of the residents, discovering the owner of the house and his father "have posted statements on websites opposing the use of fossil fuels," one doc reads. Another says the owner had ties to a local chapter of Food Not Bombs, an "anarcho-vegan food distribution group." Among activities flagged in bureau docs: the father of the owner had conducted a "one man' daily protest" outside a Toyota office, was interviewed for an article called "Dude, Where's my Electric Car!?" and posted info on a Web site announcing "Stop Norway Whaling!" Critics say such info has been increasingly collected by agents since the then Attorney General John Ashcroft relaxed FBI guidelines in 2002. "How does advocacy of electric cars become the basis for suspicion?" asks Bill Paparian, Connole's lawyer. Bureau officials say they collect such info only when there might be ties to violence or terrorism. A spokesman declined to comment on Connole's case, saying that because no settlement has been entered into the court record, it remains "a pending legal matter."

Opposing fossil fuels, being a member of a co-op (a "anarcho-vegan food distribution group"), and advocating electric vehicles is becoming a dangerous business! Very strange.

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