People Before Profit blog

Bush Economy Leaves Millions Behind

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:56:00 +0000

8-30-06, 9:13 am

Despite Bush administration claims that the economy made strong gains this past year, real median household income did not grow and for full-time, year-round individual workers, real income actually declined more than 1%. The official poverty rate failed to shrink, while the number of uninsured Americans grew by 1.3 million to 46.6 million in 2005, according to the latest figures provided by the US Census Bureau earlier this week.

In other bad news for working families, income disparities by race continued. Real median household income for African Americans stood at approximately only 60% of white household, and Latino households took in approximately 70%. The supposed economic boom also failed to reduce poverty rates for African Americans (24.9%) and Latinos (21.8%), about double that of whites households. The economic boom also seems to have left lower-income Asian American families behind as their poverty rate rose by 1.3 percentage points.

Bush’s 'prosperity' failed to reduce child poverty, which stands at 17.6%, and the number of poor seniors grew to 3.6 million in 2005. Altogether, the 37 million people officially counted as poor were left behind by the so-called economic boom. Note: Official government figures put the poverty line at just over $19,000 a year for a family of four. In the real world, this figure is far lower than what a family of four needs to survive, thus underestimating the actual number of people who struggle financially. Internationally, one accepted statistical method is to estimate the number of people who earn less than half of the median wage, which, in the US, is much higher than $19,000.

Good times also failed to stop the hemorrhage of people losing health care coverage. The total number of people without coverage of any kind grew to 15.9% of the population, by far the highest percentage of uninsured people among the 20 wealthiest countries in the world, according to analysis provided by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute.

Racial inequality in access to health care is also indicated by very high rates of the uninsured among non-white communities. Nearly 20% of African Americans, 17.9% (a jump of 1.4% over 2004) of Asian Americans, almost 33% of Latinos, and almost 30% of Native Americans lacked health care coverage in 2005.

Since Bush took office, as a percentage of GDP wage income has collapsed by 5 percentage points, according to a report in the New York Times. Also, 3 million new people were declared officially poor, with a rise in the child poverty rate of 1.4 percentage points since 2001. The total number of uninsured Americans has grown by 5.4 million since 2001.

Clearly, tax cuts for the rich, boondoggles and huge subsidies to politically connected corporations, and failed, endless war are the main priorities of the Bush administration. It and the Republican-dominated Congress have refused to address basic issues like jobs with good wages and benefits, universal health care, and ending poverty.

In the Bush/Republican economy, working hard and getting less is par for the course.

--Contact Leo Walsh at

Wave of Violence Sparks Renewed Fears of Civil War in Iraq

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:53:00 +0000

8-30-06, 9:10 am

The Iraqi cities of Baghdad, Kirkuk, Baqhuba, and Basra were rocked this past week by car bombs, grenade attacks, and gun battles fueled by sectarian violence. At least nine US military personnel were killed and wounded along with more than 100 Iraqis killed and many dozens wounded in the violence.

This wave of violence comes on the heels of US military claims that it had succeeded in tightening security in Baghdad and surrounding areas. Widespread fears of sectarian violence breaking out into open civil war have so far not been alleviated.

According to media reports, a car bomb was driven into a security checkpoint near the Interior Ministry building on Monday. Aside from 8 Iraqi policemen killed, 17 others were wounded and 6 passersby were also killed. In another part of the city, a roadside bomb killed one person and several others were wounded.

Over the weekend, a suicide bomber killed eight people and wounded 18 others on a bus near the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. In a separate incident, nine US service members were killed in Baghdad by a roadside bomb and by gunfire.

In the town of Khalis, near Baqubah, just northeast of Baghdad, gunmen invaded the home of a local official, shot a resident there, and tried to kidnap another. When local people came to the aid of the people in the house, the gunmen opened fire on them, killing 12 and wounding two dozen more.

Sectarian attacks in nearby Baqubah killed five more people.

In the northern city of Kirkuk, a series of bombings killed 10 people Sunday near the house of a police official and outside a meeting hall of Sufis, a mystical Muslim religious sect. Attacks also targeted offices of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the party of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, on the same day. A car bomb at one of the offices killed one security guard, and police exchanged fire with gunmen at another party office.

A bomb strapped to a motorcycle was detonated in the southern port city of Basra at a market, killing four people and wounding 15.

In the city of Diwaniyah, gun battles between Iraqi forces and militiamen of the Mahdi Army loyal to religious leader Muqtada al-Sadr left at least 34 people dead and about 70 wounded.

2,632 US troops have been killed since the war began in 2003 with 19,323 wounded, and an estimated tens of thousands more have suffered mental trauma as a result of combat in Iraq.

Conservative estimates of the number of Iraqis killed as a result of the war suggest that upwards of 45,613 have died since the invasion began in 2003.

The Bush administration and its few remaining supporters insist that leaving Iraq will send it into civil war. With thousands of Iraqis killed in nearly daily attacks over the last 6 months in many parts of Iraq, mainly motivated by sectarian differences, many observers believe civil war has already either begun or is very near.

Clearly, the presence of the US military and other foreign armies, along with a tightly controlled and ill-equipped Iraqi security force, have failed to prevent that scenario. What could withdrawal do other than to remove the major source of tension in the country: the occupation? The violence could not get much worse. Occupation forces have also not been able to control rise of criminal gangs. And the return of control to the coalition Iraqi government of control of its security forces and its reconstruction efforts would eliminate motives for much of the violence.

The administration's stubborn insistence on staying in Iraq as long as Bush is president will only get more US troops wounded and killed as that country lapses into an unnecessary civil war. Supporting the troops means bringing them home now more than ever.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at

UN to send police force to East Timor

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:45:00 +0000

8-30-06, 9:01 am

Faced with strong opposition from the Australian Government, backed up by the US, Japan and Britain, the UN Security Council backed away from the call for both military and police contingents to be under UN control in Timor-Leste. It decided last week to create a 1600 strong international police force to help the policing of East Timor. It is to be a police force, not a military contingent. It is not known at this time will command the UN police force.

The present military forces are to remain under Australian command but are to be scaled back to about half their present numbers. Malaysia, New Zealand and Portuguese contingents also make up the military component already stationed in East Timor.

The Australian Government argued in the Security Council discussions that the build up of a UN force was not necessary and that the UN should confine itself to questions of aid leaving Australians in command of the real military power in East Timor.

The International Federation for East Timor (IFET) (an East Timor support group) had called on the Security Council to create a new UN mission to Timor-Leste which fully integrates all international military components. “Any other arrangement will hinder the effectiveness of the overall mission and runs contrary to the preference of the people and government of Timor-Leste and the recommendations of the UN Secretary-General”, said John M Miller, IFET UN Representative. “Australia’s insistence on keeping its troops under a separate, national command structure will make coordination difficult, lessening the confidence and security that the UN Mission is intended to provide for the people of Timor-Leste.

Suspicion of motives

“Many people in Timor-Leste already suspect the motives, capability and impartiality of the Australian forces there now, and Australia’s refusal to be part of a UN force increases that distrust”, said Charles Scheiner, International Secretariat for IFET.

The Timor-Leste NGO Forum, in support of an integrated mission, said that “there will be a greater degree of accountability for UN forces as it is a civilian-led, international, neutral institution.” The group statement added, “There is an inherently unequal relationship in Timor-Leste’s dealings with other more powerful countries on a bilateral basis. Working through the UN would avoid this situation.”

However the Australian Gov-ernment is ignoring these views together with those of the East Timor government which had called upon the UN Security Council to provide a UN military force to back up a bigger police continent, thereby replacing the Australian force with one commanded by the UN.

The UN decision appears to be something of a compromise with Australia forced to accept a much greater UN role. In a sign of perhaps more troubles ahead, a recent but largely suppressed report tells of street gangs stoning Australian troops and burning several of their vehicles.

While Australian campaigning and manipulation succeeded in forcing Mari Alkatiri to resign as Prime Minister, the Australian Government’s objective of turning East Timor into a neo-colony and a base directed against Indonesia and East Asia generally may not succeed. The application of the East Timor Government to join ASEAN heads this new nation in a different direction.

That other countries are also suspicious of Australia’s motives is indicated by the remark of Brazil’s representative to the United Nations when he warned of the “danger of neo trusteeship”.

The next big event will be the general election due next year and Fretilin, which at present holds a clear majority of seats in East Timor’s parliament, is expected to retain the confidence of the majority of the people of East Timor. President Xanana Gusmao has indicated that he will not stand for re-election.

From The Guardian

Cuba Welcomes Trade with New Mexico

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:37:00 +0000

8-30-06, 8:54 am

Pedro Alvarez, president of Cuban Food Import Company (ALIMPORT), described as very positive and successful the recent signing of a letter of intent with Navajo farm businesspeople from the US state of New Mexico.

The US delegation, which visited Cuba last week, included Democrat legislator Tom Udall, representatives of the Navajo indigenous, and New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture Miley Gonzalez.

Alvarez told Prensa Latina that they achieved more progress than expected, as the visit concluded with the signing of a letter of intent to study the possibility of marketing potatoes, onions, yellow corn, wheat, as well as making some progress regarding cattle.

New Mexican authorities admitted there is high unemployment in the state, so they are looking for alternative solutions in Cuba, which boasts a close, reliable market, with facilities to launch their products, added Alvarez.

Cuba, which has been under a strict US-imposed economic, financial and commercial blockade for more than forty years, began to import US food in November 2001, in the wake of the devastation caused in the Island by Hurricane Michelle.

A license awarded by the US Congress in 2000 allowed for start of US food sales to Havana, disregarding current international trade regulations, as the Island has to pay in cash in advance.

Echoing Alvarez´ criticism of US measures, US Congressman Udall said the White House´s coercive measures against Cuba make trade very, very difficult.

He added that despite the US restrictions, 35 US states have so far signed agreements worth 800 million dollars for the sale of US products to the Island.

From Prensa Latina

Voices of Dissent: Pop Stars Take on Bushism

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:35:00 +0000

8-30-06, 8:51 am

Natalie Maines, of the Dixie Chicks (an unfortunate name for a great country group), in England, spoke up a few days before the start of the Iraq war. “Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas,' she said, shaking the music world. She added: “I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the US and alienating the rest of the world.' She took a courageous stance and it definitely challenged her fan base. Being in England and just coming from the US, she was fully aware of the millions of people in the streets trying to stop the war. Widely believed to be conservative, country and western fans were being asked to accept a very different viewpoint on a crucial issue of patriotism, war and peace. In their previous CD, Home they wrote and sang about a GI “Travelin’ Soldier,” in a very poignant, peaceful way, without glorifying mindless war. These comments sent a far stronger anti-war message. Maines’ comments were responded to by death threats. There was also opposition from some country singer stars, such as Toby Keith. While Maines did issue sort of an apology for the comments, she didn’t back down from her anti war stance. On the contrary, she showed no fear by wearing a tee shirt at one of her concerts, which had the initials, FUTK. Everyone knew what she meant. And, the Dixie Chicks were right. They felt their fan base would not desert them; and, they haven’t.

In fact, the trio appeared on the cover of the May 29, 2006 issue of Time Magazine. Maines took back her earlier statement: “I apologized for disrespecting the office of the president. But, I don’t feel that way anymore. I don’t feel he is owed any respect whatsoever.” Their newest CD Taking the Long Way, with their keynote song, “Not Ready to Make Nice” is there response to their detractors. They are still selling out large arenas. Their new CD is a truly great musical experience.

Similarly, Steve Earle, a popular folk/country artist, with a deep popularity in the country and western raucous, roadhouse world, has been challenging his fan base with songs opposing the death penalty, banning landmines and more recently overt anti-war songs. Another country rock star, James McMurtry, son of the mega star writer Larry McMurtry, has also moderately challenged his own fans, but now, with his latest CD, Childish Things he delivered his dramatically powerful “We Can’t Make it Here” to his audiences which now includes, the July 2005 Dallas, Texas gathering of Veterans for Peace. This gathering launched Cindy Sheehan’s attack on the Iraq War. Both Earle’s and McMurtry’s popularity has not diminished. But, their fan bases are not on the same scale as the Dixie Chicks and other major stars like Neil Young, the Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen.

