White Light Black Light

Zapatista Dreaming

// posted by Alice @ Thursday, January 31, 2008 0 Comments

"I voted for - I can't remember her name," said Kara Takashige Boehm, a sophomore in Erin Pope-Garcia's world history class with Castillo. "Someone from the Peace and Freedom Party. It was a woman, Gloria something."

Takashige Boehm said she wanted to vote for a woman (Gloria E. La Riva, to be precise) from a party other than the Democratic or Republican factions.

* Marin students pick Obama in mock election

Most may be too young to vote in Tuesday's California primary election, but students at Terra Linda High School this week found a way to make their voices heard.

The school was among more than 400 schools with a total 240,000 students in California to participate Tuesday in the MyVote student mock election staged by the California secretary of state's office. San Rafael High School, Kent Middle School, Madrone High School and Marin Oaks High School also participated in the election.

Students voted overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who received nearly 51 percent of the county's 1,750

tallied votes. Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., finished second with just more than 15 percent of the vote. At 3.8 percent, Democrat John Edwards the only other candidate to garner more than 2 percent of the vote.

At Terra Linda, three-quarters of the school's 1,200 students participated in the election, which included presidential candidates and three ballot measures aimed at students.

"We're always trying to connect history with the present, with current events," said Randy Baker, chairman of the Terra Linda social studies department, who organized theevent for his school. "This is a no-brainer for us to offer to kids."

The school submitted its results to the secretary of state's office; final statewide election results and school-by-school breakdowns were to be released Wednesday.

The mock election allowed students to vote for any presidential candidate regardless of party affiliation, but was otherwise handled like a real primary.

Among the students excited about the chance to vote was Cesar Castillo, a sophomore who voted for

Senior Genevieve Macmillan joins other Terra Linda HIgh students in voting during Tuesday s statewide mock election. (IJ photo/Alan Dep)

Clinton.

"We can't vote yet, but we have that urge to vote," said Castillo, 15. "People are like, 'I want to turn 18 so I can vote.' Everyone's talking about it, asking, 'Who did you vote for?'"

Baker said he and the rest of the social studies department geared lesson plans to the mock election for weeks in advance, trying to provide the students as much current information as possible. He said the students showed a good deal of interest.

"The students here are very aware of the issues," Baker said. "They've been very responsive."

The secretary of state's office has staged mock elections since 2006, but this was the first for a presidential primary vote.

Kate Folmar, spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen, said Bowen wanted to take advantage of the interest and importance of this presidential election by getting students interested early. Participation was open to all secondary schools, she said.

"(Bowen) believes strongly in nurturing a culture of young voters, and this was a perfect way to reach them at an early stage," Folmar said.

The Marin County Registrar of Voters Office provided the school with official voting booths, which were stationed in the cafeteria throughout the day.

Baker said the battle between Clinton and Obama was a major point of interest for students at Terra Linda. The school has more than 31 percent minority students, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics.

"The gender-versus-race issue is a very interesting one, and one that the kids have been talking about a lot," Baker said. "The kids seem to be leaning toward Obama, but that's very premature."

Castillo was among a collection of students interested in Tuesday's event, but some students showed considerably less enthusiasm.

"I voted for - I can't remember her name," said Kara Takashige Boehm, a sophomore in Erin Pope-Garcia's world history class with Castillo. "Someone from the Peace and Freedom Party. It was a woman, Gloria something."

Takashige Boehm said she wanted to vote for a woman (Gloria E. La Riva, to be precise) from a party other than the Democratic or Republican factions. She had a different take than Castillo on the students' reaction to the event.

"I feel like kids don't care very much," said Takashige Boehm, 15. "There's a small percentage of kids that really got into it, but not many."

Baker knew the response to Tuesday's event wouldn't be unanimously positive.

"I wish I could say the kids are vibrant and excited, but I can't say that," Baker said. "It's not the most exciting stuff in the world, but it's important for the kids to learn. It's a good approximation of a real election day, and a lot of the kids find that fascinating."

GET THE RESULTS

With 250 of 450 California schools reporting, Barack Obama had 27,845 votes statewide in the open election, nearly seven times that of the leading Republican, John McCain, who had received 3,773 votes.

- Download a PDF of how Marin students voted in Tuesday's mock election: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/student_mock_election/2008/marin.pdf

- Full statewide results: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/studentmockelection.htm

// posted by Alice @ Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3 Comments

In a letter dated December 31, 2007, Lynn Rozar and his wife, from Greeneville, Tennessee, want to know my position on some issues concerning the average person: WITH JUST SOME STRAIGHT SIMPLE ANSWERS FOR A CHANGE.

Stewart A. Alexander Socialist Party USA Nominee for Vice President and candidate for nomination Peace and Freedom Party

Questions from: Lynn Rozar, Greeneville, TN

12/31/2007

Mr. Stewart Alexander,

To make up our minds as to whom we are going to vote, my wife and I would like to know how you stand on some issues concerning the average person: WITH JUST SOME STRAIGHT SIMPLE ANSWERS FOR A CHANGE.

It is all well and good that each candidate has their own agenda for ending the war in Iraq and a multitude of other international events. But what I want to know is what you are going to do for us average everyday run of the mill individuals. Though we want to know about international affairs they are relatively unimportant to our everyday lives. I personally feel that we should be out of Iraq and let them handle their own issues. The Iraq's believe that they are fighting a religious and cultural war. There is no way to win a war like that.

As a potential commander and chief what do you think about the policy says don't fire until fired upon? As a veteran with three tours of duty in Viet Nam I feel that this policy is a loosing proposition. Our service men and women should be given the opportunity to defend themselves by any means necessary to survive, without having to think about going to jail if I accidentally make a mistake. This is a war and sometimes situations escalate in the heat of battle. We also need to ensure that our military has all the latest and best equipment available (at their disposal and not sitting in a warehouse) to get the job done. What is your position?

A. The precise policies regulating when soldiers may fire their weapons are not the real problem - the real problem is that our government keeps sending our soldiers into harm's way in places they should not be sent, under circumstances in which we should not be involved. If U.S. soldiers had not been sent to Vietnam, the question would not have come up for you. Looking back, it is clear to most that they should not have been sent to Vietnam. They should not have been sent to Iraq, either. There is nothing our soldiers can do in Iraq that will make things better, and almost everything they do (no matter how well or how bravely they do it) actually makes the situation worse. My policy on this war is simple: bring them home now. Not when convenient, not when the politicians can claim a victory, not when thousands more have died, but NOW.

This is the one that really bothers me. I hear about sending Billions to other countries to help their government and population and when it comes time to help us U.S. Citizens it is like pulling teeth to get a dime. What is all this money for and why is it not being spent to help ourselves first. I can only imagine what the money given to foreign countries could do for our educational system to make us world class again.

A. One problem with foreign aid is that the bulk of it is not intended to help people abroad, but to suppress them. Most such aid is military and military-related aid, and some of the governments we give it to are pretty nasty. I favor ending all military aid abroad. Some aid is good, not only for the people of other countries, but for the people of our own country as well. For example, eradicating diseases abroad can protect our own people from disease, especially when a sick person can fly between continents in hours. I favor giving carefully-targeted aid abroad that helps people become more healthy and prosperous, thus helping our own people by reducing the risk of disease and by eliminating low-wage havens to which employers move their factories. As for helping Americans, see some of my answers below.

Can you do anything about gas prices and if so what?

We can't afford to invest for our futures if we have to make a decision every day to buy gas to get to work or buy food for our children.

A. The damages to American families from the high cost of oil and gasoline are severe, and they have several causes. First, because our government is obedient to the big oil and automobile companies and keeps our mass transit systems undeveloped and expensive to ride, most people must use cars even when they would rather not. This increases demand for gasoline. Second, the government policy has been to keep the prices high to keep oil company profits high, and they have made record profits. There are many things that can be done to improve this situation, and I favor a number of them: 1. Place the oil industry under public ownership and democratic control of our people. Eliminate the big oil companies, and eliminate their influence on our government. 2. Encourage the use of mass transit, not by making gasoline expensive, but by providing convenient transportation at minimal or no cost. 3. Establish a full-employment economy in which all can work and earn a decent living, and hard choices about necessary spending will recede into memory for most families. 4. We need to end government subsidies for ethanol production; eventually this will sharply increase the future cost of fuel and food. It is time that we mass produce electric automobiles here is the U.S. before the end of this decade. This will greatly reduce our dependency on oil and create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people that need good paying jobs.

Something is not right when we see that we can make a better living on welfare than trying to have and hold a job. At $10.00 an hour and we have to pay $4.00 to $5.00 an hour for child care I can make a better living on welfare. I work but I think about this everyday. Why should I work when I can make more money from the government just sitting on my behind?

A. Actually, it is impossible to make a decent living on welfare, despite the stories. But I favor several policies that would answer parts of your question. First, I favor doubling the minimum wage and indexing it to the cost of living, so that no one would again have to work for terribly low wages and fail to make ends meet. Second, I favor making all education, from pre-school through the university, free for all. (We used to have this in some states - it is certainly not impossible.) Now refigure how well you could make a living, with a minimum wage of $15 per hour or higher and no child care expenses. Also, a recent study has shown that the federal government needs to assist working families with child care expenses; it would require a serious U.S. investment of $30 billion annually. Today, child care is costing many families more than the cost to send there children to college; this is a national crisis that must be dealt with today.

What are you going to do about health insurance? I guess I am one of the lucky ones I am a VET and can go to the VA if I have problems and my children can get some state assistance but my wife is uninsured.

A. I believe that our medical care system, devoted to making profits rather than delivering care, is broken and needs to be completely redone. I favor a program of free medical and dental care for all - kind of like Medicare was supposed to be, but extending the age limit downward, so everyone qualifies at birth. Most industrialized countries have this, and despite the stories you hear from the TV stations and newspapers that are owned by billionaires, it works quite well. In actual fact, we would probably spend less on medical care as a nation than we do now, with much better results. No money would go to the predatory insurance corporations.

What about long term care for elderly parents? When they can't afford nursing homes and we can't afford to have them at home because we both have to work to make ends meet.

A. In most industrialized countries, care for the elderly is recognized as a responsibility for the whole society, and is funded through taxes or other government income. I believe priority should be given to keeping older Americans active and happy in their own families, neighborhoods and communities whenever possible, rather than warehousing them in institutions (which are presently very profitable to run). But well-run retirement homes also have a place in a system of care for the elderly, and they should be freely accessible to all who need them.

What will you do about prescription drugs? We make them in the US and it is cheaper to buy them in Canada or Mexico but it is illegal to try to save a few bucks.

A. Prescription drugs should be provided at no or nominal cost as needed, as part of a universal health plan. The present influence of the drug corporations on our government is a shame that must be ended.

What is your stand on securing the boarders and how? Here's an idea. Take your reserve units on their two week training and place them in camps along the boarders. With a constant rotation of troops you won't have to worry about bribe and maybe we can stem the flow of illegal drugs and immigrants.

A. It is impossible to fully secure all our borders, and even the politicians who rant and rave about it know this. A "great wall" would work no better here than it did in China, or the Berlin Wall in Germany, or the walls that were built by the Roman Empire to secure borders throughout Europe. We definitely need a better immigration policy, because the need for immigrant labor is a simple fact, and current policies make it impossible for enough people to enter legally to meet the demand. In general, much smuggling can be ended by sensible economic policies, and a sensible drug policy would take the huge profits away that feed corruption of those who are supposed to enforce the laws. Also, we need to end trade agreement that create starvation for millions south of the boarder and create more wealth for the billionaires here in the U.S. We need trade agreements that are designed to benefit working people within and beyond our borders.

What about education? We have students that have excellent grades that can't get into college due to financial issues? It seems that unless you have money or are an excellent athlete school financing is hard to come by. At $10.00 an hour with a house payment everyone wants you to put your home up. That is all good for the 1st child but what happens when the second one wants to go to college? I know that there are student loans and government grants available but when you look at the long term repayment plan is it ever going to get paid back with the job market in its present condition?

A. I strongly favor free public education from pre-school through the university. Yes, it can be done, and when the people demand it, it will happen. Today, education has become a tax on the young people of America and their families and many are faced with college expenses that are in the tens of thousands of dollars upon graduating; and unfortunately due to cost, there are millions that must sacrifice a good education. We need to break the powers of great wealth that distorts our society and our laws and hurts the working class at every turn.

What is your stand on outsourcing jobs? I know more than one person that went totally under when his job was outsource; took a half cut in pay for his next job and lost his home.

A. Exporting jobs is just one of the ugly things the wealthy owners of the big corporations do to keep down the working class. Actually, they get government aid in doing this, and their factories abroad are insured through a government program! I favor a full employment economy, in which there are jobs for all - the wealthy oppose this because they want to keep wages down. Another side of this question is how to help improve conditions, and workers rights in other countries, which would keep them from being "low-wage havens" for factory owners.

Another issue on our minds is other countries, citizens of other countries or business of other countries owning land in the USA. If they can't beat us in a war they will just buy us; very unfair to US citizens trying to start a business if they have to compete against a whole country for funding. To my knowledge, though limited on this subject, US citizens can't own land in a lot of countries. This takes lots of money out of our country. What is your position?

A. I have nothing against the person from France, China, Japan, South Africa or Kenya owning a house in the US. But I do not want them, or anyone else, owning our factories, our banks, our railroads, and so on. Keep in mind that rich Americans who own these also constantly underpay and mistreat their workers, and abandon them and take their factories abroad any time they can make higher profits doing so. I am a Socialist, which means that I want the factories, the banks, the mines and the ports to be owned by all the people, and democratically run by the people. This would prevent anyone, foreign or American, from exploiting American workers.

