People Before Profit blog

Video: Response to Bush's 2008 State of the Union Address

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:55:00 +0000

1-30-08, 4:57 pm

Book review: American Fascists

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:22:00 +0000

1-30-08, 9:27 am

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the war on America by Chris Hedges, Vintage Books.

For the past few decades, one of the major vehicles for extreme right ideas within US politics has been the Christian fundamentalist movement.

All too often mocked and patronised by those who really ought to know better, its lightning growth is shocking to say the least and as Chris Hedges's book notes, the brown-shirted born agains now stand to start conquering the highest echelons of state power.

Already, some 45 per cent of US citizens believe that the world really was created in six days and 'intelligent design' - the new buzzword for old-fashioned creationism - is taught in schools and universities up and down the country.

The greatest selling author in the land which gave us Mark Twain and Jack London is today some berk peddling lurid accounts of rapture and Armageddon.

Legislation around same-sex marriage has been dismantled, gay lifestyles demonised and abstinence promoted as the only safe and godly path.

Women had better watch out too. Led by a bunch of crazed patriarchs, its not surprising that they see a woman's destiny as one of submission to the holy trinity of family, church and state.

And single mothers? Heaven forbid! Or should that be forbids? Hedges argues that, just like the fascist movements of the 1930s, fundamentalism has powerful allies in government circles and big business who are only too happy to bankroll its ongoing battle for the US.

Establishing links with those that they privately hate, the Christian right has also entered into an unholy alliance with zionists and conservative Catholics in a display of political jujitsu that earlier critics wouldn't have thought possible.

One of Hedges's book's greatest strengths is that it tries to understand why so many US citizens might find fundamentalism attractive.

Deindustrialisation, spiralling poverty and a society organised solely around the needs of out-of-control consumerism are all quite rightly seen as contributory factors, recalling Marx's dictum that, like it or not, religion often functions as the heart of a heartless world.

Of course, this begs the question of what can be done? Taking the movement seriously is an obvious start, but, after pointing out the dangers of what's happening, Hedges falls well short of suggesting any remedy.

This is all the more surprising, because, in many ways, he's an ideal candidate to start taking on the Christian right. A passionate believer himself, he's theologically adept at exposing the literalist abuse and corruption of biblical text.

Proud that his clergyman father opposed the Vietnam war, spoke up for civil rights in a fairly hostile all-white area and was a very early defender of lesbian and gay freedom, it's clear that he's very much part of the progressive community.

Why, then, no real attempt to develop a plan of action? His contention that the evangelical community could well be central to stopping the fundamentalists in their tracks is both weak and unsubstantiated, while his scathing attacks on liberals, although occasionally fair, appear to borrow more from the rhetoric of the enemy camp than Hedges might be prepared to admit.

Any unity with those to the left of the democrats seems to be off the agenda as well – socialists and communists apparently sharing with the Christian right an addiction to messianic utopian ideals that ultimately lead to totalitarianism.

Hardly the broadest of alliances to say the least, the value of Hedges's book is that it's more a wake-up call than a programme for change.

From Morning Star

Japan: Local Residents Resist US Occupation

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:19:00 +0000

1-30-08, 9:21 am

On February 10, a mayoral election will be held in Iwakuni City, Yamaguchi Prefecture, where the Japanese and U.S. governments are planning to bring in aircraft from a U.S. aircraft carrier as part of the ongoing U.S. military realignment in Japan.

Iwakuni Mayor Ihara Katsusuke has firmly opposed the relocation because it would compromise city safety and shift enormous burdens such as noise pollution onto the citizens.

The Japanese government has arbitrarily cancelled its promise to subsidize the planned construction of the city hall because of the mayor’s opposition to the relocation. What’s more, local Liberal Democratic and Komei party members of the city assembly, who are in favor of the relocation, have repeatedly voted down supplementary budget bills proposed by the mayor.

Ihara offered to resign in exchange for approval of the budget and expressed his intention to ask for the citizens’ verdict.

Iwakuni citizens oppose the relocation

In the March 2006 referendum, Iwakuni voters clearly rejected the plan to deploy aircraft from a U.S. aircraft carrier. In the subsequent mayoral election, they elected Ihara, the staunch opponent to the relocation.

The upcoming election will be the third opportunity for Iwakuni voters to express their opposition. It will be an important occasion to defeat the government plan to force the residents to accept the relocation plan.

Iwakuni residents’ lives have for many years been imperiled by the U.S. forces stationed at the Iwakuni base. They have been forced to endure various hardships, including severe noise pollution. If many more aircraft are deployed under the realignment plan, residents will be forced to endure even more hardships. It is natural that citizens have repeatedly expressed opposition to the relocation scheme.

Ihara has been consistent in supporting the citizens’ opposition to the relocation.

The Japanese government used various tactics, including threats and verbal attacks, to have the city capitulate to its pressure. In the past, it gave the city a subsidy to rebuild its city hall with earthquake resistance standards in exchange for the city’s agreement to host mid-air refueling planes. But once Mayor Ihara expressed his opposition to the relocation of carrier-borne planes to Iwakuni, the government stopped funding for the construction project.

In a magazine interview, Ihara stated, “I can’t accept subsidies in exchange for shifting unbearable hardships onto the Iwakuni residents (January 2008 issuee of “Sekai” magazine).”

Iwakuni residents successfully held a rally last December, with 11,000 residents attending to express their opposition.

In the mayoral election, the LDP and Komei parties will jointly run a member of the House of Representatives. They are launching attacks on Ihara without any regard for how this look to others.

Stop bullying municipalities

At a news conference that he called to announce his candidacy, Ihara said, “The upcoming election is a struggle against obsolete politicking aimed at dividing the citizens and stirring up fear among them in order to defend the interest of the government and particular business interests.” He also expressed his determination to defend democracy and local autonomy.

The Iwakuni mayoral election thus has an important national political significance.

From Akahata

Australia: Who is the Target in the Government’s 'War' on Inflation?

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:13:00 +0000

1-30-08, 9:15 am

The Australian government has declared that it is going to wage war against inflation as their number 1 economic objective at the present time. The rate of inflation reached 3.6 percent in the most recent figures announced by the authorities and this is outside the 'comfort zone' of the Reserve Bank. It is generally asserted by both government and big business leaders that wage increases to workers put up prices and even result in the loss of jobs.

The Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan echoed this belief when he said that trade unions should take the risk of higher inflation into account when formulating wage claims. The governor of the Reserve Bank Glenn Stevens was more open, saying that higher wage claims based on rising food and energy prices could stoke underlying inflation.

Inflation has been described as an economic situation in which 'too much money is chasing too few goods', the inference being that 'too much money' is in the pockets of wage and salary earners. If that were the case the federal government should cancel the $30 billion of tax cuts promised during the election campaign as being irresponsible.

But who is really putting up prices? It is not necessary to look very far. Every motorist is aware of the steep rises in the price of petrol over the last year or so. Petrol prices are put up by the oil companies.

More than $55 million a day is being pumped into the economy by the government to pay for the military budget, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and interventions by Australia in East Timor and the Solomon Islands in our own region. Military equipment is not for consumption and soldiers in the field produce nothing that can be sold to consumers in the super markets. Yet the money flows into the economy in one way or another and becomes a major inflationary factor.

In the last few months the prices for food, fruit and vegetables has gone up by a stated 40 percent. These prices are not being put up by workers’ wages. In fact, if workers had higher wages they would be able to buy back more than they do at present, giving producers and traders higher returns.

Then there is the steadily rising cost of land and housing both for purchase and rental. It is the developers and real estate managers who use 'the market' to justify the higher prices while governments build fewer and fewer public houses and units.

Nor is it workers who are responsible for putting up interest rates and, thereby, ripping billions out of the pockets of home-owners. Interest rates are determined by the Reserve Bank and the government despite the talk of the Reserve Bank being independent. We had another demonstration of who is responsible for putting up interest rates when all the banks put up their interest rates in January despite being reprimanded with a feather duster by the Treasurer and ignoring this role of the Reserve Bank.