Neil Young’s recent award-winning concert film and DVD, Heart of Gold, directed by academy award winner filmmaker Jonathan Demme, featured his new Grammy award winning CD Prairie Wind, which was written in the middle of 2005 just a few months after Young was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm. This brush with a serious medical condition seemed to have thrust him into a new level of songwriting and producing. Young had some sharp criticisms of the way religion is being politically used in the country. He also wrote and sang a poignant and scathing song appealing for racial unity, “When God Made Me.” Young is known for his soft-spoken, hard-playing songs. Until recently any political comments were quite oblique and often open to different interpretations. But, now, in his newly released CD, Living With War, Young went back to his historic anti-war song, almost 40 years ago, called “Ohio” which documented the killing of 4 Kent State Students protestors during the Viet Nam War. He seemed to pick up on the rage he expressed in his creation of “Greendale,” a CD, an immediate DVD and film about environmental crises. The 18-year old lead character, Sun Green, is woman activist who takes direction action to save the environment.

In Living with War, Young has come out swinging, there is no mistaking his lyrics. In fact, Young was so impassioned by the lyrics and presentation, that he had them made available on his website over three weeks prior to the release of the CD. You can be sure, that while a large proportion of Young’s fan base are aware of his liberal viewpoints, they are not going to be ready for his rage at the Bush administration. His impassioned opposition to the war in Iraq is coupled with his way out, “Impeach the President.” There is also a strong social justice theme in the CD.

The CD was written, produced and released in a very short period of time. Themes running through the CD are accusing the Bush administration of “lying, lying and lying” about the war to domestic issues: “Let’s impeach the President for lyin’; and misleading our country into war; abusing all the power we gave him; and, shipping all our money out the door.” Connecting to the “Prairie Wind” CD he further accuses the President: “Let’s impeach the President for hijacking; Our religion and using it to get elected; Dividing our country into colors; and, still leaving Black people neglected.” Spliced inside this song are actual sound clips of Bush’s press statement, e.g., “mission accomplished.”

In the “Looking for a Leader” Young urges leaders to step forward, “And, I hope he hears the call; and maybe it’s a woman; or a Black man afterall.” In the song “Shock and Awe,” Young draws attention to the returning military dead: “Thousands of bodies in the ground; brought home in boxes to a trumpet’s sound.” In “Flags of Freedom,” he directly links to the 1963 song by Bob Dylan which helped ignite a period of protest. Young’s lyrics here update those thoughts and respond to the sea of US flags that are in some communities, but he sees a different message from those flags: “Flags that line old Main Street; are blowin’ in the wind; these must be the flags of freedom flyin’.”

Critics could have labeled this CD more journalistic than musical, but that is unjust. Young knows how to write and sing his thoughts so that the highest form of rock music is created. This is hard driving passionate CD. It is a truly important effort.

In interviews, he has made it clear that he isn’t done yet. Though the rocker is Canadian born, he has lived in Northern California for over 40 years. In his film Heart of Gold, Young takes us back to his purchase of that Northern California ranch and the couple who were living there. At that time Young was about 24 years old and the man was far older. That was where he wrote, “Old Man Take a Look at Your Life.” In the DVD, Young talks about and sings that song with a new gusto and personal commitment. He sells out his concerts and those he teams up with his old crew, Crosby, Stills and Nash.

The singer with the world’s biggest rock and roll fan base may be Bruce Springsteen. With his newest CD dedicated to Peter Seeger and entitled We Shall Overcome – the Seeger Sessions, Springsteen sends a clear message where his political allegiances lie. On this CD, while he doesn’t sing any songs written by Seeger, Springsteen combines the themes of Louisiana Dixieland and Cajun harmonies/melodies with traditional folk music, US and international. The Irish anti-war song, “Mrs. McGrath” will be familiar to Irish traditionalists. It sends a message for justice and peace that is unmistakably anti-war and angry: “Then came Ted without any legs; and in their place two wooden legs; she kissed him a dozen times or two; and, said, ‘My God Ted is that you?’” And, a comment on foreign wars which clearly is a reference to the Iraq war:

All foreign wars I do proclaim live on blood and a mother’s pain I’d rather have any son as he used to be than the king of America and his whole Navy!

The folk/blues economic based songs of “Eyes on the Prize” and “Pay Me My Money Down” is especially important in these days of economic crisis. They display his call for economic justice as we fight for a peaceful world. Mocking the excess wealth of Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, the Boss sings:

Well I wish I was Mr. Gates pay me my money down they’d haul my money in, in crates pay me my money down.”

Songs like “Erie Canal” and “John Henry” put Springsteen squarely on the side of working people. Starting the CD with “Old Dan Tucker” was genius. It gets listeners off their seats and dancing. This has always been Pete Seeger’s mantra. It comes as no surprise that he started his tour with this CD at the May 2006, Jazz and Heritage Festival in New Orleans – the place where the Bush administration has showed its true class and race biases. Moving much closer to folk and blues will be a challenge to many Springsteen fans.

Springsteen’s previous CD Devils and Dust presents his searing comments on capitalist globalization. His albums Nebraska and Tom Joad were important populists efforts, but this latest release moves him toward a folk audience that might prove to be very different.

On the other hand, Mick Jagger, lead singer for the Rolling Stones, not known for being anything more than an ageless angry iconoclastic, raucous, sexual angst icon in his rock and roll songs, delivered a sharp blow to the Bush administration in the Stones’ new CD, A Bigger Bang. The CD’s songs were traditional Stones with lots of their usual sexual references and seemingly mindless anger. But, one song will challenge their fan base. It is called: “SWEETNEOCON.” The song is written by Jagger and Keith Richards. They start off the song with,

You call yourself a Christian I think that you’re a hypocrite You say you are a patriot I think that you are a cock of shit

Later in this song, they take direct swings at Bush and Halliburton,

But one thing is certain Life is Good at Halliburton If you’re really so astute You should Invest in Brown and Root.

Just before that phrase, they worry about the attack on civil liberties:

It’s liberty, for all Democracy’s our style Unless you are against us then it’s prison without trial.

This CD was released late in 2005. Invited to sing at the football Super Bowl in Detroit, Michigan, at the end of January 2006, NFL owners reportedly were fearful that the band would sing that song. They didn’t. But, the song remains on the Stones CD. Recently, it was reported that the Stones were booked into the best suite in the best hotel in Vienna, the Imperial Hotel, the place where world leaders also billeted. It was reported that the Bush administration had their eye on that same suite that Jagger had. But, Jagger made it clear that they would not be giving it up to their favorite Neo Con. The Stones have since denied this rumor – a typical Stones’ denial that somehow gets out.

While not every musical crossover yields anti-war, social justice themes, many are nonetheless significant and progressive. Why? Many music listeners are often mired in their own cultural world. They often do not understand or appreciate other genres. “Crossing over” often represents an opening of a new world, a change that benefits both worlds. In some situations, the move represents a progressive turn. A number of major artists have moved into that direction, and, as evident, from country and western tradtions. Whether it represents a blue to red state challenge isn’t stated. Who is to say? Certainly not the artists, (at least not publicly).

Old time rock and sometimes jazz star Van Morrison in is his second crossover [his “You Win Again” with Jerry Lee Lewis’ kin, Linda Gail Lewis, being his first in that direction] to country and western, put out Pay the Devil recently. This artist includes the lyrics of some old time favorites like, “There Stands the Glass.” Morrison often moves between jazz and rock; but the move to country and western is very different.

In another cross over development Grammy award winning jazz singer and pianist Nora Jones, in honoring Willie Nelson, combined with her Austin, Texas friends a CD entitled, The Little Willies. The Jones CD, oddly, does not include a booklet. Jazz star Nora Jones’ crossover represents a bigger shift for her fans than the Morrison move. Jazz enthusiasts are often not understanding of country and western roots. And, country and western enthusiasts of Willy Nelson, by listening to Jones, moves them in a progressive direction. The struggle against racism is particularly enhanced by this crossover. While both represent progressive movement in action; and are certainly worth buying, but, again please don’t look for direct political lyrics. That is not the point here. It is the action of linking these music genres which is objectively progressive.

As can be seen from the above, while we move toward the 2006 congressional elections, there is a growing creative artists’ movement helping to throw out the Republicans and give the people a real chance to challenge for the White House. They seem to understand that we cannot wait for the 2008 presidential elections. These song writers and singers, combined with the “over the top” film makers and actors, as witnessed by this year’s Academy Awards winners are surely just the tip of a swelling iceberg of fight back among artists, writers and performers.

The arts, theatre and music community is reflecting the peace and justice majority in our country. The Bush administration’s rock bottom approval rating must be extended to the ballot box in November 2006 and beyond. The deepening political resolve to put people back in charge of our government, as reflected in the arts and creative community, makes that all the more possible.

Cuba announces medical education scholarships for 500 Pakistanis

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:22:00 +0000

8-29-06, 11:38 a.m.

ISLAMABAD • The first batch of 500 Pakistani students will leave for Cuba this year to start their medical education under the scholarships announced by Cuba, Cuban Ambassador to Pakistan Gustavo Machin Gomez has said.

Havana announced the scholarships when its medical teams worked in the earthquake-affected areas in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and North West Frontier Province.

He said that modalities are being finalised with the Pakistani government through Higher Education Commission, Ministry of Health and Education to select the students. The ambassador said 1,000 scholarships were announced by Cuba for the Pakistani students.

The Higher Education Commission has announced programme for these scholarships for Pakistani students by the Cuban government for graduate studies in general comprehensive medicine (equivalent to MBBS), in leading Cuban medical institutions.

The Cuban ambassador, who is the first to Islamabad after up-gradation and reopening of its embassy, said the two countries have long standing diplomatic ties that will be taken to a higher level.

He said with the exchange of delegations particularly the scholarships for the students would further promote relations between the two countries.

A committee headed by HEC Chairman Prof Dr Atta-ur-Rahman has been formed, which includes representatives of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health to finalise the students for Cuba. The scholarship programme include regular graduate programmes in general comprehensive medicine for a period of five years.

The Cuban ambassador said Pakistan and Cuba have a vast scope of improving their bilateral, trade, economic and cultural relations and were heading in that direction.

From

Venezuelan lawmakers investigating US funding

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:06:00 +0000

8-29-06, 11:24 a.m.

It is no secret that the Bush administration despises Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the progressive policies pursued by that country, including its solidarity with Cuba. What is a secret, so far, is the identity of organizations within Venezuela who are receiving funding from the US government.

In an article released today, Ian James of the Associated Press reports that Chavez supporters are criticizing the decision of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) not to disclose names of 'pro-democracy' groups in Venezuela who have received financial assistance. USAID has cited privacy concerns as support for their decision to withold identification of some of the Venezuelan groups they've supported.

'We want everything to come out publicly,' said Venezuelan congressman Jose Albornoz in the Associated Press dispatch. Albornoz is described as the leader of a Venezuelan commission investigating US funding for a group called Sumate which, according to Albornoz, is a US backed group organized to oppose the Chavez government.

President Chavez has been open and vocal in expressing his view that the Bush administration has made efforts to destabilize his government. Rev. Pat Robertson, a long-time figure on the evangelical/fundamentalist ultra-right and a previously unsuccessful candidate for the Republican Party's presidential nomination, gained a measure of infamy when he suggested in 2005 that the US government assassinate Chavez -- a remark for which he was almost universally condemned.

The US history of intereference in central and South America is well documented. Venezuela is a member nation of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and has made heating oil readily available through Citgo to low-income households in the northeastern part of the US -- an initiative that infuriated the Bush administration. President Chavez recently announced the continuation of this program for another year.

Some of the questions raised about whom the US in funding in Venezuela may be answered when the US Circuit Court in Washington, DC hears a lawsuit brought by journalist Jeremy Bigwood and attorney Eva Golinger. The lawsuit, brought under the Freedom of Information Act, seeks full disclosure and contends the provisions of the US Privacy Act do not apply to organizations.

Wealth Gap Grows on Republican Policies

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:11:00 +0000

8-29-06, 9:28 am

Over the last five years, there has been a new concentration of wealth in the hands of the few in the US. Meanwhile, middle and lower-income families have seen their already precarious financial solvency eroded by rising debt and stagnant wages, according to the most recent analysis by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

Wealth, or the lack of it (and debt), plays an obvious role in people's ability to purchase basic necessities, higher education, retirement security, and to cope with financial emergencies (like major illness or unemployment). And because existing wealth (or debt) is a major factor in having access (or lack of access) to opportunities to accumulate more wealth, measuring how wealth is distributed is an important means of calculating the standard of living as well as more abstract principles like democracy and equality.

In its soon-to-be-released volume 'The State of Working America, 2006/2007,' EPI estimates that the top 1% of households controlled about 34.4% of all net worth in the economy with each household averaging about $15 million in wealth in 2004. Between 2001 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1% grew by about $1.25 million, and that group of people hold an average of $3.3 million in stocks. By 2004, the top 1% of households owned 190 times what the typical, middle-income household owns.

By contrast, the bottom 90% controlled a mere 19% of all financial assets. Nearly 1/3 of US households own $10,000 or less in wealth, with slightly more than half of that group in the red. In fact the average wealth of the bottom 20% shrank between 2001 and 2004 by almost $3,000 to -$11.400. That's right, negative $11,400.

Racial divisions further complicate the wealth gap. According to EPI's findings, one important source of wealth ownership for most middle income families is home ownership. Seventy-three percent of white households own their home, while only 48.2% of African American households and 49.5% of Latino households do. This difference plays a significant role in contributing to the fact that the median white household was worth $118,000, while, in contrast, the median Black household was worth only $11,800 in 2004, according to the latest available figures.

The growing wealth gap in the US says something about US society, especially under the Bush administration, says Lawrence Mishel, president of EPI and co-author of 'The State of Working America, 2006/2007.' 'They talk about the vast democratization of wealth,' Mishel remarked at a recent news conference, 'which turns out not to be so much the case.'

Mishel cites the Bush administration's tax policies as the main culprit in the increase in the wealth gap. Bush's tax policies essentially shifted the burden to finance the federal government from the wealthy and the capital they own to the wages of the working class. Specifically, reductions in capital gains taxes and other taxes on wealth producing assets have benefited the richest sections of society, freeing capital for more capital accumulation (rather than circulation of more money in the economy as is pretended by pro-tax cut pundits).

Meanwhile, tax cuts have shown little direct benefit to middle- and lower-income households as they own few, if any, wealth producing assets. Instead, the bulk of the tax burden is shifted to taxes on wages, usually the main source of income for working families. The effect is that on top of rising medical and educational costs, high gas prices, higher rates of debt, and other financial emergencies that inevitably arise, working families are finding few extra resources for wealth accumulation let alone savings.

In the midst of increased costs of necessities, the New York Times reports, wages and salaries as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 50 percent in 2001 to 45 percent in the first quarter of this year. This decline disproportionately affects lower and middle-income households as the very richest Americans only earn about two-thirds of their income through wages and salaries, while working families, as has been shown earn very little income outside of wage income.

What measures might be adopted to reverse this trend and protect a good standard of living for working families?

First, strengthen the collective bargaining power of workers for better pay and benefits by guaranteeing their right to organize labor unions.

Second, a universal health care program, like the Medicare-for-all plan proposed by H.R. 676 introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), could control the cost of medical care and prescription drugs, allowing working families more disposable income available for savings and other necessities.

Third, repeal the Bush tax cuts for the richest households, capital gains, and estates.

Fourth, strengthen Social Security by ensuring a guaranteed livable income tied to rises in the cost of living with full benefits for retired and retiring workers.

Fifth, provide subsidies to working families to encourage savings. Ideally, these would take the form of direct payments to working families to start savings accounts – much like the billions of dollars the Republican-controlled Congress gave to oil companies in 2005 simply for existing, but with broader social benefits.

Sixth, use carefully developed affirmative action policies to stimulate job growth, government investment, and infrastructural development (health care facilities, schools, roads, public transportation, small businesses, housing, basic services, etc.) in areas populated predominantly by African Americans and Latinos to close the racial wage and wealth gap.

Of course such an agenda, which probably could be accomplished for less than the cost of one Bush war on Iraq (over $308 billion at this point), would require removing the Republicans from power and installing representatives who are willing to put the needs of the majority before the wealthy few.

--Contact Joel Wendland at

America's Rottweiler

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:01:00 +0000

8-29-06, 9:18 am

In his latest speech, which infuriated so many people, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad uttered a sentence that deserves attention: 'Every new Arab generation hates Israel more than the previous one.'

Of all that has been said about the Second Lebanon War, these are perhaps the most important words.

The main product of this war is hatred. The pictures of death and destruction in Lebanon entered every Arab home, indeed every Muslim home, from Indonesia to Morocco, from Yemen to the Muslim ghettos in London and Berlin. Not for an hour, not for a day, but for 33 successive days - day after day, hour after hour. The mangled bodies of babies, the women weeping over the ruins of their homes, Israeli children writing 'greetings' on shells about to be fired at villages, Ehud Olmert blabbering about 'the most moral army in the world' while the screen showed a heap of bodies.

Israelis ignored these sights, indeed they were scarcely shown on our TV. Of course, we could see them on Aljazeera and some Western channels, but Israelis were much too busy with the damage wrought in our Northern towns. Feelings of pity and empathy for non-Jews have been blunted here a long time ago.

But it is a terrible mistake to ignore this result of the war. It is far more important than the stationing of a few thousand European troops along our border, with the kind consent of Hizbullah. It may still be bothering generations of Israelis, when the names Olmert and Halutz have long been forgotten, and when even Nasrallah no longer remember the name Amir Peretz.

IN ORDER for the significance of Assad's words to become clear, they have to be viewed in a historical context.

The whole Zionist enterprise has been compared to the transplantation of an organ into the body of a human being. The natural immunity system rises up against the foreign implant, the body mobilizes all its power to reject it. The doctors use a heavy dosage of medicines in order to overcome the rejection. That can go on for a long time, sometimes until the eventual death of the body itself, including the transplant.

(Of course, this analogy, like any other, should be treated cautiously. An analogy can help in understanding things, but no more than that.)

The Zionist movement has planted a foreign body in this country, which was then a part of the Arab-Muslim space. The inhabitants of the country, and the entire Arab region, rejected the Zionist entity. Meanwhile, the Jewish settlement has taken roots and become an authentic new nation rooted in the country. Its defensive power against the rejection has grown. This struggle has been going on for 125 years, becoming more violent from generation to generation. The last war was yet another episode.

WHAT IS our historic objective in this confrontation?

A fool will say: to stand up to the rejection with a growing dosage of medicaments, provided by America and World Jewry. The greatest fools will add: There is no solution. This situation will last forever. There is nothing to be done about it but to defend ourselves in war after war after war. And the next war is already knocking on the door.

The wise will say: our objective is to cause the body to accept the transplant as one of its organs, so that the immune system will no longer treat us as an enemy that must be removed at any price. And if this is the aim, it must become the main axis of our efforts. Meaning: each of our actions must be judged according to a simple criterion: does it serve this aim or obstruct it?

According to this criterion, the Second Lebanon War was a disaster.

FIFTY NINE years ago, two months before the outbreak of our War of Independence, I published a booklet entitled 'War or Peace in the Semitic Region'. Its opening words were:

'When our Zionist fathers decided to set up a 'safe haven' in Palestine, they had a choice between two ways:

'They could appear in West Asia as a European conqueror, who sees himself as a bridge-head of the 'white' race and a master of the 'natives', like the Spanish Conquistadores and the Anglo-Saxon colonists in America. That is what the Crusaders did in Palestine.

'The second way was to consider themselves as an Asian nation returning to its home - a nation that sees itself as an heir to the political and cultural heritage of the Semitic race, and which is prepared to join the peoples of the Semitic region in their war of liberation from European exploitation.'

As is well known, the State of Israel, which was established a few months later, chose the first way. It gave its hand to colonial France, tried to help Britain to return to the Suez Canal and, since 1967, has become the little sister of the United States.

That was not inevitable. On the contrary, in the course of years there have been a growing number of indications that the immune system of the Arab-Muslim body is starting to incorporate the transplant - as a human body accepts the organ of a close relative - and is ready to accept us. Such an indication was the visit of Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem. Such was the peace treaty signed with us by King Hussein, a descendent of the Prophet. And, most importantly, the historic decision of Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian people, to make peace with Israel.

But after every huge step forward, there came an Israeli step backward. It is as if the transplant rejects the body's acceptance of it. As if it has become so accustomed to being rejected, that it does all it can to induce the body to reject it even more.

It is against this background that one should weigh the words spoken by Assad Jr., a member of the new Arab generation, at the end of the recent war.

AFTER EVERY single one of the war aims put forward by our government had evaporated, one after the other, another reason was brought up: this war was a part of the 'clash of civilizations', the great campaign of the Western world and its lofty values against the barbarian darkness of the Islamic world.

That reminds one, of course, of the words written 110 years ago by the father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in the founding document of the Zionist movement: 'In Palestine, we shall constitute for Europe a part of the wall against Asia, and serve as the vanguard of civilization against barbarism.' Without knowing, Olmert almost repeated this formula in his justification of his war, in order to please President Bush.

It happens from time to time in the United States that somebody invents an empty but easily digested slogan, which then dominates the public discourse for some time. It seems that the more stupid the slogan is, the better its chances of becoming the guiding light for academia and the media - until another slogan appears and supersedes it. The latest example is the slogan 'Clash of Civilizations', coined by Samuel P. Huntington in 1993 (taking over from the 'End of History').

What clash of ideas is there between Muslim Indonesia and Christian Chile? What eternal struggle between Poland and Morocco? What is it that unifies Malaysia and Kosovo, two Muslim nations? Or two Christian nations like Sweden and Ethiopia?

In what way are the ideas of the West more sublime than those of the East? The Jews that fled the flames of the auto-da-fe of the Christian Inquisition in Spain were received with open arms by the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The most cultured of European nations democratically elected Adolf Hitler as its leader and perpetrated the Holocaust, without the Pope raising his voice in protest.

In what way are the spiritual values of the United States, today's Empire of the West, superior to those of India and China, the rising stars of the East? Huntington himself was compelled to admit: 'The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.' In the West, too, women won the vote only in the 20th century, and slavery was abolished there only in the second half of the 19th. And in the leading nation of the West, fundamentalism is now also raising its head.

What interest, for goodness sake, have we in volunteering to be a political and military vanguard of the West in this imagined clash?

THE TRUTH is, of course, that this entire story of the clash of civilizations is nothing but an ideological cover for something that has no connection with ideas and values: the determination of the United States to dominate the world's resources, and especially oil.

The Second Lebanon War is considered by many as a 'War by Proxy'. That's to say: Hizbullah is the Dobermann of Iran, we are the Rottweiler of America. Hizbullah gets money, rockets and support from the Islamic Republic, we get money, cluster bombs and support from the United States of America.

That is certainly exaggerated. Hizbullah is an authentic Lebanese movement, deeply rooted in the Shiite community. The Israeli government has its own interests (the occupied territories) that do not depend on America. But there is no doubt that there is much truth in the argument that this was also a war by substitutes.

The US is fighting against Iran, because Iran has a key role in the region where the most important oil reserves in the world are located. Not only does Iran itself sit on huge oil deposits, but through its revolutionary Islamic ideology it also menaces American control over the near-by oil countries. The declining resource oil becomes more and more essential in the modern economy. He who controls the oil controls the world.

The US would viciously attack Iran even it were peopled with pigmies devoted to the religion of the Dalai Lama. There is a shocking similarity between George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The one has personal conversations with Jesus, the other has a line to Allah. But the name of the game is domination.

What interest do we have to get involved in this struggle? What interest do we have in being regarded - accurately - as the servants of the greatest enemy of the Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular?

We want to live here in 100 years, in 500 years. Our most basic national interests demand that we extend our hands to the Arab nations that accept us, and act together with them for the rehabilitation of this region. That was true 59 years ago, and that will be true 59 years hence.

Little politicians like Olmert, Peretz and Halutz are unable to think in these terms. They can hardly see as far as the end of their noses. But where are the intellectuals, who should be more far-sighted?

Bashar al-Assad may not be one of the world's Great Thinkers. But his remark should certainly give us pause for thought.

From Gush Shalom

Guatemala’s Heinous Human Rights Record and Non-compliance with UN Mandates

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:56:00 +0000

8-29-06, 9:13 am

If Son of Sam suggested that his record as New York City’s most notorious serial killer in modern memory qualified him for a place on the bench as a state appellate judge, most reasonable people would express serious reservations. Many would rightly point out that there is a logical gap about the size of the Hudson River between experience committing crimes and experience bringing criminals to justice. Few, however, are questioning a case with striking parallels: Guatemala’s bid for the temporary Latin American seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Incontestably, Guatemala has been one of the worst human rights violators in Latin American history, a fact made evident by the bloody state-sanctioned military rampage that raged from 1962 to 1996, and took at least 200,000 lives. Such a deeply stained past would ordinarily make Guatemala a grotesque choice to oversee critical human rights issues that may arise during its two-year tenure on the council. Instead of being appalled at a request by its satrap to serve on the international body created to ensure world peace, the White House, extraordinarily enough, is Guatemala’s leading tout and is involved, in an all-out campaign to block Venezuela—the present front runner—from being awarded the seat.

Not only does Guatemala’s notorious human rights record require condemnation, but its current government repeatedly has failed to meet recent UN mandates to bring its known mass murderers to justice. One international body has found that only one of the 626 massacres documented by the UN Commission for Historical Clarification (known informally at the Truth Commission) has been successfully prosecuted by the Guatemalan courts. The problem stems, from the fact that some of the country’s officials, who normally would be responsible for bringing these known suspects to justice, were themselves part of the nation-wide killing machine that butchered tens of thousands of innocent civilians during Guatemala’s thirty-four year civil war. In fact, the Truth Commission’s 1996 report attributes the vast majority of these killings to Guatemalan government forces. The report explains that the state amplified a minor insurgency into an internecine struggle and had its agents annihilate the “internal enemies”: Catholics, communists, Mayans, academics or other dissenters amongst the public. By backing Guatemala’s bid for the UN seat, Washington is asking the international body to reward the Central American nation, who refused to comply with past UN reforms, while thwarting the candidacy of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez—Washington’s new Latin America bete noire.

Massacres Go Unpunished

While the recent rhetoric of Guatemalan officials has assumed a more civilized tone in order to influence the international community to forget their past military horrors, they are still failing miserably at addressing the modest remedies called for by the UN’s Truth Commission. International human rights bodies have found that Guatemala’s armed forces and other state institutions have not cooperated with investigators. Furthermore, many witnesses involved in politically volatile cases, are not being adequately protected from corrupt Guatemalan officials. On May 27, Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, “there has been no significant progress in combating impunity or eliminating the clandestine groups responsible for the massacres.” Arbour further notes the persistence of discrimination against indigenous Mayan people, the group most targeted in the civil war. These violent suppressors have not been sufficiently addressed – another gross failure in Guatemala’s implementation of the UN Peace Accord on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While flaunting its disregard for the concerns of the international community represented by the UN-brokered Peace Accord and the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guatemala officials audaciously promote their pursuit of the UN Security Council seat. Astonishingly enough, this morally leprous government has become Washington’s leading candidate.

Guatemala City has argued, to the incredulity of some UN representatives, that it deserves the Security Council seat precisely because it has learned much from its first-person experience with post-massacre remedial efforts. In a diplomatic paper presented at the General Assembly – whose members will ultimately decide whether Venezuela or Guatemala will serve on the Council – Guatemalan officials contend that their “commitment to peace, born of [their] own experience” is a “compelling” reason why it qualifies for the post. This disreputable document goes so far as to meretriciously claim that Guatemala has significantly improved “its strict observances of human rights.” However, many maintain that the present situation is more of a case of crime without punishment. The truth is that while some small, largely cosmetic steps have indeed been taken, Guatemala has failed to meet the Truth Commission and Peace Accord mandates. Nevertheless, in spite of its failure to abide by UN rulings at home, ironically Guatemala officials claim that that they will prove to be a faithful servitor in ensuring that other nations will follow Security Council resolutions, which they themselves have systematically flouted.

The Bush administration, guided by the State Department’s train wrecked Latin American policies, is following in the misguided steps of its predecessors dating back to the 1950s, and is adamantly backing Guatemala’s UN ambitions. Moreover, Washington refuses to acknowledge its ally’s dark past, including the murder of a number of U.S. citizens by Guatemalan security forces. During the Central American country’s civil war, the U.S.-trained junior Guatemalan military officers at the School of the Americas were taught torture and counterinsurgency techniques, which they later mercilessly applied against innocent highland indigenous settlements in a scorched earth “beans and bullets” campaign. With this training, the Guatemala military was better equipped to commit a horrific genocide against its own indigenous population. Today these officers hold senior command positions, with unexpunged compromised pasts. At a time when the simplicity of the Red Scare dominated American news of the region, Guatemalan leaders were easily able to gain military resources from the U.S. to eliminate the supposed communist targets invented by local commanders and righteous vigilantes. Several U.S. administrations holding office during this civil conflict—the most notable being the Reagan administration—were so obsessed with supporting anti-communist efforts abroad that they were blind to the barbarous steps being taken by Guatemalan authorities against their fellow citizens.

Today, the Bush administration is similarly consumed by a disproportionate rage against Venezuela’s Chávez and his picante anti-Washington rhetoric. Rather than be scandalized by the appropriateness of Guatemala’s bid for the UN post, the White House allows its own ideological extremism, based on countering Chávez, to blot out the moral imperatives that should be guiding its actions. For an administration hell-bent on propagating its democratic agenda, Guatemala’s past atrocities are surprisingly absent from President Bush’s and Secretary of State Rice’s selective indignation towards pariah regimes, which exclude nations which are of tactical use to them.

The U.S. decision to help the Guatemalan military to effectively massacre a hecatomb of innocent civilians screams out for a reevaluation of Guatemala’s Security Council campaign. Instead of asking the international community to ignore Guatemala’s failure to prosecute known human rights transgressors, protect the Mayan population from the military’s heartless sword, and apprehend the murderers of U.S. nationals by Guatemalan security forces, the Bush Administration should make up for its own past indifference to Guatemala’s tawdry reputation. It could do this by terminating its support for Guatemala and backing Venezuela’s bid for the seat—a post for which it is demonstrably more qualified to fill.

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs

US Economy under Stress

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:00 +0000

8-29-06, 9:08 am

Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University compares the US economy to a dinosaur, whose bulk once shook the ground. Yet it disappeared from the face of the earth. Like the dinosaur, 'the US economy is mind-bogglingly enormous, two and a half times as big as the next largest economy in the world and almost as large as that of the six other members of the Group of Seven combined. The catch is that it has to consume almost incessantly to sustain its great heft.' This reveals its great weakness and the inherent seed of its likely collapse at some future date.

The American economy is the most parasitical in the world. It feeds upon the rest of the world to prosper. Even though it is the richest, it is also the most indebted country. This is reflected in two deficits, the fiscal deficit and the trade deficit.

In 1989, when the country started worrying about the national debt, it stood at 2.7 trillion dollars. Eleven years later, in September 2000, it exceeded 5.6 trillion dollars. It now stands at more than 8.3 trillion dollars, belying all hopes that the national debt would decline and completely disappear, leading to a balanced budget. Thus, George W. Bush has established a new national debt record. Bush's own contribution to pushing up the level of the national debt is quite significant. He cannot blame reduced federal revenue receipts on the 2001 recession (due to the dot.com bust) or the increasing volume of the national debt on problems inherited from the Clinton administration.

That recession is long over, economic growth has been looking up, and the unemployment rate has declined, even though outsourcing overseas has shifted abroad quite a sizable number of jobs. It must not be forgotten that the Clinton administration left a fiscal surplus of 2 percent of the GDP and that the Bush administration has converted it into a deficit. This has happened mainly as a result of the generous tax cuts for higher income groups and military adventurism abroad. Needless to say, it is the Bush administration that has been responsible. If the policies pursued by the Bush administration are not reversed, by 2016 the national debt is likely to reach 12.8 trillion dollars. Mind you, this is the estimate given by the Congressional Budget Office.

The Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz blames the growing fiscal deficit on domestic economic policies more than military adventurism abroad. To quote: 'Of course, the war in Iraq has contributed, but so too have the enormous increases in corporate welfare and the subsidies for agriculture. The effective tax amnesty, inducing American corporations to bring their money back to America in return for paying a tax that is a sixth of their normal tax, has made this year's revenues look better than they otherwise would, and the deficit smaller than it otherwise would. Make no mistake, however; there is an enormous structural deficit in the American economy thanks to increased public spending and tax breaks for business and the wealthy. And structural deficits do not just go away by themselves.'

The military adventurism in Iraq is going to cost somewhere between 1 trillion and 2 trillion dollars. This is far more than the initial estimate by the Bush administration, which was put at 50 billion dollars. Soon after the invasion of Iraq, it was realized that the war was going to be much more difficult than initially expected. To quote Professor Stiglitz's interview in Germany's Der Spiegel, 'They thought they were going to walk in, everybody would say thank you, and they would set up a democratic government and leave. Now that this war is lasting so much longer, they constantly have to adapt their budget. It rose from 50 billion to 250 billion dollars. Today, the Congressional Budget Office talks about 500 billion dollars or more for this adventure.'

Even if the American intervention in Iraq comes to an end in a few months or years, the US government will have to continue to spend to meet the costs of the lifetime disabilities and health care expenses of those returning from Iraq. In addition the government will incur war-related expenses on new recruitment to fill up the vacancies due to the casualties in the Iraq war. All these costs will add up to billions of dollars. It is feared that raising the national debt ceiling will lead to larger interest payments, which will eat up the revenues that could have been spent on other programs. As every student of economics knows, larger public debt may push up long-term interest rates that may, in turn, crowd out private investment. Besides, increased debt has implications for the distribution of national income, in that bondholders may get a larger slice of the national cake. Some economists, such as Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters, hold that the actual fiscal deficit of the US federal government is much larger than what the official sources indicate.

There is a huge trade deficit because America imports much more than it exports. It is estimated that America has been borrowing 2 billion dollars abroad daily to cover its foreign trade deficit. Thus, the richest country in the world is a net debtor because it has been living beyond its means. Since the dollar is a widely accepted international currency, America prints as much as is required and sends it abroad to meet its liabilities. From all over the world, governments, corporate entities, and individuals buy American government bonds and bring in huge sums of money so that the US never faces any liquidity crunch. Suppose, however, that tomorrow the universal acceptability of the dollar disappears or declines and the foreigners refuse to invest in American government bonds. Then the US economy will be in great difficulties.

From New Age Weekly, a publication of the Communist Party of India

Adultery is serious; this is just the Constitution

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:25:00 +0000

8-29-06, 8:44 a.m.

There is a growing grassroots campaign demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush. Across the nation, towns and cities have been passing pro-impeachment resolutions. Websites promoting impeachment keep springing up. In several states, bills have been introduced in state legislatures that, if passed, would become formal bills of impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives, requiring initiation of impeachment hearings under congressional rules dating back to the early 19th century.

Starting last fall, several polls (Zogby, 10/29=29/05, 1/9=12/06; Ipsos, 10/6=9/05) reported that a majority of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he lied the country into war in Iraq or if he authorized warrantless spying on Americans. Those poll results were reported all over the Internet, but they barely made it into any mainstream corporate news reports. Indeed, impeachment itself is getting short shrift in the media, despite all this impeachment organizing activity.

When the House Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.), introduced a bill in December calling for creation of a select committee to investigate 'possible impeachable crimes' by Bush, the dramatic move received virtually no mainstream coverage beyond an AP wire item (12/21/05). Even as the number of Democratic House members co-sponsoring that bill rose from an initial handful to 39, it has received scant attention. The first time impeachment made the front page of the Washington Post was March 25, 2006, when that paper finally ran a story on the wave of town government resolutions across the country.

Interestingly, though, the Post did provide Conyers space on the op-ed page for a column explaining that he would not immediately push for impeachment should he become chair of the House Judiciary Committee ('No Rush to Impeachment,' 5/18/06).

Similarly, when Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) introduced a censure measure in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the New York Times tucked it away on page A17 (3/13/06). But days later, when Republicans tried to sideline the measure by claiming that such a move would help them in November by 'energizing' their conservative base, the Times perversely played that classic 'reaction' story on Page 1 (3/16/06).

In part, the media downplaying of impeachment may reflect a now-longstanding fear on the part of editors of frontally challenging the Bush administration. It may, however, also reflect the affinity of many in the higher echelons of the corporate news media for the timid and conservative Democratic Party leadership, which has made no bones about its fear and loathing of impeachment and of other more confrontational stances of the party's progressive wing.

Certainly the corporate media's approach to calls for Bush's impeachment contrasts markedly with the same outlets' coverage of the Clinton impeachment effort in the late 1990s. Though public support for Clinton's impeachment never got above about 36 percent, even at the height of congressional impeachment proceedings, many media outlets responded to the prospect of impeachment by calling on Clinton to resign. According to the Columbia Journalism Review (11=12/98), by September 1998, 181 newspapers (roughly one in 10 papers in the country) had called for his resignation--including major papers like USA Today (9/14/98) and the Philadelphia Inquirer (9/12/98). Other news organizations, among them Business Week (9/28/98) and the Houston Chronicle (9/10/98), were calling for censure.

Yet Clinton's offense was simply lying under oath about an adulterous affair.

Bush, in contrast, has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' telecommunications without a warrant, in clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (New York Times, 12/16/05). Beyond that, documents show he okayed torture of captives in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, contravening the Third Geneva Accord on treatment of prisoners of war, an international accord that was long ago adopted as U.S. law (Human Rights Watch, 'Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by U.S. Forces,' 1/29/02).

He has blatantly subverted the Constitution by claiming the right to ignore (so far) 750 acts [now over 800] duly passed by Congress (Boston Globe, 4/30/06). He has defied the courts in revoking the most basic rights of citizenship-the right to be charged and tried in a court of law (Guardian, 12/5/02). And the evidence is overwhelming that he knowingly lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and about Hussein's alleged link to Al-Qaeda, in order to win public and Congressional approval for his invasion of Iraq (Center for American Progress: 'Claims vs. Facts: Iraq/Al-Qaeda Links').

These and other Bush offenses pose direct threats to the Constitution and to the survival of the Republic, and yet, despite widespread concern and outrage among the public about many of these actions, not one major corporate news organization has called for Bush's resignation, the initiation of impeachment proceedings, or even for censure --even those that made such fervent appeals for Clinton's removal or resignation over a transgression that at worst was an embarrassment to the nation.

'The media have been acting drastically differently this time around than they did with Clinton,' says David Swanson, co-founder of the organization AfterDowningStreet.org, which has been helping to organize an impeachment movement, and to make impeachment part of the 2006 off-year Congressional election campaign. 'Under Clinton, the media were gung-ho for impeachment or for resignation, and the public refused to cooperate. Now the public wants impeachment and the media won't cooperate.'

Swanson argues that the media's avoidance of the impeachment story is akin to their ducking of responsibility during the build-up to and in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. 'Just as they've been afraid to publish each new piece of evidence about the lies that led to war,' he says, 'they've been afraid to expose the president's impeachable crimes. I think it's because in both cases they've been complicit in those lies and crimes. It's not so much loyalty to Bush over Clinton as it is fear of investigations. With congressional investigations, people would start asking, 'Why didn't we know any of this stuff before?''

There are signs that the impeachment story may go mainstream, however. Pelosi and Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) are both still trying to downplay the notion that the Democrats would move to impeach Bush if they succeeded in capturing the House in November. But as the prospects for such a shift continue to grow (only 15 seats need to change hands), and as Bush's support (as low as 29 percent in current polls) continues to tank, the realization that an impeachment bill will likely be filed after election day, whether by some state legislature or by a newly elected or re-elected Democratic representative, is starting to sink in in newsrooms.

At some point, the public's concerns about presidential abuses of power--and about administration incompetence, which has reached the level of criminal negligence in cases like the Katrina response or the failure to plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq--will compel more honest and forthright coverage of the constitutionally provided remedy for such crimes: impeachment.

Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ('This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy' and 'Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal'). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is 'The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

International Law Authority Rips Bush Policies

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:12:00 +0000

8-29-06, 8:22 a.m.

If anyone knows anything about international law it's Dr. Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and he's more than a little ticked off at the moment at President Bush. Dr. Boyle's credentials are little short of amazing.

He was the expert who drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 --- approved unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

Boyle has also served as legal counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, the Blackfoot Nation of Canada, and as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations.

He has written eight books including 'Destroying World Order'(Clarity Press) and 'Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law.'

Now he's written an article with a ring of urgency, saying the House of Representatives 'must impeach President Bush for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars.'

The Bush Administration 'demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security,' Boyle asserts.

'What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs,' Boyle wrote in 'The Long Term View: a Journal of Informed Opinion' published by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

Claiming President Bush's policies 'represent a gross deviation from those basic rules of international deportment and civilized behavior' the U.S. once stood for, Boyle said America's foreign policies today 'constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles.'

Boyle termed it a 'great irony' in that six decades ago the U.S. participated in the prosecution of Nazi officials 'for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that members of the Bush Jr. administration currently inflict upon people all around the world.' Boyle also charged the Administration with 'grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, torture, disappearances, and assassinations.'

The international legal authority pointed out that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties 'shall be the supreme Law of the Land' and that this 'Supremacy Clause' applies to international executive agreements by the President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.

As an example, Professor Boyle noted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales when White House Counsel authorized the CIA to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation, 'a practice that contravenes the Geneva Conventions---and subsequently led to widespread abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.'

The torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Boyle goes on to write, makes President Bush accountable under U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 as he is Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The alternative to impeachment of President Bush and his accomplices, Boyle writes, 'is likely to be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. police state at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain both --- along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984.'

(Sherwood Ross is a reporter who covers military history and political issues. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com)

Hurricane Katrina: One Year of Fraud and Waste

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:51:00 +0000

8-28-06, 9:07 am

One year after Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast, waste, cronyism, and abuse have outpaced recovery and reconstruction, according to a recent report titled 'Big, Easy Money' published by CorpWatch. With a death toll of over 1,800 and hundreds of thousands still displaced, Hurricane Katrina ranks among the worst natural disasters in US history. Still, the CorpWatch.org report notes, billions of dollars and much political rhetoric later, the people in the Gulf States, especially the city of New Orleans have little show to for it.

A recent poll conducted by ABC News indicates that two-thirds of the residents of New Orleans believe that the relief efforts have been mainly wasted. About 80 percent of the people in the damaged areas along the Gulf Coast are frustrated with the slowness of the recovery and reconstruction efforts.

They have good reason to be, according to the CorpWatch report. Cronyism and no-bid contracts are among the biggest causes of waste and abuse in the reconstruction process. The report cites numerous instances where large companies, mostly based far from the damaged areas, won expensive, no-bid contracts from the federal government because of their political ties to the Bush administration.

For example, Ashbritt, a company that does clean-up and recovery after natural disasters, raked in $500 million taxpayer dollars because of its relationship with Florida governor and presidential brother Jeb Bush and Mississippi governor and former Republican National Committee chair Haley Barbour. Fluor, another recovery corporation, took in $1.6 billion to build housing and for other reconstruction projects. On its board sits Suzanne H. Woolsey, wife of former CIA director James Woolsey turned Washington lobbyist.

Other companies like Americold and Carnival Cruise Lines won expensive contracts through their ties to former FEMA director James Lee Witt and Florida Governor Jeb Bush respectively. Akima, a company that won a contracts worth about $40 million to build 450 portable classrooms, has financial and political ties to former Department of Homeland Security head Tom Ridge.

Some companies like Emergency Disaster Services (EDS) were paid millions to provide meals to emergency workers. At one point in the contract, the report states, the contracted service works out to somewhere between $100 and $279 per meal provided. Instead of having EDS’s contract withdrawn due to the immense waste of taxpayer dollars, it was renewed two more times.

Yet, as the report notes, 'the Gulf continues to stagger along, wounded, with mattresses still in trees, no reliable electricity, boats on the shoulders of highways, crushed houses slumped and moldering where they fell, and public school instruction still being held in portable classrooms or tents, if at all, while some hospitals remain understaffed and others are too damaged to ever reopen.' Because recovery and clean up have been so slow, many bodies in predominantly African American sections of New Orleans have yet to be identified, and, according to the report, some are still being discovered in the attics of destroyed homes a year later.

Environmental damage and dangers also remain. Studies indicate 'the presence of arsenic, heavy metals, pesticides, diesel, benzene and other toxic compounds' in the soil, according to the report. 'What had been an unhealthy place to live became far worse immediately after the hurricane.'

In turn local businesses, who by federal law are mandated to get the majority of federal contracts received only 13% of the value of all federal contracts in the first wave of massive spending following the hurricane. By July 2006, after a storm of controversy and congressional investigations, 'companies from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama had increased their share of the total contracts to a combined 16.6 percent.'

Some companies profiting from the disaster have also abused their employees with impunity. Belfour USA Group, after winning its big government contract for clean-up operations, recruited thousands of immigrant workers for the job. Now, a group representing at least 1,000 of those workers is suing the company for refusing to pay overtime wages. Other labor groups say that many workers have been forced to live in cramped, rat-infested housing and have not been fully compensated for the work they do. They also say that some immigrant workers have been threatened with deportation if they complain.

The CorpWatch report states that runaway cronyism and waste have simply gone unchallenged by the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration. 'The lack of a competitive bidding system in the earliest days, the gutting of FEMA, and continued chaos on the Gulf Coast,' the report argues, 'has also made it nearly impossible to impose any meaningful accountability on those companies staking claim to the billions in federal recovery dollars.'

Part of the problem lies with the right wing's anti-government ideology. For years, anti-government Republicans have promised to gut federal programs like FEMA as part of a downsizing of government. They believed that the private corporations could do the same jobs better. To accomplish this, the report points out, 'FEMA was reconfigured and downsized in the 1990s under the guise of reform.'

Under the Bush administration, 'the agency has been primarily focused on counterterrorism, not natural disasters.' As a result, FEMA was simply incapable of dealing with the disaster following the storm. The administration’s misleading claims that the severity of the storm and the subsequent damage could not be foreseen, the report finds, are 'laughable.'

And still the majority of the money allocated by Congress for recovery and reconstruction has 'yet to be designated for actual work, while the federal and local governments duke it out over a grand plan for rebuilding the region,' the report notes.

'One year after disaster struck, the slow-motion rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region looks identical to what has happened to date in Afghanistan and Iraq. We see a pattern of profiteering, waste and failure – due to the same flawed contracting system and even many of the same players,' says CorpWatch Director Pratap Chatterjee.

The CorpWatch report comes just as other media outlets are reporting on additional corporate fraud related to the hurricane disaster. ABC News reported last week that the FBI is investigating accusations that State Farm Insurance bilked hurricane victims out of untold amounts of money claimed for damages caused by the storm. Two former insurance adjusters who worked with State Farm say the insurance giant purposely and systematically lost or destroyed damage reports in order to avoid paying policyholders' claims. They also say they saw State Farm supervisors pressure engineers to report that damage was caused by water not by wind in order to avoid paying claims, according to the ABC News report.

Immediately after the storm, and as it became apparent that the rescue operations were a failure, the Bush administration tried to deflect criticism by saying that the disaster should not be politicized, and that we all should get together and work on recovery and rebuilding the damaged areas. As the one-year anniversary of the disaster and the administration’s failures comes around, we will likely hear right-wing media pundits saying similar things.

Unfortunately for the people of the affected areas, this rhetoric rings hollow. It is no secret that the African American and working-class people who comprise the majority of the victims of the disaster were not considered a high enough priority by the Bush administration to warrant protection from disaster or for focused efforts at rescue when it did occur. Now they have been all but abandoned.

The recovery and rebuilding the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress promised has been an unmitigated failure. It has been mired in fraud and waste. Private companies have lined their pockets while proving incapable of delivering the goods. The Republican ideology of letting the private sector and free markets handle the reconstruction has delayed allowing people to put their lives back together.

Profit motivated individuals and companies simply cannot be trusted to care for people’s needs. When it comes to protecting people from disaster or provision in the rebuilding process, corporations will always fail. They look only at their bottom line, at how many corners they can cut, and how much of the pie they can take home with them.

The Gulf Coast needs a New Deal, and the Republicans who control the federal government, with their ideology of the rich first above all and then endless war, cannot be trusted to provide that New Deal. We cannot afford the risk of keeping them in power after the elections this November 7th.

-Joel Wendland can be reached at

Allan Burns Seeks US House Seat from Rightwing Extremist

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:42:00 +0000

8-28-06, 8:58 am

(APN) LAWRENCEVILLE – Allan Burns, running against the powerful incumbent, US Rep. John Linder (R-GA), in Georgia's 7th Congressional District, knows he has an uphill battle.

However, Burns's race is extremely important. US Rep. Linder is a proponent of the national sales tax which would replace all other federal taxes. Linder's extremist plan would create a disproportionate burden on the poor to finance government, while letting the rich pay only a tiny fraction of their wealth, and possibly bankrupting the federal government. Linder and Right-wing radio talk show host 'Neal Boortz' co-authored a book on the subject.

'Democrats suffer a tremendous disadvantage, given the huge financial resources available to Republican candidates. Even without much money, though, anything can happen and I remain optimistic without being naïve,' Burns told Atlanta Progressive News.

APN interviewed Burns following a Town Hall Meeting conducted by Linder at the Gwinnett Justice & Administration Center in Lawrenceville, Georgia, on August 24, 2006.

This was the only way to get both sides heard since Linder has refused to debate Burns and the Burns Campaign has asked what Rep. Linder has to hide?

Burns's first impression of US Rep. Linder was of the Congressman's arrogance, he said.

'First, he arrived ten minutes late and never apologized for keeping his audience waiting. Then he allowed his constituents speaking from the audience to thank him repeatedly for allowing them to speak without thanking THEM for making the time and effort to be there. Thursday evening at 5:30 is a tough time for most people,' Burns said.

Most of those present were the polyester-clad elderly, primed to burst into cheers and applause each time the subject of illegal immigrants was raised., which coincidentally happened to be the first question posed to the Congressman.

' If I am elected,' Burns continued, 'I would engage my constituents on a real basis; have public meetings on specific topics and more frequently. Congressmen and women get to spend a lot of time back in their districts. Three or four hours would have given more people an opportunity to speak. Linder showed a genuine lack of respect for his constituents.'

Burns is campaigning for the well-being of all Americans. The father of six 'feels a keen sense of responsibility to do all that I can to make the future better.'

'Healthcare issues have moral implications as well as fiscal. While I may not have all the answers, if we as a nation committed ourselves to providing preventative medicine, as well as care for the sick, it would get done. Leaving the poor without access to regular medical attention and forcing them to use expensive emergency room care means we are paying a higher price one way or the other,' Burns told Atlanta Progressive News.

Envisioning a type of dual system where those who could afford it would continue to pay for their own health insurance and treatment, Burns wants to make sure that there is affordable medicine for everyone.

Citing solutions suggested by former US President Jimmy Carter and US Rep. John Conyers (D-OH), Burns said, 'We CAN do it.'

Energy is another important issue, Burns said. Referencing Linder's earlier remarks calling for more domestic drilling of oil and natural gas, Burns said, 'We can't drill our way to energy independence. Linder's solutions provide only a drop in the bucket for our energy needs. We need to develop renewable and non-polluting sources of energy - ethanol, wind, solar.'

Burns also wants to create some self-sufficiency within US regions for energy production.

'I favor a plan for local energy production, something within a hundred miles of most Americans. A decentralized system would reduce our dependence on foreign countries, eliminate the cost and hazards associated with vast pipelines and shipping, and be less susceptible to terrorism.'

Burns harshly criticized Linder's 'Fair Tax' platform which calls for eliminating the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all tax revenues and replacing them with a national sales tax.

'It's a red herring. Linder submitted a bill knowing it had no chance of being passed, solely as a fund-raising tool,' Burns said.

'It would have a draconian effect on our economy. Respected economists have shown we would need a rate at least two times higher than Linder suggests to produce the same revenue,' Burns said of the so-called 'fair tax.'

'Would we be willing to pay 60% sales tax, not the 30% Linder and Neal Boortz claim is possible in their book? The wealthy spend proportionately much less of their income on purchases and therefore would proportionately pay less sales tax.'

Leo E. Linbeck, Jr., is Chairman of Americans for Fair Tax and is also chair of Texans for Legal Reform, a PAC paying millions to limit the financial liability of tycoons when their companies are responsible for deaths and serious injuries.

Georgia's 7th Congressional District includes parts of Gwinnett, Forsyth, Cherokee, Bartow and Paulding Counties.

As of 2004, Hispanics comprised more than 15% of Gwinnett's population.

A resident of Gwinnett, Burns owns his own small construction company and is familiar with our state's dependence on Latino workers.

He favors an easier way for employers to verify the legal status of their employees. Also, Burns would like a more secure border.

Unlike Linder, Burns said the way we treat undocumented workers is a moral issue and believes that those already here should be provided a path 'to come out of the shadows' and normalize their status. 'Linder uses words like 'amnesty' to incite emotions.'

Burns has asked Linder for a debate on several occasions. 'It's not like there were 25 candidates. It's only the two of us,' Burns said.

The Congressman has refused. Linder has limited his public exposure to very few, and only carefully controlled, venues, for which, 'the media is partly to blame,' Burns said.

'On certain issues, Linder tries to have it both ways. He calls for enforcement of our borders but insists he doesn't want to 'build walls.' He claims to be concerned about terrorism, but supported Dubai Port International's attempt to operate six U.S. ports. The Dubai company is owned entirely by the United Arab Emirates through which money was funneled to the 9/11 hijackers. We wouldn't allow our air traffic control system to be foreign-owned, yet Linder endorsed the Dubai proposal,' Burns said.

Linder actually used the words 'Islamic fascism' - loud cheers and applause - to respond to a U.S. citizen of Pakistani birth whose son had fought two tours in Iraq.

Burns said he has received support even from those who say they voted for Bush but 'are fed up!' Every Georgia district outside Atlanta is solidly 'red;' however, Burns said if Republicans become demoralized enough to stay away from the polls, independent voters are 'fed up,' and the Democratic voter turnout is strong, we may just see a noticeable shift this election year.

From Atlanta Progressive News

--About the author: Betty Clermont is a Staff Writer for Atlanta Progressive News. She may be reached at

The United States of England

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:06:00 +0000

8-28-06, 8:20 a.m.

Why don’t we call America the United States of England? It may be a separate entity politically and geographically, but it truly carries forward the imperial spirit of the old British Empire. There was a period from 1776, when “the shot heard ‘round the world” was fired, to 1846, when America invaded Mexico, a span of 70 years, that the new nation “conceived in liberty” was, at the least, an imperfect democracy, without tyranny on its mind. But by the time Congressman Abraham Lincoln of Illinois assailed President Polk’s invasion of Mexico, the spirit of Liberty had succumbed to the spirit of Empire. Yes, the Colonists having failed at securing political representation in return for paying their taxes, demanded, fought for, and got by force of arms, freedom from the Mother Country. But as the sun set on the British Empire, it rose on the American Empire--- the Pax American that is trying to run the world today. Let’s view the American Revolution for what it actually was: a sort of internal adjustment where predominantly English-speaking Colonists won the same rights to govern themselves and plunder others as the Britons who remained behind. As historian Niall Ferguson writes in “Empire”(Best Books), “The Hollywood version of the War of Independence is a straightforward fight between heroic Patriots and wicked, Nazi-like Redcoats. The reality was quite different. This was indeed a civil war which divided social classes and even families.” About the same time London was dispatching Redcoats to shoot Africans who refused to pay tribute, Americans were dispatching blue coats to shoot Native Americans unlucky enough to occupy territory in their path. And just as the Crown took over India and Africa by force and violence, Americans employed like tactics to steal half of their good neighbor Mexico. Over time, America and Great Britain drew ever closer, allying themselves by the time of World War One to reign in Germany’s colonial ambitions. They repeated the performance against Hitler. Even before WWII erupted, the Anglo-Americans were sharing intelligence and military secrets and made common cause to wrest for themselves the riches of Asia. Significantly, after World War I, the U.S. pressed Britain not to renew its treaty of friendship with Japan even though Tokyo had been a war-time ally. The Japanese were baffled at this turn of events but America was not going to tolerate a Pacific rival that might come between it and the Crown. A common history, a common language, a common culture, and, most of all, a common venality by then had united Anglo-America too closely to permit any sharing of empire with an Oriental upstart. Asked by FDR in 1933 to assume administration of U.S. territories, Ernest Gruening protested, “But Mr. President, a democracy is not supposed to have colonies.” FDR insisted it was temporary (it wasn’t) even as he complained Britain’s colonial policy enriched only Britain. “The people are treated worse than livestock,” Ferguson quotes FDR as saying. “Their cattle live longer. For every dollar that the British…have put into the Gambia, they have taken out ten. It’s just plain exploitation.” If FDR didn’t care for the British Empire, Adolph Hitler did. He told the Reichstag in 1939 the Empire “is an inestimable factor of value for the whole of human cultural and economic life” even if Britain acquired her colonies by “force and often brutality,” and that “no empire has ever come into being in any other way…” By the advent of WWII, America and Great Britain were as inextricably intertwined as DNA double helix. In 1941, FDR dispatched a flotilla of destroyers to help England suppress the Nazi U-boat menace; U.S. tanks were rushed to help Britain’s Eighth Army stop Hitler’s Panzers in North Africa. USA, “the arsenal of democracy,” could churn out so many warships it sent dozens of new aircraft carriers to UK and never missed them. The world ascribes to the United States the development of the nuclear weapons dropped on Japan. But British scientists were also deeply involved in the venture, executed in defiance of the Geneva Conventions and against the solemn pledges of both partners at the outbreak of World War Two not to bombard civilian populations. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated by the Anglo-Americans -- the atom bomb was one of their many joint ventures. Earlier, U.S./UK bomber fleets united to exterminate 800,000 German civilians after their failure to crush the Third Reich’s war machine by wiping out its war production plants. “The wartime alliance with the US was a suffocating embrace,” writes historian Ferguson. “Without American money, the British war effort would have collapsed. …As one American official put it succinctly, America was a ‘coming power’, Britain a ‘going power’.” The U.S. and Great Britain, joined by Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, are now combined in common intelligence-gathering that provides them with military and economic information to advance their vital interests. They also combined to overthrow the elected government of Iran in 1953, bringing the Shah to the throne of that oil-rich nation. Currently, Prime Minister Tony Blair backs American aggression in Iraq with thousands of troops --- although he is said to have known President Bush cooked the books to portray Iraq a nuclear menace. Writing in 2005 of the “special relationship” between Britain and America, John O’Sullivan, editor-at-large of “National Review” recalled the partnerships between presidents and prime ministers: “These political partnerships have been both warm and productive while often cutting across the usual divisions of left and right: the Tory Churchill and the Democrat FDR; the Tory Macmillan and the Democrat Kennedy; the Labour Wilson and the Democrat LBJ; the Tory Thatcher and the Republican Reagan; and now, famously, the New Labor Blair and the Republican George W. Among the achievements of the special relationship are the victories in the Second World War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, and the Cold War.” England’s long-standing role as an imperialist power, euphemistic for a tyrant nation that invades countries, murders those who oppose it, and subjugates them to its rule, is widely recognized. In his book, “Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World” (Vintage, 2003), author Mark Curtis writes that, with UK’s support for terrorism, “violating international law has become as British as afternoon tea.” According to a review of his work in Guardian Unlimited of July 5, 2003: “Drawing on formerly secret government files, he analyses not only Britain's role in recent events in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, but also British complicity in the slaughter of a million people in Indonesia in 1965; the depopulation of the island of Diego Garcia; the overthrow of governments in Iran and British Guiana; and repressive colonial policies in Kenya, Malaya and Oman. He relentlessly peels away layers of deception until, with the aid of painstaking research and analysis of declassified files, he (Curtis) lays bare in graphic detail a shocking exposé of British aggression and double-standards.” Similarly, Uncle Sam today is hated by much of the world for its heavy-handed assaults upon weaker states, such as Guatemala, Viet Nam, Panama, Chile, and Haiti. Queen Victoria, upon being telegraphed of the latest British victory, would express her sorrow over the Redcoats who made the supreme sacrifice. So, too, President George Bush expresses his sorrow over the American troops killed in Iraq, even as he prohibits the media to photograph their coffins. Today, the Pentagon spreads its intimidating presence through 700 military bases in 130 countries from the Caribbean to Okinawa. USA has appointed itself global policeman even as it refuses to submit to World Court jurisdiction. It is no accident the very mention of the United Nations elicits jeers at Republican Party conventions. Bush’s backers believe USA is above world law and superior to other nations, just as Britannia once believed its destiny was to Christianize and civilize the heathen folk of planet Earth. Evidently, as empires expand, the burden of war is forced upon their working class, while the wealth brought home goes largely into the bank accounts of the upper class. Ferguson writes of the cost of acquiring India relative to the British National Debt: “Every candle a man lit to read by, even the soap he washed with, was taxed. For the nabobs, of course, these taxes were scarcely noticeable. But they ate up a substantial proportion of an ordinary family’s income. In effect, then, the costs of overseas expansion --- or to be precise the interest on the National Debt --- were met by the impoverished majority at home. And who received that interest? The answer was a tiny elite of mainly southern bondholders, somewhere around 200,000 families, who had invested a part of their wealth in ‘the Funds’.” Today --- even as impoverishment spreads throughout the growing American underclass --- the big winners are the elite military-industrial complex. And America’s fighting forces, like Queen Victoria’s, are drawn largely from the underclass. Whatever the aspirations of its Founders to break from England and establish an egalitarian society that would avoid what President George Washington termed “foreign entanglements,” USA has essentially replaced Great Britain as the world’s foremost colonial power, incorporating UK as its junior partner in the new Pax Americana. As Ferguson noted, it is no coincidence “that a map showing the principal US military bases around the world looks remarkably like a map of Royal Navy coaling stations a hundred years ago.” He notes, “Just like the British Empire before it, the American Empire unfailingly acts in the name of liberty, even when its own self-interest in manifestly uppermost.” Ferguson concludes: “The former American Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously said that Britain had lost an empire but failed to find a role. Perhaps the reality is that the Americans have taken our old role without yet facing the fact that an empire comes with it. The technology of overseas rule may have changed---the Dreadnoughts may have given way to F-15s. But like it or not, and deny it who will, empire is as much a reality today as it was throughout he three hundred years when Britain ruled, and made, the modern world.” One wonders what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have thought if they had lived to see their country do unto others what King George did unto them. (Sherwood Ross is an American who contributes to history magazines and newspapers. He reported for the Chicago Daily News and worked as a wire service columnist. To arrange for speaking engagements or reach him for comment, E-mail sherwoodr1@yahoo.com)