Then there is the issue of housing or more to the point the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage. Why is the government trying to bail out lenders? These people had the money to loan to start with. If they made a bad loan or business investment, live with it and suffer the consequences. (Just about any other business would have to suffer their loss) We should be trying to help the person who probably did not understand the terms of his commitment (granted he should have read and understood) but there are a lot of lenders just looking to take advantage of anyone.

A. Yes, it is curious that the high interest rates are justified on the basis of risk, and the risk is taken away by government bailouts that never seem to bail out the little guy, just the big corporations. Did you know that in many countries, there are government agencies that provide low-interest loans for workers to buy houses, and the prices are subsidized so that they are in reach of ordinary people? No reason we can't do that here, except that the very wealthy who benefit from the current system don't want us to. I believe that we need a set of government programs that will make it possible for every American to live in decent housing, whether a city apartment or a suburban or rural house.

My next issue of concern is illegal drug use amongst our children. As a wrestling coach I constantly talk nutrition, physical capability, team work and against the use of sports performing drugs and illegal drugs. Do you have a plan to combat illegal drugs?

A. My plan is, first, to stop the destructive "war on drugs" that outlaws adult use of marijuana, etc., and helps the drug lords make huge fortunes, while low-level users get stuck in prison for years instead of getting the medical treatment they need. We need free and freely-available treatment for drug problems, and to recognize (as some European countries now do) that this is first of all a medical problem. As for the performance-enhancing drugs that are used by foolish athletes, the profit motive is very important there, and if needed prescription drugs were provided to those who need them at nominal cost, with the big profits taken out of the drug trade, much of this would recede. The enforcement of rules against drug use within each sport are mainly a matter of sportsmanship for that sport's governing body to regulate, rather than a federal concern, but there are certainly federal actions that could help. If every young athlete could look forward to a decent life of secure work and available housing and medical care, some of the desperation to succeed in sports in order to have a chance at a decent living would no longer be a factor.

My final question is: What makes you different than all the other candidates that promise us everything and after getting into office delivers virtually nothing.

A. I am not a Republican or Democrat and I am not an opportunist politician. I am running as a Socialist Party candidate with Socialist Party USA, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate, and a candidate of the Liberty Union Party for Vice President, with my running mate Brian Moore for President. I am serious about taking on the big-money politicians who represent the big corporations. When we can build a movement that puts candidates like us in the White House, and real representatives of working people in the House and Senate, believe me - we will deliver for working people! Socialism and socialists will empower working people to benefit themselves.

Please remember that most of your votes come from average people that are just trying to make a living, put food on the table for our children, own a small piece of America and maybe stay healthy enough to do it all again tomorrow.

A. As someone who has had to work all his life to put food on the table, working as a retail clerk for Safeway Stores, working as a janitor in Los Angeles, working in warehousing as a forklift operator with Inter-American Public Distribution, in construction working 15 hour daily, in aerospace working for Lockheed Aircraft as a plastics fabricator, mortgage lending, cleaning houses for 10 hours a day, six day a week, to help my wife build a housecleaning business, and automobile sales, believe me, I remember that every moment! Thank you for your questions that gave me this opportunity to speak my mind on so many important issues.

Respectfully Lynn Rozar Greeneville, TN

homepage: homepage: http://StewartAlexanderCares.com

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/01/371593.shtml

// posted by Alice @ Wednesday, January 30, 2008 0 Comments

[Thanks to grischa for this link]

By Bruce E. Levine

For a generation now, disruptive young Americans who rebel against authority figures have been increasingly diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated with psychiatric (psychotropic) drugs.

Disruptive young people who are medicated with Ritalin, Adderall and other amphetamines routinely report that these drugs make them "care less" about their boredom, resentments and other negative emotions, thus making them more compliant and manageable. And so-called atypical antipsychotics such as Risperdal and Zyprexa -- powerful tranquilizing drugs -- are increasingly prescribed to disruptive young Americans, even though in most cases they are not displaying any psychotic symptoms.

Many talk show hosts think I'm kidding when I mention oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). After I assure them that ODD is in fact an official mental illness -- an increasingly popular diagnosis for children and teenagers -- they often guess that ODD is simply a new term for juvenile delinquency. But that is not the case.

Young people diagnosed with ODD, by definition, are doing nothing illegal (illegal behaviors are a symptom of another mental illness called conduct disorder). In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) created oppositional defiant disorder, defining it as "a pattern of negativistic, hostile and defiant behavior." The official symptoms of ODD include "often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules" and "often argues with adults." While ODD-diagnosed young people are obnoxious with adults they don't respect, these kids can be a delight with adults they do respect; yet many of them are medicated with psychotropic drugs.

An even more common reaction to oppressive authorities than overt defiance is some type of passive defiance.

John Holt, the late school critic, described passive-aggressive strategies employed by prisoners in concentration camps and slaves on plantations, as well as some children in classrooms. Holt pointed out that subjects may attempt to appease their rulers while still satisfying some part of their own desire for dignity "by putting on a mask, by acting much more stupid and incompetent than they really are, by denying their rulers the full use of their intelligence and ability, by declaring their minds and spirits free of their enslaved bodies."

Holt observed that by "going stupid" in a classroom, children frustrate authorities through withdrawing the most intelligent and creative parts of their minds from the scene, thus achieving some sense of potency.

Going stupid -- or passive aggression -- is one of many nondisease explanations for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Studies show that virtually all ADHD-diagnosed children will pay attention to activities that they enjoy or that they have chosen. In other words, when ADHD-labeled kids are having a good time and in control, the "disease" goes away.

There are other passive rebellions against authority that have been medicalized by mental health authorities. I have talked to many people who earlier in their lives had been diagnosed with substance abuse, depression and even schizophrenia but believe that their "symptoms" had in fact been a kind of resistance to the demands of an oppressive environment. Some of these people now call themselves psychiatric survivors.

While there are several reasons for behavioral disruptiveness and emotional difficulties, rebellion against an oppressive environment is one common reason that is routinely not even considered by many mental health professionals. Why? It is my experience that many mental health professionals are unaware of how extremely obedient they are to authorities. Acceptance into medical school and graduate school and achieving a Ph.D. or M.D. means jumping through many meaningless hoops, all of which require much behavioral, attentional and emotional compliance to authorities -- even disrespected ones. When compliant M.D.s and Ph.D.s begin seeing noncompliant patients, many of these doctors become anxious, sometimes even ashamed of their own excessive compliance, and this anxiety and shame can be fuel for diseasing normal human reactions.

Two ways of subduing defiance are to criminalize it and to pathologize it, and U.S. history is replete with examples of both. In the same era that John Adams' Sedition Act criminalized criticism of U.S. governmental policy, Dr. Benjamin Rush, the father of American psychiatry (his image adorns the APA seal), pathologized anti-authoritarianism. Rush diagnosed those rebelling against a centralized federal authority as having an "excess of the passion for liberty" that "constituted a form of insanity." He labeled this illness "anarchia."

Throughout American history, both direct and indirect resistance to authority has been diseased. In an 1851 article in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, Louisiana physician Samuel Cartwright reported his discovery of "drapetomania," the disease that caused slaves to flee captivity. Cartwright also reported his discovery of "dysaesthesia aethiopis," the disease that caused slaves to pay insufficient attention to the master's needs. Early versions of ODD and ADHD?

In Rush's lifetime, few Americans took anarchia seriously, nor was drapetomania or dysaesthesia aethiopis taken seriously in Cartwright's lifetime. But these were eras before the diseasing of defiance had a powerful financial ally in Big Pharma.

In every generation there will be authoritarians. There will also be the "bohemian bourgeois" who may enjoy anti-authoritarian books, music, and movies but don't act on them. And there will be genuine anti-authoritarians, who are so pained by exploitive hierarchies that they take action. Only occasionally in American history do these genuine anti-authoritarians actually take effective direct action that inspires others to successfully revolt, but every once in a while a Tom Paine comes along. So authoritarians take no chances, and the state-corporate partnership criminalizes anti-authoritarianism, pathologizes it, markets drugs to "cure" it and financially intimidates those who might buck the system.

It would certainly be a dream of Big Pharma and those who favor an authoritarian society if every would-be Tom Paine -- or Crazy Horse, Tecumseh, Emma Goldman or Malcolm X -- were diagnosed as a youngster with mental illness and quieted with a lifelong regimen of chill pills. The question is: Has this dream become reality?

Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and author of Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy (Chelsea Green, 2007).

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 29, 2008 0 Comments

We can only imagine what it must have been like, decades ago, when the California secretary of state — whose office is in charge of elections — first discussed this phenomenon with the Democratic and Republican leaders of the state Legislature.

State: "We have encountered a new problem in printing the ballots. There are a lot of people registering to vote who refuse to identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans."

Demo: "Is that legal?"

State: "Yes, the courts say it's legal."

Rep: "They're neither Republican nor Democrat, and they still expect us to let them vote?"

State: "Yes. If they meet the other requirements — residency and age and the like — they're entitled to vote. Our problem is how to identify them on the ballot."

Demo: "If they're neither Democrat nor Republican, they must be idiots."

Rep: "Or illiterate. Do we have to let illiterates vote?"

State: "I'm afraid so. The U.S. Supreme Court has banned literacy tests for voters. The logical thing to call them is independent,' but that would just cause confusion, because there's now an American Independent party that has qualified for the ballot."

Rep: "A whole new party? Can they do that?"

State: "Yes, and that's not the only one. There's also a Green Party, a Libertarian Party and a Peace and Freedom Party."

Demo: "Four new parties? Really?"

State: "Yes, making a total of six. Only in California. And even with a choice of six parties, there are still some voters who refuse to be identified with any party."

Demo: "Can't we just label them weirdos'?"

State: "I'm afraid the courts would find that pejorative."

Rep: "How about undecided'?"

State: "But they're not undecided. They have decided they don't want to be identified with any political party."

Rep: "With independent' out, why don't we call them nonpartisan'? That's accurate."

Demo: "But it makes them sound too rational, the snobs."

Rep: "How about something that labels them for the weasels they really are? Since they're wimping out on picking a party, let's list them as decline to state.' "

State: "The courts shouldn't object to that."

Which is a rather fanciful explanation of how people like me got the ballot designation "decline to state" — with its implication that we have some deep, dark political secret that we're trying to hide. All we're trying to do, really, is opt out of the whole rat race of partisan politics. When it comes to politics, we're simply not party animals.

So in the national presidential primary Feb. 5, we won't be agonizing over whether to vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney or anyone else on the Republican ticket. The Republicans won't allow decline-to-state voters to participate in the party primary. It is, after all, their primary and we aren't one of them.

However, the Democrats will let us agonize over whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, by asking for a Democratic Party ballot at the polls. (Decline-to-state voters can also request an American Independent Party ballot.)

For whatever reason, Ventura County is more tolerant of nonpartisan voters than the state of California is. In county election material, we're not listed as "decline to state" — with all its implications of hiding in the closet — but as what we really are, "nonpartisan."

Whether or not we can vote for some candidates in the primary election, we generic, unbranded voters have the consolation of knowing that we will decide the final outcome — the winner of the presidential Super Bowl on Nov. 4.

Says who?

Says every voting survey I've seen in recent elections. According to those statistics, more and more voters — old and new — aren't signing up as Democrats nor Republicans, but in some other party or as decline to state.

Ventura County is typical of the country politically: Just fewer than 40 percent of the registered voters are Democrats and just fewer than 40 percent are Republicans. So the party faithful cancel out each other's votes — leaving the election to be decided by which party attracts the most votes from among the remaining 20 percent.

Meanwhile, the party primaries consist mainly of bickering over who is the most avid Republican and who is the most avid Democrat. Somehow overlooking the fact that, in order to be elected, the candidates from both major parties will have to attract votes from us political mongrels — whatever we're called.

— Chuck Thomas is a Star columnist whose column appears on the Opinion pages each Saturday. His e-mail address is star4cthomas@earthlink.net.

// posted by Alice @ Saturday, January 26, 2008 0 Comments

By MATT FRAZIER

Star-Telegram staff writer

Have the flying objects -- at least half of them -- over Stephenville been identified?

The military now says that 10 F-16s from the 457th Fighter Squadron were training between 6 and 8 p.m. Jan. 8 in the Brownwood military operating area, which includes Stephenville and Erath County.

Dozens of people in the area reported seeing UFOs -- and fighter jets -- around dusk on that date. Initially, Air Force Reserve officials said no jets were in the area.

"There was an internal error in communication," said Maj. Karl Lewis, a spokesman for the 301st Fighter Wing at Naval Air Station Fort Worth.

Lewis said he had no information about how or why the error occurred. He also said he did not know whether any of those pilots spotted anything unusual.

The statement adds credibility to witnesses interviewed Saturday in Dublin, near Stephenville, by the Mutual UFO Network, said Kenneth Cherry, the group's state director. He said Wednesday's revelation by the military may have been the result of a request the group made under the Freedom of Information Act.

"They knew they were eventually going to have to tell the truth," Cherry said. "They concocted a ridiculous cover story in the beginning, but now they are coming closer to the truth with another cover story."

Several of the approximately 50 witnesses said they saw fighter jets trying -- and failing miserably -- to catch up to the strange aircraft.

Some said the unidentified flying object was up to a mile long and hundreds of yards high. Others described seeing two to eight lights that flew in formation, changed color and shined with an intensity greater than a welding flame.

