Be INFORMED

Sunday, June 01, 2008

The Corporate States Of America

   While America keeps its eyes focused on the next American Idol and/or the latest celebrity gossip, our country is/has been taken over by its own corporations.

   From our government, to our schools,and everything else in between, our corporations are becoming our rulers and America is under siege by its own self-created terrorist who aren't using violent weapons to subdue its citizenry.

   Cross-posted from  Common Dreams

 TruthDig.com for original

The Corporate State and the Subversion of Democracy

by Chris Hedges

Note: Chris Hedges gave this keynote address on Wednesday, May 28 at 7 p.m. in Furman University’s Younts Conference Center. The address was part of the protests by faculty and students over the South Carolina college’s decision to invite George W. Bush to give the May 31 commencement address.

When it was announced earlier this month that President Bush would deliver the commencement address 222 students and faculty signed and posted on the school’s Web site a statement titled “We Object.” The statement cites the war in Iraq and the administration’s “obstructing progress on reducing greenhouse gases while favoring billions in tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies that are earning record profits.”

“We are ashamed of the actions of this administration. The war in Iraq has cost the lives of over 4,000 brave and honorable U.S. military personnel,” the statement read. “Because we love this country and the ideals it stands for, we accept our civic responsibility to speak out against these actions that violate American values.”


I used to live in a country called America. It was not a perfect country, God knows, especially if you were African-American or Native American or of Japanese descent in World War II or poor or gay or a woman or an immigrant, but it was a country I loved and honored. This country gave me hope that it could be better. It paid its workers wages that were envied around the world. It made sure these workers, thanks to labor unions and champions of the working class in the Democratic Party and the press, had health benefits and pensions. It offered good public education. It honored basic democratic values and held in regard the rule of law, including international law, and respect for human rights. It had social programs from Head Start to welfare to Social Security to take care of the weakest among us, the mentally ill, the elderly and the destitute. It had a system of government that, however flawed, was dedicated to protecting the interests of its citizens. It offered the possibility of democratic change. It had a media that was diverse and endowed with the integrity to give a voice to all segments of society, including those beyond our borders, to impart to us unpleasant truths, to challenge the powerful, to explain ourselves to ourselves. I am not blind to the imperfections of this America, or the failures to always meet these ideals at home and abroad. I spent 20 years of my life in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans as a foreign correspondent reporting in countries where crimes and injustices were committed in our name, whether during the Contra war in Nicaragua or the brutalization of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation forces. But there was much that was good and decent and honorable in our country. And there was hope.The country I live in today uses the same words to describe itself, the same patriotic symbols and iconography, the same national myths, but only the shell remains. America, the country of my birth, the country that formed and shaped me, the country of my father, my father’s father, and his father’s father, stretching back to the generations of my family that were here for the country’s founding, is so diminished as to be nearly unrecognizable. I do not know if this America will return, even as I pray and work and strive for its return. The “consent of the governed” has become an empty phrase. Our textbooks on political science are obsolete. Our state, our nation, has been hijacked by oligarchs, corporations and a narrow, selfish political elite, a small and privileged group which governs on behalf of moneyed interests. We are undergoing, as John Ralston Saul wrote, “a coup d’etat in slow motion.” We are being impoverished-legally, economically, spiritually and politically. And unless we soon reverse this tide, unless we wrest the state away from corporate hands, we will be sucked into the dark and turbulent world of globalization where there are only masters and serfs, where the American dream will be no more than that-a dream, where those who work hard for a living can no longer earn a decent wage to sustain themselves or their families, whether in sweat shops in China or the decaying rust belt of Ohio, where democratic dissent is condemned as treason and ruthlessly silenced.

I single out no party. The Democratic Party has been as guilty as the Republicans. It was Bill Clinton who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough. Clinton argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers, he insisted, would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, he argued, to take corporate money. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton’s leadership, had virtual fundraising parity with the Republicans. Today the Democrats get more. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms, it was a betrayal.

The North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the country by the Clinton White House as an opportunity to raise the incomes and prosperity of the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA would also, we were told, staunch Mexican immigration into the United States.

“There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home,” President Clinton said in the spring of 1993 as he was lobbying for the bill.

But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, had the curious effect of reversing every one of Clinton’s rosy predictions. Once the Mexican government lifted price supports on corn and beans for Mexican farmers, they had to compete against the huge agribusinesses in the United States. The Mexican farmers were swiftly bankrupted. At least 2 million Mexican farmers have been driven off their land since 1994. And guess where many of them went? This desperate flight of poor Mexicans into the United States is now being exacerbated by large-scale factory closures along the border as manufacturers pack up and leave Mexico for the cut-rate embrace of China’s totalitarian capitalism. But we were assured that goods would be cheaper. Workers would be wealthier. Everyone would be happier. I am not sure how these contradictory things were supposed to happen, but in a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters. NAFTA was great if you were a corporation. It was a disaster if you were a worker.

Clinton’s welfare reform bill, which was signed on Aug. 22, 1996, obliterated the nation’s social safety net. It threw 6 million people, many of them single mothers, off the welfare rolls within three years. It dumped them onto the streets without child care, rent subsidies and continued Medicaid coverage. Families were plunged into crisis, struggling to survive on multiple jobs that paid $6 or $7 an hour, or less than $15,000 a year. But these were the lucky ones. In some states, half of those dropped from the welfare rolls could not find work. Clinton slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $25 billion in Medicaid funding. The booming and overcrowded prison system handled the influx of the poor, as well as our abandoned mentally ill. And today we stand in shame with 2.3 million of our citizens behind bars, most for nonviolent drug offenses. More than one in 100 adults in the United States is incarcerated and one in nine black men ages 20 to 34 is behind bars. The United States, with less than 5 per cent of the global population, has almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners.

The growing desperation across the United States is unleashing not simply a recession-we have been in a recession for some time now-but the possibility of a depression unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s. This desperation has provided a pool of broken people willing to work for low wages and without unions or benefits. This is good news if you are a corporation. It is very bad news if you work for a living. For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, annual income has been on a slow, steady decline for three decades. The majority’s income peaked at $ 33,000 in 1973. By 2005, according to New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston in his book “Free Lunch,” it had fallen to a bit more than $29,000, this despite three decades of economic expansion. And where did that money go? Ask ExxonMobil, the biggest U.S. oil and gas company, which made a $10.9-billion profit in the first quarter of this year, leaving us to pay close to $4 a gallon to fill up our cars. Or better yet, ask Exxon Mobil Corp Chief Executive Rex Tillerson, whose compensation rose nearly 18 percent to $21.7 million in 2007, when the oil company pulled in the largest profit ever for a U.S. company. His take-home pay package included $1.75 million in salary, a $3.36-million bonus, and $16.1 million of stock and option awards, according to a company filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He also received nearly $430,000 of other compensation, including $229,331 for personal security and $41,122 for use of the company aircraft. In addition to his pay package, Tillerson, 56, received more than $7.6 million from exercising options and stock awards during the year. Exxon Mobil earned $40.61 billion in 2007, up 3 percent from the previous year. But Tillerson’s 2007 pay was not even the highest mark for the U.S. oil and gas industry. Occidental Petroleum Corp. CEO Ray Irani made $33.6 million and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. chief James Hackett took in $26.7 million over the same period.

For each dollar earned in 2005, the top 10 percent got 48.5 cents. That was the top 10th’s greatest share of the income pie, Johnston writes, since 1929, just before the Roaring ’20s collapsed in the Great Depression. And within the top 10 percent, those who made more than $100,000, nearly all the gains went to the top 10th of 1 percent, people like Tillerson, or Irani or Hackett, who made at least $1.7 million that year. And until we have real election reform, until we make it possible to run for national office without candidates kissing the rings of Tillersons, Iranis and Hacketts to get hundreds of millions of dollars, this rape of America will continue.