When challenged to take action against some of these developments which directly add to inflation the federal government says it cannot do anything. That is true, but only because the government has given away all its powers to regulate or control the banks and other financial institutions. Furthermore, the present governments do not have the policies or the will to take any worthwhile action against the big corporations and the banks.

However, when it comes to the demands of the trade union movement for wage increases that would allow workers to keep up with the increased prices they are told to be 'restrained'. If despite this they take strike action to press their demands they will be condemned and workers and their unions heavily fined for their actions. There is a big club for workers and trade unions but milk and water words for the corporations.

The truth is that inflation is caused by the policies and the greed of the corporations — not workers’ wages. This reflects the class society in which we live. It remains the whole basis of capitalist society.

From The Guardian

Senate Dems Promise Fight in Waning Days of Bush Presidency

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:06:00 +0000

1-30-08, 9:08 am

On the heels of Bush's state of the union speech Jan. 28 in which he offered no serious new proposals for economic recovery or a change of course in Iraq, Senate Democrats are planning a huge confrontation with Bush on these issues.

A proposal passed in the House and negotiated by the House Democrats and the White House would provide tax rebates of a few hundred dollars to many middle and income households. And Bush is still pressing Congress to make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, a plan that analysts say won't stimulate consumption.

Senate Democrats say the negotiated plan simply does not go far enough. In his response to Bush's speech, Sen. Barack Obama, called for extending unemployment benefits. A Senate version of the stimulus package, with bipartisan support, extends unemployment benefits by 13 weeks in most states, and by and additional six months in states with unemployment rates higher than six percent.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) offered an amendment to increase the size of the rebates in the House proposal by $300 and extending them to low-income wage earners and retirees as well.

To this, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) stated, must be added relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and federal investment in infrastructure, advanced technology and redevelopment project to create jobs.

'Our long-term economic growth requires investments by the federal government to create jobs and help our businesses grow and compete,' Levin told the press. 'Infrastructure and advanced technology should be our top priorities.'

Levin further argued that adequate funding for safety net programs like unemployment insurance, home heating assistance, and the food stamp program are critical types of economic stimulus for families hit hardest by recession.

Senate Democrats say that Bush's refusal to address economic difficulties on an institutional and long-term basis is suggestive of his lack of urgency and seriousness toward the underlying problems or to understand the hardships of working families.

On the Iraq war, Senate Democrats have signaled a coming battle with Bush over his proposal to legitimize long-term occupation and combat operations in Iraq with a 'status-of-forces' agreement.

The administration claims it doesn't need the approval of Congress to pressure Iraq into signing a long-term occupation treaty.

Legal experts and many in the US Senate disagree. Barack Obama told MSNBC that Senators would fight the proposal. He described it as 'tying the hands of the next president' and called for a real exit strategy from Iraq.

Sen. Jim Webb (D- VA) implied that the proposed agreement is irresponsible and provides no new security arrangements. 'There’s no exit strategy, because the administration doesn’t have one,” Webb told the New York Times. “By entering this agreement, they avoid a debate and they validate their unspoken strategy.”

The unspoken strategy appears to do an end-run around Congress and lay the basis for an occupation beyond the Bush presidency. In a letter to Bush last week, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) described the proposed agreement as one that could 'mire us in an Iraqi civil war indefinitely.'

Bush has offered contradictory messages justifying long-term occupation in Iraq. On one hand, he said that the occupation is necessary because Al Qaeda poses a serious threat in Iraq and sectarian strife is ongoing, despite the fact that the military estimates Al Qaeda causes only a tiny number of violent attacks Iraq. On the other hand, he touted the 'surge' for reducing sectarian violence and making the long-term occupation a safer enterprise.

Critics of the 'surge' disagree about its success. In addition to the failure to produce a political reconciliation between the country's major regions and religious and political factions, the main stated goal of the 'surge,' many also point out that the violence has only fallen to pre-surge levels with about 4,700 violent incidents a month.

Limited security improvements in isolated places flow from new agreements for cash and arms with former insurgent groups who fought US troops.

These are mostly Sunni groups who have said they see the Democratic victory in Congress as a sign the US occupation is ending and view US military offers of arms and cash as a means to strengthen their own situation against Shia factions who now control the government.

US forces have been training and arming these groups over the last year, totaling about 80,000 people. Military analysts see these developments as unlikely to reduce sectarian conflict, pointing to intensified suspicion between groups over the past year.

Senate Democratic leaders have come to agree with most Americans who understand that bringing the occupation of Iraq to an end is the only basis for promoting political reconciliation in Iraq.

But it is increasingly clear, the Bush administration seeks neither stability or reconciliation, hoping that ongoing violence will serve to legitimize or force enduring occupation even after his departure from Washington.

The Senate has the opportunity to lead a serious and determined struggle against Bush/Republican obstructionism on economic recovery and bringing a change in course in Iraq. Let's hope the opportunity isn't wasted.

--Joel Wendland can be reached at

Suharto's Death Sparks Humanitarian Critique

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:01:00 +0000

1-30-08, 9:03 am

Since 4th January millions of Indonesians have been watching their TVs, listening to the radio, reading newspapers and chatting on the street about their former president, Suharto, as he lay in bed in an unstable and critical condition. Reports claimed that his health was deteriorating one day and improving the next. Finally, last Sunday, Suharto passed away.

Despite the controversy surrounding this influential figure, the media has been more than kind to him. Television stations are broadcasting endless coverage of Suharto’s presidency, glorifying his achievements. Newspapers and radio stations have followed suit and all refer to him as Pak Harto, a term of endearment that is arbitrarily given to some former leaders and not to others.

Indonesians have many free to air television stations which have all commemorated the former leader's death. Ninety percent of news reporting is delivered through television in Indonesia. With this in mind, it is no surprise that most Indonesian sympathize with Suharto and commend him for his deeds.

Nothing is mentioned of the millions of dollars Suharto and his family stole from the Indonesians through corrupt “business” dealings. Nothing is mentioned of the communists and communist sympathizers that were murdered in 1965 allegedly under his military rule. Nothing is mentioned of the torture and genocide of Chinese Indonesians under Suharto’s presidency. The most conservative estimate for the massacre of communists in 1965 is 500,000. Over his 32-year rule, some estimate that he killed 4 million Indonesians.

Chinese Indonesians were to cut all ties with China and were forced to change their names to sound more native Indonesians. Chinese characters were also banned.

These acts, which occurred under Suharto’s Orde Baru (New Order), were witnessed and experienced by millions, yet they remain mere allegations. Through intimidation, Indonesians were not able to speak out against Suharto during most of his presidency. Tight restrictions were placed on the media and well-respected publications that criticized Suharto and his government, such as Tempo magazine, were shut down.

Many Indonesians are left confused as a result. David Subari, a 23 year-old Indonesian says, “I don’t think he killed them, but maybe some of his subordinates did. I’m not sure who gave the order to do that.”

Taxi driver Yatno says, “I don’t think he killed anyone. That’s just what NGO’s say. Maybe it happened, but I doubt it.”

When asked about Suharto, many Indonesians sing his praise.

“I think he did lots of good things for the country so I think we have to respect him in that sense,” says David.

Twenty-five year-old Caroline Leonardo says, “I think despite his corruption, he’s a great man. He brought Indonesia to a great state of development when he was ruling this country.”

Children are also taught a particular version of history in their classrooms. An ongoing debate over textbooks has seen varying opinions; some want history books amended to include at least the allegations against Suharto, and others, including some teachers, do not.

Last week at Jakarta’s Natural History museum, hundreds of school children were told a particular version of history that portrayed Suharto as a symbol of strength and benevolence.

The museum, founded by Suharto himself, glorifies his military in its fight for independence. The museum, which attracts around 500 visitors a day and many more during holidays, records Indonesia’s history only until 1992, just six years prior to the fall of the Suharto Government, which is given no mention at all.

Indri, a third grade teacher from Central Java, says, “I think the museum is very useful for my students. I don’t think they should talk about killings because it is just a rumor that they happened.”

With teachers who present controversial events as fact, with museums with manipulated information, with textbooks containing political propaganda and with very little criticism from the media, of course Suharto is seen as a hero.