One witness who reported seeing military jets chasing a UFO was Steve Allen, a pilot and owner of a freight company in Glen Rose.

"We're on the money 100 percent," Allen said after learning of the military's statement. "Something is going on, and we know about it. It's time for the government to start talking about it."

The group expects to investigate the reports for several months before releasing its findings.

// posted by Alice @ Thursday, January 24, 2008 0 Comments

It’s scary. People in our great nation say they are frustrated. They say they want change. Even in a recent poll, people said they would rather give someone new a chance at serving in Congress rather than an incumbent. The primaries and polls, however, are not reflecting any real change, except maybe a change in the President’s name. One has to ask, do they even check the voting records of the candidates for which they support?

I read an article that hammered Dr. Ron Paul because he cannot write legislation that he can get passed. Someone wrote me recently and asked why one would consider voting for Kucinich. He, after all, is as left as they come. Cynthia McKinney is running, but you hear almost nothing about her. These are just a few of the people that could change the status quo!

These candidates, one Republican, one Democrat, and one former Democrat now a Green, have voted more consistently FOR our Constitution, in turn for us and the values our Founding Fathers brought to the table, than any of the major candidate running in this election. If you want real change, you better look past the top candidates running and re-evaluate the bottom few. Case in point, here are the voting records of some of the current Presidential candidates with regards to two damning pieces of legislation:

^{In the interest of fairness, people make mistakes. So…as for supporting votes for the first USA PATRIOT Act in a seemingly desperate time, let us mull over giving a little leeway. BUT consider this, those who voted for the first “PATRIOT Act” voted for something that was a last-minute exchange, “hot-off-the-press,” something no one had a chance to review. Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio tried to make congress well aware of that fact:}

^{“…it just came off the Xerox machine. This isn’t the bill that was adopted by}

^{a unanimous 36-vote majority of the Democrats and Republicans of the Judiciary Committee…these are critical issues, this is what we are fighting for, these are}

^{our civil liberties!”}

^{Did anyone heed his “warning?” Only one Senator, and sixty-six Representatives voted against the original PATRIOT Act. This act, allowing, among other things, for invasion of our privacy via sneak and peek provisions and wiretapping in the name of fighting terrorism, encroaches on some of our very fundamental civil liberties. How could the people we send to represent us let us down so egregiously? Then, to rub salt into an already sore wound, notice those, in the above summary, who supported the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization bill.}

^{It is clear that some of these people are not representing “change.” It is just more of the same rhetoric we have heard a thousand times before.}

^{Obama has garnered the “Obama for Change” title, but does he really represent change? He wasn’t in office to vote for the 2001 PATRIOT Act, but he did vote in favor of its reauthorization. Clinton wants us to believe she stands for change, but she hasn’t changed much since she was our First Lady, reintroducing Universal Health Care. She, too, voted for both versions of the PATRIOT Act.}

^{And what of McCain? He also voted for both PATRIOT Acts. Throw in Hunter and Edwards, since they voted for one, or both, versions of this bill and it looks like no real change is imminent from these few, especially in view of the fact that they all voted to trash our freedoms via their support for these two invasive acts.}

^{Let us take a look at another damning piece of legislation, The Real ID Act. While the original version passed the House, but died out, the clever author, Representative James Sensenbrenner (author of the bill and sponsor of both USA PATRIOT Acts), attached it, as a rider, to H.R. 1268, a Military Spending bill. Let’s take a look at that vote, shall we?}

^{Again we see that Clinton, Hunter, McCain, and Obama voted to throw our freedoms away by voting for a bill that included both the Real ID Act and military spending for this illegal war.}

^{On top of this, since only the Senate can declare a war, the Senate, as a whole, should be voting against everything that pertains to any military spending to support a war they never authorized. Likewise, the House of Representatives should do the same, as there really isn’t a war to fight, since its counterpart in the Legislative Branch has not declared it.}

^{At the writing of this article, there are approximately one hundred thirty-eight people running for President of these United States. Yes, one hundred thirty-eight different people. Have we seen any coverage of any of these people? In addition to the large number of Independent and Third Party candidates, there are thirty-two other Republicans and twenty-one other Democrats running.}

^{Many of the not-so-well-known candidates are relying on the Internet to reach their supporters. Ron Paul’s campaign has done well raising awareness, and money, via the Internet. He had to resort to something, as the mainstream media ignores him almost completely. Dennis Kucinich has to rely on something else, as well, as the print and television media are consistently leaving him out of the news and debate circuit. How are US citizens going to make an informed decision if they can’t hear the other candidates?}

^{And what about Cynthia McKinney? Did you know she was running? While some of the other possible candidates are relatively unknown, she is a former Representative. She has an excellent voting record, when it comes to Constitutional issues. Does she get to debate?}

^{It seems a shame the Presidency of the United States is now, more than ever, a popularity contest. It seems to be more about name recognition than anything else.}

^{Secondly, to be a candidate for the people, you must have millions in funds to run your campaign if you expect to get any exposure. On these two points, alone, our country leaves out many of “we-the-people.”}

^{It is time we recognize, first and foremost, that by allowing the mainstream media to “pick” our candidates, we are not getting the choices we deserve. Secondly, by allowing the GOP and the Democratic parties to keep some of their candidates from debating, we are allowing them to guide the vote, again robbing us from choices we deserve. We-the-People need to speak out or We-the-People will not be heard.}

^{The time has come for you to get involved. If you do not, you will only be getting the status quo. Write or call the networks and the GOP and Democratic offices. Let them know you are unhappy.}

^{Let them know it’s time for real change. Let them know that YOU know there are other possibilities running and it’s about time we heard from some of them. Let’s see if we can’t get a real candidate for the people on the ballot this year!}

^{HR 3162 (107th) Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3162}

^{HR 3199 (109th) USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3199}

^{FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html}

^{Can You Hear Me Now? http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html}

^{Sneak and Peek Search Warrants and the USA Patriot Act http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html}

^{Should Ron Paul be allowed at Sunday's debate? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/should-ron-paul.html}

^{Ron Paul Debate: New Hampshire Diss Fair? http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618040.shtml}

^{NBC To Appeal Judge Over Kucinich Debate Participation http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/14/23166/2701}

// posted by Alice @ Thursday, January 24, 2008 0 Comments

by Philip Giraldi

// posted by Alice @ Wednesday, January 23, 2008 0 Comments

Nairobi's slums have seen some of the worst violence

At least 30 people have been killed in a weekend of continuing post-election violence in Kenya, reports say.

In the worst incident 22 people in a Rift Valley camp for displaced people reportedly died after being attacked by mobs armed with machetes and arrows.

Three were also killed with machetes in a Nairobi slum and a further five died in unrest elsewhere in the country.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is due to meet political leaders on Tuesday as part of mediation efforts.

EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel has already been trying to mediate an end to the crisis over the presidential vote. He met President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga and urged both sides to stop exacerbating tensions.

Deadly clashes

The bodies of the three killed in Mathare on Sunday bore machete marks. Witnesses said the violence had a tribal element between Kikuyus, the tribe of Mr Kibaki, and Luo, the ethnic group which Mr Odinga is from.

Houses have been burned down and people forced from their homes

An Associated Press reporter saw the body of one man who was beaten to death, apparently a Luo caught by a group of Kikuyus. Another man staggered past, blood streaming from his mutilated arm after a machete attack, the reporter adds.

A Luo woman who spoke to Reuters said she had been asked what tribe she was from.

"Even before I could tell them, they took my bag and even wanted to cut me with a machete," she said. "I was just saved by the grace of God, they have taken everything I had."

Musalia Mudavadi, an official from Mr Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), visited the injured in hospital and attacked the actions of the police.

"Now we are seeing cases of the police actually giving way and allowing people to attack each other," he told AP.

In the Rift Valley, 22 people sheltering in an improvised displacement camp at Kipkelion have been attacked and killed with machetes and arrows in the past three days.

There were also reports of five people being killed at Elburgon, also in the Rift Valley, as a mob of more than 150 people armed with improvised weapons attacked villagers burned their homes.

The BBC's Adam Mynott says much of Kenya remains peaceful, but areas that have experienced ethnic tensions are still very dangerous.

Despite protests from aid agencies, camps for displaced people in Nairobi and Mombasa are being shut down. The government argues that the affected parts of the two cities are now safe and affected people may now return to their homes.

Positive silence

Supporters of opposition leader Raila Odinga, who accuses President Mwai Kibaki of stealing the 27 December election, say they will resume protest rallies on Thursday.

In Kisumu in western Kenya, where some 100 people have died in the violence, ODM leaders are attending a large inter-denominational prayer session at the main stadium to remember the victims.

The disturbances across the country have left more than 600 people dead and a quarter of a million homeless.

Now there is a need for a military ceasefire and also for a semantic rhetoric ceasefire Louis Michel EU development commissioner

Mr Michel, who met political leaders from both sides in Nairobi, said he was concerned that the Kenyan police were using excessive force against opposition demonstrators.

But he also criticised the opposition's decision to resume mass rallies which could lead to more violence.

"Now there is a need for a military ceasefire and also for a semantic rhetoric ceasefire," he said.

"Now we need a quiet situation, we need just a little bit positive silence."

The ODM, which wants a re-run of the election, had originally called off protests in favour of a boycott of companies that back President Kibaki.

Kenya's National Commission on Human Rights cast doubt on the vote, listing a catalogue of irregularities on Friday.

// posted by Alice @ Sunday, January 20, 2008 0 Comments

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."

By Lee Dunbar

January 17, 2008

Dana Perino, Josh Bolten, Stephen Hadley, and Ed Gillespie blogged the president’s trip to the Middle East this week. It’s the first White House blog, but yet another example of key players in the government getting behind the keyboard. While the White House blog is limited to the president’s Middle East trip, the State Department’s blog, DipNote is part of a long-term effort to offer “the public an alternative source to mainstream media for U.S. foreign policy information.”[1] Their success is dependent on whether or not the Administration can adapt to this new phase of the information revolution. Under the banner of “Web 2.0,” recent years have seen a shift from a one-way broadcast of data to a two-way broad exchange and collaboration. A communication strategy should reflect this new paradigm, matching content to what the individual is interested in via a multiplicity of online venues.

A blog is short for web log, in which a user publishes their daily thoughts and interests in a diary format on the Internet. In April 2007, Technocrati, a blog tracking application, announced that it now monitors more than 70 million blogs, with 120,000 new blogs being created worldwide each day. [2] Blogs can speed through cyberspace when promoted through social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. In this context, the reader can become a powerful relay station. Facebook alone has 60 million active users and is the sixth most trafficked site in the country.[3] The volume of information is such that it must be synthesized through self-updating applications that sort content from user-chosen website feeds. RSS, the most popular type of feed, enables content to be read through an application without visiting the site, saving enormous amounts of time. Information is both specialized and personal; there is not enough time to sift through the boring or less engaging.

With information spreading so quickly, it’s critical for the government to take part. Donald Rumsfeld quoted Mark Twain in an effort to explain the new predicament: “A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has its boots on.” DipNote was launched by the State Department in September 2007 to wide criticism. Even with such a rough start, a post from the UN Dispatch (a blog run by the UN Foundation) made the case for more commentary: “Our discussions would surely be enhanced should State Department experts chime in from time to time.”[4] Even if the message of a government blog is an official one, undoubtedly vetted for hours, there is a desire to hear what it has to say.

DipNote covers a variety of subjects, including critical foreign policy issues, discussion threads on current events, the daily life of Foreign Service Officers, and behind-the-scenes views of state visits. This wide range of content is far from specialized, personal, or engaging. In the realm of Web 2.0, each of these components is necessary to capture and hold a reader who is already suffering from information-overload.

Establishing a variety of blogs pertaining to particular interests, would enable the State Department to engage foreign policy bloggers, everyday news readers, and traditional media. It will allow for more specialized conversations in discussion threads and create an atmosphere to examine well-informed suggestions.

In addition to reviewing their current blog content, the State Department should make an effort to make all of its web content easily sharable. This enables other bloggers to do the work of spreading the message, even if they add their personal opinions. While it has already made some of its content available via RSS feeds, it should create feeds for regional and issue-specific happenings. Further, it should take cues from news sites and make content easily sharable on social networking sites.

In a more informal vein, the State Department should echo what it has done in its outside efforts. Last year it established a cadre of bloggers, known as the Digital Outreach Team, to engage foreign blogs and online chat rooms to advance the US message.[5] It would be in the State Department’s best interests to establish a similar group to engage US based blogs and forums to counter misconceptions, answer questions and provide resources.

There is little doubt that Web 2.0 tools and strategies are powerful, but it is important to realize that any official government message will be approached with skepticism, regardless of the venue. While taking advantage of its benefits, the tools of Web 2.0 are no replacement for a strong message. Previous administrations have incorporated the new media of their time to create connections with their audience, from Roosevelt and his fireside chats to Kennedy’s live press conferences. While the means of communication are being revolutionized, the basics of good communication remain true. A blog is not a replacement for other efforts nor is it a buzzword for sound bytes, but a step forward in open government that extends a message in a personal way to millions of people.

[1] “About the State Department Blog,” url

[5] Neil MacFarquhar, “At U.S. State Department, bloggers join Middle East chat,” International Herald Tribune, 22 September 2007 url<http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/22/america/blog.1-138816.php?page=1>

// posted by Alice @ Saturday, January 19, 2008 0 Comments

PSL Candidates Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear What we stand for

U.S. OUT OF IRAQ NOW End the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. Bring all the troops home now. Stop U.S. blockades & sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Korea, Sudan and everywhere. End U.S. aid to Israel—Support the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination. Free Puerto Rico. International friendship and solidarity, not imperialist domination.

FIGHT THE CORPORATE BOSSES Full employment—decent jobs for all. Job training for youth & the unemployed. Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour now. Free, quality healthcare for all. Expand and guarantee social security for all retired workers, disabled and unemployed people. Stop union-busting, expand the right to organize, including card-check recognition. Free, high quality education from pre-school through college. Housing is a right—End foreclosures and evictions. Stop environmental destruction—Make the polluters pay. Rebuild New Orleans—Right of return for all survivors.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL Fight racism and the racist criminal “justice” system. Defend women’s reproductive rights, including the right to choose. Full rights for all immigrants. Reparations now for the African American community. Eliminate anti-LGBT laws—Equal marriage rights for all. Equality for disabled people. Stop police brutality and mass incarceration. Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, the Cuban 5, Angola 3, S.F. 8 and all political prisoners.

SOCIALISM End the rule of the billionaires, bankers and militarists—fight for workers’ democracy. We need a sustainable economy based on meeting people’s needs, not making the rich richer. We need socialism!

// posted by Alice @ Saturday, January 19, 2008 0 Comments

	Andrew Bligh for State Assembly
	C.T. Weber for State Assembly
	Gerald Frink for State Assembly
	Peace and Freedom Party Campaign 2008

Socialist Party USA

// posted by Alice @ Saturday, January 19, 2008 0 Comments

Approaches to "individual and social well-being (are) practiced in many traditional cultures (but have been) filtered out" of ours because they conflict with corporate goals already explained. The authors once worked for corporate employers and described their condition as "unrelieved boredom and stress....work....of no intrinsic interest (and) simply a means to the end of material acquisition." They concluded that life centered around money and status "becomes a depressing dead end, a kind of emotional wasteland."

They contrast that experience to their involvement today in "unpaid human rights and environmental work" that includes their Media Lens efforts. Compassionate dissent holds promise as a motivating force - "for media activism, peace activism, human and animal rights activism, and environmental activism." It's also "profoundly conducive to our own well-being." The authors end by stating political dissent must be combined with human dissent. The combination can be powerfully self-liberating and "all the motivation we need to act for the welfare of the world." Isn't that a goal worth working for? Isn't it what what we want for ourselves?

// posted by Alice @ Thursday, January 17, 2008 0 Comments

Tuesday, January 15th, 7:00 – 10:00 pm (PT)

In the Bay Area: KPFA radio – 94.1 FM

Outside the Bay Area: other Pacifica network stations, or Online at www.KPFA.org

THE KPFA SPECIAL RE-BROADCAST OF THE GREEN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE With hosts Larry Bensky and Aimee Allison

Two hours of edited debate moments And one hour of direct listener call-ins from anywhere in the world

See www.kpfa.org/greenparty2008 for call-in numbers and more info…

Spread the Word!

Recent TPW coverage of the debates is here and here. If you are a good writer and keep up with internal Green Party politics, we could use a few more people on this site to cover Green Party activities.

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 15, 2008 0 Comments

by Ralph Nader / January 15th, 2008

Here is a short list of what you won’t hear much of from the front-runners in this presidential primary season. Call them the candidate taboos.

* You won’t hear a call for a national crackdown on the corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that have robbed trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders, taxpayers and consumers. Among the reforms that won’t be suggested are providing resources to prosecute executive crooks and laws to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power. Candidates will not shout for a payback of ill-gotten gains, to rein in executive pay, or to demand corporate sunshine laws.

* You won’t hear a demand that workers receive a living wage instead of a minimum wage. There will be no backing for a repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which has blocked more than 40 million workers from forming or joining trade unions to improve wages and benefits above Wal-Mart or McDonald’s levels.

* You won’t hear for a call for a withdrawal from the WTO and NAFTA. Renegotiated trade agreements should stick to trade while labor, environmental, and consumer rights are advanced by separate treaties without being subordinated to the dictates of international commerce.

* You won’t hear a call for our income tax system to be substantially revamped so that workers can keep more of their wages while we tax the things we like least, such as pollution, stock speculation, addictive industries, and energy guzzling technologies. Nor will you hear that corporations should be required to pay their fair share; corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for 50 years.

* You won’t hear a call for a single payer health system. Almost sixty years after President Truman first proposed it, we still need health insurance for everyone, a program with quality and cost controls and an emphasis on prevention. Full Medicare for everyone will save thousands of lives a year while maintaining patient choice of doctors and hospitals within a competitive private health care delivery system.

* There is no reason to believe that the candidates will stand up to the commercial interests profiting from our current energy situation. We need a major environmental health agenda that challenges these entrenched interests with major new initiatives in solar energy, doubling motor vehicle fuel efficiency, and other quantified sustainable and clean energy technologies. Nor will there be adequate recognition that current fossil fuels are producing not just global warming, but also cancer, respiratory diseases, and geopolitical entanglements. Finally, there will be no calls for ending environmental racism that leads to more contaminated water, air, and toxic dumps in poorer neighborhoods.

* The candidates will not demand a reduction in the military budget that devours half the federal government’s operating expenditures at a time when there is no Soviet Union or other major state enemy in the world. Studies by the General Accounting Office and internal Pentagon assessments support the judgment of many retired admirals and generals that a wasteful defense weakens our country and distorts priorities at home.

* You won’t hear a consistent clarion call for electoral reform. Both parties have shamelessly engaged in gerrymandering, a process that guarantees reelection of their candidates at the expense of frustrated voters. Nor will there be serious proposals that millions of law-abiding ex-felons be allowed to vote.

Other electoral reforms should include reducing barriers to candidates, same day registration, a voter verified paper record for electronic voting, run-off voting to insure winners receive a majority vote, binding none-of-the-above choices and most important, full public financing to guarantee clean elections.

* You won’t hear much about a failed war on drugs that costs nearly $50 billion annually. And the major candidates will not argue that addicts should be treated rather than imprisoned. Nor should observers hope for any call to repeal the “three strikes and you’re out” laws that have needlessly filled our jails or to end mandatory sentencing that hamstrings our judges.

* The candidates will ignore the diverse Israeli peace movement whose members have developed accords for a two state solution with their Palestinian and American counterparts. It is time to replace the Washington puppet show with a real Washington peace show for the security of the American, Palestinian, and Israeli people.

* You won’t hear the candidates stand up to business interests that have backed changes to our civil justice system that restrict or close the courtroom to wrongfully injured and cheated individuals, but not to corporations. Where is the vocal campaign against fraud and injury upon innocent patients, consumers, and workers? We should make it easier for consumers to band together and defend themselves against harmful practices in the marketplace.

Voters should visit the webpages of the major party candidates. See what they say, and see what they do not say. Then email or send a letter to any or all the candidates and ask them why they are avoiding these issues. Breaking the taboos won’t start with the candidates. Maybe it can start with the voters.

Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions. Read other articles by Ralph.

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 15, 2008 0 Comments

Which is more of a threat to your health: Al Qaeda or the Department of Homeland Security?

An intriguing new study suggests the answer is not so clear-cut. Although it’s impossible to calculate the pain that terrorist attacks inflict on victims and society, when statisticians look at cold numbers, they have variously estimated the chances of the average person dying in America at the hands of international terrorists to be comparable to the risk of dying from eating peanuts, being struck by an asteroid or drowning in a toilet.

But worrying about terrorism could be taking a toll on the hearts of millions of Americans. The evidence, published last week in the Archives of General Psychiatry, comes from researchers who began tracking the health of a representative sample of more than 2,700 Americans before September 2001. After the attacks of Sept. 11, the scientists monitored people’s fears of terrorism over the next several years and found that the most fearful people were three to five times more likely than the rest to receive diagnoses of new cardiovascular ailments.

Almost all the people in the study lived outside New York or Washington and didn’t know any victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. But more than a 10th of them reported acute stress symptoms (like insomnia or nightmares) right after the attacks, and over the next three years more than 40 percent said they kept worrying about a terrorist attack affecting themselves or a family member.

Their worries were understandable, given the continual warnings from Washington. Officials repeatedly raised the color-coded level of the National Threat Advisory and sometimes explicitly warned of imminent attacks from terrorist cells supposedly operating in America. The alert level has never dropped below yellow (the third of the five levels). About a third to a half of Americans have continued to tell pollsters that they’re personally worried about being victims of a terrorist attack, and that an attack is somewhat or very likely within several months.

“It’s amazing how enduring these feelings of fear are, but look at what’s been going on,” said Alison Holman, a professor of nursing science at the University of California, Irvine, the lead author of the study. “I’d be surprised if those terrorist alerts didn’t contribute in some way to the ongoing worry about terrorism in our sample.”

Another of the authors, Roxane Cohen Silver, also at U.C. Irvine, is a psychologist who is on an advisory council to the Homeland Security Department.

“I’ve regularly pointed out to the department that there are psychological consequences to the raising of the alert,” Dr. Silver said. “Now we’re demonstrating that it may have physical consequences.”

The researchers caution that they’re not sure how serious the physical consequences are, because they’re relying on people reporting that their doctors have diagnosed new cardiovascular ailments. Also, studies like this show correlations, rather than an identifiable cause and effect. But since the researchers have taken into account reports of people’s health problems and anxiety that were collected before Sept. 11, and the levels of lifetime and continuing stress, they’re confident they’ve identified a worrisome increase in heart disease.

After controlling for various factors (age, obesity, smoking, other ailments and stressful life events), the researchers found that the people who were acutely stressed after the 9/11 attacks and continued to worry about terrorism — about 6 percent of the sample — were at least three times more likely than the others in the study to be given diagnoses of new heart problems.

If you extrapolate that percentage to the adult population of America, it works out to more than 10 million people. No one knows what fraction of them might consequently die of a stroke or heart attack — plenty of other factors affect heart disease — but if it were merely 0.0003 percent, that would be higher than the 9/11 death toll.

Of course, statistics of any sort, even when the numbers are rock solid, don’t mean much to people when they’re assessing threats. Risk researchers have found that even when people know the numbers, they’re less worried about death tolls than about how the deaths occur. They have good reasons — called “rival rationalities” — for fearing catastrophes that kill large numbers at once because these events affect the whole community and damage the social fabric.

But continual fear of terrorism is a strain on the social fabric, too. People become reluctant to even get together when public spaces are turned into fortified zones. Civil liberties erode and mistrust increases when the authorities keep warning of lurking terrorists and urging people to report “suspicious” activity, as in the ubiquitous advertisements in the New York subways exhorting people to call in tips to a counterterrorism hot line.

The sponsors of the New York campaign were so pleased with the results that they papered the subways with congratulations to the riders: “Last year, 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.” But as William Neuman reported in The Times, the ads neglected to mention the number of terrorists arrested as a result of the tips: zero.

Meanwhile, how many subway riders were given diagnoses of new heart problems after riding to work every morning looking at ads reminding them that they might be blown to bits any second? Not zero, if you believe the new study.

Even before this study, some doctors were arguing that terrorism wasn’t nearly as dangerous as the related “epidemic of fear,” as Marc Siegel called it in a 2005 book, “False Alarm.” Dr. Siegel, of the New York University School of Medicine, pointed to studies linking fear of terrorism with increased risk of heart arrhythmias and elevated levels of an enzyme that correlates with heart disease.

“The fear response causes the heart to pump harder and faster, the nerves to fire more quickly,” Dr. Siegel said. “Excess triggering of this system of response causes the organs to wear down. For a person who is always on the alert, the result is a burned out body.”

It’s not fair to blame public officials alone for this fear epidemic. We in the news media have done our part to scare people. (More on how the “terrorism industry” distorts risks can be found at tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com.) But since there hasn’t been an attack in America for six years, for domestic drama we’ve had to rely on dire predictions of politicians and security officials.

What if the alerts stopped? What if the security officials looked at this new medical evidence — or at their own perfect record of false alarms — and decided that the nation did not need to be in a perpetual state of yellow alert? What if they even decided that Americans could survive without any color at all?

I guess that’s a hopeless fantasy. No politician wants to be blamed for failing to anticipate a terrorist attack. No bureaucrats willingly abandon a system that keeps them employed.

But maybe these officials could be induced to take one more precaution. The next time they raise the threat level to orange or red, they could add, “Warning: Heeding this alert may be hazardous to your health.”

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 15, 2008 0 Comments

DUBLIN, Texas — Interviewers with the Mutual UFO Network met with about 200 people who said they saw something mysterious in the night skies over Stephenville in late December and early January.

"We believe there is some sort of phenomenon in action here," said Kenneth Cherry, director of the network's Texas chapter. "We see a pattern. But it will take months to investigate."

The network is dedicated to "scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity," according to its Web site.

While members of the organization met Saturday with the witnesses, at least a couple hundred onlookers gathered as well, some wearing aluminum-foil hats.

Several dozen people — including a pilot, county constable and business owners — insist they have seen a large silent object with bright lights flying low and fast. Some reported seeing fighter jets chasing it.

Maj. Karl Lewis, a spokesman for the 301st Fighter Wing at the Joint Reserve Base Naval Air Station in Fort Worth, has said no F-16s or other aircraft from his base were in the area the night of Jan. 8, when many sightings were reported.

James Huse, a retired electronics technician, said what he saw on Jan. 8 was neither a helicopter nor a plane.

Steve Allen of Glen Rose, who said he was a pilot, said the lights he saw while sitting around a campfire were brighter than the glare from welding.

"The first time we saw it, the duration was three minutes; then it started slowing down and passed us, and the lights in the back reformed into an arc shape, and they would flash on and off with no particular pattern," he said. "Then those changed into two vertical lines. It was totally silent."

Network investigators asked the witnesses to sketch what they saw and to answer questions about the direction, distance and flight of the object they saw.

Cherry said the organization will study the material and release its findings on whether what happened in Stephenville can be explained.

"We do not promote the existence of alien ships," Cherry said. "All we are trying to do is figure out if we can explain it or not, and then we'll let the chips fall where they may."

___

On the Net:

Mutual UFO Network: http://www.mufon.com

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 15, 2008 0 Comments

Candidates John Crockford and Stewart A. Alexander of the Peace and Freedom Party, Don Grundmann of the American Independent Party and George Phillies of the Libertarian Party joined stand-ins for other minor and major party candidates at the forum hosted by the college's Sociology Department.

Local representatives of Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich and Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul also participated in the debate.

Dozens of Fresno City College students and supporters of both third-party and mainstream candidates attended the more than two-hour forum.

California's presidential primary is Feb. 5.

"It was nice to see five different parties represented," said Gerry Bill, chairman of the Fresno City College Sociology Department.

Bill said he wanted to show students alternative views exist in addition to those expressed by mainstream candidates in television sound bites.

An array of opinions was heard on many topics that ranged across foreign policy, the economy, taxes, immigration and gay marriage.

Many of the participants in the forum and those in the audience were vocal in their opposition to the war in Iraq.

Many in the room were Paul supporters, who applauded Paul's local representative, Steve Wayte, and booed and hissed whenever the Republican candidate was criticized.

The third-party candidates spent much of the forum bashing the Democratic and Republican parties.

"We have something to say that is not being said by the two corporate parties," Alexander said.

Stuart Weil, a local representative for Giuliani, said he was impressed by the diversity of views on the panel.

"The fringe parties do have some great ideas," he said, but added that those ideas could never be implemented without the two major parties.

With some of the candidates and audience members wrangling over ideological differences, local Huckabee representative Peter McMullen said the debate reflected "a lot today of the polarization in America."

But Phillies, the Libertarian candidate, said voting for a third party is a vote for a cause.

Many abolitionists, who lobbied to free slaves in America, advanced their cause through a third party, he said.

"They didn't win any elections, but in the end they won," Phillies said.

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 15, 2008 0 Comments

by William Blum / January 14th, 2008

An Unreasonable Man

I recommend the new documentary about Ralph Nader, which was recently shown on PBS television, “An Unreasonable Man”. Its primary focus is on Nader’s argument for having run in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections despite the alleged harm done to the Democratic Party candidates. As I’ve written earlier: The choice facing people like myself was not Ralph Nader or Albert Gore or John Kerry. The choice facing us was Ralph Nader or not voting at all. If Nader had not been on the ballot, we would have stayed home. It’s that simple. The film shows a clip of a TV network newscast just after the 2000 election in which star news anchors Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw are discussing this very question, and much to my surprise they both come to this same conclusion — Nader did not cost the Democrats many votes at all. If he had not been on the ballot, the great bulk of his supporters would NOT have voted Democratic instead.

This escapes Nader’s critics, such as the two featured in the film, Nation magazine columnist Eric Alterman and author and 60s icon Todd Gitlin. NASA should check them out — just mention “Ralph Nader” and they go ballistic. They engage in an orgy of angry name calling, labeling Nader an egomaniac, irrational . . . “prefabricated purity” . . . “borders on the wicked” … responsible for the Iraq war and the destruction of the environment . . . They don’t directly challenge anything of substance amongst the views of Nader or his supporters. They’re not at all impressed with what I find most exhilarating — the unique phenomenon of a noted public political figure consistently standing on principle. Nader’s critics can’t admit that there’s principle involved in all this, for fear of revealing their own lack of that quality, as they cling to defending the indefensible — the idea that the Democratic Party is a force for even liberal change, never mind progressive.

The film also gives time to other Nader critics, amongst them Michael Moore, whom I admire more than the likes of Alterman or Gitlin. However, it shows Moore speaking during the 2000 campaign in behalf of Nader, telling the audience not to be afraid to vote their conscience; it then shows him in 2004, making fun of those who call for voting for one’s conscience — Yes, the hypocrisy is that blatant. Moore is indeed a strange political animal. The maker of “Fahrenheit 911″ and “Sicko” was until not long ago a super-avid supporter of Hillary Clinton (admitting to even a sexual crush on her), and he has supported General Wesley Clark for president, a genuine war criminal for his merciless 78-day bombing assault upon Yugoslavia.

Defenders of the Democrats now ask: “Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?” Maybe not. He might have invaded Iran instead; that apparently was the first choice of Israel and their American lobby. Remember that the Clinton-Gore administration imposed eight years of heartless and needless sanctions upon the people of Iraq, simultaneously bombing them hundreds of times, costing the lives of more than a million people, ruining the lives of millions more. Al Gore has already invaded Iraq.

It’s an old and painful story. Democrats can not be trusted ideologically, not even to be consistently liberal, and certainly not progressive or radical, no matter how much we wish we could trust them, no matter how awful the Republicans may be. In 1968 Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota was the darling of the left. He ran in the Democratic presidential primaries on an anti-Vietnam war platform that excited a whole generation of young people. Peaceniks and hippies, the story goes, were getting haircuts, dressing like decent Americans, and forsaking dope, all to be “clean for Gene” and work in his campaign. Yet, in 1980, Gene McCarthy came out in support of Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter.¹

It’s most often foreign policy which separates liberals from those further to the left. In the post World War Two period, one of the most revered American liberals was Senator Hubert Humphrey. But he was at the same time a fanatical anti-communist. In 1954 he introduced a bill to outlaw the Communist Party on the grounds that it was “an illegal conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States by force and violence and not a legitimate political party.” When he became Lyndon Johnson’s vice-president in 1965 he supported the Vietnam War. Two years later he was actually moved to declare to American troops in Vietnam: “I believe that Vietnam will be marked as the place where the family of man has gained the time it needed to finally break through to a new era of hope and human development and justice. This is the chance we have. This is our great adventure — and a wonderful one it is.”²

It was the administration of the liberal Jimmy Carter that instigated the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan in 1979, leading to Washington’s decisive role in the overthrow of a government which, compared to what replaced it, was extremely progressive.³ It was also Carter who gave Iraq the OK to invade Iran in 1980, with terrible consequences for the two countries.⁴

No, I don’t know what we should do about our leaders. The US electoral process which we’re all suffering through right now, which feels like it’s been going on non-stop forever, is replete with continual cries from the leading candidates about some kind of “change”. Whatever can they mean? They mean nothing. And the media treats it all like some kind of horse race, a spectator sport. Is there any election system in this world as lacking in intellectual discussion, as hopelessly corrupted by money, and as undemocratic as the one Americans are blessed with? Where else in the world is the candidate with the most votes not necessarily the winner? If we could interview each and every American voter to determine exactly why they voted for a particular candidate, compared to what the actual facts are about that candidate, and the results were widely publicized, it would be such a national embarrassment the next election might be called off. What does winning an election mean other than that the sales campaign was successful? An outright auction for the presidency would be more efficient, and more honest.

Another Tale of a Liberal

Gilbert Harrison, former editor and publisher of the influential Washington magazine, New Republic, departed this world on January 3. I never met the man, but in 1975, while living in London, I submitted a review of former CIA officer Philip Agee’s new book, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, to the magazine. The book was a shocker, providing more detail about CIA covert operations in Latin America than any book ever written, revealing the names of hundreds of CIA officers, agents, and front organizations. The book had not yet appeared in the United States and the New Republic was pleased to have what would be one of the first reviews. At that time the magazine was still firmly in the liberal camp. At last my writing résumé would list something other than the alternative press.

A couple of weeks later, another letter arrived from the magazine’s literary editor. She was sorry to inform me that the Editor-in-Chief, Gilbert Harrison, had vetoed publication of my review at the last moment. The article was returned to me, already edited for publication, even with an issue date marked on it. Some years later, I came to appreciate that Harrison was a typical Cold-War, anti-communist liberal — no matter how progressive their views concerning the individual and society, the basic tenets, assumptions, and objectives of American foreign policy were held sacrosanct. In 1961 the New Republic obtained a comprehensive account of the preparations by the CIA for its upcoming invasion of Cuba. Harrison was a friend of President Kennedy and he dutifully submitted the magazine’s planned article to the White House for advice. We thus have a case here of the United States about to initiate what the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called “a war of aggression . . . not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.” And an American journalist did not know whether he should expose this. When Kennedy asked that the story not be printed, Harrison complied.⁵ If the story had been published, it might have led to the cancellation of the invasion, and thus the saving of a few thousand lives on the two sides.

Ironically and sadly, just four days after Harrison’s death, Philip Agee died. We had been friends since I met him in England in 1975, shortly after his book came out. Phil was truly a hero. He gave up his career, his financial security, a normal family life, and his safety to work against the CIA in one country after another that was threatened by the Agency — Cuba, Jamaica, Grenada, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela. The CIA revoked his US passport, spread all manner of false stories about him (such as his being in the pay of the KGB), and hounded him in Europe, getting him expelled from the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, and other countries. The Agency had him under surveillance for much of the rest of his life. The extreme strain this put on him may well have contributed to the perforated ulcer which led to his death.

The CIA was, as it still is, a force for dreadful things. What could a man of principle and idealism, with so much inside knowledge of the workings of the Agency, do but devote his life to fighting such a force?

Oh, By the Way, the Iraqis Don’t Really Want Us

Did you miss this? It should have been the lead story in every newspaper and radio and TV program in America. In the Washington Post it was on page 14. In virtually all of the rest of the media it was on page zero, channel zero, 0000 AM or 00.0 FM.

The US military in Iraq hired firms to conduct focus groups amongst a cross section of the population. A summary report of the findings was obtained by the Post. Here are some of the highlights of the report as disclosed by the newspaper:

Until the March 2003 US occupation Sunnis and Shiites coexisted peacefully.

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the US military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them.

After the United States leaves Iraq, national reconciliation will happen “naturally.”

A sense of “optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups … and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis.”

Dividing Iraq into three states would hinder national reconciliation. (Only the Kurds did not reject this option.)

Most would describe the negative elements of life in Iraq as beginning with the US occupation.

Few mentioned Saddam Hussein as a cause of their problems, which the report described as an important finding, implying that “the current strife in Iraq seems to have totally eclipsed any agonies or grievances many Iraqis would have incurred from the past regime, which lasted for nearly four decades — as opposed to the current conflict, which has lasted for five years.”

The Washington Post added this note: “Outside of the military, some of the most widespread polling in Iraq has been done by D3 Systems, a Virginia-based company that maintains offices in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces. Its most recent publicly released surveys, conducted in September for several news media organizations, showed the same widespread Iraqi belief voiced by the military’s focus groups: that a U.S. departure will make things better. A State Department poll in September 2006 reported a similar finding.”⁶

This just in: The US has found the perfect way to counteract such foolish attitudes of the Iraqi people. On January 10, the Associated Press reported: “U.S. bombers and jet fighters unleashed 40,000 pounds of explosives on the southern outskirts of Baghdad within 10 minutes Thursday in one of the biggest air strikes of the war, flattening what the military called safe havens for al-Qaida in Iraq.” There was no mention of whether the planes had also dropped pamphlets saying: “We bomb you because we care about you.”

On December 20, the legislature of Panama declared the date to be a day of “national mourning” in memory of the American invasion on that day in 1989. “This is a recognition of those who fell on Dec. 20 as a result of the cruel and unjust invasion by the most powerful army in the world,” said Rep. Cesar Pardo, of the governing Democratic Revolutionary Party, which holds a majority in the legislature. U.S. officials downplayed the issue. “We prefer to look to the future,” said a U.S. Embassy spokesman. “We are very satisfied to have a friend and partner like Panama, a nation that has managed to develop a mature democracy.”⁷ As with their attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003, the United States, with no provocation or international legality (yes, another war of aggression), first bombed Panama, then staged a ground invasion, killing as many as a few thousand, while offering no believable reason for their psychopathic behavior.⁸

Will we some day see in a free and independent Iraq the setting of March 19 as a day of national mourning?

Some Further Thought Regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement

When I say, as I did in last month’s report, that I don’t think that 9-11 was an “inside job”, it’s not because I believe that men like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al. are not morally depraved enough to carry out such a monstrous act; these men each has a piece missing, a piece that’s shaped like a social conscience; they consciously and directly instigated the current Iraqi and Afghanistan horrors which have already cost many more American lives than were lost on 9/11, not to mention more than a million Iraqis and Afghans who dearly wanted to remain amongst the living. In the Gulf War of 1991, Cheney and other American leaders purposely destroyed electricity-generating plants, water-pumping systems, and sewage systems in Iraq, then imposed sanctions upon the country making the repair of the infrastructure extremely difficult. Then, after twelve years, when the Iraqi people had performed the heroic task of getting these systems working fairly well again, the US bombers came back to inflict devastating damage to them all once more. My books and many others document one major crime against humanity after another by our America once so dear and cherished.

So it’s not the moral question that makes me doubt the inside-job scenario. It’s the logistics of it all — the incredible complexity of arranging it all so that it would work and not be wholly and transparently unbelievable. That and the gross overkill — they didn’t need to destroy or smash up ALL those buildings and planes and people. One of the twin towers killing more than a thousand would certainly have been enough to sell the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security. The American people are not such a hard sell. They really yearn to be true believers. Look how they scream hysterically over Hillary and Obama.

