The New American Militarism: how to abate it

Andrew J. Bacevich is a Professor of History and International Relations at Boston University. A graduate of West Point and a Vietnam Veteran, he has a doctorate in history from Princeton and was a Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. He retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of colonel and is a member of the Council on foreign relations. He is the author of several books, including ‘The Limits of Power, the End of American Exceptionalism’.
He is not a liberal.
He is not a Democrat.

Having read Andrew J. Bacevich’s ‘The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War’, I would like to share his proposed means, which ‘rests on ten fundamental principles’ by which to abate ‘the present day militaristic tendencies’.

“First, heed the intentions of the Founders, thereby restoring the basic precepts that animated the creation of the United States and are specified in the Constitution that the Framers drafted in 1787 and presented for consideration to the several states. Although politicians make a pretense of revering that document, when it comes to military policy they have long since fallen into t e habit of treating it like a dead letter. This is unfortunate. Drafted by men who appreciated the need for military power while also maintaining a healthy respect for the dangers that it posed, the Constitution in our own day remains an essential point of reference.”

Condi Rice continues her neo-Con-Job

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pilger: Obama a Product of Corporate Marketing

Many will be abhorred by what award-winning investigative journalist, John Pilger, has to say about President Obama. Many will ignore Pilger's thesis altogether but will pounce on his cited examples as proof positive that Dubya was right all along but that Obama is still a socialist. Or a fascist. Or Kenyan. Or not really the president cuz it say so in the Bible.



Now that you've heard Mr Pilger's comments about Barak Obama, consider this: why should the idea that the US president is a product of marketing strategies, public relations tactics, and corporate planning be a surprise? The role of PR firms in US elections goes back at the very least to the Nixon/Kennedy campaigns. Joe McGinniss’s ‘The Selling of the President’ recounts Nixon’s successful re-packaging and his triumph in the 1968 presidential race following his loss to Kennedy in the nail-biter of 1960.

Winning the contest for the highest elected government office in the land (if not the world) is most assuredly a prize that corporate America and those in its thrall would do nearly anything to accomplish. This is the self-evident fact of the matter and incontestable. Putting the concepts Bernays and Lippman proposed in the early 1900’s for manufacturing consent, shaping public opinion and thereby controlling the ignorant herd is standard operating procedure. SOP. So last millennium it’s hardly worth mentioning. Nothing new here. Move along.

How many movies have come out of Hollywood –itself a creature of marketing and PR alchemy – that have told the lurid tales of backroom deals, media handlers, corporate shills, wardrobe consultants, press agents and PR strategists? How many summer-reading novels?

The notion that the US president is a corporate marketing creation should not come as a revelation. (A dispassionate observer might need look no further than the twice successful candidacy of Ronald Reagan to confirm the proposition that the quality of packaging and promotion out-weigh the quality of the candidate in a run for the White House.) Nevertheless, the truth of it is disturbing. Mr. Pilger is doing us all a favor by pointing this issue out to us and rubbing our noses in it.

The chief executive of our government – you know, the one that is of the people, by the people, for the people-is a product. A product that is shaped by focus groups and groomed by market research and then sold to the electorate by callously well-crafted media ads in combination with attractive product placement and the scripted pronouncements of pundits in the pay of corporations.

(I’m not really an expert, but I play one on TV.)

Understanding that Americans insist on feeling they are independent in their actions - exercising their freedom, in the parlance of patriotism- the marketing mavens offer a choice of products. Sales departments also know that making a choice can be daunting. Especially when there’s a lot at stake and the choice is to be made in near total ignorance; some of it willful, some by design.

In the US the electorate’s choice has been limited to two so as not to confound the troublesome herd; crispy or extra-crispy? Paper or plastic? Democrat or Republican? For here or to go?

Third-party candidates become the target of PR attack dogs and relegated to obscurity by corporate programmers and editors and made to appear an irrelevancy to the presidential contest.

And may the one with the bigger war-chest and the better sales campaign win!