Under his leadership, Indonesia saw unprecedented economic growth and industrialization. Suharto’s government yielded many out of poverty and his anti-communist stance won him the approval of the Western World, particularly of the United States.

Even in its democratic state, the Government still has a tight grip on information in Indonesia.

Ageng Darimintono, the Deputy Head of Administration at the Museum of Natural History says, “What content we can use depends on the policies of the government. The government has power over the museums.”

2008 marks ten years after Suharto’s fall. Indonesia has also been a democratic nation for 10 years, yet the Government has not even attempted to bring Suharto to justice.

The fact that Indonesia’s current president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is the son-in-law of the General who allegedly ordered a number of the murders during the Suharto presidency, made prosecution extremely unlikely.

It seems that nothing will change now that Suharto has passed away. The millions of Indonesians with memories of Suharto’s brutalities will never have justice. At best, Suharto’s children may be prosecuted on corruption. At worst, Indonesians will remember Suharto’s accomplishments and will his villainy will be forgotten.

Peace Coalition Plans to Mark 5th Anniversry of Iraq War

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:58:00 +0000

1-30-08, 9:00 am

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Contact: Leslie Cagan, 212-868-5545; Judith Le Blanc, 212-868-5545;

Anti-War Movement Announces Plans for Actions to Mark the 5th Anniversary of the War in Iraq

United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest antiwar coalition with 1,400 member groups, today announced plans for activities on the 5th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.

March 19, 2008 will mark the passage of 5 years since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the beginning of the 6th year of war and occupation.

'The presidential candidates, the Congress, the White House and the media all seem to be working hard to push Iraq off the agenda until after the elections this fall -- we can't let that happen! They may be willing to let hundreds more U.S. soldiers and thousands more Iraqis die between now and when the next president and Congress are sworn in, but we are not!' said Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of UFPJ.

United for Peace and Justice is calling for and supporting a set of activities on and around the 5th anniversary that will manifest the intensifying opposition to the war:

* March 13-16, Winter Soldier: UFPJ member group Iraq Veterans Against the War is organizing historic hearings March 13-16 in Washington, DC. Veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Iraqis and Afghans, will tell the nation the real story of this war. UFPJ is helping local groups and individuals plan events that directly link to and amplify the Winter Soldier hearings, from which we hope to have a live video feed available so that communities around the country can gather to watch and listen. * March 19, Mass Nonviolent Direct Action in Washington, DC: UFPJ is organizing for what we hope will be the largest day of nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience yet against the war in Iraq. The coalition is working to have delegations from all 50 states take part in this massive day of action. * March 19, Local Actions Throughout the Country: Congress will not be in session and so our representatives and senators will be in their home districts/states. The coalition is encouraging those who are not able to make it to Washington on March 19 to organize local antiwar actions. These events will vary in location or character, and they will all be tied to the actions in Washington and sending the same message to the policy makers: It is time to end this war and occupation!

More information about these activities can be found at the new website UFPJ has created for the 5th anniversary efforts: www.5yearstoomany.org.

United for Peace and Justice will be sending updates about these events in the coming weeks.

From United for Peace and Justice

Video: Democracy and the 2008 Elections

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:51:00 +0000

1-29-08, 11:53 am

From Communist Party USA

Bush Speech Foreshadows End of his Presidency

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:18:00 +0000

1-29-08, 9:22 am

In his final state of the union address, which his handlers touted as his last big effort to reclaim his legacy, George W. Bush repeated the same tired phrases and hackneyed platitudes he has often advanced as deep thinking and serious policy in the past.

Bush muddled his way through domestic issues. He mentioned New Orleans, though 40 percent of the tens of thousands of displaced city residents live below the poverty line and some estimates have only 30 percent of the city up and running. Two years too late to show concern for the storied city, Bush even failed to mention it last year.

On economic issues, his only proposal to fend off recession was making his tax cuts for the rich permanent, stating falsely that without it, the 'average household' would see their taxes rise by $1,800. There were no bold proposals to invest in the crumbling infrastructure to help boost the construction industry, the hardest hit as a result of the housing crisis. Bush made no gestures to directly assist low-income families during the crisis or aid the growing numbers of unemployed by extending unemployment benefits. He refused to even hint at long-term institutional reforms that would provide relief or economic security for working families.

He pretended to care about balancing the budget, a feat he never attempted in the first seven years of his administration, even when his party controlled Congress. Recall that he never vetoed a single Republican spending bill, adding about $5 trillion to the national debt before Democrats swept to power in 2006.

Bush's blind allegiance to health savings accounts was apparent as well. He ignored the best analysis that has shown HSA's do nothing to make health care affordable and only help upper income families enjoy additional tax breaks. The average income of HSA users is about $133,000, and middle and low-income families gain no tax benefit from them.

He rejected out of hand serious health care reform – even as an economic stimulus concept. Many working families would be happy to put their dollars back into the economy if they knew they could afford insurance premiums and medical care. And imagine what would happen if working families paid little or nothing for health care. Imagine the immediate savings for corporations with big employee premium costs if the right kind of health care reform passed.

He did visibly anger some Republicans with talk of needing to address global warming, but he offered no new, or, for that matter, any way to accomplish it.

It quickly became evident that Bush was simply going through the motions, repeating the same tired and failed ideological talking points of the ultra right, hammering away on taxes, and issuing veto threats about spending he suddenly opposes. Despite a strong warning against earmarks, Bush succeeded in adding 580 earmarks into veterans appropriation bill in 2007, including earmarks for pet projects like a Laura Bush library program and his father's foundation.

Bush repeated his mantra of tax cuts for the rich several times and promoted free trade. But there is one gaping hole in his theory: his tax and trade policies have not stopped (and can't stop) the looming recession. Indeed, his ideological penchant for deregulation and killing oversight has led to one of the biggest credit collapses since the Great Depression.

Even the International Monetary Fund Director General Dominique Strauss-Kahn now admits the need for regulation to prevent the kind of collapse created by the housing bubble and the subprime lending crisis.

All signs point to huge splits in the capitalist ruling class about the validity of the ultra-right economic argument (for various reasons) and a shift toward a window of opportunity to rebuild and reinvent social democratic institutions that ultimately could strengthen the working class for its protracted struggle.

On foreign policy, Bush rattled off a long list of countries he doesn't like and events that took place during his presidency. But their was no urgency or even much threat behind it. Though the Democratic sweep in 2006 delivered a brutal blow to Bush's presidency, his veto pen and Constitutional authority still give him great power to do great damage.

We heard remarks like 'Al Qaeda is on the run,' we'll bring justice to the perpetrators of 9/11, a re-hashed version of the old line that 'when Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down,' Iraqi democracy is visible in their 'ink-stained thumbs,' and much-doubted claims about how the enormous domestic security apparatus he has built thwarted a planned terrorist attack on a Los Angeles building. He even repeated the claim that 'a free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven,' apparently forgetting about the safe havens it has in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

None of this was new. Some of it unsubstantiated. All of it gave Bush's speech the appearance of a 'night to get through,' as Time magazine writer Margaret Carlson said on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann called it little more than 'the edited highlights of the Bush presidency.' Chris Matthews said it was a list of 'New Years' resolutions never achieved.'

In her Democratic Party response to the speech, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) called for a politics that moves beyond ideological division to focus immediately on three key things: in addition to short-term projects to boost the economy, passing S-CHIP expansion as a means of creating a long-term institutional economic stimulus for working families, which Bush has vetoed twice; changing course in Iraq, which Bush has vetoed several times; and, a new energy policy. 'Join us Mr.President,' she said, and together 'the new American majority,' a concept Barack Obama has hit on in his recent speeches, can make huge changes before you leave office.

In a brief interview on MSNBC following the Democratic response, Barack Obama described Bush's speech as 'warmed over past state of the union speeches.' Obama called for an urgent strategy for dealing with the economy, both short and long term, including extending unemployment benefits and reducing college costs. He also said, 'We have to have a plan to exit from Iraq.' Obama rejected the promise of endless war embedded in Bush's proposed 'status-of-forces' treaty with Iraq that would make occupation and combat operations permanent.

