Saturday, May 31, 2003
The VIPs are the Boss
And here is the most recent memo addressed to Bush, dated May 1, 2003, from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, published on TomPaine.commonsense. Here is an excerpt from the memo:
"Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who exposed the plagiarism by British intelligence of "evidence" on Iraq from a graduate student in California, suggests that much of the information on such weapons has come from Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC), which has received Pentagon money for intelligence gathering. "The INC saw the demand and provided what was needed," says Rangwala. "The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."
It is well known in intelligence circles that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has overseen the polluting of the stream of intelligence reporting on Iraq with a flood of fabricated material from Chalabi, who has few supporters and still fewer sources inside Iraq. When both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency refused to give credence to such reporting, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence analysis unit headed by Rich Haver -- a passed-over but still ambitious aspirant to the post of CIA director. The contribution of reporting from émigrés has been highly touted for months by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who seem unaware of Machiavelli’s warning that of all intelligence sources, exiles are the least reliable.
In the face of like admonitions from the Intelligence Community, Wolfowitz has chosen to take the offensive. He has stated in public, for example, that CIA analysis "is not worth the paper it is written on."
"Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who exposed the plagiarism by British intelligence of "evidence" on Iraq from a graduate student in California, suggests that much of the information on such weapons has come from Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC), which has received Pentagon money for intelligence gathering. "The INC saw the demand and provided what was needed," says Rangwala. "The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."
It is well known in intelligence circles that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has overseen the polluting of the stream of intelligence reporting on Iraq with a flood of fabricated material from Chalabi, who has few supporters and still fewer sources inside Iraq. When both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency refused to give credence to such reporting, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence analysis unit headed by Rich Haver -- a passed-over but still ambitious aspirant to the post of CIA director. The contribution of reporting from émigrés has been highly touted for months by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who seem unaware of Machiavelli’s warning that of all intelligence sources, exiles are the least reliable.
In the face of like admonitions from the Intelligence Community, Wolfowitz has chosen to take the offensive. He has stated in public, for example, that CIA analysis "is not worth the paper it is written on."
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:26 PM |
The fox is in the rabbit hole.
The memo sent to Bush on February 8th, 2003, by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs), concerning the lack of intelligence, in the intelligence on Iraq, was published in Counterpunch on that date. Here is an excerpt:
"The key question is whether Iraq's flouting of a UN resolution justifies war. This is the question the world is asking. Secretary Powell's presentation does not come close to answering it.
One might well come away from his briefing thinking that the Iraqis are the only ones in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. Or one might argue that there is more urgency to the need to punish the violator of Resolution 1441 than, say, of Resolution 242 of 1967 requiring Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories it occupied that year. More urgency? You will not find many Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims who would agree."
It has been the death of innocence for these intelligence officials, when Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz took control. I suppose these veterans have been living under the illusion of intelligence gathering without pretext. They are an important group, because where there is doubt, there is room for learning. These Cheney led neocons have no doubts, at least none that they admit to themselves, which makes them dangerous fanatics.
In today's Los Angelas Times , in an article reprinted in the Times Picayune in New Orleans, Colin Powell was quoted defending the intelligence used to wage war on Iraq:
"Everything I presented on Feb. 5th, I can tell you, there was good sourcing for, was not politicized. It was solid information," Powell said. "Let people look into it. Let people examine it."
"Let people examine it," may very well be an invitation by Powell, perhaps unconscious, to expose the manipulation of intelligence to stage this war, given the revelations that he expressed serious doubts about intelligence concerning Iraq with the British Defense Secretary, Jack Straw, even while presenting the same intelligence to the U.N. Security Council. From the Guardian Unlimited:
"The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims.
Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.
Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the UN security council, according to the transcripts.
But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence."
In the meantime, we have Wolfowitz openly and arrogantly stating the true reasons for this war, as quoted in next month's Vanity Fair, and explored in this MSNBC article:
"IN AN INTERVIEW in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as saying a “huge” reason for the war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.
“For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.
“Almost unnoticed but huge” was the need to maintain U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power, he was quoted as saying."
Then the MSNBC article notes that Wolfowitz backed down from a key point, and published a slightly different version of the Vanity Fair interview on the Pentagon web site:
"Some of the quotations in the Vanity Fair article differ from the versions offered by the Pentagon, which suggested that Wolfowitz meant to say withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia was an important outcome of the war, not an important reason for it."
It sounds like MSNBC actually believes Wolfowitz. But Wolfowitz is playing dodge ball, and floating the true reasons, at least one, for this war.
The fox is in the rabbit hole.
"The key question is whether Iraq's flouting of a UN resolution justifies war. This is the question the world is asking. Secretary Powell's presentation does not come close to answering it.
One might well come away from his briefing thinking that the Iraqis are the only ones in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. Or one might argue that there is more urgency to the need to punish the violator of Resolution 1441 than, say, of Resolution 242 of 1967 requiring Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories it occupied that year. More urgency? You will not find many Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims who would agree."
It has been the death of innocence for these intelligence officials, when Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz took control. I suppose these veterans have been living under the illusion of intelligence gathering without pretext. They are an important group, because where there is doubt, there is room for learning. These Cheney led neocons have no doubts, at least none that they admit to themselves, which makes them dangerous fanatics.
In today's Los Angelas Times , in an article reprinted in the Times Picayune in New Orleans, Colin Powell was quoted defending the intelligence used to wage war on Iraq:
"Everything I presented on Feb. 5th, I can tell you, there was good sourcing for, was not politicized. It was solid information," Powell said. "Let people look into it. Let people examine it."
"Let people examine it," may very well be an invitation by Powell, perhaps unconscious, to expose the manipulation of intelligence to stage this war, given the revelations that he expressed serious doubts about intelligence concerning Iraq with the British Defense Secretary, Jack Straw, even while presenting the same intelligence to the U.N. Security Council. From the Guardian Unlimited:
"The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims.
Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.
Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the UN security council, according to the transcripts.
But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence."
In the meantime, we have Wolfowitz openly and arrogantly stating the true reasons for this war, as quoted in next month's Vanity Fair, and explored in this MSNBC article:
"IN AN INTERVIEW in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as saying a “huge” reason for the war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.
“For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.
“Almost unnoticed but huge” was the need to maintain U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power, he was quoted as saying."
Then the MSNBC article notes that Wolfowitz backed down from a key point, and published a slightly different version of the Vanity Fair interview on the Pentagon web site:
"Some of the quotations in the Vanity Fair article differ from the versions offered by the Pentagon, which suggested that Wolfowitz meant to say withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia was an important outcome of the war, not an important reason for it."
It sounds like MSNBC actually believes Wolfowitz. But Wolfowitz is playing dodge ball, and floating the true reasons, at least one, for this war.
The fox is in the rabbit hole.
# posted by scorpiorising : 11:41 AM |
Friday, May 30, 2003
Doubting Intelligence
These guys just don't get it. First we have Rumsfeld and Condi Rice pushing for regime change in Iran, written about in the very excellent Warblogging (scan for May 30). Apparently though, Rumsfeld is often an island unto himself. He was wrong about the number of troops that will be needed as per this New York Times article, dated May 30:
"Predicting trends in Iraq is not easy. But with 160,000 American and British troops now in Iraq and tens of thousands more providing logistical support from Kuwait, General Shinseki seems to have got it more right than the defense secretary.
Certainly, the initial Bush administration plans to reduce American forces to less than two divisions by September, a force of 70,000 or substantially less, including logistical support, now seems unrealistic.
Just this week, military commanders disclosed that the Third Infantry Division, the unit that led the Army attack to Baghdad, was not going home next month as expected. Instead, its duty in Iraq is being extended so it can be deployed to hot spots outside Baghdad and serve as a reserve force in the capital."
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neocons in the Pentagon were wrong about wmd's, and this Kristof column talks of a group formed, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (its beginning to sound more and more monty pythonysque), because apparently sanity has gone out the window. The intelligence community is pissed, and apparently they don't want some green vegetable neocon in the Pentagon feeding them disinformation, when it has been the intelligence community's job to do this for decades:
"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."
The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."
"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."
Irony dully noted.
Meanwhile, back in England, Tony Blair is facing the heat of the case of the disappearing wmd's in Iraq. Colin Powell and Jack Straw shared doubts about the intelligence on Iraq, much as we are having doubts, I suppose on their intelligence to keep quiet about the doubts.
More on this later.
"Predicting trends in Iraq is not easy. But with 160,000 American and British troops now in Iraq and tens of thousands more providing logistical support from Kuwait, General Shinseki seems to have got it more right than the defense secretary.
Certainly, the initial Bush administration plans to reduce American forces to less than two divisions by September, a force of 70,000 or substantially less, including logistical support, now seems unrealistic.
Just this week, military commanders disclosed that the Third Infantry Division, the unit that led the Army attack to Baghdad, was not going home next month as expected. Instead, its duty in Iraq is being extended so it can be deployed to hot spots outside Baghdad and serve as a reserve force in the capital."
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neocons in the Pentagon were wrong about wmd's, and this Kristof column talks of a group formed, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (its beginning to sound more and more monty pythonysque), because apparently sanity has gone out the window. The intelligence community is pissed, and apparently they don't want some green vegetable neocon in the Pentagon feeding them disinformation, when it has been the intelligence community's job to do this for decades:
"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."
The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."
"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."
Irony dully noted.
Meanwhile, back in England, Tony Blair is facing the heat of the case of the disappearing wmd's in Iraq. Colin Powell and Jack Straw shared doubts about the intelligence on Iraq, much as we are having doubts, I suppose on their intelligence to keep quiet about the doubts.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:36 PM |
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Laboring to Deceive
I've been planning a trip out west, so a bit out of commission. The issue of no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is making the blogging rounds, and the mainstream media as well. I think the issue was a trap to begin with, with many being led into saying that this war would be justified somewhow if wmd's were found.
