From Midway Airport in Chicago from a few weeks ago, when I was there on business. It was the perfect match of a beautiful sunset and lights from the airport. I love Chicago (in late Spring).
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
More from "W's" Administration
Yet more evidence today that this administration will go down as more corrupt, inept, greedy, incompetent and filled with graft than Warren G. Harding's--or any other:
Ideology-Based Hiring at Justice Broke Laws, Investigation Finds
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Senior Justice Department officials broke civil service laws by rejecting scores of young applicants who had links to Democrats or liberal organizations, according to a biting report issued yesterday.
The report by the Justice Department inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that a pair of high-ranking political appointees who are no longer with the department had violated department policy and the Civil Service Reform Act by using ideological reasons to scuttle the candidacy of lawyers who applied to the elite honors and summer intern programs.
In one instance, steering committee member Esther Slater McDonald deemed "unacceptable" an applicant who professed admiration for the environmental group Greenaction and passed over another with ties to the Poverty and Race Research Action Council, the report said.
McDonald, who left the Justice Department last year and now works for a law firm in the District, sent colleagues a Nov. 29, 2006, e-mail in which she complained about "leftist commentary and buzzwords" in applications. Many of the underlying documents, on which McDonald and others wrote comments, were destroyed before the probe began, according to the report.
Auditors also criticized Michael J. Elston, former chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, for failing to supervise McDonald and for weeding out candidates on his own based on "impermissible considerations." Elston may have denied one Stanford Law School applicant because she had written a law review article about gender discrimination in the military, the report said. Elston left the Justice Department last year amid questions about his role in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. He now works at a private law firm.
McDonald and Elston did not return calls for comment yesterday. Experts said they are unlikely to face sanctions for what investigators called deliberate "misconduct" because they have left government employment.
Traditionally, the highly coveted intern and honors jobs had been awarded based on merit. But in 2002, top Justice Department officials moved to give political appointees more control, prompting complaints from the career ranks. The problem flared up again in 2006, when hundreds of applications were rejected for questionable reasons, according to the report.
Candidates for the Honors Program that year whose résumés indicated liberal affiliations were weeded out at three times the rate of conservative-leaning applicants, investigators said. San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who was later fired for reasons that remain under investigation, reached out to no avail to Elston over the decision to reject a candidate who had won a prestigious appellate clerkship with a Democratic judge.
Peter Keisler, then chief of the Justice Department's civil division, called Elston after several applicants to his unit were denied, including a Harvard Law School graduate and former Justice summer intern who had worked as a paralegal at Planned Parenthood, the report said.
The honors and intern program report is the result of the first in a series of investigations into the role that politics may have played in law enforcement and hiring decisions at the Justice Department over the course of the Bush administration. Studies focusing on hiring and enforcement in the troubled civil rights division, the rationale for the U.S. attorneys' dismissal, and the role played by former Justice Department officials including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales could be issued soon, according to lawyers following the issues.
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who replaced Gonzales last year, said he has taken steps to overhaul the hiring process. Considering politics in hires for career slots is "unacceptable," Mukasey said in a statement.
Former Justice Department officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations said the study underscores the challenge for the next president.
"The Honors Program at DOJ has always been the 'A-List,'" said Nicholas M. Gess, a Justice official under President Bill Clinton. "The next attorney general will be stuck with many from the 'B-List."
From this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062400819_pf.html
Side note, back to yours truly: I bet most Americans don't know this happened, don't know about any of the events listed here, aren't aware of any real controversy and don't know the laws their own President's Administration is, yet again, breaking.
Pay attention, people!
Ideology-Based Hiring at Justice Broke Laws, Investigation Finds
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Senior Justice Department officials broke civil service laws by rejecting scores of young applicants who had links to Democrats or liberal organizations, according to a biting report issued yesterday.
The report by the Justice Department inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that a pair of high-ranking political appointees who are no longer with the department had violated department policy and the Civil Service Reform Act by using ideological reasons to scuttle the candidacy of lawyers who applied to the elite honors and summer intern programs.
In one instance, steering committee member Esther Slater McDonald deemed "unacceptable" an applicant who professed admiration for the environmental group Greenaction and passed over another with ties to the Poverty and Race Research Action Council, the report said.
McDonald, who left the Justice Department last year and now works for a law firm in the District, sent colleagues a Nov. 29, 2006, e-mail in which she complained about "leftist commentary and buzzwords" in applications. Many of the underlying documents, on which McDonald and others wrote comments, were destroyed before the probe began, according to the report.
Auditors also criticized Michael J. Elston, former chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, for failing to supervise McDonald and for weeding out candidates on his own based on "impermissible considerations." Elston may have denied one Stanford Law School applicant because she had written a law review article about gender discrimination in the military, the report said. Elston left the Justice Department last year amid questions about his role in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. He now works at a private law firm.
McDonald and Elston did not return calls for comment yesterday. Experts said they are unlikely to face sanctions for what investigators called deliberate "misconduct" because they have left government employment.
Traditionally, the highly coveted intern and honors jobs had been awarded based on merit. But in 2002, top Justice Department officials moved to give political appointees more control, prompting complaints from the career ranks. The problem flared up again in 2006, when hundreds of applications were rejected for questionable reasons, according to the report.
Candidates for the Honors Program that year whose résumés indicated liberal affiliations were weeded out at three times the rate of conservative-leaning applicants, investigators said. San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who was later fired for reasons that remain under investigation, reached out to no avail to Elston over the decision to reject a candidate who had won a prestigious appellate clerkship with a Democratic judge.
Peter Keisler, then chief of the Justice Department's civil division, called Elston after several applicants to his unit were denied, including a Harvard Law School graduate and former Justice summer intern who had worked as a paralegal at Planned Parenthood, the report said.
The honors and intern program report is the result of the first in a series of investigations into the role that politics may have played in law enforcement and hiring decisions at the Justice Department over the course of the Bush administration. Studies focusing on hiring and enforcement in the troubled civil rights division, the rationale for the U.S. attorneys' dismissal, and the role played by former Justice Department officials including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales could be issued soon, according to lawyers following the issues.
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who replaced Gonzales last year, said he has taken steps to overhaul the hiring process. Considering politics in hires for career slots is "unacceptable," Mukasey said in a statement.
Former Justice Department officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations said the study underscores the challenge for the next president.
"The Honors Program at DOJ has always been the 'A-List,'" said Nicholas M. Gess, a Justice official under President Bill Clinton. "The next attorney general will be stuck with many from the 'B-List."
From this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062400819_pf.html
Side note, back to yours truly: I bet most Americans don't know this happened, don't know about any of the events listed here, aren't aware of any real controversy and don't know the laws their own President's Administration is, yet again, breaking.
Pay attention, people!
The boy has stupid all over him
Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win'
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.
However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.
“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:
WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.
Kristol also suggested that Obama’s election would tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to think, “maybe we can use nuclear weapons.” Watch it:
Kristol’s belief that Bush might attack Iran before leaving office is not new. In April, he told Bill Bennett that it wasn’t “out of the question” that Bush would consider such a strike because “people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.”
The claim that Obama’s potential election could force Bush’s hand also isn’t new. Earlier this month, far-right pseudo scholar Daniel Pipes told National Review Online that “President Bush will do something” if the Democratic nominee won. “Should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt,” said Pipes.
Both Kristol and Pipes apparently agree with President Bush’s claim in March that McCain’s “not going to change” his foreign policy.
see the entire link here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-iran/
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.
However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.
“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:
WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.
Kristol also suggested that Obama’s election would tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to think, “maybe we can use nuclear weapons.” Watch it:
Kristol’s belief that Bush might attack Iran before leaving office is not new. In April, he told Bill Bennett that it wasn’t “out of the question” that Bush would consider such a strike because “people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.”
The claim that Obama’s potential election could force Bush’s hand also isn’t new. Earlier this month, far-right pseudo scholar Daniel Pipes told National Review Online that “President Bush will do something” if the Democratic nominee won. “Should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt,” said Pipes.
Both Kristol and Pipes apparently agree with President Bush’s claim in March that McCain’s “not going to change” his foreign policy.
see the entire link here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-iran/
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Bad Moon Rising
More evidence that we all need to pay attention to what's going on. In the past, I've said politically. Now, financially--locally, nationally and internationally.
For several reasons, I do, indeed, think there is at least a "bad moon rising", if not out-and-out financial turmoil coming down the pike, unless I'm mistaken and/or unless we do things differently, and very soon. I usually say the same thing, too, and that is, I hope I'm wrong.
The several things that make me think this are the following:
1) High household debt, per household, here in the States. In fact, it's at record levels, as we've heard for years. (http://www.occ.treas.gov/qj/qj24-1/3-SpecialStudies.pdf)
2) High national debt of the United States: Right now it stands at approximately 9 trillion dollars, and rising fast (thank you, Mr. Bush)(http://brillig.com/debt_clock/);
3) High deficit spending in by the United States due to the Iraqi war and the wide expansion of government, mostly in the past 7 years (thanks again, Mr. Bush) (http://www.deficitsdomatter.org/);
4) The housing crunch in the United States (and really, the world), right now (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/BIZ/801020387&sfad=1);
5) The credit crunch (intertwined with the housing crunch) right now (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/;
6) Low household savings in the United States (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2002/el2002-09.html):
7) All the "baby-boomers" about to retire--with all that debt and low savings rate--and the huge costs to the Social Security system on the United States (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/aging-boomers);
8) All those same "boomers" having crappy health care coverage, given the state of health care and how weak and nearly non-existent it is here in the States (http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=353);
9) The Medicare and Medicaid systems will both be tremendously burdened by these same "boomers" retiring in all their numbers (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm875.cfm);
10) The huge expansion of troubles in the American auto industry right now, in part due to the housing and credit troubles but also due to the extremely high prices of oil and the lack of competitiveness of the American automakers (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/06/gm-death-watch.html) and, finally,
11) The extremely high and really, explosive cost of oil internationally. This speaks for itself and drives up the cost of virtually everything, either in manufacturing and/or the delivery of those same goods (http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm).
Given all these factors, it seems like, virtually, the "perfect storm" for financial calamity, frankly. Honestly, I don't think the Great Depression of the 30's and 40's had this much going for it's creation, so many years ago.
I hope I'm just getting old and crotchety and all these things aren't really such a big deal after all.
But I don't think it's just me. I think I'm right about all this and, again, hope I'm wrong.
(As a side note, for an important, brief but poignant article on another aspect of our collective futures, go to this link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91681112. It also has the original audio interview it came from.)
For several reasons, I do, indeed, think there is at least a "bad moon rising", if not out-and-out financial turmoil coming down the pike, unless I'm mistaken and/or unless we do things differently, and very soon. I usually say the same thing, too, and that is, I hope I'm wrong.