While the Democrats have been very bad, George W. Bush has been even worse. Let’s set aside Iraq-the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. George Bush has also done more to dismantle our Constitution, ignore or revoke our statutes and reverse regulations that protected American citizens from corporate abuse than any other president in recent American history. The president, as the Boston Globe reported, has claimed the authority, through “signing statements,” to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ‘’whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ‘’to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” George Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ‘’execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional. The Bush administration has gutted environmental, food and product safety, and workplace safety standards along with their enforcement. And this is why coal mines collapse, the housing bubble has blown up in our face and we are sold lead-contaminated toys imported from China. Bush has done more than any president to hand our government directly over to corporations, which now get 40 percent of federal discretionary spending. Over 800,000 jobs once handled by government employees have been outsourced to corporations, a move that has not only further empowered our shadow corporate government but helped destroy federal workforce unions. Everything from federal prisons, the management of regulatory and scientific reviews, the processing or denial of Freedom of Information requests, interrogating prisoners and running the world’s largest mercenary army in Iraq has become corporate. And these corporations, in a perverse arrangement, make their money off of the American citizen. Halliburton in 2003 was given a no-bid and non-compete $7-billion contract to repair Iraq’s oil fields, as well as the power to oversee and control Iraq’s entire oil production. This has now become $130 billion in contract awards to Halliburton. And flush with taxpayer dollars, what has Haliburton done? It has made sure only 36 of its 143 subsidiaries are incorporated in the United States and 107 subsidiaries (or 75 percent) are incorporated in 30 different countries. Halliburton is able through this arrangement to lower its tax liability on foreign income by establishing a “controlled foreign corporation” and subsidiaries inside low-tax, or no-tax, countries known as a “tax havens.” They take our money. They squander it. And our corporate government not only funds them but protects them. Halliburton-and Halliburton is just one example-is the engine of our new, rogue corporate state, serviced by people like George Bush and Dick Cheney, once the company’s CEO.

The disparity between our oligarchy and the working class has created a new global serfdom. Credit Suisse analysts estimates that the number of subprime foreclosures in the United States over the next two years will total 1,390,000 and that by the end of 2012, 12.7 percent of all residential borrowers in the United States will be forced out of their homes. The corporate state, which as an idea is an abstraction to many Americans, is very real when the pieces are carefully put together and linked to a system of corporate power that has made this poverty, the denial of our constitutional rights and a state of permanent war inevitable. The assault on the American working class-an assault that has devastated members of my own family- is nearly complete. The U.S. economy has 3.2 million fewer jobs today than it did when George Bush took office, including 2.5 million fewer manufacturing jobs. In the past three years, nearly one in five U.S. workers was laid off. Among workers laid off from full-time work, roughly one-fourth were earning less than $40,000 annually. A total of 15 million U.S. workers are unemployed, underemployed or too discouraged to job hunt, according to the Labor Department. There are whole sections of the United States which now resemble the developing world. There has been a Weimarization of the American working class. And the assault on the middle class is now under way. Anything that can be put on software-from finance to architecture to engineering-can and is being outsourced to workers in countries such as India or China who accept a fraction of the pay and work without benefits. And both the Republican and Democratic parties, beholden to corporations for money and power, allow this to happen.

Take a look at our government departments. Who runs the Defense Department? The Department of Interior? The Department of Agriculture? The Food and Drug Administration? Who runs the Department of Labor? Corporations. And in an election year where we are numbed by absurdities we hear nothing about this subordinating of the American people to corporate power. The political debates, which have become popularity contests, are ridiculous and empty. They do not confront the real and advanced destruction of our democracy. They do not confront the takeover of our electoral processes.

We have watched over the past few decades the rise of a powerful web of interlocking corporate entities, a network of arrangements within subsectors, industries or other partial jurisdictions to diminish and often abolish outside control and oversight. These corporations have neutralized national, state and judicial authority. They dominate, for example, a bloated and wasteful defense industry which has become sacrosanct and beyond the reach of politicians, most of whom are left defending military projects in their districts, no matter how redundant, because they provide jobs. This has permitted a military-industrial complex, which contributes lavishly to political campaigns, to spread across the country with virtual impunity. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The U.S. has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions on the planet. The defense budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the Second World War even as we have more than $400 billion in annual deficits. More than half of federal discretionary spending goes to defense. This will not end when Bush leaves office. And so we build Cold War relics like $ 3.4-billion submarines and stealth fighters to evade radar systems the Soviets never built and spend $ 8.9 billion on ICBM missile defense that will be useless in stopping a shipping container concealing a dirty bomb. The defense industry is able to monopolize the best scientific and research talent and squander the nation’s resources and investment capital. These defense industries produce nothing that is useful for society or the national trade account. Melman, like President Eisenhower, saw the defense industry as viral, something that, as it grew, destroyed a healthy economy. And so we produce sophisticated fighter jets while Boeing is unable to finish its new commercial plane on schedule, and our automotive industry tanks. We sink money into research and development of weapons systems and starve technologies to fight against global warming and renewable energy. Universities are awash in defense-related cash and grants, and struggle to find money for environmental studies. This massive military spending, aided by this $3-trillion war, is hollowing us out from the inside. Our bridges and levees collapse, our schools decay and our safety net is taken away.

The corporate state, begun under Ronald Reagan and pushed forward by every president since, has destroyed the public and private institutions that protected workers and safeguarded citizens. Only 7.8 per cent of workers in the private sector are unionized. This is about the same percentage as in the early 1900s. There are 50 million Americans in real poverty and tens of millions of Americans in a category called “near poverty.” Our health care system is broken. Eighteen thousand people die in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine, every year because they can’t afford health care. That is six times the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks, and these unnecessary deaths continue year after year. But we do not hear these stories of pain and dislocation. We are diverted by bread and circus. News reports do little more than report on trivia and celebrity gossip. The FCC, in an example of how far our standards have fallen, defines shows like Fox’s celebrity gossip program “TMZ” and the Christian Broadcast Network’s “700 Club” as “bona fide newscasts.” The economist Charlotte Twight calls this vast corporate system of spectacle and democratic collapse “participatory fascism.”

How did we get here? How did this happen? In a word, deregulation-the systematic dismantling of the managed capitalism that was the hallmark of the American democratic state. Our political decline came about because of deregulation, the repeal of antitrust laws, and the radical transformation from a manufacturing economy to a capital economy. This understanding led Franklin Delano Roosevelt on April 29, 1938, to send a message to Congress titled “Recommendations to the Congress to Curb Monopolies and the Concentration of Economic Power.” In it, he wrote:

“The first truth is that the liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism-ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way to sustain an acceptable standard of living.”

The rise of the corporate state has grave political consequences, as we saw in Italy and Germany in the early part of the 20th century. Antitrust laws not only regulate and control the marketplace, they serve as bulwarks to protect democracy. And now that they are gone, now that we have a state that is run by and on behalf of corporations, we must expect inevitable and perhaps terrifying political consequences.

I spent two years traveling the country to write a book on the Christian right called “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” In depressed former manufacturing towns from Ohio to Kentucky it was the same. There are tens of millions of Americans for whom the end of the world is no longer an abstraction. They have lost hope. Fear and instability has plunged the working class into personal and economic despair, and not surprisingly into the arms of the demagogues and charlatans of the radical Christian right who offer a belief in magic, miracles and the fiction of a utopian Christian nation. And unless we re-enfranchise these Americans back into the economy, unless we give them hope, our democracy is doomed.

As the pressure mounts, as this despair and desperation reaches into larger and larger segments of the American populace, the mechanisms of corporate and government control are being bolstered to prevent civil unrest and instability. It is not accidental that with the rise of the corporate state comes the rise of the security state. This is why the Bush White House has pushed through the Patriot Act (and its renewal), the suspension of habeas corpus, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” the warrantless wiretapping on American citizens and the refusal to ensure free and fair elections with verifiable ballot-counting. It is part of a package. It comes together. It is not about terrorism or national security. It is about control. It is about their control of us.