To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. They might start by trying to answer questions like these: Did planes actually hit the towers and the Pentagon and crash in Pennsylvania? Were these the same four United Airline and American Airline planes that took off from Boston and Newark? At the time of collision, were they being piloted by people or by remote control? If people, who were these people?

Also, why did building 7 collapse? If it was purposely demolished — why? All the reasons I’ve read so far I find not very credible. As to the films of the towers and building 7 collapsing, which make it appear that this had to be the result of controlled demolitions — I agree, it does indeed look that way. But what do I know? I’m no expert. It’s not like I’ve seen, in person or on film, numerous examples of buildings collapsing due to controlled demolition and numerous other examples of buildings collapsing due to planes crashing into them, so I could make an intelligent distinction. We are told by the 9/11 truth people that no building constructed like the towers has ever collapsed due to fire. But how about fire plus a full-size, loaded airplane smashing into it? How many examples of that do we have?

But there’s one argument those who support the official version use against the skeptics that I would question. It’s the argument that if the government planned the operation there would have to have been many people in on the plot, and surely by now one of them would have talked and the mainstream media would have reported their stories. But in fact a number of firemen, the buildings’ janitor, and others have testified to hearing many explosions in the towers some time after the planes crashed, supporting the theory of planted explosives. But scarce little of this has made it to the media. Likewise, following the JFK assassination at least two men came forward afterward and identified themselves as being one of the three “tramps” on the grassy knoll in Dallas. So what happened? The mainstream media ignored them both. I know of them only because the tabloid press ran their stories. One of the men was the father of actor Woody Harrelson.

1. San Francisco Chronicle, October 24, 1980, p.7 #
2. United Press International (UPI) dispatch from Saigon, October 31, 1967. #
3. See interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser. #
4. www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile5.html. #
5. Victor Marchetti and John Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (1975), p.307; Peter Wyden, “Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story” (1979), p.142-3. #
6. Washington Post, December 19, 2007, article plus accompanying sidebar; see also the Anti-Empire Report of August 18, 2006, last item, for another Post article demonstrating the belief of the Iraqi people, as well as American military personnel, that things would be better if the US left the country. #
7. Associated Press, December 20, 2007. #
8. For the full details, see William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 50. #

// posted by Alice @ Monday, January 14, 2008 0 Comments

The newspaper said it also logged 349 homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans in the six years since military action began in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. That represents an 89-percent increase over the previous six-year period, the newspaper said.

About three-quarters of those homicides involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, the newspaper said. The report did not illuminate the exact relationship between those cases and the 121 killings also mentioned in the report.

The newspaper said its research involved searching local news reports, examining police, court and military records and interviewing defendants, their lawyers and families, victims' families and military and law enforcement officials.

Defense Department representatives did not immediately respond to a telephone message early Sunday. The Times said the military agency declined to comment, saying it could not reproduce the paper's research.

A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, questioned the report's premise and research methods, the newspaper said. He said it aggregated crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to murder, and he suggested the apparent increase in homicides involving military personnel and veterans in the wartime period might reflect only "an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11."

Neither the Pentagon nor the federal Justice Department track such killings, generally prosecuted in state civilian courts, according to the Times.

The 121 killings ranged from shootings and stabbings to bathtub drownings and fatal car crashes resulting from drunken driving, the newspaper said. All but one of those implicated was male.

About a third of the victims were girlfriends or relatives, including a 2-year-old girl slain by her 20-year-old father while he was recovering from wounds sustained in Iraq.

A quarter of the victims were military personnel. One was stabbed and set afire by fellow soldiers a day after they all returned from Iraq.

// posted by Alice @ Sunday, January 13, 2008 0 Comments

A couple of years ago, Michael T. Arnold landed at the Los Angeles International Airport after a 20-hour flight from the Philippines. He had his laptop with him, and a customs officer took a look at what was on his hard drive. Clicking on folders called “Kodak pictures” and “Kodak memories,” the officer found child pornography.

The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.

One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit.

There is one lonely voice on the other side. In 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles suppressed the evidence against Mr. Arnold.

“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”

Computer hard drives can include, Judge Pregerson continued, diaries, letters, medical information, financial records, trade secrets, attorney-client materials and — the clincher, of course — information about reporters’ “confidential sources and story leads.”

But Judge Pregerson’s decision seems to be headed for reversal. The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., took that position in a 2005 decision. It upheld the conviction of John W. Ickes Jr., who crossed the Canadian border with a computer containing child pornography. A customs agent’s suspicions were raised, the court’s decision said, “after discovering a video camera containing a tape of a tennis match which focused excessively on a young ball boy.”

It is true that the government should have great leeway in searching physical objects at the border. But the law requires a little more — a “reasonable suspicion” — when the search is especially invasive, as when the human body is involved.

Searching a computer, said Jennifer M. Chacón, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, “is fairly intrusive.” Like searches of the body, she said, such “an invasive search should require reasonable suspicion.”

An interesting supporting brief filed in the Arnold case by the Association of Corporate Travel Executives and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said there have to be some limits on the government’s ability to acquire information.

“Under the government’s reasoning,” the brief said, “border authorities could systematically collect all of the information contained on every laptop computer, BlackBerry and other electronic device carried across our national borders by every traveler, American or foreign.” That is, the brief said, “simply electronic surveillance after the fact.”

The government went even further in the case of Sebastien Boucher, a Canadian who lives in New Hampshire. Mr. Boucher crossed the Canadian border by car about a year ago, and a customs agent noticed a laptop in the back seat.

Asked whether he had child pornography on his laptop, Mr. Boucher said he was not sure. He said he downloaded a lot of pornography but deleted child pornography when he found it.

Some of the files on Mr. Boucher’s computer were encrypted using a program called Pretty Good Privacy, and Mr. Boucher helped the agent look at them, apparently by entering an encryption code. The agent said he saw lots of revolting pornography involving children.

The government seized the laptop. But when it tried to open the encrypted files again, it could not. A grand jury instructed Mr. Boucher to provide the password.

But a federal magistrate judge quashed that subpoena in November, saying that requiring Mr. Boucher to provide it would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Last week, the government appealed.

The magistrate judge, Jerome J. Niedermeier of Federal District Court in Burlington, Vt., used an analogy from Supreme Court precedent. It is one thing to require a defendant to surrender a key to a safe and another to make him reveal its combination.

The government can make you provide samples of your blood, handwriting and the sound of your voice. It can make you put on a shirt or stand in a lineup. But it cannot make you testify about facts or beliefs that may incriminate you, Judge Niedermeier said.

“The core value of the Fifth Amendment is that you can’t be made to speak in ways that indicate your guilt,” Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami, wrote about the Boucher case on his Discourse.net blog.

But Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at the George Washington University, said Judge Niedermeier had probably gotten it wrong. “In a normal case,” Professor Kerr said in an interview, “there would be a privilege.” But given what Mr. Boucher had already done at the border, he said, making him provide the password again would probably not violate the Fifth Amendment.

There are all sorts of lessons in these cases. One is that the border seems be a privacy-free zone. A second is that encryption programs work. A third is that you should keep your password to yourself. And the most important, as my wife keeps telling me, is that you should leave your laptop at home.

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 08, 2008 0 Comments

discussion and presentations about Peace and Freedom Party's 2008 Presidential campaign.

// posted by Alice @ Tuesday, January 08, 2008 0 Comments

NEW YORK

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was featured on Parade magazine's cover Sunday, 10 days after her assassination, and in the accompanying story she warned that her enemies wanted her dead.

"I am what terrorists most fear, a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan," Bhutto told author Gail Sheehy, who interviewed her weeks earlier in her hometown of Larkana. "Now they're trying to kill me."

Parade's publisher, Randy Siegel, said the magazine went to press on Dec. 21 and was already on its way to the 400 newspapers that distribute it when Bhutto was killed in an attack following a Dec. 27 campaign rally in the city of Rawalpindi.

The Web version of the story was updated, Siegel said, but it was too late to change the print magazine. He said the only option other than running the outdated article would have been asking newspapers not to distribute the magazine at all.

"We decided that this was an important interview to share with the American people," he said.

Parade, published by Parade Publications, is distributed by Sunday newspapers including the Boston Globe, The Dallas Morning News, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.

Siegel said almost all of the newspapers ran editor's notes Sunday explaining that the Bhutto interview had gone to press before her death.

He said Sheehy, the best-selling author of books including "Passages" and "Hillary's Choice," spent several days with Bhutto in late November.

Bhutto's death plunged an already volatile Pakistan deeper into crisis and stoked fears of a political meltdown.

Bhutto's husband has accused members of Pakistan's government of involvement in her killing and has called for a United Nations investigation. Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, a close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorists, has blamed a tribal militant leader suspected of ties to al-Qaida.

Bhutto served two terms as Pakistan's prime minister after her father, Zulkifar Bhutto, was overthrown as prime minister and hanged after a military takeover.

Sheehy asked the 54-year-old Bhutto whether she had healed from the trauma of her father's death when she was 25.

Bhutto, a pro-U.S. moderate who had vowed to fight Islamic extremists if she was elected in an upcoming parliamentary vote, said her father's parting words before his execution were, "You can walk away. You're young. You can go to live in London or Paris or Geneva."

She told Sheehy she responded, "No, I have to keep up this mission of yours, of democracy."

___

On the Net:

Parade: http://www.parade.com

// posted by Alice @ Sunday, January 06, 2008 0 Comments

"A lot of no-shows at the polling place feel in their bones that they'd be scammed if they showed up." -- Supporter of The Center for Voting and Democracy

Anyone know how we came to have our Electoral Scam on the first Tuesday of November on a regular basis? Tuesday instead of, say, on a weekend. Tuesday in lieu of having the ballots cast over several days. How is it that we don't have a "holiday" declared for that all-important day? To make things easier on all counts.

Turns out that our 1845 President Polk set up the Tuesday voting tradition for the convenience of farmers! As far as he was concerned our voting had to take place after the fall harvest -- since most people lived on farms at that point -- and time had to be allowed for those workers of the earth to get to town. That meant a full day's travel for many on the Monday before The Big Electoral Hulabaloo.

Time for a change, yes?

Well, not just in that realm, please. Let's also -- while we're confronting voting reform -- put in a good word for proportionate and semi-proportional representation. After all, the way things stand we rank somewhere between Botswana and Chad (138th!) in terms of voter turnout. And we're headed for... heading the list of "voter turnoff" at our present rate. (1)

Clearly something must be done. Unless you talk to politicians in power. Unless you're okay with a post-democracy milieu.

We have what you might call a Winner Take All system. Proportional systems are used by almost every other democracy in the world today, including Italy and Israel. I mention those two countries because they're often cited as examples of places which have difficulties because of their proportional systems.

The fact is that the world's clear trend is very much away from our Winner Take All system, and toward proportional alternatives. Those alternatives make it possible for there to be representation for losers, whether they represent 49% of a given election, or represent a lower percentage of ballots cast.

At present that our Winner Take All system is quite The Scam. Using nefarious methods such as "redistricting" at the end of every decade to ensure that incumbents aren't unseated for the following ten years in almost every case, our Winner Take All system guarantees that a given politician not only doesn't have to answer to his/her "opposition," but that he/she is not bound in any significant way to the wishes of any of a given constituency.

But you learned all this in school, right? When you were taught about the origins of our First November Tuesday Scam, yes?

No, of course not. The reason I use the word "scam" is that...obviously the powers that be do not want to have to represent their constituencies. They want a free hand.

And that's what they've got. And that's what they'll have...until you do something about the status quo.

California, the last time I counted, had 69 times the population of Wyoming. Yet Senatorial representation clocks in at 18 to 1, not 69 to 1. Why? Same deal.

Now that's a fact of life that we have heard something about, but no one's doing anything about it. Hint: The Powers that be in both California and Wyoming (and elsewhere) have decided not to rock the boat with the kind of fundamental change that would be required to set things right on that count. No, it's in their mutual interests to let things be. To encourage "Rock the Vote" activity, if they must, but keep the important factors quiet, unceremoniously/sanctimoniously ...continuing.

Just like they do when it comes to presidential elections and the Old Electoral College Scam. Look how much blah blah goes into debating whether this or that candidate is a better bet to be our next president. How much versus, say, discussion about some of the disingenuousness alluded to above. But no, "elected tyranny" doesn't like to have a lot of blah blah impact on its desired low-profile.

I mean, if the powers that be were really interested in boosting voter participation, one of the first things they'd do is to do away with the First Tuesday Inconvenience/Insanity, yes?

But well-meaning, knowledgeable citizens who have influence -- such as the rock stars and other celebrities who took part recently in a Vote or Die campaign -- insist upon focusing their energies on registration of more voters instead of helping to educate the public on the counts above. "Rock the Vote" efforts -- regardless of how successful in signing up additional voters -- cannot compensate for the internally rigged elements...such as suspect machines, redistricting, etc.

When you talk to citizens about all this, you invariably hear great numbers of them putting it all to bed with something like, "Oh, it's that way 'cause that's how it's always been. If it was good enough for our Founding Fathers it's good enough for me." Something along those lines.

But just like the Founding Fathers never anticipated our severe shift of population from farms to urban areas, they never dreamt that the number of representatives wouldn't increase proportionately with population. They were counting on something like 50,000 constituents per representative versus what we have: an average of 600,000 to ONE(!!!) for each of our 435 Congress members*. That's a lot of wiggle room.

