People Before Profit blog

The Spanish 'Adios'

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:37:00 +0000

3-30-08, 1:40 pm

When trying to understand the geopolitical reality of Spain, one must never forget the two military bases the United States actively maintains in the country. One of which currently serves as the main transit point between the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2004, following a large-scale terrorist attack in the country’s capital, attributed to Islamic terrorists, Spanish voters swept the ballot boxes and demanded a new foreign policy. For a brief moment during the after shock of destruction at home, the Spanish population rose to a leading role in the resistance against illegal wars and occupations. Soon after, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero became Prime Minister and Spain’s troops were removed from Iraq, silencing angry Spaniards.

Four years later, this transitioned and fully-fledged western democracy, which is yet to declare Franco’s regime as illegal, presented itself in front of the ballot box. Mr. Zapatero fell seven seats short in the 350-member lower house of parliament from winning the absolute majority. He now has to build a governing coalition either with the Catalan nationalist coalition Convergence and Union, which won 11 seats, the Basque Nationalist Party, which won six seats, or to rally for support from several smaller left-leaning regional parties and the United Left. His job during this second term will be to keep the country united, save it from economic disaster, and aligning Spain’s Foreign Policy with the wishes of the people who voted him into power. All of these will indeed be hard to fulfil.

Over the past decade Spain's economy has been one of the strongest in Europe, with 14 years of straight growth, and a booming property market. Now the housing market is on the brink of collapse, inflation is running at a 12 year high of 4.4%, and unemployment is soaring. Spain, like the United States, is going through the end of a housing boom and the start of a credit crunch, however, the weight of the housing sector in Spain is three times that of the housing sector in the United States and Spain does not have a competitive enough industry to substitute construction.

According to Eurostat, in January Spain experienced an 8% reduction in construction, the most drastic in the Euro zone. Much of Spain’s “economic miracle” has been driven by consumption and construction. Construction has come to represent 20% of the Gross Domestic Product and 20% of the labour market. In the last quarter of 2007, Spain's construction giants were badly hit with combined losses totalling more than 200 million euros. While the German Commerzbank believes a recession is reaching the country, the Association of Spanish Savings Banks, FUNCAS, has said that the slowdown in the economy will be greater in Spain than in the rest of Europe.

In the last few years Spain has seen the construction of 800,000 new homes per year and there is no doubt that housing has become unaffordable for most Spaniards entering the market, just as there is no doubt that there are over three million unoccupied dwellings held by speculators. According to the Bank of Spain, properties are 40% over priced. To add to this, a USB bank study says Barcelona is not far behind New York when it comes to being one of the most expensive cities in the world. Sadly Barcelona’s salaries do not align with the city’s cost of living.

In the last eight months, Spain's six largest banks, Santander, BBVA, Popular, Sabadell, Bankinter and Banesto have watched a fifth of their stock market value (EUR 36.7 billion) being wiped off. Some 60% of bank loans are property-related and a spokesman for the banking industry association AEB says; 'The number of people not repaying loans is increasing in line with the direction of the economy.' Delinquency on credit given by Savings Banks to individuals and companies rose in January to 1.08%, the highest since October 2000. Delinquency on mortgages grew 46.5% in 2007, and in January it grew unexpectedly to the highest since 1994. The volume of delinquencies in Euros increased 60% since the beginning of 2007. The Bank of Spain has advised the Savings Banks to try and reduce their exposure to the housing market.

Unemployment, which never fell below 8 per cent, even in the good times, has risen for the past five months in a row. It is rising fast specially amongst immigrants working in the construction sector where it has increased by 92% in a year. The increase in agriculture is even higher, at 139%. In the past eight years, the Spanish population has risen from 39m to more than 45m. Mr Zapatero legalised 700,000 illegal immigrants in his first term in office. Many have already lost their jobs and the cooling economy has Spaniards turning against them, especially now that 750,000 jobs are expected to be lost in the construction sector alone, over the next couple of years.

Although Spain's First Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, yesterday said that Spain’s economy is no cause for alarm. Faced with a global economy, which western investors are comparing to the “commodity shock” experienced during the 1970s oil crisis, Spain is going to have to face reality and acknowledge that the country is living well over its means. People in the country will soon understand that in the Government Bonds market, global investors are already dumping Spanish securities, because Spain mirrors most closely what is happening in the United States.

As for Spain’s foreign policy, indifferent of what is promoted through the mainstream media, Spain is behaving like a good “client state.” Militarizing and investing in the war against terror during Mr. Zapatero’s first term in office, Spain’s military has been busy on international missions just as it was during the times of José María Aznar. Today as Mr. Aznar celebrates the five years of war in Iraq, proclaiming on the BBC that he would do it all over again, the Fundación Alternativas, - of which Mr. Zapatero is member of the board of governors - is advising the government to reconsider the Spanish Military’s 3000 troop limits on foreign participation.

Spain already has 258 effectives in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 778 troops in Afghanistan and 1100 soldiers in Lebanon stationed at the ironically named military base 'Miguel de Cervantes'. More important however, is Spain’s military presence in Kosovo where Spain currently has 585 soldiers and 14 Civil Guards. These servicemen and women were stationed under a peace mission led by NATO. After the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, which broke all the accepted rules of International Law and which the Spanish government did not recognize, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Bernardino León, justified Spain’s continued military presence by saying; “If the troops had been removed, Spain could not help as it is helping now.” However, with the Spanish Security Services, confirming that ETA is “planning a violent summer campaign in Spain’s popular tourist destinations,” for Spain, with regional conflicts yet to be resolved, actively collaborating with the international community to protect by military means the territorial segregation of another sovereign State, could be potential suicide.

The fact remains that George Bush has just authorized weapons to be sent to Kosovo because its independence “favours the security of the United States and global peace.” It is also a fact that under Mr Zapatero, Spain’s fight against terrorism has followed a similar trajectory to that which is currently being denounced in the United States. On January 19th, Indian, Roshan Jamal Khan, along with 14 other people, was detained in Spain and charged with plotting a terrorist attack; The Indian Ministry of External Affairs says it still has no word from Spain on the charges that have been pressed against Khan. Also, in a chapter dedicated to Spain, the UN’s Manfred Nowak, confirms that various NGO sources within the country, have informed him of the fact that the Spanish security forces systematically ex-communicate suspected ETA terrorists, and that just in the first ten months of 2007, restricted the rights of 65 arrested in the Basque Country. Of these 65 ex-communicated detainees, at least 24 have denounced torture during their stay at Police Stations.

During the times of Aznar, we often heard the famous phrase España va bien (Spain is going well), it has been a while since we last heard it, and it is not surprising, for Spain is not going well at all. Spain is in a lot of trouble because of the dream of a richer and better society modelled on that of the United States. All Spanish people can do now, apart from staging a run on the banks, is to brace themselves and hope that Spain’s guarantor, the United States, will stay afloat and remember to save us, even though we democratically requested to pull our troops out of Iraq. Otherwise, Spain might as well say ‘adios’.

Pablo Ouziel is a sociologist and a freelance writer based in Spain.

Are Fire Retardants Safe?

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:28:00 +0000

3-30-08, 1:31 pm

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: How safe are the fire retardants that are used to quell forest fires across the American West? -- Barbara, Minneapolis, MN

So-called long-term fire retardants—those usually dropped from airplanes over forest fires—are comprised of water mixed with a slurry of chemicals, thickeners and corrosion inhibitors designed to prevent plants on the ground from igniting, keep the ingredients from separating and dispersing during targeted drops, and ensure that the harsh chemicals on board the plane don’t endanger the flight’s safety.

Firefighters sometimes add iron oxide to make the fire retardant turn red when applied so they can see where they have already covered. Ammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate, known for their use as agricultural fertilizers, are also often added to provide nutrients to help the forest regenerate after a burn.

In recent years, where global warming and droughts have exacerbated forest fires across the American West, federal and state firefighting agencies have upped their cumulative annual use of long-term fire retardants to some 20+ million gallons a year spread across tens of thousands of individual fly-overs.

While such chemicals have been valuable in minimizing the damage of forest fires, their use comes with a price. The nitrogen in ammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate can wreak terrible havoc on aquatic ecosystems, creating algae blooms that kill fish by choking out their oxygen. A 1998 study by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, found long-term fire retardants to be “very toxic to aquatic organisms including algae, aquatic invertebrates and fish.” The study also said that fire-fighting chemicals “could cause substantial fish kills depending on the stream size and flow rate.”

These chemicals have also been shown to affect some plants’ reproductive capacities. One study found that spraying fire retardants in some cases decreased plant species diversity, as weedier species better adapted to make use of excess nitrogen in the soil tended to thrive while native species were not able to compete.

In 2000 the U.S. Forest Service issued guidelines for use of fire retardants by aerial fire fighting crews. While the focus of the document was fire control and safety, it encouraged pilots to avoid applying retardant within 300 feet of waterways or other sensitive areas. The Forest Service acknowledges the risk of using retardants, but believes that their use in moderation is a net gain; as fewer “ground troops” need to be sent in to risky situations while more property can be saved from the ravages of a fast-moving fire.

Fires are actually an essential part of forest ecology and many species of trees and plants thrive in part because of the natural occurrence of fires (sequoia trees, for example, depend upon the high temperatures of forest fires to pry open their cones so new seeds can spring forth and take root). The main reason that such catastrophic, news making fires occur in the first place is that humans have sprawled too closely to the forest edge. This has lead to forest management policies that suppress natural fires, causing large build-ups of tinder-like woody debris that eventually ignites and burns out of control.

CONTACTS: USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, www.npwrc.usgs.gov; U.S. Forest Service Guidelines for Aerial Application of Retardants and Foams in Aquatic Environments, www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/retardants/current/gen/appguide.htm.

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.

The Great Lake of Gaza: A New Crisis in the Making

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:24:00 +0000

3-30-08, 1:27 pm

In a place just a few miles from sandy beaches and soaring sky-scrapers, white stone villas and sky-blue swimming pools, it seems the epitome of irony and injustice that over 1.5 million people would be subjected to drinking sewage-contaminated water. When there is such a fine line bordering wealth and poverty, privilege and need, how unsettling to realize that just a stones throw away, mothers and fathers must nourish their families with poison. As if the occupier could not find one more creative way to torment his victim.

The greatest outrage is that such a reality is the decided policy of the Israeli government. It is decried by the most prominent human rights and humanitarian groups throughout the world, and yet it is increasingly enhanced by Israel and shamelessly backed and justified by the US. It is indisputable that the calamity of contaminated water in the Gaza Strip is a resolute policy of the Israeli government.

The problem of sewage management in Gaza is not a new issue, and in fact dates back to the direct Israeli occupation of Gaza in 1967. At that time, Israel built the sewage treatment facilities which are still in operation today, built then to serve a population of 380,000 people, a number that has grown to 1.5 million.

The depleted source of clean drinking water and the ever-growing sewage crisis in Gaza is leading to areas of overflow, the largest of them called “the great lake” which occupies some 30 hectares of land and holds approximately 2-3 million cubic meters of waste water.

With archaic facilities to serve a group that has nearly tripled in number, and with the lack of basic necessities such as fuel to power the pumps necessary to keep the facilities running, the result is the spillage of toxic sewage into the ground and ground water and even directly into the sea.