Bush also made vague promises and threats about peace in Israel and the Occupied Territories, but other than gaining applause when he called for a two state solution to the crisis, unfortunately, offered little in the way of specifics, urgency, or seriousness.

Clearly, this speech was not intended to be a road map of governance in his final year. It was little more than pandering to the extreme right-wing base of his party in order to avoid leaving office with the lowest approval rating on record. He hopes for a couple-point bump, say White House insiders, to get him past the Nixon trough.

A pathetic end to a dangerous presidency.

Gaza Crisis: Worse than a Crime

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:14:00 +0000

1-29-08, 9:16 am

IT LOOKED like the fall of the Berlin wall. And not only did it look like it. For a moment, the Rafah crossing was the Brandenburg Gate.

It is impossible not to feel exhilaration when masses of oppressed and hungry people break down the wall that is shutting them in, their eyes radiant, embracing everybody they meet – to feel so even when it is your own government that erected the wall in the first place.

The Gaza Strip is the largest prison on earth. The breaking of the Rafah wall was an act of liberation. It proves that an inhuman policy is always a stupid policy: no power can stand up against a mass of people that has crossed the border of despair.

That is the lesson of Gaza, January, 2008.

ONE MIGHT repeat the famous saying of the French statesman Boulay de la Meurthe, slightly amended: It is worse than a war crime, it is a blunder!

Months ago, the two Ehuds - Barak and Olmert - imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip, and boasted about it. Lately they have tightened the deadly noose even more, so that hardly anything at all could be brought into the Strip. Last week they made the blockade absolute - no food, no medicines. Things reached a climax when they stopped the fuel, too. Large areas of Gaza remained without electricity - incubators for premature babies, dialysis machines, pumps for water and sewage. Hundreds of thousands remained without heating in the severe cold, unable to cook, running out of food.

Again and again, Aljazeera broadcast the pictures into millions of homes in the Arab world. TV stations all over the world showed them, too. From Casablanca to Amman angry mass protest broke out and frightened the authoritarian Arab regimes. Hosny Mubarak called Ehud Barak in panic. That evening Barak was compelled to cancel, at least temporarily, the fuel-blockade he had imposed in the morning. Apart from that, the blockade remained total.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid act.

THE REASON given for the starving and freezing of one and a half million human beings, crowded into a territory of 365 square kilometers, is the continued shooting at the town of Sderot and the adjoining villages.

That is a well-chosen reason. It unites the primitive and poor parts of the Israeli public. It blunts the criticism of the UN and the governments throughout the world, who might otherwise have spoken out against a collective punishment that is, undoubtedly, a war crime under international law.

A clear picture is presented to the world: the Hamas terror regime in Gaza launches missiles at innocent Israeli civilians. No government in the world can tolerate the bombardment of its citizens from across the border. The Israeli military has not found a military answer to the Qassam missiles. Therefore there is no other way than to exert such strong pressure on the Gaza population as to make them rise up against Hamas and compel them to stop the missiles.

The day the Gaza electricity works stopped operating, our military correspondents were overjoyed: only two Qassams were launched from the Strip. So it works! Ehud Barak is a genius!

But the day after, 17 Qassams landed, and the joy evaporated. Politicians and generals were (literally) out of their minds: one politician proposed to 'act crazier than them', another proposed to 'shell Gaza's urban area indiscriminately for every Qassam launched', a famous professor (who is a little bit deranged) proposed the exercise of 'ultimate evil'.

The government scenario was a repeat of Lebanon War II (the report about which is due to be published in a few days). Then: Hizbullah captured two soldiers on the Israeli side of the border, now: Hamas fired on towns and villages on the Israeli side of the border. Then: the government decide in haste to start a war, now: the government decided in haste to impose a total blockade. Then: the government ordered the massive bombing of the civilian population in order to get them to pressure Hizbullah, now: the government decided to cause massive suffering of the civilian population in order to get them to pressure Hamas.

The results were the same in both cases: the Lebanese population did not rise up against Hizbullah, but on the contrary, people of all religious communities united behind the Shiite organization. Hassan Nasrallah became the hero of the entire Arab world. And now: the population unites behind Hamas and accuses Mahmoud Abbas of cooperation with the enemy. A mother who has no food for her children does not curse Ismail Haniyeh, she curses Olmert, Abbas and Mubarak.

SO WHAT to do? After all, it is impossible to tolerate the suffering of the inhabitants of Sderot, who are under constant fire.

What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning.

Several months ago Hamas proposed a cease-fire. It repeated the offer this week.

A cease-fire means, in the view of Hamas: the Palestinians will stop shooting Qassams and mortar shells, the Israelis will stop the incursions into Gaza, the 'targeted' assassinations and the blockade.

Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal?

Simple: in order to make such a deal, we must speak with Hamas, directly or indirectly. And this is precisely what the government refuses to do.

Why? Simple again: Sderot is only a pretext - much like the two captured soldiers were a pretext for something else altogether. The real purpose of the whole exercise is to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza and to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank.

In simple and blunt words: the government sacrifices the fate of the Sderot population on the altar of a hopeless principle. It is more important for the government to boycott Hamas - because it is now the spearhead of Palestinian resistance - than to put an end to the suffering of Sderot. All the media cooperate with this pretence.

IT HAS been said before that it is dangerous to write satire in our country - too often the satire becomes reality. Some readers may recall a satirical article I wrote months ago. In it I described the situation in Gaza as a scientific experiment designed to find out how far one can go, in starving a civilian population and turning their lives into hell, before they raise their hands in surrender.

This week, the satire has become official policy. Respected commentators declared explicitly that Ehud Barak and the army chiefs are working on the principle of 'trial and error' and change their methods daily according to results. They stop the fuel to Gaza, observe how this works and backtrack when the international reaction is too negative. They stop the delivery of medicines, see how it works, etc. The scientific aim justifies the means.

The man in charge of the experiment is Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a man of many ideas and few scruples, a man whose whole turn of mind is basically inhuman. He is now, perhaps, the most dangerous person in Israel, more dangerous than Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Netanyahu, dangerous to the very existence of Israel in the long run.

The man in charge of execution is the Chief of Staff. This week we had the chance of hearing speeches by two of his predecessors, generals Moshe Ya'alon and Shaul Mofaz, in a forum with inflated intellectual pretensions. Both were discovered to have views that place them somewhere between the extreme Right and the ultra-Right. Both have a frighteningly primitive mind. There is no need to waste a word about the moral and intellectual qualities of their immediate successor, Dan Halutz. If these are the voices of the three last Chiefs of Staff, what about the incumbent, who cannot speak out as openly as they? Has this apple fallen further from the tree?

Until three days ago, the generals could entertain the opinion that the experiment was succeeding. The misery in the Gaza Strip had reached its climax. Hundreds of thousands were threatened by actual hunger. The chief of UNRWA warned of an impending human catastrophe. Only the rich could still drive a car, heat their homes and eat their fill. The world stood by and wagged its collective tongue. The leaders of the Arab states voiced empty phrases of sympathy without raising a finger.

Barak, who has mathematical abilities, could calculate when the population would finally collapse.

AND THEN something happened that none of them foresaw, in spite of the fact that it was the most foreseeable event on earth.

When one puts a million and a half people in a pressure cooker and keeps turning up the heat, it will explode. That is what happened at the Gaza-Egypt border.

At first there was a small explosion. A crowd stormed the gate, Egyptian policemen opened live fire, dozens were wounded. That was a warning.

The next day came the big attack. Palestinian fighters blew up the wall in many places. Hundreds of thousands broke out into Egyptian territory and took a deep breath. The blockade was broken.

Even before that, Mubarak was in an impossible situation. Hundreds of millions of Arabs, a billion Muslims, saw how the Israeli army had closed the Gaza strip off on three sides: the North, the East and the sea. The fourth side of the blockade was provided by the Egyptian army.

The Egyptian president, who claims the leadership of the entire Arab world, was seen as a collaborator with an inhuman operation conducted by a cruel enemy in order to gain the favor (and the money) of the Americans. His internal enemies, the Muslim Brothers, exploited the situation to debase him in the eyes of his own people.