This war could never be justified under any guise, so the hand-wringing of those who believed the administration on the wmd issue, is absurd to watch. Their lies were transparent to begin with, their true motivations transparent to begin with: empire building, at the expense of the economy at home, at the expense of the American people. At the expense of the good trust of our longtime allies and the peoples of the world. But in case you want to be reminded of the parade of lies before during and after the war, check out the Whiskey Bar, and "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we labor to deceive":
"Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
Posted by billmon at May 29, 2003 03:20 AM | TrackBack "
There you have it, Wolfowitz coming clean on the issue, and nary a stir in the mainstream media. If people eat this shit, then they deserve to live in a pig sty.
This war could never be justified under any guise, so the hand-wringing of those who believed the administration on the wmd issue, is absurd to watch. Their lies were transparent to begin with, their true motivations transparent to begin with: empire building, at the expense of the economy at home, at the expense of the American people. At the expense of the good trust of our longtime allies and the peoples of the world. But in case you want to be reminded of the parade of lies before during and after the war, check out the Whiskey Bar, and "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we labor to deceive":
"Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
Posted by billmon at May 29, 2003 03:20 AM | TrackBack "
There you have it, Wolfowitz coming clean on the issue, and nary a stir in the mainstream media. If people eat this shit, then they deserve to live in a pig sty.
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:48 PM |
Monday, May 26, 2003
A voice in the wind.
Senator Robert Byrd is a voice in the wind. Prophet-like he speaks a truth that few dare admit in this country. A war fought, thousands killed, based on lies, distortions and disinformation. Is anyone listening?
"We just fought a war that didn't need to be fought," he says, sitting on a white armchair in his Senate office. "There was no real justification for sending those 300,000 men and women to Iraq to fight. Contrary to what Mr. Bush tried to convince this nation of, Saddam Hussein did not constitute an imminent danger to this nation. . . . We've lost 145 men and women killed -- not a great number but too great a number. We didn't need to lose any of them. And we killed thousands of men and women and children in Iraq! Thousands of 'em! That was needless slaughter."
He pauses, but only long enough to draw sufficient breath to launch another verbal fusillade. "We have an administration that has projected this new doctrine of preemptive strike -- totally foreign, totally alien to our way of life -- and we're contemplating attacking other nations without provocation...
"And what is this binge we're on in defense spending?" he asks. "I'm a strong defense man. I supported Johnson and Nixon on Vietnam. I've supported strong defense ever since I got to Congress. But here they are, asking for $15 billion over last year. And last year was 15 percent over the previous year. And the previous year was 10 percent over the previous year. What do we want all this for? We're already spending more than the other 18 NATO nations combined, plus the eight rogue nations!"
He gets up, shuffles toward the door, a tiny, wizened man in a black three-piece suit. He stops, turns around.
"What are we gonna do with all this?" he asks. "What new worlds do they want to conquer now? We went through Iraq like a dose of salts. We were told by this president that Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent threat to our security. Bunk! That man couldn't even get a plane off the ground!"
"We just fought a war that didn't need to be fought," he says, sitting on a white armchair in his Senate office. "There was no real justification for sending those 300,000 men and women to Iraq to fight. Contrary to what Mr. Bush tried to convince this nation of, Saddam Hussein did not constitute an imminent danger to this nation. . . . We've lost 145 men and women killed -- not a great number but too great a number. We didn't need to lose any of them. And we killed thousands of men and women and children in Iraq! Thousands of 'em! That was needless slaughter."
He pauses, but only long enough to draw sufficient breath to launch another verbal fusillade. "We have an administration that has projected this new doctrine of preemptive strike -- totally foreign, totally alien to our way of life -- and we're contemplating attacking other nations without provocation...
"And what is this binge we're on in defense spending?" he asks. "I'm a strong defense man. I supported Johnson and Nixon on Vietnam. I've supported strong defense ever since I got to Congress. But here they are, asking for $15 billion over last year. And last year was 15 percent over the previous year. And the previous year was 10 percent over the previous year. What do we want all this for? We're already spending more than the other 18 NATO nations combined, plus the eight rogue nations!"
He gets up, shuffles toward the door, a tiny, wizened man in a black three-piece suit. He stops, turns around.
"What are we gonna do with all this?" he asks. "What new worlds do they want to conquer now? We went through Iraq like a dose of salts. We were told by this president that Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent threat to our security. Bunk! That man couldn't even get a plane off the ground!"
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:15 PM |
Sunday, May 25, 2003
I want to grow a garden.
Okay, okay, I haven't blogged for 4 whole days. Shhhh, inner parent, let me just write for gosh sakes. I've been sorting through a few things. Journaling. Journaling is the salt sifter, the sand filter. I'm a prospector panning for gold right now. It is the gold of thoughts that I am releasing as though I just blew the dam with dynamite, and words like rusing water came flowing out. But now I write for you, imaginary reader, so I censor myself and filter, once again.
I will tell you that I am struggling like the rest of you, if you halfway feel some of your emotions, for a sense of direction and how and where best to put my energies. I strive on to create a kind of quality of life that I long for. Am I there whereever there is? Not yet. I may not even know it when I get there, or, I may already be there.
That sacred union between pen and paper, that is even mightier than the sword, is taking root for me now. I am metaphor punch drunk, flowing along in a sea of iced green tea and granola. I have concerns. Do I move into the country, commute, and grow a garden. How quickly would I be sick of a long commute?
Certainly there is a chance of living closer to the city, where I work presently. The cities will become more difficult as the economy continues to deteriorate, and, barring some miracle...My friend said today, "There are already hungry and starving people in the cities."
Starving people in the cities? You betcha. Nobody campaigning on a promise to feed the people, to my knowledge.
It just seems like a good idea to learn how to grow things right now. There is a miniature drought on in New Orleans. If we don't get good rain this summer, we'll cook.
I want someone to talk plain and simple who's running. I like some of the Democratic candidates. I want to study Dean's record, but I don't like his idea to keep a bloated military. Kucinich is very direct in speech, and he stood up to the power company in Ohio and paid a political price. I like his seemingly ceaseless energy and willingness to tackle the roots of problems. "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction," he recently said in Iowa.
The New York Times had scary stuff today, what with the youthful, far right, small army of neocons with their white t's with W's face on it, on the cover of the magazine that comes with the Sunday paper. I have to repeat to myself like a mantra right now, energetic progress in the good; focus, focus. So it goes.
I will tell you that I am struggling like the rest of you, if you halfway feel some of your emotions, for a sense of direction and how and where best to put my energies. I strive on to create a kind of quality of life that I long for. Am I there whereever there is? Not yet. I may not even know it when I get there, or, I may already be there.
That sacred union between pen and paper, that is even mightier than the sword, is taking root for me now. I am metaphor punch drunk, flowing along in a sea of iced green tea and granola. I have concerns. Do I move into the country, commute, and grow a garden. How quickly would I be sick of a long commute?
Certainly there is a chance of living closer to the city, where I work presently. The cities will become more difficult as the economy continues to deteriorate, and, barring some miracle...My friend said today, "There are already hungry and starving people in the cities."
Starving people in the cities? You betcha. Nobody campaigning on a promise to feed the people, to my knowledge.
It just seems like a good idea to learn how to grow things right now. There is a miniature drought on in New Orleans. If we don't get good rain this summer, we'll cook.
I want someone to talk plain and simple who's running. I like some of the Democratic candidates. I want to study Dean's record, but I don't like his idea to keep a bloated military. Kucinich is very direct in speech, and he stood up to the power company in Ohio and paid a political price. I like his seemingly ceaseless energy and willingness to tackle the roots of problems. "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction," he recently said in Iowa.
The New York Times had scary stuff today, what with the youthful, far right, small army of neocons with their white t's with W's face on it, on the cover of the magazine that comes with the Sunday paper. I have to repeat to myself like a mantra right now, energetic progress in the good; focus, focus. So it goes.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:07 PM |
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
"Too much information, running through my brain"...Sting
I haven't blogged in a while because I needed the break. You know the feeling. Claustraphobic, I was online so much, as though I had started to live inside those circuits, and was being fed all of the news of the entire world, constantly, everyday. And I felt helpless to do anything about the tragedies of the world. I began to journal again, on paper, with a pen. My thoughts came clearly and succinct.
I was having difficulty establishing blogging priorities. What the heck do you write about when everything is a mess?
I am a political animal. I admit it. But I am becoming more and more concerned with establishing alternatives within my own life, to the powers that be. I don't have much money, but If I constantly focus on "bad news" all of my inner resources will be zapped as well. That said, I am shutting down my War Casualties site and We Miss You Abbie Hoffman site. It was an amazing experience to document the war, but I was spending several hours a day on it. I know the war isn't over. It is a tragedy of monumental proportions that we are responsible for.
I believe one of three things could happen in Iraq. In order to bring about order, there will need to be a tremendously violent crackdown on the several militias that are forming in Baghdad, and to do this, we will need many more troops there, and there will be many more lives wasted on both sides. We are likely going to be there a long time with many troops. A second scenario, the armed revolt that I believe will take place will be successful, and the U.S. and Britain will cut their losses and get out of Iraq. A third scenario: we will decide we were wrong to go in in the first place, and get out and cut our losses. This third scenario will happen only if Dennis Kucinich is elected president. Get to work.
I was having difficulty establishing blogging priorities. What the heck do you write about when everything is a mess?
I am a political animal. I admit it. But I am becoming more and more concerned with establishing alternatives within my own life, to the powers that be. I don't have much money, but If I constantly focus on "bad news" all of my inner resources will be zapped as well. That said, I am shutting down my War Casualties site and We Miss You Abbie Hoffman site. It was an amazing experience to document the war, but I was spending several hours a day on it. I know the war isn't over. It is a tragedy of monumental proportions that we are responsible for.