Sen. Frank Church, as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence in 1975, investigated the government’s massive and highly secretive National Security Agency. He wrote:

“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. … I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return. …”

When Sen. Church made this statement the NSA was not authorized to spy on American citizens. Today it is.

In a military brig in Charleston an American citizen, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is being held in a black hole set up on American soil. He was stripped on June 23, 2003, by George Bush of his constitutional rights and declared an “enemy combatant.” He is being detained without charge, interrogated without a lawyer and held indefinitely. Lawyers for the Bush administration claim that the president can send the military into any neighborhood, any town or suburb, capture a citizen and hold him or her in prison without charge. They base this claim on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress after 9/11, that gives President Bush the power to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the attacks. But Al-Mari was not captured in Afghanistan or Iraq. He was arrested in Peoria, Ill., in December 2001. And if the president can declare American citizens living inside the United States to be enemy combatants and order them stripped of constitutional rights, what does this mean for us? How long can we be held without charge? Without lawyers? Without access to the outside world? Maybe Al-Mari is, as the government claims, a terrorist. I don’t know. But I do know that if this becomes a precedent, if it is not overturned by the courts, habeas corpus, the most important bulwark of our democratic state, will be dead.

We are fed lie after lie to mask the destruction the corporate state has wrought in our lives. The consumer price index, for example, used by the government to measure inflation, has become meaningless. To keep the official inflation figures low the government has been substituting basic products they once measured to check for inflation with ones that do not rise very much in price. This trick has kept the cost-of-living increases tied to the CPI artificially low. The disconnect between what we are told and what is actually true is worthy of the old East German state. The New York Times’ consumer reporter, W.P. Dunleavy, wrote that her groceries now cost $587 a month, up from $400 a year earlier. This is a 40 percent increase. California economist John Williams, who runs an organization called Shadow Statistics, contends that if Washington still used the CPI measurements applied back in the 1970s, inflation would be in the 10 percent range. The advantage to the corporations is huge. A false inflation rate, one far lower than the real rate, keeps equitable interest payments on bank accounts and certificates of deposit down. It masks the deterioration of the American economy. The Potemkin statistics allow corporations and the corporate state to walk away from obligations tied to real adjustments for inflation. These statistics mean that less is paid out in Social Security and pensions. It has reduced the interest on the multitrillion-dollar debt. Corporations never have to pay real cost-of-living increases to their employees. The term “unemployment” has also been steadily redefined. This has rendered official data on employment worthless. In real terms about 10 percent of the working population is unemployed, a figure that is, over the long run, unsustainable. The economy, despite the official statistics, is not growing. It is shrinking. And as the nation crumbles we are awash with the terrible simplicity of false statistics. We confuse our emotional responses, carefully manipulated by advertisers, pundits, spin doctors, television hosts, political consultants and focus groups, with knowledge. It is how we elect presidents and those we send to Congress, how we make decisions, even decisions to go to war. It is how we view the world. Four media giants-AOL-Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch’s NewsGroup-control nearly everything we read, see and hear. This growing disconnect with reality is the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

“Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines,” Hannah Arendt wrote, “totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations. The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda-before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone’s disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world-lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world.”

So what do we do? Voting is not enough. If voting was that effective, to quote the activist Philip Berrigan, it would be illegal. And voting in an age when elections are stolen by rigged ballot machines and a stacked Supreme Court willing to overturn all legal precedent to make George Bush president, will not work. I am not saying do not vote. We should all vote. But that has to be the starting point if we want to reclaim America. We must lobby, organize and advocate for the dissolution of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. The WTO and NAFTA have handcuffed workers, consumers and stymied our efforts to create clean environments. These agreements are beyond the control of our courts and have crippled our weakened regulatory agencies. The WTO forces our working class to compete with brutalized child and prison labor overseas, to be reduced to this level of slave labor or to go without meaningful work. We need to repeal the anti-worker Taft-Hartley law of 1947. The act obstructs the organization of unions. We need to transfer control of pension funds from management to workers. If these pension funds, worth trillions of dollars, were in the hands of workers the working class would own a third of the New York Stock Exchange.

The working class has every right to be, to steal a line from Obama, bitter with liberal elites. I am bitter. I have seen what the loss of manufacturing jobs and the death of the labor movement did to my relatives in the former mill towns in Maine. Their story is the story of tens of millions of Americans who can no longer find a job that supports a family and provides basic benefits. Human beings are not commodities. They are not goods. They grieve, and suffer and feel despair. They raise children and struggle to maintain communities. The growing class divide is not understood, despite the glibness of many in the media, by complicated sets of statistics or the absurd, utopian faith in unregulated globalization and complicated trade deals. It is understood in the eyes of a man or woman who is no longer making enough money to live with dignity and hope.

George Bush, who will be here on Saturday, has done more to shred, violate or absent the government from its obligations under domestic and international law. He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons, and defied the Geneva Convention and human rights law. He has set up offshore penal colonies where we deny detainees basic rights and openly engage in torture. He launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for these crimes, if we allow the Democratic majority in Congress to get away with its refusal to begin the process of impeachment, which appears likely, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences. For a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation-largely put in place by the United States-destroy our own constitutional rights and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. We are one, maybe two, terrorist attacks away from a police state. Time is running out.
We must not allow international laws and treaties-ones that set minimum standards of behavior and provide a framework for competing social, political, economic and religious groups and interests to resolve differences-to be discarded. The exercise of power without law is tyranny. And the consequences of George Bush’s violation of the law, his creation of legal black holes that can swallow American citizens along with those outside our borders, run in a direct line from the White House to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and military brigs in cities such as Charleston.
George Bush-we now know from the leaked Downing Street memo-fabricated a legal pretext for war. He decided to charge Saddam Hussein with the material breach of the resolution passed in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. He had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in breach of this resolution. And so he and his advisers manufactured reports of weapons of mass destruction and disseminated them to a frightened and manipulated press and public. In short, he lied. He lied to us and to the rest of the world. There are tens of thousands, perhaps a few hundred thousand people, who have been killed and maimed in a war that has no legal justification, a war waged in violation of international law, a war that under the post-Nuremberg laws is defined as “a criminal war of aggression.”

We have blundered into nations we know little about. We are caught between bitter rivalries and competing ethnic groups and leaders we do not understand. We are trying to transplant a modern system of politics invented in Europe characterized, among other things, by the division of earth into independent secular states based on national citizenship in a land where the belief in a secular civil government is an alien creed. Iraq was a cesspool for the British when they occupied it in 1917. It will be a cesspool for us as well. We can either begin an orderly withdrawal or watch the mission collapse.

A rule-based world matters. The creation of international bodies and laws, the sanctity of our constitutional rights, have allowed us to stand pre-eminent as a nation-one that seeks at its best to respect and defend the rule of law. If we demolish the fragile and delicate domestic and international order, if we permit George Bush to create a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation, democracy and law are worthless, if we allow these international and domestic legal safeguards to unravel, our moral and political authority will plummet. We will erode the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies. We will lose our country. And we will, in the end, see visited upon us the evils we visit on others. Read Antigone, when the king imposes his will without listening to those he rules or Thucydides’ history. Read how Athens’ expanding empire saw it become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. How the tyranny the Athenian leadership imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. This, Thucydides wrote, is what doomed Athenian democracy; Athens destroyed itself. For the primary instrument of tyranny and empire is war and war is a poison, a poison which at times we must ingest just as a cancer patient must ingest a poison to survive. But if we do not understand the poison of war-if we do not understand how deadly that poison is-it can kill us just as surely as the disease.