It is doubtful if Mubarak could have persisted in this position. But the Palestinian masses relieved him of the need to make a decision. They decided for him. They broke out like a tsunami wave. Now he has to decide whether to succumb to the Israeli demand to re-impose the blockade on his Arab brothers.

And what about Barak's experiment? What's the next step? The options are few:

1. To re-occupy Gaza. The army does not like the idea. It understands that this would expose thousands of soldiers to a cruel guerilla war, which would be unlike any intifada before. 2. To tighten the blockade again and exert extreme pressure on Mubarak, including the use of Israeli influence on the US Congess to deprive him of the billions he gets every year for his services. 3. To turn the curse into a blessing, by handing the Strip over to Mubarak, pretending that this was Barak's hidden aim all along. Egypt would have to safeguard Israel's security, prevent the launching of Qassams and expose its own soldiers to a Palestinian guerilla war - when it thought it was rid of the burden of this poor and barren area, and after the infrastructure there has been destroyed by the Israeli occupation. Probably Mubarak will say: Very kind of you, but no thanks.

The brutal blockade was a war crime. And worse: it was a stupid blunder.

From Uri Avnery's Column

Global Unemployment to Grow this Year says ILO

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:12:00 +0000

1-29-08, 9:14 am

Economic turbulence largely due to credit market turmoil and rising oil prices could spur an increase in global unemployment by an estimated 5 million persons in 2008, the International Labour Office (ILO) said Thursday in its annual Global Employment Trends report (GET).

The new projection for 2008 is in contrast to 2007, a watershed year in which sound global GDP growth – of more than 5% –, led to a “stabilization” of global labour markets with more people in work, a net increase of 45 million new jobs and only a slight increase in the number of people unemployed, to a total of 189.9 million persons worldwide.

“This year’s global jobs picture is one of contrasts and uncertainty”, said ILO Director-General Juan Somavia. “While global growth is annually producing millions of new jobs, unemployment remains unacceptably high and may go to levels not seen before this year. What’s more, though more people are in work than ever before, this doesn’t mean that these jobs are decent jobs. Too many people, if not unemployed, remain among the ranks of the working poor, the vulnerable or the discouraged.”

Significantly, the ILO report noted that the reduction in the growth in developed economies attributed to credit market turmoil and higher oil prices so far had been “compensated for in the rest of the world”, especially in Asia, where economic and job growth remained strong. However, the ILO report warned that an expected slowdown in growth during 2008 could increase the global unemployment rate to 6.1%, with a resulting absolute increase of at least 5 million unemployed worldwide.

The GET reeport also points out that the global economy growth of 5.2% created an estimated 45 million new jobs in 2007, but failed to have any significant impact on the growth of unemployment. Overall, 61.7% of the global population of working age – or an estimated 3 billion people – were employed in 2007. Although the global unemployment rate remained virtually constant at 6%, that meant an estimated 189.9 million people, compared to 187 in 2006, were unemployed worldwide in 2007. Despite growth in the economy and jobs, the worldwide deficit in decent jobs – especially for the poor – is “massive”. The ILO said five out of 10 people in the world are in vulnerable employment, either contributing family workers or own-account workers with a higher risk of being unprotected. In developing countries these two categories are most likely to work informally and hence have jobs that leave them vulnerable to poverty and risks such as low earnings, dangerous working conditions and lack of health insurance. The ILO said an estimated 487 million workers – or 16.4% of all workers – still don’t earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the US$1 per person, per day poverty line while 1.3 billion workers – 43.5% – still live below the US$2 per day threshold.

The report also underlined that the service sector continued to grow during 2007, further surpassing agriculture as the world’s most prevalent source of employment. The service sector now provides 42.7% of the world’s jobs, compared to agriculture which provides 34.9%. The industrial sector, which had seen a slight downward trend between 1997 and 2003, has continued a rather slow upward trend in recent years, representing 22.4% of global jobs. The ILO observed that the Middle East and North Africa still had the highest unemployment rates at 11.8% and 10.9% respectively in 2007, followed by Latin America & the Caribbean, Central & South Eastern Europe (non EU) & the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) at 8.5%. The situation in the Developed Economies & European Union (EU) seemed to be stagnating, the ILO report said, with job growth at its lowest in the last five years and unemployment up by 600,000 over 2006.

The GET reported that Latin America & the Caribbean was the only region where vulnerable employment has increased – from 31.4 to 33.2% of total employment over the last ten years, with an increase of job creation in the services sector. This finding is consistent with indications of an increase in the size of the informal economy in this region.

Mr. Somavia said “What is apparent is that economic progress doesn’t automatically translate into new and decent jobs. This shows once again that labour market policies must be at the centre of macroeconomic policies to ensure that economic growth is inclusive and that development involves good, decent work. The current economic situation is therefore cause for significant concern, and the ILO will monitor developments closely over the coming year.”

From MercoPress

European Pollution Relocated?

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:10:00 +0000

1-29-08, 9:12 am

Enthusiastically hailed by some and greeted with pessimism by others, the climate-change plan revealed by the European Commission on January 23rd is dangerous for two reasons. Yet it does set ambitious targets for the European Union as concerns cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions for member countries: a 20% cut by 2020 on 1990 figures (which have soared since), and 20% of the overall amount of energy is to be produced from renewable sources by the same date, 10% of which from bio-fuels.

But what the plan will really encourage is the relocation of CO2-emissions to keep up the European mode of development and consumption patterns by transferring the factors of global warming to other climes instead of contributing to their global decrease.

So the Commission is going to cut the amounts of CO2 that companies are allowed to emit by fixing annual quotas no later than 2013 so as to cut emissions by 21% on their 2005 levels by 2020. But these companies will in no way be prevented from relocating their activities to low-wages countries where they are sure to pollute even more since pollution from power stations and industrial activities there is worse than in Europe. What will encourage them to do so is the speculative ETS or “emission-trading scheme” in Europe where industrialists will be obliged to bid for CO2-emission permits they have so far been given free.

It will therefore be profitable for a relocating company to sell the pollution-allowances it will not use in Europe to those other companies that will not relocate their activities. The global increase in greenhouse-gas emissions will also result from the fact that more transport will be needed to commercialize in Europe a greater portion of the goods consumed there as a result of productive activities being transferred outside the Old Continent.

The same method applies to the 10% bio-fuels for European vehicles. Each country will be free to import up to 100% of the amount from third countries. But all European countries will be obliged to use bio-fuels, Malta included, though electricity-powered cars would be a far more sensible choice there on account of the island’s small area. Stepping up the use of bio-fuels in Europe will therefore entail increased deforestation and carbon-emissions in Southern countries, and risks as well of increased speculation on food prices.

From l'Humanite. Translated by Isabelle Metral.

Iraq: More Relief Aid Needed in Mosul After Deadly Blast

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:57:00 +0000

1-28-08, 2:59 pm

Source: IRIN News

BAGDHAD, 28 January 2008 (IRIN) - Essential relief items are needed to continue relief operations, and maintain an emergency stock, for affected families in the northern city of Mosul, the Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS) said on 28 January.

At least 60 people, mostly women and children, were killed and 280 wounded as a result of a massive blast followed by a suicide attack against a senior police official on 23 January in Mosul, the IRCS said.

Iraqi officials from the defence and interior ministries put the toll at 36 dead and 170 wounded in the explosion, which occurred when a cache of munitions, stored by insurgents in a house in west Mosul's Zanjili suburb, blew up.

In a report on its website, the IRCS said the most needed relief items were food, kitchen sets, mattresses, blankets, medical supplies, milk for infants, bottled water, suits and vests for disaster management volunteers, and canned food.

'The attack led to the destruction of at least 100 houses,' the IRCS said, adding that there were probably further dead bodies beneath the rubble.

The IRCS said the attack would increase the suffering of Iraqi families already living in a very difficult situation resulting from armed conflicts and frequent disasters.

Preparedness

An official at the IRCS's Disaster Management Department in Baghdad said the organization has three strategic warehouses in central, southern and northern Iraq in order to reach nearby affected areas.

'We are prepared for all kinds of crisis and our teams are working very hard to meet the needs of the affected people nationwide,' said the official who asked not to be named for security reasons.