I believe one of three things could happen in Iraq. In order to bring about order, there will need to be a tremendously violent crackdown on the several militias that are forming in Baghdad, and to do this, we will need many more troops there, and there will be many more lives wasted on both sides. We are likely going to be there a long time with many troops. A second scenario, the armed revolt that I believe will take place will be successful, and the U.S. and Britain will cut their losses and get out of Iraq. A third scenario: we will decide we were wrong to go in in the first place, and get out and cut our losses. This third scenario will happen only if Dennis Kucinich is elected president. Get to work.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:08 AM |
Thursday, May 15, 2003
I like Bob Graham, but Dennis Kucinich for President
In my fantasy world, in my idea of heaven on earth, Dennis Kucinich would be elected president. He is progressive, courageous, intelligent, quick on his feet and he has damn good ideas. Did I mention he was anti-war from the beginning? He wants to eliminate NAFTA and the WTO, and repeal the Patriot Act, and well, read for yourself this NPR transcript, or visit his website. Here is Kucinich on Crossfire, being interviewed by Robert Novak. Here is a taste of his ideas, from the NPR transcript:
BOB EDWARDS, host: Why are you running for president?
Rep. KUCINICH: I'm running for president to bring a new day to America, an administration which will focus on the social, the economic, the human needs of the people and use the resources of our country to make sure that all Americans have decent health care, to get rid of health care for profit, to make sure that when people are sick they can see a doctor, to make sure that no one in America is afraid to go to a doctor or to a hospital because they can't afford it. I want universal health care. I want to be president because I believe that it's important to have a full-employment economy, that we can get America back to work rebuilding our cities. We can get America back to work if we change our trade agreements and cancel NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the WTO (World Trade Organization), which have really been responsible for America losing hundreds of thousands and even millions of jobs. I think that as the next president I can work to create a new manufacturing policy so we can get our steel, automotive and aerospace industries back to where they were as a mainstay of the American economy. As the next president, I believe that I can focus the resources of this country in education so that every young person from pre-kindergarten all the way through to a person who wants to complete college will have fully paid education. We have the resources in this country for health, for jobs, for education. We have the resources in this country to assure retirement security for all Americans. As president, I'd make sure that all plans for Social Security privatization were set aside, that the retirement age was taken back to 65, because people work all their lives. Often they're tired by the time they get into their 60s and some people want to retire. They should be able to retire at a full rate at age 65. So those are some of the areas where as president I would focus the economic resources of this country.
Furthermore, I think that this is a time that we need to talk about setting aside the Patriot Act. We've really sacrificed basic liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. And the ultimate terrorism in a democracy is the sacrifice of civil liberties.
BOB EDWARDS, host: Why are you running for president?
Rep. KUCINICH: I'm running for president to bring a new day to America, an administration which will focus on the social, the economic, the human needs of the people and use the resources of our country to make sure that all Americans have decent health care, to get rid of health care for profit, to make sure that when people are sick they can see a doctor, to make sure that no one in America is afraid to go to a doctor or to a hospital because they can't afford it. I want universal health care. I want to be president because I believe that it's important to have a full-employment economy, that we can get America back to work rebuilding our cities. We can get America back to work if we change our trade agreements and cancel NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the WTO (World Trade Organization), which have really been responsible for America losing hundreds of thousands and even millions of jobs. I think that as the next president I can work to create a new manufacturing policy so we can get our steel, automotive and aerospace industries back to where they were as a mainstay of the American economy. As the next president, I believe that I can focus the resources of this country in education so that every young person from pre-kindergarten all the way through to a person who wants to complete college will have fully paid education. We have the resources in this country for health, for jobs, for education. We have the resources in this country to assure retirement security for all Americans. As president, I'd make sure that all plans for Social Security privatization were set aside, that the retirement age was taken back to 65, because people work all their lives. Often they're tired by the time they get into their 60s and some people want to retire. They should be able to retire at a full rate at age 65. So those are some of the areas where as president I would focus the economic resources of this country.
Furthermore, I think that this is a time that we need to talk about setting aside the Patriot Act. We've really sacrificed basic liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. And the ultimate terrorism in a democracy is the sacrifice of civil liberties.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:05 AM |
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Vampire Nation
Oh boy, I guess I should have expected this, parents selling plasma to raise money for schools, but wow, no one could have provided a better metaphor for this time; those in power would have us bleed for their beliefs, wether in Eugene, Ore, in the selling of plasma for education, or the actual giving of our lives in Iraq. For these fanatics running our country, it will never be enough. They are vampires, intent on sucking the life blood of the people of this country for their own economic and political survival, intent on sucking the black blood of the land beneath the feet of the Iraqi people, for economic and political survival, and the red blood from their bodies if necessary. They will never have enough; they will never have enough. The metaphors are living. We are even giving our blood now. From ABCnews.com:
Concerned parents have always been ready to give a little of their time and energy to help their kids' schools, but it may be a sign of the times when people are offering to give up their summer — or even their blood.
The parents of children at a Eugene, Ore., school who tried to raise $30,000 to save a teacher's job by selling their blood plasma may be an extreme case, but parents, educators, school administrators and activists across the country say that it is indicative of what public schools, and the communities they serve, are facing.
"I don't want to say the house is on fire, but clearly states' budget problems and the proposed federal cuts pose an unprecedented problem," said Brenda Welburn of the National Association of State Boards of Education. "States have had problems before, but this is unprecedented because it is so pervasive across so many states."
According to a National Conference of State Legislatures study, states will have to close a $21.5 billion budget gap in the final two months of fiscal year 2003 to meet balanced budget requirements, and 41 states face a cumulative $78.4 billion budget gap in 2004.
That means cuts, and Welburn said schools will not be exempt. What she and others find most disturbing is that the ax is already falling on core programs, and that is a trend likely to continue. She said 21 states say they will cut or at least freeze some aspect of the pre-kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum.
Among the hardest-hit states next year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures study, could be Massachusetts, where schools could see cuts in state aid of up to 20 percent; Vermont, which is considering a $20 million reduction in general funds for schools; Connecticut, where the governor has recommended cuts totaling more than $200 million; and Georgia, where $156 million has been cut.
"This is a bigger budget crisis than we've faced in the past," said Howard Schaffer of the Public Education Network, a nonprofit organization that helps parents form groups to be more effective at fund raising and becoming involved in school affairs. "We've faced budget crises in the past that have affected schools' abilities to go from being good to being great, but this time it is affecting fundamental core instruction areas."
Concerned parents have always been ready to give a little of their time and energy to help their kids' schools, but it may be a sign of the times when people are offering to give up their summer — or even their blood.
The parents of children at a Eugene, Ore., school who tried to raise $30,000 to save a teacher's job by selling their blood plasma may be an extreme case, but parents, educators, school administrators and activists across the country say that it is indicative of what public schools, and the communities they serve, are facing.
"I don't want to say the house is on fire, but clearly states' budget problems and the proposed federal cuts pose an unprecedented problem," said Brenda Welburn of the National Association of State Boards of Education. "States have had problems before, but this is unprecedented because it is so pervasive across so many states."
According to a National Conference of State Legislatures study, states will have to close a $21.5 billion budget gap in the final two months of fiscal year 2003 to meet balanced budget requirements, and 41 states face a cumulative $78.4 billion budget gap in 2004.
That means cuts, and Welburn said schools will not be exempt. What she and others find most disturbing is that the ax is already falling on core programs, and that is a trend likely to continue. She said 21 states say they will cut or at least freeze some aspect of the pre-kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum.
Among the hardest-hit states next year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures study, could be Massachusetts, where schools could see cuts in state aid of up to 20 percent; Vermont, which is considering a $20 million reduction in general funds for schools; Connecticut, where the governor has recommended cuts totaling more than $200 million; and Georgia, where $156 million has been cut.
"This is a bigger budget crisis than we've faced in the past," said Howard Schaffer of the Public Education Network, a nonprofit organization that helps parents form groups to be more effective at fund raising and becoming involved in school affairs. "We've faced budget crises in the past that have affected schools' abilities to go from being good to being great, but this time it is affecting fundamental core instruction areas."
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:06 PM |
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
The Philosophy of Disaster
Richard Scheer, columnist for the LA Times, says we have reason to fear our own country more than any other at this time. In his latest column, he says:
"In its latest bid to frighten the planet into a constant state of shock and awe, our government is accelerating its own leading-edge weapons-of-mass-destruction program: President Bush's allies on the Senate Armed Services Committee have approved ending a decade-old ban on developing atomic battlefield weapons and endorsed moving ahead with creating a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb. They also rubber-stamped the administration's request for funds to prepare for a quick resumption of nuclear weapons testing.
What's going on here? Having failed to stop a gang of marauders armed with nothing more intimidating than box cutters, the U.S. is now using the "war on terror" to pursue a long-held hawkish Republican dream of a "winnable nuclear war," as the president's father memorably described it to me in a 1980 Times interview. In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy — millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned...
Building a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons sets the stage for another round of the most dangerous arms race imaginable. What has been forgotten in all of the patriotic hoopla is that it is our country that pioneered the creation of weapons of mass destruction over the last half-century. And it was our dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, that sparked the arms race of the Cold War.
Then I found this article, from TomPaine.commonsense, by Jim Lobe, who also writes for the Foreign Policy in Focus , concerning the influence of a German, Jewish, political philosopher, Leo Strauss, whose writings are currently in vogue in the Executive branch and the with the military hawkes.
This is the philosophy of Strauss that seems to coorespond with the push to develop a winnable nuclear war:
"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time (to survive)," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy."
Strauss argued for the need for deception when carrying out state policy, because the leaders of the "democracy" know what is best for its citizens. (Is this why the fucking Patriot Acts?)
Strauss encouraged the encouragement of religion, and was not a great believer in the seperation of church and state. Religion served a purpose as a glue that can hold society together. Yet Strauss did not believe there was any moral good in the world, and did not believe in God. This man must have been the ultimate cynic, yet also very self contradictory. He believed that most people are wicked; that is why the need for a strong government. If he didn't believe in God, I wonder what force could be behind this wickedness, in his universe?
