People Before Profit blog

The Alito Stakes

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:30:00 +0000

1-30-06, 9:13 am

The Democrats are fighting among themselves whether to sustain a filibuster against the Alito nomination, which all progressive forces in the U.S. should demand that they carry forward in the most militant way. Progressives also should make clear that a filibuster must be carried forward. If it fails nothing will be lost and those who advanced it will gain respect. If it succeeds, it will be a significant victory.

Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who either support Alito directly or vote to end the filibuster and insure his approval, will lose support from their constituencies. Alto’s victory will literally create, in our time, the most reactionary Supreme Court alignment in modern U.S. history.

For the first time since the 1930s, the court will have four utrarightists, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. The situation will also be objectively worse than it was in the 1930s when Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes was a political centrist who changed his position in the face of mass pressure from labor and the left orchestrated by the Roosevelt administration. Unlike the 1930s, when FDR accused the 'nine old men' on the court of standing in the way of social and economic progress, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas will not be retiring soon, to be replaced by progressive jurists, which Roosevelt ultimately did to the Right-Center court that sought to invalidate New Deal legislation in the 1930s.

Even if the right Republicans are decisively defeated in the next two elections because of the cumulative effects of their disastrous polices, John Paul Stevens, a liberal Republican who has voted fairly consistently against the far right, is the only Justice expected to retire in the foreseeable future. If age or health factors force him to retire while Bush is still president, a far right majority on the court would become a near certainty.

One would literally have to go back to the 1890s, when the court, for whom corporate wealth and power were sacred principles, invalidated a federal income tax, refused to apply anti-trust legislation to corporations while applying such legislation to unions, and invalidated state laws regulating business while it validated Southern state laws establishing segregation to find any parallel. Or perhaps, if that 1890s court, was too 'liberal,' too far away from the 'original intent' ideologues of the Federalist Society, one might have to return to the slaveholder dominated Supreme Court of the 1850s, which in the Dred Scott decision not only invalidated all restrictions on slavery but declared that the framers had never considered any people of African descent to be citizens of the U.S. Thus, in principle, their 'original intent' had been to deny citizenship rights to free Blacks, who could never become 'African Americans.' A filibuster can succeed if it is well managed and organized and sustains popular support. Such a filibuster can force Bush to withdraw the Alito nomination. Filibusters have in the past compelled Senate majorities to either withdraw or compromise on nominations and legislation where they had the votes.

Such a victory would both strengthen progressive candidates for the 2006 elections and quite possibly compel Bush to chooses center-right Republican like Sandra Day O’Connor, rather than an ultrarightist like Alito. While this may sound like a small victory, it would be a strategically important one on the road to liberating the United States from the Reagan-Bush Republicans and restoring at the very least the separation of powers and checks and balances of the Constitution which conservatives especially like to praise, but which the present administration has not only undermined but attacked directly in unprecedented ways

MoveOn.org and other activist groups have been mobilizing support for the filibuster. The left should actively support this campaign and fight to make it more militant. A filibuster can through television bring more and more political who oppose what Bush and Alito stand for on core issues to realize the danger the Supreme Court faces and act to put pressure on the President to retreat.

First, it is important to understand that the political center never wants to fight or knows how to fight unless the left teaches it. To say that Alito is not 'mainstream,' convinces no one, since the mainstream is always shifting and the failure of the center and the left to engage each other only insures that the center will engage with and appease the right and the left will criticize and denounce the center—that the 'face' of the opposition center, figuratively, will be that of Bill Clinton, and the face of the left similarly will be Ralph Nader. That has been and continues to be a recipe for disaster.

Also, the left can never become mainstream unless and until it either becomes dialectically a new political center or influences a changing center to adopt in some form many of its policies, as the Communist-led left did in a limited but significant way in the 1930s.

First, the left can point to the corruption and increasing tyranny of the Bush administration, which flies in the face of traditional American definitions of freedom and democracy. The left can point not only to the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which frankly would become a high probability if Alito is appointed and virtually inevitable if Bush is then able to replace Stevens with someone like Roberts and Alito, but also to other likely destructive decisions.

While affirmative action has been undermined and its defenders forced to fight defensive battles since the Bakke decision (1978) no one should have any doubts that a far right majority would eliminate it entirely. The Miranda and Gideon decisions, placing restrictions on police conduct and providing defendants with the right to counsel, two precedents long condemned by the judicial right, would probably be reversed. The worst abuses of the 'Patriot Act,' the wiretaps, searches, seizures, and preventive detentions would be upheld, encouraging police agencies to carry them even further.

The 'new federalism' doctrine would be carried forward in cases sustaining the power of the president over Congress, the power of the President and/or Congress over the States, the power of both the federal and state government over the individual. What the old New Dealer Bert Gross called 'friendly fascism' in the Nixon years, that is a great expansion of executive power and privilege, especially police power advancing under the cloak of constitutional forms, would advance much more rapidly with Supreme Court support.

There would be no Supreme Court to uphold the New York Times as the Court did when it published the Pentagon Papers in 1971. There would be no federal judiciary to stop a president from 'getting' the Washington Post, as Richard Nixon privately swore he would do after the first Watergate revelations were published. There would be no Supreme Court to compel a president to turn over documents showing criminal acts as the Supreme Court compelled the Nixon administration to turn over transcripts of the Watergate tapes in 1974.

Actions like Nixon’s attempt to launch an anti-Semitic purge in the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1971 to feed his own paranoid prejudices, and the Reagan administration’s flouting of congressional resolutions by both selling arms to Iran and siphoning off some of the profits to the Nicaraguan contras, would become normal acts. A president could legally and literally get away with murder, which is the foundation of tyranny.

The U.S. government in such a context might look more and more like Greece before the colonels coup of 1967, that is, a government where widespread illegality and criminality was not checked or balanced by anything except a small section of the press and legislature that was willing to seek to uncover and expose its abuses.

We must fight to support the filibuster and use it to defeat the Alito nomination before what Bert Gross called 'friendly fascism' advances further in the U.S. trickling down from the government to the people.

--Norman Markowitz can be reached at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.

Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:21:00 +0000

1-30-06, 9:04 am

On January 1 Congress allowed two tax breaks that benefit the wealthy to become effective. The cuts eliminated current provisions of the tax code that limits the amount of personal exemptions and itemized deductions that Americans with high incomes can take. Over the course of the next five years the tax cuts will cost approximately $27 billion, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ironically, Republicans in Congress, only two weeks before the cuts took effect, voted to reduce domestic spending on programs affecting the poor and the middle class by $39 billion over the next five years.

The tax codes eliminated are the Pease provision and the personal exemption phase-out provision (PEP). Both were originally passed in 1990 in an effort to reduce the deficit. The Pease provision limited the amount of itemized deductions taxpayers with high incomes could claim. The tax code permits individuals to reduce their taxable income either by the standard deduction or by an amount equivalent to their total itemized deductions. In general, wealthy taxpayers use itemized deductions much more than the middle class and the poor.

The Pease provision reduced the amount of deductions for those who itemized and had incomes exceeding $145,950 last year. The total amount of itemized deductions wealthy taxpayers could claim was reduced by three percent of the amount by which their incomes exceeded $145,950. Similarly, the PEP provision of the tax code phased out personal exemptions for the wealthy. The tax code permits individuals to claim a personal exemption for each member of their household; last year it was $3,200.00.

They can subtract personal exemptions from their adjusted gross income before calculating their taxes, thereby reducing the amount of taxes owed. In 2005 the PEP provision mandated that taxpayers lost two percent of their personal exemption for every $2,500.00 by which their income exceeded $218,950 for married couples and $145,950 for singles.

Congressional Republicans have frequently said that the Pease and PEP provisions made it more difficult for Americans to determine their taxes. However, it’s typically high-income taxpayers who take itemized deductions. And these are individuals who usually have their taxes prepared by accountants and other tax professionals who can easily calculate these provisions. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that over the next 13 years these tax breaks for the wealthy will deprive the country of $197 billion in revenue. And a study by the Brookings Institution determined that 97 percent of the Pease and PEP tax breaks will go to those households with incomes above $200,000. And more than half of these breaks will benefit the 0.2 percent of families with annual incomes exceeding $1 million. Once these tax cuts are fully implemented in 2010, the average millionaire will save $19,000 annually in taxes.

Only three percent of families with annual incomes of less than $200,000 will receive any benefit from these tax breaks. Families with yearly incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 will receive an average tax cut of only $25. And families earning less than $100,000 – the vast majority of Americans – will not benefit at all.

Shortly before these tax cuts became effective Republicans in Congress approved of massive and draconian domestic budget cuts, despite objections by Democrats. Republicans insisted that “tough choices” had to be made in an effort to reduce the growing deficit. Consequently, they voted to cut $11 billion over the next five years from Medicaid, the health care system that serves America’s poor. Substantial reductions were also made in childcare assistance, which will result in 255,000 fewer children living in poverty receiving federal assistance.

Republicans voted to cut funding for child support enforcement programs by $1.5 billion over the next five years. These funds are used to locate parents who have failed to pay child support and collect delinquent payments on their child’s behalf. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this loss of federal funding will result in $2.9 billion in child support going uncollected in the next five years.

Other cuts were equally severe. Congressional Republicans agreed to cut $343 million in funding for foster care programs, including reductions that will make it more difficult for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren to receive assistance. Over $12 billion was cut from federal college loan programs, making it more difficult for poor and middle-class Americans to afford a college education.

If Republicans had chosen not to allow the Pease and PEP tax cuts to take effect this would have saved more than two-thirds of the funding cut from domestic programs. In fact, over the next five years these tax breaks exceed the savings from all of the reductions in low-income assistance programs that Congress voted to cut. It appears that for Congressional Republicans, “tough choices” in reducing the deficit didn’t include requiring the wealthy to continue to pay their fair share of taxes.

Argentina’s Néstor Kirchner: Peronism Without the Tears

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:18:00 +0000

1-30-06, 9:02 am

As the “pink tide” fraternity of left-leaning leaders grows in numbers across Latin America, the successes of one of the continent’s less high profile members of this fellowship, Argentina’s Néstor Kirchner, have largely gone unnoticed outside of his country. Together with Venezuela’s Chávez, Brazil’s Lula, Uruguay’s Vásquez, Bolivia’s Morales, and, more distantly, Chile’s recently elected self-professed socialist president, Michelle Bachelet (whose ties with the “pink tide” are questionable), Kirchner is a central player in the hemispheric drift away from untrammeled market policies and towards a socially conscious and state-centric model. Aside from his extraordinary stand against the IMF regarding Argentina’s massive debt problem, Kirchner is not widely known abroad. Distinguishing him from the ranks of the other “pink tide” leaders is perhaps made more difficult because he remains identified with architecting a uniquely Argentine solution for his nation’s economic and political woes, rather than concocting a recipe applicable to the entire continent. In spite of his near invisibility in the U.S., the polls tell us that he is probably the most popular leader in all of Latin America.

Making the Man

Latin America’s leadership has traditionally been educated abroad, but Kirchner was schooled at La Plata National University in Buenos Aires, where he earned his law degree and began his political activism by opposing the brutal military dictatorship of Rafael Videla (1976-1981). While living in the thinly populated southern province of Santa Cruz, Kirchner gained instant popularity as the result of a dispute with the then governor regarding financial policy. This led to Kirchner’s resignation as president of the Rio Gallegos social welfare fund in 1984. Public attention surrounding his highly visible departure from this body fueled the early phases of his political career, when in 1987 he was elected mayor of Rio Gallegos, a small city in the province of Santa Cruz. Kirchner’s success as mayor propelled him to run for the provincial governorship in 1991, where he won with 61% of the vote. During his time as governor, Kirchner demonstrated an ability to curb unemployment and boost productivity through attractive investments, using deregulation and monetary policy to create more equitable distributed wealth, and lower poverty levels in this oil rich province.

Economic Crisis

As Kirchner continued his stint as governor in Santa Cruz, (winning re-election in 1995 and 1999), Argentina’s economy began its free-fall towards a sharp recession. In 2000, Buenos Aires requested helped from the IMF in order to reduce the country’s debt, but the $40 billion aid package proved far from sufficient. By 2001, riots and demonstrations erupted that forced then-president De La Rúa from office. Following the latter’s resignation, a series of presidents briefly held office, which eventually led to the appointment of interim president Eduardo Duhalde in 2002, who was to serve until the 2003 presidential elections. While president, Duhalde eliminated the fixed-exchange rate with the dollar, causing the peso to quickly devalue, sending the Argentine economy further into economic recession. At this point, Argentines began to grievously suffer, as bank accounts were frozen, with many families eventually losing the bulk of their savings. Citizens across the nation were losing all trust in their political leadership, and a profound malaise descended on the country.

Kirchner Emerges

In 2003, Argentina prepared for presidential elections, hopeful of discovering a political figure capable of repairing the economy and bringing about a return to past glories. Almost overnight, the hardly known Kirchner emerged as a powerful challenger to former President Carlos Menem (1989-1999), and quickly gained popularity with his denunciations of the latter’s neo-liberal policies. After sagging in the first round, Menem, whose hands had been repeatedly caught in the national cookie jar, and facing certain defeat, dropped out of the second round runoff, giving the presidency to Kirchner.