The several things that make me think this are the following:
1) High household debt, per household, here in the States. In fact, it's at record levels, as we've heard for years. (http://www.occ.treas.gov/qj/qj24-1/3-SpecialStudies.pdf)
2) High national debt of the United States: Right now it stands at approximately 9 trillion dollars, and rising fast (thank you, Mr. Bush)(http://brillig.com/debt_clock/);
3) High deficit spending in by the United States due to the Iraqi war and the wide expansion of government, mostly in the past 7 years (thanks again, Mr. Bush) (http://www.deficitsdomatter.org/);
4) The housing crunch in the United States (and really, the world), right now (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/BIZ/801020387&sfad=1);
5) The credit crunch (intertwined with the housing crunch) right now (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/;
6) Low household savings in the United States (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2002/el2002-09.html):
7) All the "baby-boomers" about to retire--with all that debt and low savings rate--and the huge costs to the Social Security system on the United States (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/aging-boomers);
8) All those same "boomers" having crappy health care coverage, given the state of health care and how weak and nearly non-existent it is here in the States (http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=353);
9) The Medicare and Medicaid systems will both be tremendously burdened by these same "boomers" retiring in all their numbers (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm875.cfm);
10) The huge expansion of troubles in the American auto industry right now, in part due to the housing and credit troubles but also due to the extremely high prices of oil and the lack of competitiveness of the American automakers (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/06/gm-death-watch.html) and, finally,
11) The extremely high and really, explosive cost of oil internationally. This speaks for itself and drives up the cost of virtually everything, either in manufacturing and/or the delivery of those same goods (http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm).
Given all these factors, it seems like, virtually, the "perfect storm" for financial calamity, frankly. Honestly, I don't think the Great Depression of the 30's and 40's had this much going for it's creation, so many years ago.
I hope I'm just getting old and crotchety and all these things aren't really such a big deal after all.
But I don't think it's just me. I think I'm right about all this and, again, hope I'm wrong.
(As a side note, for an important, brief but poignant article on another aspect of our collective futures, go to this link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91681112. It also has the original audio interview it came from.)
The apple didn't fall far from the tree
George H. W. Bush (Bush 1) Quotes:
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." Brilliant. A forerunner to W, for sure.
"You cannot be President of the United States if you don't have faith. Remember Lincoln, going to his knees in times of trial in the Civil War and all that stuff." What history class was this guy in?
"I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it." Now, there's commitment.
"I'll be glad to reply to or dodge your questions, depending on what I think will help our election most." ...No doubt.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them. ...Wha?
"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of [CIA] sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." ...Unlike Junior and Darth Cheney.
But at least some times he showed intelligence--unlike Junior:
"I'm not what you call your basic intellectual." ...Extra credit for honesty here.
But sometimes, occasionally, anyway, he showed some intelligence, as in these quotes Junior should have followed:
"I can tell you this: If I'm ever in a position to call the shots, I'm not going to rush to send somebody else's kids into a war."
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.
If only.
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." Brilliant. A forerunner to W, for sure.
"You cannot be President of the United States if you don't have faith. Remember Lincoln, going to his knees in times of trial in the Civil War and all that stuff." What history class was this guy in?
"I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it." Now, there's commitment.
"I'll be glad to reply to or dodge your questions, depending on what I think will help our election most." ...No doubt.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them. ...Wha?
"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of [CIA] sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." ...Unlike Junior and Darth Cheney.
But at least some times he showed intelligence--unlike Junior:
"I'm not what you call your basic intellectual." ...Extra credit for honesty here.
But sometimes, occasionally, anyway, he showed some intelligence, as in these quotes Junior should have followed:
"I can tell you this: If I'm ever in a position to call the shots, I'm not going to rush to send somebody else's kids into a war."
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.
If only.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
I don't get it
I don't understand people's enjoyment of and interest in horror movies.
In the first place, there is such beauty in the world.
You don't think so?
Photograph flowers. Any flower. Heck, a dandelion.
Then look at it and see if you don't see brilliant, temporary, exhilarating color and vibrancy.
In the second place, you want terror? Instead of some phony, nonsense, fiction fright someone dreamed up, go read everything you can get your hands on about Union Carbide and what they did to so many people in India.
Read what US President Andrew Jackson--and a whole lot of other people--did to the Native Americans.
There's terror for you. There's unimaginable fright.
Imagine a whole people whose religion, language, culture, way of life and spirituality is taken away from them.
That's terror. That's horror.
And that's what we did to Native Americans.
No wonder so many became alcoholic and were otherwise wrecked.
And then there's the burning and death and mutilation that came from Union Carbide's chemical plant explosion near poverty-stricken people in India.
Terror. Unbelievable, unexpected, unimaginable--nearly unreported--terror.
And then there's what the greedheads--from President George W. Bush on down--are doing to America and Americans for the last 7 years. The list is a long one.
From what has happened in Iraq for the last 5 years, to hundreds of thousands of people being either killed or maimed--both Americans and Iraqis--to the raping of the American public for profits, the lists--yes, lists--are long of wrongs, horrors and horrible things visited upon people.
But some want to spend what little time we have for "entertainment" with a horror movie.
It's a luxury I don't appreciate. It's a luxury I don't understand. It's a luxury I don't have any patience for.
It really makes me angry.
In the first place, there is such beauty in the world.
You don't think so?
Photograph flowers. Any flower. Heck, a dandelion.
Then look at it and see if you don't see brilliant, temporary, exhilarating color and vibrancy.
In the second place, you want terror? Instead of some phony, nonsense, fiction fright someone dreamed up, go read everything you can get your hands on about Union Carbide and what they did to so many people in India.
Read what US President Andrew Jackson--and a whole lot of other people--did to the Native Americans.
There's terror for you. There's unimaginable fright.
Imagine a whole people whose religion, language, culture, way of life and spirituality is taken away from them.
That's terror. That's horror.
And that's what we did to Native Americans.
No wonder so many became alcoholic and were otherwise wrecked.
And then there's the burning and death and mutilation that came from Union Carbide's chemical plant explosion near poverty-stricken people in India.
Terror. Unbelievable, unexpected, unimaginable--nearly unreported--terror.
And then there's what the greedheads--from President George W. Bush on down--are doing to America and Americans for the last 7 years. The list is a long one.
From what has happened in Iraq for the last 5 years, to hundreds of thousands of people being either killed or maimed--both Americans and Iraqis--to the raping of the American public for profits, the lists--yes, lists--are long of wrongs, horrors and horrible things visited upon people.
But some want to spend what little time we have for "entertainment" with a horror movie.
It's a luxury I don't appreciate. It's a luxury I don't understand. It's a luxury I don't have any patience for.
It really makes me angry.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
At the beach
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
What your government is doing in your name
From Slate Magazine, just now:
A Timeline to Bush Government Torture
Newly public evidence sheds greater light on Bush officials' efforts to develop brutal interrogation techniques for the war on terror.
By Mark Benjamin
Jun. 18, 2008 | For years now, the Bush White House has claimed that the United States does not conduct torture. Prisoner abuse at places like Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, it has asserted, was an aberration -- the work of a few "bad apples" on the night shift. When the CIA used "enhanced" interrogation techniques such as waterboarding (simulated drowning), the abuse, according to Bush officials, did not add up to torture.
But as more and more documents from inside the Bush government come to light, it is increasingly clear that the administration sought from early on to implement interrogation techniques whose basis was torture. Soon after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon and the CIA began an orchestrated effort to tap expertise from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape school, for use in the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The U.S. military's SERE training is designed to inoculate elite soldiers, sailors and airmen to torture, in the event of their capture, by an enemy that would violate the Geneva Conventions. Those service members are subjected to forced nudity, stress positions, hooding, slapping, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and, yes, in some cases, waterboarding.
SERE training has nothing to do with effective interrogation, according to military experts. Trained interrogators don't work in the program. Skilled, experienced interrogators, in fact, say that only a fool would think that the training could somehow be reverse-engineered into effective interrogation techniques.
But that's exactly what the Bush government sought to do. As the plan rolled forward, military and law enforcement officials consistently sent up red flags that the SERE-based interrogation program wasn't just wrongheaded, it was probably illegal.
On Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing on the evolution of abusive interrogations under the Bush administration. Through a series of memos and documents released by the committee, some old and some new, the following timeline has now been established. Committee chairman Carl Levin, the senior Democrat from Michigan, discussed this timeline at length in his opening statement.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
July 2002 -- Richard Shiffrin, a deputy general counsel in the Department of Defense, called Lt. Col. Daniel Baumgartner Jr. from the military's SERE school. Shiffrin wanted information on SERE training techniques. Baumgartner testified on Tuesday that during this period, he received similar requests from the Defense Intelligence Agency and "another agency" he declined to name.
July 25 and 26, 2002 -- Baumgartner responded to the Pentagon request by sending two memos to the Pentagon's general counsel's office describing SERE training techniques. The memos discuss (among other things) sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, stress positions, waterboarding, slapping, sensory overload and diet manipulation. The hearing on Tuesday did not go into what information was sent to the DIA or the "other agency."
Aug. 1, 2002 -- The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel sent memos to Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, about the definition of torture. It sent another memo to the CIA. The memo to Gonzales defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The CIA memo remains classified.
Week of Sept. 16, 2002 -- Interrogators from Guantánamo Bay traveled to the SERE school at Fort Bragg, N.C., for training by SERE staff.
Sept. 25, 2002 -- David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel; acting CIA general counsel John Rizzo, Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes; and Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal Division at the Justice Department; all traveled to Guantánamo. They attended briefings on "intel techniques," according to a military after-action report.
Oct. 2, 2002 -- Jonathan Fredman, chief counsel to the CIA's counterterrorism center, went to Guantánamo. While there, Fredman discussed with military officials a classified memo on aggressive interrogation techniques prepared by a psychologist and psychiatrist who had attended SERE training at Fort Bragg, according to minutes from the meeting. In attendance was Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. Fredman explained that for the CIA, the Justice Department had to approve the use of "significantly harsh" techniques. He also agreed to show the military officials a copy of a CIA request regarding the use of those methods, so the military officials could see what such a request looks like. Among other things, military officials asked if the CIA used waterboarding, as taught through SERE. "If a well trained individual is used to perform this technique it can feel like you are drowning," Fredman replied, according to the minutes. "The lymphatic system will react as if you're suffocating, but your body will not cease to function. It is very effective to identify phobias and use them, i.e.; insects, snakes, claustrophobia." The meeting minutes also show a discussion about hiding detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Oct. 11, 2002 -- Maj. Gen. Michael Dunlavey, who was in charge of Guantánamo, sent a memo to his superiors at U.S. Southern Command requesting approval of the use of three categories of increasingly brutal interrogation techniques. They included stress positions, exploitation of phobias, forced nudity, hooding, isolation, sensory deprivation, exposure to cold, and waterboarding. Attached was a memo from Beaver, justifying the legality of the techniques.
Oct. 25, 2002 -- U.S. Southern Command Cmdr. Gen. James Hill forwarded the request to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Early November 2002 -- Push-back: In a series of scathing memos, alarmed military officials from all four services raised questions about the legality and effectiveness of the techniques under consideration. The Air Force cited "serious concerns regarding the legality" of the techniques. The chief of the Army's international law division said some of the techniques, like stress positions and sensory deprivation, "cross the line of 'humane' treatment.'" He added that the techniques "may violate the torture statute." The Navy called for further legal review. The Marine Corps wrote that the techniques "arguably violate federal law."
Nov. 23, 2002 -- The interrogation of a prisoner named Mohammed al-Khatani began at Guantánamo. The list of SERE-based indignities visited upon Khatani is long. Among them: Khatani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash. He received 18-to-20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days. (Last month, the Convening Authority for military commissions "dismissed without prejudice" the charges against al-Khatani.)
Nov. 27, 2002 -- Despite the concerns raised by military leaders, Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel, sent a memo to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommending approval of all but three of the techniques requested for use at Guantánamo by Dunlavey. Among the things Haynes recommended for approval: stress positions, forced nudity, use of dogs and sensory deprivation.
Dec. 2, 2002 -- Rumsfeld approved Haynes' memo authorizing the harsh techniques for Guantánamo. He added a now infamous handwritten note about forcing prisoners to stand for long periods: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" A copy of the memo signed by Rumsfeld was sent from Guantánamo to Afghanistan.
Early December 2002 -- Senior staff at Guantánamo drafted standard operating procedures for using SERE techniques during interrogations. According to the procedures, SERE training techniques "can be used to break real detainees during interrogation." That included slapping, stripping, stress positions and hooding.
Dec. 17, 2002 -- Push-back: FBI officials balked at the Guantánamo standard operating procedure, writing in a memo that law enforcement officials "object to these aggressive interrogation techniques."
Dec. 20, 2002 -- Push-back: Alberto Mora, then general counsel of the Navy, meets with Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel. Mora strongly objects to the techniques approved by Rumsfeld for Guantánamo. A memo describing the meeting shows Mora told Haynes that the techniques approved by Rumsfeld "could rise to the level of torture."
Dec. 30, 2002 -- Two instructors from the Navy SERE program arrive at Guantánamo. The next day, they school 24 members of the interrogation staff about slapping and stress positions.
January 2003 -- The officer in charge of the intelligence section at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan viewed a PowerPoint presentation on the techniques approved by Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002.
Jan. 9, 2003 -- Push-back: Mora met with Haynes again and objected to the interrogation techniques.
Jan. 15, 2003 -- Push-back: Mora urged Haynes to rescind the interrogation techniques authorized at Guantánamo. Mora said that if the abuse were not rolled back, he would sign a memo declaring that some of the more aggressive techniques approved by Rumsfeld "were violative of domestic and international legal norms." Rumsfeld rescinded his Dec. 2, 2002, memo authorizing harsh interrogation techniques.
Jan. 15, 2003 -- Rumsfeld established a "working group" to develop interrogation techniques to replace his Dec. 2, 2002, memorandum he had rescinded under pressure from Mora.
Jan. 24, 2003 -- A military attorney in Afghanistan produced an interrogation memo, which remains classified. A military report later divulged that the memo included some techniques approved by Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002, including the use of dogs and forced nudity.
March 14, 2003 -- John Yoo, from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, drafted a memo on interrogations claiming that anti-torture law would not apply to some interrogations. Rumsfeld's working group has been widely criticized for disregarding the input of military attorneys such as Mora, and following Yoo's guidance.
Early 2003 -- Special Mission Unit forces in Iraq developed interrogation protocol based on techniques in use in Afghanistan. Interrogations included yelling, loud music, light control, exposure to heat and cold, sleep deprivation, stress positions and use of dogs for intimidation. The interrogation officer in charge of Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of the Special Mission Unit policy and submitted it to her command as proposed policy for use by conventional U.S. forces in Iraq.
April 16, 2003 -- Based on his working group's recommendations, Rumsfeld approved another list of interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo. It authorized dietary manipulation, environmental manipulation and sleep "adjustment." It also said other techniques might be approved on request.
Aug. 13, 2003 -- Rumsfeld approved an interrogation program for a specific prisoner at Guantánamo, Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Documents from the plan remain classified. A Department of Defense inspector general report cites an FBI agent who saw a draft of the plan. The agent said it was similar to the plan for Khatani.
September 2003 -- SERE instructors are deployed to Iraq to assist interrogators, in response to a request from commander of the Special Mission Unit Task Force.
Sept. 14, 2003 -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq, issued a standard operating procedure for interrogation that authorized stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management and use of dogs.
April 2004 -- Prisoner abuse by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib comes to light and becomes a worldwide scandal. Pictures showed forced nudity, stress positions, hooding, sexual humiliation and other SERE-based techniques.
-- By Mark Benjamin
A Timeline to Bush Government Torture
Newly public evidence sheds greater light on Bush officials' efforts to develop brutal interrogation techniques for the war on terror.
By Mark Benjamin
Jun. 18, 2008 | For years now, the Bush White House has claimed that the United States does not conduct torture. Prisoner abuse at places like Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, it has asserted, was an aberration -- the work of a few "bad apples" on the night shift. When the CIA used "enhanced" interrogation techniques such as waterboarding (simulated drowning), the abuse, according to Bush officials, did not add up to torture.
But as more and more documents from inside the Bush government come to light, it is increasingly clear that the administration sought from early on to implement interrogation techniques whose basis was torture. Soon after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon and the CIA began an orchestrated effort to tap expertise from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape school, for use in the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The U.S. military's SERE training is designed to inoculate elite soldiers, sailors and airmen to torture, in the event of their capture, by an enemy that would violate the Geneva Conventions. Those service members are subjected to forced nudity, stress positions, hooding, slapping, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and, yes, in some cases, waterboarding.
SERE training has nothing to do with effective interrogation, according to military experts. Trained interrogators don't work in the program. Skilled, experienced interrogators, in fact, say that only a fool would think that the training could somehow be reverse-engineered into effective interrogation techniques.
But that's exactly what the Bush government sought to do. As the plan rolled forward, military and law enforcement officials consistently sent up red flags that the SERE-based interrogation program wasn't just wrongheaded, it was probably illegal.
On Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing on the evolution of abusive interrogations under the Bush administration. Through a series of memos and documents released by the committee, some old and some new, the following timeline has now been established. Committee chairman Carl Levin, the senior Democrat from Michigan, discussed this timeline at length in his opening statement.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
July 2002 -- Richard Shiffrin, a deputy general counsel in the Department of Defense, called Lt. Col. Daniel Baumgartner Jr. from the military's SERE school. Shiffrin wanted information on SERE training techniques. Baumgartner testified on Tuesday that during this period, he received similar requests from the Defense Intelligence Agency and "another agency" he declined to name.
July 25 and 26, 2002 -- Baumgartner responded to the Pentagon request by sending two memos to the Pentagon's general counsel's office describing SERE training techniques. The memos discuss (among other things) sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, stress positions, waterboarding, slapping, sensory overload and diet manipulation. The hearing on Tuesday did not go into what information was sent to the DIA or the "other agency."
Aug. 1, 2002 -- The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel sent memos to Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, about the definition of torture. It sent another memo to the CIA. The memo to Gonzales defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The CIA memo remains classified.
Week of Sept. 16, 2002 -- Interrogators from Guantánamo Bay traveled to the SERE school at Fort Bragg, N.C., for training by SERE staff.
Sept. 25, 2002 -- David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel; acting CIA general counsel John Rizzo, Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes; and Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal Division at the Justice Department; all traveled to Guantánamo. They attended briefings on "intel techniques," according to a military after-action report.
Oct. 2, 2002 -- Jonathan Fredman, chief counsel to the CIA's counterterrorism center, went to Guantánamo. While there, Fredman discussed with military officials a classified memo on aggressive interrogation techniques prepared by a psychologist and psychiatrist who had attended SERE training at Fort Bragg, according to minutes from the meeting. In attendance was Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. Fredman explained that for the CIA, the Justice Department had to approve the use of "significantly harsh" techniques. He also agreed to show the military officials a copy of a CIA request regarding the use of those methods, so the military officials could see what such a request looks like. Among other things, military officials asked if the CIA used waterboarding, as taught through SERE. "If a well trained individual is used to perform this technique it can feel like you are drowning," Fredman replied, according to the minutes. "The lymphatic system will react as if you're suffocating, but your body will not cease to function. It is very effective to identify phobias and use them, i.e.; insects, snakes, claustrophobia." The meeting minutes also show a discussion about hiding detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Oct. 11, 2002 -- Maj. Gen. Michael Dunlavey, who was in charge of Guantánamo, sent a memo to his superiors at U.S. Southern Command requesting approval of the use of three categories of increasingly brutal interrogation techniques. They included stress positions, exploitation of phobias, forced nudity, hooding, isolation, sensory deprivation, exposure to cold, and waterboarding. Attached was a memo from Beaver, justifying the legality of the techniques.
Oct. 25, 2002 -- U.S. Southern Command Cmdr. Gen. James Hill forwarded the request to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Early November 2002 -- Push-back: In a series of scathing memos, alarmed military officials from all four services raised questions about the legality and effectiveness of the techniques under consideration. The Air Force cited "serious concerns regarding the legality" of the techniques. The chief of the Army's international law division said some of the techniques, like stress positions and sensory deprivation, "cross the line of 'humane' treatment.'" He added that the techniques "may violate the torture statute." The Navy called for further legal review. The Marine Corps wrote that the techniques "arguably violate federal law."
Nov. 23, 2002 -- The interrogation of a prisoner named Mohammed al-Khatani began at Guantánamo. The list of SERE-based indignities visited upon Khatani is long. Among them: Khatani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash. He received 18-to-20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days. (Last month, the Convening Authority for military commissions "dismissed without prejudice" the charges against al-Khatani.)
Nov. 27, 2002 -- Despite the concerns raised by military leaders, Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel, sent a memo to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommending approval of all but three of the techniques requested for use at Guantánamo by Dunlavey. Among the things Haynes recommended for approval: stress positions, forced nudity, use of dogs and sensory deprivation.
Dec. 2, 2002 -- Rumsfeld approved Haynes' memo authorizing the harsh techniques for Guantánamo. He added a now infamous handwritten note about forcing prisoners to stand for long periods: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" A copy of the memo signed by Rumsfeld was sent from Guantánamo to Afghanistan.
Early December 2002 -- Senior staff at Guantánamo drafted standard operating procedures for using SERE techniques during interrogations. According to the procedures, SERE training techniques "can be used to break real detainees during interrogation." That included slapping, stripping, stress positions and hooding.
Dec. 17, 2002 -- Push-back: FBI officials balked at the Guantánamo standard operating procedure, writing in a memo that law enforcement officials "object to these aggressive interrogation techniques."
Dec. 20, 2002 -- Push-back: Alberto Mora, then general counsel of the Navy, meets with Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel. Mora strongly objects to the techniques approved by Rumsfeld for Guantánamo. A memo describing the meeting shows Mora told Haynes that the techniques approved by Rumsfeld "could rise to the level of torture."
Dec. 30, 2002 -- Two instructors from the Navy SERE program arrive at Guantánamo. The next day, they school 24 members of the interrogation staff about slapping and stress positions.
January 2003 -- The officer in charge of the intelligence section at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan viewed a PowerPoint presentation on the techniques approved by Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002.
Jan. 9, 2003 -- Push-back: Mora met with Haynes again and objected to the interrogation techniques.
Jan. 15, 2003 -- Push-back: Mora urged Haynes to rescind the interrogation techniques authorized at Guantánamo. Mora said that if the abuse were not rolled back, he would sign a memo declaring that some of the more aggressive techniques approved by Rumsfeld "were violative of domestic and international legal norms." Rumsfeld rescinded his Dec. 2, 2002, memo authorizing harsh interrogation techniques.
Jan. 15, 2003 -- Rumsfeld established a "working group" to develop interrogation techniques to replace his Dec. 2, 2002, memorandum he had rescinded under pressure from Mora.
Jan. 24, 2003 -- A military attorney in Afghanistan produced an interrogation memo, which remains classified. A military report later divulged that the memo included some techniques approved by Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002, including the use of dogs and forced nudity.
March 14, 2003 -- John Yoo, from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, drafted a memo on interrogations claiming that anti-torture law would not apply to some interrogations. Rumsfeld's working group has been widely criticized for disregarding the input of military attorneys such as Mora, and following Yoo's guidance.
Early 2003 -- Special Mission Unit forces in Iraq developed interrogation protocol based on techniques in use in Afghanistan. Interrogations included yelling, loud music, light control, exposure to heat and cold, sleep deprivation, stress positions and use of dogs for intimidation. The interrogation officer in charge of Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of the Special Mission Unit policy and submitted it to her command as proposed policy for use by conventional U.S. forces in Iraq.
April 16, 2003 -- Based on his working group's recommendations, Rumsfeld approved another list of interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo. It authorized dietary manipulation, environmental manipulation and sleep "adjustment." It also said other techniques might be approved on request.
Aug. 13, 2003 -- Rumsfeld approved an interrogation program for a specific prisoner at Guantánamo, Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Documents from the plan remain classified. A Department of Defense inspector general report cites an FBI agent who saw a draft of the plan. The agent said it was similar to the plan for Khatani.
September 2003 -- SERE instructors are deployed to Iraq to assist interrogators, in response to a request from commander of the Special Mission Unit Task Force.
Sept. 14, 2003 -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq, issued a standard operating procedure for interrogation that authorized stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management and use of dogs.
April 2004 -- Prisoner abuse by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib comes to light and becomes a worldwide scandal. Pictures showed forced nudity, stress positions, hooding, sexual humiliation and other SERE-based techniques.
-- By Mark Benjamin
Monday, June 16, 2008
The George W. Bush Administration vs. The American People
Did you hear this today on NPR? Yeah, more proof of just how great a job George W. Bush and his pals are doing for--no, to--the American People.
You know? When I was younger, I knew there was a part of the government that was fighting for us. There was the part regulating big business. There was the part having corporations to keep pollution to a minimum.
No more.
Not since George Bush got elected in 2000.
Check this out.
In December, 2000, the Enron Corporation--yeah, no kidding, THOSE GUYS--recommended that the Bush Administration DEREGULATE the oil speculation markets. It is now, technically considered a "dark" market. That is, we don't know who's speculating on or in the oil markets, we don't know how, we don't know what they're doing, nothing. All thanks to those geniuses at Enron. Oh, and the White House. Dick Cheney. George Walker Bush. All of 'em. et al.
Prior to 2000 and this "Enron Clause", as it is now referred to, THE UNITED STATES REGULATED THE OIL INDUSTRY AND THIS SPECULATION FOR 78 YEARS. No kidding. For all that time, it was that important. Once we put the foxes in charge of the chicken house, it was all over.
Now does it make any sense why oil is over $130.00 a barrel?
In this same radio show, it was speculated that oil would likely fall to between $60.00 to $80.00 per barrel WITHIN A MONTH if we again regulated the oil speculation markets.
So the question was, do you want to do this with a deep, painful recession, that hurts millions of people around the globe, over time, to reduce the price of oil or do you want to do this more logically, with regulation, over about a month?
Tough question, eh?
You know? When I was younger, I knew there was a part of the government that was fighting for us. There was the part regulating big business. There was the part having corporations to keep pollution to a minimum.
No more.
Not since George Bush got elected in 2000.
Check this out.
In December, 2000, the Enron Corporation--yeah, no kidding, THOSE GUYS--recommended that the Bush Administration DEREGULATE the oil speculation markets. It is now, technically considered a "dark" market. That is, we don't know who's speculating on or in the oil markets, we don't know how, we don't know what they're doing, nothing. All thanks to those geniuses at Enron. Oh, and the White House. Dick Cheney. George Walker Bush. All of 'em. et al.
Prior to 2000 and this "Enron Clause", as it is now referred to, THE UNITED STATES REGULATED THE OIL INDUSTRY AND THIS SPECULATION FOR 78 YEARS. No kidding. For all that time, it was that important. Once we put the foxes in charge of the chicken house, it was all over.
Now does it make any sense why oil is over $130.00 a barrel?
In this same radio show, it was speculated that oil would likely fall to between $60.00 to $80.00 per barrel WITHIN A MONTH if we again regulated the oil speculation markets.
So the question was, do you want to do this with a deep, painful recession, that hurts millions of people around the globe, over time, to reduce the price of oil or do you want to do this more logically, with regulation, over about a month?
Tough question, eh?
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Okay, so where do you figure this is from? The Caribbean? Hawaii? The South of France? No, no and no. Actually, it's from Chicago, as any Chicagoan--and visitors like me--would know. Pretty incredible. It'll be even more unbelievable come next January, when it's grey and white, cold and icy. But for now, ahhhh.
Check this out
Did you know that your own--our own--government, the United States government, is paying--yes, paying--Iraqis, regularly, "in exchange for not fighting" in Iraq?
If not, then, do you know how may Iraqis we are paying to not fight?
It's hard to believe.
91,600 Iraqis.* Regularly.
Thank you, once again, George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and all others involved and responsible.
Good plan, guys.
*Harper's Magazine, June, 2008, P. 15 (Multi-National Force, Iraq, Baghdad)
If not, then, do you know how may Iraqis we are paying to not fight?
It's hard to believe.
91,600 Iraqis.* Regularly.
Thank you, once again, George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and all others involved and responsible.
Good plan, guys.
*Harper's Magazine, June, 2008, P. 15 (Multi-National Force, Iraq, Baghdad)
Another of many reasons why you, the American people, need to know what your government is doing
US Seeking 58 Bases in Iraq, Shiite Lawmakers Say
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-seeking-58-bases-iraq-shiite-lawmakers-say
Leila Fadel, of McClatchy Newspapers: "Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed 'status of forces' agreement that will allow US troops to remain in the country indefinitely. Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another US demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran."
From www.truthout.org. Check it out.
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-seeking-58-bases-iraq-shiite-lawmakers-say
Leila Fadel, of McClatchy Newspapers: "Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed 'status of forces' agreement that will allow US troops to remain in the country indefinitely. Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another US demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran."
From www.truthout.org. Check it out.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
I was in Chicago earlier in the week on business. One afternoon, I walked from the Merchandise Mart, along the river, out to Michigan Avenue, down to The Drake Hotel, out to the lake and down the lake to Grant Park. From there I took a cab back to the Mart, where I got my luggage and took the L to Midway for my (late) flight home. It was my most productive day, in quantity, for photos, ever.
I took this under a bridge (obviously) out by the lake, near the marina. I liked the color, strength and patterns of the girders, among everything else.
It was great fun.
A Lesson
The George W. Bush Administration should go down in history as a lesson for the United States and the world--for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, the Right, the Left, in short, everyone, everywhere--to show what the world is like when greedy corporations run that same world. It shows its graft, corruption, greed, incompetence, lack of care for the weak, ill, poor, etc., and sheer irresponsibility. It is exactly what President Eisenhower and Ralph Nader, both, among many, many others, warned us about, long before now and it's ignored at our larger, greater peril.
All this said, I should mention, as I said earlier on this blog, it wasn't my intention to have so much of this be about the Bush Administration and corporate America and international conglomerates running roughshod over the planet and its citizens. But with all this administration has blatantly done and with such contempt for the man on the street, it galls me that more people aren't paying attention. It has seemed it needed pointing out. That and the fact that it's cathartic to and for me, to put ideas, thoughts and facts down, so people can either know more of what's going on or, yes, hear my thoughts. It isn't meant to be about me.
Once "W" is gone, next January, I hope to broaden this blog, to more things of the world. It isn't that all the ugliness and selfishness and greed are going to leave the world with his exit, far from it. I just hope the blatant power-grabbing and sheer evil of Darth Cheney and the whole cabal will be gone and we can get back to doing more, better work for everyone's sake.
I'm not naive. We'll still need to change thigs, sure. And corporations aren't going away, along with grubby politicians. But I do hope we improve somewhat, if not a lot. The circumstances are going to require it, I think and believe.
All this said, I should mention, as I said earlier on this blog, it wasn't my intention to have so much of this be about the Bush Administration and corporate America and international conglomerates running roughshod over the planet and its citizens. But with all this administration has blatantly done and with such contempt for the man on the street, it galls me that more people aren't paying attention. It has seemed it needed pointing out. That and the fact that it's cathartic to and for me, to put ideas, thoughts and facts down, so people can either know more of what's going on or, yes, hear my thoughts. It isn't meant to be about me.
Once "W" is gone, next January, I hope to broaden this blog, to more things of the world. It isn't that all the ugliness and selfishness and greed are going to leave the world with his exit, far from it. I just hope the blatant power-grabbing and sheer evil of Darth Cheney and the whole cabal will be gone and we can get back to doing more, better work for everyone's sake.
I'm not naive. We'll still need to change thigs, sure. And corporations aren't going away, along with grubby politicians. But I do hope we improve somewhat, if not a lot. The circumstances are going to require it, I think and believe.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Mark my words
Put down the date: June 12, 2008.