Here is what Lobe wrote:
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits which may encourage dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. "You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty," according to Drury.
Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. "Because mankind is intrinscially wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united -- and they can only be united against other people."
"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the evil empire poses a threat to America's inner stability."
As for what a Straussian world order might look like, Drury said the philosopher often told the story by Jonathan Swift of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
In many ways, this demonstrates both the superiority and the isolation of the leader within a society and, presumably, the leading country vis-à-vis the rest of the world.
Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss' ideas about the necessity for deception by elites, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," she said.
"In its latest bid to frighten the planet into a constant state of shock and awe, our government is accelerating its own leading-edge weapons-of-mass-destruction program: President Bush's allies on the Senate Armed Services Committee have approved ending a decade-old ban on developing atomic battlefield weapons and endorsed moving ahead with creating a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb. They also rubber-stamped the administration's request for funds to prepare for a quick resumption of nuclear weapons testing.
What's going on here? Having failed to stop a gang of marauders armed with nothing more intimidating than box cutters, the U.S. is now using the "war on terror" to pursue a long-held hawkish Republican dream of a "winnable nuclear war," as the president's father memorably described it to me in a 1980 Times interview. In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy — millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned...
Building a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons sets the stage for another round of the most dangerous arms race imaginable. What has been forgotten in all of the patriotic hoopla is that it is our country that pioneered the creation of weapons of mass destruction over the last half-century. And it was our dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, that sparked the arms race of the Cold War.
Then I found this article, from TomPaine.commonsense, by Jim Lobe, who also writes for the Foreign Policy in Focus , concerning the influence of a German, Jewish, political philosopher, Leo Strauss, whose writings are currently in vogue in the Executive branch and the with the military hawkes.
This is the philosophy of Strauss that seems to coorespond with the push to develop a winnable nuclear war:
"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time (to survive)," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy."
Strauss argued for the need for deception when carrying out state policy, because the leaders of the "democracy" know what is best for its citizens. (Is this why the fucking Patriot Acts?)
Strauss encouraged the encouragement of religion, and was not a great believer in the seperation of church and state. Religion served a purpose as a glue that can hold society together. Yet Strauss did not believe there was any moral good in the world, and did not believe in God. This man must have been the ultimate cynic, yet also very self contradictory. He believed that most people are wicked; that is why the need for a strong government. If he didn't believe in God, I wonder what force could be behind this wickedness, in his universe?
Here is what Lobe wrote:
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits which may encourage dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. "You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty," according to Drury.
Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. "Because mankind is intrinscially wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united -- and they can only be united against other people."
"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the evil empire poses a threat to America's inner stability."
As for what a Straussian world order might look like, Drury said the philosopher often told the story by Jonathan Swift of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
In many ways, this demonstrates both the superiority and the isolation of the leader within a society and, presumably, the leading country vis-à-vis the rest of the world.
Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss' ideas about the necessity for deception by elites, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," she said.
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:32 PM |
Monday, May 12, 2003
Bob Graham on a Possible Cover-up
If Bob Graham, democrat from Florida and running for president, has the balls to take on the Bushies head to head, he might not make such a bad president, and he will certainly keep things stirred up and interesting.
Graham has excellent credentials to speak about any sort of cover-up regarding 9/11. He is a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. Folks, you can't get more qualified than this.
In this article by the Ledger.com, Graham states, "Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish."
Sadly and ironically enough, there was an attack on Americans in Saudi Arabia today, with casualties. Secretary of State Colin Powell is set to visit Saudi Arabia next. The attackers are linked to Bin Laden.
Here is his belief of a cover-up regarding the 9/11 investigation, from the Ledger.com :
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., on Sunday accused the Bush administration of engaging in a "cover-up" of intelligence failures before and after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to shield it from embarrassment, and said the war with Iraq has allowed alQaida and other terrorist groups to become a greater threat to Americans than ever before.
Graham, a presidential candidate and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also accused the administration of jeopardizing the safety of Americans by blocking the release of a landmark congressional report on the government failures that preceded the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And he said the White House has withheld from the public important information about the continued existence of terrorist cells in the United States -- including some with ties to foreign governments that the United States has been afraid to go after.
"By continuing to classify that information . . . the American people have been denied important information for their own protection, for the protection of the communities," Graham said on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
"Local agencies have been denied information that would help them be more effective. First-responders and the American people do not have the information upon which they can hold the administration and responsible agencies accountable," Graham said, adding: "I call that a cover-up."
Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish.
But Sunday's remarks appeared to be the first time that Graham has publicly accused the White House of trying to cover up such ongoing threats -- and its own intelligence failures -- by refusing to declassify information about them.
Graham said he was basing his accusations on classified information he has received as a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks."
Graham has excellent credentials to speak about any sort of cover-up regarding 9/11. He is a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. Folks, you can't get more qualified than this.
In this article by the Ledger.com, Graham states, "Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish."
Sadly and ironically enough, there was an attack on Americans in Saudi Arabia today, with casualties. Secretary of State Colin Powell is set to visit Saudi Arabia next. The attackers are linked to Bin Laden.
Here is his belief of a cover-up regarding the 9/11 investigation, from the Ledger.com :
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., on Sunday accused the Bush administration of engaging in a "cover-up" of intelligence failures before and after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to shield it from embarrassment, and said the war with Iraq has allowed alQaida and other terrorist groups to become a greater threat to Americans than ever before.
Graham, a presidential candidate and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also accused the administration of jeopardizing the safety of Americans by blocking the release of a landmark congressional report on the government failures that preceded the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And he said the White House has withheld from the public important information about the continued existence of terrorist cells in the United States -- including some with ties to foreign governments that the United States has been afraid to go after.
"By continuing to classify that information . . . the American people have been denied important information for their own protection, for the protection of the communities," Graham said on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
"Local agencies have been denied information that would help them be more effective. First-responders and the American people do not have the information upon which they can hold the administration and responsible agencies accountable," Graham said, adding: "I call that a cover-up."
Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish.
But Sunday's remarks appeared to be the first time that Graham has publicly accused the White House of trying to cover up such ongoing threats -- and its own intelligence failures -- by refusing to declassify information about them.
Graham said he was basing his accusations on classified information he has received as a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks."
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:23 PM |
Liquidity Trap
Paul Krugman explains, in short terms, the liquidity trap, which is the trap the Japanese economy has fallen into, and is very difficult to climb out of. Here Paul Krugman explains the liquidity trap in long terms, if you are so inclined to read it. (Click on "economic theory" to the left on his blog, and scroll down). Basically, if I would choose one word to describe the liquidity trap, it would be deflation. However, it must be deflation following years of economic downturn, deflation out of control. Funny that in our economy, what consumers ought to be celebrating, lowered prices, deflation occurs at a time when consumers don't have the money to, consume. Very ironic, this economy.
Here is another article by Daniel Altman for the New York Times, entitled Feds Starting to Fret Over Falling Prices. I'll include this article on my site, as the NYT is difficult to access. In my view though, liquidity trap means loss of jobs for the already suffering working poor, for whom finding adequate affordable housing and health care is always, liquidity or no liquidity, a difficult challenge:
"In deciding this week to keep short-term interest rates at 1.25 percent, the Federal Reserve Board warned of "an unwelcome substantial fall in inflation." The topic also came up at its March meeting, according to minutes released yesterday. Economists have been talking about the dangers of falling prices for several months, but why did the Fed take note now?
First of all, some experts believe that the risk of deflation has increased of late. Commodity prices have been dropping for years, but now energy prices, after a spike leading up to the war in Iraq, have also slipped.
Most important, however, is the absence of an engine to drive the economy forward. With weak demand, prices could begin to fall in widespread fashion.
Ethan S. Harris, the chief economist of Lehman Brothers, puts the chance of broad deflation in the near future at about 25 percent. "You need weak economic activity for one and a half or two years" for deflation to occur, he said. "You never get the boom that's going to heal the economy."
Another concern is that the Fed is running out of leverage against deflation.
Though it took no action on Tuesday, several Wall Street banks expect it to cut short-term interest rates to 0.75 percent before July. As short-term rates edge closer to zero, expanding the money supply — the method the Fed uses for lowering rates — might have little effect on the ease of obtaining credit. Interest rates could not fall below zero, after all. Economists call this state of affairs a liquidity trap.
"It's right for the Fed to be concerned about it and talking about it," said Laurence M. Ball, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. "The key thing to look at is not any particular price level, but the interest rate. When it hits zero, then you're in trouble."
Professor Ball did not predict that interest rates would fall to zero, but he warned that an unexpected shock to the economy could be more damaging with rates so low."When you're walking along the side of a cliff, the closer you are to it, the more dangerous it is," he said. "There's no particular chance you're going to fall off it, but there's always the chance you'll get jostled."
Falling prices might not sound like such a bad thing, at least from a consumer's point of view. Moreover, deflation can be a side effect of a healthy economic development, like the surges in efficiency that have steadily lowered the prices of personal computers.
But what the Fed is worried about now, the experts said, is deflation arising as a symptom of the economy's frailty. And falling prices could cause some real problems by themselves.
For example, rapid deflation can cause a huge redistribution of income and wealth from debtors to creditors, said Willem H. Buiter, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.
When prices are expected to fall, interest rates tend to fall, too. If prices are lower tomorrow than they are today, a dollar will be worth more tomorrow in terms of what it can buy. And the more borrowers think that prices will fall in the future, the less they will be willing to pay in interest on loans. Similarly, existing loans with fixed interest rates become more valuable to lenders — and more onerous to borrowers — as prices fall.
"That kind of redistribution is often very painful because it causes all sort of distress," Mr. Buiter said, like corporate insolvencies and defaults by banks.
Deflation can also cause problems for companies with fairly inflexible costs of doing business, Mr. Harris said. "The auto industry has a pretty rigid cost structure, and obviously they'd like to see some inflation in the economy," he said. "Instead, what they're getting is they have to keep cutting the prices of their vehicles."
Mr. Harris also said expectations for deflation — if not brought on by a "productivity revolution" that makes the economy much more efficient — could themselves perpetuate economic weakness. If people think prices will fall in the future, they will postpone purchases. After two years of weakness, he said, "we already have a little element of the deflation psychology in the economy."
Some economists have also argued that falling prices for goods and services could lead to falling wages — something workers might find intolerable. But Professor Ball said there was little evidence to support that idea. "There has actually been a number of studies in the past few years looking at wages, and finding that wages do fall in certain crcumstances and there doesn't seem to be such a taboo about it."
The consequences of deflation are on display, of course, in Japan which has experienced deflation for the last three years after a decade of economic weakness. Japan's troubles began in 1990 when a huge crash in prices of real estate and securities suddenly depressed the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend. In the midst of deflation, short-term interest rates eventually fell to zero, largely handcuffing the central bank.
Well aware of Japan's striking example, the Fed's governors have been barnstorming the country in recent months to assure the public that, even with low interest rates, they still have tools to fight deflation. In a speech in December, the Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, said the Fed could buy Treasury bonds with long maturities to drive down long-term interest rates. In January, a Fed governor, Edward M. Gramlich, said that with interest rates at zero, a rapid expansion in the money supply might still be enough to stop deflation.
But some economists have remained skeptical.
"It's probably a good thing for them to say, `Oh, don't worry, we have a lot of tools to deal with it,' " Professor Ball said. "That bolsters confidence, and is maybe good for the economy. Having said that, I'm not sure it's true that they have lots of tools. If there were any really obvious tools that the central banks could use to get you right out of a liquidity trap, Japan would have done it."
In fact, both Mr. Buiter and Professor Ball argued that in situations like Japan's, central banks should make way for the lawmakers who control taxes and spending.
"It is always both technically and politically dead easy to stop deflation and get rid of it, if you don't want it," Mr. Buiter said. "It is not necessary for these things to persist. The government should immediately prime the pump and send the checks to all deserving and undeserving Americans."
Professor Ball agreed. "The textbook solution to a liquidity trap is a fiscal expansion, and there's every reason to think that would work." In a situation of low demand and deflation, he said, "before too long, enough political pressure would build up for a big fiscal expansion."
Unfortunately for Japan, this escape plan was hard to carry out. Japan's overwhelming debt burden limited the government's ability to cut taxes or spend money. And its problems ran deeper than weak demand and deflation.
"Deflation is kind of the icing on the cake," Mr. Harris said. "The big problem in Japan is the big failure to deal with the problems in the banking system. No stimulative policy is going to work if your financial system isn't functioning — if the process of getting funds from savers to borrowers breaks down."
The United States, the experts said, is not mired in similar straits. The financial system is healthy, and, Mr. Buiter pointed out, the boom and bust in asset markets was far smaller in the United States than in Japan.
"Real estate and house prices never went on the kind of walkabout that they did in Japan," he said. "There is no parallel between what Japan has been going through for the last 10 years- plus now and what lies in store for the United States."
Professor Ball added that the government here had more latitude to fight deflation in the event of a liquidity trap. "Even though our long-term fiscal situation is not great, it's not as bad as Japan's," he said.
On that point, however, Mr. Harris was not equally sanguine. "When you get into a deflation environment and you're trying to get the economy going, there aren't any really easy solutions," he said. "Usually when you get to deflation, you already have a significant budget deficit. That's in fact true for the U.S."
Here is another article by Daniel Altman for the New York Times, entitled Feds Starting to Fret Over Falling Prices. I'll include this article on my site, as the NYT is difficult to access. In my view though, liquidity trap means loss of jobs for the already suffering working poor, for whom finding adequate affordable housing and health care is always, liquidity or no liquidity, a difficult challenge:
"In deciding this week to keep short-term interest rates at 1.25 percent, the Federal Reserve Board warned of "an unwelcome substantial fall in inflation." The topic also came up at its March meeting, according to minutes released yesterday. Economists have been talking about the dangers of falling prices for several months, but why did the Fed take note now?
First of all, some experts believe that the risk of deflation has increased of late. Commodity prices have been dropping for years, but now energy prices, after a spike leading up to the war in Iraq, have also slipped.
Most important, however, is the absence of an engine to drive the economy forward. With weak demand, prices could begin to fall in widespread fashion.
Ethan S. Harris, the chief economist of Lehman Brothers, puts the chance of broad deflation in the near future at about 25 percent. "You need weak economic activity for one and a half or two years" for deflation to occur, he said. "You never get the boom that's going to heal the economy."
Another concern is that the Fed is running out of leverage against deflation.
Though it took no action on Tuesday, several Wall Street banks expect it to cut short-term interest rates to 0.75 percent before July. As short-term rates edge closer to zero, expanding the money supply — the method the Fed uses for lowering rates — might have little effect on the ease of obtaining credit. Interest rates could not fall below zero, after all. Economists call this state of affairs a liquidity trap.
"It's right for the Fed to be concerned about it and talking about it," said Laurence M. Ball, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. "The key thing to look at is not any particular price level, but the interest rate. When it hits zero, then you're in trouble."
Professor Ball did not predict that interest rates would fall to zero, but he warned that an unexpected shock to the economy could be more damaging with rates so low."When you're walking along the side of a cliff, the closer you are to it, the more dangerous it is," he said. "There's no particular chance you're going to fall off it, but there's always the chance you'll get jostled."
Falling prices might not sound like such a bad thing, at least from a consumer's point of view. Moreover, deflation can be a side effect of a healthy economic development, like the surges in efficiency that have steadily lowered the prices of personal computers.
But what the Fed is worried about now, the experts said, is deflation arising as a symptom of the economy's frailty. And falling prices could cause some real problems by themselves.
For example, rapid deflation can cause a huge redistribution of income and wealth from debtors to creditors, said Willem H. Buiter, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.
When prices are expected to fall, interest rates tend to fall, too. If prices are lower tomorrow than they are today, a dollar will be worth more tomorrow in terms of what it can buy. And the more borrowers think that prices will fall in the future, the less they will be willing to pay in interest on loans. Similarly, existing loans with fixed interest rates become more valuable to lenders — and more onerous to borrowers — as prices fall.
"That kind of redistribution is often very painful because it causes all sort of distress," Mr. Buiter said, like corporate insolvencies and defaults by banks.
Deflation can also cause problems for companies with fairly inflexible costs of doing business, Mr. Harris said. "The auto industry has a pretty rigid cost structure, and obviously they'd like to see some inflation in the economy," he said. "Instead, what they're getting is they have to keep cutting the prices of their vehicles."
Mr. Harris also said expectations for deflation — if not brought on by a "productivity revolution" that makes the economy much more efficient — could themselves perpetuate economic weakness. If people think prices will fall in the future, they will postpone purchases. After two years of weakness, he said, "we already have a little element of the deflation psychology in the economy."
Some economists have also argued that falling prices for goods and services could lead to falling wages — something workers might find intolerable. But Professor Ball said there was little evidence to support that idea. "There has actually been a number of studies in the past few years looking at wages, and finding that wages do fall in certain crcumstances and there doesn't seem to be such a taboo about it."
The consequences of deflation are on display, of course, in Japan which has experienced deflation for the last three years after a decade of economic weakness. Japan's troubles began in 1990 when a huge crash in prices of real estate and securities suddenly depressed the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend. In the midst of deflation, short-term interest rates eventually fell to zero, largely handcuffing the central bank.
Well aware of Japan's striking example, the Fed's governors have been barnstorming the country in recent months to assure the public that, even with low interest rates, they still have tools to fight deflation. In a speech in December, the Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, said the Fed could buy Treasury bonds with long maturities to drive down long-term interest rates. In January, a Fed governor, Edward M. Gramlich, said that with interest rates at zero, a rapid expansion in the money supply might still be enough to stop deflation.
But some economists have remained skeptical.
"It's probably a good thing for them to say, `Oh, don't worry, we have a lot of tools to deal with it,' " Professor Ball said. "That bolsters confidence, and is maybe good for the economy. Having said that, I'm not sure it's true that they have lots of tools. If there were any really obvious tools that the central banks could use to get you right out of a liquidity trap, Japan would have done it."
In fact, both Mr. Buiter and Professor Ball argued that in situations like Japan's, central banks should make way for the lawmakers who control taxes and spending.
"It is always both technically and politically dead easy to stop deflation and get rid of it, if you don't want it," Mr. Buiter said. "It is not necessary for these things to persist. The government should immediately prime the pump and send the checks to all deserving and undeserving Americans."
Professor Ball agreed. "The textbook solution to a liquidity trap is a fiscal expansion, and there's every reason to think that would work." In a situation of low demand and deflation, he said, "before too long, enough political pressure would build up for a big fiscal expansion."
Unfortunately for Japan, this escape plan was hard to carry out. Japan's overwhelming debt burden limited the government's ability to cut taxes or spend money. And its problems ran deeper than weak demand and deflation.
"Deflation is kind of the icing on the cake," Mr. Harris said. "The big problem in Japan is the big failure to deal with the problems in the banking system. No stimulative policy is going to work if your financial system isn't functioning — if the process of getting funds from savers to borrowers breaks down."
The United States, the experts said, is not mired in similar straits. The financial system is healthy, and, Mr. Buiter pointed out, the boom and bust in asset markets was far smaller in the United States than in Japan.
"Real estate and house prices never went on the kind of walkabout that they did in Japan," he said. "There is no parallel between what Japan has been going through for the last 10 years- plus now and what lies in store for the United States."
Professor Ball added that the government here had more latitude to fight deflation in the event of a liquidity trap. "Even though our long-term fiscal situation is not great, it's not as bad as Japan's," he said.
On that point, however, Mr. Harris was not equally sanguine. "When you get into a deflation environment and you're trying to get the economy going, there aren't any really easy solutions," he said. "Usually when you get to deflation, you already have a significant budget deficit. That's in fact true for the U.S."
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:16 PM |
Sunday, May 11, 2003
James Woolsey, former CIA boss, busy
Whew, I was really worried about another of Bush's cronies making a living in this post-euphoric economic market, but I need worry no longer, because James Woolsey, in the words of the Guardian Unlimited, former CIA boss and influential adviser to President George Bush, is a director of a US firm aiming to make millions of dollars from the 'war on terror', The Observer can reveal.
I have to hand to 'em, these hawkes are good at hawking their need for security philosophy for lots 'a bucks.
"Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'."
And I mean, big bucks:
Paladin, which is expected to have raised $300 million from investors by the end of this year, calculates that in the next few years the US government will spend $60 billion on anti-terrorism that woul not have been spent before September 11, and that corporations will spend twice that amount to ensure their security and continuity in case of attack.
Dare we say, "conflict of interest", in Woolsey's attempt to pin the anthrax attacks on Saddam Hussein:
"In 2001 US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sent Woolsey to Europe, where he argued the case for links existing between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. He was one of the main proponents of the theory that the anthrax letter attacks in America were supported by Iraq's former dictator."
There was Woolsey, with official sanction from this administration, hawking their beliefs on the need for war with Iraq, making money from this professed need from increased security. Now I'm not arguing that we don't need heightened security after 9/11, but I don't want those private entities who are providing security to also be dictating our foreign or domestic policies. Seems reasonable to ask for the seperation of corporations and state. Oh, I forgot, Alice is is Wonderland.
I have to hand to 'em, these hawkes are good at hawking their need for security philosophy for lots 'a bucks.
"Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'."
And I mean, big bucks:
Paladin, which is expected to have raised $300 million from investors by the end of this year, calculates that in the next few years the US government will spend $60 billion on anti-terrorism that woul not have been spent before September 11, and that corporations will spend twice that amount to ensure their security and continuity in case of attack.
Dare we say, "conflict of interest", in Woolsey's attempt to pin the anthrax attacks on Saddam Hussein:
"In 2001 US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sent Woolsey to Europe, where he argued the case for links existing between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. He was one of the main proponents of the theory that the anthrax letter attacks in America were supported by Iraq's former dictator."
There was Woolsey, with official sanction from this administration, hawking their beliefs on the need for war with Iraq, making money from this professed need from increased security. Now I'm not arguing that we don't need heightened security after 9/11, but I don't want those private entities who are providing security to also be dictating our foreign or domestic policies. Seems reasonable to ask for the seperation of corporations and state. Oh, I forgot, Alice is is Wonderland.
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:38 AM |
Saturday, May 10, 2003
Navigating the rabbit hole.
So the U.S. wants to be the Occupying Power in Iraq. And they want to be the occupying power, in order to capitalize on the chances for a partial privatization of Iraq's resources, including the oil, and I don't think I am the only one with this fear. And Halliburton, has a no-dollar limit and no bid contract with our government to run the oil wells in Iraq, and as occupying power we could be there for years, under the Geneva Convention, and Halliburton ain't doing so well here in this country, and it sure looks like a rescue of Dick Cheney's former employer, from whom he continues to receive compensation, in the form of deferred compensation, and no one in the media seems to give a damn about this huge, obscene conflict of interest, and the FCC wants to create even more media monopolies, I suppose, because the monopolies serve the interest of the monied class, and those in power, in terms of what issues are focused on, and most Americans for "moral" reasons want to support the Republicans, and for "safety" reasons, for the sake of our country, yet we are neither "moral" nor "safe", in the current path we have chosen, as we are giving up our civil liberties, including the right to hear dissenting voices, to a bunch of immoral money and power grabbers, who will stop at nothing, including the sacrifice of human life, to satisfy their greedy appetities and accumulate more, and many Americans have made a deal with the devil in buying SUVs and going along with our energy/war policy..and , whew, I think I'm learning to navigate the rabbit hole.
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:48 AM |
Friday, May 09, 2003
Alice is in Wonderland
Ya'll venture over to my War Casualties blog, and take a trip down the rabbit hole. It begins with the death of one man in Iraq, shot by the U.S. military, for unknown reasons say the witnesses, and no comment from the military. It is the death of one man, but it might as well be the death of anyone killed as a result of this war. The witnesses asked why? Why?, I ask. Sometimes it is all the weapon you have left, but a formidable one nonetheless, because if we quit asking it, it is all over.
There is a strange, unreal aspect to the description in the article of this man's death. No details at all as to the why of this man's death, but there he was, slumped over the steering wheel of his car, with a bullet wound to his head. His name was Khaled Lahoumi Ahmed, said a witness, because he looked at his ID card that he had on him.
"U.S. military vehicles pushed the car onto the pavement before troops approached the car and opened fire, Mehdi said", was what the article stated.
From one man's death, we move to the U.S. plans for Iraq. They want to be the Occupying Power, under the Geneva Conventions, which means they would have formidable influence over the how the wealth of Iraq is spent and used. The U.S. resisted using this phrase, occupying power, until now, in a clever strategy to limit debate. The falsely benign phrase "liberating force" was the choice of words by the U.S. during the war.
It gets better. Many are speculating the U.S. will make a grab of ownership of Iraq's resources through "privitization". Jay Garner has already hinted at this, as a way to efficiently produce oil. Read the Nation article by Naomi Klein, on what will be the attempt to privitize Iraq, that is, if we become the "occupying power". The Security Council, and the UN are all that are between the U.S. and a complete power grab in Iraq.
Finally, there is the issue of cluster bombs. The Pentagon recently made a statement that in this entire war, only one person was killed by a cluster bomb. This statement is so patently false, purposefully deceptive, and dark and cynical as well, because no sane person would make a statement like that about this war, unless they believed that no one cared and no one was paying attention. Remember Hillah? Remember Hindiyeh? Read Robert Fisk, courtesy of Dissident Voice, on the use of cluster bombs in this war, and the death reports from the villages.
We can navigate ourselves through this rabbit hole.
There is a strange, unreal aspect to the description in the article of this man's death. No details at all as to the why of this man's death, but there he was, slumped over the steering wheel of his car, with a bullet wound to his head. His name was Khaled Lahoumi Ahmed, said a witness, because he looked at his ID card that he had on him.
"U.S. military vehicles pushed the car onto the pavement before troops approached the car and opened fire, Mehdi said", was what the article stated.
From one man's death, we move to the U.S. plans for Iraq. They want to be the Occupying Power, under the Geneva Conventions, which means they would have formidable influence over the how the wealth of Iraq is spent and used. The U.S. resisted using this phrase, occupying power, until now, in a clever strategy to limit debate. The falsely benign phrase "liberating force" was the choice of words by the U.S. during the war.
It gets better. Many are speculating the U.S. will make a grab of ownership of Iraq's resources through "privitization". Jay Garner has already hinted at this, as a way to efficiently produce oil. Read the Nation article by Naomi Klein, on what will be the attempt to privitize Iraq, that is, if we become the "occupying power". The Security Council, and the UN are all that are between the U.S. and a complete power grab in Iraq.
Finally, there is the issue of cluster bombs. The Pentagon recently made a statement that in this entire war, only one person was killed by a cluster bomb. This statement is so patently false, purposefully deceptive, and dark and cynical as well, because no sane person would make a statement like that about this war, unless they believed that no one cared and no one was paying attention. Remember Hillah? Remember Hindiyeh? Read Robert Fisk, courtesy of Dissident Voice, on the use of cluster bombs in this war, and the death reports from the villages.
We can navigate ourselves through this rabbit hole.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:34 PM |
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Pointdexter, is that you?
Total Information Awareness is back in the news today, via the New York Times, making an attempt to sound more like a pussycat, than the tiger initially described by Admiral Poindexter before a California audience:
"Mr. Poindexter told a California audience then that "we must become much more efficient and more clever in the way we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge and create actionable options." He described a system that could tap into Internet mail, culling records, credit card and banking transactions and travel documents."
Hell, I just want to know who is tapping into Red Onion under the guise of "Hidden Referrer" in my bstats. Dr. Tony Tether, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as Darpa, is trying the downplay his agency's intentions:
Dr. Tether offered a vision of the program that sounded much less threatening than the description given last year by John M. Poindexter, the retired admiral who is in charge of the project.
And what is this vision? In "friendly" questioning, Representative Adam Putnam, a Florida Republican, invited a "friendly" swear from Dr. Tether, which was declined by Dr. Tether in a friendly manner:
Saying "I'm trying to help you guys a little with your p.r. problem," Mr. Putnam invited Dr. Tether to swear that the agency was not "contemplating" using credit card, library or video-rental information. Dr. Tether said he could see no value in any such data, but he could not swear that no consultant hired by the agency was not "contemplating" the value."
With watchdogs like Putnam, we won't have to worry about Darpa's p.r. problems. I am relieved. I'm still wondering who's watching me. Pointdexter, if that is you, are you taking applications for coffee servers, that is, if Halliburton doesn't hire me first?
But wait, there's more. Tether describes what might be the role of Darpa:
Dr. Tether said the system was intended to devise "attack scenarios" based on past terrorist attacks or intelligence about plans.
He offered two examples. If the concern was a truck bomb, he said, one question to be posed was, "Are there foreign visitors to the United States who are staying in urban areas, buying large amounts of fertilizer and renting trucks?"
Or, he said, if the system had been in place, it could have considered the threat posed by a 1995 report from the Philippines that terrorists were considering using airplanes as bombs to destroy landmarks like the World Trade Center.
But, but, didn't the FBI have info concerning terrorists learning to fly planes in order to fly them into buildings? Didn't they ignore the info? Shouldn't we be more concerned about Americans purchasing large amounts of fertilizer? Guess if Daddy Darpa gives them the info, they won't ignore it. Big Brother Darpa, friend to the FBI, and the CIA, and friend to people who aren't worth spying on.
"Mr. Poindexter told a California audience then that "we must become much more efficient and more clever in the way we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge and create actionable options." He described a system that could tap into Internet mail, culling records, credit card and banking transactions and travel documents."
Hell, I just want to know who is tapping into Red Onion under the guise of "Hidden Referrer" in my bstats. Dr. Tony Tether, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as Darpa, is trying the downplay his agency's intentions:
Dr. Tether offered a vision of the program that sounded much less threatening than the description given last year by John M. Poindexter, the retired admiral who is in charge of the project.
And what is this vision? In "friendly" questioning, Representative Adam Putnam, a Florida Republican, invited a "friendly" swear from Dr. Tether, which was declined by Dr. Tether in a friendly manner:
Saying "I'm trying to help you guys a little with your p.r. problem," Mr. Putnam invited Dr. Tether to swear that the agency was not "contemplating" using credit card, library or video-rental information. Dr. Tether said he could see no value in any such data, but he could not swear that no consultant hired by the agency was not "contemplating" the value."
With watchdogs like Putnam, we won't have to worry about Darpa's p.r. problems. I am relieved. I'm still wondering who's watching me. Pointdexter, if that is you, are you taking applications for coffee servers, that is, if Halliburton doesn't hire me first?
But wait, there's more. Tether describes what might be the role of Darpa:
Dr. Tether said the system was intended to devise "attack scenarios" based on past terrorist attacks or intelligence about plans.
He offered two examples. If the concern was a truck bomb, he said, one question to be posed was, "Are there foreign visitors to the United States who are staying in urban areas, buying large amounts of fertilizer and renting trucks?"
Or, he said, if the system had been in place, it could have considered the threat posed by a 1995 report from the Philippines that terrorists were considering using airplanes as bombs to destroy landmarks like the World Trade Center.
But, but, didn't the FBI have info concerning terrorists learning to fly planes in order to fly them into buildings? Didn't they ignore the info? Shouldn't we be more concerned about Americans purchasing large amounts of fertilizer? Guess if Daddy Darpa gives them the info, they won't ignore it. Big Brother Darpa, friend to the FBI, and the CIA, and friend to people who aren't worth spying on.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:52 AM |
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
Halliburton Busy
What with unemployment up in the labor market, I was really beginning to fret for the fortunes of Halliburton. I needn't fear any longer. Our friends at Halliburton will be more than employed, because their role in Iraq is much larger than initially thought. Makes sense, because this company produced a vice-president of the U.S. of A. goddammit, and they deserve the recognition that their expanded role will bring them, (or the v.p. produced them, hard to decide what came first). Perhaps their expanded role in Iraq will help the company to pay for the asbestos suit, no pun intended, and $80 million, to be exact, awarded against them, involving the Highlands Insurance Company, spun off from Halliburton in 1986, and, well, its too damn complicated (the New York Times, dated May 7, explains it quite well, and no I won't include their links, because they are too damn long; scroll down to underneath the main story concerning Halliburton, in the Business section, and there are a list of articles concerning Halliburton beneath). But rest assured, Halliburton's future is secure, despite a recent 21% decline in its revenue from engineering and construction (Again, May 7, NYT.) Whew, thank God for the government's rescue, I mean hiring (oops) of Halliburton. I was worried about those guys. Looks like I'll have far fewer of them to worry about, as they are going to lay-off a bunch of people soon, 5,250 people, to be exact (courtesy of, you guessed, the NYT, May 7, those guys are busy at that newspaper):
"The Halliburton Company said yesterday that it would eliminate about 5,250 jobs and close about 400 offices worldwide as part of its plan to save about $250 million a year from its acquisition of Dresser Industries and to reduce expenses as lower oil prices cut into its business. The job cuts are in addition to about 2,000 workers the company has already eliminated because of low oil prices. The cuts reduce the work force of the Dallas-based company by about 7 percent."
Halliburton knows how to take care of its own. I wonder if they are taking applications, cause I can sure serve a good cup of coffee, and they are going to need plenty of the brown brew, because they are busy, busy, busy.
"The Halliburton Company said yesterday that it would eliminate about 5,250 jobs and close about 400 offices worldwide as part of its plan to save about $250 million a year from its acquisition of Dresser Industries and to reduce expenses as lower oil prices cut into its business. The job cuts are in addition to about 2,000 workers the company has already eliminated because of low oil prices. The cuts reduce the work force of the Dallas-based company by about 7 percent."
Halliburton knows how to take care of its own. I wonder if they are taking applications, cause I can sure serve a good cup of coffee, and they are going to need plenty of the brown brew, because they are busy, busy, busy.
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:37 PM |
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
The Patriot
Silent in the face of greed, you have become a thief yourself. Stealing knowledge from the children in the form of witholding, you hoard knowledge, store it away, don't use it.
We lost our true practice of democracy a long time ago. Maybe the old guy in the breakfast meeting of progressives was right, we never had it. It was all an illusion in the grandest sense. Is it a little bit like love, which, as soon as you name it, you begin to loose it. It becomes a thing and therefore distant. You begin to lose touch with it when you name it.
Perhaps our loss of democracy hit a final note when I was a child, the Kennedy assasination, the Vietnam war, the assasinations, R. Kennedy and King. That was when the secrets of our government were even darker than they are today. There is unsparing illumination now, for anyone looking for the light. The internet helps to keep things lit. Books, essays, libraries, bookstores; as much as I distrust corporate entities, Barnes and Noble keeps many a candle lit for lonely seekers wanting to browse and read.
No wonder one of the new "enemies" of our current gov't in power are libraries. We would do well to defend them.
What if the internet were ever gone. The "struggle" to reclaim ourselves would take a different form. Perhaps it should.
We progressives, we liberals, have we defined our own beliefs and values? Can we clearly articulate our prirorities?
How do we practice our beliefs and values in our immediate environment, for that is the true test.
Do we feel forced to hide our light?
Isn't it easier to focus our attention on the candidates, politics, on what our "leaders" are doing. They are doing horrendous things, committing horrors all over the world, because we have forgotten how to govern ourselves. We govern no one, not even ourselves.
And the ones who try to lord it over others the most, are the ones least in practice of the governing of themselves.
Bennett, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld (it feels like sticky blood just to write their names).
Is it any accident one of the moral crusader, William Bennett, was recently revealed to be covered in shit?
They are taking us down in apathy, in apathy of ourselves.
Even the so-called activists. What are we doing? How are we reaching out to each other? How are we reaching out to the unconverted? How are we active? What is the quality of our activity?
What is the quality of my activity?
It always comes back to the self. The lonely self in the self-skin, covering bones and teeth. We are a universe unto ourselves, richer than we could ever imagine.
We lost our true practice of democracy a long time ago. Maybe the old guy in the breakfast meeting of progressives was right, we never had it. It was all an illusion in the grandest sense. Is it a little bit like love, which, as soon as you name it, you begin to loose it. It becomes a thing and therefore distant. You begin to lose touch with it when you name it.
Perhaps our loss of democracy hit a final note when I was a child, the Kennedy assasination, the Vietnam war, the assasinations, R. Kennedy and King. That was when the secrets of our government were even darker than they are today. There is unsparing illumination now, for anyone looking for the light. The internet helps to keep things lit. Books, essays, libraries, bookstores; as much as I distrust corporate entities, Barnes and Noble keeps many a candle lit for lonely seekers wanting to browse and read.
No wonder one of the new "enemies" of our current gov't in power are libraries. We would do well to defend them.
What if the internet were ever gone. The "struggle" to reclaim ourselves would take a different form. Perhaps it should.
We progressives, we liberals, have we defined our own beliefs and values? Can we clearly articulate our prirorities?
How do we practice our beliefs and values in our immediate environment, for that is the true test.
Do we feel forced to hide our light?
Isn't it easier to focus our attention on the candidates, politics, on what our "leaders" are doing. They are doing horrendous things, committing horrors all over the world, because we have forgotten how to govern ourselves. We govern no one, not even ourselves.
And the ones who try to lord it over others the most, are the ones least in practice of the governing of themselves.
Bennett, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld (it feels like sticky blood just to write their names).
Is it any accident one of the moral crusader, William Bennett, was recently revealed to be covered in shit?
They are taking us down in apathy, in apathy of ourselves.
Even the so-called activists. What are we doing? How are we reaching out to each other? How are we reaching out to the unconverted? How are we active? What is the quality of our activity?
What is the quality of my activity?
It always comes back to the self. The lonely self in the self-skin, covering bones and teeth. We are a universe unto ourselves, richer than we could ever imagine.
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:43 PM |
Monday, May 05, 2003
Brother, Can you Spare a Dime for a Textbook?
Multiply 3000 times 500,000. What do you get? 1.5 billion. In the first 14 days of the Iraqi war, we dropped 3000 cruise missiles on Iraq. Each cruise missile costs $500,000. That's 1.5 billion dollars worth of cruise missiles. Douglas Mattern from liberalslant.com, wants you to digest the numbers:
Just think of all the missiles, bombs, etc. that will be replaced for profit by the armament industry after the current U.S. military assault on Iraq. In the first 14 days the U.S. dropped over 8,700 bombs, including more than 3,000 cruise missiles. This includes cluster bombs, which is one of the most barbaric weapons ever created by the human mind.
Cruise missiles cost over $500,000 each. The Apache Longbow Helicopter costs about 22 million dollars each. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle costs over 1.2 million dollars. Each B-1 Stealth bomber costs over $2 billion.
Meanwhile, school districts form New York to Ohio to Illinois, to Denver, and on to California are having trouble finding the money for red-inked school budgets.
"Bleak" and "scary" are adjectives being bounced around to describe school fiscal problems:
"The economic crisis resulting in California’s General Fund shortfall for a second fiscal year will not be an easy one to manage. Elizabeth Hill, state legislative policy analyst, describes it as “an enormous challenge,” and the Sacramento Bee is calling it “bleak” and “scary.”