Kirchner’s Plan

Kirchner, whose political philosophy draws on a center-left Peronist approach that advocates a strong centralized government free from foreign influence, became Argentina’s president-elect in May of 2003, forcing him to face Argentina’s collapsed economy head on. Not only did Kirchner immediately negotiate an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to reschedule $84 billion dollars in debt over three years, he declared Argentina’s independence from the international lending organization, claiming that the open market economic program imposed by the IMF could not be counted on to solve Latin America’s, much less Argentina’s, economic problems. Upon receiving IMF funds in 2001, Argentina had agreed to reduce government spending and raise taxes, which resulted in a lower standard of living and violent confrontations with unemployed demonstrators. The IMF essentially had mandated austerity, cutting back Argentina’s social programs in the face of the country’s crippling crisis, a move which produced a convulsive reaction on the part of the public. Also confronting the new president was the task of dealing with the Argentine Supreme Court, upon which sat a number of judges widely regarded as corrupt, who had been appointed under Menem. Kirchner initiated the departure of several judges, as well as many members of Argentina’s military, both reminders of a wretched epoch in the country’s recent history. Regarding the military, Kirchner’s courageous attitude has been where there is crime there must be punishment, and that those members of the armed forces who had murdered innocent civilians must be made to face their guilt.

Economic Repair

Economic Minister Roberto Lavagna, appointed in 2002 by interim President Duhalde, remained in his post under Kirchner, and played a key role in returning stability to Argentina after the catastrophic freezing of the public’s bank accounts in 2001, termed the “corralito.” Lavagna’s strict fiscal and monetary policies eventually produced outstanding results, as Argentina experienced a growth rate of nine percent in the last three years, and since 2002, the amount of foreign currency in the Central Bank has tripled, with exports rising 50 percent. Though Kirchner and Lavagna together successfully bargained with the IMF, and eventually paid off Argentina’s $84 million dollar debt under very favorable terms, they ultimately disagreed on how to respond to recent inflationary surges. The IMF demanded that Kirchner increase public utility rates, and Lavagna pushed for negotiations with the IMF, but instead, Kirchner fired Lavagna on November 28, 2005, repaid the IMF, and unilaterally installed temporary price controls. This bold act immediately produced an electrifying ripple throughout the populous, causing great concern with respect to Argentina’s economic future. The price controls willexpire this coming June, but may become permanent if inflation doesn’t subside. There is speculation as to whether inflation is a result of lower currency reserves, or a function of Kirchner’s unpredictable behavior, despite his promises to maintain a stable economic atmosphere.

Kirchner’s motives for his economic policy are clear; by repaying the IMF, Argentina gains economic autonomy from an overarching authority which has chronically undermined Latin America’s economic prosperity. Kirchner, like many other Argentine public figures, openly blames the IMF for the economic collapse of 2001-2002, so the public’s desire to be rid of the IMF is more than understandable. In fact, this sentiment is on par with a worldwide trend: Thailand and Indonesia made similar choices in 2003, and Brazil’s Lula announced his plans to repay Brazil’s IMF obligations two days prior to Kirchner’s decision to do so.

Kirchner’s Future- Prospects and Plans

As of now, Kirchner is vastly popular, ticking up a 75% approval rating. This has prompted a certain amount of unease over the concentration of power in his person. Joaquín Morales Solá, a political columnist for La Nacíón, defines Kirchner as having a “personalistic style of governing, with a dose of authoritarianism and hegemony, an aggressive style of induced rupture and confrontation.” Kirchner’s faction of Peronisim, called “Front for Victory” (FV), has gained nationwide popularity, winning 69 seats – 54% of those being contested – in last November’s congressional elections, suggesting that the president’s policies have wide popular backing. One of those seats will be filled by his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, representing a Buenos Aires district. Among Kirchner’s supporters are the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo), Argentine mothers who have marched in the Plaza de Mayo for the last 25 years demanding information about the estimated 30,000 people who disappeared during the “dirty war.” The mothers recently announced the end of their marches, noting that they “no longer had an enemy in the presidency.”

Currently, Kirchner’s Argentina is following Chávez and his brethren movement leftward, away from Bush’s free-market economics, and towards Chávez’s populism. Kirchner has given the public every reason to believe in him. Unemployment and poverty have fallen, and economic growth has ensued. Kirchner sees a role for Argentina in the movement, with the long term goal of creating a South American union and confronting Washington and the IMF, if need be. Together, Kirchner and Chávez are working on a southern development fund, a component of which represents Venezuela’s financial aid to Argentina, which has included Caracas’ purchases of about $2 billion in Argentine securities overall . Also, Chávez has made plans with Kirchner and Lula to build a $4 billion pipeline through Peru and Brazil to supply Argentina’s hefty gas demands. The gesture was reciprocated through Kirchner’s stalwart backing of Venezuela’s entrance into MERCOSUR.

Argentina’s traditional U.S.-influenced foreign policy, which was embraced by the Menem administration, has been profoundly altered under Kirchner. Upon coming to office, he suspended Argentina’s policy of “automatic alignment” with Washington, and now no longer is prepared to please the White House by voting against Cuba on human rights issues. Kirchner’s ideology has brought him closer to the other “pink tide” leaders of the continent, among them Brazil’s Lula de Silva, who Kirchner professedly admires as “one of the greatest Brazilian presidents.” Most recently Lula promised Kirchner that he would help overcome trade asymmetries and also help accelerate Argentina’s industrialization, which contrasts with frosty past moments over trade differences. The previously testy relationship between the two South American giants seems to have been somewhat ameliorated by Kirchner’s effectiveness in relieving Argentina’s economic distress. Kirchner also has endorsed newly elected Evo Morales by attending his inauguration in La Paz. And as the threat of an energy crisis creeps near, he has also formed ties with Chávez, resulting in the proposed natural gas pipeline that would link the two nations. In recent weeks, Kirchner’s only spat has been with neighboring Uruguay, which seems to feel alienated by MERCOSUR trade differences, and has heatedly disputed Buenos Aires’ environmental objections to Montevideo’s plans to construct polluting cellulose plants on the border.

Since the 2003 elections, Kirchner has proven his ability to nurse Argentina back to relative health, and remains a highly popular figure among Argentines, yet the country's long-term future remains somewhat uncertain. The Economist Intelligence Unit last month speculated that Kirchner’s government would move towards stabilization as inflation slowly begins to fall from today’s 12% to 10% by the end of this year. Imports will continue to recover, and according to the UN World Economic Situation and Forecast report, in 2006 Argentina will grow by 6%. Kirchner has taken steps to reduce debt and promote social programs that benefit the poor. Yet by accumulating increasing degrees of personal power, Kirchner could be tempting hubris and risking national consensus. Also, whoever follows Kirchner may not possess the wizardry to maintain the pace of economic recovery on the existing too narrow economic base. Critics argue that the continuation of the economic recovery would have to be backed by ongoing investments from disparate sources, or Argentina will once again find itself needful of another Kirchner to save the country from its own indulgences.

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs

SUDAN: Thousands displaced by renewed fighting in Darfur

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:17:00 +0000

01-30-06,8:59am

NAIROBI, 27 Jan 2006 (IRIN) - Thousands of civilians have been displaced by renewed fighting between Sudanese government forces and rebels in the western Darfur region, United Nations officials said on Friday.

Most of those newly displaced had fled fighting around Golo and Daya in the Jebel Marra area of West Darfur, said Andy Pendleton, the area coordinator for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The exact number of those displaced could not be immediately established.

The situation in Golo and Daya remained 'very tense'. Humanitarian agencies have been reducing their staff in West Darfur State in the past month due to rising tensions in the area, Pendleton added.

Other sources said the latest fighting in West Darfur had been going on for about five days and involved Sudanese government troops and rebels of the Sudanese Liberation Army.

Dawn Blalock, spokeswoman for OCHA in Sudan, said some 400 internally displaced persons in Sharia, South Darfur, had been harassed by militiamen on horseback. Most of them were women and children.

'OCHA has been in touch with the appropriate officials asking them to intervene in the area,' she said by telephone from the Sudanese capital, Khartoum.

By Friday, at least 90 humanitarian staff working for several international nongovernmental organisations had been evacuated from Golo and Daya.

The UN Mission in Sudan said it evacuated seven of its staff from Sharia to Nyala, the capital of South Darfur, on Thursday.

Tension in the region, Pendleton said, had also been fuelled by a standoff between Sudan and Chad. The two neighbours have traded accusations for months, each side claiming the other supports its insurgents.

In December, the Chadian government declared 'a state of belligerence' between itself and Sudan following a deadly border attack Chad blamed on the Sudanese government.

The Darfur conflict erupted in early 2003 when rebels took up arms against Khartoum to end what they called the neglect and oppression of the mainly black inhabitants of Darfur, a semi-desert region the size of France.

The Sudanese government responded by backing Arab militias known as the Janjawid, who have been widely accused of committing atrocities against civilians.

Some 3.4 million people continue to be affected by the conflict, according to the UN, of whom 1.8 million are internally displaced and 200,000 have fled to neighbouring Chad.

Book Review: Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:06:00 +0000

1-30-06, 8:49 am

Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life

Niles Eldredge W. W. Norton and Company, 2005

Ordinary, non-academically trained admirers of Charles Darwin probably do not fully understand the enormous scope of the contribution to life sciences made by the founder of evolutionary theory. On the other hand, in the view of that fountainhead of religious fanaticism and extremist pronouncements, Pat Robertson, Charles Darwin, in his discoveries, was more likely inspired by demonic forces than by a brilliant mind devoted to scientific method, agonizingly detailed study, and years of philosophical and spiritual soul-searching.

A new biography by American Museum of Natural History curator and trained biologist Niles Eldredge is an excellent source of information about the biographical details of the scientist's life, as well as a careful and not too arcane account of the basic theories at which Darwin arrived. Additionally, Eldredge brings Darwin's work up to date, examining his influence on modern scientists and the contemporary debates raging around questions posed by religiously motivated critics of Darwin.

People of any political or religious orientation who have concerns about evolutionary theory – what it is, what scientists say about it, and what the evidence shows – should read this book.

Of particular interest to this reviewer was Eldredge's final chapter, 'Darwin as Anti-Christ: Creationism in the Twenty-first Century.' Throughout the book, Eldredge reminds us that Darwin, prior to his discoveries and the synthesis of his own thoughts about them, was a devout creationist, much like most of the scientists and thinkers of his time. In fact, he hesitated to publish his findings for more than a decade because of his personal struggle over what they meant.

Contrary to the received wisdom of his time, Darwin came to believe, based on decades of observation and research, that all life has descended from a single common ancestor in the remote geological past and that it has evolved. Since Darwin, as Eldredge writes, all we have learned about molecular biology, the existing fossil record and new fossil discoveries, as well as studies of living species, has corroborated Darwin's theories and predictions.

Eldredge also notes that while most people of faith insist on keeping religious interpretations separate from scientific ones, some fundamentalist religious groups have continued to push creationist ideas as science. Creationist ideas are based on two principle assumptions. First, the biblical account of the origins of life must be true and infallible because it is believed to be the word of God (ignoring the fact that there are two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis, one saying that humans were created before animals, another after them). Secondly, creationist ideas allow their proponents to view humans as distinct from the rest of nature.

Eldredge rejects the creationists' claim that evolution has not been proven and that life is too complex to have been an accident. (He also points out the creationism is the real basis of current ideas about intelligent design, although disguised with new rhetoric.) He points out, as genetic discoveries have shown us, that all life is connected by DNA and RNA, since this genetic material can be found in every living thing. Also, the development of life from simple to complex organisms, as evidenced by the fossil record, corroborates evolutionary theory. And, for humans especially, genetic studies as well as the fossil record show a strong kinship with apes and a concrete lineage linking both humans and apes to a common ancestor, facts that completely undermine creationist/intelligent design criticisms of evolutionary theory.

There is no doubt, Eldredge writes, that 'all the evidence puts us squarely within the ranks of apes, which are primates, which are mammals, which are animals, which are eukaryotes, which are a segment of all life. This is what we would expect if we evolved. This is what we see. We evolved.... Darwin was right.'

As for the question of complexity, Eldredge points out that as the fossil record and our knowledge of genetics and numerous branches of chemistry and biology show, complexity is the outcome of several billion years of evolutionary change. One should expect complexity under such conditions.

Meanwhile, intelligent design concepts are 'conveniently untestable.' These concepts lack the claim to science that evolutionary theory has. Unlike creationism/intelligent design, evolution can be observed in the fossil record and predictions can be made and re-tested. Intelligent design, on the other hand, relies on simple belief and ignores, in fact rejects, the scientific requirement that it be tested. It boils down to rhetoric: life is too complex to be an accident; therefore it must have been designed. End of debate.

On another point, Eldredge argues that creationist/intelligent design advocates who demand their religious views be taught in science classrooms and try to discredit real science in the court of public opinion, are on the verge of undermining the leading role of the US in scientific research. At bottom, creationism/intelligent design proponents rely on lack of knowledge about science to convince their followers and convert new believers. In the process they misrepresent evolutionary theory in order to discredit scientific work and the scientific method. How many times do we have to hear Pat Robertson announce that evolution is wrong because it teaches that Jesus was a monkey in order to understand just how much scientific knowledge creationists/intelligent design advocates are actually working with? In the end, if this blatant advocacy of scientific illiteracy comes to predominate in science classrooms, the US will be sidelined as a major source of new scientific discovery.

In fact, it is not too wild to predict that if creationists and their right-wing political allies continue to dominate politics in general in the US, as they presently do, the dark night of superstition, ignorance and fear will return. In the context of right-wing views on the environment, health care and disease, their preference for using science for military purposes, and their entire political and economic strategy for the privatization and corporatization of knowledge and resources, the political and educational impact of creationism points to dangerous prospects for democracy and the possibility for a better world that genuine science offers us.

NIGERIA: Oil-rich Niger Delta faces “shocking” new wave of violence

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:04:00 +0000

01-30-06,9:14am

WARRI, 27 Jan 2006 (IRIN) - Foreign oil companies accustomed to high tension in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta are being forced to grapple with a new level of violence one industry official called “shocking.”

In the past two decades, the multinational corporations producing Nigeria’s oil in the impoverished southern region have grown used to disruptions caused by protests or sabotage by locals who feel dispossessed of their oil wealth by the central government.