What Hollywood movies do not typically deal with is nevertheless very closely scrutinized: the source of the funds in a presidential candidate’s war-chest. Although there are laws regulating campaign financing, there are many ways around those regulations. Laws, lawyers and loopholes; this is not a revelation, either. It’s axiomatic. Little could be more obvious than the fact that legal services cost money in the USA; as do the services of public relations firms, marketing consultants, ad agencies, media advisers, speech writers, press secretaries, wardrobe and make-up specialists, to name but a few that are essential to the selling of the president.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics , a research group which has tracked the money in U.S. politics for a quarter of a century and which does not accept contributions from corporations, trade associations or labor unions, Obama’s presidential war-chest was an unprecedented $745, 000,000. That astounding sum is based on the Federal Election Commission data for the 2008 election cycle. John McCain, the Republican runner-up, raised a paltry $368,000,000 according to the same sources. Third party candidates’ campaign funds were beggarly in comparison; raising a measly $5,457,000 to finance four separate campaigns. The lion’s share of which, $4,000,000 – little more than one half of one percent of Obama’s record-setting total - was raised by seasoned campaigner, Ralph Nader.

The source of campaign funds should raise no eye-brows. The money comes from the political action committees (PAC) of major corporations and institutions.
• Goldman Sachs, Morgan-Stanley, Citigroup, Inc, UBS AG and JPMorgan Chase & Co were among the top 20 contributors to Obama’s presidential bid.
• The PACs of media conglomerates National Amusements Inc (which owns media giants Viacom and CBS Corporation) and Time Warner, the world's largest media and entertainment conglomerate contributed more than a cool million.
• International business law firms, Sidley, Austin LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Skadden, Arps, and Wilmerhale, kicked in an even cooler $1.6 million.
• Hi-tech powerhouses, IBM, Microsoft and Google nearly doubled the lawyers’ contributions.
• Although it may prompt a warm and fuzzy feeling that Obama’s alma maters, Harvard and Columbia were major contributors along with Standford and the University of California each of these renowned educational institutions is also funded by government research contracts and should be considered part of the military-industrial complex.
• Rounding out the list is General Electric, which benefits directly from the research done by the aforementioned institutes of higher learning as one of the largest recipients of military contracts.

A pattern emerges; international law firms, mammoth media groups, financial sector behemoths, hi-tech giants and colossal military contractors were primary supporters of Obama’s presidential campaign. To risk stating the obvious once more, highly successful corporations and institutions do not go around tossing millions of dollars into wishing wells. They make well-considered and sober decisions, choosing, investments that offer low risk and high probability of profitable returns. An Obama presidency, while seen as ‘dark horse’ by the general public (if you’ll pardon the pun), was assessed as a sound political and financial investment. That these corporate and institutional entities hedged their bets by investing in Obama’s competitors is part of what is known as a balanced investment portfolio and should further negate any lingering illusions that they were foursquare supporters of his message of Hope and change.

This is not news. That this sorry reality is not news exposes the fraud of what passes as democratic process in the United States. The 2008 election campaign of the Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States was paid for by major corporations. That this is merely the most recent one in a long uninterrupted series of corporate-sponsored political contests leads to one incontrovertible conclusion: the US is a Corporatocracy, plain and simple. There should be no one of voting age so naïve as to cling to the fantasy, the irrational will-o’-the-wisp that Goldman-Sachs, Morgan Stanley, IBM, GE and Microsoft et al. will not claim ownership of what they have paid millions to acquire.

Should this depress Obama supporters? Only if they actually believed the PR hype. One more instance of belief as an obstacle to reason.

We should all be abhorred and politically radicalized by this truth.

To view Mr Pilger's speech 'Obama and Empire' in its entirety go to the Real News.

For more about John Pilger and his work; http://pilger.carlton.com/
To view Mr Pilger's speech

How IS the Weather underground, anyway?

I just watched the documentary 'The Weather Underground' - good stuff. That time was part of my political awakening - anti-Nixon/anti-war leaflet passing, anti-war rallies, the 'good old days' of political activism.

I distinctly remember attending a rally in Lincoln Park in Chicago when I was bewildered and taken aback by the change in temperment of the whole 'Movement' (as it was called then) when the 'peace sign' turned into the Power to the People salute.

What disturbed me then and still disturbs me today is that the sign of peace was replaced by the clenched fist and a call for violent action.

Back to our story...

The Weathermen split from the already radicalized Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to be even more radical and preach the violent over-throw of the US government. They started vandalizing and aggressively challenging and provoking violent police reaction, the Days of Rage and other bad moves.

Amateur, wanna-be revolutionaries going up against the police and the National Guard in a head-to-billy-club match-up? What were they thinking...?