Hope, St. Augustine wrote, has two beautiful daughters. They are anger and courage. Anger at the way things are and the courage to see they do not remain the way they are. We stand at the verge of a massive economic dislocation, one forcing millions of families from their homes and into severe financial distress, one that threatens to rend the fabric of our society. We are waging a war that devours lives and capital, and that cannot ultimately be won. We are told we need to give up our rights to be safe, to be protected. In short, we are made afraid. We are told to hand over all that is best about our nation to those like George Bush and Dick Cheney who seek to destroy our nation. A state of fear only engenders cruelty; cruelty, fear, insanity, and then paralysis. In the center of Dante’s circle the damned remained motionless. If we do not become angry, if we do not muster within us the courage, indeed the militancy, to challenge those in the Democratic and Republican parties who herd us towards the corporate state, we will have squandered our courage and our integrity when we need it most.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

©2008 TruthDig.com

Friday, May 30, 2008

Fox News Employee Gets Bedbugs

  This was to funny to pass up!

    According to the Associated Press, Fox News employee Jane Clark caught bedbugs while at work at the tower that houses both the  Fox News Channel and the New York Post. As is usual, there is a lawsuit over this horrible incident and Clark is claiming that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and that she can't work.

The lawsuit asks unspecified damages from the building's owner, a management company and two maintenance companies. The Fox News Channel and its parent News Corp. were not named as defendants.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Roe Versus Wade: John McCain's Idea's

  Many of you know that Senator McCain would like to have the Roe vs. Wade ruling overturned by a conservative Supreme Court. But he isn't saying that out loud in public.

RHRealityCheck.org

Emily Douglas, Posted May 29, 2008.

John McCain knows how to dog-whistle.

At Wake Forest University two weeks ago, in a speech outlining his judicial philosophy and describing the judges he would nominate for the Supreme Court, McCain decried justices who use " ‘penumbras,' ‘emanations,' and other airy constructs...as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning." There wasn't a word in McCain's speech about abortion, or Roe, but there didn't need to be - he was referring, obliquely but distinctly, of course, to the "zones of privacy" found in the "penumbras and emanations" around certain amendments to the Constitution. "He's learning the secret code," Elizabeth Shipp, political director at NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in response. "The secret code is what he has to say in public when people are actually paying attention to him to appeal to independent and pro-choice Republican voters. He can't come out in a major speech and say, ‘Yeah, I want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.'"

Anti-choice activists nationwide hear the whistle and are getting ready for him - and his judicial nominees. If McCain wins his bid for presidency, has the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and puts forth a nominee who shares his disparaging view of the foundation of the right to privacy, Roe's vulnerability is guaranteed - and the legislative landscape in states across the country will have been strategically prepared. Meanwhile, Americans are aware that federal protection of abortion is vulnerable, but 58% are not aware of the laws protective of or hostile to abortion in their own states.

A widely-noted strategy of the anti-choice right is to introduce outright, immediate bans on abortion, bans state legislatures know are unconstitutional and pass with the explicit intention to challenge Roe at the Supreme Court level - a strategy that got underway in 2004, when South Dakota introduced the first abortion ban to be considered by state legislature in over a decade. The most notorious of such bans, lacking even an exception for rape, incest or a woman's health, the South Dakota ban was passed and signed into law in 2006, but blocked from going into effect by a successful popular referendum process to overturn it. This fall, South Dakota again will consider an outright ban, this time with exceptions for rape and incest.

The Second Prong

While the outright outlawing of abortion puts a particularly urgent face on the issue of judicial nominees, there's a second, subtler prong to the strategy, one that suggests that anti-choice activists are setting their sights on a time far beyond Roe's reversal. States with anti-choice legislatures have hit upon a novel way to use the law, creating bans on abortion that are not in constitutional conflict with Roe because they go into effect, or are "triggered," only upon the overturn of Roe. So-called "bans-in-waiting" go beyond states' proclamation of their intention to outlaw abortion when they can constitutionally do so to outline what specifically would be illegal and what penalties would be incurred for illegal abortion when it constitutionally can be outlawed.

As recently as 2004, no state had a bans-in-waiting on the books. In 2005, in the wake of failure of the state's immediate abortion ban to survive popular referendum, South Dakota passed the first; in 2006, Louisiana followed, and Kentucky and Missouri considered bans-in-waiting. In 2007, Mississippi and North Dakota added bans-in-waiting to their books and Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah all considered them.

Bans-in-waiting reflect anti-choice activists' confidence that Roe will be overturned, says Katherine Grainger, vice-president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, and demonstrate that "anti-choice activists are not waiting for Roe to fall to shape the post-Roe world." For Sondra Goldschein, state strategies attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, bans-in-waiting are "just the same" as immediate bans. "They show legislative intent to ban abortion," she says, and they "come as no surprise" to the advocates on the ground who are well-acquainted with their state legislature's hostility to women's health and well-being.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of bans-in-waiting is that because the bans are not currently in effect, and because there is therefore no individual who has standing to challenge the law, such bans cannot be challenged in court once they are passed into law. "Courts stop laws from going into effect - there has to be some kind of immediate urgency that the court has to rectify. And the bans-in-waiting don't have that effective date," Grainger explains. Goldschein notes that it's "unprecedented" for a legislature to pass laws with an unspecified future effective date. While in some states, the state's own constitutional provisions on privacy - often far more expansive than federal constitutional protections - could conflict with the bans, reproductive rights litigators can't make any arguments in court against the bans until they effectuate.

So, in the twenty-five states without a popular referendum process, the only way bans-in-waiting can be overturned is if the legislature that passed them will repeal them. But legislatures passing bans-in-waiting are "packed with anti-choice legislators that keep getting re-elected year after year," Grainger notes, so "the possibility of that occurring is slim."

For anti-choice activists, bans-in-waiting have another advantage over outright bans - because they can't be attacked in court, unlike unconstitutional bans on abortion, bans-in-waiting cost the state nothing to defend. Grainger says that the Louisiana state legislature wanted to pass an outright ban shortly after Hurricane Katrina hit the state. When pro-choice advocates asked legislators whether they really wanted to spend millions of taxpayer dollars defending an unconstitutional ban as the state recovered from a natural disaster, legislators responded, " ‘Oh, that's going to look really bad, let's make it a ban-in-waiting,'" says Grainger. "I think that's largely how these things are thought of. ‘We don't want to pay; we don't want to look bad. We want to get re-elected, but we also want to outlaw abortion. How can we do that?'" So, 'bans-in-waiting' allow them to do so."

Though the period from 2005 to 2007 saw an increase in the number of states introducing and passing bans-in-waiting each year, 2008 has been a slow year for bans-in-waiting, says Celine Mizrahi, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights. Only Virginia proposed a ban-in-waiting and it hasn't moved. In this election year, Mizrahi sees that all the action is on ballot initiatives, including South Dakota's ban, Colorado's and Montana's personhood amendments, and California's parental notification measure.

A Lab of Our Own

South Dakota has been first out of the gate on both the immediate ban and the ban-in-waiting, turning the state into a laboratory for anti-choice legislation. The pro-choice movement needs a lab of its own, says Grainger. Galen Sherwin, director of the Reproductive Rights Project at the New York Civil Liberties Union, hopes legislation currently being considered by the New York state legislature can be one such model for other, more moderate states.

Roe's vulnerability has prompted many reproductive rights advocates to consider statutory codification of Roe in state law - analysis done by the Center for Reproductive Rights suggests that if Roe were overturned, abortion would likely become illegal in twenty-one states, remain legal in twenty, and in nine the future of legal abortion is unclear. Sherwin and other New York state reproductive health advocates started working on the state's Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP) in the wake of the federal abortion ban and as Gonzalez v. Carhart was moving through the federal court system. Concerned that New York might be vulnerable if Carhart resulted in a repeal of Roe, New York advocates learned that the state's own law on abortion had not been updated since 1970. "What we found when we looked at New York law was that in fact because New York changed its laws to legalize abortion in 1970, which was before Roe v. Wade was even decided, it's now significantly out-of-date and we've never gone back and revised it," Sherwin explains. As such, it failed to include the health exception that Carhart itself compromised.