But in the past 14 days Nigeria has been confronted by something different: militants vowing to cripple oil exports and kidnappers with political demands. One new militant group has said it has now resolved to take control of the region’s oil resources by force.

“We’re certainly facing a more intense level of violence and it’s very disruptive to our operations,” one industry source said on condition of anonymity. “We’re really shocked by the amount of violence unleashed on Benisede [a facility recently attacked]. It was quite ugly.”

Armed groups frequently take oil workers hostage, but up to now have usually freed them after payment of a ransom.

But gunmen who seized four foreign oil workers from the offshore EA oil platform run by Royal Dutch Shell more than two weeks ago are insisting on the release of regional militants and political leaders detained by the Nigerian government.

The same group is claiming responsibility for an attack four days later that destroyed Shell’s Benisede oil pumping station in the delta swamps and left at least 12 people dead. The violence led Shell to evacuate more than 300 workers from other vulnerable facilities and close down about 10 percent of Nigeria’s production.

'Guerrilla warfare'

And this week’s attack on the offices of Italy’s Agip oil company in the oil industry capital of Port Harcourt, in which nine policemen and one company employee were killed, bears all the hallmarks of the militants despite police calling it a robbery.

Armed men in military fatigues rode in speedboats to the riverside premises of Agip and opened fire on policemen guarding the main building. Police commissioner Samuel Adetuyi said the men took the equivalent of US $30,000 from an office before retreating into the maze of creeks that makes up the region.

Ijaw militant in the Niger Delta

Adetuyi described the assailants as robbers. But analysts see a new phase of violence emerging in a region that has seen nearly two decades of unrest.

“This is not just another instalment in the delta violence we’re used to,” said Pius Waritimi, a rights activist based in Port Harcourt.

“We’re entering another phase; this is guerrilla warfare.”

The militant group claiming the recent kidnappings and attacks - the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) - has displayed considerable military capability, repeatedly catching Nigerian security forces unawares.

MEND militants evaded navy troops guarding Shell’s EA platform located six miles offshore in the shallow Atlantic waters adjoining the delta to invade a supply boat and seize four men.

The hostages are US citizen Patrick Landry, the boat’s captain; his two ship engineers - Harry Ebanks from Honduras and Nilko Michev from Bulgaria; and Nigel Watson-Clark, a retired British paratrooper working as a security expert. MEND’s dawn attack on Benisede began with rocket attacks on the quarters housing soldiers stationed to guard the facility, followed by more blasts from explosives, Shell and military officials said. The Nigerian army said eight militants were killed in that attack and four soldiers confirmed dead, with 11 still missing and presumed dead.

Two major pipeline attacks since December claimed by the group have targeted Shell-operated trunk pipelines that carry crude oil produced in the delta swamps to its export terminals, in line with militants’ vow to cripple exports.

Militants say locals deprived as oil flows

One prominent militia leader protesters want freed is Moujahid Dokubo-Asari, who led an armed uprising of ethnic Ijaw militants in 2004 to back demands for local control of oil resources in the Niger Delta.

Dokubo-Asari’s demand has resonance among the ethnic minorities of the oil region, who feel deprived of oil wealth by an alliance of foreign oil companies and successive governments dominated by members from Nigeria’s dominant ethnic groups.

Dokubo-Asari’s threat to target oil companies last year helped drive global oil prices beyond the $50 mark for the first time. But his Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force (NDPVF) called off the threat after their leader met with President Olusegun Obasanjo and agreed to a truce. The group subsequently agreed to surrender its arms for cash.

Moujahid Dokubo-Asari

But Dokubo-Asari, who remained a strident critic of the Nigerian government, was arrested in September and charged with treason after he declared in a newspaper interview he would fight for the disintegration of the country, Africa’s most populous with more than 126 million people.

MEND is also calling for the release of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, the former governor of Bayelsa state (Nigeria’s only wholly Ijaw state), who is being held on corruption charges. Arrested in Britain on money laundering charges in September, Alamieyeseigha jumped bail in November and returned to his governorship in Nigeria.

Alamieyeseigha was arrested three week’s later by the police after his state’s legislature impeached him as governor.

MEND insists both men are being persecuted by Obasanjo more for opposing his alleged plan to extend his rule and for their support of local control of oil revenue, than for any crimes they are alleged to have committed.

“We don’t want any money. We only want Dokubo-Asari and Alamieyeseigha released,” a man who gave his name as Brutus Ebipadei and described himself as MEND’s leader, told IRIN by telephone. “They’re the only ones who can negotiate the release of the hostages.”

Ebipadei added: “We want the Nigerian state to leave our oil for us, and we have started our fight to achieve it.” He allowed the reporter to speak to two of the hostages, whom Shell confirmed as being among the company’s kidnapped employees.

MEND does not claim any direct links with Dokubo-Asari’s NDPVF apart from demanding his release. During a court appearance for his treason trial last week Dokubo-Asari said he did not know the group but expressed support for their action.

A Shell-sponsored security study completed in late 2003 showed a pattern of weapons influx into the delta fed by an illegal trade in crude oil and used in widespread violence claiming an average of 1,000 lives every year. The study predicted that violence may force Shell to quit onshore oil production in Nigeria by 2008.

Nigeria estimates that up to 10 percent of its oil production is sometimes lost through criminal gangs that siphon crude oil from pipelines for sale to tankers waiting offshore. Militant leader Dokubo-Asari has acknowledged in interviews that a major source of militia weaponry has been the illegal trade in crude oil.

While Obasanjo has remained restrained with regard to the hostage-taking - appealing to the militants “not to do anything that could result in the loss of lives” - residents in the Niger Delta are beginning to flee for fear of military reprisals against local militia.

Similar standoffs in the past give citizens cause to worry. In November 1999, months after taking office as elected president after more than 15 years of military rule, Obasanjo sent troops after a group of armed militants that had killed 12 policemen. Government troops levelled the town of Odi where the killings had taken place and killed more than 1,000 people, according to human rights groups.

“Almost everyone in my town has fled,” said Enitowari Inengi, a resident of Ozobo, a fishing community near Shell’s Benisede facility. “Everyone one is afraid the military will do to us what they did at Odi.”

But even getting at the militants poses a huge challenge for authorities as the delta environment - a region of more than 70,000 square kilometres criss-crossed by thousands of rivers and creeks - is impossible to police. Militants have used their mastery of the terrain as their main strength, taking refuge in the labyrinth of creeks from where they attack targets at will.

In a recent e-mail statement MEND said: “We want to prove that the oil on our soil cannot be taken without our consent.”

US Military Maneuvers in the Philippines Condemned

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:57:00 +0000

1-30-06, 8:40 am

Phlippine Communist Party (PKP-1930) Condemns New Series of U.S. War Games in the Philippines

The Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP-1930, the Philippine Communist Party) condemns the new series of U.S. war games in the Philippines, dubbed as Balikatan ('shoulder-to-shoulder') 2006 Exercises, which were due to start this week. The first round of joint US-Philippine war games, a month-long small-unit field training exercise, is to be held starting 17 January 2006 in and around Camp Lucero, the base of the Philippine Army's 602nd Infantry Brigade in Carmen town, North Cotabato province, in the southern island of Mindanao. The last time that war games were conducted by US forces with their Filipino counterparts in this town was in July 2004.

Next month, from February 19 to March 5, similar war games are to be conducted in the vicinity of Jolo, Sulu, as well as in other parts of the country – at the former US naval base in Olongapo, Zambales province; the former US air base at Clark Field in Pampanga province; the former US military stations in Cavite, Cebu and Zamboanga provinces; and at the Philippine Army base at Fort Magsaysay in Nueva Ecija province. In all, around 5,500 US soldiers will be involved in these joint war games up to March.

It is expected that these war games will again result in injuries and even casualties, either among participants (as in a previous amphibious landing operation, and in a previous Chinook helicopter flight), or among civilians in the area. Aside from the attendant damage to the local environment, there is also a great danger of abuse upon the local communities by US forces participating in these war games.

In The Midst of The Rape Case Controversy It is particularly reprehensible for the regime of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to allow this new round of US military exercises amid the raging controversy concerning the US denial of the Philippine request for custody over the US marines who have been charged with the rape of a 22-year-old Filipina. The victim, who hails from the southern city of Zamboanga, was vacationing in Olongapo City (the site of the former US naval base) when she was gang-raped last November 1st by a group of 6 US marines. Significantly, the 6 US marines were then on their last night prowl in town, and were about to sail home to their military base in Japan after participating in the US war games in the area.

Only 4 of the US marines have so far been charged with rape (Lance Corporals Daniel Smith, Dominic Duplantis and Keith Silkwood, and Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier). The US denial of the request for Philippine custody over the accused has led many sectors to call for the immediate abrogation of the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)! under which these joint military exercises are being conducted. The VFA has become the justification for the USA to establish a semi-continuous military presence in the Philippines, even without a permanent basing arrangement.

The Focus On Mindanao

This will be the first time in several decades that US forces will conduct war games in Sulu province. However, US soldiers have been conducting intelligence-gathering surveys or 'assessments' in at least 5 towns of Sulu province (in Jolo, Panamao, Indanan, Parang and Maimbung) since April of last year. In the nearby Zamboanga and Basilan provinces, US war games were held in 2001. The southern islands of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi are known haunts of Muslim extremists such as the 'Abu Sayyaf' group which have carried out bombings, kidnappings and other attacks against Christians and foreigners in the Philippines as well as in neighboring parts of Malaysia.

Members of the Abu Sayyaf and other Muslim fundamentalist groups recruited in the southern islands of Mindanao were trained in Pakistan and infiltrated into Afghanistan in the late 1980s, as part of the US war against the then national-democratic government led by the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). These Filipino extremists became linked to the CIA-organized Al-Qaeda terrorist network then operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The March 5 culmination of the US war games in Sulu will coincide with the centennial of the start of the attack by US soldiers on Bud Dajo, an extict volcano in Sulu. At least 600 men, women and children of the indigenous Moslem Tausug tribe were pursued and trapped in the crater of this volcano, were made targets by US soldiers firing from safe positions on the heights above, and massacred in just one and a half days. Less than 20 US soldiers died in that one-sided 'battle', while only 2 of the trapped indigenous Filipinos survived the US massacre.

The new US interest in having war games in the Autonomous Region of Moslem Mindanao (which region US embassy officials have called the 'mecca of terrorism' and a breeding ground for terrorists), is related to the increased activity of transnational corporations prospecting for offshore oil deposits and for inland mineral resources in this region. With the main Moslem secessionist groups (the Moro National Liberation Front based in the Zamboanga-Sulu area, and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front based in the Maguindanao-Cotabato area) apparently posing no threat to US forces in Mindanao, the US forces are more concerned with stopping the terrorist activities of the small extremist groups that they used to train in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A Prelude For Permanent Basing Arrangements

US concern with Islamic fundamentalism in the region is another factor in the growing US military presence in Mindanao, which could again be used as a launching pad for US military interventions in the region. It may be recalled that in 1956, President Sukarno of Indonesia enraged the US imperialists by hosting the first Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung, which conference gave later birth to the Non-Aligned Movement. To topple Sukarno, the CIA launched the so-called 'Black Colonels' Revolt' in 1958. As part of that coup attempt, unmarked US Air Force planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines were used to re-supply the coup leaders, and to bomb the Sukarno strongholds. Fortunately for Sukarno at that time, that CIA-instigated coup attempt failed, as a US Air Force B-26 plane was shot down over Ambon during a bombing run. The CIA pilot, Allen Pope, was captured and admitted to having come from Clark Air Base, and to having been refueled at the then US-controlled Sanga-Sanga airfield in Tawi-Tawi Island at the southwestern tip of Mindanao. A renewed US military presence in Mindanao is not only a denigration of Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also poses a threat to the independence of neighboring countries.

In allowing the resumption of US war games in our country, and in proposing changes to the Constitution (in order to again allow US military bases in the Philippines, as well as to grant greater rights for US and other transnational corporations here), Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wants to further ingratiate herself to the Bush administration, in order to ensure continued US support for her illegitimate hold on power. But she can no longer further deceive the Filipino people. The struggle against the US military presence in our country, and against the neo-colonial order in general, is linked with the struggle to oust the illegitimate regime of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP-1930) will exert every effort to mobilize the Filipino masses for the stepping up and success of these struggles.

Central Committee PARTIDO KOMUNISTA NG PILIPINAS (PKP-1930) (Philippine Communist Party) 20 January 2006

Left-wing Candidate Wins 8.5% in Portugal's Presidential Election

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:54:00 +0000

1-30-06, 8:37 am

Statement by Jeronimo de Sousa, candidate for the Portuguese Communist Party/Green Party coalition, on the results of the Portuguese presidential elections, January 22, 2006

Today's Presidential elections are marked by two elements: the election of Cavaco Silva and the large share of the vote obtained by my candidacy which, regardless of the overall result, represents a stimulus to assert the project that guided it, and a guarantee that it will continue pursuing, with confidence and determination, the struggle for a Portugal with future.

Cavaco Silva's election in the first round negatively characterizes the results of this election for the Presidency of the Republic. But it must be noted that this result occurred by a slim margin of votes, very distant from the anticipated crowning which some had proclaimed. The slim margin of this result shows (as we repeatedly stated) that those who opposed it could have defeated it, as it deserved to be defeated. But for this to have happened, it would have been necessary for other political forces to show the same degree of commitment with which my candidacy waged this battle.

The right wing has achieved, 30 years on from the April 25th [1974], control over this organ of sovereignty, based on a campaign that counted on the most powerful economic means and that benefited from the undeniable support and sympathy of the main mass media groups, who white-washed the candidate's past and hid his projects and ambitions for the future.