What I distinctly remember is that later, it was revealed that FBI agents had infiltrated the SDS and the Weather faction and had actually promoted and instigated the radical change from peaceful to violent action. The FBI went so far as to supply explosives and other stuff from the revolutionary starter-set. (This is well-documented, so before I get challenged on this, I ask that you do your own research. Thanks)

No excuses for the actions of the Weathermen but when Palin and McCain start bringing up domestic terrorist-has-beens, someone in the media and the public should make comment that the FBI (and probably the CIA) were actively working with the Bill Ayers and company as co-conspirators and terrorists during the Weather faction's most violent days.

Bush's Murderous Vision

Can anybody be so naïve as to persist in the belief that Bush/Cheney et al. actually had a ‘grand vision’ of delivering ‘Democracy’ to the people of Iraq by going to war, particularly in light of the demands by the US which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq; immunity for American troops and contractors, a free hand to conduct military operations without Iraqi approval, control of Iraqi airspace, and maintaining fifty-eight permanent military bases in Iraq?

Apparently, yes.

Despite his nagging conscience which prompted him to write his expose, Scott McClellan, given his “deep affection for the president”, still clings to the nonsensical illusion that George W Bush’s intentions in Iraq were altruistic.

Here is an exchange from an interview with McClellan conducted by Amy Goodman on ‘Democracy Now!’:

Goodman: Scott, you said you believed the President was pushing for democracy in Iraq and that you still believe that, and yet Bush and Cheney’s closest allies were the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. How could you believe they were pushing for democracy?

McClellan: Well, I came to learn that by sitting in on meetings with the President. He cares very passionately about this vision. I think that’s what he put his hopes in, and that’s what he looked at as a chance to really achieve a lasting legacy of greatness.

Talk about denial. Or maybe that’s indicative of how everybody in the Bush administration plays fast and loose with reality.

No one in their right mind could conclude, after looking at the facts, that the primary goals of the Bush administrations’ waging the illegal invasion and ruinous occupation of the Republic of Iraq had anything to do with promoting democratic values or political freedom. The primary, over-riding purpose for this war was control of the oil. Note: the war was not about guaranteeing US access to oil but rather full, absolute US control of the resources of Iraq.

Considering the previous statement as the generally accepted truth of the matter, Bush’s war is a calamitous, disastrous failure. The war has not left US in control of Iraqi oil. Furthermore, the US has less access now to Iraqi oil than before the war due to the destruction of the infrastructure of the petroleum industry in Iraq as a direct result of the conflict.

And Bush’s ‘passionate vision’ to deliver Democracy to the people of Iraq, like a 16-inch pizza?

Perhaps Messrs Bush, Cheney and McClellan should ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, the estimated millions of Iraqis wounded, the millions of displaced Iraqis and the millions of justifiably bitter survivors of this illicit war if they appreciate their high-minded gift.

Or they could ask the 4000+ US servicemen and women who have given their lives for Bush’s ‘lasting legacy of greatness’. Or the 300,000 returning veterans the Rand Corporation estimates suffer from emotional and mental disorders such as post traumatic stress disorder. Or the 6,256 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom who ended their emotional and mental torment by killing themselves in 2005 – the victims of the ‘suicide epidemic’ that has been discovered by a CBS News investigation.

Yet, our Commander-in-Chief has proclaimed that he has “no regrets” about his decision to invade Iraq.

Really, George? No regrets? Not even for the fact that your ‘lasting legacy’ will be in the infamous, exclusive company of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Suharto as the most heinous mass murderers in history?

Impeach Bush.

Impeach Cheney.

Bring all of the complicit war criminals and war profiteers to justice. It won’t bring back the dead but it will provide a desperately needed sense of comfort to the survivors of the Neo-con-men scourge not only in the US and Iraq but around the world.

Maybe that’s being naïve.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/11/former_white_house_former_white_house

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/bush.europe/index.html

Mr Bush, May I Have a Moment?

On Wednesday 28th May 2008, George Monbiot, columnist and author, attempted a citizen’s arrest of John Robert Bolton, former Under-Secretary of State, US State Department, for the crime of aggression, as established by customary international law and described by Nuremberg Principles VI and VII.

He was unsuccessful, having been stopped by Bolton’s security detail.

Mr Monbiot, however, encourages people everywhere to attempt a citizen’s arrest of the principal instigators of the Iraq war; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Bolton, Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, Blair, et al. for the supreme international crime: a war of aggression. Even though the arrest itself may not be successful, the action would draw attention to the issue of holding these greedy, soulless bastards to accounts for their deeds.

In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, Mr Monbiot outlined his plan and the reasoning behind the charges he was planning to file against Mr Bolton. He states that the war was not simply errors in judgment but rather were calculated steps to deceive the world in an attempt to justify a war of aggression against a much weaker nation.

“This is not an ordinary political mistake which was committed in Iraq. This was the supreme international crime, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Those people were not killed in the ordinary sense; they were murdered. And they were murdered by the authors of that war, who are the greatest mass murderers of the twenty-first century so far.”

The video and the complete text of the interview are at the following link.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/30/alleging_war_crimes_british_activist_writer

Here are the charges he was planning to file against Mr Bolton. They can also be read at Mr Monbiot’s site.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/arresting-john-bolton/

These state the following:

“Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

…

“Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

The evidence against him is as follows:

1. John Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani. Bustani had offered to resolve the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and therefore to avert armed conflict. He had offered to seek to persuade Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would mean that Iraq was then subject to weapons inspections by the OPCW. As the OPCW was not tainted by the CIA’s infiltration of UNSCOM, Bustani’s initiative had the potential to defuse the crisis over Saddam Hussein’s obstruction of UNMOVIC inspections.

Apparently in order to prevent the negotiated settlement that Bustani proposed, and as part of a common plan with other administration officials to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties, Mr Bolton acted as follows:

In March 2002 his office produced a ‘White Paper’ claiming that the OPCW was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq.

On 20th March 2002 he met Bustani at the Hague to seek his resignation. Bustani refused to resign.

On 21st March 2002 he orchestrated a No-Confidence Motion calling for Bustani to resign as Director General which was introduced by the United States delegation. The motion failed.

On 22nd April 2002 the US called a special session of the conference of the States Parties and the Conference adopted the decision to terminate the appointment of the Director General effective immediately. Bolton had suggested that the US would withhold its dues from OPCW. The motion to sack Bustani was carried. Bustani asserts that this ‘special session’ was illegal, in breach of his contract and gave illegitimate grounds for his dismissal, stating a ‘lack of confidence’ in his leadership, without specific examples, and ignoring the failed No-Confidence vote.

In his book Surrender is Not an Option Mr Bolton describes his role in Bustani’s sacking (pages 95-98) and states the following:

“I directed that we begin explaining to others that the US contribution to the OPCW might well be cut if Bustani remained”.

“I met with Bustani to tell him he should resign … If he left now, we would do our best to give him ‘a gracious and dignified exit’. Otherwise we intended to have him fired”.

“I stepped in to tank the protocol, and then to tank Bustani”.

Bolton appears, in other words, to accept primary responsibility for Bustani’s dismissal.

Bustani appealed against the decision through the International Labour Organisation Tribunal. He was vindicated in his appeal and awarded his full salary and moral damages.

2. Mr Bolton helped to promote the false claim, through a State Department Fact Sheet, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger, as part of a common plan to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties.

The State Department Fact Sheet was released on the 19th December 2002 and was entitled ‘Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United States Security Council’ . Under the heading ‘Nuclear Weapons’ the fact sheet stated –

“The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.

Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?”

In a US Department of State press briefing on July 14th 2003 the spokesman Richard Boucher said “The accusation that turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence is that Niger sold uranium to Iraq” .

Bolton’s involvement in the use of fraudulent evidence is documented in Rep. Henry Waxman’s letter to Christopher Shays on the 1st March 2005. Waxman says “In April 2004, the State Department used the designation ‘sensitive but unclassified’ to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from Niger”.

“Both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claims as unreliable. As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet”.

Waxman requested a chronology of how the Fact Sheet was developed. His letter states –

“This chronology described a meeting on December 18,2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton ‘for help developing a response to Iraq’s Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press.’ According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton ‘agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation,’ a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.

“This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation “sends email with the fact sheet, ‘Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc,’” to Mr. Bolton’s office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version ‘still includes Niger reference.’ Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.”

Both these actions were designed to assist in the planning of a war of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”.

Stop the War with Iran

Stop the War in Iran before it gets started.

Bush and his Boys are not about to let this one go. We won’t be any safer from terrorism – quite the opposite – but their compadres, the CEOs at Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, Bechtel , Exxon-Mobile, etc, ad nauseam would be thrilled to death if the war widens to include Iran along with Afghanistan and Iraq.