'We are facing challenges that all Iraqi people face, but things could happen here and there to our teams as they do their work, like attacks and explosions, but in general we feel like we are welcomed and accepted in all areas,' the IRCS official said.

Relief activities have been coordinated with the relevant governmental and non-governmental agencies. Tents have been erected for families who lost their houses, and food and medicines distributed.

There was coordination with the Turkish embassy to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid from the Turkish Red Crescent to Iraq in the first 24 hours after the incident, it said.

The Turkish donation, IRCS said, included 300 food baskets and medical items and the transfer of seven casualties to hospital in Turkey.

On 27 January Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed al-Qaeda for the explosion and ordered troop reinforcements and tanks to be sent to Mosul for an assault on Al-Qaeda in its urban stronghold.

From IRIN News

Obama Wins Big in the State of Strom Thurmond

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:02:00 +0000

Senator Obama won by 28-points over Senator Hillary Clinton with John Edwards receiving 18 percent of the vote in the South Carolina Democratic primary. And in his victory speech, Senator Obama continued to call for unity and action against those who believe that he is on mission impossible.

There is still a long way to go. Clinton still has more of the money and much more of the organization. John Edwards is still better on the key domestic issues. And Dennis Kucinich is far and away the best of all of the candidates across the board (if we were living in a color blind world, which of course we are not). But this is a remarkable victory for the whole people that Senator Obama continues to appeal to in his campaign.

First a little history, because that is my profession. South Carolina gave us John C. Calhoun, the 'philosopher' of the slave power before the Civil War, who saw even the racist exclusionary democracy associated with his fellow slaveholder and political enemy, Andrew Jackson as a threat to the slaveholder class. He advocated instead giving the slave states a permanent veto over democratic majorities that would threaten them, the doctrine of a 'concurrent majority,' and began to call for secession decades before it took place.

By end of the 19th century, South Carolina was represented by the racist pseudo populist politician, 'Pitchfork' Ben Tillman. Its African American population, which had once constituted a majority and had elected many representatives at both the state and federal level, had lost its citizenship rights. In the 20th century, Pitchfork Ben's successors, 'Cotton Ed' Smith and then, of course, Strom Thurmond, a young segregationist who began his political career by winning a local council election in 1929, made their political living by defending Jim Crow brutality.

Over the next 70 years, Strom, was a Democratic Congressman and Governor, a segregationist third party presidential candidate in 1948, a segregationist Democratic leader in the Senate, setting personal time records for filibusters in the 1950s and 1960s, and then a Republican Senator from 1964 to his retirement at the beginning of the 21st century. In 1968 Strom supported Richard Nixon in the hope that Nixon as president would let the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which gave African Americans in South Carolina the right to vote for the first time since Reconstruction, die.

But it didn't die, and las Saturday night the African American voters who Thurmond and his predecessors sought to segregate and disenfranchise for nearly a century after the Civil War, were apparently the key to this huge victory. As was once written about another reactionary politician who died before history completely buried him, I wish that Strom Thurmond was alive to see the night of Obama's: he would have died all over again.

Thurmond, as was revealed after his death, had a child with an African American servant women in the 1920s, and continued to see his daughter over the decades while he made his name as a segregationist politician. That is also an example of what is so tangled a history in the U.S., where poor white males were appealed to by politicians like Thurmond who portrayed Blacks as threats to white women while they used their power to do what they wanted with Black women.

The U.S. political system is, at best a second division political democracy by global standards and people throughout the world are always interested in the American presidency, because, as a Pakistani-born friend of mine and Marxist once told me, the President of the United States is the unelected President of much of the world, having more power over peoples lives than their own elected or unelected leaders.

But the fact that an African American and a woman are leading candidates for the presidential nomination is a big story. While sexism is sadly global, color racism in the U.S., rooted in a history of slavery and segregation which goes back to the 17th century, as people throughout the world know and have long known, is an 'exceptional' characteristic of U.S. society, one that has been at the center of the deformation of political, economic, and social democracy throughout American history. That makes Senator Obama's victory Saturday all the more important, and, in my opinion (and many, including some who read this, will probably disagree), more important than the victory of Hillary Clinton as a women for the presidential nomination would be.

The race for the nomination still has a long way to go but the possibility that the process will produce significant change and energize millions to participate in the political process and defeat the right Republicans is getting better.

Declining Shark Populations

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:59:00 +0000

1-28-08, 10:03 am

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of sharks around the world? I see occasional stories about sharks attacking humans, but on balance aren’t we a lot more brutal to them then they are to us? -- Pam Hitschler, Radnor, PA

It’s true that humans do a lot more damage to shark populations than vice versa. Marine biologists report that sharks are in rapid decline around the world. In the North Atlantic Ocean, shark populations have declined more than 50 percent over the past 20 years alone, with some species now nearing extinction.

Experts see the primary cause as overfishing, which depletes sharks as well as their prey. Sharks are especially vulnerable to illegal “longlines” (fishing nets strung across dozens if not hundreds of miles of ocean), where they get inadvertently snared along with the tuna and swordfish fishermen intend to catch.

Rising demand for shark fin soup in is also contributing to the demise of sharks. According to a report by Wildaid, shark fins are among the most expensive seafood products in the world, selling for some $700 per kilogram on the Hong Kong market. With prices like that, many longline fishermen, who are already operating illegally, are happy to augment their incomes by “finning” a few sharks along the way. (Finning is the practice of removing a fin from a shark and discarding the rest of the carcass at sea.)

Often, threatened wildlife species manage to maintain their numbers in spite of excessive human predation. But sharks face an especially uphill battle, says renowned shark expert Ransom Myers, because they “take a long time to mature and have relatively few babies.”

So what is being done to save sharks? In the U.S., the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act is the primary law that oversees the conservation of U.S. fisheries and has established various management regulations for 39 species of sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. It outlaws finning if the carcass is discarded but not if the rest of carcass is kept, clearly an unfortunate loophole.

The U.S. also helped develop a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization treaty (the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks) whereby 87 countries agreed to develop their own plans for the conservation of sharks. However, only two countries—the U.S. and Australia—have lived up to the agreement. The U.S. plan is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has been working with regional fisheries authorities to make sure fishermen are sticking to cautiously low quotas regarding the number of sharks they are allowed to catch.

What can consumers do to save the sharks? The Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California urges consumers to avoid all shark products, not just on restaurant menus but also all souvenirs such as jaws and teeth, and shark-cartilage pills, which have been touted as cancer cures but which have been proven to be completely ineffective and are now widely considered a scam. The aquarium also encourages consumers to support with their pocketbooks conservation groups working to protect sharks and oceans, and specifically those working to set aside marine reserves that are off-limits to fishing.

CONTACTS: Wildaid, www.wildaid.org; Monterey Bay Aquarium, www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Obama Wins South Carolina Democratic Primary

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:56:00 +0000

Source: Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA – US Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) rebounded from losses in New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada to win the South Carolina primary by a 28 percent margin Saturday.

Obama earned a crucial victory on the strength of overwhelming support from Black voters in South Carolina, accounting for half of all votes cast Saturday, January 26, 2008.

'Tonight the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina,' Obama told a raucous crowd in Columbia, South Carolina.

There were no surprises in South Carolina, where poll numbers released in the days leading up to the vote showed Obama leading US Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former US Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) by a few points.

Clinton came to South Carolina riding a wave of momentum after shocking the country by beating Obama in New Hampshire earlier after polls leading up to the vote there also showed her trailing him by a large margin.

Clinton also won the Nevada caucuses last week, leaving Obama thirsting for a victory.

Clinton won in Michigan, although the results there won’t count towards the nationwide delegate total because the Democratic Party has stripped Michigan of its delegates in retribution for holding its Primary 'earlier' than when was acceptable to the Party.

He did not just win in South Carolina; Obama won by a large margin, routing Clinton and Edwards on his way to winning all but three counties.

Obama eventually finished with 55 percent of the vote. Clinton finished a distant second with 27 percent while Edwards finished third with 18 percent.

'This election is our chance to give the American people a chance to believe again,' Obama added, continuing to focus on his positive message of change.

Clinton, expecting to lose in South Carolina, left the state before polls closed and traveled to Tennessee, where her focus shifted to future primaries.