In a context in which, without hesitations and with determination, my candidacy alerted towards the risks and consequences of the right-wing candidate's victory, and clearly stated the goal of preventing it, we must draw attention to the set of factors that favored Cavaco Silva's election.

In reality, Cavaco Silva benefited (apart from powerful resources and assistance) from the hesitations, attitudes and stances of the Socialist Party (PS) and its Government which, from the very beginning, contributed to enhance Cavaco Silva's electoral chances. The hesitations and ambiguities that have always marked the PS's position, the obvious lack of commitment in this campaign, together with the surrender and resignation of the PS leadership when confronted with this electoral battle, decisively favored the final outcome of these elections.

Added to this, and of no less importance, is the heightened social discontentment legitimately generated by the continued right-wing policies of the Socrates Government and the multiplication of anti-popular decisions (some of which taken during the electoral campaign itself), discontentment which Cavaco Silva hypocritically capitalized in his favor. Unlike what is defended by some, who attempt to elude their responsibilities, one of Cavaco's advantages did not reside in the existence of more than one candidate to his left, but rather in the divisions, demobilization and early surrender of the PS, that are clearly reflected in the election results.

With Cavaco Silva's victory, it is not the country that has gained stability, but rather the right-wing policies and the conditions to pursue it. With Cavaco Silva's victory, it is not April and the Constitution that emerged strengthened and defended, but rather the desire to destroy rights and do away with important achievements of April, a desire that the most reactionary sectors of domestic big business have long cherished.

As we repeatedly warned, Cavaco Silva's election introduces negative factors in the present political and social context. It will encourage the most reactionary and revanchist sectors of the right and of big business and their desire to devour the national resources and wealth, making the struggle for a democratic and left-wing break with the right-wing policies more complex and challenging.

The result achieved by my candidacy over 8.5% of the vote, much more than in the previous presidential elections is an important advancement if compared with the result of the CDU [PCP-Greens coalition] in the 2005 general election, obtaining nearly half a million votes and scoring significant victories, as in the Beja District and in numerous municipalities. It represents, despite the negative outcome with Cavaco's election, an important electoral success and a factor of encouragement for those who do not conform to the right-wing policies and who believe that it is not only necessary but possible to achieve an alternative and a left-wing policy that may recreate hope in a better Portugal, a Portugal with a future.

This result, which confirms the tide of support that accompanied this candidacy, is above all a sign of confidence by many, many thousands of Portuguese men and women, who do not resign themselves to injustice and inequalities, and who believe that a new course for the country is possible. To all of them, to the Portuguese workers and people, I wish to reaffirm here the unshakable determination to honor the support that was received and to continue the work and the struggle in defense of social rights and achievements, for better living standards, for a democratic and left-wing about-turn in the country's life.

My candidacy, which gave rise to a broad current of support, confirmed itself throughout this campaign as a reference of hope in a Portugal with a future.

It was a candidacy that, more than the expression of a single man, was a collective construction by many thousands of men and women, young and not so young, united by the strength of the values which they defend and by an enormous confidence in the future of their country.

Overcoming the borders of the political forces that supported it (the PCP, the PEV [Greens] and ID [Democratic Intervention]), this candidacy that united many thousands of men and women who are not members of political parties or who have other political allegiances represents an expression of confidence and determination in a better life that will extend beyond this day and these elections.

I wish to greet here all those Communists, Greens, independents, supporters of other political forces who, with their action, their support, their words of help or encouragement, strengthened this candidacy and the values of April that it embodies; all those who recognized in this candidacy a clear option on the side of the workers, of small and medium entrepreneurs, of pensioners, of those who most suffer; all those who, through their support and vote have raised higher the demand for a democratic and left-wing break with the right-wing policies that have caused so many problems for our people and country.

To all of them, to the Portuguese workers and people, I wish to reaffirm that their support and their votes will always find in me and in the collective project for which I struggle today, tomorrow and always an active presence in defense of their rights and of their yearnings for a better life.

January 22, 2006

International Criminal Court & Coalition War Crimes

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:51:00 +0000

01-30-06,8:32am

US Coalition passively kills 0.5 million Muslim kids annually

Respect for mother and child is a fundamental norm of human societies. We are utterly shocked at the active mass murder of infants and their mothers as in the genocide of World War 2. Today passive genocide by the US-led Coalition has been associated so far with 1.7 post-invasion under-5 year old deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan that have occured through deliberate non-provision by the Occupiers of life-sustaining requisites as demanded by the Geneva Conventions. Who will defend the utterly innocent, the infants and their mothers, from criminal war? Why won’t Anglo-American and Australian mainstream media report Coalition war crimes against infants and their mothers? Why won’t the ICC act against the egregious war crimes of UK-US state terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan?

According to the latest UNICEF report (2006), in 2004 the under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 in Occupied Iraq, 359,000 in Occupied Afghanistan and 1,000 in the occupying country Australia (noting that in 2004 the populations of these countries were 28.1 million, 28.6 million and 19.9 million, respectively) (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/index.html).

About 1,300 under-5 year old infants will have died in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan on Christmas Day alone and 0.5 million will die in the coming year due to non-provision by the US-led Coalition of life-preserving requisites demanded by the Geneva Conventions (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm).

A detailed, formal complaint has been sent to the International Criminal Court charging the Coalition with war crimes in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (see Countercurrents, 21 December 2005) (http://www.countercurrents.org/us-polya211205.htm). The full text is reproduced below for your convenience. Please inform everyone.

Dr Gideon Polya

Formal complaint sent to the International Criminal Court over Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq & Afghanistan 19 December 2005

Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands

Dear Mr Moreno-Ocampo, Mr Brammertz and Mrs Bensouda,

On 14 October 2004 I made a formal complaint against the Australian Government and its Coalition allies over war crimes in Iraq, specifically illegal invasion and subsequent horrendous civilian mortality in contravention of international law (for details of this complaint and a prior complaint sent to the 2 dozen top law officers of Australia see: http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1019).

Since that complaint was made, it can be estimated from the latest UNICEF reports (see: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/index.html) that a further 560,000 under-5 year old infants have died in US Coalition-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan in gross contravention of the Geneva Conventions for the protection of civilians in time of war (1949).

I am accordingly renewing and extending my formal complaint of egregious war crimes against the US-led Coalition leaders responsible for (1) the irresponsible and illegal invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan; (2) deliberate conduct of military operations to minimize politically-sensitive invading military deaths at the expense of the lives of utterly innocent civilians; (3) subsequent horrendous civilian mortality in these occupied countries in gross contravention of the Geneva Conventions (1949); and (4) collateral damage involving mass mortality elsewhere in the world as a consequence of Coalition actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have amplified these charges briefly below.

(1). Irresponsible and illegal invasions.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were manifestly irresponsible (as borne out by the immense mortality estimates given below) and illegal in lacking sanction from the United Nations. Indeed, by way of example, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Anan, has repeatedly indicated the illegality and un-wisdom of the invasion of Iraq and the late Holy Father of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, a major source of moral wisdom for humanity, also opposed the invasion of Iraq. Further, the obvious must be stated, namely that ordinary, decent people universally regard hatred, violence, war and both non-state terrorism and state terrorism as utterly abhorrent.

(2). Criminal application of high technology war yielding huge “enemy civilian death”/US military death ratios.

In World War 2 the Axis civilian deaths totalled 5.1 million as compared to Allied civilian losses in Europe and Asia totalling 54 million; US, British Empire, Axis and Soviet military losses totalled 0.29 million, 0.45 million, 5.9 million and 13.6 million, respectively. Accordingly the 'enemy civilian'/'military death' 'kill ratios' were 0.4 (for the Soviet forces), 9.2 (Axis), 11.3 (the British Empire) and 17.6 (the US). Implicit in the 1944 Italian Ardeatine Caves Massacre of 335 civilians ordered by Hitler in revenge for 33 German military deaths was a Nazi German attitude that regarded an 'enemy civilian death'/'German soldier death' 'kill ratio' (or 'death ratio') of 10 as quite appropriate.

It has been possible to assess 'civilian deaths' in various post-war conflicts using UN Population Division demographic data from 1950 onwards. Using this data it is possible to calculate 'avoidable mortality' ('excess mortality'), which is the difference between the ACTUAL deaths in a country in a given period and the deaths EXPECTED for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (see: http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/).

The following 'enemy civilian avoidable mortality'/'US combat death' 'kill ratios' (in parentheses) have been calculated for the Korean War (1950-1953) (23.8), the Indo-China War (1957-1975) (276.5), the Gulf War & Sanctions War (1990-2003) (12,259), the Afghanistan War (2001-2005) (15,716) and the Iraq War (2003-2005) (323.9). The actual calculations involving the ratios of 'avoidable (excess) deaths' (for the Asian country concerned over the relevant period) to 'US combat deaths' (for the relevant conflict) are reproduced below (actual mortality figures are rounded off for clarity):

0.8 million Korean excess deaths/33,651 US combat deaths = 23.8

13.1 million excess Cambodian, Laotian & Vietnamese excess deaths/47,378 US combat deaths = 276.5

1.8 million Iraqi excess deaths (1990-2003)/147 US combat deaths = 12,259

1.6 million Afghan excess deaths (2001-2005)/102 US combat deaths = 15,716

0.5 million Iraqi excess deaths (2003-2005)/1,513 US combat deaths = 323.9

The above figures show that in the post-war era the US (and its allies) have grossly violated the Geneva Conventions in these Asian wars and have done so in vast excess over the 'enemy civilian'/'German soldier' 'kill ratio' of 10 in the Ardeatine Caves atrocity - and most clearly in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The reason for these horrendous US 'kill ratios' is that high technology US warfare preserves politically-sensitive US military lives at the expense of enemy civilian lives through high technology killing from afar (e.g. more bombs were dropped on Laos by the US than on all of Europe in all of World War 2); “better training” of its soldiers to overcome the natural revulsion from killing; and through improved medical technology to save the lives of wounded US soldiers. Over half of the civilian victims of these conflicts have been innocent infants under the age of 5. Thus the under-5 infant mortality in these conflicts was 0.3 million (Korea, 1950-1953); 5.6 million (Indo-China, 1957-1975); 1.3 million (Iraq, 1990-2003); 1.4 million (Afghanistan, 2001-2005); and 0.3 million (Iraq, 2003-2005). US state terrorism has indeed exacted a horrendous civilian death toll in US Asian wars (for further details see Senate Inquiry submission #112: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/index.htm).

(3). Horrendous civilian avoidable mortality (excess mortality) in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions (1949) are quite explicit about the responsibility of the invader and occupier to do everything in their power to preserve the life of subject civilians (see: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm). However the annual per capita medical expenditure in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan is less than 1% of that in metropolitan USA and thus the horrendous death toll in post-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan constitutes passive genocide and a war crime (see: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm).

In general, whether a person dies violently (e.g. from bombs or bullets) or non-violently (e.g. from deprivation- or malnourishment-related causes) the end result is the same and the culpability the same. Further, the Ruler is responsible for the Ruled. Thus the Geneva Conventions (1949) demand that the foreign occupier of a country acts “to the fullest extent of the means available to it” to preserve the health and life of subject civilians (see Articles 55 and 56: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm):

“Article 55. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate ...

Article 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties ...”

The US-led Coalition governments have manifestly failed in their obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The latest UNICEF estimates of post-invasion under-5 infant deaths (12 December 2005; see: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/index.html) are quite shocking: in 2004 the under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 in Occupied Iraq, 359,000 in Occupied Afghanistan and 1,000 in the occupying country Australia (noting that in 2004 the populations of these countries were 28.1 million, 28.6 million and 19.9 million, respectively). These data indicate an Iraqi post-invasion under-5 infant mortality of over 0.3 million, about 122,000 such deaths per year or 334 daily (i.e. exceeding the death toll from the horrendous and evil 9/11 atrocities every 9 days). About 90% of these infant deaths have been avoidable.

The post-invasion avoidable mortality (excess mortality) in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories now totals about 0.3, 0.5 and 1.6 million, respectively, while the corresponding post-invasion under-5 infant mortality now totals 0.2, 0.3 and 1.4 million, respectively (see Senate Inquiry submission #112: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/index.htm). Most of these deaths were non-violent - thus Iraq Body Count (see: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) currently estimates that 27,000-31,000 Iraqis have been killed violently post-invasion (out of an estimated total of 0.5 million post-invasion avoidable deaths). UK-US state terrorism - described by Blair and Bush supporters as “democratic imperialism” but by others as “democratic tyranny” or “democratic Nazism” - has had a horrendous human cost, with under-5 infant mortality now totalling about 0.5 million each year in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories.

(4). Collateral global mass mortality as a consequence of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations.

One major consequence of the US Coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq has been an increase in the price of oil. It has been estimated that about 55,000 people die avoidably throughout the world each day (about 36,000 being under-5 year old infants) through deprivation- and malnourishment-related causes. I have not been able to quantitatively assess the inevitably increased avoidable mortality component from increased poverty due to elevated oil prices. However global mortality due to criminal distribution, sale and consumption of opiates can be assessed from UN figures.

Since 2001 there have been about 0.4 million global drug deaths linked to US Coalition re-establishment of globally-dominant Afghan opium production (largely destroyed by the Taliban in 2000-2001 but 76% and 86% of global production in 2002 and 2004, respectively, after US Coalition invasion and conquest). About 2,000 of these 0.4 million post-2001, US Coalition-complicit, opioid-related deaths have been Australian, 3,000 Canadian, 3,200 British and 50,000 American (for detailed documentation see: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:... and also see Senate Inquiry submission #112: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/index.htm).