The United Nations publication, IRIN recently interviewed Rebhi al-Sheikh, the head of the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) in Gaza, who stated that at present, 75 percent of Gaza’s drinking water is polluted.

In January 2008, UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur, John Dugard travelled to Palestine and assessed the situation, one that he described as “catastrophic' under Israel-imposed restrictions.

I recently spoke with Dr. Suma Baroud about the range of problems and health issues that result from the existence of run-off areas such as the great lake. She explained, “As a medical practitioner working in the field of primary health care in the Khan Younis region for the last 10 years, I have learned from my anecdotal observation that there are a myriad of overwhelming problems and ailments inflicting the health of Gaza residents, especially children as a result of the ever-growing lakes of sewage like that of the ‘great lake’ or the ‘Majari’ as we call it.

Many children are treated in our health centers for illnesses induced by infestations of small organisms such as amoeba. These ailments progress and lead to internal diseases which affect the small and large intestine and hamper or impede their functions, such as abdominal colic, diarrhea and constipation. Other complications include anemia, failure to thrive, and mental disturbances. More, we have seen growing numbers of children who suffer from conditions such as insomnia, low self-esteem and self-confidence.

Add to this a big number of patients who are treated in our clinics in summer for skin infections resulting from insects bites. There is an overwhelming problem with such insects which thrive in the conditions under which we suffer, with intense heat and standing sewage and water.

There is tremendous pressure on the Ministry of Health due to over-consumption of medications that fight these diseases and their subsequent complications.”

An uncountable number of rights groups have brought the plight of Gaza to the fore in recent weeks, including the International Committee of the Red Cross who recently told IRIN that, “The environmental situation in Gaza is bad and getting worse.'

30,000-50,000 cubic metres of partially treated waste water and 20,000 cubic metres of raw sewage end up in rivers and the Mediterranean Sea. Some 10,000-30,000 cubic metres of partially treated sewage end up in the ground, in some cases reaching the aquifer, polluting Gaza's already poor drinking water supply.

The International Crisis Group recently pressed Israel, Egypt, the PA and the Hamas Government to do everything possible to make necessary commodities available such as fuel, which is essential to the containing of Gaza’s huge sewage problem.

In an article recently published in the California based publication, the Coastal Post, US Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader bashed Israel for its multi-faceted execution of institutionalized violence against the people of Gaza, and called the US to account for its out-right complicity with Israel’s inhuman and illegal practices: “Israel's siege has also caused extensive loss of life in Gaza from crumbling health care facilities, electricity cut-offs, malnutrition and contaminated drinking water from broken public water systems. The victims here are mostly children and civilian adults who expire unnoticed by the West. The suffering of Gaza civilians is ignored by 98% of the US Congress, which gives billions of taxpayer dollars to Israel annually.” According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), 'Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution, with the knowledge, acquiescence and - some would say - encouragement of the international community.'

In early March of this year, a report drafted by eight British human rights groups and humanitarian groups condemned Israel’s policies in a “scathing” report which declared that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza was the “worst since 1967”.

'As we speak, sewage is literally pouring into the streets,' said Geoffrey Dennis, head of CARE International.

Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said Israel must protect its citizens, 'but as the occupying power in Gaza it also has a legal duty to ensure that Gazans have access to food, clean water, electricity and medical care.'

She added: 'Punishing the entire Gazan population by denying them these basic human rights is utterly indefensible. The current situation is man-made and must be reversed.'

The 16-page report -- sponsored by Amnesty, along with CARE International UK, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde UK, Oxfam, Save the Children UK and Trocaire -- calls on the British government to exert greater pressure on Israel and to reverse its policy on not negotiating with Gaza's Hamas rulers.”

As Amnesty’s Kate Allen pressed, the urgency of this issue cannot be emphasized enough. Spillage so great that its masses are designated “the great lake”, such abuse and mistreatment of a population regarded as “protected persons” is nothing less than pure outrage. The international community must take action immediately to ensure the protection Gaza deserves, for as Allen declared, this abhorrent action is undeniably man-made and must be reversed immediately.

--Suzanne Baroud is an American writer and editor of several books. She is the managing editor of .

Murder in the Andes

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:21:00 +0000

3-30-08, 1:24 pm

The March 1, 2008 death of Colombian FARC guerrilla leader and spokesperson Comandante Raul Reyes and twenty-five of his companions on Ecuadorian soil has American fingerprints all over it. This is the conclusion offered by Ecuadorian military sources and by left observers and commentators in Colombia and throughout Latin America.

The undisputed facts of the incident seem to be that on the night of March 1, Reyes, second in command of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia— People’s Army, or FARC-EP), was asleep at a clandestine FARC encampment in a remote jungle area called Angostura, 1800 meters from the Colombian border, well inside Ecuadorian territory. According to an Ecuadorian Air Force communiqué, shortly after midnight the camp was hit by ten American – made laser-guided GBU 12 Paveway II 500-pound bombs, leaving craters 2.4 meters in diameter and 1.8 meters deep. These bombs, which were extensively used by U.S. forces during the first Gulf War in 1991, have the capability of exploding within one meter of a predetermined target. The camp was also strafed with 50 caliber helicopter-mounted machine guns. Twenty-six people were killed, including Reyes, four visiting Mexican observers, and an unidentified victim believed to be an Ecuadorian citizen. One Mexican student survived the raid and is expected to recover from her wounds.

Initial reports that Julián Conrado, noted Colombian rebel folk musician and composer, was among the victims of the attack have since been proven false.

The hidden jungle camp was allegedly located by tracking signals from Reyes’ satellite phone, a technique pioneered a decade ago with deadly results against Chechen terrorist leader Dzhokhar Dudayev. Reyes was in Ecuador attempting to arrange a meeting with French peace commissioners in Panama to seek the release of French-Colombian citizen Ingrid Betancourt, a Colombian Green Party presidential candidate who was captured by FARC guerrillas in 2002 and held as an enemy combatant since then. Betancourt is reportedly suffering with hepatitis B, malaria and malnutrition, and at this writing the Colombian government is offering to exchange a number of FARC prisoners for her release

The extreme right-wing Colombian government has claimed full responsibility for the raid, but Ecuadorian government sources point out that all ten bombs landed within a fifty meter circle, a feat of technical precision in night bombing that is currently far beyond the capabilities of any South American air force. Nor do any Colombian Air Force planes (Brazilian Supertucanos and Israeli Kfirs) have the capacity to carry out such a raid with this tonnage of bombs. An Ecuadorian military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity assured reporters “off the record” that the raid was actually carried out by one or more American planes flying out of the U.S.-leased Manta Airbase in Ecuador, an installation that local progressives have denounced as “The United States’ largest land-bound aircraft carrier.” However, the helicopter gunships which strafed the encampment after the bombing carried Colombian markings.

The incident, which briefly caused a threat of war between Colombia and Ecuador and sparked a momentary border shutdown between Colombia and Venezuela, is still surrounded with unconfirmed claims and unanswered questions. The Colombian government has accused Ecuadorian officials, even up to the ministerial level, with collaborating with the FARC, offering as evidence photographs of Reyes with what was later proven to be a visiting Argentine pacifist. The Colombian military also claims it found Reyes’ personal laptop computer in what was left of the jungle camp, and retrieved files supposedly documenting both Ecuadorian and Venezuelan aid for the FARC. In response, the FARC has denied any foreign support, and points out that not even the most heavily armored military-grade laptop could have survived the type of air raid that razed the guerrilla encampment and killed Reyes.

The FARC, one of two Colombian leftist guerrilla armies, was founded in 1966 with the support of the Colombian Communist Party, but has long since gone its own way and is now widely seen, even on the Left, as a part of Colombia’s national crisis rather than its solution. The U.S. Government lists the group as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” Although the FARC has at times controlled as much as one third of the nation’s territory, its widespread use of kidnapping, recruitment of child fighters, alleged complicity with drug trafficking and reported conflicts with indigenous communities has largely alienated potential sympathizers at home and abroad.

In Colombia, Left and moderate reaction to Reyes’ death has generally been one of dismay. Repudiating the killing of Reyes, Colombian Liberal Party Senator Piedad Córdoba recently told the Colombian Communist Party’s newspaper, Voz, that there is an ever increasing demand by Colombians for a negotiated solution to the conflict in their country. However, “the greatest obstacle is that the Government wants neither a humanitarian accord nor a negotiated, political solution to the internal conflict. Past agreements have never been carried out. I think that the Government has opted for a policy of ‘democratic security’ that is tied closely to that of ‘preemptive war,’ as we have just seen [with the assassination of Reyes]. They are convinced that first they must bring the guerrillas to their knees in defeat, and then impose whatever sort of peace process they want.”

However, she points out, even with U.S. and Israeli aid the Colombian government has shown itself clearly unable to defeat the guerrillas militarily, and if it could, the causes of the nation’s internal conflict would still remain unsolved. . .

Noting that Reyes was in Ecuador to arrange a humanitarian prisoner exchange, Cordoba declared that “the stomach-turning and shadowy facts” surrounding Reyes’ death and that of Comandante Ivan Rios, another FARC leader recently killed under questionable circumstances, reflect “the prostration and degradation of the Colombian conflict,” and make it clear that the current Colombian government is a “Mafioso state.” “The most important thing,” she told Voz reporter Alvaro Angarita, is to “put an end to extrajudicial executions, put an end to arbitrary detentions, and to get the guerrillas to agree nationwide to eliminate kidnapping from the internal conflict,” which, she notes, has now ground on for sixty years without resolution or visible benefit for either side.

In an editorial published March 19th, Colombian Communist Party writer AlvaroVásquez described the killing of Reyes as state-supported terrorism, “which has been practiced for decades against popular leaders in an effort to disable the struggle and the organization of dissident sectors.” “The persistence of guerrillas in our country,” writes Vásquez, “is explained because they were not born of a conspiracy of tiny groups, but rather from the needs of the organized masses, above all in the rural areas. Thus the accusation of terrorism that [Colombian president] Uribe makes against the insurgent groups and extends against anyone opposed to his militarist power, is nothing more than a vulgar repetition of the Bush doctrine, which makes “the terrorist threat” into justification for his ‘preemptive war.’”

In its official statement responding to Reyes’ killing, the Colombian Communist Party accused the U.S. government of responsibility for the bombing and for the Colombian military incursion into Ecuador, and linked the assassination of Reyes to the pending Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Colombia, as well as Bush administration hostility to Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution in neighboring Venezuela. “Bush is playing the war card, and thus extending the Colombian tragedy,” declares the Party. “The terrorist in this instance is found in the White House, the enemy of the people and of peace. Basically, what he is trying to do is to pile up excuses for a direct aggression against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

Denunciations of the attack on Ecuadorian soil have been numerous and vocal throughout Latin America. Particularly impacted was Mexico, which lost four of its citizens in the incident. Journalist Carlos Fazio, in a fulminating editorial in the Mexico City daily La Jornada, denounced American reports about the incident as “seeking to demonize the adversary [Reyes], stripping him of every shred of humanity and turning him into a thing, so that eliminating him is somehow not the same as committing murder.”

Lucía Andrea Morett Alvarez, a Mexican university student who survived the attack and as of this writing is recuperating in Quito, Ecuador, wrote from her hospital bed, “I am sure that very soon my comrades will have a worthy gravestone, that their death will not be in vain, and that their seed has fallen on fertile ground, where beside them will spring beautiful flowers and fruits. Their voice, a voice that they so viciously tried to silence, will multiply into the shouts of many millions all around the world. … I remain confident that this America, this great homeland that Bolivar and Martí dreamed of, will soon come to be. Our nations, after a long eclipse, shall flourish. No empire lasts forever.”

Where are the Iraqis in the Iraq War?

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:39:00 +0000

Five years after the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, mainstream media is once more making the topic an object of intense scrutiny. The costs and implications of the war are endlessly covered from all possible angles, with one notable exception -- the cost to the Iraqi people themselves.

Through all the special coverage and exclusive reports, very little is said about Iraqi casualties, who are either completely overlooked or hastily mentioned and whose numbers can only be guesstimated. Also conveniently ignored are the millions injured, internally and externally displaced, the victims of rape and kidnappings who will carry physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives.

We find ourselves stuck in a hopeless paradigm, where it feels necessary to empathise with the sensibilities of the aggressor so as not to sound 'unpatriotic', while remaining blind to the untold anguish of the victims. Some actually feel the need to go so far as to blame the Iraqis for their own misfortune. Both Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expressed their wish for Iraqis to take responsibility for the situation in their country, with the former saying, 'we cannot win their civil war. There is no military solution.'

It would have been helpful if Clinton had reached her astute conclusion before she voted for the Senate's 2002 resolution authorising President Bush to attack Iraq. For the sake of argument, let's overlook both Clinton's and Obama's repeated assertions that all options, including military ones, are on the table regarding how to 'deal' with Iran's alleged ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. But to go so far as blaming the ongoing war on the Iraqis' lack of accountability is a new low for these 'antiwar' candidates.

Is it still a secret, five years on, that the war on Iraq was fought for strategic reasons, to maintain a floundering superpower's control over much of the world's energy supplies and to sustain the regional supremacy of Israel, the US's most costly ally anywhere?

Of course, there are those who prefer to imagine a world in which a well-intentioned superpower would fight with all of its might to enable another smaller, distant nation to enjoy the fruits of liberty, democracy and freedom. But it is nothing short of ridiculous to pretend that Iraqis are capable of controlling the parameters of the ranging conflict, that a puppet government whose election and operation is entirely under the command of the US military is capable of taking charge and assuming responsibilities.

Equally absurd is the insinuation that the civil war in Iraq is an exclusively Iraqi doing, and that the US military has not deliberately planted the seeds of divisions, hoping to reinterpret its role in Iraq from that of the occupier to that of the arbitrator, making sure the 'good' guys prevail over the 'bad'.

The idea of the US making an immediate exit from Iraq or taking full financial and legal responsibility for the devastation and genocide -- yes, genocide -- that occurred in the last five years is simply unthinkable from the viewpoint of the corporate US media, which still relates to the war only in terms of American (and never Iraqi) losses.

There are very few commentators who are actually arguing that the reasons for war were entirely self-serving, without an iota of morality behind them. Would Bush employ the same logic he used to justify Saddam Hussein's execution -- suggesting this was warranted by the Iraqi president's violence against his own people -- when dealing with those responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqis as a result of this war?

And indeed Iraqis are dying in numbers that never subside regardless of the media and official hype about the 'surge'. Just Foreign Policy says the number of dead Iraqis has surpassed one million, while a survey by the British polling agency ORB estimates the number at over 1.2 million. But the plight of Iraqis hardly ends at a death count, since those left behind endure untold suffering: soaring poverty, unemployment rates between 40-70 per cent (governmental estimates), total lack of security in major cities and, according to Oxfam International, four million in need of emergency aid.

'Baghdad has become the most dangerous city in the world, largely as a result of a US policy of pitting various Iraqi ethnic and sectarian groups against one another. Today, Baghdad is a city of walled-off Sunni and Shia ghettoes, divided by concrete walls erected by the US military,' reports Dahr Jamail, one of the few courageous voices that honestly relayed the horrendous outcomes of the war.

Indeed, there seem to be no promising statistics coming out of Iraq. Even under the previous regime and the debilitating sanctions imposed by the US and the UN, Iraqis were much better off prior to the war. Now, Iraqis are relevant only as pawns of endless US government propaganda. From the viewpoint of Bush, McCain and Cheney, they are the victims of Al-Qaeda, which must be fought at all costs. From the viewpoint of Clinton and Obama, they need to fight their own wars and take responsibility for them, as if Iraqi 'irresponsibility' is the main problem.

In yet another 'surprise visit' to Iraq by a US official, Vice-President Dick Cheney declared that Iraq was a 'successful endeavour'. Considering the exorbitant contracts granted to selected corporations, the war has indeed succeeded in making a few already rich companies and individuals a lot richer.

Meanwhile, Shlomo Brom, a senior fellow at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Israeli army's Strategic Planning Division, sees things from a slightly different angle. 'Any Iraq will be better than Iraq under Saddam, because the Iraq of Saddam had the ability to threaten Israel,' he was quoted as saying in the Christian Science Monitor.

In considering such skewed logic, one can only hope that Cheney's successful experiment will end soon, and that Israel's desire for security is now sated. The people of Iraq cannot tolerate any more 'success'.

Curfew in Baghdad

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:36:00 +0000

3-29-08, 11:39 am

Baghdad, Mar 28 (Prensa Latina) Iraqi authorities declared a curfew in this capital from Thursday at 11 pm to Sunday at 5 am, due to the deterioration of security in the country.

The measure was taken by the chiefs of the security plan, which has suffered a major setback over the past few days, after the Mahdi Army intensified its actions against national and occupation forces.

The news agency Aswat al Iraq reported that three US citizens, including a soldier, and an Iraqi army man were wounded during an attack by Iraqi insurgents on the Green Zone, in downtown Baghdad.

Aswat al Iraq noted that 16 rockets were shot in four rounds from near the Green Zone, and several buildings and a vehicle were seriously damaged.

The fortified Green Zone is the most guarded zone in the country, as it holds the US and British embassies, the Parliament building and some ministries.

In southern Iraq, the Mahdi Army, which is loyal to cleric Moqtada al Sader, is fighting security forces.

According to military forces, Iraqi troops are backed by US helicopters in their operations against the insurgents in Basra, the second largest city in the country, and Hilla. Combats in Basra took a toll of 40 dead and 200 wounded.

The rebels blew up an oil pipe that carries oil from the fields to the southern city. The explosion caused a huge fire, according to witnesses.

A bomb attack killed three bodyguards of Basra's police chief, Gen. Abdul Yalil Jalaf, who escaped unharmed.

Combats have been going on for the last two days in the city of Hilla, where 60 people were killed and 32 were wounded.

Vice President Tarik al Hashimi, of the Islamic Party, of the Sunni Muslim community, called on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki to act prudently and reestablish calm in southern Iraq.

From Prensa Latina

Cuba Denounces Permanent Media Aggression from US Territory

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:34:00 +0000

3-29-08, 11:37 am

Havana, March 28 (acn) The president of the Cuban Journalists Union (UPEC), Tubal Paez, denounced on Thursday in Caracas, Venezuela, the permanent media aggression carried out from the United States against the island.

Paez, who heads the Cuban delegation to a Latin American conference on media terrorism that began on Thursday in the Venezuelan capital, recalled that some 2.900 hours of radio and television programming are broadcast every week from the United States to the island with all kinds of manipulated information.

The event on media terrorism, inaugurated by the Venezuelan Information and Communications Minister Andres Izarra, is being attended by professionals from 14 countries.

According to the Bolivarian News Agency, Izarra pointed out that information transnationals such as CNN, Fox, BBC and other news agencies serve as a platform to spread the ideas of the imperial mechanism.

He explained that these big transnationals and others that defend the imperial interests to the detriment of the independence, self-determination and integration of peoples, conspire against the sovereignty of nations.

Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador, with their ongoing social projects, have also become permanent targets of media terrorism, which will be condemned during this event that concludes next Sunday.

Cuban News Agency

Worsening Banditry Threatens Humanitarian Effort in Darfur

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:31:00 +0000

3-29-08, 11:34 am

NAIROBI, 27 March 2008 (IRIN) - Relief agencies in Sudan have expressed concerns over an alarming increase in the number of attacks by bandits against people carrying out humanitarian work in the strife-torn region of Darfur, and warned that violence is threatening to disrupt aid delivery to thousands of needy people.

'These attacks are reaching unprecedented levels and they are getting worse,' Edward Carwardine, chief of media and external relations in the Sudan office of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), told IRIN.

He cited an incident on 20 March when four State Water Corporation staff working with UNICEF were kidnapped in North Darfur and their drilling equipment was taken away, saying, as a result, 180,000 people ran the risk of not receiving clean water this year.

Emilia Casella, head of public information at the UN World Food Programme (WFP-Sudan), said there had been 'very alarming rates of banditry' directed at WFP convoys and it was now taking longer for WFP contracted trucks to deliver food to the agency's warehouses in Darfur.

'All parties must realise that humanitarian personnel and their cargo are there to carry out a neutral humanitarian task,' said Casella.

The attacks, she said, have escalated at a time when WFP needed to pre-position as much food in Darfur as possible ahead of the onset of the May-October rainy season when roads become impassable.

According to the office of the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, three humanitarian workers and one contract truck driver have been killed and nearly 90 people working on behalf of the humanitarian operation abducted, mostly during hijacking incidents, since the beginning of 2008. There have been 23 break-ins and armed assaults at humanitarian and UN compounds.

Twenty-nine drivers of WFP-contracted trucks remain unaccounted for after they were abducted at gunpoint.

'Such attacks are unacceptable and indefensible,' the office said in a statement issued on 26 March. 'Those who commit attacks against humanitarian workers are harming innocent people – many of them children – who depend on humanitarian assistance for their food, health care, water, sanitation and other vital services.'

From IRIN News

Modern US Presidents Act Like 'Thugs,' Says Historian Michael Parenti

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:57:00 +0000

3-28-08, 12:00 pm

President George W. Bush is “the biggest thug” ever to occupy the White House, writes historian Michael Parenti, adding that most post-World War II U.S. presidents have also acted like “thugs.”

His “thug” list includes Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Conspicuously absent from his list are Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Jimmy Carter.

What the thugs have in common, Parenti says, is their dedication “to a U.S. global interventionist policy” and support for “gargantuan, bloated, criminally wasteful military budgets” to execute those interventions.

President Kennedy “undermined the democratic government in Guyana and supported a lot of the counter-insurgency dirty works that were going on in Central America,” Parenti writes in The Long Term View, a journal of informed opinion published by The Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

President Johnson followed him, perpetrating “the first major escalation of Vietnam” and also invading the Dominican Republic “when it threatened to have a reformist left government that would take over and move in a democratic revolutionary course.”

After LBJ, “Nixon committed terrible crimes in IndoChina: massive carpet bombings of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, killing literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people,” Parenti recalled. In Laos, “Nixon went and bombed the Plain of Jars and just bombed every square inch and killed ---only God knows how many---hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed that whole society.”

Parenti holds President Reagan responsible for the invasion of Grenada, “an unoffending, small country that was trying to develop a communitarian way, and overthrew its government” and had some of its leaders killed. Reagan, he said, “brought Grenada back to where it was before: a country of high unemployment. He abolished the communal farms which it was starting, and the land was converted back into golf courses for the tourists.” Reagan also waged war “against a wonderful democratic revolution in Nicaragua, the Sandanistas, and destroyed it and bled that country,” supporting “the worst murderers and thugs” of the Contra Armies and then lying about his role in support of the war.

As for President George H.W. Bush, he “waged a war against Iraq that was totally avoidable,” pointing out, “The Iraqis were ready to negotiate a withdrawal from Kuwait” but “just wanted the slant drilling of the Ramallah oil fields to stop.” However, he adds, ”Bush used it as an excuse to bomb, to kill huge numbers of Iraqis and destroy that country’s infrastructure, and it’s because that country was self-defining, was committing the ‘sin’ of economic nationalism, and was not acting like a good obedient client state.”

Parenti further charged the senior President Bush also invaded Panama to capture its leader Noriega, and after its victory abolished “all sorts of education programs.” As for President Clinton, he “bombed Somalia and killed thousands of people there and waged a 78-day, around-the-clock, aerial war against Yugoslavia…and was also thuggish in his determination to expand and to increase the military budget.”

Parenti, author of some 20 books including “Democracy for the Few”(Wadsworth), reserves his harshest criticism for President George W. Bush: “He has been a total thug in overthrowing a democratic government in Haiti and supporting the death squads and murderers there, and in pursuing a war of aggression in Iraq,” Parenti writes.

“He (Bush) unilaterally has announced that the U.S. will be held to none of the international treaties that it has signed, that no strictures of international law will inhibit foreign policy, and that the U.S. reserves the right to act as it will on its own accord, according to its own interests, and the limitations of its own power,” Parenti points out.

“The U.S. will,” he goes on to say, “of itself, decide unilaterally what countries it will attack, when, and for what reasons,” a policy he adds that has “caused such an alarm throughout the world that people have demonstrated massively…”

Parenti said the Iraqi war has given President Bush “the opportunity to clamp down on dissent at home, to intimidate, and to accumulate more power.”

Parenti’s remarks are contained in Volume 6, Number 3, of Long Term View. His views are not necessarily those of the journal, published by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. Views of authors in LTV are not necessarily those of the law school.

Founded in 1988, MSL is a law school purposefully dedication to providing a quality, affordable education to minorities, immigrants, and students from working-class backgrounds that would not otherwise be able to obtain a legal education and practice law. Further Information: Sherwood Ross, media consultant to MSL, at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com.

The Dangerous Theism of Chris Hedges

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:51:00 +0000

3-28-07, 11:56 am

Chris Hedges recently published an article called 'The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris,' but he failed to include in it any indication of what he thinks is dangerous about their atheism. He thinks they have horrible political opinions, but does not explain how those relate to atheism. He thinks they have a fetish for science and technology, but does not explain how that relates to atheism. He thinks they cherish a simplistic utopian vision of progress, but he himself traces that to Christianity. He thinks they are fanatics willing to kill for their magical belief in human progress, but that would just mean they had something in common with a lot of theists.

There is good and bad to be found in our religious heritage, and our world is full of noble and ignoble acts by theists and atheists alike. For every admirable or offensive trait in an atheist, we can find one in a theist. For every Martin Luther King Jr., there's a Pat Robertson. But does theism or atheism, on the whole, tend to encourage more, or less, desirable behavior?

Hedges concludes his article by remarking that his new book is 'a call to reject simplistic and utopian visions. It is a call to accept the severe limitations of being human. It is a call to face reality, a reality which in the coming decades is going to be bleak and difficult. Those who are blinded by utopian visions inevitably turn to force to make their impossible dreams and their noble ideals real. They believe the ends, no matter how barbaric, justify the means. Utopian ideologues, armed with the technology and mechanisms of industrial slaughter, have killed tens of millions of people over the last century. They ask us to inflict suffering and death in the name of virtue and truth.'

No one could argue with any of that, if Hedges meant to apply it to theists and atheists alike. But he calls his book 'I Don't Believe in Atheists,' and he adds one more sentence to the end of the article: 'The New Atheists, in the end, offer us a new version of an old and dangerous faith. It is one we have seen before. It is one we must fight.'

This makes clear that what Hedges objects to is fanaticism, and that he knows it can be found in theists and atheists alike. But his marketing plan for this useful but less-than-groundbreaking insight is decidedly not headlines like 'The Dangerous Fanaticism of a Few People Who Happen to Be White, Male, and Atheist.' His whole brand is opposition to the supposed danger of atheism. So it comes as a disappointment to discover that Hedges doesn't even try to identify a connection between atheism and fanaticism. He describes a group of atheists who are fanatical about things that millions of theists are fanatical about too. He does not suggest that atheism in any way encourages fanaticism, or the belief that there has been moral improvement through human history, or any of the other notions he rejects. Hedges is convicting a handful of atheists of guilt by association. After all, the mere failure to believe in a particular cultural myth could hardly be a cause of their habits of thought.

Belief in theism, on the other hand, can have serious consequences. In fact, theism is unavoidably a simplistic and utopian vision. It may not result in adoption of any other simplistic visions, and it may not result in the use of force, but it does put one's mind in the habit of accepting nonsensical wishful thinking. Theism includes a 'belief' that something called a god controls the world, and usually includes a 'belief' that death is not real. Some of the most admirable people in the history of the world and living today have held these beliefs, and some of them have not. But these are beliefs that tend, as a rule, to encourage acceptance of the status quo, to discourage personal responsibility, and to put one in the habit of believing transparent falsehoods. That many people overcome these influences, with various degrees of success, does not make them less real.

Theism has a damaging influence on human thought and action, and the existence of different flavors of theism provides a justification for hatred and murder. If Iraqis were all Christians, millions of them would probably still be alive. The United States would probably not have done to Iraq what it has done over the past two decades. And the idea that Iraqis cannot govern themselves if left free to do so would be far more apparent to many more Americans. The entire 'global war on terror' would collapse without Christianity and Islam.

I'm not agreeing with the millions of Muslims around the world who believe the primary motivation of U.S. crimes to be hatred of Islam. I think their religious identity blinds them to the tragic fact that the United States is attacking Islam because it is situated overtop of vast oil supplies. But it would be harder for the United States to attack the possessors of oil if they shared a religion or a lack thereof with Americans.

Of course, without theism, people would hate and kill others on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, and various other excuses. Atheism does not make any individual or population decent or good. Atheism doesn't make anyone think in any particular way. But theism, by its very nature, encourages obedience to authorities, and belief that such authorities should be trusted even if their ways are mysterious. The bizarre American reaction to 9-11 in which Rudi Giuliani and George W. Bush were so comically turned into figures of authority was facilitated by religious thought. If so many people were not in the habit of turning to a lord or savior in times of fear, Hedges and all those trying to talk some sense into them would have a much easier task.

From

Condemnation of Violence in Iraq

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:22:00 +0000

3-28-08, 10:27 am

Statement of the Iraqi Communist Party on Recent Escalation of Violence

Acts of violence have escalated once again, in many provinces and cities of Iraq. This has resulted in bloodshed and loss of precious lives, thus inflicting heavy damage to our people and homeland, hindering efforts to remedy the political situation and rebuild the state on sound foundations that fulfil the rights of all Iraqis.

Perhaps one of the most important requirements to achieve this is the need to ensure the rule of law, resorting to it and renouncing all subjective tendencies and narrow political calculations, so that the law is applied to all without exception. It should be accompanied by disbanding the militias completely, and ensuring that arms remain only in the hands of the state. This would inevitably lead to real security and stability for our people and put an end to the cycle of recurrent crises.

Our Party has always stressed its support for every patriotic effort, and every endeavour in that direction, expressing its readiness to fully cooperate with all other national forces in order to achieve this.

We, in the Iraqi Communist Party, out of a sense of national responsibility, and driven by a genuine desire to spare our country further woes and disasters, call for ending the bloodshed, and for resorting to direct constructive dialogue that takes into consideration, first and foremost, the interest of Iraq and its people. This dialogue should be based on considerations that really help to establish a state of law and institutions; a modern democratic state, which guarantees the freedoms of all citizens that are expressed in a peaceful civilized manner.

We also appeal to the national government to play a positive role in this matter, and to embark on concrete practical steps that would ensure the creation of an appropriate atmosphere, in order to achieve a political settlement that can stop the bloodshed and at the same time preserve the rights the state and its authority.

Our Party calls on the masses of our people and their national forces to unite their efforts and do all they can to renounce the language of arms and activate the role of reason, dialogue and common concern for strengthening national unity and the position of our people and country in the face of big challenges.

Political Bureau of the Central Committee Iraqi Communist Party 26/3/2008

Labor Calls for Unity to Win Universal Health Care

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:27:00 +0000

Original source: International Labor Communications Association

WASHINGTON (PAI)--The AFL-CIO is stressing unity among workers, their allies, community groups and even some sympathetic businesses in its massive election-year drive for universal, affordable national health care to be enacted next year, federation President John J. Sweeney and other officials say.

The unity would be around key principles for health care reform, not any one particular plan. The principles include universal coverage, a system where all businesses, government and workers pay shares, the right to choose one’s own doctor, and cost controls. And one key element of any plan must be a government-run option, like Medicare is now, to help ensure coverage for those whose employers would not or could not provide it--and to help keep costs below those what private insurers charge.

“Health care costs are killing working people, and they’re killing corporations as well,” Sweeney said.

Sweeney, federation Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker and health care mobilization campaign Director Heather Booth outlined the principles of the federation’s drive, as well as some of its operating details, in a March 25 conference call to more than 400 health care activists nationwide.

The evening conference call occurred the same day the federation released the results of its health care survey, which drew 26,419 responses--and 7,489 stories of the damage rising health care costs do to workers and their families.

More than half of survey respondents were union members and an overwhelming majority have health insurance through their employers, Holt-Baker noted. Many are also college graduates.

But almost all--95%--feared losing coverage in the future. And 95% said the health care system needs not just a fix but to be fundamentally rebuilt. Similar high majorities were hurt by the cost of prescription drugs and one-third said they skipped doctors’ appointments or medications because they couldn’t afford them, even with health insurance coverage. Other figures from the survey are similarly dire.

“These are the people you would expect to have positive experiences with America's health care system, the lucky ones--except they're not,' Sweeney said. “They think health care is one of today's most important issues,and they are ready to vote about it.” The complete survey is at www.healthcaresurvey.aflcio.org.

The federation will shape its campaign around seven general principles, Booth reiterated: Universal coverage, “building on what’s best in the current system,” cost controls, high-quality care, preventive care, the right to choose one’s own doctor, and the federal government’s dual role as both a watchdog and “as provider of an alternative” system.

And costs of the system must be spread around, with employers and government paying the lion’s share while workers would pay what they could afford, Sweeney said.

“There are many alternative ways to get there,” Booth said of the national system labor envisions. “So we’re focusing our campaign to focus on the politicians” at all levels to push them to commit to such a national health care system, she added.