In the meantime, brother can you spare a dime, or how about a fraction of a percentage of the $60 billion to be spent in 2003 by the Pentagon to purchase new weapons.
"Over $60 billion was allocated to purchase new weapons for 2003. The Pentagon spends over $30 billion annually in research and development for new weapons."
Brother, can you spare a dime, maybe to buy textbooks? Certainly there is no shortage of money for cruise missiles, as there is our national, disgraceful, textbook shortage.
Apparently investing in new weapons is more important that investing in our own children. We'll save their lives from the "terrorist threat", protecting their poorly educated futures, living in a country ransacked of its safety from the hatred of other countries, as we bomb third world countries to oblivion. Egads. I think I'm going to throw-up.
Just think of all the missiles, bombs, etc. that will be replaced for profit by the armament industry after the current U.S. military assault on Iraq. In the first 14 days the U.S. dropped over 8,700 bombs, including more than 3,000 cruise missiles. This includes cluster bombs, which is one of the most barbaric weapons ever created by the human mind.
Cruise missiles cost over $500,000 each. The Apache Longbow Helicopter costs about 22 million dollars each. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle costs over 1.2 million dollars. Each B-1 Stealth bomber costs over $2 billion.
Meanwhile, school districts form New York to Ohio to Illinois, to Denver, and on to California are having trouble finding the money for red-inked school budgets.
"Bleak" and "scary" are adjectives being bounced around to describe school fiscal problems:
"The economic crisis resulting in California’s General Fund shortfall for a second fiscal year will not be an easy one to manage. Elizabeth Hill, state legislative policy analyst, describes it as “an enormous challenge,” and the Sacramento Bee is calling it “bleak” and “scary.”
In the meantime, brother can you spare a dime, or how about a fraction of a percentage of the $60 billion to be spent in 2003 by the Pentagon to purchase new weapons.
"Over $60 billion was allocated to purchase new weapons for 2003. The Pentagon spends over $30 billion annually in research and development for new weapons."
Brother, can you spare a dime, maybe to buy textbooks? Certainly there is no shortage of money for cruise missiles, as there is our national, disgraceful, textbook shortage.
Apparently investing in new weapons is more important that investing in our own children. We'll save their lives from the "terrorist threat", protecting their poorly educated futures, living in a country ransacked of its safety from the hatred of other countries, as we bomb third world countries to oblivion. Egads. I think I'm going to throw-up.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:18 PM |
Sunday, May 04, 2003
American Eloi
Must have been destiny or something, because there I was, very lazy after a hard day at work feeding coffee to the jazz fest minions, and on came the 1960 version of the Time Machine with that handsome Rod Taylor. I'm watching him dealing with the passively happy Eloi, the race of human who are fed, and fed to, the Marlocks (rythms with Warlocks). I mean, at one point, I thought he was going to kill one of them for allowing the history of civilization to crumble in dust when he was shown their library, and the books literaly crumbled in his hands. Reminded me of my barely contained rage at a passive population feeding on cheap entertainment and shopping binges, slurping coffee picked by the desperately poor in lands we don't even dream about. And it was in a dream-like semi-slumber that a burst of illumination visited me, that at least had me roll over and cup my chin in my hand, partially sitting up. Have we become the Eloi, passively happy as long as we can afford our SUVs and win wars in strange, third world nations that we know nothing about? All the while we as the middle class (and lowers) are being fed to the predatory rich (just as the Marlocks fed on the Eloi), who start wars and profit from them at the expense of the humanity of this country, all the while cutting taxes for the rich, and obscenely cutting social programs that aid the poor. Vision of Rod Taylor coming upon the dinning room of the Marlocks, filled with human skeletons from their cannibalistic meals. We will be a skeleton of a country when these warlords finish with us. H.G. Wells must be rolling in his grave.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:28 PM |
Friday, May 02, 2003
"The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves," Flora Tristan, 1843
As my friend Suzi would say, these Argentinian women are the balls! (from the Globe and Mail):
"In Buenos Aires, every week brings news of a new occupation: a four-star hotel now run by its cleaning staff, a supermarket taken over by its clerks, a regional airline about to be turned into a co-operative by the pilots and attendants. In small Trotskyist journals around the world, Argentina's occupied factories, where the workers have seized the means of production, are giddily hailed as the dawn of a socialist utopia. In large business magazines such as The Economist, they are ominously described as a threat to the sacred principle of private property. The truth lies in between.
At Brukman, for instance, the means of production weren't seized -- they were simply picked up after they had been abandoned by their legal owners. The factory had been in decline for several years, and debts to utility companies were piling up. The seamstresses had seen their salaries slashed from 100 pesos a week to two pesos -- not enough for bus fare.
On Dec. 18, the workers decided it was time to demand a travel allowance. The owners, pleading poverty, told the workers to wait at the factory while they looked for the money. "We waited until night," Ms. Martinez says. "No one came."
After getting the keys from the doorman, Ms. Martinez and the other workers slept at the factory. They have been running it every since. They have paid the outstanding bills, attracted new clients and, without profits and management salaries to worry about, paid themselves steady salaries. All these decisions have been made by vote in open assemblies. "I don't know why the owners had such a hard time," Ms. Martinez says. "I don't know much about accounting, but for me it's easy: addition and subtraction."
"In Buenos Aires, every week brings news of a new occupation: a four-star hotel now run by its cleaning staff, a supermarket taken over by its clerks, a regional airline about to be turned into a co-operative by the pilots and attendants. In small Trotskyist journals around the world, Argentina's occupied factories, where the workers have seized the means of production, are giddily hailed as the dawn of a socialist utopia. In large business magazines such as The Economist, they are ominously described as a threat to the sacred principle of private property. The truth lies in between.
At Brukman, for instance, the means of production weren't seized -- they were simply picked up after they had been abandoned by their legal owners. The factory had been in decline for several years, and debts to utility companies were piling up. The seamstresses had seen their salaries slashed from 100 pesos a week to two pesos -- not enough for bus fare.
On Dec. 18, the workers decided it was time to demand a travel allowance. The owners, pleading poverty, told the workers to wait at the factory while they looked for the money. "We waited until night," Ms. Martinez says. "No one came."
After getting the keys from the doorman, Ms. Martinez and the other workers slept at the factory. They have been running it every since. They have paid the outstanding bills, attracted new clients and, without profits and management salaries to worry about, paid themselves steady salaries. All these decisions have been made by vote in open assemblies. "I don't know why the owners had such a hard time," Ms. Martinez says. "I don't know much about accounting, but for me it's easy: addition and subtraction."
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:43 AM |
Links
- Google News
- HOME
- Contact Me
- WAR CASUALTIES(MY OTHER BLOG)
- BAGHDAD BURNING
- UNQUALIFIED OFFERINGS
- JUAN COLE*INFORMED COMMENT*
- BRAD DELONG
- TOMPAINE.COM
- THE DAILY HOWLER
- DISSENT MAGAZINE
- CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY
- BLAH3.COM
- BLACK SUNDAE
- WAMPUM
- ESCHATON
- ARMS AND THE MAN
- MILL ON LIBERTY
- GERMANY IN WORLD WAR 2
- VEILED 4 ALLAH
- BUSY, BUSY, BUSY
- UNENVIABLE SITUATION
- HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD
- MATTHEW GROSS
- WHISKEY BAR
- WAR AND PIECE
- DAILY KOS
- GREG PALAST
- BLACK COMMENTATOR
- SURPRISING PATTERN OF FLORIDA'S ELECTION RESULTS
- THE BRAD BLOG
- THE OPEN VOTING CONSORTIUM
- BLACK BOX VOTING
- THE FREE PRESS
- VOTERGATE.TV
- STOLEN ELECTION. AMERICA HIJACKED
- An examination of the Florida election
- blueflu.us
- U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities
- MY DD
- SEEING THE FOREST
- THERE IS NO CRISIS
- VELVET REVOLUTION
- 02/02/2003 - 02/09/2003
- 02/09/2003 - 02/16/2003
- 02/16/2003 - 02/23/2003
- 02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003
- 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003
- 03/09/2003 - 03/16/2003
- 03/16/2003 - 03/23/2003
- 03/23/2003 - 03/30/2003
- 03/30/2003 - 04/06/2003
- 04/06/2003 - 04/13/2003
- 04/13/2003 - 04/20/2003
- 04/20/2003 - 04/27/2003
- 04/27/2003 - 05/04/2003
- 05/04/2003 - 05/11/2003
- 05/11/2003 - 05/18/2003
- 05/18/2003 - 05/25/2003
- 05/25/2003 - 06/01/2003
- 06/01/2003 - 06/08/2003
- 06/08/2003 - 06/15/2003
- 06/15/2003 - 06/22/2003
- 06/22/2003 - 06/29/2003
- 06/29/2003 - 07/06/2003
- 07/06/2003 - 07/13/2003
- 07/13/2003 - 07/20/2003
- 07/20/2003 - 07/27/2003
- 07/27/2003 - 08/03/2003
- 08/03/2003 - 08/10/2003
- 08/10/2003 - 08/17/2003
- 08/17/2003 - 08/24/2003
- 09/07/2003 - 09/14/2003
- 09/14/2003 - 09/21/2003
- 09/21/2003 - 09/28/2003
- 09/28/2003 - 10/05/2003
- 10/05/2003 - 10/12/2003
- 10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003
- 10/19/2003 - 10/26/2003
- 10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003
- 11/02/2003 - 11/09/2003
- 11/09/2003 - 11/16/2003
- 11/16/2003 - 11/23/2003
- 11/23/2003 - 11/30/2003
- 11/30/2003 - 12/07/2003
- 12/14/2003 - 12/21/2003
- 01/11/2004 - 01/18/2004
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004
- 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
- 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
- 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
- 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
- 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
- 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
- 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005
- 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005
- 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
- 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005
- 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005
- 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
- 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005
- 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
- 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005
- 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005
- 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005
- 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005