For some pro-choice legislators, RHAPP represents the first opportunity to take a stand on affirmative pro-choice legislation, rather than battling legislation designed to curtail abortion rights. And some of those legislators haven't been as quick to sign on to RHAPP as they may have been to oppose anti-choice legislation. "New York has not had a germane abortion bill on the floor since the seventies," Grainger explains. "They've never had to think about it," says Sherwin. "They're used to responding [to choice issues] in a defensive posture. We're working to give them a sense of comfort that protecting women's health should not be an act of courage it should be the natural part of their job."

In Illinois, reproductive health advocates are pushing what the ACLU's Goldschein calls reproductive justice legislation: the Reproductive Justice and Access Act would not just codify Roe but ensure access to funding for abortion services - as well mandating comprehensive sexuality education, contraceptive access, and other reproductive health care. Goldschein credits reproductive health advocates in New York and Illinois for being "at the point of legislation" on affirmative reproductive health bills, but notes that states all across the country aren't just fighting back restrictions but that "all states have as their ultimate goal the right to access the full spectrum of reproductive health care, including abortion." Seven other states have already passed statutory protection for abortion, including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Nevada.

One thing is clear to advocates working on affirmative legislation: no bill could be incremental, or moderate, enough to placate anti-choice protesters. Working on the RHAPP, a bill that does little more than codify existing federal law into state statute, has still aroused the ire - and misinformation - the anti-choice right is famous for. "It's obvious that opponents are not responding to any particular provision of the bill but that they oppose the notion of women's reproductive freedom and of the freedom to decide whether or not to become pregnant or whether or not to bear a child," Sherwin observes. "Over-arching protection for liberty and dignity for women: that is what is the focus of opponents." And it will be John McCain's target too, should he get the chance.

Emily Douglas: Assistant Editor at RH Reality Check

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Top Spenders On Lobbying Groups For 2008 ( Thus Far )

  The following are the businesses which have spent the most on lobbying activity so far in 2008.

Center for Responsive Politics

US Chamber of Commerce
$10,100,000

AARP
$7,220,000

AT&T Inc
$5,213,841

Verizon Communications
$4,810,000

American Medical Assn
$4,700,000

American Hospital Assn
$4,293,068

General Electric
$4,220,000

General Motors
$4,070,000

American International Group
$3,890,000

Lockheed Martin
$3,815,000

Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America
$3,610,000

Textron Inc
$3,320,000

Northrop Grumman
$3,313,252

National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
$3,260,000

National Assn of Realtors
$3,170,000

Exxon Mobil
$3,050,000

Altria Group
$3,040,000

Eli Lilly & Co
$2,895,000

UnitedHealth Group
$2,860,000

Southern Co

$2,850,000

  I guess that a lot of medical companies need a lot of help from our government. We all know why ATT and Verizon are lobbying for.

  Here are a few of the top concerns for the companies and their lobbyist

Fed Budget & Appropriations
Defense
Health Issues
Taxes
Transportation
Energy & Nuclear Power
Education
Medicare & Medicaid
Environment & Superfund
Trade

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

John McCain's " Reformer " Image

   It would seem that dear John is having a problem with his image as of late, what with all of those lobbyist working for his campaign coming under fire for working for foreign governments and what have you. It  appears that McCain's campaign is being run by nothing but " former " lobbyist and that even McCain's own group, The Reform Institute, is nothing but a fundraising  outfit alive only for the purpose of raising cash for John McCain.

  What is the stated purpose of The Reform Institute?

   The Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) educational organization dedicated to advancing a solutions-based reform agenda. The Institute recognizes that resolving the most intractable problems confronting our society will require fundamental reform to the core of our democratic system. Such an agenda includes promoting open and fair elections, reducing the influence of special interests in our politics, and encouraging a political discourse that rises above blatant partisanship.

But wait! There's more!

  The Reform Institute  was founded in 2001 as a unique, independent voice for campaign finance reform in support of the McCain-Feingold federal soft money ban -- now the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) -- which marked the beginning of a new era in the reform movement.

The Institute’s campaign finance reform agenda is rooted in the principles of public accountability and transparency, empowering citizens and reducing the influence of special interests, encouraging electoral competition, and guaranteeing proper enforcement of campaign laws.

  and then we have this little piece of info on this group..

  From 2003 to 2005, the Reform Institute was led by Richard Davis...one of Washington's most powerful telecommunications lobbyists. The Reform Institute paid Davis some $395,000 in salary and consulting fees, even as he continued to receive hefty retainers from telecoms with interests before the Senate Commerce Committee. Which McCain chaired...after Cablevision CEO Charles Dolan appeared before McCain’s Commerce Committee to advocate for "‘a la carte" cable pricing, he and Davis met, and soon a Cablevision subsidiary contributed $l00,000 to the Institute. As reported by the Associated Press, the subsidiary kicked in another $100,000 in August 2004, three months after McCain wrote a letter to the FCC in support of Cablevision’s position. McCain took the stance even after a government study, produced at his request, concluded that Dolan’s system might lead to higher prices.  Richard Davis is, of course, one of McCain’s closest advisers and chairman of both his presidential campaigns.    Source

  Maybe the straight talker should consider reforming himself before he tries to help anyone else.

NYTimes

“The core image of John McCain is as a reformer in Washington — and the more dominant the story is about the lobbying teams around him, the more you put that into question,” said Terry Nelson, who was Mr. McCain’s campaign manager until he left in a shake-up last fall. “If the Obama campaign can truly change him from being seen as a reformer to just being another Washington politician, it could be very damaging over the course of the campaign.”

  This image as a " reformer " is the only thing that John McCain has going for him right now, and that image is slowly starting to unravel.

John McCain's Other Sideline Interest ( lobbyist )

  This man has more skeletons in his closet!

 Harpers Magazine

  In 2001, the year after he lost the G.O.P.  presidential nomination to George W. Bush, McCain helped found the Reform Institute... a nonprofit whose stated aim was to advance ideals of influence-free good governance. But as McCain makes a second run at the White House, his supposedly independent project functions rather obviously as a public-relations arm of his political machine. In fact, in its revolving-door policy for loyalists, its dubious fund-raising, and its improper support of its founder's aspirations, it resembles nothing so much as yet another Washington influence peddling scheme.  more here

  Mr forked-tongue not being so open as he would have the ignorant public believe.

Monday, May 26, 2008

The Bush Dictatorship: Coming Soon To You?

  Where I currently live we have been having nothing but hard rain and massive lightening, which makes our Internet go nuts. I haven't been able to keep up with most things for the past few days, but, today I ran across This concerning the Bush Administration and your freedoms/civil rights. Read it very carefully and then never forget that Senator John McCain will make things even worse if his sorry ass makes it into the White House.

I like dictatorship! And so do you, if you know what's good for you!

by Kagro X Mon May 26, 2008

You do too. Trust me, you do. Just nod. You don't want to know what happens if you don't nod.

Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

Yes, that's what your government's lawyers tell federal judges when push comes to shove, and they have to own up to the ultimate ramifications of what they're arguing. They really are willing to stand there and tell judges that the president can send the military to disappear anyone he wants, so long as he's willing to say that person is an enemy combatant.

The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.

"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

And who are you to say different, citizen?

Nobody. Exactly. I thought not. Go on about your business.

(Psst! Over here! Keep it down, though. Were you wondering where they say they derive this power from? Well, it's the AUMF.)

"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."

Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al-Qaida safe house in a U.S. suburb?

Sulmasy says no. That's how Congress wrote the bill and "if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language," he said.

So, how are we doing on "tightening up" that language?

Mmmm, not so hot. But mabye we can cave in on FISA first, and then talk about the AUMF.

What? FISA again? Yes, FISA again. Why FISA again? Because the Bush "administration" says the AUMF authorized both its illegal domestic spying program and its powers to invade your neighborhood and disappear your sorry ass on the president's say-so.

And just for fun, here's an interesting observation from a comment by entlord1 in an earlier diary: Bush claims the power to make a warrantless arrest of anyone, anywhere at any time, and argues in court that the power is derived from Congress (though John Yoo always argued the power was inherent in the presidency, which, while even crazier, is at least an internally consistent if powerfully stupid argument). Meanwhile, Congress pretends it has no independent power to enforce its own lawful subpoenas.

Gosh, that must have been some powerful piece of legislation! Better be careful with what you say it authorizes, Congress! Since you're actually contemplating giving the retroactive thumbs-up to the spying part, you might want to give a minute to what this crazy-ass "administration" is going to say that means about the warrantless military seizure and secret, indefinite detention of pretty much anyone the president says he doesn't like a whole lot.

Maybe. Sorta. If it's not too much trouble, and you don't think it will maybe make Republicans attack you in ads.

Otherwise, forget it. We'll just shop and wear our flag pins.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Some Republicans Worry About McCain's Campaign

  and they should be worried as they have put a lying, immoral piece of crap up for their Presidential runner. What with his lobbyist troubles of the past week or so, McCain's so-called " Reformer " image is taking a beating all over the Internet and even in the MSM, which is about time. The " straight talk express " is slowly but surely coming undone by its own doing, which is also about time that this happens.

International Herold Tribune

In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign and about whether the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in McCain's inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

"The core image of John McCain is as a reformer in Washington, and the more dominant the story is about the lobbying teams around him, the more you put that into question," said Terry Nelson, who was McCain's campaign manager until he was forced out last year. "If the Obama campaign can truly change him from being seen as a reformer to just being another Washington politician, it could be very damaging over the course of the campaign."

  Damaging? This issue alone should be enough to bury McCain and his credibility on any issues that will be coming up during the remainder of this campaign.

    Straight-talker indeed!

Saturday, May 24, 2008

John McCain's Lobbyist Woes

   You'd think that the " straight talker " would finally admit that he is in the pocket of those lobbyist who are volunteering in his campaign for president. But noooooooo...this old fuck is still trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes even after having to fire or to force the resignations of a few of these creeps.

   If the American public can't see by now that McCain is nothing but a hypocrite and a constant liar, like his buddy Bush, then there is no hope for this country.

   But wait, there's more...

    DailyKos

Charles R. Black Jr., the senior adviser to Republican John McCain whose work for foreign dictators has led Democrats to call for his ouster, is not the only lobbyist in the family volunteering on the senator from Arizona's presidential campaign.

His wife, Judy Black, is a national co-chair of the fundraising group "Women for McCain," and she has a vibrant lobbying practice that includes a foreign client and several companies with business before the Senate Commerce Committee, where McCain is a senior member.

Judy Black works at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a firm that earned $12.9 million in lobbying fees last year. She is listed as an agent of Dubai Aerospace Enterprises, whose partners include the government of Dubai, according to forms filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Since 2004, she has also represented telecomunications companies AT&T and Global Crossing Ltd., which have matters before the Commerce Committee.

Question: Since McCain made a big deal in the past couple of weeks about booting lobbyists out of his campaign, how does the national co-chair of Women for McCain get a pass?

George Bush's " Appeasement " Comments

  Cross-posted from CommonDreams

Saturday, May 24, 2008 by Foreign Policy In Focus

Obama, McCain, and Munich

by Ira Chernus

George W. Bush made headlines when he celebrated Israel’s 60th anniversary by warning the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, against the “false comfort of appeasement.” The two words that sounded most loudly were the ones that Bush did not actually say: “Obama” and “Munich.”

The Washington Post’s Dan Balz summed up the general consensus: “More than anything said so far by John McCain, Bush’s comments … signaled what the principle Republican attack line will be in the campaign against Obama.” The White House officially denied the charge even as it privately confirmed the strategy. And when reporters asked McCain to respond, he replied “Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right.”

The Obama campaign must have been delighted. The last thing McCain needs now is to have the least popular president in living memory become his campaign spokesman. But the charge of “appeaser” won’t go away. So let’s look at some facts, starting with the other name that Bush put front and center without actually saying it: Munich.

The Nazis Are Coming

In case anyone missed the connection, McCain made it clear when he told reporters that there have been appeasers in the past “and one of them is Neville Chamberlain.” In 1938, British Prime Minister Chamberlain met with Hitler in Munich and agreed to let Germany annex the Sudetenland, the predominantly German part of Czechoslovakia, to gain what he called “peace for our time.” Chamberlain has been scorned ever since as the greatest of all appeasers. Or at least that’s the conventional wisdom.

In fact, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt heard the news of the Munich pact, he sent Chamberlain a telegram with just two words on it: “Good man.” Roosevelt told his ambassador to Italy, “I am not a bit upset over the final result.” His most trusted foreign policy adviser, Sumner Welles, predicted that the Munich accord might lead to a new world order based on justice and law. Half a year later, FDR still hoped to negotiate with Hitler by appealing to reason: “This situation must end in catastrophe,” the president wrote in a personal letter to the Fuhrer, “unless a more rational way of guiding events is found.”

The idea that Munich represented not merely a mistake but a moral catastrophe did not emerge until later, when it turned out the Nazis were intent on war no matter what concessions they received. Once he was in the war, FDR started negotiating with another leader viewed by many Americans as evil incarnate: Josef Stalin. FDR may have shared their view. He justified his alliance with Stalin as “holding hands with the devil.” But if that’s what it took to promote American interests, Roosevelt did not hesitate to do it.

Negotiating with the evil enemy became bipartisan policy under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike’s popularity rating soared when he met with Soviet leaders Khrushchev and Bulganin in Geneva in 1955. That set off an almost continuous round of disarmament talks, which continued when the Democrat John F. Kennedy became president. Kennedy also made sure that summitry with Soviet leaders became a bipartisan institution. Richard Nixon won wide praise for extending it to China, though he was criticized from the right for edging too close to appeasement. A few years later, most of those same right-wingers were praising their leader, Ronald Reagan, for his own summitry with the Soviets.

Even During War

The bipartisan policy of negotiating with enemies has extended to active wartime situations too. Harry Truman negotiated endlessly with the other side during the Korean War. His popularity sank not because he negotiated but because the talks brought no end to the war. In the Vietnam War era, Richard Nixon sent Henry Kissinger for talks with the North Vietnamese.

This is merely the record of public negotiations with enemies. There is also a rich record of secret back-channel talks. JFK defused the 1962 Cuban missile crisis not by “standing tough” and risking war but by secretly agreeing to take U.S. missiles out of Turkey if the Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba.

Then there’s the case of Iran. When McCain responded to Bush’s recent inflammatory speech, he said: “It’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.”

McCain is off the mark. There were behind-the-scenes negotiations leading up to the hostages’ release at the very moment Reagan took the oath of office, and some charge the Reagan campaign was directing them. The new administration certainly did plenty of negotiating with the Iranians (with Israel in the middle), selling them missiles to raise money for illegal support of the contras in Nicaragua.

Bush’s memory of history is obviously fuzzy, too. After breaking off the negotiations Clinton had begun with North Korea and making that nation a charter member of the “axis of evil,” Bush himself resumed talking with Pyongyang because it was obviously in the best interests of the United States.