In response to e-mailed questions, Booth said one way could be government-run single-payer universal health care, pushed by veteran Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) as HR 676. She neither ruled that, nor anything else, out or in.

“Conyers’ bill is in line with our core principles, and a lot of proposals are,” she said. And she quoted Conyers in a recent luncheon discussion of HR 676 at the AFL-CIO as saying the first priority was to elect a president and a Congress this year committed to health care reform--and then hash out the details next year.

Sweeney also said some businesses are beginning to change their minds about the need for health care overhaul. He said he recently spoke at a conference of the Fortune 500 in Florida and vice-presidents of several large firms, including IBM, Aetna, General Electric and Bristol-Myers-Squibb, came up to him afterwards to say the U.S. needs drastic health care reform for its businesses to stay competitive.

“Their own self-interest will move them in the right direction,” Holt Baker said of the business community.

Sweeney pointed out that any reform must cover all businesses, as one of the leaders pointed out it costs an average health insurance policyholder $1,000 a year in premiums--premiums that shrink workers’ paychecks--to cover the uninsured. That includes covering workers and families whose firms make coverage hard or impossible, such as Wal-Mart.

Details so far of the AFL-CIO’s health care drive include, but are not limited to:

* A federation demand that local Central Labor Councils and local unions make health care the top topic of their April meetings, using fact sheets and other data they have received or will receive from the federation. So far, 300-plus CLCs have agreed.

* Labor-to-neighbor walks on health care, with distribution of educational materials on the issue and an AFL-CIO analysis--including analysis of the presidential candidates’ stands. Some 112 walks are scheduled as of now.

* An intensive examination of candidate records on health care and a federation-wide effort, enlisting its Working America affiliate and its 3 million retiree members to force political candidates at all levels to commit to comprehensive health care reform under the principles the federation laid out.

Booth said the federation is already analyzing the health care plans offered by the three remaining presidential hopefuls, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain has clinched the GOP nomination.

Obama and Clinton differ on details, she added, but the big gap is between their plans and McCain’s. While the two Democrats offer variations on universal coverage, with a government-run component, the Arizonan offers a continuation of the “failed” health care policies of GOP President George W. Bush, Booth said.

“We didn’t come at this from a partisan point of view,” she added. “But McCain would tax individuals’ health care benefits, which would only drive many more people out of coverage” beyond the 47 million uninsured and millions more underinsured.

“His health care tax credit” for individuals “is too little,” Booth added. Sweeney, Holt-Baker and Booth were particularly insistent that the health care campaign continue not just through the Nov. 4 election, but beyond. That’s because vested interests--Booth specifically named the health insurers and drug companies--will pump millions of dollars into their own drive to stop universal coverage and care.

Responding to an e-mailed question about how to prevent the health care issue from being dominated by those special interests, she added that the AFL-CIO’s answer is mass mobilization around universal health care, holding politicians accountable on it not just during the campaign but afterwards--and making clear there would be consequences at the polls for candidates who do not back universal, affordable care.

“It’s going to take a huge movement to bring about change, of unions and our members, through the election and beyond,” Sweeney added. “We’ll give the results of our survey to candidates” at every level of elected office, from president on down to city councils, he said. “That’s because it’ll take involvement of elected officials at every level to get real health care reform.”

Survey data includes state numbers for Illinois, Indiana, California, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and others.

Health Care in Crisis: Who's Listening?

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:25:00 +0000

3-27-08, 10:28 am

About 22,000 people died in 2006 in the US because they didn't have health insurance, according to an estimate by the Urban Institute. This is up substantially from 2000 when the Institute of Medicine announced as many as 18,000 people died because of the lack of health care coverage.

And while the numbers of deaths grew and the total number of the uninsured rose over the those six years, neither George W. Bush nor the Republican majorities in Congress made a single effort to alleviate the crisis.

In a teleconference with reporters March 26, Families USA President Ron Pollack discussed the impact of the crisis in America's health care system on ordinary people.

'For those people who are uninsured there are significant consequences that they bear. They are less likely to have a usual source of care. They are more likely, when they do get care, to get it in emergency rooms,' he said. They are also sicker, often can't afford prescription drugs and treatments, and die younger than those with insurance, he added.

In the state of Florida alone, six working people between the ages of 25 and 64 die each day due to a lack of health insurance coverage, Pollack said.

A recently released Families USA study of health insurance coverage state-by-state shows that, apart from Florida, in Missouri, as many as 10 working-age people die each day due to a lack of health insurance. In West Virginia, about four working age adults die each day from the lack of health care coverage. In states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, that number stands at two per day. So far Families USA has released similar data for 15 states.

Across the country, Pollack continued, twice as many people died in 2006 because of the lack of health insurance as those killed by homicide.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) expressed shock and anger at the failing health care system. She noted that the health care crisis deserves the same special attention that many politicians readily give to the issue of crime. 'Protecting the public to make sure that we preserve their health is certainly no less important than protecting them from crime,' she said.

'As a mom serving in Congress, I want to make sure that we can be part of a solution so that the next generation of Americans can ensure that health care is a right not a privilege,' Wasserman Schultz stated.

Wasserman Schultz rejected the reliance on emergency room care that pervades the system today. 'We're not talking about simple sniffles here,' she said. 'We're talking about death. It doesn't get any more significant than losing your life over a lack of health insurance.'

Dr. Arthur Fournier, a dean at the University of Miami School of Medicine, said most people who seek care primarily from emergency rooms wouldn't have to if they had access to affordable health care coverage.

Fournier is also an attending physician at Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital, which, he said, provides services to mostly working families. 'At least half of the admissions (at Jackson) are preventable admissions if only we had a way of providing health care as a right for every person and an effective system for prevention and primary care,' he argued.

The low-income patients who pass through his facility, Fournier added, face critical decisions everyday about choosing between paying for health care and buying other necessities like food or shelter for their families.

The risk of death in the health care system on such a scale is only the most alarming aspect of America's health care crisis, however. According to an AFL-CIO online survey of more than 26,000 of its members, supporters and family members, even people who pay for health insurance premiums face severe coverage and affordability problems that threaten their access to health care.

They too often face tough choices between seeking medical care or spending their earnings on other necessities. Reporting on the results of the survey on a teleconference Mar. 25 with health care activists, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker said, 'Because of outrageous costs one-third of the people who took our survey said they or someone in the family skipped medical care they needed.'

About 25 percent said they had trouble paying for needed care, and more than half described the insurance they have as inadequate or too expensive for covering their needs. More than 6 in 10 respondents say their costs associated with health care, from premiums to co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses, have gotten worse over the past few years.

Almost all of the survey respondents – 95 percent – expressed serious concerns about being able to afford insurance premiums in the near future, Holt Baker said.

The respondents nearly unanimously agreed that the health care system in the US is fundamentally flawed or needs to be completely rebuilt. More than three out of four respondents see health care as a major issue for the 2008 elections and will vote based on the views of candidates on the issue, Holt Baker reported.

Because of the broad concern about the health care crisis, the AFL-CIO is pledged to leading a campaign to win universal health care in 2009, said Heather Booth who directs the AFL-CIO's health care campaign.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said that the health care crisis cannot be resolved employer by employer any more. It is a national problem that requires a national solution, he indicated.

Booth called for unity of broad coalitions of health care advocates through the 2008 elections to support candidates who will vote for a national solution to the health care crisis. While both Democratic presidential candidates offer solid proposals, Republican candidate John McCain is the wrong choice. 'John McCain takes us in the wrong direction,' said Booth. McCain offers the same 'hands-off' approach that George Bush had.

A McCain administration would simply preside over a growing number of deaths and uninsured as Bush did.

--Reach Joel Wendland at

Patriots and Philanthropists, Come Forth and Save America

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:21:00 +0000

3-27-08, 10:25 am

It has become obvious that the Bush Administration will never come clean about any of the injustices it has committed. It has fought tooth and nail to avoid the release of information that rightfully belongs to the American public, ignoring legitimate Freedom of Information requests, and even going so far as to classify information that had already been openly available for years.

It is equally apparent that the Justice Department has little will and no intention of conducting thorough, unbiased investigations into any of the myriad violations of law by the Executive branch. That may change in 2009, when Mr. Bush abandons the rotted sinking ship of his ruinous presidency to slink back in shame to his Crawford ranch from which most Americans now wish he had never strayed to begin with. But I don't want to wait that long.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

While I have no doubt that new revelations of wrong-doing will be found when the next President embarks on the daunting task of rebuilding the democracy that Bush has done his level best to destroy with his doctrine of 'Shock-and-Awe,' and the recently revealed Cheney Doctrine of 'So?', I have little faith that a former president will be held to account for his crimes by a citizenry which just wants to be rid of him. A majority of Americans now say they want the Administration to answer for its illegality, but when the nightmare is finally over, most of us have a natural tendency to want only to forget the nightmare. But forgetting would be the worst thing we could do. To forget would be to effectively condone - which would set a terrible precedent for which our children and grandchildren would most likely come to despise us.

And a new President, still riding the wave of exultation after a hard-fought victory might suddenly have feelings of magnanimity and graciousness. Even if the public cried out in anger for justice, a President flush with brand-new power might falsely feel him or herself merciful in pardoning the past wrong-doings of a used-up politician already gone out to pasture to cut brush where he can do no more harm - as Ford did with Nixon. But there can be little doubt that the pardoning of Richard Nixon has largely contributed to our current problems in dealing with a Chief Executive who believes himself to be all-powerful and above the law. We must set an example now, if we hope to avoid making kings and dictators of future Presidents.

If the wheels of justice are in motion before Bush leaves office, it would be much more difficult for a President to pardon his crimes.

When You Want Something Done Right...

So what do good, patriotic Americans do when their Justice Department, Congress, and Judiciary will not uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution and preserve their rights? They do it themselves.

As the crimes of this presidency are numerous and wide-spread, there are hundreds of people out there who know just what those crimes are. Some of them have complied with illegal orders out of fear, or out of a sense that if the President of the United States says something is 'necessary,' it must be the right thing for the country. After all, he's the President, right? Many of those folks have come to the realization that this particular President has no concept of right and wrong, nor any clue about what is best for the nation. Those are the people I want to speak to. The only way to guarantee justice is for you to speak up and expose so much evidence that the Justice Dept. cannot ignore it.

Many of you are probably reluctant to come forward. You think that we, your brothers and sisters, won't understand, that we will condemn you and hate you. Or you might be afraid of the government, that if you speak out you will be harassed, fired, prosecuted or worse. But if you expose a serious crime, you need not fear the ire of your fellow citizens - we will embrace you, and thank you for doing one of the most moral, patriotic things you could ever do for your country. If you have any doubt of that, look to the examples of Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith.

Mr. Comey, as Deputy Attorney General, took a stand to stop a program of surveillance so invasive and illegal that several Justice Department officials and employees threatened to quit if the President continued it. Mr. Goldsmith, as the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, discovered secret legal opinions by his predecessor that were so outrageously illegal that he rescinded them, writing new opinions that infuriated the Administration and exposed such atrocities as John Yoo's infamous 'Torture Memo,' which advised that detainees could be abused in whatever depraved way the President desired, as long as it didn't cause organ failure or death.