*Hamilton and Madison, in Federalist No. 58, underscored that the purpose of the Census, to a great degree, was to augment the number of representatives as population increased. Every decade from 1792 onwards the House expanded...until 1910, when it froze to death. We should have something close to 600 House members. Each UK Member of Parliament represents only 70,000 souls. Think in terms of going to a shop where there's one clerk to handle 70,000 customers vs. 600,000, and you should get the point. (2)

The need for finance reform and other such foci pale in comparison to the dilemma of Winner Take All politics, yet most citizens -- even highly educated ones who study and talk politics -- aren't up to speed on issues which The Center for Voting and Democracy (See http://www.fairvote.org/) tackle as a fundamental part of their agenda. Much of which should be on our minds, and included in our discussions. With the idea of doing something about The Scam That Rules The Ruled, Us.

I recommend Steven Hill's Fixing Elections for one and all. It'll open your eyes, I daresay, to much information about our post-democracy setting, including how ( as with a Soviet-type Politburo ) in our 2000 House elections there was virtually no competition, nearly 99 percent of incumbents winning reelection.

We are involved -- have been involved -- in meaningless voter charades. Yet, I am convinced, there is deep reason to be hopeful. Which is why I wrote this article.

Both major parties are increasingly involved in committing unprecedented resources to end-of-the-decade legislative and gubernatorial contests. It's greatly because the gerrymandering and such which follows each decennial census has more impact on who will win state, congressional and presidential elections than voters in a given year!

And the "accomplishments" on that count determine electoral results, for all practical purposes, for the following decade.

The trench warfare which is fought state by state, district by district, in a very few select races -- what Steven Hill calls "the 'Gettysburg' of our political landscape" -- can be circumvented, and addressed adequately in time to force change in 2010. But it requires movement now, following a new paradigm for dealing with our skewed system.

We cannot remain stuck to the flypaper of old ideas. Which blah blah reinforces.

And it demands taking our focus off of the present presidential shenanigans to a significant degree, so that we can devote our energies in solidarity where they will count. Vote for whoever you want to be Chief Executive, but spend half of your heartbeats --better, a quarter of your presently expended energies-- on Obama-like blah blah.

Focus on our internal scars...where the meanings are, to paraphrase Emily Dickinson. Not the lastest fad in foolishness. Not on fake father-figures and their incessant self-serving talk.

I ask all "orphaned voters" to contact me at their earliest possible convenience to discuss details concerning the above.

Footnotes: (1) "Voter Turnout for 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation," published and distributed by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 1997, www.idea.int. Cited in Steven Hill's Prologue to Fixing Elections (Routledge: New York, 2002), p. viii. (2) Interesting to note that few people know that the original Bill of Rights included 12 amendments, one of which specified that we have a ratio of "not less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

Marcelle Cendrars can be reached at bcendra@yahoo.com.

// posted by Alice @ Sunday, January 06, 2008 0 Comments

Editor's Note: All the so-called "Top Tier" candidates for the 2008 US presidential election are directly connected to the Council on Foreign Relations whose members were behind the war on Iraq and other atrocities. Change? Short of a revolution in the U.S., nothing will change. In the 2008 elections we are looking at the same beast with two heads - one "Republican", the other "Democrat".

- LMB

Vote for Change? Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners

Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world. [includes rush transcript]

LISTEN WATCH

Real Video Stream Real Audio Stream MP3 Download

AMY GOODMAN: Presidential candidates are scrambling to win last-minute support in Iowa ahead of tonight’s caucus. Thousands of reporters have also descended on Iowa this week, covering everything from Mike Huckabee’s haircut to John Edwards’s rally with singer John Mellencamp.

But little attention has been paid to perhaps one of the most important aspects of the candidates: their advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate’s future cabinet if elected president. Many of the names will be familiar.

Advisers to Hillary Rodham Clinton include many former top officials in President Clinton’s administration: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Senator Barack Obama’s list includes President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross.

Rudolph Giuliani’s advisers include Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement. John McCain’s list of official and formal policy advisers includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Colin Powell, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. One of Mitt Romney’s top advisers is Cofer Black, the former CIA official who now serves as vice chair of Blackwater Worldwide. Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Elizabeth is advising Fred Thompson.

As for Mike Huckabee, it’s not clear. In December, Huckabee listed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has “spoken or will continue to speak,” but Bolton then revealed the two had never spoken. Huckabee also named Richard Allen, but the former National Security Adviser also admitted he had never spoken to Huckabee.

To talk more about the advisers behind the presidential campaigns, I’m joined by two guests. Kelley Vlahos is a freelance journalist in Washington. Her article on presidential advisers called “War Whisperers” appeared in The American Conservative in October. Investigative journalist Allan Nairn joins us here in the firehouse studio. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

I want to begin by going to Washington, D.C., to our guest there, to the author of “War Whisperers.” Talk about why you focused, Kelley, on the advisers of the presidential candidates.

KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: Well, it was becoming clear to me and to others here in Washington in certain circles that the advisers that were emerging for the campaigns, whether it be Democratic or Republican, were part of some seriously pro-establishment cliques. And I say “cliques,” because there is really no other way to describe it. But these cliques generally can be categorized as not only pro-establishment, but more pro-interventionist, whether it be the so-called liberal interventionists on the Democratic side or your war hawks on the Republican side.

But what became clear is that the candidates weren’t reaching outside of these establishment cliques and that they were getting no fresh ideas, no vision outside of these pretty standard parameters. And we thought—me and the editors thought it might be a good idea to explore a little bit under the surface about where these of advisers were coming from, in hopes of maybe deciphering where foreign policy might be going in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s begin with Hillary Clinton, Kelley Vlahos.

KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: OK. Well, Hillary Clinton’s—her foreign policy team can be best described as—and I hate to use this word so casually, but—“throwbacks” of her husband’s administration. We have, you know, Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, you have Sandy Berger as your sort of top-tier advisers, your key advisers, the most recognized faces. And then, beyond that, as I say in the article, you have this newer generation—I want to say newer generation, but a generation of former Clinton types who you might not recognize their names, but they’ve been around for a long time and are seriously scrambling for position in what they see as a new Clinton administration. So you’re seeing a lot of old faces, old names, who haven’t really changed their ideas from, you know, what I and others can see, in terms of doing the research, haven’t changed their real vision of the world and foreign policy since the 1990s.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me bring Allan Nairn into this conversation. You have just written about the advisers, as well, on your blog, newsc.blogspot.com. Elaborate further on Hillary Clinton’s advisers.

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, I think one thing you could say about the advisers for all the candidates who have a chance is that the presence of these advisers makes it clear that these candidates aren’t serious about enforcing the murder laws and that they’re willing to kill civilians, foreign civilians, en masse in order to advance US policy. And they’re not serious about law and order. They’re soft on crime.

And start with Clinton. Madeleine Albright, she was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there. Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading—illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion. Strobe Talbott, he was the one who, during the Clinton administration, oversaw Russia policy, a backing of Yeltsin, which resulted in turning over the national wealth to the oligarchs and a drop in life expectancy in much of Russia of about fifteen years—massive, massive death. And you have various backers of the Iraq invasion and occupation and the recent escalation, people like General Jack Keane, Michael O’Hanlon and others. That’s just Clinton.

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—

AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.

ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.

Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.

Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.

Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.

AMY GOODMAN: John Edwards?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Edwards is a little different. The list of his foreign advisers is not as complete, so it’s not as clear exactly where they may be coming from, but it’s interesting. Last night on TV, one of the top Edwards advisers, “Mudcat” Saunders, was complaining about the fact that there are 35,000 lobbyists in Washington. And it appears, from the Edwards list, that many of the military lobbyists are working on the Edwards foreign policy team, because the names that—the Edwards names that are out there mainly come from the Army and the Air Force and the Navy Material Command. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, etc. One of those listed on the Edwards team is the lobbyist for the big military contractor EADS. So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, if he tries to go after the military lobbyists, he may get a little blowback from his own advisers.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying that there’s no difference between these candidates?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, fundamentally, there’s no difference on the basic principle of, are you against the killing of civilians and are you willing to enforce the murder laws. If we were willing to enforce the murder laws, the headquarters of each of these candidates could be raided, and various advisers and many candidates could be hauled away by the cops, because they have backed various actions that, under established principles like the Nuremberg Principles, like the principles set up in the Rwanda tribunals, the Bosnia tribunals, things that are unacceptable, like aggressive war, like the killing of civilians for political purposes. So, in a basic sense, there is no choice.

But there is a difference in this sense: the US is so vastly powerful, the US influences and has the potential to end so many millions of lives around the world, that if, let’s say, you have two candidates that are 99% the same—there’s only 1% difference between them—if you’re talking about decisions that affect a million lives—1% of a million is 10,000—that’s 10,000 lives. So, even though it’s a bitter choice, if you choose the one who is going to kill 10,000 fewer people, well, then you’ve saved 10,000 lives. We shouldn’t be limited to that choice. It’s unacceptable. And Americans should start to realize that it’s unacceptable.

But that’s the choice we have at the moment. In Iowa, I think there are steps people could take to start to challenge that system, if they wanted to.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll talk about that in a minute, and we’ll continue to talk about the advisers. Our guests are Allan Nairn and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos. We’ll be back with them both in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue this discussion about the advisers to the presidential candidates, the men and women behind the men and women who are running today. Our guests are Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a freelance journalist in Washington, wrote a piece in The American Conservative called “War Whisperers: The 2008 Hopefuls Promised a Change in Foreign Policy Then Hired the Old Guard.” We are also joined by independent investigative journalist Allan Nairn. He writes a blog called newsc.blogspot.com. His piece today on this issue is called “The US Election is Already Over. Murder and Preventable Death Have Won.”

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, would you like to add to any of the advisers Allan just talked about? And then we’ll move on to the Republicans.

KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: Well, I think Allan has covered most of it and pretty thoroughly. I agree with him that there is very little difference among these people, and I think what he said really speaks to the idea and the challenge that there is no incentive for these candidates to reach out beyond any of this orbit or galaxy of foreign policy advisers who have been linked in, you know, we’re talking decades of war and events and actions and operations. And there seems, whether it be John Edwards reaching out to the Defense contracting community or Hillary Clinton reaching out to her husband’s former security advisers and operatives or whether it’s Obama reaching out to former Clinton types, there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to reach out beyond that. It seems like there is a stranglehold in this town on the kind of advisers that one is supposed to be linked with.

And I think a lot of that is linked to money, where, you know, the candidates have big names, big lobbyists; that in turn brings them in more funders, more bundlers. And it’s sort of like this hand-in-glove symbiotic relationship, where the bigger names you have, the more familiar names, the more entrenched you have in these cliques I spoke to previously, the more money you’re bringing into your campaign. So there’s no incentive to go beyond that, unless you’re ready for some amount of rebuke and some of the spigot being turned off.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, actually, in terms of money, Allan Nairn, someone like Obama raises an enormous amount of money from just the grassroots.

ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah, Obama—that’s a very telling example. Like Dean in the last campaign, Obama has the ability to get all the money he needs from the middle class through the internet, through $50, $80, $100 contributions. He actually doesn’t need to finance his campaign, to go to the hedge funds, to go to Wall Street. But he does anyway. And he does, I think, because if he doesn’t, they wouldn’t trust him. They might think that he’s on the wrong team, and they might start attacking him. He is someone who, in terms of the money he needs for his campaign, he could afford to come out for single-payer healthcare, for example, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t need money from the health insurance industry, that’s wasting several percentage points of the American GDP in a way that no other industrial rich country in the world does, yet he chooses not to do that, because he doesn’t want to be attacked by those corporations.

AMY GOODMAN: And is Edwards and Clinton any different on those issues?

ALLAN NAIRN: Not as far as I can tell. None of them have come out for single payer. The only one who came out for single payer was Kucinich. Campaign contributions is just one of many tools that rich people have to get their way. There are basically two parallel factors in any democracy. One is one person, one vote. The other is one dollar, one vote. And those two are mixed together. So, although the people do have some say, there are usually a lot more dollars out there than people, and they find ways of prevailing in the end, unless the people become aggressive and disruptive and demanding and threaten to shake the system so that big concessions are made.

AMY GOODMAN: Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, let’s go to the Republicans: Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, John McCain. Give us a few of their advisers.

KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: Well, Giuliani, as you had mentioned, and you had a pretty thorough list of people, but Giuliani is probably strikingly—strikingly is reaching out to the most strident neoconservatives on the scene today. He has familiar neoconservatives on his team, like you said: Norman Podhoretz, also Daniel Pipes, who—and I don’t remember if you had mentioned, but—has been leading the charge against “Islamofascism” on college campuses, has put out his Campus Watch, in terms of going after professors that he deems are not pro-Israel enough. He has other less familiar names, like Martin Kramer, Stephen Rosen, Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution. He has basically a small galaxy of neoconservatives from familiar think tanks as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Hoover, the Hudson.

And basically, I mean, just to start, you know, with Giuliani, because I think he has the most poignant list of people in terms of where you would think that his foreign policy strategy is moving, he has basically—and I said this in my article—has taken the Bush Doctrine, has just pumped it up with steroids. He is fully on board—he always has been—with the Bush Doctrine. His people behind him are. We’re talking about no-holds-barred forward with the war on terror, the war against “Islamofascism.” He believes that the war on terror is a grand war versus good and evil. He is not shy to say that, his people aren’t shy to say that. He’s fully in grip of these people and the Bush Doctrine.