'I want to tell you how excited I am that now, the eyes of the country turn toward Tennessee and the other states that will be voting February 5th,' Clinton said in Nashville.

'Millions and millions of Americans are going to have the chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted and I can’t think of any place I would rather be than in Nashville as we kick off the next 10 days,' she added.

Edwards, a South Carolina native, is still looking for his first victory of the nominating season but showed no signs of giving up on Saturday.

'We’re giving voice to all those Americans whose voices are not heard,” he told supporters in Columbia. “If you’re one of the millions of Americans who have yet to cast your vote in this democratic process…your voice will be heard and we will be with you every single step of the way.'

Candidates will fan out across the country over the next week in preparation for Super Tuesday. Voters in 24 states, including Georgia, will make their choices on February 5, 2008.

These states represent 52 percent of all pledged Democratic delegates and 41 percent of all Republican delegates. It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination and 1,191 to secure the Republican nomination.

The rich get richer, working families get debt

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:43:00 +0000

1-28-08, 9:48 am

Source: People's Weekly World

Three recent New York Times articles have captured the essence of a new gilded age in America: “The Nightmare Before Christmas,” by Bob Herbert; “The Richest of Rich, Proud of the A New Gilded Age,” by Louis Uchitelle; and “Report Says that the Rich are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster,” by David K. Johnston. The current gilded age has been fueled by deep tax cuts for the wealthy and mountains of debt — government debt, corporate debt and household debt — plus the inhumanely cheap labor of globalization.

The U.S. national debt is currently $9.13 trillion, expanding at a rate of 1.4 billion dollars a day (one million dollars a minute). Five trillion dollars have been added to the national debt since G. W. Bush took office, sharply cutting the tax rates for the wealthy and launching his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Together, these wars will cost (if not stopped sooner) $42.4 trillion over the next decade.

We owe, we owe…

Total U.S. consumer debt, excluding mortgages, reached $2.46 trillion in June 2007. Eight percent of the households owe $9,000 or more on their credit cards, with the average consumer having a total of 13 credit obligations on record at the credit bureau. These include credit cards, department store charge cards, gas cards, bankcards, installment loans for cars, student loans etc. Fifty one percent of the U.S. population has at the minimum two credit cards. (creditcards.com)

An article by Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia in the Jan. 7, 2008 Financial Times.com reported “household debt in the U.S. hit a record 133 percent of disposable income.” Noting that this trend is unsustainable, he foresees a sharp drop in the price of housing.

Outstanding mortgages total $11.8 trillion. At the end of 2006 there was already a sharp increase in the number of homeowners with no or negative equity. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices that number reached approximately 5.6 million in 2007.

Debt bondage

In the May, 2006 Harpers Magazine, economist Michael Hudson refers to the condition that recent homebuyers find themselves in: “debt serfdom,” brought on by the “real estate collapse.”

Tax cuts for the elites in a period of “permanent war,” coupled with the demands of the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors, guarantee the escalation of ever more debt and the acceleration of the pace of what Paul Krugman calls a “debt peonage society,” (The New York Times, 3/9/05)

Newsweek reported on December 23, 2007, that Americans are falling behind in their current payments at an alarming pace, with “delinquencies and defaults surging to double digit rates.” Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody’sEconomy.com, sees credit card quality continuing to “erode” throughout 2008.

Where economy meets politics

In anticipation of such a development Congress, in 2005, sided with creditors and made it harder for debtors to default on credit card debt. With the financial, insurance and real estate sectors firmly in control, at least for the moment, we can anticipate now, with housing prices in decline, a surge of debt collectors coupled with Congress seeking to block the exits from indebtedness.

In an echo from the Gilded Age, Sanford I. Weille, former City Bank chairman and billionaire, told the New York Times reporter Uchitelle that “People can look back at the last 25 years and say this is an incredibly unique period of time…We didn’t rely on somebody else to build what we built, and we shouldn’t rely on somebody else to provide all the services our society needs.”

In the face of the gathering economic storm, with families witnessing the evaporation of home equity, the opiate of “ownership” may be wearing off. It so, 2008 could be the year that class struggle began to challenge the so-called ownership society.

This is reflected in the record turnout in the Democratic primaries where voters, including unprecedented numbers of young people, are expressing concern about the economy and their futures. The overwhelming sentiment for change represents a massive rejection of the pro-corporate economic and military policies of the Bush administration.

From People's Weekly World

'Sicko' Gets the Oscar High-Five

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:08:00 +0000

1-27-08, 10:10 am

January 25, 2008

Friends,

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know (if you didn't already) the good news that 'Sicko' has been nominated for this year's Academy Award for Best Documentary. It was a pleasant surprise when we got the news on Tuesday.

Of course, every reporter who's called me in the past few days wanted to know if I plan on giving an 'anti-war' or 'anti-Bush' speech, should 'Sicko' win, as I did when we won the Oscar for 'Bowling for Columbine' in 2003. (As you may recall, it was the 5th day of the war when those Oscars were held, and I said from the stage that, while I enjoy making nonfiction films, we live in fictitious times with a man of fiction in the White House. A ruckus ensued with a loud roar of cheers and boos, then someone cued the band to get me off the stage. As host Steve Martin said a few moments later, Teamsters were out back loading me into the trunk of a car.)

Well it's five years later and we are still at war. But there's no booing these days. 65% of the public is now opposed to the war and to Mr. Bush. The Academy, instead of cutting off the microphone, now nominates anti-war films for Best Documentary. That's right, three of the five nominees this year are Iraq War films!

I am very honored to be in this group of documentaries, three of which I brought last summer to our film festival in northern Michigan. 'Taxi to the Dark Side' is a brutal examination of U.S. torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Operation Homecoming' has actors reading letters from soldiers in Iraq. 'No End in Sight' has ex-Bush administration officials admitting how they messed up the occupation, lamenting how things would have been so much better if only Bush had put people in Baghdad who knew what they were doing (and wouldn't we all have loved to see THAT? Hahaha). And 'War/Dance' tells the moving story of kids in a dance competition in war-torn Africa. A diverse group of films, and proof that nonfiction movies are stronger than ever.

A lot of people ask me, 'how does this whole Oscar voting thing work?' Well, actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors -- every branch essentially votes to nominate their own (including documentary filmmakers in my branch) -- and then all 6,000 Academy members vote for the Best Picture nominees. After the nominations are announced, then all 6,000 vote for all the categories.

Documentaries, though, have one special rule: The voters have to verify they have seen all five nominated films. As some of these films, unfortunately, don't have the distribution they deserve, special Academy members-only screenings of all five nominees are set up for this very purpose in the next few days in New York, and in the next couple of weeks in L.A. and elsewhere, and that's when any Academy member can vote for Best Documentary.

But will there be an Oscar show this year? As you know, the Writers Guild (of which I am a member) is on strike and the Oscars are a union show. If the strike isn't settled, they won't be able to put on the typical telecast as no actor, writer or anyone I know will cross the picket line. This is all happening because a couple of hotheads at the studios (some would say union-busting knuckleheads) have walked away from the negotiating table in what seems like an attempt to simply get rid of the union. What do they think we are, air traffic controllers?

The writers are only asking for about 2.5 cents out of every dollar made on Internet sales (that's right, not even 3 pennies!), a small pittance compared to what the studios or networks rake in. That's it. The union has dropped the demand to unionize the reality shows (in 1993, I created the first unionized reality show, 'TV Nation,' but the Writers Guild unfortunately wasn't able to build on this).

I would like to believe that the honchos will come to their senses and settle this strike. Otherwise, I won't be able to talk to Joan Rivers on the red carpet or attend all those Oscar parties afterward! Don't make me suffer like this! My wardrobe and stylist people are already in tears.

In the meantime, I'll send you some pre-Super Tuesday thoughts next week. Thanks again for all your nice comments on the Oscar nod and I hope this extra attention on 'Sicko' will help to push for the day when every American can go to the doctor or the hospital and never be asked 'what's in your wallet?'