At least since FDR, then, presidents have regularly negotiated with leaders of nations they publicly decried as evil. So there is no historical basis for the charge that Obama is an “appeaser,” simply because he says it makes sense to talk with the leaders of Iran, Syria, or other nations that are supposedly our enemy.

History of Misrepresentation

Since these facts are so well-known, the corporate media and everyone else should have joined Senator Joe Biden in treating the Bush-McCain charge of “appeaser” as nonsense.

But the charge may well have legs because it fits a long-standing pattern. Presidents and other U.S. leaders who negotiated with supposed enemies have regularly (no matter how unfairly) been accused of appeasement. Democrats spent years fending off charges that Roosevelt had appeased Stalin at their Yalta summit (where Churchill did agree to give Stalin control of much of Eastern Europe, perhaps with FDR’s knowledge). In 1957, Eisenhower told his national security advisor that he was worried the Democrats would turn the tables and attack his disarmament negotiation plans as “our Munich.”

By then, though, the meaning of “appeasement” and “Munich” had changed. And that change holds the key to the importance of the “appeasement” charge in this year’s election.

“Appeasement” began as an accurate charge of miscalculation. In1938, the British wrongly thought that a grant of the Sudetenland would stop German aggression. So the opposite of “appeasement” was intelligence: an accurate calculation of enemy intentions and a well-crafted rational pursuit of one’s own national interest.

But Eisenhower meant something quite different when he told aides: “If you are imposing a moral program in this world, you have to stand behind it with strength … It would be unthinkable to be guilty of a Munich. It is likely that you do come to a place uncomfortably close to war, but you cannot retreat and retreat.” Ike said he was willing to risk nuclear war to stop the Chinese from shelling two tiny islands in the Straits of Formosa because “should the Reds eventually control Formosa, that would be a real Munich,” and “there was hardly a word which the people of this country feared more than the term ‘Munich.’”

By the 1950s, then, “appeasement” and “Munich” meant far more than mistaking the enemy’s intentions. Those words now meant doing anything that might allow the enemy to gain any advantage, or anything that might look like advantage, anywhere in the world. The opposite of “appeasement” became “softness,” or the appearance of “softness.” Anything less than an absolutely rigid unyielding resistance to every move of the opponent, no matter how rational or understandable that move might be, could now be tarred with the dreaded epithet “appeasement.”

This change in the meaning of the word flowed from a change in the concept of the enemy. FDR and Chamberlain saw Nazi Germany as evil because it was competing with, and threatening to harm, U.S. and British interests. When FDR wrote to Hitler urging “a more rational way of guiding events,” he said nothing about stopping persecution of Jews and others in Germany. He demanded only that Germany stop arming for war and start “opening up avenues of international trade.” The underlying picture was of nations in conflict because each was pursuing its own self-interest, as nations always do.

By Eisenhower’s time, the war was ideological. The fascists and communists were rashly lumped together as “totalitarians”: people who would settle for nothing less than total control of the entire world. The strong dose of realpolitik in the Soviet leaders’ foreign policy was ignored. They were not treated as rational beings like us. The Eisenhower consensus said that the only way to deal with them was to keep them penned up behind a wall of containment, a wall so highly fortified it would be impenetrable and immutable.  More Here...

Friday, May 23, 2008

Bush Opposes Military Pay Raise, Again!

  In case you did not know it, the Democrats are attempting to give our military a 3.9 percent pay raise, which is opposed by President Bush. This would be the second year in a row that Bush has not wanted to support our military with a pay raise. You would think that that ass-wipe would at least have the decency to give our fighting forces a little more cash since they are putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other places, for Bush and his war-mongers.

  House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel had something to say about the Bush opposition to the raise.

The Gavel

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement after the White House announced that it “strongly opposes” Democratic efforts to provide troops with a 3.9 percent pay raise. This is the second year in a row that the White House has opposed Democrats’ efforts to provide a more substantial pay raise to our troops. Emanuel’s statement is below.

“One year later and nothing has changed: President Bush is still without a policy in Iraq and American troops are still without the full pay raise they deserve. The President says he supports the troops, but the resources don’t match his rhetoric.”

To read the complete Statement of Administration Policy visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-2/saphr5658-h.pdf

Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-08), the only Iraq veteran serving in Congress, spoke on the issue last year:

Rep. Murphy: “And yet, two weeks ago, President Bush said and I quote, ‘America should do what it takes to support our troops.’ The president criticizes the spending priorities of this Congress but stands in the way of a pay increase for our troops. I say the president should do what it takes to support our troops. This pay raise is long overdue and it is necessary and President Bush’s opposition to it is simply unconscionable.”

   Bush will no doubt argue that the raise cannot be afforded, which is bullshit. Get rid of a few of the Blackwater employees and the money will be there very fast.

   I wonder how John McCain feels about a raise for the military?

Thursday, May 22, 2008

John McCain Rejects John Hagee's Endorsement

  It sure did take long enough for the old man to come to his senses and turn down Hagee's endorsement.

  It seems that McCain had to hear of an audio of Hagee saying that he believed the Nazis did God's will by chasing Jews from Europe. OUCH!

  I guess that if McCain wasn't so old he would have looked up some of Hagee's sermons on Youtube and then discovered that his religious endorser is nothing more than a common crook dressed up for television.

  McCain has been chasing after Hagee's endorsement since this past February which makes me wonder. Is McCain totally inept? If I were running for the office of President of the United States and I was seeking a powerful group leaders endorsement, I would want to make sure that that leader was not too controversial before I accepted the endorsement. Someone like Pastor Hagee is not all that complicated to look up. Someone should tell McCain that we have Internet now so getting info is pretty damned easy.

YahooNews

McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for November's presidential election, issued a statement after the Huffington Post website posted audio of the 1990s remarks by Hagee.

"Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," he said.

"I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."    Read More

Karl Rove Issued A Subpoena

  May 22nd, 2008 by Jesse Lee @ The Gavel

From the Judiciary Committee:

Conyers Subpoenas Karl Rove

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued a subpoena to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony about the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman’s case. Yesterday, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, sent a letter to the Committee expressing that Rove would not agree to testify voluntarily, per the Committee’s previous requests.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests,” Conyers said. “Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters.”

Separately, Chairman Conyers recently received a letter from DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) indicating that the office has opened an investigation into allegations of selective prosecution of Siegelman and others.

  Now if Conyers would just grow the balls to have Rove and a few others arrested after they ignore the subpoena's, we'd be getting somewhere.

5 Children Dead, Mothers Sentenced

  and the sentence is a flat out joke!

    The two mothers were at a bar drinking and had left 5 children at home with two 8 year olds to watch over them when the house caught fire, killing the five. The mothers got one to two years plus five years probation.  Source

   The moms should have gotten more like 20 years plus, with no parole or probation. Justice is a joke in this country in this day and age.

Technorati Tags: ,,

John McCain's Transparency and His Same-Sex Marriage Views

Democrats.org has a post called No Lobbyists Were Harmed in the Drafting of This Blog Post that's worth checking out...

In the New York Times, there was an interesting read about John McCain's army of lobbyist staffers and their sordid work histories. McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis is currently "on leave" from his firm, a firm that took to a...

  The man known as a straight talker seems to be developing quite a big fork in his tongue. The myth of McCain being a maverick and a straight-talker are being undone a little at a time and the really nice thing about it is that McCain is the one doing it to himself!

  While we are at it, it seems that Senator McCain thinks that it is okay for  same-sex couples to have agreements made up so that they can get insurance and other options which are available to married couples, but he still believes that marriage should only legally be between a man and a woman.  Source

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Farm Bill And Other Stories

  As you are aware, Congress just passed a new farm bill which will most certainly bode well for our sugar growers, especially those in the state of Minnesota, which happens to be our largest sugar producing area.

  This bill pretty much sucks ass so far as the sugar consumer is concerned.