Neither Mr. Comey nor Mr. Goldsmith was ridiculed or condemned by the public when their stories came out. They were hailed as heroes and champions of the rule of law. They were viewed as courageous patriots who would not allow an overreaching President to completely enslave and torture people. They were praised by Congressmen and Senators. And while I applaud their actions, truth be told, they didn't do anything extraordinary - they only did their duty as Americans. They only told the truth.

That is all I ask of you. Some of you are employed by the government, from simple staffers to high-level appointees. Some of you are in the military or intelligence agencies. Some of you are private citizens or contract employees who have done work for the government, such as Mark Klein, the AT&T technician of 22 years who revealed the existence of a special room in which whole trunk lines of fiber-optic cables carrying all foreign and domestic telephone and data communications were intercepted and collected for illegal government eavesdropping.

Evidence of Serious Crimes Cannot Be Classified for the Purpose of Concealing Them

You may have knowledge of information that the government has determined to be 'classified.' As we all have learned, much 'classified' information should never have been classified in the first place. Much of it is simply embarrassing, and still more is kept secret only to hide law-breaking. Americans need to know a few things about 'classified' information. Classification is only proper when it is absolutely necessary for the national security of the United States. It is never proper to classify information that is only embarrassing. And it is illegal to classify information for the purpose of concealing a crime. Let me try to put this in perspective.

Many German citizens after WWII were said to have been unaware of Hitler's state-sanctioned crimes against humanity. Hitler kept their existence relatively secret, and there is no doubt the information was officially 'classified' on the grounds that public knowledge could endanger national security. Would anyone today think it acceptable to keep such a secret only because of a false claim that its revelation would jeopardize security? The U.S. certainly didn't think so when we tried and hung Nazi officers who never personally committed those crimes, but had knowledge of them and chose to keep them secret. We convicted them under a legal concept known as 'command responsibility.'

For our American Government to think that it can conceal human rights violations in order to preserve 'national security' is the most un-American idea since the nation's birth in 1776. Human rights trumps 'State Secrets' every single time. Bush's outrageous excuse that revealing his torture methods would 'allow the enemy to adjust' is quiet possibly the most sickening thing ever to publicly pass the lips of an American President. Aside from being laughably illogical, it is totally immoral. The 'enhanced interrogation techniques' the President is so fond of are the same ones we trained our special forces and airmen to resist should they be captured by an enemy state with a fondness for torture. The enemy already knows all of our techniques because we learned the techniques from them.

Before 9/11, those 'techniques' were considered to be the sinister tools of totalitarian torturers. We were the 'Good Guys,' and good guys didn't do things like that. Now, the enemy is proclaimed to be so much worse than our old enemies that we can't be the Good Guys anymore. In fact, we are told this new enemy is so bad that we have to become at least as bad as the Bad Guys used to be. As Dick Cheney famously said after 9/11, we have to 'work the dark side, spend time in the shadows, use any means at our disposal.' So Darth Vader of you, Dick.

Telling the Truth Does Not Endanger National Security

If you have knowledge of a serious crime, it is your duty to come forward even if something has been 'classified,' because classifying information to conceal a crime is an even bigger crime. No one is asking you to reveal information that is legitimately classified and would genuinely risk the security of our nation. If there is a genuine piece of intelligence mixed in amongst the criminal activity, precautions can be taken to ensure that part stays secret. Nobody wishes to 'help the terrorists.' This is no 'Fifth Column' type of resistance. This is an uprising of Patriots who will no longer stand by and watch as America's soul is slowly sucked out of it.

Names of undercover agents or confidential informants would be safe from exposure by everyone except Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby. Tapes of torturous interrogations are safe in everyone's hands except the C.I.A. Any such tapes should be published far and wide, just as the Abu Ghraib photos were, because human rights abuses should never be concealed for any reason. Faces of agents can be blurred, and the government's claim that the tapes were destroyed because they posed a danger to national security simply because they might anger foreign countries is specious - they should anger foreign countries. That's like saying China would have been justified in keeping secret the video of the lone protester being run over by a tank in Tienanman Square because foreign nations would be outraged if they saw it.

Pick a Crime...Any Crime

Of course, torture is not the only misdeed. We need you to come forward with information on all of the following issues:

The scope and extent of warrantless wiretapping and other domestic surveillance.

The locations and details about the C.I.A.'s secret prisons.

The political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. A few people have already come forward, but there are others out there who know what happened and are disgusted by it. You may be an office employee, an aide, a prosecutor, or Justice Department staffer - possibly even a disillusioned appointee. We need to find out whether this man was sent to prison because of his politics.

Israel's bombing of the 'suspected nuclear facility' in Syria.

The 'Bent Spear' incident in which six nuclear cruise missiles were flown cross-country to Louisiana, en-route to the Middle East, 'by mistake.' This was prevented by Air Force and Intelligence officers, including Admiral William Fallon, who was just fired for having different opinions than the President about the real location of the frontline in the 'war on terror.'

The shipping of nuclear fuses for ballistic missiles 'by mistake' to Taiwan.

The firing of several U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.

The millions of missing White House e-mails.

There are also folks with the RNC who know more than has been revealed about their missing e-mails.

Details about corruption and profiteering concerning military contractors in Iraq.

Misplaced Loyalty

There is a totally backwards attitude in Washington that assumes any person appointed or elected to a position in the Executive branch has only two choices when they believe the President is breaking the law or lying to the people:

1) Keep your mouth shut and play ball by the President's rules instead of those specified in the Constitution which you have sworn to uphold.

2) Resign and keep your mouth shut.

Neither of those is acceptable. There is a big difference in serving 'at the pleasure of the President' and serving 'for the pleasure of the President,' or 'to pleasure the President.' The loyalty of any government official, without exception and at all times, must belong to the Constitution and to the People. Every decision the official makes, and every action he takes must be in the best interest of the nation, and if that conflicts with a President's agenda, the President can like it or lump it. If it doesn't please him, he can dismiss the appointee. The appointee must realize that fear of dismissal is not a justification for shirking his responsibility to the people.

There are very few public servants who actually serve the President. His private counsel, his office staff and aides, chauffeur, and to a certain degree, the Secret Service. Nearly every other federal public servant is obligated not to the President but to the people. The President might appoint a U.S. Attorney, but the that Attorney is not beholden to the President. He serves the people and owes his allegiance to the Constitution.

Take the case of former C.I.A. director George Tenet. He alleges that he believed the evidence being presented to the American public to justify war with Iraq was not accurate. He did nothing about it. He let the administration drag us into war based on lies. If what he says is true, he belongs in prison right now. He was complicit in the crimes, even if the words 'slam dunk' never passed his lips.

If a President will not respect the Constitution and the rule of law, then he disrespects his own office of the Presidency, and should be afforded no loyalty by those who have sworn loyalty to the Constitution. To remain loyal to such a President is tantamount to treason.

George W. Bush has done more damage to the country than any suicide bomber ever could, which puts him on the borderline of being one those 'domestic enemies' the Founders warned us about. The time has come for a peaceful mutiny and a harsh reckoning.

The decision is not an especially difficult one. Just ask yourself if twenty years from now, you will be able to look back on this present time and be proud of your decision. James Comey certainly did. The Deputy Attorney General told his colleagues that they would all be 'ashamed' when the world eventually learned what they were doing.

Honesty Pays Dividends and Encourages Investment of Public Trust

Now that I have appealed to the consciences of those possessing information, I want to appeal to the pocketbooks of those who are rich in possessions. Holding the Bush Administration accountable is absolutely imperative if democracy is to survive in America. Those who are wealthy and believe it is important that the rule of law be preserved and applied equally to everyone, can put their money to good use by offering rewards for information on the illegalities of the government. Think of it as 'Crimestoppers' for government law-breakers. Crimestoppers offers rewards for all kinds of law-breaking. Which is the worse crime: vandalism of a commercial building, or shredding the Constitution? If we can offer a reward for information about a $1000 liquor store robbery, why shouldn't we offer a reward for information about the $8.5 billion that has gone totally missing in Iraq?

Richest man in the world Warren Buffett gives generously to his fellow man, and consistently advocates for the poor and the powerless. Mr. Buffett could do a lot of good simply by offering a reward for tapes showing abusive interrogations of detainees. Wouldn't that be worth $50,000? Oprah could learn the locations of every secret overseas C.I.A. prison with a $100,000 reward, and then the International Red Cross could insist on inspecting the prisons and seeing that prisoners are treated humanely. Bill Gates could protect his Microsoft shares from being consumed in a nuclear war by offering $250,000 for the full story on those nukes that somebody was trying to sneak into the Middle East 'by mistake', and how nuclear fuses were inexplicably shipped to Taiwan 'by mistake.' I would think Larry Flint might have an interest in protecting our privacy and freedom from warrantless search and seizure by offering a sizeable sum for the revelation of the full scope and extent of the illegal wiretapping program and the N.S.A. data mining program.

Most of the people with knowledge of these topics will be Republicans who love their party. But they love justice more. They want to do the right thing, but feel conflicted. If that's you, realize that the worst thing you can do for your party is to let it become thoroughly corrupt and morally bankrupt. Getting rid of the criminals in the party and showing the public that there are Republicans who still believe in the rule of law will only help the party, and the American people will love you for it. You will be able to reclaim some of the respect and trust that has been lost in the last seven years.

Also realize that if Republicans continue on their current course, they will soon find themselves with fewer members than the Green Party and unable to garner half as many votes as Ralph Nader come November 2012. There is nothing partisan about justice. Any party that would deny justice to preserve the party would utterly destroy it by its own hand.

For whosoever would seek to save his party shall lose it. But whosoever would surrender his party for the sake of justice shall save it.

Privatization to Blame for Northern Rock's Failure

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:19:00 +0000

3-27-08, 10:24 am

What about the staff?

Newcastle Labour MP Jim Cousins is correct in his assessment of the Financial Services Authority admission that it failed to regulate Northern Rock.

The abject FSA apology is designed to put an end to criticism of itself and other authorities and to draw a line under the entire episode.

But how can a smooth-tongued apology terminate debate of what has taken place, what lay behind it and, more importantly, what those responsible intend to do in the future.

It wasn't just the FSA that was at fault. So was the Bank of England and so was Gordon Brown who, as Chancellor, weakened regulatory mechanisms, parroting neoliberal dogma that market forces were the best forms of regulation.

If he had really believed that, he would have allowed Northern Rock to go down the pan, but this would have eroded confidence in the rest of Britain's financial sector, which the government could not allow to happen.

But banks are not the only stakeholders in Britain's financial services sector.

Tens of thousands of banking staff work within it, including 7,000 at Northern Rock, 2,000 of whom face the chop through no fault of their own.

Neither the government nor the FSA has anything for these people bar crocodile tears and soft words of sympathy.

Northern Rock directors and major shareholders filled their pockets when the going was good, when the profits came rolling in as a result of its irresponsible but, in the short term, highly lucrative gambling on interest rates.

But, whereas they are allowed to waltz away from Northern Rock with their ill-gotten gains, those who have invested their working lives are left stranded.

The government disregards the interests of working people, putting in new boss Ron Sandler to get the business back on its feet by trimming its size and staff numbers, with a view to handing it back to the private sector.

Where is the sense in that? Demutualization - in essence, a form of privatization - lay at the heart of Northern Rock's problems.

If it had continued as a building society, it could never have overstretched itself in the way that it did as a private bank.

The motivation was greed, the guiding force of the private sector, rather than public service and co-operation, which underpin publicly owned companies.

When the crisis rocking Northern Rock came to light, the government ought to have nationalized the bank, creating a people's bank to offer basic, trustworthy banking services rather than a rapacious organization with profit maximization as its sole goal.

That approach has destroyed the banking industry that once offered a service to customers rather than seeing them as sources of ever higher sales of credit, insurance and other financial services.

The government and other advocates of neoliberalism regard the ideas of service and co-operation as outdated, seeing economic competition as people's only reason for existence.

There are 2,000 Northern Rock staff members who would take issue with this benighted view of humanity, having been sacrificed on the altar of profitability.

There should indeed be greater regulation of financial services, but regulation is not in itself enough. Another approach, another society is both possible and necessary.

From Morning Star

US Labor Alliance Condemns Killings and Disappearances in the Philippines

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:15:00 +0000

3-27-08, 10:19 am

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) Endorses GMA (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) Watch

After hearing the moving story of Edith Burgos, the mother of abducted land reform and farmers' advocate Jonas Burgos, the National Executive Board of the Asian-Pacific American Labor Alliance unanimously voted to endorse GMA Watch, a US based Philippine human rights monitoring network. Mrs. Burgos spoke to APALA as part of a seven city US speaking tour organized by GMA Watch, which raised awareness about the 890 politically motivated extrajudicial killings and more than 300 disappearances which have been committed presumably by the Philippine military under the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

'We condemn the government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the abductions, disapearances and killings of activists, opposition journalists and union leaders and labor organizers in the Philippines. Americans should unite with the Filipino people in saying, 'stop human rights violations' and 'end corruption in the Philippines,'' said Daz Lamparas, Executive Board Member of APALA and member of the San Francisco Chapter.

Just days after APALA passed their resolution to endorse GMA Watch, Gerry Cristobal, a union leader in the Philippines, was killed. It was the third attempt on his life.I n the same week the US State Department released their country report on the Philippines and expressed concern over the continued killings and other human rights violations in which Philippine security forces are implicated.

'This endorsement comes at an important time. Congress is starting the process of creating next year's funding bill. APALA's membership and reach represents thousands more that can demand that our tax dollars not go to shed innocent blood in the Philippines,' said Katrina Abarcar, national coordinator of GMA Watch.

APALA has around 5000 members. In its resolution, APALA stated it would urge its chapters as well as the AFL-CIO and CTW (Change to Win), which together represent over 15 million workers, to pass similar resolutions to endorse and support GMA Watch.

Iraq: “Pressing Need” for Drinking Water in Basra Under Curfew

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:45:00 +0000

3-26-08, 9:50 am

Original source: IRIN News

BAGHDAD, 26 March 2008 (IRIN) - Life in Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, has been paralyzed by a large-scale government military operation against militiamen of the Mahdi Army led by radical Shia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, Mahdi al-Tamimi, head of the city’s Human Rights Office said on 25 March.

The Iraqi government imposed an indefinite curfew at dawn on 25 March. No one is allowed between neighborhoods and there are checkpoints in place to ensure this.

“The most pressing need is drinking water, as Basra residents depend on bottled mineral water because they do not drink tap water - first because of contamination and second because of its high salinity,” al-Tamimi told IRIN.

“This is a catastrophe that could lead to a huge problem as we are entering summer and, of course, if it continues like this, it will lead to waterborne diseases including diarrhea,“ he said.

“All aspects of life have been paralyzed with the closure of schools, government offices and markets due to clashes that have forced people indoors with not enough food as there was no prior notice for this operation,” said al-Tamimi.

IDPs affected

Al-Tamimi said the curfew and continuing street clashes meant residents could not get to hospitals for treatment and aid operations had been suspended, especially for internally displaced persons (IPDs).

Basra is home to 5,707 displaced families, about 34,172 individuals, most of whom live in makeshift camps, according to figures from the Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS) on 27 January.

“I call upon the government to allow our teams at least to help distribute drinking water and to help and protect all humanitarian teams to do their normal work in helping displaced families,” Al-Tamimi said.

On 22 February, al-Sadr announced a six-month extension to his militia’s unilateral cease-fire in a move that was widely seen as designed to improve security in war-torn Iraq.

“This [the military crackdown] could break the cease-fire,” said Hazim Yassin al-Saffar, a Basra-based political analyst. “It is clear the government has not realised that this [Sadrist] trend has deep roots in Iraqi society and cannot be treated like this,” said al-Saffar, who lectures in international law at the University of Basra.

Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army was formed in the months after the US-led invasion in 2003 and launched two major uprisings against US-led forces in 2007.

From IRIN News

Activist Republican Federal Judges vs. Workers' Rights

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:43:00 +0000

3-26-08, 9:48 am

After working for Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co. for 19 years, Lily Ledbetter found the company had been cheating her. An anonymous note slipped into her mailbox showed that male employees at the same level with similar experience earned substantially more than she.

Ledbetter sued the company, and a jury awarded her $3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Goodyear appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a conservative majority of activist judges appointed by Republican presidents voted in favor of the corporation. After an appeal, the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, upheld the 11th Court's decision to rescind the jury award in favor of Ledbetter.

The conservative majorities at the 11th Circuit and on the Supreme Court based their unfair decision on a technicality and offered Ledbetter and others who face pay discrimination a Catch-22 solution. The court ruled that according to the law under which Ledbetter filed her suit, she and others victimized by discrimination must file suit within 6 months of receiving the first discriminatory check.

Of course, Ledbetter only learned about Goodyear's gender-based two-tier pay system after 19 years. The court refused to take into account that Ledbetter could not have sued over something she knew nothing about.

Last summer, AFL-CIO head John Sweeney accused the right-wing majority on the Court of favoring the corporation on an unfair technicality. 'In response to her fight for justice, the majority on the Supreme Court bent over backwards – ignoring both precedent and simple common sense – to rob her of her right to equal treatment in the workplace,' he said in a press statement.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her dissent from the Republican-appointed majority's ruling, described the workplace atmosphere at Goodyear as fostering discriminatory acts and attitudes. She noted pervasive gender bias at Ledbetter's workplace, citing remarks by Ledbetter's supervisors given as evidence at the original trial of their animosity towards Ledbetter and women workers in general.

According to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 'The [conservative majority's] decision fails to protect most victims of pay discrimination because it ignores workplace reality. Very few employees have ready access to their colleagues’ salaries, or to any other information which would clue them in to the fact that they are being paid less than their peers.'

The Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber decision defended the interest of large corporations who adopt discriminatory practices by imposing impossibly high hurdles for victims of such actions. It essentially says, that if a company can keep careful secrets about discriminatory practices, it should be able to avoid punishment. The decision further will adversely affect not only women but also male and female employees who are discriminated against by race, religion, disability, and age.

The Fair Pay Restoration Act, introduced in Congress last year, would amend the law to read that a person has 6 months to file a lawsuit for pay discrimination after the last discriminatory paycheck that person received. The law maintains a statute of limitations, but provides workers a reasonable means of seeking compensation for unfair practices.

Jocelyn Samuels of the National Women's Law Center said the bill would 'reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter and help to ensure that individuals subject to unlawful pay discrimination are able to vindicate their rights under federal anti-discrimination laws.'

Additionally, by making a reasonable framework for seeking compensation, the law would give corporations who engage in unfair practices a motive for changing the way they treat employees and ensure fairness in the workplace.

The bill is pending in the US Senate, having passed the House earlier this year. Both Democratic presidential candidates support its passage.

In a press statement last January, Deborah Frett, who heads the Business and Professional Women/USA applauded the passage of the bill in the House, but added, 'now the Senate must act to ensure that individuals subjected to unlawful compensation discrimination can continue to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (AZ) opposes the bill and has pledged to appoint conservative activist judges to the federal judiciary who will make similar rulings.

--Reach Joel Wendland at

“Good morning, Baghdad...”

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:39:00 +0000

3-26-08, 9:44 am

Original source: l'Humanite

Since the first day of the invasion by the U.S. and its allies, more than 4,000 soldiers from the United States have died amid the sands of Iraq. Five years after the beginning of the second Gulf War, which saw mainly U.S. and British tanks entering, Baghdad on the one hand, and Basra on the other, what has changed for the better? Saddam Hussein’s being flushed from the hole in the ground, and his hanging turned into an obscene media event? Thousands of civilians dying from the blind shrapnel of bombings? The on-going partition of a country which sees, on the one hand, Turkey crossing its borders to hunt down Kurdish separatists, and on the other, the “Great Satan,” Ahmadinejad, being welcomed to the Iraqi capital under the protection of the U.S. invaders?

To paraphrase Anatole France, you think you’re dying for democracy, and in fact you’re dying for Halliburton and the oil companies.

Five years on, Iraq has not become a stable country to which democracy has been spread – its people are more divided than ever, famished, terrorized and massacred; al Qaeda, which was the pretext for the intervention in Afghanistan, has found a new base for bloody confrontations in Iraq, and the whole region has been destabilized. “There is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it,” the warmonger George Bush said in a speech at the Pentagon on March 19, before adding: “The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision – and this is a fight America can and must win.” “Win?”

In the past, in Vietnam, that word had to be abandoned in the face of the power of popular national resistance. Iraq does not resemble that historic series of events only in the barbarism of the means used, foremost of which is the institutionalized torture, or in the juicy contracts racked up by a military-industrial complex whose blood brother is ensconced in the White House. With the unprecedented privatization of the conflict, with the loss of human lives and the billions in profits swallowed up by the war, Iraq differs from Vietnam in that, after five years, one does not see – and for good reason – the slightest beginning of an end to either the war or the occupation.

What is true of Iraq is also true of the region. Will Iran evolve towards the social emancipation for which it is ready? Its artificial demonization – which is no hindrance to handy little arrangements between “hostile friends” – is reinforcing the conservative camp in Teheran, as, alas, has just been confirmed by the last elections. Are things any better in Afghanistan? The answer is in the question: see the spread of the most murderous fundamentalism possible to Pakistan. Has the crisis in the Near East advanced one step towards pacification, if not dialogue? The mirror set up between the ultra-reactionaries in office in Jerusalem and Hamas’ grip on Gaza amounts to a rebuff to the question.

Are we to wait, as spectators, the outcome of the Democratic primaries and the results of the U.S. presidential election? Both will, certainly, exercise an influence, for good or ill, on the development of the situation. France, which won fame in March 2003 with its official opposition to the war, would win more honor if she continued on that road. But this is not, for the moment, the road taken by the French presidency and the French foreign affairs ministry, whether it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Near East. Nicolas Sarkozy means to make the French presidency of the European Union a shining moment in his political action. Will he accelerate the French alignment on the most militaristic NATO positions, set up military bases in the Arabian emirates, and ease the bloody U.S. burden in Kabul? Or will he have France and the European Union playing a more dignified score? His political action, and that of the countries of the EU, will be judged by that yardstick.

From l'Humanite. Translated by Gene Zbikowski.

War for Empire

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:36:00 +0000

3-26-08, 9:41 am

Invited Anti-war Rally Remarks Delivered March 19, 2008 Grand Valley State University Allendale, MI

Good afternoon, folks. I’m here at the invitation of the GVSU’s Students for a Democratic Society, but I stand here as merely a person. I am not here as a professor. I am not here representing any Party. I am not here as the vetted voice of SDS. Rather, I am here with my remarks—in the cold March wind of West Michigan, on the fifth anniversary of the War in Iraq—well within this ten-foot-square “free speech zone” afforded by the University. My purpose is to speak from the heart and mind, to share certain views on the war. Therefore:

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

There are many ways to view the War in Iraq, and by extension, much if not all of the so-called War on Terror. I’m interested here in talking about two different ways that the War in Iraq can be viewed simultaneously, that is, without excluding each other—however oppositional they appear to be at first.

I’ll list them both before elaborating:

1. We really don’t know what the war is about. 2. We really do know what the war is about.

To begin:

We don’t know why we went to war in the first place.

We don’t know why we remain at war now.

We don’t know why this war is beneficial to most Americans.

We don’t know how this war is beneficial to most Iraqis.

We don’t know how this war spreads “democracy” around the world.

We don’t know how this war protects “democracy” in the United States.

In other words, we really don’t know what this war is about; and because we don’t, we are failing to function as a democracy, and further, failing to live as a freedom and peace loving people.

Now someone might answer, someone might say, “Wait a minute. I do know what the war is about. I do know why we went to war in the first place. I do know why we remain at war now. I do know that this war is good for most Americans. I do know that this war is beneficial to most Iraqis. I do know that this war spreads democracy around the world. I do know that this war protects democracy in the United States.” And that same person, confident that she knows these things, might also assert: “We are not failing as a democracy.” And further, “We are not failing to live as a freedom and peace loving people.”

She might tell you that we’re in Iraq because Saddam conspired with al Qaeda, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. She might assert that we are a justice wielding, law abiding nation, committed to good global works like disarming an evil dictator, removing a tyrant with stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, threatening us with mushroom clouds. She might tell you that we are there to liberate the Shiites and to protect the Kurds. She might tell you that we are there to spread democracy and the rule of law. She might tell you that we had to get the troops out of Saudi Arabia. She might tell you that “taking the fight over there kept it from happening over here.” And she might tell you, as preachers in churches here in West Michigan and elsewhere have been heard to say—that the President is right—that this is a Holy War of Christian soldiers against the Islamofascists of Babylon

And when you meet this righteous person, after she says these things to you, after she regales you with the uncertain but nonetheless popular rhetoric of the day, after she reiterates that we are a freedom and peace loving people, ask her about equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders. Ask her about race relations. Ask her about the environment. Ask her about organized labor. Ask her about capital gains taxes. Ask her about migrant workers. Ask her why women in Michigan make only 67 cents on the dollar compared to men. Ask her about a woman’s right to choose. And above all, ask her to demonstrate how she actually lives her life as a freedom and peace loving person!

But if you really want to confuse her: Ask her, for God’s sake, “What would Jesus do?”

Now folks, I have to tell you, I feel a little tired. I feel a little worn down. We’re five years into this war I know, but I’m a little distracted. I’m worried about my pregnant wife. I’m worried that something’s wrong with my car. My daughter had a little fever last night and I’m worried that she’s coming down with something. I’m scared that we live in a violent, sick society—one that will harm me before my work is done, or discriminate against my wife, or molest my daughter. I’m scared my daughter or son-to-be will find the gun I keep hidden in the closet, or that they will be sucked into the big lie someday and take up arms to go kill people somewhere else.

Further, I’m scared of the economy, of falling property values, of uncertain employment. I’m scared you’ll think I’m queer. That I’m a wimp. That I’m un-American. That I’m part of a Communist plot. I’m scared you’ll think I don’t believe in God. And dammit, I’m scared that I’ll have to choose between a Democrat and Republican come Election Day. I’m terrified because John McCain will—after he’s elected president—make things even worse than they are now.

Now the truth is: I’m scared of coming out here and telling you exactly how I feel. I’m terrified of telling you these things because we don’t live in a democracy. We don’t really promote peace and love. We don’t encourage or really listen to free speech. We are, put bluntly, a nation that has turned against itself. We are a country that has gone to war with itself because we have gone to war with terror.

Despite these fears, despite these uncertainties, despite this litany of “don’t knows,” let us return to our earlier thread and consider, alternatively, that we really do know something about the war. We know something at least because the ultimate capitalist, straight, rich, white male American, Republican insider, former Federal Reserve Chairman Allan Greenspan has told us in his recent multi-million dollar memoir, and I quote:

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil. Thus, projections of world oil supply and demand that do not note the highly precarious environment of the Middle East are avoiding the eight-hundred pound gorilla that could bring world economic growth to a halt.” The Age of Turbulence, p. 463.

While we all should be grateful for Greenspan’s candor, like most bourgeois economists, he’s really just peddling old news, just spinning old data. A couple of years earlier, David Harvey—an American Marxist scholar—published The New Imperialism, the very first chapter of which is called, “All about Oil.” So we have to ask: Why is it these two thinkers have so much in common but so little in concord? Why is it that one laments the price of oil while the other laments the war?

Now we all know it well here in Michigan but let’s say it anyway: We’re talking about the war; but we’re also talking about the economy. So let’s say it straight: There’s something wrong with the economy. For those of you following the news, for those of you tuned in, you know that this past weekend we got real, real close to a global economic meltdown. In fact, although some last minute and perhaps illegal government maneuvers staved off the meltdown for now, they gave us only a short-term fix. In other words, it’s not a fix at all. Indeed, what government did was expose us anew to the most pernicious, regressive of all taxes: inflation. So let us remain clear: With other deep-seated problems, the price of oil is driving inflation. And further, that a war driven by oil is really a war driven by economics. To put it another way: If you don’t know what’s happening economically right now, then you really have no idea why we’re at war.

That said, there are some other things we know about war: Let’s review those now:

We know that the war has now killed and displaced more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

We know that Saddam, the ruthless killer that he was, fought proxy wars for us and our allies against the Iranians, Shiites, and Kurds.

We know that we trained him. We armed him. We helped him kill his own people. We helped him kill other people. We’ve got pictures of Dick Cheney shaking his hand for these things. We looked the other way. But when he threatened our ability to manipulate oil prices by invading Kuwait—that’s when he became a terrorist. That’s when we attacked him. That’s when we turned on our boy in Baghdad. That’s when we had him lynched. Was it not the strange fruit of poetic justice to see the puppet dangle thusly?

Further:

We know that the war has quadrupled oil prices.

We know that oil company profits have never been higher.

We know that the President, Vice President, and many in Congress have enjoyed at one time or another very profitable relationships with oil companies and oil-related services.

We know that, contrary to promises, we have been unable to steal Iraqi oil to pay for the war.

Further:

We know that American forces in Iraq were not welcomed as liberators, but rather, were disdained as neo-colonialist occupiers.

We know that Iraqis consider themselves worse off now than they ever were under Saddam.

Further:

We know that the Bush Administration has threatened war against Iran—in a way that some believe points to an inevitable conflict with Iran—despite CIA reports asserting that Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.

We know that, like before with Iraq, America is trying to lay blame for 9/11 once again on someone else, this time Iran.

Further:

We know that the Administration has changed its story several times about why we went to war in Iraq.

We know that no one really tries to explain any more why we went to war; they only try to argue that the “surge is working.”

We know that the prevailing argument for remaining at war is that death and destruction will somehow increase if we stop killing and destroying.

Further:

We know that there has been gross corruption and financial mismanagement of resources by American contractors.

We know that contractors, soldiers, and Marines have, many times and without apparent consequences, killed Iraqis without any reason approaching just cause.

Further:

We know that the Administration officials sent to oversee the initial occupation and reconstruction efforts were ideological lackeys with very little in the way of relevant knowledge or experience.

We know that American officials at the highest levels failed to execute competently the war for at least the first four years, arguably five.

We know that President Bush today is giving a speech at the Pentagon in which he’ll say: “Despite the cost to lives and treasure, it was worth it.” We know that he will say that the war can be won. That we are winning the war. That we should win the war. That we must win the war. That we will win the war. One wonders, really, whether someone will pull him unkempt and whimpering out of a spider hole someday, “…But he tried to kill my daddy…!”

Further:

We know that military recruiters are lying to young men and women, threatening them with a “future draft” that can only be avoided through enlistment.

We know that our military men and women, especially our National Guard and Reserve units, have not received adequate preparation or equipment for the conditions in which they fight.

We know that enlistment and deployment dates are arbitrary, that “stop-loss” orders keep the same soldiers at war for durations longer than previous conflicts.

We know that our service personnel are spending years on end at war and that many return dead, wounded, and psychologically damaged.

We know that our government does not provide sufficient care to returnees suffering all manner of casualties.

We know that flags fly at half-mast an awful lot in Michigan, and that they do so even more frequently in many other states.

In other words, we know an awful lot about this war.

We know that this war is not about democracy. It’s about lies and deceit.

We know this war is not about freedom. It’s about control and manipulation.

We know this war has made some people very wealthy and others very poor.

We know that working class and middle class Americans are paying a disproportionate cost for this war with their lives and pocketbooks.

Further:

We know that we cannot afford to continue to spend billions daily in Iraq.

We know that we’re financing this war by selling Treasury securities to the Chinese.

We know that America cannot and will not do anything about China’s ongoing crackdown in Tibet or ethnic cleansing in the Sudan because we have no moral high ground, or even, the desire or capability to combat effectively tyranny beyond narrow, capitalist interests.

Further:

We know that the War in Iraq and the so-called War on Terror has led us to support dictators in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.

We know that the so-called War on Terror has been used to justify deployment of a missile defense system in Europe.

We know that developing the missile defense system and other advanced capabilities has reignited an arms race with China and Russia.

We know that most people in the world now recognize that we are not a freedom and peace loving people.

We know that most people in the world no longer believe the myth that America values, promotes, and protects democracy.

Further:

We know that we torture and sometimes kill prisoners.

We know that we illegally kidnap American and foreign citizens, forcing them on tortuous, secret renditions, with some cases involving instances of mistaken identity.

We know that we maintain secret prisons and violate Geneva Conventions.

We know that America, beyond the war narrowly defined, has more people behind bars per capita than any other nation in the world.

We know that the War on Terror writ large is one that has invaded our privacy, led to civil rights abuses of everyday Americans by the FBI, and resulted in false charges and imprisonment.

We know that under the guise of creating “Fortress America,” we have seen a slow erosion of civil liberties such that it’s not inappropriate to start calling ourselves “Prison America.”

Thusly, finally:

We know that the War in Iraq has been, in effect, a war against us, and further, that it is a war against freedom and peace loving people everywhere.

And that’s the message I want to end with here: If you love peace, if you love freedom, you need to recognize this simple fact—your own government is waging war against you right now. This is not a “government by and for the people.” This is a government against the people. So it’s time to stand up. It’s time put these aggressors in their place. Recognize! I ain’t no Paul Revere! But you’re at war! You love liberty. You love freedom. So fight! Fight! Fight!