Comments and conclusions

The above data clearly indicate that the members of the US-led Coalition are complicit in passive genocide, mass murder and egregious war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, the US-led Coalition leaders should be indicted before the International Criminal Court - arraigned, tried and punished. Peace is the only way but we are inescapably obliged to inform others about man-made mass mortality of fellow human beings - silence kills and silence is complicity. We cannot walk by on the other side. As Edmund Burke famously stated: “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.”

The World Tribunal on Iraq, headed as spokesperson by the brilliant humanitarian writer Arundhati Roy, has charged the UK-US-led Coalition with war crimes over Iraq (see: http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91). Indeed, as you are aware, in October 2004, after writing to the 2 dozen top Law Officers of Australia, I wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court requesting that the Australian Government and its Coalition allies be charged with war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq and the horrendous post-invasion mass mortality (see: http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1019).

More recently, the 2005 Nobel Laureate for Literature, British playwright Harold Pinter, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech entitled “Art, Truth and Politics” (delivered by videotape on 8 December 2005; see: http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm) accused US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair of war crimes in Iraq. After detailing the huge human cost of decades of violent US interventions in Central and South America, Harold Pinter described the invasion of Iraq as “an act of blatant state terrorism” and called for the arraignment of Bush and Blair before the International Criminal Court, declaring: “How many people do you have to kill before you qualify as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought.”

I have written this careful analysis with some trepidation and after considerable, wide-ranging, legal consultation because draconian new “sedition laws” recently passed in Australia could, potentially, severely punish humanitarian critics of Coalition war policies, notwithstanding “good faith commentary” exceptions. It is accordingly necessary for me to explicitly state that this has been written in the public interest and in the interests of humanity by an anti-war, humanist, senior scientist who utterly abhors bigotry, racism, lying, violence, war and terrorism.

The 2005 Nobel Laureate for Literature, Harold Pinter, in his Nobel Prize acceptance address (8 December 2005; see http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm) movingly stated our obligation to define the truth of our world: “ I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.”

The 1957 Nobel Laureate for Literature, Albert Camus, in a 1946 essay entitled “Neither Victims nor Executioners”, clearly stated a fundamental moral imperative for decent citizens of the world: “Over the expanse of five continents throughout the coming years an endless struggle is going to be pursued between violence and friendly persuasion, a struggle in which, granted, the former has a thousand times the chances of success than that of the latter. But I have always held that, if he who bases his hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circumstances is a coward. And henceforth, the only honourable course will be to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions.”

I have recently completed the first draft of a large book on global avoidable mortality from which some of the above data is drawn (for some other key data see: http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/) and I have written a large number of articles around the world on this matter (see: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gpolya/links.html). I would be extremely happy to provide expert assistance pro bono publico to the International Criminal Court in relation to this matter.

As we approach the festivities of Christmas Day 2005, we must appreciate from the latest UNICEF data that about 2,640 infants in US Coalition-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan will die over the 2-day period of Christmas Day-Boxing Day - nearly the same number of innocent victims as died in the World Trade Centre atrocity on 9/11 - and about 0.5 million more will die in the year to come. An estimated 560,000 under-5 year old infants have died in the US-occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories in the 14 months since I made my previous complaint to the International Criminal Court.

I beg the International Criminal Court to indict the Coalition governments involved in massive war crimes in their invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so the International Criminal Court will deliver justice and force an early end to the egregious Coalition passive genocide in these horrendously abused countries.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Gideon Polya

Melbourne, Australia

e-mail:

website: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gpolya/links.html

Credentials: Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text 'Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds' (Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently editing a completed book on global avoidable mortality (numerous articles on this matter can be found by a simple Google search for 'Gideon Polya' and on his website: http://members.optusnet.com.au/ gpolya/links.html).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Politically correct racism (PC racism) of Anglo-American academics, politicians and mainstream media has enabled Coalition passive genocide in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Entrenched Anglo-American PC racism means UK-US denial of racism and domestic political corectness while, simultaneously, commission of immense, racist war crimes and IGNORING of the horrendous human consequences. By the same authors Gideon Polya

A New World is Possible

Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:15:00 +0000

01-28-06,9:14am

...And necessary! This is the theme for the World Social Forum that I (and tens of thousands of people from all over the world) am attending in Caracas this week. I know the idea of a world where everyone lives in peace and with justice is very 'subversive' but the theme is very close to my heart and soul.

We need a new world. This one is broken.

Before my son, Casey, was killed in Iraq on April 04, 2004, I never traveled much to speak of. I had gone to Israel and Mexico and that was about it. I had barely used a passport.

Since I began to speak out against the dishonesty and deception that led to this illegal and morally reprehensible occupation of Iraq, I have journeyed all over the United States and now am starting to fill my passport with stamps.

Our world is so beautiful and the people who inhabit it are, for the most part, loving, and all they want is a good life for themselves and their children. They just want to feel safe and secure in their communities. They want to be warm and fed. They want clean drinking water and they want to dance and laugh when appropriate. They want to live long lives with their families and they want their children to bury them at the end of their time here. In short, the people of the world want what we Americans want.

It is our governments who want to demonize and marginalize other cultures, religions, races and ethnic groups. George Bush, his coldhearted cronies, and his easily misled and willingly blind followers want to 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here!' Who are these 'thems' that we are fighting over there? Are they the babies lying in their cribs when a bomb (chemical or conventional) is dropped on their house? Is it the mother who has gone shopping for her family's daily food who is killed by a car bomber who never even thought to commit such a heinous act until his country was occupied by a foreign invader? Is it the grandmas and grandpas who are too old, or too stubborn, to leave their lifelong homes when the coalition troops are illegally carpet bombing civilian centers?

We as citizens of the United States of America must stop allowing our leaders to give the orders to kill innocent people. I almost said: we must stop allowing our leaders to 'kill' innocent people. But we all know the cowards don't fight their own fantasy battles or send their own children to fight in the causes that they idiotically and diabolically iterate are 'noble.' No, they order our children to go over and do their dishonest and destructive dirty work! Our soldiers are taught that 'Hajis,' the brown skinned people of Iraq who clean their toilets, showers, and wash their clothes are less than people…which enables them to be killed more easily. The dehumanization of the Iraqi people is also dehumanizing our soldiers. Our children.

I got a hate email from a 'patriotic American' once who told me that when we see the mothers and fathers of Iraq screaming because their babies have been killed, that they 'are just acting for the cameras. They are animals who don't care about their children because they know they can produce another.' This is the mentality of General Sherman when he said 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian.' This wicked rhetoric is the rhetoric that dehumanizes us all.

A new world is necessary and it can only be possible if we believe and live the belief that every human being is inherently the same as we are. They feel pain when they are hurt. They have hunger pains when they haven't eaten. Their mouths go dry when they are thirsty. They mourn when they experience a loss. They shiver when they are cold. They laugh when they are happy. How can we condone, or even allow, our leaders to kill our brothers and sisters like this? A new world is necessary and it can only be possible if we rein in the depraved corporations that thrive off of the flesh and blood of our neighbors all over the world and here in America. War profiteers like Halliburton, Bechtel, and General Electric who are racking up obscene profits and increasing the bottom line of their shareholders while they are running roughshod over this planet. Malevolent companies such as Dow who dump chemicals and other pollutants into the water and atmosphere that kill people, our environment, and our future! Companies like Wal Mart that exploit workers in the U.S. and abroad to enrich a family that already has more than enough money to fund healthcare and a living wage for all of its employees and have a little extra left over to pay their country club fees.

A new world is necessary and it can only be possible if we decrease our dependency on oil and use some of the money that we are pouring into the desert sands and sewers of Iraq to expand research on renewable energy sources and expound and promote the renewable sources we already have such as bio-diesel. I have talked to many citizens of Venezuela who are understandably nervous about a U.S. invasion and they know that it is not about the idea that President Chavez is a 'dictator'- which he is not; he is a democratically elected leader who is very popular in his country. The people of Venezuela are very savvy and they know that if the U.S. invades their country that it won't be because we are spreading 'freedom and democracy' to them. They know they already have it.

A new world is necessary but not possible until we Americans get over the arrogant idea that we can solve the Iraq issue and the human rights violations problems alone. We have to reach out to fellow members of the human race all over the world to forge the bonds that are crucial to protecting innocent members of humankind who are impoverished or killed by our government and corporatism that has gone wild and is largely unchecked.

Peace and justice are intimately connected and the world can't have one without the other. True and lasting peace can only occur when we the people force out leadership that is dependent on the war machine for their jobs and for their lives and demand justice for the crimes against humanity that are perpetrated in the world on a daily basis by such 'leaders.'

A new world is possible and it is attainable. For this new world to become a reality it is necessary for us to take into our beings what Martin Luther King, Jr. said of his own eulogy, but more importantly, the way he lived his life:

'I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice; say that I was a drum major for peace; I was a drum major for righteousness.'

Cindy Sheehan's book, 'Not One More Mother's Child' is available here Not One More Mother's Child

Tsunamis

Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:13:00 +0000

1-28-06, 9:54 am

Tsunamis come in many forms.

The tsunami that erupted in the Indian Ocean from the massive 9.0 earthquake on 26 December 2004 was incredibly powerful, immensely destructive, and very deadly, perhaps killing a quarter of a million people or more. I felt—and continue to feel—the pain of this event not just as a fellow human being but also as a person who has been to a few of the places now devastated. In fact, I spent my first wedding anniversary on the beautiful beaches of Krabi in Thailand, while teaching English in that country.

Though it was a natural disaster, the consequences were unnatural and not entirely random. Generally, the areas with the most destruction, with the possible exception of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, near the epicenter, were the areas where there had been the most economic growth, the most capitalist development, and therefore the most environmental degradation, e.g., primarily tourist infrastructure and shrimp farming that, among other things, destroyed the mangrove forests and coral reefs that serve as rich ecosystems and natural barriers against tidal waves.

My 8 year old son asked if the people affected by the tsunami were/are so poor, why didn’t we help them before the tsunami? A very good question indeed.

Poverty is a chronic tsunami and the big wave of malnutrition, hunger, and starvation are ever present. With about a billion people—approximately 1,000,000,000 people!—with insecure and irregular access to enough food and clean water, millions of poor people die each year, tens of thousands of poor people each day, another poor person every few seconds of every day of every year. It boggles my mind and pains my heart. Food and water are the most basic necessities for all sentient beings, whether people, other animals, or plants. Yet, in most places of the world, food is a commodity for sale, a product in search of private profit, a privilege for those who can afford to pay the parasitic price. As basic and existential and material and requisite as it is, food is purposely withheld from those with physical need for those with economic demand. Sometimes food is freely given to those in desperate need; mostly it isn’t.

It is wonderful that we have scientists and others researching and working on treatments and cures for various ailments and diseases. That should certainly continue. But we should also work on the treatments and cures for hunger, dysentery, gastroenteritis, and other very well-known, very easily-treated causes of suffering and mass death. Treatment involves taking proper care of suffering people; cures imply removing, reforming, or revolutionizing the structures and systems that result in such massive yet unnecessary tragedies. It may be complex, but it is not complicated. Food must be an absolute right, not a privilege.

Tsunamis come in many forms. Global warming is a slow tsunami. We are overheating the Earth, cooking the planet, slowly boiling ourselves and all other forms of life to death. We already know what happens when we overheat a car; when we overcook a meal; when we overheat our bodies; we can surmise what will happen if we continue to overheat the Earth. It isn’t pretty and it will get much uglier.

Tepidly called global warming, some such as Rabbi Arthur Waskow call this type of climate change “global scorching”. Regardless, global warming is a global warning. Apparently, reports for and from groups as disparate as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Greenpeace, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Oxfam, the Pentagon, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the World Bank, the World Meteorological Organization, and a vast number of other scientists, political economic analysts, and environmentalists agree. The Pentagon report, for example, states that global warming “should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern”, higher even than terrorism, warning of riots and declaring that “future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor”.

The signs of an overheating Earth are clear and the evidence is rushing in and rising: hotter weather in many places, though colder weather in some places; more frequent and violent storms; mass species extinctions; eco-spasms; melting glaciers and polar ice caps; earlier springs; rising water temperatures; rising ocean levels; acidification of the oceans; disturbed Atlantic Conveyor and Gulf Stream systems; submerged islands; and the threat of submerged cities such as New York, Miami, New Orleans, Bangkok, Dhaka, Tokyo, Shanghai, Sydney, and many, many other coastal cities.

While the world has chosen to take gradual steps to reduce climate change with the Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect on 16 February 2005, the US government has chosen to bury its bi-partisan head in the sand. It may be searching for oil or whatever else under the sand, but it may eventually find rising and polluted water there.

Thankfully, many individuals, organizations, and localities are taking action and taking the lead from the grassroots. Reducing consumption, reducing waste and emissions, recycling and using recycled goods, using renewable energies instead of fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal, protecting and replanting forests, reducing or eliminating meat consumption, and reducing or eliminating smoking are some of things that are being done. While we do these things, we also need to pressure our governments to do much more.

Tsunamis come in many forms. I mourn for those killed by the Indian Ocean tsunami. I mourn for those killed each day by the chronic tsunami of poverty. I mourn for the current and future generations who will suffer from the slow tsunami of global warming. We need to stop the tsunamis before they reach land and affect us with disastrous results. We can do it, but we need to be alert and aware, and we need to take immediate action.

--Dan Brook, Ph.D., teaches sociology at San Jose State University and can be contacted viaor through CyberBrook’s ThinkLinks at www.brook.com/cyberbrook.

85% of Dems in PA Favor Pro-Impeachment Candidates

Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:07:00 +0000

1-28-06, 9:50 am

A new poll conducted in Pennsylvania (a battleground 'purple' state) by Zogby International and commissioned by OpEdNews.com found that 84.9 percent of Democrats said they would be likely to vote for a congressional candidate who 'supports having impeachment proceedings against President Bush.' Only 7.0 percent said they were not likely to vote for such a candidate.