And, you know, if you want to see where the Rudy Giuliani—President Rudy Giuliani will take us, you just look at the Bush Doctrine as if the Iraq war never happened or, better yet, the problems that have arisen from the Iraq war have never happened, because Rudy Giuliani doesn’t seem to acknowledge any of that. Any issues before the surge are incidental. You know, everything is moving forward, and his policy team is right there backing him.

AMY GOODMAN: Allan Nairn, more on Rudolph Giuliani, and then to Mitt Romney.

ALLAN NAIRN: Giuliani, as was mentioned, his big adviser is Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz’s new book is World War IV, which he seems to like. Podhoretz says, bomb the Iranians. And he’s not just talking about pinpoint Iranian nuclear installations; he’s saying bomb the Iranians. And he says he prays that this will happen. Ex-Senator Robert Kasten, an old major backer of the Pakistani military dictatorships and the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia, he’s another key Giuliani adviser.

McCain has General Alexander Haig, who oversaw the US policy of mass terror killings of civilians in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, when American nuns and religious workers were abducted, raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. General Haig said those nuns died in an exchange of gunfire, the pistol-packing nuns. He has a younger—McCain has a younger adviser, Max Boot, who now points to El Salvador, where 70,000 civilians were killed by American-backed death squads, as a model counterinsurgency, a model for what the US should be doing today. Henry Kissinger advises McCain, as he advises many others. And Kissinger, of course, was responsible for mass death in Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile, countless other places. Bud McFarlane from the Reagan administration, who was a key backer of the Contras. Brent Scowcroft, who these days is popular with some liberals because he opposes—he opposed the Iraq invasion, who is a leader of the realist school—the realist school basically says, yes, kill civilians, but make sure you win the war, as opposed to the Bush-Cheney school, which has been killing civilians but losing the war, as the US has been doing until recently in Iraq and is now starting to do in Afghanistan—Scowcroft was the one who, during the Bush 1 administration, went to China right after the Tiananmen Square massacre and reassured the Chinese leadership, “Don’t worry about it, we’re still behind you.”

Romney, as you mentioned, Romney has Cofer Black, a longtime CIA operative who was one of the key people behind the invasion of Afghanistan. During the course of that, according to Bob Woodward, he went in and said, “We’re going to go into Afghanistan. We’re going to cut their heads off.” He’s the one who organized Detachment 88 in Indonesia just recently, the supposed antiterrorist outfit that recently went after a Papuan human rights lawyer. Two key figures in backing the old US policy in Central America, Mark Falcoff and Roger Noriega, are also on the Romney team. And Dan Senor, who viewers probably remember as the voice of the early invasion and occupation of Iraq, he’s one of the Romney guys. Now, as you mentioned—

AMY GOODMAN: Dan Senor is one of the spokespeople in Iraq, is married to, I think it is, Campbell Brown, who’s just been hired by CNN to replace Paula Zahn.

ALLAN NAIRN: Huckabee, who you mentioned, it’s not clear who his advisers are. Huckabee recently was attacked by Romney for being soft on crime. So Huckabee responded, “Soft on crime? I executed sixteen people in Arkansas. How many people did you execute in Massachusetts?” Well, Massachusetts didn’t have the death penalty. But if Huckabee were really tough on crime, he would have used his post as governor of Arkansas to extradite Bill Clinton to Arkansas to stand trial before the courts there, as is permissible under international law, for the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths brought on by the Iraqi sanctions during the Clinton administration. But that’s unthinkable in American politics. It probably didn’t even occur to Huckabee. But if we had a civilized political order and we defined crime and murder objectively, something like that would have been on the table, and Huckabee would have been challenged on it.

Bloomberg, who may step in as the independent, using his money, he’s an interesting example of another aspect.

AMY GOODMAN: The current mayor of New York.

ALLAN NAIRN: Yes. One is, we ought to be enforcing the murder laws evenhandedly, so that anyone who facilitates the killing of civilians faces trial and jail, just like any street criminal, even if they’re a CIA operative, even if they’re an American general, even if they’re American president.

Two, we ought to be preventing preventable death if we can. Kids who are defecating to death, kids who are dying from malnutrition for the lack of a couple of dollars, we should be stopping that every single time it can be stopped in the world. Last year in the world, there were anywhere from three to five million deaths of children under the age of five, children who were suffering from malnutrition. If he had so chosen—and he chose not to—Bloomberg could have personally prevented those deaths, because according to Forbes magazine, he’s worth $11.5 billion, and that’s more than enough money, if distributed properly, to prevent that many deaths, millions of one year’s deaths of entirely preventable, entirely inexcusable malnutrition deaths. But it probably never even occurred to him, and he was certainly never challenged on it politically.

But we can start to challenge people on this politically. For example, in the Iowa caucuses, we’re now in a situation where, you know, we have very bitter choices. So what are you going to do? I mean, Kucinich, who has good positions on many of these issues, he’s decided to throw in his lot with Obama. Ralph Nader, who has good positions, he’s implying support for Edwards. OK, these are tactical choices. But one thing that people can do in the Iowa caucuses tonight, they can go in there and say, OK, I’m caucusing for whomever, but I am making my support conditional on you renouncing support for the murder of civilians, on you firing all of your advisers who have been involved in the killing of civilians in the past, you turning them over to the International Criminal Court if you can get the International Criminal Court to accept it, you signing a pledge that says no more killing of civilians, you signing a pledge that says we will prevent preventable death.

You know, the right wing has been doing this for years on the issue of taxes. They make—they go around, they make all the Republican candidates sign a no-tax pledge. That’s been somewhat effective. A very similar thing could be done, and I think it could have appeal, left and right, to anyone who is decent to have candidates pledge no more support for killing civilians, tough on crime, enforce the murder laws, prevent preventable deaths. Let’s not have kids dying of diarrhea. If we have spare dollars floating around that people only want, give them to people whose bodies need them.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting, there is an Occupation Project, and a group of people were just arrested in Huckabee’s offices, among them the longtime peace activist, Nobel Peace Prize nominee several times over, Kathy Kelly, who founded Voices in the Wilderness.

ALLAN NAIRN: Right. That’s a good tactic. I think we have to try many tactics from many directions. And one possible one is, you know, getting inside things like the Iowa caucus, getting inside things like the conventions of both parties and threaten to create a disturbance on the floor, ruckus on the floor, if the candidate for whom you are there as a delegate doesn’t back these simple things that should be the basis of any civilization: no murder, save someone if you can save them.

AMY GOODMAN: Final question, this is on a totally different issue, Allan Nairn, our top headline, the Justice Department launching a formal criminal investigation to the destruction of the videotapes documenting the interrogation of two prisoners. You have long been writing about investigating the CIA and US policy, whether it’s in Central America or Asia. What are your thoughts on the destruction of these videotapes?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, one—and who knows?—I’m skeptical that they’ve actually been destroyed. I mean, anyone, you know, who works with computers knows that it’s almost impossible to truly eliminate something from a hard disk and also that when there’s a document, there are always multiple copies made, especially when you’re in a network system. So I’d be surprised if this thing was really destroyed.

But, anyway, it’s unfortunate that the issue of torture—I mean, it’s good that the issue of torture has finally been put on the table of American politics and people talk about it to some extent, but it’s unfortunate that it’s been put on the table in the context of the torture of these al-Qaeda people, these people who were openly proud killers, mass murderers of civilians. In that context, a lot of people look at it and say, “Well, yeah, look at these lowlifes. Maybe they should be tortured.”

But the fact of the matter is, 90% , at least, worldwide of cases of torture are not of people like this who are open mass murderers. They are usually of dissidents, of rebels, or of common criminals. And often, it is done by regimes that are armed, trained or financed by the United States. This was the case in El Salvador. In El Salvador, I interviewed Salvadoran military people who told of torture training classes they got from CIA officials, and they talked about how the CIA people would be in the room as the torture sessions were going on. And these were not al-Qaeda types that they were torturing; these were labor organizers, these were people who were speaking for justice, these were peasants.

That’s what most torture is in the world, and it should be completely banned and abolished, not in the soft rhetorical way that McCain is talking about it, but actually stopping it by stopping support for all the forces that make a practice of torture. And that would involve completely rewriting the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, the Defense Appropriations Bill, and it would also involve calling in the authorities and carrying out many US officials in chains, because they’ve been backing this illegal stuff for years.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. In talking about, by the way, the occupation of offices, it was not only Huckabee’s office, it was also Barack Obama’s Iowa office, as well as Mitt Romney’s Iowa office, people occupied yesterday. Allan Nairn, I want to thank you for being with us. Your blog at “newsc” for “News and Comment,” newsc.blogspot.com. And Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, thank you for joining us from Washington, D.C. Her article appeared in The American Conservative. The piece was called “War Whisperers.”

http://www.democracynow.org/ 2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

More

// posted by Alice @ Friday, January 04, 2008 0 Comments

Langer is a researcher who has published several important and provocative studies. In this study, she decided to look at whether our perception of how much exercise we are getting has any effect on how our bodies actually look. To do this, she studied hotel maids. ...

by Alix Spiegel

Samuel Aranda

Hotel maids don't always realize their jobs qualify as exercise. When one group of overweight maids was told they exceeded the surgeon general's guidelines for fitness, they started losing weight. AFP/Getty Images

Morning Edition, January 3, 2008 · The holidays are finally over and your waistline is as overstretched as your credit card. It's time to take action! What should you do?

A) Hit the gym.

B) Make a solemn pledge to never ingest another sweet for as long as you live.

C) Hit the gym and make a solemn pledge to never ingest another sweet for as long as you live, or …

D) Sit around on the couch eating chocolate bonbons while genuinely believing that you are getting a lot of rigorous exercise.

The answer to this multiple-choice quiz might not be as straightforward as you think. In fact, a recent study by Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer seems to challenge our basic assumptions about the relationship between the physical body and the mind — and perhaps even our assumptions about the nature of objective reality itself. It certainly challenges our assumptions about the limits of the placebo effect.

Langer is a researcher who has published several important and provocative studies. In this study, she decided to look at whether our perception of how much exercise we are getting has any effect on how our bodies actually look. To do this, she studied hotel maids.

As any casual observer of the hospitality industry knows, hotel maids spend the majority of their days lugging heavy equipment around endless hallways. Basically, almost every moment of their working lives is spent engaged in some kind of physical activity.

But Langer found that most of these women don't see themselves as physically active. She did a survey and found that 67 percent reported they didn't exercise. More than one-third of those reported they didn't get any exercise at all.

"Given that they are exercising all day long," Langer says, "that seemed to be bizarre."

Perceptions Matter

What was even more bizarre, she says, was that, despite the fact all of the women in her study far exceeded the U.S. surgeon general's recommendation for daily exercise, the bodies of the women did not seem to benefit from their activity.

Langer and her team measured the maids' body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, blood pressure, weight and body mass index. They found that all of these indicators matched the maids' perceived amount of exercise, rather than their actual amount of exercise.

So Langer set about changing perceptions.

She divided 84 maids into two groups. With one group, researchers carefully went through each of the tasks they did each day, explaining how many calories those tasks burned. They were informed that the activity already met the surgeon general's definition of an active lifestyle.

The other group was given no information at all.

One month later, Langer and her team returned to take physical measurements of the women and were surprised by what they found. In the group that had been educated, there was a decrease in their systolic blood pressure, weight, and waist-to-hip ratio — and a 10 percent drop in blood pressure.

One possible explanation is that the process of learning about the amount of exercise they were already getting somehow changed the maids' behavior. But Langer says that her team surveyed both the women and their managers and found no indication that the maids had altered their routines in any way. She believes that the change can be explained only by the change in the women's mindset.

Essentially, what Langer is talking about is a placebo effect. She says that if you believe you are exercising, your body may respond as if it is. It's the same as if you believe you are getting medication when you are actually getting a sugar pill — your body can sometimes respond as if a placebo is actually working.

The implication is that the "objective reality" of the physical body is not as immovable as we might have assumed. Hence, the theoretical possibility that, if done with genuine conviction, one might be able to sit around eating chocolate and still lose weight.

Placebo Effect Limited?

But Martin Binks, director of behavioral health at the Duke Diet and Fitness Center in North Carolina, is skeptical of Langer's conclusion, even though he is impressed with the physical changes in the maids.

"There's a very high likelihood that [the maids] behaved differently after they received that information," he says, "and they were being more active and eating more healthfully. And that resulted in their improvements in health."

But Binks has a more substantive criticism. He does not believe that placebos are capable of producing the kind of objective change in the physical body that Langer is claiming.

"Generally what placebos work on is subjective types of findings," he says.

In other words, a placebo can help change something like your perception of pain or perhaps your sense of whether you feel depressed, but it can't do something objective like shrink a tumor or cut three pounds off your waistline.

Or can it?

Howard Brody has spent years looking at this issue. He says that a number of relatively new studies challenge the old assumption that the placebo effect alters only subjective perception. He is the director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch and the author of the book, The Placebo Response.

For example, Brody notes one study where researchers gave asthmatic patients a drug that actually makes asthma worse. When they gave the drug to the patients, they told them that it relieves asthma.

"A significant number of those patients said that my asthma got better when you gave me the drug," Brody says, "and they measured better when you measured the lung findings.

"So the idea that the placebo effect applies only to subjective things is really one that we have to dismiss."

So maybe it really might be possible to sit on the couch eating chocolates and lose weight. I, for one, am certainly willing to sacrifice and give it the old college try.

// posted by Alice @ Thursday, January 03, 2008 0 Comments