Florida Legislator denies separation of church and state

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:24:00 +0000

8-27-06, 4:42 p.m.

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) has gone on record as stating that separation between church and state is 'a lie.' Her comments were made in an interview she gave to the Florida Baptist Witness, a publication of the Florida Baptist Convention, and subsequently reported by the Associated Press.

'If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin,' Harris said. She went on to say not only that separation between church and state is 'a lie,' but also that '....God is the one that choose our rulers.'

Harris is best known for her actions surrounding the presidential election in November of 2000 when, as Florida's chief elections official, she made key decisions which awarded Florida's electoral votes to George W. Bush -- an election so full of controversy that it was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court. Harris's boss was Florida Governor John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush, the president's older brother.

Harris subsequently won election to the US Congress and is presently running for the Republican Party's nomination for the Senate. The Republican candidate will face incumbent Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. Florida Governor 'Jeb' Bush is prohibited by Florida law from running again for that office, having served two terms as the state's chief executive.

In recent months, however, Harris's candidacy has been troubled by allegations she accepted a $32,000 in campaign contributions from a corrupt defense contractor. And this past May, Gov. 'Jeb' Bush publicly stated his view that Harris could not win an election against Nelson.

Harris has continued her campaign despite requests from certain quarters of the Florida GOP that she withdraw. The Party primaries take place in Florida on September 5th.

In the wake of her comments to Florida Baptist Week, the Harris campaign issued a statement yesterday that she was 'speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government.' The statement went on to affirm Harris's belief in 'Judeo-Christian values' and referred to her support for Israel.

Nevertheless, the Associated Press reported that some Republicans were quickly distancing themselves from Harris's comments.

The ultra-right has made open courtship of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians a key part of its strategy for several decades. Recently, however, fissures have started to appear in this alliance -- particularly around the US military occupation of Iraq.

The utterances of Katherine Harris may well constitute the last gasp effort by a troubled campaign to appeal to what it perceives as its evangelical/fundamentalist base. What is certain is that Harris has made statements which, in one fell swoop, deny the separation of church and state and reassert the 'divine right' to rule previously claimed by absolute monarchs.

Lebanon and Gaza: The Myth of Israel’s Self Defence

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:23:00 +0000

8-27-06, 10:38 a.m.

The Israeli and the western media has built the myth that the attacks on Gaza and later on the Lebanese population are a response by Israel to their one soldier being kidnapped by the Hamas on June 25 and two others being kidnapped by Hezbollah on July 12. The occupation of Palestinian land and Arab lands, the ethnic cleansing of Arab population from Israel, an earlier 18-year long occupation of Southern Lebanon, imposition of an apartheid state in Israel and occupied territories, targeted assassinations of resistance leaders, the shelling of Gaza for a month before the capturing of the Israeli soldiers, continued presence in Israeli prisons of over 9,000 Palestinians and some Lebanese, all of these are apparently not the cause of the current conflict. In this media war, only two dates are important – the date the Hamas captured an Israeli soldier, sitting in his tank and shelling Gaza and the other in which Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a bid for a prisoner swap. Once the two dates and incidents are established as the proximate cause, then at best, the argument that Kofi Annan has also echoed that though Israel has a right to self-defence, there is “disproportionate force” used. In this account of the War, the Israeli attacks on Lebanon is always coupled with Hezbollah using rockets against the Israeli civilian population: Israel’s savage aerial bombardment, which has reduced Lebanese infrastructure to rubble and killed about 1000 civilians, being somehow equal to these slightly improved second world war vintage Hezbollah rocket attacks that has killed about 30 Israeli civilians. The myth-making is so pervasive that every time either BBC or CNN talk about Israel’s barbaric attacks on the civilian population in the almost forgotten war in Gaza and now the more visible one in Lebanon, it also repeats all these myths. MANUFACTURED MYTHS Not only is the sequence a manufactured one, so is the language. Palestinians and Lebanese are always arrested or captured; Israeli soldiers are always kidnapped or abducted. One can go on. The United Nations Resolution 1559 in which Hezbollah was supposed to have been disarmed is mentioned time and again. No mention of the dozens of resolutions that Israel has violated including the resolution that mandated that Israel vacate its occupation of the West Bank, continued now for almost 40 years. In this calculus of violence and action-retaliation, the western media and governments have always echoed the Israeli line: Israel only retaliates; it is always “Arab terrorists” that attack. The story – in this version of history – is one of a besieged Jewish state, never one of most powerful military machine in the West Asia, armed with more than 300 nuclear bombs. Before we examine the current war in Lebanon, let us look at the Gaza kidnapping of an Israeli soldier that lead to bridges and its only power station being bombed. For a month before this incident, Israeli had been shelling Gaza, killing more than 30 civilians. One day before the attack on its soldiers, the alleged trigger, Israeli commandos kidnapped two Hamas activists from Gaza. Why the Hamas attack on its soldiers and kidnapping of one soldier should not be seen as retaliation for Israeli kidnapping is what the western media needs to answer. The Hamas did not attack a soft civilian target: they attacked a tank, which is a part of a force that has been shelling Gaza for a month, one of these shells being held responsible for the death of a family of seven, of which three were little children. The Israeli response to all this was not only flattening large parts of Gaza but also abducting 60 of leading Hamas representatives in the Palestinian Authority, including 20 ministers and members of parliament. There is also the other myth –– that Israel withdrew from Gaza and has now been forced back due to this “kidnapping” of its soldier. Israel controls all the entry and exit points for Gaza, has not allowed a seaport to be built there and also controls its air space. This – in international law and in view of United Nations – is occupation and Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza. Israel has used this control to starve the Gaza population of even food and medicines, let alone allow other goods. The wall Israel is building on the occupied West Bank, though declared illegal by the International Court of Justice, not only takes away some of the best lands of the West Bank but also encloses most of the aquifers there and therefore its water. Israel remains and plans to remain on West Bank as occupying power, with the Palestinian territories cut up into little pockets, with roads that only its Jewish settlers can travel, its best land almost all its water under control of the Jewish settlers and Israel. It is this apartheid vision of Palestinian Bantustans it is peddling as unilateral withdrawal and “peace”. A Palestinian “state” in which Palestinians will have to seek the permission of Israeli army every time it crosses from one little enclave to another, with no control over its own resources and under the gun of the Israeli state. All this, in the name of its security, dutifully echoed by the western media and governments. And if the Palestinians reject this vision of the “two state” solution, then Israel claims it has no partners for peace! The Lebanon war is similarly clouded with Israeli myth making and complicity by western media and governments. Hezbollah is painted as a fundamentalist force, part of an international terror network that is incompatible with “western” values. The reality is that Hezbollah grew out of Israel’s 18-year long occupation of South Lebanon, initially as a loose grouping with an Islamic nationalist ideology and has now crystallised as a political party with both civil and military wings. It has currently 14 members in the 128-member Lebanese parliament and two ministers in the government. It is no longer a simple resistance group, which is what it started as. It is also a reflection of the patchwork Lebanese nation state that emerged after the Second World War. Lebanon was sliced off the Syrian western seaboard, with a strong Maronite Christian presence and built as a “confessional” state. This means each religious group was given a constitutional position and a set of powers “The original allocations, determined in 1943 in an unwritten National Pact between Maronite Christians and Sunni Muslims at the end of the French mandate, gave the most power to a Maronite Christian president and a Sunni Muslim prime minister, with the relatively powerless position of speaker of parliament going to a Shi'i Muslim.”(Lara Deeb; July 31, 2006 - Middle East Report Online, http://www.merip.org/mero/mero073106.html) These arrangements broke down during the late 70s and 80s leading to a civil war. “The Lebanese civil war came to an end in 1990, after the signing of the Ta'if Agreement in 1989. The Ta'if Agreement reasserted a variation of the National Pact, allotting greater power to the prime minister and increasing the number of Muslim seats in government. Yet while the actual numerical strength of confessional groups in Lebanon is sharply contested, conservative estimates note that by the end of the civil war, Shi'i Muslims made up at least one third ofthe population, making them the largest confessional community. Other estimates are much higher.” (Lara Deeb) LEBANESE RESISTANCE The Israeli 1978 invasion of Lebanon is not the subject here. But it is important to note that Hezbollah was able to inflict high casualties during its guerrilla war against Israeli occupation forces, finally forcing them to withdraw from Lebanon. The issue here is not whether we agree with Hezbollah’s politics or its vision of an Islamic state. The key issue for us is in West Asia, where Israel is in occupation of Arab and Palestinian lands, how do we look at various forms of resistance? And in this light, Hezbollah is very much a part of the Lebanese national resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression. The current invasion of Lebanon is the third one Israel has conducted. The first one was in 1978, when it invaded Southern Lebanon, killing thousands and displacing 250,000 people. In 1982, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon again seeking to install Bashir Gemayel as its president and throwing out PLO. After Bashir Gemayel was killed, Israeli army in collaboration with Phalangist militia of Gemayel, massacred thousands in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. It is widely accepted that these massacres had direct involvement of Ariel Sharon, the then Israeli defence minister. After this, Israel withdrew to Southern Lebanon, with the same arguments it is doing now: it needs a buffer zone for its security and continued its occupation for 18 long years. It is only after its casualties grew to more than 2,000 that it withdrew from Lebanon. In 1996, in an attempt to crush the Lebanese resistance, Israel launched a similar 16-day blitz on Lebanon. This ended with the shelling of the UN compound in Kana and the death there of 106 civilians. An informal agreement – called the April Agreement – was drawn up in which both Israel and Hezbollah agreed not to attack civilian targets. This is important as it has been pointed out that Hezbollah’s attack on Israeli outpost, whatever its merits or demerits may be, does not violate this April agreement. Israel’s so-called response in which it has attacked the infrastructure and civilian population of Lebanon does. As a matter of record, the UN monitoring body in Southern Lebanon has found Israel to be 10 times more guilty of violations across the border (or Blue Line in the current War terminology) than Hezbollah. Hezbollah has fired a few Katyushas in the last six years and has had a few border skirmishes. Before the current war, the total casualty count from this has been one death. The large-scale rocket barrage on Northern Israel started only after Israel’s aerial bombardment of Lebanon. Before this, it had largely respected the April agreement and played within these rules of the game. Israel has also fired and shelled across the border on numerous occasions. Therefore, to argue that Israel needs a special security zone free from Hezbollah while it has been the one that has attacked Lebanon thrice only shows the skewed nature of the current media discourse. ROGUE STATE Israel has propounded the right to kill anyone and abduct anybody it considers a “terrorist”. In 1992, it assassinated Hassan Nasurallah’s predecessor, Sayyid 'Abbas al-Musawi, along with his wife and 5 year-old son. In the view of Israeli state and the western media, any resistance to Israel is “terrorist” and therefore is legitimate target; however it does not recognise any of its own actions, including the massacres in Shatala and Sabra earlier, and more recently in Jenin, as criminal. By definition, others are terrorists if they use violence; and by definition Israel’s actions are always self-defence. The question here is not to establish how Israel is a criminal state. The real question is why is such a state not considered a rogue or a pariah state? How can Israeli citizens support this continued occupation of Palestinian lands, rally behind what the whole world sees as “collective punishment” of civilian population? It is the power of myths that the Israeli state and the western media have built that must be examined to understand this phenomenon. For the first time Israel’s media campaign has been less successful. Partly because it is no longer able to control the copies and images that reporters are filing from Lebanon. In the occupied territories, Israel controls the news flow completely: censorship laws allow only what it permits to flow to the rest of the world. And the western media is complicit with Israeli state in this cover up of truth. The other factor is the Internet: it is no longer possible to hide the news. It appears all over the net, with blogs and other channels providing what the main news channels do not. And of course, there is Arab media, with Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya less likely to accept Israel’s diktats. Post ceasefire, Israel has declared a victory, as it believes it will get a UN military force to do what it could militarily not achieve. Whether any foreign force will do as Israel wants it to do is extremely doubtful. What is without doubt is that Israel failed in its military objectives. From the first day, its clear objective was the destruction of Hezbollah. That on the last day of the conflict, Hezbollah could fire more than 200 rockets shows that its immediate target of destruction of Hezbollah (or degrading Hezbollah’s military strength severely) has failed. The second, though unannounced objective was that by inflicting collective punishment on the Lebanese population, it will sharpen the existing fault lines in Lebanese society and isolate the Hezbollah. This has not only failed, but in the Lebanese mind, it is Israel who is identified as the enemy and Hezbollah as a part of the Lebanese nation resisting Israeli aggression. However much Israeli government might try and claim victory, the fact remains that even in the Israeli media there are very few claims of victory. HEZBOLLAH’S VICTORY In Hezbollah’s and in most Arab views, by its resistance and retaining its ability to fight, Hezbollah has won. For Hezbollah, winning was never the issue; not being defeated was. This has come at a very heavy cost indeed. But nevertheless, the failure of the Israeli campaign to break the Hezbollah’s resistance also means shattering the myth of the invincible Israeli army. The repercussions of this are going to be very deep in West Asia. For the first time, Israel expects now diplomacy to give it what its military could not: peace and security for northern Israel. The tragedy for the world is that the US still continues its equation of all Islamic resistance in West Asia as equivalent to Al Qaeda. In this view, the Saudi zealots it armed in Afghanistan are no different than the resistance fighters in Gaza and Lebanon. It not only has been compliant to Israel’s violation of international law in its continued occupation of Arab lands, it is now known to have been complicit in Israel’s assault on Lebanon. Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker has ripped off the cover of Hezbollah’s provocation. This was a campaign planned well in advance with full knowledge of the US. Ultimately, US provided the international cover including finally bailing Israel out, when it became clear that more time and troops would still not achieve Israel’s military objective. That this invasion has been planned long in advance was well known amongst the critics of the US. That it is now being echoed by US journalists of the stature of Hersh tells its own story. It is no longer possible to pretend that this costly war on Lebanon was fought for two soldiers, who still continue to be held by Hezbollah. The target was military destruction of Hezbollah, and as Hersh has pointed out, preparation of a similar campaign against Iran. The only problem is that if Israel, with its powerful military could not achieve its objective against a country with only 4 million people and against an irregular army, what chance does US have in taking on a country with the strategic depth of Iran and a population of 70 million? But to a Bush administration, all this may still carry no conviction. The world will have to wait and see what lesson the neo-cons have learnt in Washington. Israel has already given notice that it regards this war to be unfinished. That means it plans for a fourth invasion of Lebanon or has no plans to leave at all. Itmight still wait for an US attack on Iran to hit again at Hezbollah. The fragile ceasefire is at best a stepping-stone for other diplomatic initiatives. But whether this will happen or Israel and the US will try for the same policies that have failed in Iraq and now Lebanon remains to be seen. There is no cure for stupidity or insanity. Unfortunately for the world, the Bush policies show signs of both.