These questions were included in a poll asking about senatorial candidates in Pennsylvania. The complete results are available at www.opednews.com

The results were even stronger when people were asked 'How likely would you be to vote for a candidate who supports a recommendation of impeachment against President Bush if he is found guilty of violating the law?' Among Democrats, 90.8 percent responded either 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' (85.2 percent very likely). Among Republicans, 90.4 percent said they were not likely to vote for a pro-impeachment candidate, and 80.5 percent said they were not likely to back even a supporter of impeaching a convicted violator of the law.

Independents leaned toward electing an impeacher, with 49.3 percent likely and 40.6 percent not likely to vote for a pro-impeachment candidate. If the candidate only wants to impeach a lawbreaker, 60.6 percent of Independents are likely and 36.7 percent not likely to vote for that candidate.

Overall, 47.6 percent of poll respondents said they would be likely to support a pro-impeachment candidate, while 46.2 percent said they would not be likely to. Overall, 53.5 percent said they would be likely to support a candidate who favored impeachment of Bush if he were found guilty of violating the law, while 41.8 percent said they would not be likely to.

A separate question in the poll found that 51.1 percent of Pennsylvanians believe Bush broke the law by spying on Americans without a court order, while 42 percent do not.

People were also asked their own opinions about impeachment, apart from the question of candidates' platforms. Overall, 53.7 percent of Pennsylvanians said that Bush should be impeached if found guilty of violating the law against wiretapping American citizens, while 42.5 percent disagreed. Among Democrats, 88.9 percent favored impeachment, while 8.4 percent did not.

These numbers show slightly higher support for impeachment, compared to a national poll conducted by Zogby on January 9-12.

See:

The complete results of the Pennsylvania poll are available at .

Bush Spy Ringleader Doesn't Know 4th Amendment

Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:05:00 +0000

1-28-06, 9:48 am

Media Advisory Probable Cause for Alarm Press ignores Ex-NSA chief's ignorance of Constitution 1/27/06

When FEMA Director Michael Brown claimed not to be aware of the evacuee crisis at the New Orleans Convention Center following Hurricane Katrina (NPR, 9/1/05), many journalists expressed astonishment that a high-ranking official could be so uninformed about a crucial aspect of his job (e.g., Nightline, 9/1/05). But when Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence and former director of the National Security Agency, displayed an equally astounding lack of knowledge about a matter just as basic to his job, media as a whole let it pass without comment.

The subject in question was the constitutional protections the American public has against government spying--surely a vital thing to understand for the former head of the nation's top surveillance agency, and the person currently in charge of 'overseeing the day-to-day activities of the national intelligence program,' as his Air Force bio states. Those protections are specified in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in full: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be viola ted, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Surely it's not too much to ask that the officials who are entrusted with the ability to spy on virtually any electronic communication have an appreciation of how this amendment limits that ability. Yet in a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 23--before an audience consisting largely of journalists--Hayden repeatedly demonstrated that he does not know the basic language of this key part of the Bill of Rights.

The subject came up when reporter Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder attempted to preface a question by stating that 'the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures.' Hayden interjected: 'Actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says.'

Landay politely corrected him, saying, 'But the measure is 'probable cause,' I believe.' But Hayden insisted: 'The amendment says 'unreasonable search and seizure.'' When Landay continued, 'But does it not say probable--' he was interrupted by Hayden, who said, 'No.... The amendment says 'unreasonable search and seizure.''

Landay went on to ask his question, which was whether the NSA, by bypassing the special court mandated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, had 'crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of 'reasonably believe' in place of 'probable cause.'' Hayden's response returned to the issue of the Fourth Amendment: 'I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order, alright? The attorney gen eral has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear, okay--and, believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees at the National Security Agency is familiar with, it's the Fourth, alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. So, what you've raised to me--and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one--but what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable.' And we believe--I am convinced that we're lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.'

By showing that he was unaware of the 'probable cause' language in the Fourth Amendment, Hayden revealed that his insistence that it was legal for the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance was not based on even a nodding familiarity with the constitutional issues involved. Given that Hayden's talk was part of a coordinated Bush administration publicity campaign to stress the legality of such surveillance, his demonstration of ignorance should have been a central point in the subsequent coverage. Instead, most news outlets that covered his speech chose to ignore his exchange with Landay and the knowledge gap it revealed.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, the flagship of the Knight Ridder chain that employs Landay, did publish a transcript of his exchange with Hayden (1/24/06)--though even the Inquirer does not seem to have had a story pointing out the significance of a high-ranking intelligence official not knowing that the Fourth Amendment contains a 'probable cause' requirement.

Editor & Publisher, a website that covers journalism issues, carried a story on January 23 with the headline, 'Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on Fourth Amendment.' The story reported that Hayden 'appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Ame ndment to the U.S. Constitution when pressed by a reporter with Knight Ridder's Washington office--despite his claims that he was actually something of an expert on it.'

On MSNBC's Countdown (1/24/06), host Keith Olbermann played video of the exchange, followed by a reading of the Fourth Amendment. 'It's hard to tell which is more frightening for those of you in favor of continuing the democracy, the mistake itself, or the general's insistence that it was not a mistake,' Olbermann commented. 'Well, maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA.'

Most outlets, however, ignored Hayden's inaccurate claims about the Fourth Amendment--even while covering other aspects of his talk. The New York Times (1/24/06) quoted Hayden, from his National Press Club speech, asserting that the NSA is well-versed in what the law allows in terms of spying: ''I'm disappointed, I guess, that perhaps the default response for some is to assume the worst,' General Hayden said. 'I'm trying to communicate to you that the people who are doing this, OK, go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids play soccer in Laurel,' he added, referring to suburbs near NSA headquarters in Maryland. 'And they know the law,' he continued. 'They know American privacy better than the average American, and they're dedicated to it.''

The clear evidence from the same speech that the former NSA head does not, in fact, 'know the law,' was not included in the story.

The Associated Press (1/24/06) actually quoted from Hayden's exchange with Landay without pointing out that the constitutional assertion that he was making was patently false: 'Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government officials had to prove to a secretive intelligence court that there was 'probable cause' to believe that a person was tied to terrorism. Bush's program allows senior NSA officials to approve surveillance when there was 'reason to believe' the call may involve al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Hayden maintained that the work was within the law. 'The constitutional standard is reasonable.... I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we are doing is reasonable,'he said at the National Press Club.'

By attributing the phrase 'probable cause' to congressional legislation, and then allowing Hayden, without rebuttal, to claim that the Constitution offered a different standard, the AP accomplished nothing except misinforming its readers.

The First Amendment to the Constitution extends special protection to the press because the framers believed that an unfettered press would help to protect the other rights that the Constitution guaranteed. The lackadaisical media response to the revelation that a high-ranking government official doesn't even understand what those rights are can only make one worry that the framers' trust was misplaced.

From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

The Truth About the State of our Union

Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:04:00 +0000

01-28-06,9:14am

On Tuesday night President Bush will stand before the Congress and the nation, to deliver his annual State of the Union address. We are sure to hear a rosy tale of an economy on the rebound, a blossoming democracy in Iraq, a terror network on the run, and a Gulf Coast region rebuilding better and stronger than ever before. As is most often the case with this Administration, the rhetoric does not match reality.

The facts are clear. Our economy is struggling and leaving tens of millions of Americans behind. According to the non-partisan National Journal, since President Bush first stood before Congress and the nation in 2001, the median income in this country has decreased, the jobless rate has jumped from 3.9% to 4.9% and the number of families living in poverty has increased from 8.7% to 10.2%. Our trade deficit has doubled. Inflation has gone up. Personal bankruptcies have gone up. Consumer debt has gone up. College tuition has gone up. And, the price of gas has gone up. All the while, this Administration has turned a $128 billion federal budget surplus into a $319 billion deficit.

Today, almost 6 million more Americans do not have any health insurance than when President Bush took office. In total, over 45.5 million Americans, or over 15% of our total population, have no health care coverage at all.

During his 2003 address, President Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein 'had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax', 'materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin', 'as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent' and 'upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents'.

Today, almost three years after the start of the President's war of choice, we know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no connection to al-Qaeda and posed no threat to our nation. Yet, our armed forces are bogged down in the middle of civil war that our own generals say cannot be won by military force. Our presence in Iraq is counterproductive and has cost the lives of over 2,200 US troops and $250 billion.

President Bush has delivered four State of the Union addresses since the attacks on our nation on 9/11. In four speeches, the President has never once mentioned Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the terror attacks on this nation. The status of the FBI's most wanted man apparently is not important to the state of our union. Yet, in the same four speeches, President Bush has mentioned Saddam Hussein 24 times, and Iraq 78 times.

President Bush used the opening of his 2003 State of the Union to praise the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This year our nation, and the world, saw the result of the failure of this massive reorganization of our government. As Katrina rolled ashore, destroying large cities and small towns in four states, it was FEMA, once an independent cabinet level agency--but now rolled into Department of Homeland Security--that failed to react. The searing image of thousands of Americans stranded without food and water dying on American streets will be the lasting legacy of the Department of Homeland Security, not a reorganized government 'mobilizing against the threats of a new era' as the President described in his speech.

In his 2004 and 2005 addresses, the President spent a considerable amount of time advocating policies that would roll back much of the social progress made since the New Deal. In 2004, the President touted a Medicare prescription drug bill that will fatten the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, endangering the future finances of the entire Medicare program, while leaving seniors confused and empty handed as they try to fill their prescriptions under the new plan. In 2005, the President used his address to promote his plan strip seniors of the guaranteed promise of Social Security, and replace it with a risky scheme to gamble their future in the stock market.

What the President has in store for his message this year is not known yet. But, we do know the President Bush will speak in glowing terms about the state of our union. The truth is the state of our union is in great peril. This Administration is conducting a war with no end in Iraq, illegally spying on Americans at home, overseeing an economy that is increasingly leaving more and more Americans behind and abandoning Gulf in their hour of great need.

If recent history is any precedent, then next week we should see more of the same old dance around reality that has been the hallmark of President Bush's annual address.

Since being elected to Congress in 1996, Kucinich has been a tireless advocate for worker rights, civil rights and human rights. He represents Ohio's 10th District.

Living on the Edge: Skirting With Nuclear Danger

Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:26:00 +0000

01-27-06,9:14am

[PA Ed.note: The former Soviet Union was persistent and sincere about creating a nuclear-free world. The history of the disarmarment movement clearly reflects the positive role of Soviet foreign policy in this respect. To elevate to the status of hero just one individual blurs the factual reality that the Soviet people,as a whole, should be commended for a non-confrontational, abolish-nuclear-weapons-now official foreign policy.]

It is an honor to be here at the United Nations to pay tribute to a genuine world hero, Colonel Stanislav Petrov, who simply by his good instincts in 1983, went against all he was trained to do and averted a terrible nuclear holocaust on our planet. He refused to follow procedures that could have led to the launching of the Soviet nuclear arsenal against the United States, after he had observed an unexplained intrusion of Soviet air space on his computer while serving as the duty officer at Russia's main nuclear command center. It is incomprehensible that today, more than 16 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the US and Russia are still targeting more than 3,000 nuclear tipped missiles at each other’s cities, ready to go off with even less assurances that an accidental launch could be avoided then we had back in 1983 when Colonel Petrov performed his heroic act. Unhonored by his own country for his extraordinary contribution to humanity, it wasn’t until 2004 that the World Citizens Association acknowledged his contribution. And I’d like to express my appreciation to the Association for bringing this program to the UN today, to let the world know that we are still not out of danger.

It seems, in 2006, that taking US and Russian nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert would be a no-brainer. The “Communist Threat”, used to justify the existence and development of the huge US nuclear arsenals has evaporated. Surely we are in more danger if the weapons remain in their current posture, than if we separated the warheads from the missiles. While that would be an enormous step toward a safer world however, it is not the main task that lies before us. We have managed, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to keep a lid on the spread of nuclear weapons for nearly 30 years, from the time the Treaty was signed in 1970 to the time India and Pakistan startled the world with a series of underground tests in 1998, announcing that they too had joined the nuclear club, which under the NPT included the US, Russia, China, France and England. Israel had also acquired a nuclear arsenal of about 300 weapons, which the world learned about thanks to another hero, Mordecai Vananu, who spent 18 years in prison for revealing Israel’s nuclear capability, 12 of them in solitary confinement!

But the underlying bargain of the NPT,that the nuclear powers would give up their nuclear weapons in return for a promise from the non-nuclear weapons states not to acquire them was never honored. Indeed, the US is planning to refurbish its entire nuclear arsenal of nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons, with design plans for smaller, more usable nuclear weapons and nuclear tipped underground earth penetrators. Since the time the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was negotiated in 1992, the US started spending $4.6 billion per year, now up to nearly $8 billion per year, for its so called “stockpile stewardship” program that enabled these new designs to go forward. England will soon be debating whether to replace its 400 nuclear weapons carried on its Trident submarine system. France, Russia and China are also modernizing their weapons.

With the abhorrent US policy of preemptive war, it’s new nuclear posture policy that authorizes the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states, and its designation of so called “rogue states” as the “axis of evil”, we are reaping the grim whirlwind of that policy. We now see North Korea and Iran relying on Article IV of the NPT to develop what is ostensibly described as “peaceful” nuclear technology which would give them the capacity and materials they need to build bombs of their own as a deterrent against US threats. Article IV of the NPT provides an “inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology” as a sweetener to the countries that agreed to forego nuclear weapons. The current flurry of negotiations and the move to try to control the production of the civilian nuclear fuel cycle in one central place, as recently proposed by Mohammed ElBaradei, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, simply will not fly. It would be just an additional discriminatory aspect of the NPT, creating yet another class of haves and have-nots under the treaty, as was done with those permitted to have nuclear weapons and those who are not. Now it is proposed that some nations would continue to make their own nuclear fuel, while others, such as Iran and North Korea, would be precluded from doing so.