It's the day I predict that the American people are going to have the largest and most public celebration ever for this quadrennial event--including dancing in the streets (it will be on the news that evening) next January 20, 2009, to celebrate President George Walker Bush taking leave of office.
It's one of the few good things that will come from these last 8 years--and his tenure.
It's the day I predict that the American people are going to have the largest and most public celebration ever for this quadrennial event--including dancing in the streets (it will be on the news that evening) next January 20, 2009, to celebrate President George Walker Bush taking leave of office.
It's one of the few good things that will come from these last 8 years--and his tenure.
The most unbelievable, George W. Bush
You see? There are three things about George W. Bush that make him so unique. The first two--the main parts, his core, really--drive you mad. But the third one is the relief.
First, there is his virtually total ignorance, especially about all things political and historical. If he were an average citizen, it would be bad enough. But as PRESIDENT, for God's sake, it's criminal--and has turned out tragic.
Then there is almost complete lack of imagination. You wanna' bet "W" has never played a game of chess in his life? (Sure, it's an easy bet but, hey, it's out there). Can you imagine him thinking 3 PLAYS OUT, for crying out loud, as to what someone else will do, if he does "x"? No, ain't gonna happen.
So thirdly, then, is the only thing that comes from this chucklehead that makes life bearable. It's no replacement for intelligence and creativity but if we didn't have "W" for his nearly continuous source of humor--and as a butt for our jokes--we'd all go mad.
Like this, in the paper today: speaking to the The Times of London, of all papers, he 'noted that, like Frank Sinatra, he has a few regrets...'. He says "I think in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric,' the President explained, then added that saying such things as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" might have "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If I hadn't read it myself, I would never have believed it.
You can't write fiction that good.
First, there is his virtually total ignorance, especially about all things political and historical. If he were an average citizen, it would be bad enough. But as PRESIDENT, for God's sake, it's criminal--and has turned out tragic.
Then there is almost complete lack of imagination. You wanna' bet "W" has never played a game of chess in his life? (Sure, it's an easy bet but, hey, it's out there). Can you imagine him thinking 3 PLAYS OUT, for crying out loud, as to what someone else will do, if he does "x"? No, ain't gonna happen.
So thirdly, then, is the only thing that comes from this chucklehead that makes life bearable. It's no replacement for intelligence and creativity but if we didn't have "W" for his nearly continuous source of humor--and as a butt for our jokes--we'd all go mad.
Like this, in the paper today: speaking to the The Times of London, of all papers, he 'noted that, like Frank Sinatra, he has a few regrets...'. He says "I think in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric,' the President explained, then added that saying such things as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" might have "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If I hadn't read it myself, I would never have believed it.
You can't write fiction that good.
Makes ya' wanna pay more taxes, don't it?
Just lifted from Yahoo and the AP because I can't say it better than this:
Too many dollars, too few Army investigators
June 12, 2008 1:11 PM EDT
FORT BELVOIR, Va. - Double-billing. Bribes. Kickbacks. Military contracts are big targets for serious crimes - and there aren't nearly enough investigators to catch them all.
The Army's contracting budget has exploded since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began - from $46 billion in 2002 to $112 billion in 2007. Yet the number of people who hunt down crooked companies and corrupt officials has stayed about the same, according to Associated Press interviews and research.
Army investigation chiefs told the AP they need a dramatic increase in agents to fight contract fraud.
In combat zones, deals can be made quickly, often with foreign companies in countries where bribes are a routine part of doing business. Yet to monitor those billions in contracts, just under 100 civilian agents are assigned to the Army Criminal Investigation Command's procurement fraud office.
Even with more fraud police, there would be no guarantees. Flaws in how the Army awards and manages contracts, especially overseas, also need repairs to curb criminal activity.
"It's sort of like an assembly line for cars and having more checkers at the end of the line when the people aren't building the cars right," said Jacques Gansler, a military acquisition expert. "What we really need to eliminate the abuse is people doing it right in the first place."
Until that happens, the Army's procurement fraud team faces an increasingly complex workload that requires frequent overseas travel and specialized training to spot foul play in mountains of arcane paperwork.
"There's obviously more going on out there today than there was five years ago, but I have the same number of people," said Wes Kilgore, director of the command's Major Procurement Fraud Unit.
There are 95 ongoing investigations into Army contract irregularities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. An additional 500 fraud cases have been launched in the United States, but most of those are not related to wartime contracts.
Under a proposal now being reviewed by senior Army officials at the Pentagon, Kilgore's staff would increase by 143 agents and 30 support personnel between 2010 and 2015. Army leaders approved a request last year to add 36 employees, including 23 agents. Those extra hands are still being hired or trained, however.
Overall, the 166 new agents would cost about $21.5 million a year.
If the latest request is approved, Kilgore's unit would eventually have 260 agents to uncover and prevent contract fraud.
"We're concerned, and that's why we've pushed so hard on getting these numbers ramped up rather than sitting on our hands," said Daniel Quinn, the command's chief of staff. "It's the same reason why police departments will put cops out on a beat or patrol cars flooding an area. If you have a higher chance of getting caught, you're not going to be out there committing a crime."
Criminal Investigation Command officials rarely grant interviews. The decision to speak with a reporter reflects how critical the new hires are to them.
It's not just the enormous flow of wartime money, it's the speed with which contracts are awarded that lures the cheaters. Location is key, too. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, supplies such as bottled water, shipping containers, food and transportation might be needed quickly from local vendors. If only a few suppliers can fill the order, the choices may be limited. But the potential for a crooked deal is not.
Army Col. Joe Ethridge, commander of the 701st Military Police Group, likens the situation to buying a plane ticket for travel to a remote location the day before a holiday weekend.
"The vendors know going in (the customer is) going to want this really fast and there's not going to be a lot of competition," said Ethridge, whose military police group includes Kilgore's procurement fraud unit.
Another pitfall of overseas contracting - known in military circles as contingency or expeditionary contracting - is the expectation of bribes. In the Middle East and other parts of the world, they're often assumed to be part of the deal.
"The threat and the opportunity of money passing hands is always there," Ethridge said. "So it's a pretty tough environment to do contracting in, and it's a pretty tough environment to do oversight."
Ethridge and other command officials said they didn't anticipate how reliant the Army would be on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Private companies get paid to provide base security, drive trucks, operate warehouses and serve meals. Contracts for these and other services can be difficult to manage.
"This is a change in how we operate and creates threats that we're going to have to address," Ethridge said.
The investigation command has procurement fraud offices in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. The Iraq office opened in December 2005, two years after the U.S.-led invasion, and the others followed.
In retrospect, the command should have dispatched its fraud agents more quickly, says Quinn, the command's chief of staff.
"They (didn't) have to be with the 1st Armored Division moving up the highway," he said. "But we probably should have sent our fraud guys in there early on."
The concern, and need for more people, is shared by other oversight organizations. In a March 31 report to Congress, the office of the Pentagon inspector general said its ability to adequately audit and investigate military activities and budgets has become strained because staffing levels haven't increased.
The gap, the report said, means a greater chance for fraud, waste and abuse. The Pentagon inspector general and the Army criminal investigation command are separate organizations, although their agents often work together.
The March report was made public last month by the Project on Government Oversight, a public interest group in Washington.
Each new agent costs about $130,000 a year in salary, benefits, training, and equipment.
Army investigation command officials say the investment pays big returns. With fewer than 100 agents, the procurement fraud unit now generates about $130 million a year in recoveries, about $10 million more than the command's annual operating budget.
The pitch for more investigators has to be weighed against an ongoing effort to expand and improve the Army's contracting corps. In October, an independent panel sharply criticized the Army's ability to award and manage contracts, especially for overseas combat forces.
That panel, chaired by Gansler, a former Pentagon acquisition chief, said the Army's contracting employees were "understaffed, overworked, undertrained, undersupported and, most important, undervalued."
The criticisms led the Army to order a major overhaul of the way it buys gear and supplies for the troops. Chief among the moves is the formation of a new contracting command to better manage military purchasing and the addition of 1,400 contracting personnel.
---
On the Net:
Army Criminal Investigation Command: http://www.cid.army.mil/
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Too many dollars, too few Army investigators
June 12, 2008 1:11 PM EDT
FORT BELVOIR, Va. - Double-billing. Bribes. Kickbacks. Military contracts are big targets for serious crimes - and there aren't nearly enough investigators to catch them all.
The Army's contracting budget has exploded since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began - from $46 billion in 2002 to $112 billion in 2007. Yet the number of people who hunt down crooked companies and corrupt officials has stayed about the same, according to Associated Press interviews and research.
Army investigation chiefs told the AP they need a dramatic increase in agents to fight contract fraud.
In combat zones, deals can be made quickly, often with foreign companies in countries where bribes are a routine part of doing business. Yet to monitor those billions in contracts, just under 100 civilian agents are assigned to the Army Criminal Investigation Command's procurement fraud office.
Even with more fraud police, there would be no guarantees. Flaws in how the Army awards and manages contracts, especially overseas, also need repairs to curb criminal activity.
"It's sort of like an assembly line for cars and having more checkers at the end of the line when the people aren't building the cars right," said Jacques Gansler, a military acquisition expert. "What we really need to eliminate the abuse is people doing it right in the first place."
Until that happens, the Army's procurement fraud team faces an increasingly complex workload that requires frequent overseas travel and specialized training to spot foul play in mountains of arcane paperwork.
"There's obviously more going on out there today than there was five years ago, but I have the same number of people," said Wes Kilgore, director of the command's Major Procurement Fraud Unit.
There are 95 ongoing investigations into Army contract irregularities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. An additional 500 fraud cases have been launched in the United States, but most of those are not related to wartime contracts.
Under a proposal now being reviewed by senior Army officials at the Pentagon, Kilgore's staff would increase by 143 agents and 30 support personnel between 2010 and 2015. Army leaders approved a request last year to add 36 employees, including 23 agents. Those extra hands are still being hired or trained, however.
Overall, the 166 new agents would cost about $21.5 million a year.
If the latest request is approved, Kilgore's unit would eventually have 260 agents to uncover and prevent contract fraud.
"We're concerned, and that's why we've pushed so hard on getting these numbers ramped up rather than sitting on our hands," said Daniel Quinn, the command's chief of staff. "It's the same reason why police departments will put cops out on a beat or patrol cars flooding an area. If you have a higher chance of getting caught, you're not going to be out there committing a crime."
Criminal Investigation Command officials rarely grant interviews. The decision to speak with a reporter reflects how critical the new hires are to them.
It's not just the enormous flow of wartime money, it's the speed with which contracts are awarded that lures the cheaters. Location is key, too. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, supplies such as bottled water, shipping containers, food and transportation might be needed quickly from local vendors. If only a few suppliers can fill the order, the choices may be limited. But the potential for a crooked deal is not.