From People's Democracy

Nepal: Families of the disappeared demand justice

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:34:00 +0000

8-27-06 am

KATHMANDU, 24 Aug 2006 (IRIN) - An estimated 5,000 Nepalese citizens have disappeared over the last decade of armed conflict following their arrests by the state-controlled security forces, the Society of the Family of Disappeared Citizens by the State, said on Thursday in the capital, Kathmandu.

Families of the disappeared arrived in the capital from various rural areas of the mountainous nation earlier this week. They have demanded that the whereabouts of the victims be made public and that the new interim government pressure the army and police to reveal the status of their loved ones, who disappeared after being arrested on charges of working as Maoist rebels.

For the last 10 years, the Maoists had been waging an armed rebellion against the Nepalese state. Two rounds of peace talks were held in 2001 and 2003 but failed, leading to an escalation in arbitrary arrests by the security forces and cases of disappearances at the hands of both the state and the Maoists, according to the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), which visited the Himalayan kingdom in 2004.

A third ceasefire was declared in April this year and peace talks started between the rebels and the interim government, formed by the seven national parties after leading a mass uprising to crush the authoritarian rule of the Nepalese monarch, King Gyanendra.

But even the new interim government has failed to put enough pressure on both the state army and the Maoists to reveal the status of those who disappeared, according to Advocacy Forum, a local activist NGO working to find justice against arbitrary arrests, illegal detention and extrajudicial killings.

Activists fear that many of the disappeared citizens were tortured and killed at the hands of both the security forces and the rebels. Advocacy Forum alone recording 500 cases of disappearances.

Meanwhile, many families have accepted that their relatives have already been killed, but want to know where they have been buried and whether justice will be carried out.

'I will never stop fighting for justice. We are not seeking revenge or huge compensation, but to find these perpetrators who murdered my daughter,' said Debi Sunwar, 50-year-old mother of Maina, who was killed by officials of the Nepalese army after she was heavily tortured following her arrest on alleged charges of being a Maoist rebel, according to Advocacy Forum. She was only 15 years old.

Her case has gained notoriety on both nationwide and international levels, with activists looking to see how the new democratic government and the United Nations, particularly its Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR), will help justice to prevail.

'Her case is also a test of the ability and the effectiveness of both our judiciary and the OHCHR's,' prominent lawyer Mandira Sharma, who received death threats while she was advocating for justice during the king's authoritarian regime, said.

Sharma hopes that the victims and their families will receive justice after the Nepalese state ratifies the new international treaty on disappearances, the Convention on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance, which Advocacy Forum had also lobbied strongly for.

'We will not stop our struggle to pressurise the state to find out where all our loved ones are hidden. Our struggle will go on until justice prevails,' explained Bishnu Maya Rokka, whose husband disappeared three years ago following his arrest and detention by the Nepalese army.

Some 5,000 villagers are set to stage a huge rally in the capital on 3 September outside Nepal's parliament until the government offers an action plan to deal with the issue of disappeared citizens.

Meanwhile, local human rights groups and OHCHR have expressed serious concerns over a new army bill drafted for legislation, which according to them, would promote impunity and provide immunity to those state security officials involved in rights violations.

According to OHCHR, the 'bill in its current form fails to comply fully with international human rights standards.'

It added that the bill stipulates that the Nepalese army would not have to cooperate with civilian authorities, like the police, to investigate military personnel who committed serious rights violations.

'It is essential that the security forces and the Maoists are held accountable for serious violations of human rights in order to re-establish the rule of law, to provide justice to the victims and their families and send a clear message that there will no longer be impunity in Nepal,' David Johnson, officer-in-charge of OHCHR Nepal, said.

From

Israel: Displaced return to homes in the north

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:20:00 +0000

8-27-06, 9:49 am

JERUSALEM, 17 Aug 2006 (IRIN) - Thousands of displaced Israelis have headed back to their homes after a United Nations-brokered ceasefire silenced the Hezbollah rockets being fired into the north of the country.

The ceasefire came into effect early on Monday morning - and by Tuesday evening 28-year-old Lilach Bardugo and her poodle Anita had made it back to their home in Nahariya.

'I cried when I got back to Nahariya. It's just a great feeling to be home. You feel independent again. During the war I thought the house might be hit by a rocket. Now I'm cleaning the place because there is dust everywhere,' said Bardugo.

The war between Israel and the armed wing of the Lebanese political party Hezbollah began on 12 July after the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. Israel retaliated with a month-long military offensive targeting Hezbollah strongholds all over Lebanon. Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets into Israel, forcing inhabitants in the north, close to the Lebanese border, to flee their homes.

Bardugo was among an estimated 500,000 displaced Israelis, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Most stayed with friends or relatives, while others lodged with families or stayed in hotels.

After a few days in Tel Aviv staying with a friend, Bardugo registered with Jerusalem City Council to be placed with a Jerusalem family. 'We stayed with an American family who had been in Israel for 14 years. The experience was pretty weird - I just stayed at home the whole time,' said Bardugo.

Some 50,000 Israelis from the north lived with families in Jerusalem during the hostilities but they have almost all returned home, according to a spokeswoman for Jerusalem City Council.

'They have virtually all gone now but there were a lot. At first we matched them with host families but it became very time-consuming because there were so many people, so in the end we set it up on the internet so that both prospective hosts and people from the north could enter their details on our website and contact each other directly,' the spokeswoman said.

Not all Israelis were confident enough that the ceasefire would hold to return home immediately.

Paulina Cohen, 46, and her 16-year-old daughter Hana travelled to Eilat two weeks ago after a rocket damaged their home near Carmiel, a town near Haifa in northern Israel. They could not get accommodation in a high school set up as a refugee centre because it was full - but Ilana Brami, a volunteer working at the school, offered them a place to sleep in her apartment.

'We are scared and don't want to go back because I don't believe there will be calm and I don't think we will be safe,' said Cohen.

The displaced Israelis expressed gratitude for the solidarity of fellow Israelis during the crisis.

But psychologists told IRIN that the mere fact of not being able to live at home put a tremendous strain on families.

'Think about being a guest and what it entails. Think of a hotel room. It's one room for a whole family. Maybe you have children in another room - to visit your children you have to go into a public area. It's a big shock to usual family life. There's no intimacy,' said Rachel Paran, a volunteer psychologist.

Yossi Yonah, a 53-year-old university professor from Tel Aviv, had four people staying at his house for two weeks.

'Many people in Tel Aviv received people. It's not a normal way to handle daily life. You have other people stuck in the apartment and you have to accommodate their needs, such as time in the bathroom. We have all had guests but this was much more intensive and for a longer time,' he said.

Now the displaced face the more mundane task of tackling the war's economic impact on their lives. Most of them have not worked for several weeks.

'I work in advertising sales and most of my wages are from commission, which I will not get for this month,' said Bardugo. 'Now I am taking out a personal loan from the bank to pay for all the things I still have to pay for despite my loss in wages and a lot of Israelis are having to do the same.'

From