It’s time to support a protocol to the NPT calling for the establishment of an International Sustainable Energy Fund, as we phase out nuclear power and begin to develop the abundant energy of our earth from the sun, wind, tides, and geothermal sources. Whoever heard of a terrorist attacking a windmill? Article IV’s “inalienable right” to “peaceful” nuclear technology would become obsolete, just as Article V, which provides for “peaceful” nuclear explosions, has been rendered inoperative by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which forbids nuclear explosions of any kind. Clean safe energy is available to us now. We have the technology. We need to be vigilant in providing the ample evidence against specious arguments that it’s not ready, it’s years away, its too expensive--arguments which are made by the corporations in the business of producing dirty fuel as they spend millions of dollars in false advertising and planted stories in the press.

These are corporation which don’t want to lose their ability to continue to profit from the human misery caused by nuclear and fossil fuels. The sun, the wind, the tides, and geothermal energy are here in abundance for all the world’s people and they are free. We already have the technology to harness the bounty of the earth. And we know how to store it when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, by using hydrogen fuel cells. It is clearly not beyond our financial means, as argued by the corporate supporters of toxic fuel industriesparticularly when you compare the costs of clean, safe energy to the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually to subsidize fossil and nuclear fuels. Not to mention the cost of war to protect those poisonous energy sources.

So why don't we have it now? Why don't we have a ten-year crash program to achieve a nuclear, fossil-free, and biomass-free energy transition? Because of the forces that insist on peddling their polluting and proliferating sources of energy--their 'cash cows'. Once the infrastructure is created to harness the sun, wind, tides, and geothermal, there will be nothing to sell. It would probably be the best way to end poverty on the planet as well--since poor countries can get free, clean earth energy, abundantly available, and will not have to spend their meager budgets for their critical power needs. We need new thinking and it has to start with usordinary people who have no corporate interest in perpetuating disastrous forms of energy on the planet. We mustn't buy into the propaganda that it's not ready or that it's too costly. There's ample evidence that those statements are falsehoods, deliberately expounded by corporate interests to keep their profits coming and to oil the war machine.

Now, with the headlines screaming about imminent war against Iran, Mohammed El Baradei is proposing that civilian nuclear materials be produced and controlled centrally to avoid giving Iran and North Korea the keys to the bomb factory. But going for controls and central processing of nuclear fuels, is like starting down a path similar to the one we’ve been on for the last 50 some-odd years for nuclear arms control. Do you think France, Japan, or the US, for example, will surrender control of nuclear materials production, any more than the nuclear powers have surrendered control of atom bombs? It would be a long drawn-out effort with discriminatory rules in the endwhen, instead, we could we be expending our energy and intellectual treasure on shifting the energy paradigm to make nuclear and fossil fuel obsolete. If, as we work to phase in safe, clean energy, we continue to work for weapons abolition, we'll have a real road map to a nuclear free world. Otherwise, I fear we are not dealing with a full deck and are doomed to failure in two ways--halting nuclear weapons proliferation and saving our planet from the ravages of climate change caused by the massive carbon releases into our atmosphere. And don’t be fooled by industry deceptions about how “clean” nuclear power is carbon free. Fossil fuel is used in every step of the process of creating these standing bomb factoriesfrom the mining, milling, and reprocessing of uranium to the decommissioning of aging plants and the transporting and storing of nuclear waste.

What are the prospects for taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert and achieving nuclear abolition? Last spring more than 40,000 people marched in Central Park calling for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons on the eve of the failed 2000 NPT Review. More than 1,000 people came from Japan and we had over 40 Hibakushasurvivors of the terrible destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have launched their Mayors for Peace Campaign calling for negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons to be completed in 2010 with complete dismantlement by 2020. Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations in more than 90 countries is working with the Mayors for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. It has drafted a model nuclear weapons convention which is now an official UN document. Abolition 2000 has recognized the inextricable link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power and is circulating a model statute for the establishment of an International Sustainable Energy Fund.

A newly formed Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament is working with the Mayors and Abolition 2000 to get initiatives started in Parliament for nuclear abolition. Germany has issued a call to work with like-minded countries to amend the NPT to recognize the right to clean, safe energy as a human right and to establish an International Renewable Energy Agency which would be added as a protocol to the NPT. The Global Alliance for the Prevention of Nuclear Weapons and Power in Space is working with grassroots groups all over the world to support the Chinese and Russian annual initiatives to keep weapons out of space which the US has repeatedly blocked. The Norwegian Ministry of Finance has excluded seven companies from their Government Pension Fund - because they are involved in the production of nuclear weapons. A new Abolition 2000 Working Group has been established to work on a divestment strategy. Another Abolition 2000 Working Group is campaigning to get US nuclear weapons out of Europe where more than 400 US weapons are deployed in NATO countries. Working with the Mayors and Parliamentarians, the Belgian Senate has passed a resolution calling for the removal of US nukes from NATO. Next year, a massive demonstration is being organized by the women of the UK at Faslane in Scotland to protest the rebuilding of the Trident submarine arsenals in England. Following the example of the women of Greenham Commons whose 19 year protest and encampment resulted in the removal of NATO’s nuclear tipped Cruise Missiles from the UK, we expect this to be a great civil action that will serve to create a breach in the armor of the nuclear powers, beginning with the UK.

This past fall, led by Canada and Mexico, a group of middle power nations nearly succeeded in establishing ad hoc committees in the Committee for Disarmament in Geneva to begin discussions on nuclear disarmament and a space treaty. Under enormous pressure from the US, they withdrew their proposal, but promised to follow through next fall if there is no progress. The Middle Powers Initiative is supporting this process and other potential avenues to break the disarmament deadlock with its newly formed Article VI Forum. There is a burgeoning grassroots movement for nuclear abolition. The various elements must all be addressed. A realistic plan for nuclear abolition includes the dealerting of nuclear weapons as a first easy step. But if we do not phase out nuclear power and maintain the heavens for peace, we will find ourselves in a state of perpetual war with little chance for a lasting and peaceful nuclear-free world. Humanity was given a great gift when Colonel Petrov followed his human instincts to avert a global catastrophe. Let us not push our luck!

Alice Slater, President of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, is an expert in the field of nuclear disarmament. Email to: grace@gracelinks.org.

Stonewall Democrats Launch New Georgia Organization

Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:00:00 +0000

1-27-06, 9:44 am

(APN) ATLANTA – The Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (ASD) held a launch celebration this evening for its new Atlanta chapter, which is meant to replace [and absorb] a former Georgia-wide group. About 70 people packed the Red Chair Club at Amsterdam Walk in Midtown Atlanta for the gala from 6-9pm. Appetizers such as really good spinach artichoke dip were served and mingling commenced. Nationally, the Stonewall Democrats are a political coalition for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (glbt) Democrats and Democratic activists who support glbt issues. 'Face it, the gay community is a big clique. When will our community come together as one? It sounds so cliche, but really, as one solid firm voice?' Dave Fauntleroy-Harris, 2nd Vice Chair and Board Member of ASD, asked Atlanta Progressive News (APN). One former member of the Georgia Stonewall Democrats (GSD) was in attendance and told APN the group used to have 500 members but has been in decline. The transition to the new organization, the ASD, appears to be going smoothly. Democratic Candidates for Georgia Secretary of State, Shyam Reddy, 31, and Angela Moore, who said her age is foxy-forty-something, were both in attendance. 'It’s only natural I should come and congratulate them,' Moore told Atlanta Progressive News. 'We’ve got the most progressive district in the Southern US,' State Senator Sam Zamarripa, said of Midtown Atlanta, where the event was held. 'I [at the same time] represent the biggest gay and lesbian district in Georgia. All these groups need to coalesce,' Zamarripa said. 'Part of the problem is we allow ourselves to be marginalized,' Zamarripa said. 'We’re about inclusion, educational progress, health care. When we get marginalized, we lose.' The ASD was spearheaded by Kyle Bailey, 22, in October 2005, Bailey told Atlanta Progressive News. Bailey, who is ASD Chair, previously started a Stonewall Democrats chapter at the University of Georgia (Athens, GA), where he received his BA in Political Science. The primary purposes of ASD are to 'educate fellow Democrats about lgbt issues; inform the lgbt community about the differences between the [political] parties... there’s a lot of apathy as well we need to address; and elect fair-minded Democrats,' Bailey said. 'Because of the lack of an organized presence,' Bailey said, some Democratic politicians are afraid to support gay and lesbian issues. 'I’m very much for gay rights,' said Jan Hackney, 53, who ran for Georgia House District 48 in November 2004 and will be running again in November 2006, however. Hackney, who is vying to represent the Sandy Spring area, is a stay-at-home mom. 'I never thought I’d get involved in politics, but there was no Democratic opposition,' she said. 'The lgbt community is a little closer to my reality,' Tim Cairl, 30, said, referring to the fact Cairl wears copious hats as the President of Georgia for Democracy (GFD) and a Consultant for Yellow Dog Democrats. 'We wanted this to be a reintroduction of the Stonewall Democrats,' Cairl said. The gay and lesbian community 'should be one of the largest and most powerful communities in the state. Democrats have a lot more room to gain in Georgia. There are over 100,000 plus lgbt voters,' Cairl said. 'Every month we’ll be joining an event with another group, including women’s groups, labor, transgender, veterans, and others,' Cairl said. An event organizer told APN he was pleased with the turnout of 75 people, whereas 500 were initially invited. The event came on the heels of a memorable visit a few days ago by Reverend Al Sharpton to the First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta to advocate for a dialogue between the Black Churches and the glbt community. For APN's coverage of that event see

From --Matthew Cardinale is Editor of Atlanta Progressive News. He may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.

Over 1.4 Million Cubans Joined Fidel Castro in March Past the US Interests Section

Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:52:00 +0000

01-27-06,9:30am

With the same firm step with which he has guided his people for the last 47 years of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel marched surrounded by eight thousand young social workers, students from the University of Computer Sciences and the University Students Federation.

This made a formidable close to this unforgettable and overwhelming march by more than 1.4 million people from Havana representing the whole of Cuba. The protest, which took over seven hours, demanded punishment for Luis Posada Carriles, the most dangerous terrorist in the western hemisphere, and an end to the misdeeds of the US empire against Cuba.

Once more the Cubans have surprised the world with the forceful image of a sea of people as indomitable as the ocean that breaks on the Malecon, the sea wall of the capital, rallying men and women, pensioners and children, laborers, intellectuals, students, famous personalities of sports, science, and the arts, whole families, Cubans of all creeds and races, who paraded past the perfidious and provocative US Interests Office in Havana to express their determined support for Fidel, the Revolution and Socialism, and to condemn injustice and terrorism.

As an emotive reinforcement of their fighting protest, they added messages in the name of the five Cuban anti-terrorists who remain locked up in US jails. Messages sent by Gerardo Hernandez, Fernando Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez, who as well as their compatriots Ramon Labanino and Antonio Guerrero, were today in the hearts of the Habaneros marching for their dignity, sovereignty and independence.

It was a new demonstration of what a small nation is capable of, a nation that is not frightened by the menaces of the most powerful country on the planet and is determined to defend their land whatever the consequences.

Japan: No U.S. beef imports before making sure that it's safe

Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:47:00 +0000

1-27-06, 9:31 am

After lifting the ban on U.S. beef imports, a shipment of U.S. beef has arrived with the backbone, vulnerable to BSE infection. It was found during visual quarantine inspection. The government must be held responsible for this, as it drove forward the resumption of U.S. beef imports last December in defiance of public opposition and anxieties.

Tougher inspections required

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Mike Johanns said that some USDA inspectors 'were not aware of the need to remove vertebral column from beef for exports to Japan.'

As a condition of resuming U.S. beef imports, the government had required the United States to comply with the 'Import Program:' Beef products for Japan should be 20 months of age or below; and risk material, including spinal columns, should be removed from cattle of all ages.

Saying that USDA inspectors were not aware of this precondition becomes a matter that shakes the foundation of the system to ensure safety of U.S. beef.

It is natural for Japan to prohibit beef imports again not only from the place where the risk material was found but also from all over the United States.

The expert panel in the Food Safety Commission had been pointing out that condition of control over U.S. beef processing facilities is uncertain and that effectiveness of removal of high-risk parts from cattle is also doubtful. So, the government should conduct tougher inspections to see if the U.S. side strictly complies with the precondition. This is something that the Food Safety Commission had also been demanding of the government. The Agricultural and Welfare ministries on January 19 had reported to the expert panel that 'removal of high-risk material is appropriately being carried out.' It was only the next day, however, that a dangerous part was found in the beef shipment from the United States. This shows that whether to comply with the requirement agreed concerning U.S. beef imports is up to the United States and that the Japanese inspection is very sloppy.

The Japanese government must rigorously inspect all U.S. processing facilities dealing with beef bound for Japan so that the preconditions for resuming imports is secured.

In calling on the Japanese government to relax the Japanese requirements of blanket tests for BSE on all beef cattle, the U.S. government has asserted that removing the high-risk parts is the most important action available to ensure public health. However, the high-risk material detected in U.S. beef one month after Japan resumed its imports shows that the U.S. is not serious in removing the high-risk parts.

A sense of security about beef and its actual safety will be restored to the public only by establishing the two-track system of testing all beef cattle for BSE and removing high-risk material, as is implemented in Japan for domestic beef.

The Japanese government used the report of the food safety commission's prion expert council as the grounds for resuming U.S. beef imports.