CounterPunch.org is reporting President Bush has signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime. Bush’s secret directive covers actions from Lebanon to Afghanistan. Journalist Andrew Cockburn reports the directive is “unprecedented in its scope” and permits the assassination of targeted officials. http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html

Of course, actions like this cost money. Not to worry. An outlay of $300 million has been approved with bipartisan support. Way to stand on your hind legs, Dems! So much for will of the people, you bunch of self-serving back-stabbing slackers.

Now, Hill the Pill is declaring she’ll unleash Armageddon on Iran if they attack Israel. Break out the testosterone suppositories! She’s gonna grow her some ‘nads!

'What’s wrong with saying that?', she asks in her campaign delirium.

“Why would I have any regrets? I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons.”

And stuff like that there…

Lord, Sister Hill, why are you buying into Cheney’s paranoid propaganda? Are you trying to get some wack-o swing votes from McCain supporters who think he’s ‘soft’ on terror? McCain has that area of Psycho-town nailed down with his 100 years in Iraq vision. Meanwhile, he’s getting spa treatments and taking meetings with Carl Rove clones while you and Obama dance the dance from ‘They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?’. Fire your advisors and stop shooting yourself and your party in the foot.

Let's all take a reality break!

As mentioned here a fortnight ago, Iran is in no position at all to attack Israel. They have no nuclear capability according to the current NIE report while Israel has hundreds of active nukes. That would hardly be stepping into a fair fight let alone provoking one. The old saw about bringing a knife to a gun-fight springs to mind.

Oh, and has anybody in the Clinton campaign or anyone else covering the ‘situation’ with Iran looked at a friggin’ map? Just how is Iran planning to attack Israel? (Sure, they’ve blustered about it. Look at all the trash talking coming from Washington and Jerusalem.) Let’s get practical: just how would the Iranians go about attacking Israel? March, unseen, 1200 kilometers across Iraq and Jordan to wage war against the second-best equipped army in the world?

That ain’t gonna happen.

Or would Tehran, just go ahead and toss all caution and sense of self-preservation aside and simply attack Israel with air-strikes – just to start a pissing contest? Right. No matter what the state of Iran’s air force, the US and Israel have them trumped, hands down. Especially when the Israelis have the capability to launch nuclear devices from their specially equipped, American supplied fighters.

Not a single Iranian plane would even be allowed to approach Iraq air-space unchallenged. How in hell would Iranian planes make it across Iraq to Israel? Even the attempt, even the feint of an attempt at such an insane self-destructive act of aggression would mean a shit-storm descending on Tehran.

And does anybody out there really think that given the chance, the Israeli leadership would think twice about letting a couple of tactical nukes find a worthy target or two for the sake of future deterrence? Not that the presence of 300 more nukes just like those aren’t deterrent enough.

I, for one, am inclined to think that Iran would rather err on the side of caution than seek the destruction of its republic and the death of a substantial number of its people.

Call me crazy.

Stop the War in Iran before it gets started.

Irony & Activism

"Of the corporate institution, for the corporate institution and by the corporate institution".

It doesn’t just roll off the tongue, does it?

If Lincoln had made his Address in the present era of ‘Corporatism’ – government policy directed by and politicians ‘funded’ by corporations and their lobbyists - that’s how he would have had to word his catch-phrase had he wished to convey any truth at all.

What can we do about it?

Now, think about it. Isn’t that an odd question to ask if you firmly believe (or even suspect) that you live in a free, egalitarian democratic republic built on personal liberty and are guaranteed the redress of grievances by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States?

Noam Chomsky, MIT professor emeritus, gives talks on US foreign policy all over the world. Again and again, Americans ask him, “What can we do about it? What can we do to effect change in US policy?”

Note this: he’s never asked that question anywhere else in the world; Nicaragua, Palestine, the UK, Canada or elsewhere.

Only in America.

Professor Chomsky responds by commenting on the irony of citizens in the US even asking the question. The ‘cradle of liberty’, the ‘bright shining beacon of hope’, the ‘grand experiment’, ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave’ yet its citizens, who by law, by tradition and by the decree issued in the Declaration of Independence, are consumed by a sense of helplessness.

The answer?

Americans need to simply start holding informal meetings about the issues that concern them; local issues, State-wide issues, Federal, International, environmental, etc. Meet in twos and threes with family, friends, co-workers, church members, etc and talk about what needs to be done to help our nation.