Army Col. Joe Ethridge, commander of the 701st Military Police Group, likens the situation to buying a plane ticket for travel to a remote location the day before a holiday weekend.
"The vendors know going in (the customer is) going to want this really fast and there's not going to be a lot of competition," said Ethridge, whose military police group includes Kilgore's procurement fraud unit.
Another pitfall of overseas contracting - known in military circles as contingency or expeditionary contracting - is the expectation of bribes. In the Middle East and other parts of the world, they're often assumed to be part of the deal.
"The threat and the opportunity of money passing hands is always there," Ethridge said. "So it's a pretty tough environment to do contracting in, and it's a pretty tough environment to do oversight."
Ethridge and other command officials said they didn't anticipate how reliant the Army would be on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Private companies get paid to provide base security, drive trucks, operate warehouses and serve meals. Contracts for these and other services can be difficult to manage.
"This is a change in how we operate and creates threats that we're going to have to address," Ethridge said.
The investigation command has procurement fraud offices in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. The Iraq office opened in December 2005, two years after the U.S.-led invasion, and the others followed.
In retrospect, the command should have dispatched its fraud agents more quickly, says Quinn, the command's chief of staff.
"They (didn't) have to be with the 1st Armored Division moving up the highway," he said. "But we probably should have sent our fraud guys in there early on."
The concern, and need for more people, is shared by other oversight organizations. In a March 31 report to Congress, the office of the Pentagon inspector general said its ability to adequately audit and investigate military activities and budgets has become strained because staffing levels haven't increased.
The gap, the report said, means a greater chance for fraud, waste and abuse. The Pentagon inspector general and the Army criminal investigation command are separate organizations, although their agents often work together.
The March report was made public last month by the Project on Government Oversight, a public interest group in Washington.
Each new agent costs about $130,000 a year in salary, benefits, training, and equipment.
Army investigation command officials say the investment pays big returns. With fewer than 100 agents, the procurement fraud unit now generates about $130 million a year in recoveries, about $10 million more than the command's annual operating budget.
The pitch for more investigators has to be weighed against an ongoing effort to expand and improve the Army's contracting corps. In October, an independent panel sharply criticized the Army's ability to award and manage contracts, especially for overseas combat forces.
That panel, chaired by Gansler, a former Pentagon acquisition chief, said the Army's contracting employees were "understaffed, overworked, undertrained, undersupported and, most important, undervalued."
The criticisms led the Army to order a major overhaul of the way it buys gear and supplies for the troops. Chief among the moves is the formation of a new contracting command to better manage military purchasing and the addition of 1,400 contracting personnel.
---
On the Net:
Army Criminal Investigation Command: http://www.cid.army.mil/
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Proof of why, I think, we should be optimistic about solar power--and all of our futures
Ray Kurzweil, the scientist and futurist, writes the following about the future of solar power, our harnessing it and why we can be optimistic about mankind's future on this planet, even when considering climate change, the oil lobby, oil coming out of the lunatic Middle East, pollution, etc:
I'm Confident About Energy, the Environment, Longevity, and Wealth; I'm Optimistic (But Not Necessarily Confident) Of the Avoidance Of Existential Downsides; And I'm Hopeful (But Not Necessarily Optimistic) About a Repeat Of 9-11 (Or Worse)
by Ray Kurzweil (see more at this link:
(http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=7%23692)
Ray Kurzweil responds to John Brockman's The Edge Annual Question - 2007: WHAT ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT? WHY?
Published on Edge on January 2007. Reprinted with permission.
Optimism exists on a continuum in between confidence and hope. Let me take these in order.
"I am confident that the acceleration and expanding purview of information technology will solve within twenty years the problems that now preoccupy us.
Consider energy. We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth) but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years.
Almost all the discussions I've seen about energy and its consequences (such as global warming) fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem. This development will be motivated not just by concern for the environment but also by the $2 trillion we spend annually on energy. This is already a major area of venture funding."
A final note from yours truly: it's just that none of this positive, intelligent, optimistic stuff will happen while this numbnuts, small-minded, no imagination, greedhead President is in office.
I'm Confident About Energy, the Environment, Longevity, and Wealth; I'm Optimistic (But Not Necessarily Confident) Of the Avoidance Of Existential Downsides; And I'm Hopeful (But Not Necessarily Optimistic) About a Repeat Of 9-11 (Or Worse)
by Ray Kurzweil (see more at this link:
(http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=7%23692)
Ray Kurzweil responds to John Brockman's The Edge Annual Question - 2007: WHAT ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT? WHY?
Published on Edge on January 2007. Reprinted with permission.
Optimism exists on a continuum in between confidence and hope. Let me take these in order.
"I am confident that the acceleration and expanding purview of information technology will solve within twenty years the problems that now preoccupy us.
Consider energy. We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth) but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years.
Almost all the discussions I've seen about energy and its consequences (such as global warming) fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem. This development will be motivated not just by concern for the environment but also by the $2 trillion we spend annually on energy. This is already a major area of venture funding."
A final note from yours truly: it's just that none of this positive, intelligent, optimistic stuff will happen while this numbnuts, small-minded, no imagination, greedhead President is in office.
Whither now?
I've thought for a long time that the "turning point" for us, the United States of America, was John F. Kennedy's assassination. A long time.
It's not that it has anything to do with me, of course, and my generation at all. I've thought that, in a much larger sense, a historical sense, that it was at that point that we were no longer the naive, well-intentioned people we were, up to that point. I don't think I'm being naive here, either.
And ever since then, through the 70's, 80's, 90's up to today, it seems we've been going downhill, as a nation.
It was after that that Jack's brother was also killed, then Martin Luther King, and they were both intelligent, strong people who wanted us all to be better--to be a better people--to be the people we could be.
Then there was Milhouse (the lying scumbag), and a brief window of time with a weak follow-up President. After that, a weak one-termer who, again, wanted us to be better people but he got caught up in minutiea of his Presidency (carrying his own bags, for God's sake) that he didn't get to the important matter of his own work. Besides, we didn't want to save energy, anyway.
Then 8 long years of an affable idiot whom way too many people loved--and who almost wrecked us.
A dolt to follow him but who, unlike his son, kept us out of Iraq.
Then 8 important, good years by a man who couldn't keep himself in his pants.
That brings us to now to this nearly fatal time with a self-absorbed man of small imagination, organization and strength who, along with his friends, is also long on greed.
So we come to a point in time where the dollar is at record lows, energy at record highs and we've seemingly lost nearly all control we ever might have had.
And the issue, now, comes to this: if a barrel of oil is pegged to the euro soon--again, God forbid--you may mark it down in any history book to come, that it was at that exact point in time at which the United States became the Britain of a new world order. In short, a second-rate power.
May this not happen anytime soon, if ever.
(Be sure to look below at a great "Zippy the Pinhead" comic from yesterday and some new pictures).
It's not that it has anything to do with me, of course, and my generation at all. I've thought that, in a much larger sense, a historical sense, that it was at that point that we were no longer the naive, well-intentioned people we were, up to that point. I don't think I'm being naive here, either.
And ever since then, through the 70's, 80's, 90's up to today, it seems we've been going downhill, as a nation.
It was after that that Jack's brother was also killed, then Martin Luther King, and they were both intelligent, strong people who wanted us all to be better--to be a better people--to be the people we could be.
Then there was Milhouse (the lying scumbag), and a brief window of time with a weak follow-up President. After that, a weak one-termer who, again, wanted us to be better people but he got caught up in minutiea of his Presidency (carrying his own bags, for God's sake) that he didn't get to the important matter of his own work. Besides, we didn't want to save energy, anyway.
Then 8 long years of an affable idiot whom way too many people loved--and who almost wrecked us.
A dolt to follow him but who, unlike his son, kept us out of Iraq.
Then 8 important, good years by a man who couldn't keep himself in his pants.
That brings us to now to this nearly fatal time with a self-absorbed man of small imagination, organization and strength who, along with his friends, is also long on greed.
So we come to a point in time where the dollar is at record lows, energy at record highs and we've seemingly lost nearly all control we ever might have had.
And the issue, now, comes to this: if a barrel of oil is pegged to the euro soon--again, God forbid--you may mark it down in any history book to come, that it was at that exact point in time at which the United States became the Britain of a new world order. In short, a second-rate power.
May this not happen anytime soon, if ever.
(Be sure to look below at a great "Zippy the Pinhead" comic from yesterday and some new pictures).
Just received this
As I said, I just got this from a friend, Preston, and had to put it up:
Maybe if we read and thought a little more before we acted?
The following is from an essay written in 1998 by John Basil Utley.
More starvation and disease or bombers and cruise missiles--these are the only actual choices Washington offers Iraq. No wonder Saddam will risk being bombed to end the economic blockade.... Also Washington demands "proving a negative," that Iraq has nothing hidden and will not in the future rebuild its weapons of mass destruction. At other times it says the blockade must remain until the starvation ridden Iraqis succeed in overthrowing their dictator.
Yet Iraq has only refused the continuation of inspections until the lifting of the blockade, one of the most severe in modern history, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The blockade prohibits almost all imports except food and medicine and then leaves Iraq with barely half the proceeds of its limited oil export revenue, and the money is allocated by a United Nations' bureaucracy (slowly while the people starve)....
Washington keeps moving the goal posts demanding an interminable blockade for the nation where already in the last 8 years 1,200,000 have died from starvation and disease. This after the American bombing of the sanitation, electric, and economic infrastructure of the nation in l990. Even now Washington prevents Iraq from obtaining repair parts for its oil production so it can sell some oil for food imports and to repair its irrigation and sanitation systems....
Bombing will generate more hatred for America in the Moslem world and badly weaken our moral authority in the world as we are seen mainly as hypocrites. Also it will cause other nations' terrorists to claim justification for killing American civilians anywhere and cause them to try to develop biological and chemical weapons as the only way to be able to fight back against us, possibly by bringing the battle to the American homeland.
One of the first casualties will be our own freedoms, as the government chases threats of terrorism here. Already the FBI was just legislated "emergency" warrantless wiretap authority to cover whole regions. Two years ago the Clinton Crime Bill (supported by the Republican leadership) proposed gutting the 4th Amendment which prohibits warrantless searches of private homes.
Iraq never harmed America and is no threat to America. As far as the defense of Israel, that nation has atom bombs and the most modern weapons in the Middle East. It has often proven that it can well defend itself.
Yet it is above all a moral question for Americans. Never before have we put such a blockade to leave millions of innocent people in starvation and misery for years on end. Publicly Washington calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow their dictator, Saddam Hussein, as the price of relieving sanctions. But they obviously can't.
Yet America's Secretary of State explained that "yes, we think the price is worth it" when asked on CBS 60 Minutes program (5/11/96) if maintaining the blockade was worth the death of half a million children.