   There is a provision in this bill which would have the government buy the sugar surpluses and then sell that extra to the ethanol producers just in case we happen to have an over-abundance of sugar from imports. Can you see our sugar prices rising? As if we do not pay more than enough for our cane already.

  Associated Press

   The legislation calls for a gradual 5.2 percent increase in the loan rate for sugar beet growers, or guaranteed minimum price, through 2011, and a 4.2 percent increase for cane. That would be the first increase since 1985.

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, and the Bush administration has cited the sugar-to-ethanol provision as one of several elements to which it objected. But the Senate passed the farm bill last week by a veto-proof margin a day after the House did the same.

  Of course, all of the Senators from Minnesota ( R-Norm Coleman and D-Amy Klobuchar )  and North Dakota (D- Kent Conrad and  D-Byron Dorgan ) voted in favor of the bill.

The sugar-to-ethanol proposal has its critics. New Hampshire Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu, both Republicans, were among 15 senators to vote against the $290 billion farm bill.
The legislation would make small cuts to direct payments that are distributed to some farmers no matter how much they grow, and would eliminate some federal payments to individuals with more than $750,000 in annual farm income.
But Sununu said overall it would leave massive subsides in place even as food prices soar.
"At a time when farms are experiencing record profit, there is absolutely no reason to provide price supports for sugar and extend the ethanol tariff," he said. "The bill is a continuation of bad economic policy that taxpayers in New Hampshire and across the country do not deserve."

  This is just more of the " screw the consumer " crowd at it once again.

 

A.P.

ATLANTA - In planning Jimmy Carter's climb to the White House, Hamilton Jordan pushed a strategy still popular with lesser-known candidates today: start campaigning years in advance and target early voting states to build support from early upsets.

Jordan, 63, died at his home in Atlanta about 7:30 p.m., said Gerald Rafshoon, who was Carter's chief of communications.

  Say what you will about the Carter administration, Jordan was a brilliant man and we could sure use more of him in the Democratic Party today.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The Problem With Republicans

  You will not find any links in this post dealing with this subject as this comes straight from my own experiences with working for a few Republican business owners, both large and small.

  I work ( part-time ) for a die-hard Bush/GOP supporter who thinks that the Republicans can do no wrong. We do have some very intense discussions on politics at times. One thing that I have noticed during these talks is that my boss will throw out some fact or poll showing that the general population supports the conservative party and that the Democrats are going to lose not only the Presidential election in November, but also the House and the Senate. Talk about being in the state of denial! This man watches the evening FoxNews line-up every night and he just thinks that Mr. Bill and Hannity are the greatest folks on television, so you and I both know that he has to be pretty ignorant on the issues of the day and on were his beloved GOP is going.

  He'll spout off about some poll or another and when I look the poll up, as is usual, he only got part of it right. This man is a perfect " talking points memo " for the GOP. If he'd get past this Republican/conservative bullshit, he'd be a really smart man. In fact, he is very smart when it comes to most things, but he goes downhill when it come to reality and his Republican party. I do make it a point to tell him that he's living in the 51st state, the state of denial. As are most Republican supporters.

  My employers take on Universal health insurance

   Companies should not have to provide insurance for their workers. It should be the employees responsibility  to get their own coverage.

   Now, that would be fine with me if the employers would pay their hourly workers enough to be able to afford the high price premiums that the insurers charge these days. So we get past that, but, what about those employees with pre-existing conditions, of which I am one?  I am a 46 year old diabetic and have had the illness for 36 years and let me tell you that my premiums are through the roof. I put out over a grand a month for my coverage and the coverage is next to nothing. My employer pays me $10 an hour when I work for him. I couldn't afford the premiums if I worked for him full-time. much less anything else!

My employers take on workplace regulation

   Employers are over-regulated and those same employers should be left to regulate themselves. The government makes to many rules for business to follow. Unions have no place in the workplace

   Once again, it is not in those employees best interest if business is left to its own devices. We've seen more than enough examples during the Bush years to know that left alone, business will fuck anyone that they can,especially their own workers. I'm thinking of the mining industry, as one example.

   On the union subject. If it wasn't for the unions, most workers would have even less rights than they now have. Where the unions got off track was in demanding high pay for tasks that didn't warrant such pay and in paying union leadership more than they were worth. If it wasn't for OSHA and the Wage and Hour Division, many workers would be getting a royal fucking, not that they aren't already.

   I'll continue this in a later post, but right now I have to go and make my hourly wage for a few hours.

America's Oil Craving

  We all know that this country just loves its gas-guzzling SUV's and our other gas-hog toys and that we really do not want to have to give them up just because of a hike in the price of our gasoline.

  Here's a look at our situation from over-seas and what got the United States into this mess in the first place.

  TimesOnline  ( Edited )

The President and most of his dwindling band of Republican brothers (though not, it should be said, the party's presidential candidate John McCain) pursue a similarly silly tack.

They'd have us believe that if only the United States would open up the Arctic to more oil exploration, prices would drop like a stone. In an election, this is all very well. But time is getting on and it is becoming ever more urgent that whoever wins in November drops the populist rhetoric and gets to grips with a couple of basic realities.

The first is that higher energy costs are here to stay. You don't have to buy Goldman Sachs's headline-grabbing forecast this month that crude will reach $200 a barrel.

Oil is up by almost 30 per cent this year alone. That's not the fault of greedy energy companies, or that other current favourite, unscrupulous speculators. It is a simple fact of economic life in a world economy that is, in effect, experiencing a new industrial revolution among half its population.

It is a staple of all political debate in the US now that the American dependence on oil has led to staggeringly bad policy for decades towards the big oil producers. It has forced the US into bed with some unsavoury characters and has been the constant factor behind repeated and often baleful US interventions in the Middle East.

Now, in addition to the threats posed by an even more complicated Middle East, the US has to address the challenge of a rapidly enriching Russia, a country that shows every intention of rolling back democratic progress and using its energy wealth to create trouble for America and Western Europe wherever it can.

In the very near future, real, ingenious American leadership will be needed not to make pointless gestures towards the newly powerful energy producers but to ensure we don't turn our dependence on a scarce resource into political capitulation.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Sunday Talk Show's Line-up

  We have quite a cast of characters making the rounds today from Sen. Jim Webb, John Boehner, to Peggy Noonan and Chris Dodd. Dodd will be appearing on Fox so that one should be interesting.

   The complete line-up from DailyKos:

Meet The Press:  Author and Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA).  Very Serious Discourse with failed senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. (DLC-TN), rapist paroler Mike Huckabee, GOP strategist Mike Murphy, and finally Bob "0-8" Shrum gives his expert and-he-should-know analysis on the failures of the Clinton presidential campaign.

Tweety:  Clarence Page, Norah O'Donnell, Gloria Berger, Andrew Sullivan.  
Quotes here.  Interesting Clarence Page quote there.

This Weak:  Joe Biden (D-BULLSHIT!!) and Worst House Minority Leader in History John Boehner (R-Effexor).  Matt Bai (who's book has just been made irrelevant by the Obama campaign), gop-trasher Peggy Noonan, Donna Brazile and George Will.

Face The Nation:  Missing-in-Action Gov. Charlie Crist (R-McSame), GOP strategist Ed Rollins, Ex-Gov. Mario Cuomo (D) and ex-CO Gov. Roy Romer (D).  Empty-Seat Charlie is without a doubt the laziest governor in the United States.

Faux News:  American Patriot Chris Dodd, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Karl Rove who is on Frog-March Watch.

Late Edition with Wolf:  Commerce Sec. Carlos Gutierrez and lobbyist Trent Lott (R-MS). John King, Jessica Yellin and Dana Bash talk about how anytime McSame links himself with Bush, it means he's winning.

  There are a few extra notable items on the line-up page which you will find somewhat funny and interesting, so by all means, please browse the page.