Of course, this would mean skipping half an evening of television or an hour session at the Playstation to do some research and attend the meeting.

Maybe that’s too much to ask.

http://www.corporatism.org/

Debt - the American Way

It never rains but it pours.

Credit card debt in America reached a record high of nearly $800 billion dollars last November. A new report from the Center for American Progress warns that a rise in credit card defaults could produce economic fallout on par with the current mortgage crisis. Approximately 35 million credit card customers can no longer afford to make more than the minimum payment every month.

Meanwhile defaults on home mortgages have reached another all-time high. The Mortgage Bankers Association say nearly 80% of all home loans in America were past due or in foreclosure at the end of last year. The Federal Reserve also announced that Americans’ percentage of equity in their homes has fallen below fifty percent for the first time since 1945.

But that’s not all!

The price of oil hit a new high Thursday nearly reaching $106 a barrel, a 300% increase over 7 years ago, at the start of Bush’s neo-con regime.

And that’s only part of it. The record oil price came as the US dollar struck a new low against all major currencies.

The Bush administration pats itself on the back for sending out checks for a few hundred dollars to each American family to off-set the collapse of the dollar.

What a bunch of great guys.

On the other hand, the US government gives out more than $5 billion a year in direct aid to Israel. Has done for more than a generation.

$13,812,154 a day.

That works out to more than $10,000 per Israeli per annum.

You got bought off cheap, sucka.

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

Oh, by the way, Dubya probably had to borrow the money he deigned to dole out to you. So, as US taxpayers, you’ll be expected to pay all of it back.

With interest. Just hope Dubya didn’t put it on his credit card.

http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/table.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/

http://www.mortgagebankers.org/

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7/headlines

Friends Like These

I was watching a CNN report about the attack by a lone gunman at Mercaz Harav yeshiva, a religious school in Jerusalem. 8 were killed and 9 others wounded. This was cited as the deadliest in Jerusalem in over four years. At the time, little other information about the shooting was available. No group or faction has thus far claimed responsibility for the attack.

CNN televised a boiler-plate statement by the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, denouncing the horrific act of terror. Then, as Mr Gillerman left the podium, another man walked to the microphone. CNN did not bother to televise his statement. My curiosity was piqued. This second man, obviously a UN official or representative, must have been about to make a statement regarding the same incident.

In point of fact, the man was Libya’s Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Al-Dabbashi who explained why Libya had vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning the attack but I had to wait until the following day, on ‘Democracy Now!’, to hear the statement by Deputy Ambassador. The statement in effect was that the resolution should be “balanced” by including condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza because the shooting at the yeshiva, atrocious as it was, followed one of the bloodiest weeks in Gaza in years as Israeli troops had killed at least 120 Palestinians over the past week, mostly civilians.

Ibrahim Al-Dabbashi stated, “For us the human lives are the same. We don’t judge the incident in itself. We judge about the killing. We think there is no superhuman and human from second grade or something like that. We think that the lives of the Palestinians are the same as those of the Israelis.”

Why was the Deputy Ambassador’s statement not deemed important enough by CNN to broadcast? To my mind, this is one more example of how the US media skews its reportage to favor the Israeli side of this terrible conflict.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations decried Libya’s stance stating, “The Security Council was unable to reach a decision, a unanimous decision on condemning the massacre that happened in Jerusalem tonight. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the Security Council is infiltrated by terrorists.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Let’s do a simple cold-hearted body count: 120 Palestinians were killed last week in Gaza by the Israeli military using tanks, helicopter gunships and F-16 fighters whereas 8 Israelis were killed by a single shooter in Jerusalem with a single assault rifle.

Where will more tears be shed, in Gaza or in Jerusalem? Where was the more egregious crime committed?

To continue this morbid tally, at least 4,528 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000 compared to 1,031 Israelis; a factor of 4 to 1.

982 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis forces while 119 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians during the same time frame; a factor of almost 9 to 1.

An additional 31,815 Palestinians have been injured since that date compared to 6,845 Israelis; a factor of nearly 5 to 1.

Despite the lop-sided body count, Israel insists that it is the victim and Palestine is the accursed terrorist state.

Since 1980, 33 resolutions condemning Israel’s continuing, flagrant violations of international law and the Geneva conventions as regards the occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people have been put before the UN Security Council. All of them have been vetoed by the US.