Yours,

Michael Moore MichaelMoore.com

Green Information Online

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:06:00 +0000

1-27-08, 10:08 am

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What are some of the best online sources of environmental information? -- Hip2bGreen, Seattle, WA

One of the best places to start in venturing out into eco-cyberspace is the website of a green group you already know—perhaps one for whom you have donated money or volunteered. Most groups use their websites to keep their supporters updated on the issues they cover, and provide links to many other green websites. Beyond such groups, several independent “third-party” sources also provide useful information on a wide range of environmental topics, from consumer tips to news to action alerts.

One leading green website is Grist (grist.org), which reports environmental news in a witty and engaging manner, billing itself as “gloom and doom with a sense of humor.” Checking out Grist’s daily rundown of environmental news is de rigueur among eco-activists, and many regular folks keep tabs on it, too. Other excellent news sources include Environmental News Network (enn.com), and Environmental News Service (ens-newswire.com). And one new kid on the block is The Daily Green (thedailygreen.com), which bills itself as the “consumer’s guide to the green revolution.” Owned by major magazine publisher Hearst, The Daily Green offers news, green tips and advice, and a plethora of green home, food and lifestyle topics.

The Green Guide (thegreenguide.com), run by National Geographic, is probably the best online source for green consumer information, specializing in green living tips, product reviews and environmental health news. Looking for guidance on saving water around the house, choosing among non-toxic paints or packing greener lunches for your school-age kids? The Green Guide would be a good place to start.

If you’re interested in more comprehensive looks at green issues and topics, emagazine.com posts much of the content of its flagship E – The Environmental Magazine, along with weekly news and commentary. Visitors can also access 18 years worth of in-depth articles—the magazine has been turning out bi-monthly print issues since 1990—on just about every green topic imaginable.

Those interested in social networking and the environment should look to Care2 (care2.com), the world’s largest online environmental community. The site offers its eight million members free e-mail accounts and provides lots of background information on just about every environmental issue.

A handful of green ‘blogs are starting to get a lot of media attention and web traffic. The king of them all is Treehugger (treehugger.com), which offers several posts each day from a stable of thinkers committed to environmental issues. Its coverage is not comprehensive, but Treehugger excels at tapping into trends in environmental thinking and culture. Another source of environmental tips and culture online is IdealBite (idealbite.com), a blog-style site offering up “bite-sized ideas for light green living.”

And then there are the “click-to-donate” websites, where visitors can read up on a variety of conservation campaigns and then contribute money via credit card. Ecology Fund (ecologyfund.com), the Rainforest Site (the rainforestsite.com) and Red Jellyfish (redjellyfish.com) are some of the leaders in this category.

So cue up that browser and start clicking. You’ll be amazed at what you can learn, let alone accomplish!

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Debate Cheating: The Whisper Was for Romney

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:59:00 +0000

1-27-08, 10:05 am

Source:

Some of you may recall the powerful evidence in 2004 that George W. Bush was cheating in the debates by wearing an earpiece. The New York Times famously (well, at least somewhat famously) documented the evidence and then refused to print it because it might have had an effect on the election:

A few of you may be aware of the extensive evidence that Bush has worn an earpiece and been prompted with answers at speaking events for the past three years: http://democrats.com/earpiece

This background is reason to believe a candidate might cheat and that it is technologically feasible. It is also reason to believe the media would kill the story. It is not reason to know that Mitt Romney cheated in the MSNBC debate this week. But there are other good reasons to believe that he did.

In case you haven't heard about this at all, during the debate, Tim Russert asked Mitt Romney a question, then everyone watching heard a whispered voice say 'he raised taxes.' Then Romney answered the question by saying 'I'm not going to raise taxes.' Watch the short video clip: http://www.democrats.com/romney-cheats-with-an-earpiece

It looked like Romney was being prompted. I don't think anyone ever imagined that the noise in Romney's tiny hidden earpiece (assuming he had one) could have been so loud as to be heard on Romney's microphone without leaving the candidate writhing on the floor in pain. If that's what happened, I'm inclined to vote for the man. The theory is that somehow the transmission to Romney from his assistant got picked up. I don't know how this could have happened, and I doubt that Romney's assitant sat near an open-mic intended for audience questions. But I do know that Bush wore that box on his back in order to try to avoid something like this happening.

Now, Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic has posted a comment from one of his readers, which I cannot confirm, that reads: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/romney-whispe-1.html

'Some people have enhanced the first 'he raised taxes' whisper using audio technology and have discovered that there was actually more to it than just 'he raised taxes'. They've disconvered [sic] that more can be heard: 'He raised taxes, I'm not gonna...'. Listen to the full enhanced audio yourself. Go out and get a tape and enhance it yourself if you think this is wrong.'

Clearly that needs to be investigated. But even without that, there is good reason to believe that Romney was prompted.

The leading you're-a-bunch-of-conspiracy-nuts explanation yesterday was that it was OBVIOUSLY one of Russert's staffers prompting HIM. But the whisper begins too early for that to make sense. And two NBC staffers, when they heard the whisper, and when they read comments about it from viewers on the MSNBC blog, Emailed a third staffer a blog post wondering what it was. The third staffer posted this and then later deleted it. If Russert was getting prompts through an earpiece, these people would probably have known it and not blogged it.

On the other hand, MSNBC's efforts to kill the story, including the deletion of the blog post and the readers' comments (which I suspect was directed by someone higher up) would fit with covering up Russert's cheating. And in one version of the MSNBC blogger's explanation for deleting the post, his colleagues never intended it to be posted. The timing and the wording of the prompt (especially if Sullivan's reader is right) do not make sense as a prompt for Russert. But probably only a threat to Russert's ego will motivate MSNBC to investigate Romney, so I'm happy to keep that possibility out there. Please tell all your friends it was a prompt for Russert, and call NBC to ask about it in those terms.

Sloppiness and possibly reflexive covering up do not tell us what is being covered up, but MSNBC originally gave Raw Story an explanation that explained nothing, saying Romney's microphone was not working. That's funny: during the whisper, Romney's lips aren't moving. What difference would it have made in any way for his microphone to have been working or not working? http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MSNBC_blames_Romney_whisper_on_microphone_0125.html

Next MSNBC posted a new blog post acknowledging that people wanted to know what happened but not offering any explanation. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/25/609835.aspx

The post claimed that MSNBC did not know whose voice is heard whispering, and that MSNBC was reviewing tapes of each of the candidates in order to determine whether it was one of them. This would tend to suggest that MSNBC does not think it was one of their staffers in a control room, and does not think it was one of their staffers feeding ideas to Russert. (I'm still unable to find the readers' comments on this on the MSNBC blog, and if they were deleted the new post says nothing about restoring them.)

So, today the leading you're-a-bunch-of-paranoid-whackos position is, of course, NOT that it was obviously a prompt for Russert. Why? Because MSNBC says that's not what it was. Instead the leading position is something stranger than that, and it is the leading position because MSNBC says it's what happened.

Having ruled out the possibility that one of the other candidates was whispering to himself, MSNBC added an update to its blog post concluding that someone in the audience must have been whispering near an open mic. This is apparently based on nothing other than MSNBC's inability to come up with any other explanation, other than the obvious one. Nobody claims to be the whisperer. Nobody claims to know why a mic was open then and not at other times. There's no substance to the theory. It may, in fact, be true. But, for now, it's just a baseless theory, and a less probable one than that Romney was cheating.

MSNBC's position now reads like a report on an election result that varies wildly from the exit polls. Such a result (if in the United States, abroad the opposite would be true) clearly proves that the exit polls must have been wrong! How do you know? Why, by ruling out the possibility that the discrepency was caused by Huckabee whispering to himself.

In case shame takes over and the latest MSNBC conclusion gets purged, here it is:

'After reviewing the tapes, NBC determined that an open mic picked up a whisper from the audience. It is unclear who it is that says it, but it was not said by any of the candidates, was not heard in the hall and, more importantly, not heard by the candidates.'

How do we know it was not heard by the candidates (not even the one who appears to hear it and repeat it)? Why, because MCNBC tells us so. And how can MSNBC possibly know that? At best (and, I doubt this is even true) they asked one or more of the candidates or their staff, and those candidates said they didn't hear it.