It is high time to question the cost of what we are doing to the Iraqi people....
Maybe if we read and thought a little more before we acted?
The following is from an essay written in 1998 by John Basil Utley.
More starvation and disease or bombers and cruise missiles--these are the only actual choices Washington offers Iraq. No wonder Saddam will risk being bombed to end the economic blockade.... Also Washington demands "proving a negative," that Iraq has nothing hidden and will not in the future rebuild its weapons of mass destruction. At other times it says the blockade must remain until the starvation ridden Iraqis succeed in overthrowing their dictator.
Yet Iraq has only refused the continuation of inspections until the lifting of the blockade, one of the most severe in modern history, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The blockade prohibits almost all imports except food and medicine and then leaves Iraq with barely half the proceeds of its limited oil export revenue, and the money is allocated by a United Nations' bureaucracy (slowly while the people starve)....
Washington keeps moving the goal posts demanding an interminable blockade for the nation where already in the last 8 years 1,200,000 have died from starvation and disease. This after the American bombing of the sanitation, electric, and economic infrastructure of the nation in l990. Even now Washington prevents Iraq from obtaining repair parts for its oil production so it can sell some oil for food imports and to repair its irrigation and sanitation systems....
Bombing will generate more hatred for America in the Moslem world and badly weaken our moral authority in the world as we are seen mainly as hypocrites. Also it will cause other nations' terrorists to claim justification for killing American civilians anywhere and cause them to try to develop biological and chemical weapons as the only way to be able to fight back against us, possibly by bringing the battle to the American homeland.
One of the first casualties will be our own freedoms, as the government chases threats of terrorism here. Already the FBI was just legislated "emergency" warrantless wiretap authority to cover whole regions. Two years ago the Clinton Crime Bill (supported by the Republican leadership) proposed gutting the 4th Amendment which prohibits warrantless searches of private homes.
Iraq never harmed America and is no threat to America. As far as the defense of Israel, that nation has atom bombs and the most modern weapons in the Middle East. It has often proven that it can well defend itself.
Yet it is above all a moral question for Americans. Never before have we put such a blockade to leave millions of innocent people in starvation and misery for years on end. Publicly Washington calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow their dictator, Saddam Hussein, as the price of relieving sanctions. But they obviously can't.
Yet America's Secretary of State explained that "yes, we think the price is worth it" when asked on CBS 60 Minutes program (5/11/96) if maintaining the blockade was worth the death of half a million children.
It is high time to question the cost of what we are doing to the Iraqi people....
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Great Value for the Money
You wanna hear great value?
You wanna hear money well spent?
You wanna hear about a great return on investment?
Look no farther than our own goverment.
The same government that has $2000.00 toilets--or whatever--is able to get a whole lot out of very little, really, but not in a good way.
In our newspaper today, it told of Representative John Murtha, from Southwestern Pennsylvania, getting a mere $30,000.00 from DRS Technologies, a military equipment company.
And for this paltry $30,000.00 investment from DRS--which is also tax-decuctible, keep in mind--what did Rep. Murtha get for DRS? Why, $30 million in earmarks from our goverment.
Is this a great country or what?
Check this out:
"The House committee alone has 23,438 earmark requests before it, so many that its website for accepting requests froze up and the deadline for receiving them had to be extended."
So much for the Democrats cleaning up government, right?
Is it any wonder firms line up to hand out $2,000.00 here and $10,000.00 there for their own representative? For thousands of dollars in contributions, companies get back millions from their government representative and government. Read: you and me.
Oh, yeah. It's a sweet deal all right. And it's repeated again and again in the halls of our governments.
President Eisenhower warned us of the "military-industrial complex". Sure. And we heard it. Ralph Nader has been warning us for years.
But have we really done anything about it?
You wanna hear money well spent?
You wanna hear about a great return on investment?
Look no farther than our own goverment.
The same government that has $2000.00 toilets--or whatever--is able to get a whole lot out of very little, really, but not in a good way.
In our newspaper today, it told of Representative John Murtha, from Southwestern Pennsylvania, getting a mere $30,000.00 from DRS Technologies, a military equipment company.
And for this paltry $30,000.00 investment from DRS--which is also tax-decuctible, keep in mind--what did Rep. Murtha get for DRS? Why, $30 million in earmarks from our goverment.
Is this a great country or what?
Check this out:
"The House committee alone has 23,438 earmark requests before it, so many that its website for accepting requests froze up and the deadline for receiving them had to be extended."
So much for the Democrats cleaning up government, right?
Is it any wonder firms line up to hand out $2,000.00 here and $10,000.00 there for their own representative? For thousands of dollars in contributions, companies get back millions from their government representative and government. Read: you and me.
Oh, yeah. It's a sweet deal all right. And it's repeated again and again in the halls of our governments.
President Eisenhower warned us of the "military-industrial complex". Sure. And we heard it. Ralph Nader has been warning us for years.
But have we really done anything about it?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
"W" could even learn from short quotes
...if he read:
“The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions.”
James Russell Lowell
“The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions.”
James Russell Lowell
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Ch-ch-ch-changes
Sure, I'm ripping off Bowie, like so many people have, in an effort to point out how we're in the midst of some great changes but, hey, I like the song and David Bowie, both. Sue me.
But really, when you look around the nation and the world, don't you think we're all in the middle of some great, fairly radical change and changes? I know I do.
The one that hits me biggest is the whole Democratic Party candidates for this year's Presidential election. A white woman almost came out the winner. And if that isn't enough, her biggest competition was a black man. Who did win.
Wow.
We all need to soak that in. That's pretty revolutionary for this country.
Sure, it's way overdue but, still, dem's some pretty big differences from the past.
Usually, it's been like the Republican Party still is--just a passel (an even dozen this year) of old, rich, white men.
No more.
A Hispanic--Bill Richardson--Hillary and Barack were part of the top 4 candidates.
People of color and women around the world are more coming into their own power.
Increible'.
But it's more than that.
Oil is around $4.00 a gallon here in the States.
The United States' dollar is nearly worthless. It's becoming an "also ran" in world monetary denominations. (It will stay there if we don't change things here in the States, financially and fiscally.)
Smaller countries, because of all that new petro-wealth. are becoming powers to be reckoned with.
The old, more traditional power positions of the world seem to be falling--most notably, the United States.
The Middle East playing far too large a role in world politics, again, because of the role oil plays in the world, and due to that high price of oil.
Our climate seems to be changing--something we can't too much control--but something we can react to and change, because, it seems, we have to.
Food prices.
The food supply itself.
Health care here and 'round the world and it's availability.
So many things.
And I don't think it's just because I'm into my 2nd century (barely!) and paying more attention. I've watched politics and power since at least high school.
No, I think a great deal is changing.
Some things we can see. Some, no doubt, we cannot. Some, for some of us, we're fighting, ignoring or denying. Some of the change is actually for good. Some, not so.
But it's change. Oh, yeah. And there seems to be quite a lot of it.
And we all hope we come out okay on the other side.
Right?
But really, when you look around the nation and the world, don't you think we're all in the middle of some great, fairly radical change and changes? I know I do.
The one that hits me biggest is the whole Democratic Party candidates for this year's Presidential election. A white woman almost came out the winner. And if that isn't enough, her biggest competition was a black man. Who did win.
Wow.
We all need to soak that in. That's pretty revolutionary for this country.
Sure, it's way overdue but, still, dem's some pretty big differences from the past.
Usually, it's been like the Republican Party still is--just a passel (an even dozen this year) of old, rich, white men.
No more.
A Hispanic--Bill Richardson--Hillary and Barack were part of the top 4 candidates.
People of color and women around the world are more coming into their own power.
Increible'.
But it's more than that.
Oil is around $4.00 a gallon here in the States.
The United States' dollar is nearly worthless. It's becoming an "also ran" in world monetary denominations. (It will stay there if we don't change things here in the States, financially and fiscally.)
Smaller countries, because of all that new petro-wealth. are becoming powers to be reckoned with.
The old, more traditional power positions of the world seem to be falling--most notably, the United States.
The Middle East playing far too large a role in world politics, again, because of the role oil plays in the world, and due to that high price of oil.
Our climate seems to be changing--something we can't too much control--but something we can react to and change, because, it seems, we have to.
Food prices.
The food supply itself.
Health care here and 'round the world and it's availability.
So many things.
And I don't think it's just because I'm into my 2nd century (barely!) and paying more attention. I've watched politics and power since at least high school.
No, I think a great deal is changing.
Some things we can see. Some, no doubt, we cannot. Some, for some of us, we're fighting, ignoring or denying. Some of the change is actually for good. Some, not so.
But it's change. Oh, yeah. And there seems to be quite a lot of it.
And we all hope we come out okay on the other side.
Right?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Another sign...
Another sign that this Bush Administration is, for all intents and purposes, over with:
First, really, this has been a lame duck administration for some time--at least since last Fall's elections.
And then, this last week, rocket-scientist Scott McLellan's book came out--you know, the former Press Secretary for this knuckleheaded President--in which he really pretty much trashes the same administration for creating this war, arbitrarily and wrongly, just as we've known all along--but he puts it on paper, in his book. Sure, he shoud have spoken up at the time, when the wrong was being done but at least he's coming out now and straightening some things out and telling some truths.
So here it is--another example of how the country and maybe the world is moving on from this administration. Next weekend, the new Adam Sandler movie "You Don't Mess with the Zohan", shows that we've moved on from making terrorists and terroism the big, unknown thing to only fear. This administration used the "terrorist" and "terrorism" in all their forms, to create fear in the American public, so they could get what they want and rule with abandon.
Now, this new movie boils terrorists and terrorism down to a joke--a thing to be ridiculed and laughed at. Anyone who knows about fear and the manipulation of large groups of people knows that you can only get away with that manipulation for so long. After so much time, your foundation of fear gets put out of mind, really.
What this boils down to is that terrorists, terrorism and the use of either to create fear and, therefore, power over us, and, indeed, the Bush Administration itself, have all "jumped the shark". It's all over for all of them.
Unfortunately, the damage is already done.
American soldiers are still in harm's way and they're still sacrificing--and dying--even if it is in--thank God--smaller numbers.
Still, we're that much closer to the end of the nightmare called the Bush Presidency.
Thank God (if there were one).
Now we just need to repair the damage and heal the nation and the world.
No small job.
First, really, this has been a lame duck administration for some time--at least since last Fall's elections.
And then, this last week, rocket-scientist Scott McLellan's book came out--you know, the former Press Secretary for this knuckleheaded President--in which he really pretty much trashes the same administration for creating this war, arbitrarily and wrongly, just as we've known all along--but he puts it on paper, in his book. Sure, he shoud have spoken up at the time, when the wrong was being done but at least he's coming out now and straightening some things out and telling some truths.
So here it is--another example of how the country and maybe the world is moving on from this administration. Next weekend, the new Adam Sandler movie "You Don't Mess with the Zohan", shows that we've moved on from making terrorists and terroism the big, unknown thing to only fear. This administration used the "terrorist" and "terrorism" in all their forms, to create fear in the American public, so they could get what they want and rule with abandon.
Now, this new movie boils terrorists and terrorism down to a joke--a thing to be ridiculed and laughed at. Anyone who knows about fear and the manipulation of large groups of people knows that you can only get away with that manipulation for so long. After so much time, your foundation of fear gets put out of mind, really.
What this boils down to is that terrorists, terrorism and the use of either to create fear and, therefore, power over us, and, indeed, the Bush Administration itself, have all "jumped the shark". It's all over for all of them.
Unfortunately, the damage is already done.
American soldiers are still in harm's way and they're still sacrificing--and dying--even if it is in--thank God--smaller numbers.
Still, we're that much closer to the end of the nightmare called the Bush Presidency.
Thank God (if there were one).
Now we just need to repair the damage and heal the nation and the world.
No small job.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Remember when the US led the world?
I'm not that old--unless you're 18 or younger--and I certainly remember when the US led the world in all that was moral and right and good. A lot of things, anyway.
So now this, today:
"111 nations adopt cluster bomb treaty, but not U.S."
(The link to the story is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_eu/ireland_cluster_bombs)
Yeah, we USED to be moral. We used to do the right things. No longer. Not right now, anyway.
The United States lead the world in reducing pollution? Sure. In the 1960's and 70's. Not now. We famously/infamously bailed on the Kyoto Protocol, with this administration. We have to protect corporations, instead. Clean air? Clean water? Clean earth? Maybe. If it absolutely doesn't interfere with corporate profits.
The United States also famously/infamously jumped ship on what seemed to be a good idea to eliminate land mines in the world. You'd think we'd want to, since they kill and maim civilians--including children--particularly after the wars are over, right?
But no, that would hurt business.
Seriously.
That's the one, big, glaring reason we don't do "the right thing" anymore, nationally and internationally, on a range of different topics: we don't want to curb business--actual or prospective, of any kind.
All we can do right now is contact our legislators for change. That and vote and hope that the "next leadership" for the country and our own locales are more moral and right and good than they are now.
The way we used to be.
So now this, today:
"111 nations adopt cluster bomb treaty, but not U.S."
(The link to the story is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_eu/ireland_cluster_bombs)
Yeah, we USED to be moral. We used to do the right things. No longer. Not right now, anyway.
The United States lead the world in reducing pollution? Sure. In the 1960's and 70's. Not now. We famously/infamously bailed on the Kyoto Protocol, with this administration. We have to protect corporations, instead. Clean air? Clean water? Clean earth? Maybe. If it absolutely doesn't interfere with corporate profits.
The United States also famously/infamously jumped ship on what seemed to be a good idea to eliminate land mines in the world. You'd think we'd want to, since they kill and maim civilians--including children--particularly after the wars are over, right?
But no, that would hurt business.
Seriously.
That's the one, big, glaring reason we don't do "the right thing" anymore, nationally and internationally, on a range of different topics: we don't want to curb business--actual or prospective, of any kind.
All we can do right now is contact our legislators for change. That and vote and hope that the "next leadership" for the country and our own locales are more moral and right and good than they are now.
The way we used to be.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
More of what "W" has wrought
Army suicides reported up again — at 108
By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago
The number of Army suicides increased again last year, amid the most violent year yet in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Two defense officials said Thursday that 108 troops committed suicide in 2007, six more than the previous year. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the full report on the deaths wasn't being released until later Thursday.
About a quarter of the deaths occurred in Iraq.
The overall toll was the highest in many years, and it was unclear when, if ever, it was previously that high. Immediately available Army records go back only to 1990 and the figure then was lower — at 102 — for that year as well as 1991.
The 108 confirmed deaths in 2007 among active duty soldier and National Guard and Reserve troops that had been activated was lower than previously feared. Preliminary figures released in January showed as many as 121 troops may have killed themselves, but a number of the deaths were still being investigated then and have since been determined to have resulted from other causes, the officials said.
Suicides have been rising almost steadily during the five-year-old war in Iraq and nearly seven-year-old war in Afghanistan.
The 108 deaths last year followed 102 in 2006, 85 in 2005 and 67 in 2004.
The increases come despite a host of efforts to improve the mental health of a force stressed by long and repeated tours of duty. Increasing the strain on the force last year was the extension of deployments to 15 months from 12 months, a practice that is being terminated this year.
More U.S. troops died in hostilities in 2007 than in any of the previous years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall violence increased in Afghanistan with a Taliban resurgence and overall deaths increased in Iraq, even as violence there declined in the second half of the year.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.
By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago
The number of Army suicides increased again last year, amid the most violent year yet in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Two defense officials said Thursday that 108 troops committed suicide in 2007, six more than the previous year. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the full report on the deaths wasn't being released until later Thursday.
About a quarter of the deaths occurred in Iraq.
The overall toll was the highest in many years, and it was unclear when, if ever, it was previously that high. Immediately available Army records go back only to 1990 and the figure then was lower — at 102 — for that year as well as 1991.
The 108 confirmed deaths in 2007 among active duty soldier and National Guard and Reserve troops that had been activated was lower than previously feared. Preliminary figures released in January showed as many as 121 troops may have killed themselves, but a number of the deaths were still being investigated then and have since been determined to have resulted from other causes, the officials said.
Suicides have been rising almost steadily during the five-year-old war in Iraq and nearly seven-year-old war in Afghanistan.
The 108 deaths last year followed 102 in 2006, 85 in 2005 and 67 in 2004.
The increases come despite a host of efforts to improve the mental health of a force stressed by long and repeated tours of duty. Increasing the strain on the force last year was the extension of deployments to 15 months from 12 months, a practice that is being terminated this year.
More U.S. troops died in hostilities in 2007 than in any of the previous years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall violence increased in Afghanistan with a Taliban resurgence and overall deaths increased in Iraq, even as violence there declined in the second half of the year.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.
Monday, May 26, 2008
I want my country back
If you didn't see HBO's movie, "Reount", you need to make sure you do. After having seen it, it's easy to come to a few important conclusions:
1) It shows on film what we've read about for years and already knew and that is that George W. Bush, the Republican Party and W's brother, colleagues and associates literally stole the 2000 Presidential election and its results;
2) The United States and its 150,000 soldiers would not be in Iraq today;
3) 4,083 American Soldiers who have since died, to this date, in Iraq would not have died;
4) The 30,000 plus American Soldiers by official count, up to 100,000 by unofficial count, would not have been maimed and/or wounded;
5) the half-million Iraqis who have since died in their own country would not be dead
6) the United States would not be in the debt we are in today and
7) finally, as my friend Bryce first and once told me--and I quote him here--"Republicans are evil, Democrats are retarded."
We don't any longer have a democracy folks, if we ever did.
1) It shows on film what we've read about for years and already knew and that is that George W. Bush, the Republican Party and W's brother, colleagues and associates literally stole the 2000 Presidential election and its results;
2) The United States and its 150,000 soldiers would not be in Iraq today;
3) 4,083 American Soldiers who have since died, to this date, in Iraq would not have died;
4) The 30,000 plus American Soldiers by official count, up to 100,000 by unofficial count, would not have been maimed and/or wounded;
5) the half-million Iraqis who have since died in their own country would not be dead
6) the United States would not be in the debt we are in today and
7) finally, as my friend Bryce first and once told me--and I quote him here--"Republicans are evil, Democrats are retarded."
We don't any longer have a democracy folks, if we ever did.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Memorial Day, 2008
The picture above, of peonies, is from some very close--best--friend's garden this past week. Naturally, I post it in the tradition of Memorial Day, for everyone no longer with us.
May they truly rest in peace.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Article from Yahoo just now
"Veterans' burials nonstop at cemeteries"
Think about that the entire Memorial Day weekend.
And for any- and everyone who voted for George W. Bush once or twice, and/or supported this goofy-assed idea of a war, you're welcome to accept the responsibility for it, too.
"The scene at the Ohio Western Reserve National Cemetery is repeated nationwide more than 100 times a day. Military veterans are being buried at such a rapid rate that national cemeteries use heavy equipment to make room."
Think about it.
More importantly this weekend, let's all think about what we can do to support our troops and get out of Iraq and this war.
You can see the entire article at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_us/100_burials
I see where the "Current Occupant", in his weekly radio address, asked all Americans to "keep Vets in mind" this Memorial Day weekend.
That's rich.
The way his administration took them into this war so more than 4,000 could die and so the others, who are wounded, could be neglected and/or mistreated by his own Veteran's Administration? US keep the Vets in mind?
How about "W" keeping them in mind?
How about "W" getting them out of his hair-brained, illegal, groundless, baseless war?
Now THAT would be keeping the Vets in mind.
We all owe it to ourselves--and the Vets--to read this article. Sure the Vets dying are, for the most part, from previous wars but it's the ones in harms way now to whom we owe thought and commitment.
For some background and information, go to the following link to read the 10 reasons by there is a group Iraq Veterans Against the War (see links on the right of this page): http://ivaw.org/faq.
There should be no better source for information and reasons why we should get out of Iraq than taking it from the very soldiers who have fought or are fighting this absurd, ugly war.
Think about that the entire Memorial Day weekend.
And for any- and everyone who voted for George W. Bush once or twice, and/or supported this goofy-assed idea of a war, you're welcome to accept the responsibility for it, too.
"The scene at the Ohio Western Reserve National Cemetery is repeated nationwide more than 100 times a day. Military veterans are being buried at such a rapid rate that national cemeteries use heavy equipment to make room."
Think about it.
More importantly this weekend, let's all think about what we can do to support our troops and get out of Iraq and this war.
You can see the entire article at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_us/100_burials
I see where the "Current Occupant", in his weekly radio address, asked all Americans to "keep Vets in mind" this Memorial Day weekend.
That's rich.
The way his administration took them into this war so more than 4,000 could die and so the others, who are wounded, could be neglected and/or mistreated by his own Veteran's Administration? US keep the Vets in mind?
How about "W" keeping them in mind?
How about "W" getting them out of his hair-brained, illegal, groundless, baseless war?
Now THAT would be keeping the Vets in mind.
We all owe it to ourselves--and the Vets--to read this article. Sure the Vets dying are, for the most part, from previous wars but it's the ones in harms way now to whom we owe thought and commitment.
For some background and information, go to the following link to read the 10 reasons by there is a group Iraq Veterans Against the War (see links on the right of this page): http://ivaw.org/faq.
There should be no better source for information and reasons why we should get out of Iraq than taking it from the very soldiers who have fought or are fighting this absurd, ugly war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