Where are the sanctions against Israel? Iraq was invaded for much less.

With friends like Israel...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3516295,00.html

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2008/0305killingspree.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7/headlines

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1372

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

US Politics

You know, my grandfather, Papa, was a real pro wrestling fan way back when. Killer Kowalski, Mad Dog Vachon, Gorgeous George. Crusher. Haystacks Calhoun.

He was totally rapt with the action bristling from that little black ‘n white picture tube.

By ten years old, I suspected that what was taking place was something other than a pure athletic competition. To Papa, it was real. I couldn’t tell him otherwise.

It was stage play. Sure people got hurt – two bruisers going at it in tights, somebody was bound to get banged up. Andy Kaufman found that out.

But win or lose, each wrestler got paid because they both worked for the same company. Whichever grappler got the champion’s belt depended on what back-room deals were made.

It’s the same today; the owners of the ‘league’ market muscle-bound goons as entertainment.

Is it sport? No. The outcome of a sporting contest is not known beforehand. If the outcome is pre-determined, it’s called a ‘fix’. The fix is in and the sport is out.

There have been more than a dozen US presidential campaigns during my life-time. Several, I have actually paid some attention to. Some I’ve even voted in.

The US presidential race, to me, is just a more wordy, less physical form of the Sunday afternoon wrestling shows that kept my Papa on the edge of his chair.

More stage craft than states craft. More showmanship than statesmanship. More PR than policy.

And when the ‘pin’ is made and the votes are counted will the results have already been determined?

Well, you figure it out. Presidential campaigners go begging for upwards of $500,000,000US to get a job that pays $200,000.

$500 million bucks comes with strings attached and those purse strings lead straight back to the fixers.

The fix is not for which of two representatives of big business gets to live in the White House for a few years. Whichever one will be awarded the temp job in the Oval Office, the new administration's policies have been determined in advance by the fixers. And, dollars to donuts, they will have little to do in the long run with what was promised on 'Meet the Press' except those that would further sweeten the pot for the moneyed elite.

Is it politics? Sure, down and dirty.

Is it democracy? Not even close.

OpenSecrets.org - Race for the White House

Dems, What About the Military Budget?

'Hard' Diplomacy

You’re walking down the street. You have two guns; a big one and a little one.

You come upon two men, one being robbed by the other, a brute with a club.

The two men turn to you and say, “Help Me!”

The brute with the club says, “Give me a hand. I’m gonna need more than this club. Sell me your gun and I’ll share what I get off this guy with you.”

You say, “Let me get this straight; you want to buy my gun in order to rob this guy more easily. And then you’ll split the spoils with me?”

The robber says, “Right. With one stipulation: I won’t have the money to buy the gun until after I rob him. Loan me the gun, I’ll pay for it afterward and share the spoils besides.”

The un-armed man is stunned and pleads for your assistance in thwarting this robber. “Please, give me a hand. This is all I have. Help me.”

What to do? What to do?

You can’t just loan the mugger a gun. That wouldn't be right.

Here’s the only thing you can do:

You keep the bigger gun, so the mugger can’t turn round and rob you.
(Hey! You’re no dummy.)

Then you loan the smaller gun to man with the club. He robs the unarmed man of everything he has, shooting him in the leg for daring to resist.

The robber pays you for the gun and, with your bigger gun trained on him, he divvies up the loot with you as he said he would.

Honor amongst thieves, after all.

You go buy two more little guns and walk the street looking for another robber with a club. Next time, you’ll sell the bullets, too.

This is what is called ‘US Foreign policy’.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/massacre_the_story_of_east_timor

Insult to Injury

You enlist in the US Army.

You want to serve your country, learn a trade, see the world, wear fatigues.

After training, you’re sent to Iraq.

Two weeks in country, you‘re sent on a patrol.

Your vehicle is struck by an IED. It’s not adequately armored because the DoD is trying to hold down the expense of bringing Democracy to the Iraqis.

You are wounded. In the disorder resulting from the attack, you lose your helmet.

You’re medevacked to Germany. One of your limbs is amputated.

You go home. A hero. You’ve sacrificed on the altar of Democracy.

After a while, you get a bill from the government for the cost of your lost helmet.

According to the book, The Three Trillion Dollar War’ by Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, that’s just what happens.

You defaulted on your contract with the government to serve three years by getting injured too soon, thus ending your service before the contract allowed.

Pay up you deadbeat.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/stream