On the assumption that certain preconditions such as removal of high-risk parts are observed, the appraisal report concluded that the difference of risk between Japanese and U.S. beef is very small. The government shed light on this part alone to use it as the grounds for resuming imports.

Appraisal should change, when promises are broken

The appraisal report also states that appraisal result may be different, if the preconditions are not observed. The detection of the high-risk parts means that the preconditions are not observed. Therefore, the appraisal result may be different from the one stating that the difference of risk is very small.

The appraisal report also states that data concerning the safety of U.S. beef include many ambiguities, with the conclusion that it is difficult to appraise with scientific equality the BSE risk between Japanese and U.S. beef. This is what many experts in the council really wanted to say. It is necessary to start from scratch discussing the ways to secure the safety of U.S. beef.

From Akahata

Hamas or Bush?: A Barrier to Peace

Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:43:00 +0000

1-27-06, 9:27 am

THE stunning victory won by Hamas in the Palestinian elections indicates, at the least, that the Palestinian Authority has demonstrated its ability to run a transparent and fair election.

This is in stark contrast to the US where a candidate backed by big business and the military industrial complex can steal an election through corruption, intimidation and media complicity.

And yet the US beneficiary of that electoral coup, George W Bush, feels that he has the right to criticise the Palestinian people for their choice.

He has echoed Israeli political leaders' statements that they will refuse to deal with Hamas unless it recognises Israel's right to exist as a state.

And international agencies have fallen in behind the White House line, suggesting that the Hamas poll victory represents a setback for the peace process.

They should do a quick reality check. There is no peace process in progress. There are no negotiations taking place.

And the blame for this barrier on the path to a negotiated settlement does not lie with Hamas or Fatah but with Israel and its backers in the US and the EU, which support Israel's colonisation of Palestinian land. Israel was encouraged in its ploy of smearing the late Palestinian Yasser Arafat as a godfather of terrorism and announcing that there was no Palestinian partner with whom Tel Aviv could negotiate.

Despite initial warm words directed at Mr Arafat's successor Mahmoud Abbas, he too has been kept at arm's length.

Israel and its US sponsor have ordered Mr Abbas to disarm and dissolve what they call terrorist groups and what the Palestinian people see as legitimate resistance organisations to lift the yoke of bloody colonial occupation from their shoulders.

Mr Abbas and Fatah did not do this, simply because they could not do it. It would have resulted in a Palestinian civil war. Their refusal to ignite such a conflict is used to excuse the US-Israeli further sidelining of President Abbas.

In short, those who decry the election of Hamas must accept their responsibility for making the secular Fatah leadership appear irrelevant and impotent.

The Palestinian view that double standards are operated by the big powers and by international media is correct.

While Hamas military units have, generally speaking, observed a ceasefire for over a year, Israeli armed forces have continued their programme of assassinations, casual killings, house demolitions and eviction of Palestinians from their land by means of the apartheid wall. And yet, Hamas is described as the enemy of peace.

Whoever the Palestinians elect, the West Bank is still Palestinian land and it must be decolonised.

Imperialist demands that Palestinians should accept the bantustan crumbs from the Israeli table amount to complicity with the zionists' colonisation project.

Lessons must be learned from the struggle against apartheid South Africa, with more people-to-people contacts with the Palestinians and greater efforts made to isolate Israel until its leaders accept the Palestinian people's right to an independent state, not just in theory but in reality.

From Morning Star

Mexico’s Important Presidential Campaign: Behind the Smiling Faces and Big Talk

Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:32:00 +0000

1-27-06, 9:15 am

On January 19, Mexico’s five presidential hopefuls kicked off a six-month campaign for the country’s highest office. In both a regional and domestic context, the election carries tremendous significance. Some analysts have suggested that the early strength of populist candidate Andres Manuel López Obrador – Mexico’s contribution to the “pink tide” now sweeping the region – might make the July 2 vote a potential watershed event with hemispheric implications.

The ballot also marks a milestone for Mexico’s democratic transition: as the 2000 presidential victory of Vicente Fox and his subsequently troubled presidency, recedes into the past, the country is still struggling to find political and socio-economic models that deliver on the promise of democracy. As for Fox, whose victory ended 71 years of authoritarian one-party rule, he has found himself unable to carry that momentum into the realm of meaningful reform and a modernized society. Stymied by entrenched political opposition forces, and sabotaged by his own fatal flaws of indecision and an organic need to be submissive to Washington, his presidency is almost universally regarded as a disappointment, particularly because the Bush administration failed to deliver on the IOU’s that Fox won with his always ready servility.

Given the combination of such factors, the campaign will play out under a harsh spotlight, and levels of intrigue already are running high. Much of the attention thus far has focused on the candidates themselves, yet this personalistic analysis fails to grasp the complex issues which will color the attitudes of the electorate as July 2 approaches. Behind the three main actors in the race – López Obrador, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, and Roberto Madrazo Pintado – lie a series of questions that will impact the outcome of the election as much as the candidates themselves. In this report, COHA will examine five of these hidden factors: the impact of the Zapatistas, the role of PRD founder Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, a presidential taint, PRI infighting, and the specter of Chávez as he might affect Mexico.

A Thumbnail of the Race

The three main actors in the race occupy distinct political positions and represent different factions of the electorate. Early favorite and former Mexico City mayor Andres Manuel López Obrador, from the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), is a longtime opposition politician who has consistently been at odds with the Fox government, and draws his support largely from the country’s poor urban sectors. Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, like Fox a member of the National Action Party (PAN), is a conservative whose open-market beliefs signal continuity with Fox’s pro-business and slavishly pro-American administration. Finally, Roberto Madrazo Pintado, who secured the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)’s nomination after buzz-sawing his way through any internal opposition, represents little more than a return to the authoritarianism and corruption of yesteryear, which Fox slightly managed to sand down.

Two more candidates, Roberto Campa Cifrián and Patricia Mercado Castro, have little hope of winning, but may nevertheless play important roles as they could siphon votes from major candidates in a Ralph Nader fashion. Campa in particular, a dissident priista, could sap significant strength from Madrazo.

1) What impact will the Zapatistas and the newly launched “Other Campaign” have on the race?

Since their New Year’s Day emergence from the Lacandon jungle in Southern Mexico in 1994, the Zapatistas have demonstrated an impressive capacity to command national attention and wide sympathy. While that prominence has waned somewhat over the past several years, Subcomandante Marcos’ latest venture – a counter-campaign that may signal the movement’s permanent transition into the political arena – has succeeded in raising the EZLN’s profile ahead of the election. The “Other Campaign,” as its publicity effort is known, centers around Delegate Zero (Marcos’ adopted political persona), and offers a pointed critique of Mexico’s traditional political process which, he claims, ill-serves the needs of the many.

While ostensibly a completely apolitical effort – more of a civic campaign than anything else – the Other Campaign at its heart is a political movement aimed at raising the awareness of the average citizen and could offer the EZLN greater leverage with the incoming administration. Already, the strategy has raised the profile of indigenous issues in the election, as López Obrador has made the recognition of such native rights a top campaign priority.

But the Other Campaign is not interested in just reciting political platitudes, and the Zapatistas will soon be reaffirming that.More than López Obrador, the EZLN represents the authentic needs of the country’s poor and indigenous. This paradox of criticizing the establishment without offering an alternative has troubled some, who feel that the Other Campaign, in effect, is promoting abstentionism, which already threatens to mar the election. While Marcos has asserted that this is surely not the case, the Zapatistas’ transformation into a political front undoubtedly could threaten the coherence of the Mexican left, opening a schism between the populism of the PRD and the indigenous Marxism of the EZLN. As such, it could potentially slice into López Obrador’s support base if Marcos, who has expressed public disdain for the PRD candidate, proves effective in spreading his message.

It remains an open question whether or not the Other Campaign will plant significant seeds of doubt in the country as a whole. In fact it could fizzle, particularly if the major media doesn’t give the movement its due. The traditional political race will certainly leave many voters wishing for an alternative, but Delegate Zero will not offer a wide enough remedy for the country’s huge disaffected population. The Zapatistas have always struggled to project a national political vision in order to capture the support of the country’s moderate “swing” voters, and, in the end, the Other Campaign may leave only a passing mark on the political landscape.

2) Cárdenas on the Sideline

Marcos is not the only figure competing with López Obrador for the soul of the Mexican left. Son of the venerable President Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-40), PRD founder, and three times its presidential candidate, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas has been left on the sidelines of the 2006 campaign. Many felt that Cárdenas secretly hoped to once again carry his party’s banner in the election, and there have been whispers of estrangement between the two men.

While, on his own account, López Obrador is undeniably popular, Cárdenas is the grandfather of the modern Mexican left, and until recently its most prominent political figure. His political visions and national programs are perhaps more refined than López Obrador’s, and he is among a miniscule number of Mexican politicians whose integrity is unquestioned. Although Cárdenas has never been an effective campaigner – he lacks the showy style that makes for good television – he would nevertheless lend an invaluable gravitas and substance to López Obrador’s presidential bid. Recently, Cárdenas has remarked that he would attend López Obrador rallies “if he is invited,” effectively offering to support the candidate in exchange for a respectful nod, which has not yet been offered. A rapprochement would undoubtedly be a good thing for López Obrador, but he could go still further, and incorporate components of Cárdenas’ “A Mexico for All” program into his own national project. Such a step would solidify López Obrador’s credentials with the left, and perhaps win him some support among the middle class who harbor deep respect for the son of Mexico’s greatest modern president. López Obrador would be a fool not to try to woo Cárdenas, and for that matter Delegate Zero as well.

3) A Presidential Taint

After winning a surprise victory over Fox favorite Santiago Creel Miranda in the PAN’s primary, it was somewhat uncertain how much of an endorsement Felipe Calderón would receive from the Mexican president. Nevertheless, despite whatever ideological differences may exist between the two men – Fox comes from a more progressive, entrepreneurial wing of the PAN, whereas Calderón represents the party’s traditional Catholic roots – Fox has enthusiastically backed Calderón’s candidacy.

However, this support may not be the blessing that it appears to be. First, the cumulative effect of five years of disappointment and back-tracking have inflicted major damage to Fox’s legacy and his popularity, perhaps making his endorsement more of a liability than a benefit. Furthermore, recent scandals involving Fox’s wife, Marta Sahagún, and some of her children, have cast a haze of corruption on an already tarnished presidency, and by extension cast doubt on Calderón’s integrity.

Additionally, as part of the legacy from the 71-year PRI regime, the country is exceedingly leery of executive intervention in the electoral process, and it already has been alleged that Calderón has, without adverse results, been able to flaunt rules laid down by the federal elections board. Furthermore, Fox has done himself no honor by speaking out of turn in his veiled denunciations of López Obrador. As Mexico attempts to move away from its past, any perceived meddling in the election on Fox’s part could bring on a significant backlash as voters become further disenchanted with the PAN.

4) The PRI Unmade?

Fragmentation within the PRI began emerging long before the party lost the presidency in 2000, but since the momentous election of that year, the processes of its disintegration have accelerated, and competition around the primary process has brought on a full-fledged breakdown. A September rift between two of the party’s most high profile figures, Roberto Madrazo and Elba Esther Gordillo, led to the latter’s eventual defection, which proved a damaging blow as she commanded the loyalty of the country’s powerful teachers union and had a popular reformist reputation. The ugly primary campaign which followed, saw continual back and forth accusations of corruption, only further tearing at the party’s already fragile vitals.

Gordillo’s break with the PRI led to the creation of a new party affiliated with the teachers union, the New Alliance. Given the personal nature of the dispute between Madrazo and Gordillo, most Mexican analysts feel that the new party’s decision to run Roberto Campa Cifrián, also a PRI defector, in the election was a clear effort to cut into Madrazo’s support. It is uncertain how damaging this strategy will turn out to be for the PRI, although the possibility of a powerful coalition of the New Alliance and the PAN would be an ominous development for Madrazo’s already slipping odds. Although Gordillo has repeatedly discounted the possibilities of such an alliance, Calderón has included elements in his campaign – particularly in the realm of education – which seem to be openly courting the Maestra.

In its heyday, the PRI was a political juggernaut, capable of winning elections by tremendous margins, not just through pervasive fraud, but also because of its unparalleled ability to rally supporters to the polls by the ebullient use of patronage. Madrazo, however, can no longer rely on only the strength of that political machine. The break with Gordillo could cost him the votes of the teachers union, and campaign finance restrictions will limit the PRI’s traditional means of acquiring support in poor rural areas. This combination could ultimately prove too costly for Madrazo to overcome.

5) Chávez off-stage

The specter of the controversial Venezuelan leader has hung over every election in South America during the past year, and Hugo Chávez’s figure will likely appear over Mexico’s electoral campaign as well, although at this point it is uncertain what impact he may have. Certainly Chávez will favor López Obrador, who, to a certain extent, shares his ideological values, and the Venezuelan’s dislike of Fox will undoubtedly carry over to Calderón.

But any open ideological interjections from Caracas will produce mixed reactions, probably none of them good for López Obrador. The PRD candidate’s base among the poor is already fairly secure, and any fiery rhetoric from Chávez will have little impact on them. On the other hand, many moderate Mexicans are wary of López Obrador’s populist policies, and a blustery endorsement from Chávez may push them strongly towards Calderón. But those who know Chávez’s style could feel that there is no likelihood that he will consciously arm López Obrador’s enemies with such a weapon.

The Mixing Bowl

Much time remains before July 2 election, and many other additional factors will come into play beyond the five enumerated above, but, as the campaign begins, these are among the most prominent. It is far too early to predict all of the answers, and recent poll trends only suggest the race growing tighter. Yet the impact of these issues on the candidates will determine much about the electoral path ahead, and they may have long lasting implications for the country’s political future, particularly among the left.

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs