January 30, 2005
Quote Of The Moment #0087
We are suffering from many crises: lack of food, electricity and fuel. It was bad enough under Saddam but now it is 10 times worse. I graduated from college but I have to work as a taxi driver and I do not have enough money even to buy shoes.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:05 AM
| Comments (1)
From the recent Rolling Stone interview with Paul Krugman:
What do you mean? Those who are pushing privatization say that our financial markets are one of our greatest strengths -- that private investment will work better in the long run than government-managed accounts with lower rates of return.
There are two problems with that. First, the fees charged on private accounts will be a significant drain on returns. In a typical portfolio, we're probably looking at a return of four percent. But fees are likely to take at least one percent, like they do in Britain. So now we're down to a return of three percent or less on private accounts. And since Bush wants to borrow $2 trillion to pay for the transition, we're talking about borrowing at interest rates of three percent to establish private accounts that will yield three percent -- with a lot of additional risk. So it's a lose-lose proposition, except for the mutual-fund industry.
The second problem with the market is that some people -- probably many people -- will end up getting much less than they would have under the current system, depending on which funds they pick and how the market does. A lot of people will hit age sixty-five with very little in their private account -- and that means a big return of poverty among the elderly, which is exactly what's happening in Britain right now. As a result, the government will have to step back in and rescue people. We'll have more suffering and bigger bills. People will ask: Where did all that money go? The answer will be: It basically went into mutual-fund fees.
But what if stocks do well? Isn't it possible that privatization would work?
The only possible way that stock returns can be high enough to make privatization work is if the U.S. economy grows at three to four percent a year for the next fifty years. But Social Security's own trustees expect the economy's growth rate to slow to 1.8 percent. If that happens -- if their own assumptions are correct -- then privatization would be a disaster. And if that doesn't happen -- if the economy continues to grow at a steady rate -- then the trust fund is good for the rest of the century, and we don't need privatization.
By the way, while Krugman's dissection of the politics Social Security "crisis" has been very helpful, even he hasn't (to my knowledge) mentioned a basic logical flaw of the Bush Administration's argument.
To wit, if the Administration's proposals are borne from the President's "ownership" evangelism, why does the Federal Government need to interact with Wall Street at all. If we wanted to do away with Social Security, we could simply cash out all workers an amount based upon the annual update sent to us each year -- with nothing off the top from Wall Street. Then, citizens would be free to spend that money as they wished (and, of course, the FICA deduction would no longer be taken from one's paycheck).
This blog isn't advocating such a measure. Merely, just saying that it seems to be the simplest way to achieve the President's goals -- that is, if they are what they say he is, rather that what they appear to be (i.e., a massive gift to Wall Street brokerage houses).
Update, 2/3/05: More from Krugman:
Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.
They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: If the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come.
Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.
It's an argument that Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer has been making for many a year.
January 28, 2005
In A Nutshell
From the recent Rolling Stone interview with Paul Krugman:
What do you mean? Those who are pushing privatization say that our financial markets are one of our greatest strengths -- that private investment will work better in the long run than government-managed accounts with lower rates of return.
There are two problems with that. First, the fees charged on private accounts will be a significant drain on returns. In a typical portfolio, we're probably looking at a return of four percent. But fees are likely to take at least one percent, like they do in Britain. So now we're down to a return of three percent or less on private accounts. And since Bush wants to borrow $2 trillion to pay for the transition, we're talking about borrowing at interest rates of three percent to establish private accounts that will yield three percent -- with a lot of additional risk. So it's a lose-lose proposition, except for the mutual-fund industry.
The second problem with the market is that some people -- probably many people -- will end up getting much less than they would have under the current system, depending on which funds they pick and how the market does. A lot of people will hit age sixty-five with very little in their private account -- and that means a big return of poverty among the elderly, which is exactly what's happening in Britain right now. As a result, the government will have to step back in and rescue people. We'll have more suffering and bigger bills. People will ask: Where did all that money go? The answer will be: It basically went into mutual-fund fees.
But what if stocks do well? Isn't it possible that privatization would work?
The only possible way that stock returns can be high enough to make privatization work is if the U.S. economy grows at three to four percent a year for the next fifty years. But Social Security's own trustees expect the economy's growth rate to slow to 1.8 percent. If that happens -- if their own assumptions are correct -- then privatization would be a disaster. And if that doesn't happen -- if the economy continues to grow at a steady rate -- then the trust fund is good for the rest of the century, and we don't need privatization.
By the way, while Krugman's dissection of the politics Social Security "crisis" has been very helpful, even he hasn't (to my knowledge) mentioned a basic logical flaw of the Bush Administration's argument.
To wit, if the Administration's proposals are borne from the President's "ownership" evangelism, why does the Federal Government need to interact with Wall Street at all. If we wanted to do away with Social Security, we could simply cash out all workers an amount based upon the annual update sent to us each year -- with nothing off the top from Wall Street. Then, citizens would be free to spend that money as they wished (and, of course, the FICA deduction would no longer be taken from one's paycheck).
This blog isn't advocating such a measure. Merely, just saying that it seems to be the simplest way to achieve the President's goals -- that is, if they are what they say he is, rather that what they appear to be (i.e., a massive gift to Wall Street brokerage houses).
Update, 2/3/05: More from Krugman:
Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.
They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: If the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come.
Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.
It's an argument that Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer has been making for many a year.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:22 PM
| Comments (1)
During Dubya's January 26 Press Conference, his reaction to the news of the Iraq helicopter crash was that "any time we lose life it is a sad moment."
Yet the transcript notes nine times that the President's words elicited laughter (and an additional three times that a correspondent's words did the same). Rather a jocular mood for what one might have thought would be rather a somber day, no?
Kinda reminds one of the President's fist-pumping prior to his speech announcing the invasion of Iraq.
For George Bush, it's all a big video game -- or so it would seem. Maybe, just maybe, rather than working on his comedy routine, the President ought to spend some time trying to figure out how to get the troops out of "harm's way".
January 27, 2005
Tears Of Joy
During Dubya's January 26 Press Conference, his reaction to the news of the Iraq helicopter crash was that "any time we lose life it is a sad moment."
Yet the transcript notes nine times that the President's words elicited laughter (and an additional three times that a correspondent's words did the same). Rather a jocular mood for what one might have thought would be rather a somber day, no?
Kinda reminds one of the President's fist-pumping prior to his speech announcing the invasion of Iraq.
For George Bush, it's all a big video game -- or so it would seem. Maybe, just maybe, rather than working on his comedy routine, the President ought to spend some time trying to figure out how to get the troops out of "harm's way".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:40 PM
| Comments (0)
Q Do you see [the Inaugural Address] as a policy shift?
THE PRESIDENT: No, as I said, it reflects the policy of the past, but it sets a bold, new goal for the future.
Uhhhh...
A Confused Little Man
Q Do you see [the Inaugural Address] as a policy shift?
THE PRESIDENT: No, as I said, it reflects the policy of the past, but it sets a bold, new goal for the future.
Uhhhh...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:20 PM
| Comments (0)
The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.
Is This What The Bush Administration Means By "Diplomacy"?
The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:04 AM
| Comments (0)
In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. [...]
But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. [...]
"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.
So this is the second such disclosure. How many more to come? And how many were paid to pimp the Bush Administration's war in Iraq? Time will tell.
But in the meanwhile, if you need another reason to refuse to pay your Federal Income Taxes, try this one on for size: your tax dollars are being used to propagandise yourself.
Update, 7/27/05: The buck stops...somewhere else:
And as fresh evidence surfaced this week of the Bush administration's use of taxpayer dollars to promote its policies in the news media, the president admonished his Cabinet secretaries not to pay columnists to advance his agenda.
"Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," he said, adding that he expects Cabinet secretaries "make sure that that practice doesn't go forward."
Also, it looks like Bush needs to get all DARPA on his own ass, before worrying about retrieving "total information" regarding this country's citizens:
The president also said the White House had been unaware that the Education Department paid commentator and columnist Armstrong Williams $240,000 to plug its policies. That contract became known two weeks ago.
January 26, 2005
Prostitutes On Parade
In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. [...]
But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. [...]
"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.
So this is the second such disclosure. How many more to come? And how many were paid to pimp the Bush Administration's war in Iraq? Time will tell.
But in the meanwhile, if you need another reason to refuse to pay your Federal Income Taxes, try this one on for size: your tax dollars are being used to propagandise yourself.
Update, 7/27/05: The buck stops...somewhere else:
And as fresh evidence surfaced this week of the Bush administration's use of taxpayer dollars to promote its policies in the news media, the president admonished his Cabinet secretaries not to pay columnists to advance his agenda.
"Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," he said, adding that he expects Cabinet secretaries "make sure that that practice doesn't go forward."
Also, it looks like Bush needs to get all DARPA on his own ass, before worrying about retrieving "total information" regarding this country's citizens:
The president also said the White House had been unaware that the Education Department paid commentator and columnist Armstrong Williams $240,000 to plug its policies. That contract became known two weeks ago.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:39 PM
| Comments (0)
Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces.
In more than 200 pages of written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who plan to vote Wednesday on his nomination, Gonzales told senators that laws and treaties prohibit torture by any U.S. agent without exception.
But he said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere.
Furthermore,
He warned that any public discussion about interrogation tactics would help al-Qaida terrorists by giving them "a road map" of what to expect when captured.
Er, pardoning my ignorance, but, isn't that the point?
Essentially, Gonzales (and the Bush Administration at large) is arguing that "terrorists" (that is to say, any persons we choose to label as "terrorists") are sub-human, and therefore not deserving of human rights.
So, "Security Detainees" in Iraq (something on the order of 70% of whom are not guilty even of the "crime" of resisting the U.S. occupation) can be tortured at will -- so long as we define any person we plan to torture as a "terrorist" and so long as we define our activities as something other than "torture" (particularly easy to do when the Attorney General refuses "to be drawn into a discussion of tactics that might constitute torture").
Same goes for the Guantanamo detainees: they're terrorists, we don't engage in torture. Q.E.D..
This type of practice is more less the very definition of "barbarism". But what more could we expect from a country that could murder four million Indochinese for the sake of proving to the world its "credibility" as a world hegemon?
Nevertheless, one can't help wonder (again) just how, in this light, the Administration expects that captured Americans shall be treated?
Or, at a further remove, just how such practices (and the even more barbaric practice of high-altitude bombing, and the leveling of whole cities) are supposed to reduce the likelihood of "asymmetric" responses (by the weak) and the establishment of similar "doctrines" (by the powerful)?
As a practical matter, that is -- never minding (for the sake of argument) the hypocrisy and immorality of the "War On Terror" and its associated "battles".
Nor, Apparently, Do Our "Moral Values"
Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces.
In more than 200 pages of written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who plan to vote Wednesday on his nomination, Gonzales told senators that laws and treaties prohibit torture by any U.S. agent without exception.
But he said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere.
Furthermore,
He warned that any public discussion about interrogation tactics would help al-Qaida terrorists by giving them "a road map" of what to expect when captured.
Er, pardoning my ignorance, but, isn't that the point?
Essentially, Gonzales (and the Bush Administration at large) is arguing that "terrorists" (that is to say, any persons we choose to label as "terrorists") are sub-human, and therefore not deserving of human rights.
So, "Security Detainees" in Iraq (something on the order of 70% of whom are not guilty even of the "crime" of resisting the U.S. occupation) can be tortured at will -- so long as we define any person we plan to torture as a "terrorist" and so long as we define our activities as something other than "torture" (particularly easy to do when the Attorney General refuses "to be drawn into a discussion of tactics that might constitute torture").
Same goes for the Guantanamo detainees: they're terrorists, we don't engage in torture. Q.E.D..
This type of practice is more less the very definition of "barbarism". But what more could we expect from a country that could murder four million Indochinese for the sake of proving to the world its "credibility" as a world hegemon?
Nevertheless, one can't help wonder (again) just how, in this light, the Administration expects that captured Americans shall be treated?
Or, at a further remove, just how such practices (and the even more barbaric practice of high-altitude bombing, and the leveling of whole cities) are supposed to reduce the likelihood of "asymmetric" responses (by the weak) and the establishment of similar "doctrines" (by the powerful)?
As a practical matter, that is -- never minding (for the sake of argument) the hypocrisy and immorality of the "War On Terror" and its associated "battles".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:19 PM
| Comments (0)
Three days after President George Bush warned non-democratic regimes that they cannot continue to hold sway for long, his aides rushed to assure America's allies that his new agenda will not affect U.S. relations with countries like Pakistan. [...]
Diplomatic circles in Washington told Dawn that Middle Eastern and Muslim missions in the U.S. capital also spent an uneasy weekend, trying to figure out how serious the Bush administration was in taking "the fire of freedom to the darkest corners of our world," as President Bush vowed to do in his inaugural speech.
By Sunday evening, the Bush administration had fully realized the intended and unintended consequences of the speech and was busy assuring America's allies that this change would not affect them.
At a series of background briefings for American and foreign journalists, senior Bush officials made it clear that the speech will not lead to "any shift in Washington's strategy for dealing with countries like Pakistan, Egypt, China and Russia."
A senior Bush administration official said that although the records of these countries on human rights and democracy fell well short of the values Mr. Bush expressed in his speech, Washington would not forget that they were "key U.S. allies in the fight against terrorism." [...]
"We intend to stand on the side of change and try to help people move it along," he added, giving an explanation more acceptable to America's non-democratic allies. Another official said the United States could not ignore "unique histories, cultures and traditions" of other nations while trying to push for democratic changes.
January 23, 2005
And On The Third Day: "Principles" vs. Politics
Three days after President George Bush warned non-democratic regimes that they cannot continue to hold sway for long, his aides rushed to assure America's allies that his new agenda will not affect U.S. relations with countries like Pakistan. [...]
Diplomatic circles in Washington told Dawn that Middle Eastern and Muslim missions in the U.S. capital also spent an uneasy weekend, trying to figure out how serious the Bush administration was in taking "the fire of freedom to the darkest corners of our world," as President Bush vowed to do in his inaugural speech.
By Sunday evening, the Bush administration had fully realized the intended and unintended consequences of the speech and was busy assuring America's allies that this change would not affect them.
At a series of background briefings for American and foreign journalists, senior Bush officials made it clear that the speech will not lead to "any shift in Washington's strategy for dealing with countries like Pakistan, Egypt, China and Russia."
A senior Bush administration official said that although the records of these countries on human rights and democracy fell well short of the values Mr. Bush expressed in his speech, Washington would not forget that they were "key U.S. allies in the fight against terrorism." [...]
"We intend to stand on the side of change and try to help people move it along," he added, giving an explanation more acceptable to America's non-democratic allies. Another official said the United States could not ignore "unique histories, cultures and traditions" of other nations while trying to push for democratic changes.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:12 PM
| Comments (1)
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told an international conference attended by 114 governments in Mauritius this month that he personally believes that the world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in the pollution if humanity is to "survive".
His comments rocked the Bush administration -- which immediately tried to slap him down -- not least because it put him in his post after Exxon, the major oil company most opposed to international action on global warming, complained that his predecessor was too "aggressive" on the issue. [...]
He added that, because of inertia built into the Earth's natural systems, the world was now only experiencing the result of pollution emitted in the 1960s, and much greater effects would occur as the increased pollution of later decades worked its way through. He concluded: "We are risking the ability of the human race to survive."
Are You Still Driving That Motor-Car?
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told an international conference attended by 114 governments in Mauritius this month that he personally believes that the world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in the pollution if humanity is to "survive".
His comments rocked the Bush administration -- which immediately tried to slap him down -- not least because it put him in his post after Exxon, the major oil company most opposed to international action on global warming, complained that his predecessor was too "aggressive" on the issue. [...]
He added that, because of inertia built into the Earth's natural systems, the world was now only experiencing the result of pollution emitted in the 1960s, and much greater effects would occur as the increased pollution of later decades worked its way through. He concluded: "We are risking the ability of the human race to survive."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:49 AM
| Comments (0)
By sometime in December 2003, I came to the conclusion that WMD weren't there and that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and now I'm left with all that I'd experienced in Iraq and nothing to balance it. When I came to that conclusion, I felt this sense of betrayal. I was full of rage and depression. Who I was before the war, who I was in Iraq and who I am now are three very different men. I don't think I can ever have the blind trust in the government like I had before. I think that my being over in Iraq as an active participant, I'm a bit more responsible than others for things there. And I think by speaking out now, it's my amends. I don't know if it will ever balance. -- Marine Corporal Sean Huze
Quote Of The Moment #0086
By sometime in December 2003, I came to the conclusion that WMD weren't there and that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and now I'm left with all that I'd experienced in Iraq and nothing to balance it. When I came to that conclusion, I felt this sense of betrayal. I was full of rage and depression. Who I was before the war, who I was in Iraq and who I am now are three very different men. I don't think I can ever have the blind trust in the government like I had before. I think that my being over in Iraq as an active participant, I'm a bit more responsible than others for things there. And I think by speaking out now, it's my amends. I don't know if it will ever balance. -- Marine Corporal Sean Huze
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:58 AM
| Comments (0)
"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it." -- Dick Cheney, explaining (in this blogger's estimation -- see the comments) why the United States might be forced to attack Iran before Israel does
At this time, Iran having been elevated to "top threat" status, it might be useful to revive the ol' "Threat-O-Meter", first posted here back in September.
The United States has condemned Iran as a threat to global peace with its plans to process 37 tonnes of raw uranium, which one nuclear expert says could eventually yield material for five atomic bombs.
So, let's update our threat stats.
Nuclear Weapons "Stockpile": Iran -- 5 (pending) USA -- 10,455
Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted: Iran -- 0 USA -- 1,054
"Useable" Nuclear Weapons Programme? Iran -- No USA -- Yes
Used Nuclear Weapons in Combat? Iran -- No USA -- Yes (additionally, uses Depleted and/or non-Depleted Uranium munitions in combat)
Regularly Uses other Banned Weapons in Combat? Iran -- No USA -- Yes
Nuclear "Posture": Iran -- "Tehran insists the only purpose of its nuclear programme is the peaceful generation of electricity." USA -- "Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense [sic] capabilities of the United States, its allies, and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats [sic], including WMD and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important to achieve strategic and political objectives."
Major Military "Interventions", January 2001 - Present: Iran -- 0 USA -- 2 (does not include Colombia, Venezuela, Haiti, Philippines)
Major Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present: Iran -- 0 USA -- 8 (Depending upon one's definition of "major". Let's call it: Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq.)
Major and Minor Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present: Iran -- 1 (including 0 against USA) USA -- 74, give or take (including 5 against Iran)
People Killed in Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present: Iran -- Fewer than 500 USA -- Several millions
Fiscal 2004 Military Expenditures: Iran -- $4.8 Billion (2001 funding) USA -- $399.1 Billion (depending upon how you're counting)
Foreign Military Bases: Iran -- 0 USA -- 58 countries
"Axis of Evil" Shit-List? Iran -- No (USA is not on list) USA -- Yes (Iran is on list)
We will further update these stats as events require.
January 21, 2005
Quote Of The Millennium!
"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it." -- Dick Cheney, explaining (in this blogger's estimation -- see the comments) why the United States might be forced to attack Iran before Israel does
At this time, Iran having been elevated to "top threat" status, it might be useful to revive the ol' "Threat-O-Meter", first posted here back in September.
The United States has condemned Iran as a threat to global peace with its plans to process 37 tonnes of raw uranium, which one nuclear expert says could eventually yield material for five atomic bombs.
So, let's update our threat stats.
Nuclear Weapons "Stockpile": Iran -- 5 (pending) USA -- 10,455
Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted: Iran -- 0 USA -- 1,054
"Useable" Nuclear Weapons Programme? Iran -- No USA -- Yes
Used Nuclear Weapons in Combat? Iran -- No USA -- Yes (additionally, uses Depleted and/or non-Depleted Uranium munitions in combat)
Regularly Uses other Banned Weapons in Combat? Iran -- No USA -- Yes
Nuclear "Posture": Iran -- "Tehran insists the only purpose of its nuclear programme is the peaceful generation of electricity." USA -- "Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense [sic] capabilities of the United States, its allies, and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats [sic], including WMD and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important to achieve strategic and political objectives."
Major Military "Interventions", January 2001 - Present: Iran -- 0 USA -- 2 (does not include Colombia, Venezuela, Haiti, Philippines)
Major Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present: Iran -- 0 USA -- 8 (Depending upon one's definition of "major". Let's call it: Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq.)
Major and Minor Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present: Iran -- 1 (including 0 against USA) USA -- 74, give or take (including 5 against Iran)
People Killed in Military "Interventions", August 1945 - Present: Iran -- Fewer than 500 USA -- Several millions
Fiscal 2004 Military Expenditures: Iran -- $4.8 Billion (2001 funding) USA -- $399.1 Billion (depending upon how you're counting)
Foreign Military Bases: Iran -- 0 USA -- 58 countries
"Axis of Evil" Shit-List? Iran -- No (USA is not on list) USA -- Yes (Iran is on list)
We will further update these stats as events require.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:22 PM
| Comments (3)
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
Spreading Freedom, One Nigger At A Time
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:08 PM
| Comments (2)
So says a Pentagon adviser, to Seymour Hersh, in regards to Donald H. Rumsfeld's authority to "act swiftly, decisively, and lethally" in the so-called "War On Terror".
Given his record of incompetence in attempting to do so in Afghanistan and Iraq, Lord knows why the Bush Administration would ever consider entrusting to Rumsfeld to the task of "rolling up" the world's "terrorists".
And Lord knows how the President thinks that given H. Rumsfeld the authority to destroy any living being anywhere in the world is any different from bin Laden's mandate to his followers.
And Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence Di Rita's response is kind of interesting.
The only civilians in the chain-of-command are the President and the Secretary of Defense, despite Mr. Hersh’s confident assertion that the chain of command now includes two Department policy officials. His assertion is outrageous, and Constitutionally specious.
We'll give Di Rita the benefit of the doubt and assume he'd had a long night when he penned the phrase "Constitutionally specious", rather than "Constitutionally dubious".
But, uh, when in the fuck has the Bush Administration ever worried about the Constitutional dubiousness of its activities? Two glaringly germane counter-examples of which all the world is only too aware leap immediately to mind.
First, of course, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, conducted without UN authority were obvious violations of International Law (which supersedes the Constitution).
Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Guantanamo detentions are unconstitutional (not that the Bush Administration has taken heed of the ruling).
The Pentagon's indignant response only heightens the likelihood that Hersh's reporting is more less accurate. But if it would like to assuage concerns, the Pentagon need merely to provide a full line-item accounting of the its budget.
Begin holding your breath...NOW!
January 17, 2005
"It's A Global Free-Fire Zone"
So says a Pentagon adviser, to Seymour Hersh, in regards to Donald H. Rumsfeld's authority to "act swiftly, decisively, and lethally" in the so-called "War On Terror".
Given his record of incompetence in attempting to do so in Afghanistan and Iraq, Lord knows why the Bush Administration would ever consider entrusting to Rumsfeld to the task of "rolling up" the world's "terrorists".
And Lord knows how the President thinks that given H. Rumsfeld the authority to destroy any living being anywhere in the world is any different from bin Laden's mandate to his followers.
And Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence Di Rita's response is kind of interesting.
The only civilians in the chain-of-command are the President and the Secretary of Defense, despite Mr. Hersh’s confident assertion that the chain of command now includes two Department policy officials. His assertion is outrageous, and Constitutionally specious.
We'll give Di Rita the benefit of the doubt and assume he'd had a long night when he penned the phrase "Constitutionally specious", rather than "Constitutionally dubious".
But, uh, when in the fuck has the Bush Administration ever worried about the Constitutional dubiousness of its activities? Two glaringly germane counter-examples of which all the world is only too aware leap immediately to mind.
First, of course, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, conducted without UN authority were obvious violations of International Law (which supersedes the Constitution).
Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Guantanamo detentions are unconstitutional (not that the Bush Administration has taken heed of the ruling).
The Pentagon's indignant response only heightens the likelihood that Hersh's reporting is more less accurate. But if it would like to assuage concerns, the Pentagon need merely to provide a full line-item accounting of the its budget.
Begin holding your breath...NOW!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:19 PM
| Comments (0)
You can sit around your house and discuss this thing in abstract terms, but until you see and experience it for yourself, you just don't know how bad it is. How is it an honorable thing to teach a kid how to look through the sights of a rifle and kill another human being? War is the ultimate in violence and it is indiscriminate. -- Sgt. Kevin Benderman, refusing to deploy for a second tour in Iraq
More from Benderman:
We, in America refer to ourselves as civilized and people from other countries still living the simple life are backwards and un-civilized, but what is civil about the capability to create atomic weapons? What is civil about being able to kill over 100,000 people with just one bomb? We may be more technologically advanced but are we more civilized? I think the answer is no. War has to be considered the absolute enemy of mankind. Where we would be without it? I would presume that we as a nation would be out of debt if we were to apply as much energy to pursuing sound economics as we do pursuing war, we would never get sick if we spent as much on preventive medicine as we do on war, the elderly would get affordable prescription medication if we were to use the resources that are spent on war to work for that purpose, there would not be un educated children if we were to buy new classrooms and books for schools instead of new weapons systems, social security would be a lot more secure with some of the money that war costs.
January 13, 2005
Quote Of The Moment #0085
You can sit around your house and discuss this thing in abstract terms, but until you see and experience it for yourself, you just don't know how bad it is. How is it an honorable thing to teach a kid how to look through the sights of a rifle and kill another human being? War is the ultimate in violence and it is indiscriminate. -- Sgt. Kevin Benderman, refusing to deploy for a second tour in Iraq
More from Benderman:
We, in America refer to ourselves as civilized and people from other countries still living the simple life are backwards and un-civilized, but what is civil about the capability to create atomic weapons? What is civil about being able to kill over 100,000 people with just one bomb? We may be more technologically advanced but are we more civilized? I think the answer is no. War has to be considered the absolute enemy of mankind. Where we would be without it? I would presume that we as a nation would be out of debt if we were to apply as much energy to pursuing sound economics as we do pursuing war, we would never get sick if we spent as much on preventive medicine as we do on war, the elderly would get affordable prescription medication if we were to use the resources that are spent on war to work for that purpose, there would not be un educated children if we were to buy new classrooms and books for schools instead of new weapons systems, social security would be a lot more secure with some of the money that war costs.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:55 PM
| Comments (0)
You know what Dubya says about trial lawyers...
A lawyer for Charles Graner, accused ringleader in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, on Monday compared piling naked prisoners into pyramids to cheerleader shows and said leashing inmates was also acceptable prisoner control. [...]
"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?"
Where did he come up with the "six to eight times a year" figure? This is one of the more bizarre statements of recent memory. Did he research this? One would think that they would form pyramids six to eight times a week, just in practice.
Anyway, while scantily clad, American cheerleaders are presumably not naked when forming their human pyramids, and presumably not forced at gun-point into doing so, and presumably it's not done as a form of degradation in the hopes of breaking the cheerleaders' wills.
Womack said using a tether was a valid method of controlling detainees. "You're keeping control of them. A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections," he said. "In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there."
Is he a lawyer, or a comedian? Or is he drunk?
Apart from saying the methods were not illegal, Graner's defense is that he was following orders. "He was doing his job. Following orders and being praised for it," Womack told the court, adding later that Graner would testify in the case.
Trying to have his cake and eat it too. But he may have forgotten George Bush's admonition to the Iraqis:
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
It's pretty clear that the torture policies emanated from Rumsfeld's office, and were authorised by the President. So, those are the primary war criminals, if we accept the Nuremberg Principles (and since we established the Principles, we probably should oughta believe in them):
Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
But, as Bush noted, this doesn't absolve Graner of his crimes:
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Womack tried to establish that civilian intelligence officers and others wanted the guards to maltreat prisoners to get information.
Again, why would he try to establish this if the activities weren't illegal?
And while this is the angle the Bad Apples' attorneys should be pursuing (even though it wouldn't absolve the Apples), the ultimate crimes still are recognised not as crimes, but as heroic deeds: invading and occupying a sovereign country, deploying banned weapons (depleted uranium, cluster bombs, napalm), killing 100,000 people, bombing populated areas, razing cities to the ground, failing to protect civilian infrastructure, failing to respect civil liberties.
These crimes aren't even recognised as such with regards to Korea and Vietnam, let alone Iraq and Afghanistan. So we've yet a long ways to go before we can truly claim the mantle of "civilised". But if we keep trying, perhaps we'll get there someday.
January 11, 2005
Let Him Dangle
You know what Dubya says about trial lawyers...
A lawyer for Charles Graner, accused ringleader in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, on Monday compared piling naked prisoners into pyramids to cheerleader shows and said leashing inmates was also acceptable prisoner control. [...]
"Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?"
Where did he come up with the "six to eight times a year" figure? This is one of the more bizarre statements of recent memory. Did he research this? One would think that they would form pyramids six to eight times a week, just in practice.
Anyway, while scantily clad, American cheerleaders are presumably not naked when forming their human pyramids, and presumably not forced at gun-point into doing so, and presumably it's not done as a form of degradation in the hopes of breaking the cheerleaders' wills.
Womack said using a tether was a valid method of controlling detainees. "You're keeping control of them. A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections," he said. "In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there."
Is he a lawyer, or a comedian? Or is he drunk?
Apart from saying the methods were not illegal, Graner's defense is that he was following orders. "He was doing his job. Following orders and being praised for it," Womack told the court, adding later that Graner would testify in the case.
Trying to have his cake and eat it too. But he may have forgotten George Bush's admonition to the Iraqis:
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
It's pretty clear that the torture policies emanated from Rumsfeld's office, and were authorised by the President. So, those are the primary war criminals, if we accept the Nuremberg Principles (and since we established the Principles, we probably should oughta believe in them):
Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
But, as Bush noted, this doesn't absolve Graner of his crimes:
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Womack tried to establish that civilian intelligence officers and others wanted the guards to maltreat prisoners to get information.
Again, why would he try to establish this if the activities weren't illegal?
And while this is the angle the Bad Apples' attorneys should be pursuing (even though it wouldn't absolve the Apples), the ultimate crimes still are recognised not as crimes, but as heroic deeds: invading and occupying a sovereign country, deploying banned weapons (depleted uranium, cluster bombs, napalm), killing 100,000 people, bombing populated areas, razing cities to the ground, failing to protect civilian infrastructure, failing to respect civil liberties.
These crimes aren't even recognised as such with regards to Korea and Vietnam, let alone Iraq and Afghanistan. So we've yet a long ways to go before we can truly claim the mantle of "civilised". But if we keep trying, perhaps we'll get there someday.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:36 AM
| Comments (0)
Asked on Friday whether he shared Scowcroft's concerns about civil war, Bush said: "Quite the opposite."
"I think elections will be such an incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people," he said.
The Boy In The Bubble
Asked on Friday whether he shared Scowcroft's concerns about civil war, Bush said: "Quite the opposite."
"I think elections will be such an incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people," he said.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:56 AM
| Comments (1)
They're getting there, it looks like, as
U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican and close ally of President Bush, says the United States should consider pulling out of war-ravaged Iraq.
No word on whether he thinks we should then consider paying reparations.
Turns out Coble is "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq."
He's apparently not fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading the we've killed another five or ten or twenty of Iraq's young men and women in Iraq. But hey, give him time.
January 10, 2005
Republicans Ready To Cut-And-Run?
They're getting there, it looks like, as
U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican and close ally of President Bush, says the United States should consider pulling out of war-ravaged Iraq.
No word on whether he thinks we should then consider paying reparations.
Turns out Coble is "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq."
He's apparently not fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading the we've killed another five or ten or twenty of Iraq's young men and women in Iraq. But hey, give him time.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:47 PM
| Comments (0)
The United States has been accused from at least three different quarters of committing genocide in Iraq.
The charge was first laid by a bureaucrat: former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday, in 2000; arguing that the Anglo-American oil-for-food shenanigans were a "deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq".
In November of last year, a soldier, 12-year Marine veteran Jimmy Massey echoed Halliday:
A recent study estimated the number of Iraqi deaths since the start of the war in March 2003 at around 100,000. When asked if this number seemed accurate, Massey responded:
"Yes, but that of course does not include the thousands more who will be dying from disease because of a lack of medical supplies, clean water, or proper sanitation. It does not include the hundreds of thousands that died in Iraq before the war even began from the sanctions. We are committing genocide in Iraq, and that is the intention."
In the same month, a civilian, Iraqi blogger Riverbend, in reaction to the savage assault upon Fallujah, minced no words: "Iraqis will never forgive this, never. It's outrageous. It's genocide, and America -- with the help and support of Allawi -- is responsible."
That three people from disparate walks of life -- but all of whom have seen the results of American policies up-close -- would charge the United States of committing genocide should give us an idea of the realities on the ground in Iraq. Whether or not we want to use that specific word to categorise the policies, the magnitude of the injustice being perpetrated in our names is (at least, for those with eyes to see) incontrovertible.
* * *
Meanwhile, the website costofwar.com is tracking the monetary cost of the war in Iraq. At this writing, it tots up to just over $149 Billion -- and rising at the rate of about $1,500 per second.
Not-so-coincidentally, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has let it be known that, "The governors must expect flat funding on everything other than homeland security and defense. Not just the governors, but the American people."
More recently, we learn that:
Congressional aides have been told to expect virtually the same level of spending in fiscal 2006 as this year in programs not connected to defense and homeland security. This fiscal year, those domestic programs grew by a slim 0.8 percentage point, and Bush plans to be even tighter, ensuring that spending will not keep up with inflation in most domestic programs. [Emphasis added.] [...]
"We have to find the money somewhere to [avert the president's proposed cuts], and I don't know how you find it if everything is tighter than a drum," said one House Appropriations Committee aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They are on the warpath."
You don't know how to find it? How about programs "connected to defense and homeland security"? How about repealing the President's tax cuts, instead of making them permanent?
The chutzpah is pretty stunning, isn't it? The Bush Administration undertook the tax cuts, and then undertook the multi-hundred-billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq (knowing full well that Iraq posed absolutely zero threat -- "imminent" or otherwise -- even to its own neighbours, let alone to the United States). Yet, it's the Administration that is now "on the warpath" against fiscal irresponsibility? Okaaaaaaaay...
Oh-by-the-way: among those "entitlements" not expected to keep pace with inflation? You guessed it: "...agriculture, veterans, and science..." [Emphasis added.] At least the cat's officially out of the bag: Veterans are "not connected to defense and homeland security".
* * *
Meanwhile, the President has set as his top priority for his second term the privatisation of Social Security; and has appointed a panel to "craft proposals...that could become the groundwork for Bush's bid to overhaul the nation's complex tax code."
Would you like some input into the process? Go ahead and contact your representative -- and see how rigorously your recommendations are taken into account.
* * *
Meanwhile, Seymour Hersh is reporting that the Administration has "consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state," and that, "The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia."
While the Proles (nor Congress) will never be consulted about, or indeed even be informed about, these operations, rest assured that we will be expected to finance them.
* * *
Meanwhile, if you don't approve of an ever-more-regressive tax code, and don't approve of the uses to which your tax dollars are put, and don't approve of being written off as merely a member of a "focus group" whose opinions account for naught; go ahead and raise a stink.
The state will be only too happy to bash your skull up real good, as it did (for example) to protesters in Miami in November of 2003 -- in what Miami Mayor Manny Diaz called "a model for homeland security".
So if you're opposed to Taxation Without Representation, and you're opposed to getting your skull bashed up real good, what's to do? How about hitting 'em where it really hurts: in the pocketbook.
War Tax Resistance is a time-honoured form of Civil Disobedience, and its practice is as important now as it's been at any time since the Vietnam era. It should not be undertaken without first receiving counseling -- but this does not mean that it should not be undertaken. Merely that one should understand the potential consequences (which in almost all cases will be financial), and take steps to avoid them.
And what to do with the tax dollars withheld from Uncle Sam? Besides investing in alternative funds which can direct the money towards the types of funding that Bill Frist wants us to quit dreaming about, here are two ideas.
First, if we can get resources into the hands of Iraqi (and Palestinian) civilians, it can help to mitigate the effects of our government's genocidal policies.
Second, the manpower-strapped military is offering monetary incentives for re-enlistment. If we can counter these incentives with even greater incentives to not enlist, we can systematically drain the military of the cannon fodder needed to carry out our leaders' nefarious designs.
Think of your tax dollars as a "disobedience fund".
The potential consequences of Tax Resistance are real. But they can be overcome; and more importantly, while real, they're a lot less horrific than the consequences (some of which enumerated above) resulting from citizens' consenting to pay their taxes.
Contact the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee today, won't you?
January 09, 2005
Fiscal Disobedience
The United States has been accused from at least three different quarters of committing genocide in Iraq.
The charge was first laid by a bureaucrat: former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday, in 2000; arguing that the Anglo-American oil-for-food shenanigans were a "deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq".
In November of last year, a soldier, 12-year Marine veteran Jimmy Massey echoed Halliday:
A recent study estimated the number of Iraqi deaths since the start of the war in March 2003 at around 100,000. When asked if this number seemed accurate, Massey responded:
"Yes, but that of course does not include the thousands more who will be dying from disease because of a lack of medical supplies, clean water, or proper sanitation. It does not include the hundreds of thousands that died in Iraq before the war even began from the sanctions. We are committing genocide in Iraq, and that is the intention."
In the same month, a civilian, Iraqi blogger Riverbend, in reaction to the savage assault upon Fallujah, minced no words: "Iraqis will never forgive this, never. It's outrageous. It's genocide, and America -- with the help and support of Allawi -- is responsible."
That three people from disparate walks of life -- but all of whom have seen the results of American policies up-close -- would charge the United States of committing genocide should give us an idea of the realities on the ground in Iraq. Whether or not we want to use that specific word to categorise the policies, the magnitude of the injustice being perpetrated in our names is (at least, for those with eyes to see) incontrovertible.
Meanwhile, the website costofwar.com is tracking the monetary cost of the war in Iraq. At this writing, it tots up to just over $149 Billion -- and rising at the rate of about $1,500 per second.
Not-so-coincidentally, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has let it be known that, "The governors must expect flat funding on everything other than homeland security and defense. Not just the governors, but the American people."
More recently, we learn that:
Congressional aides have been told to expect virtually the same level of spending in fiscal 2006 as this year in programs not connected to defense and homeland security. This fiscal year, those domestic programs grew by a slim 0.8 percentage point, and Bush plans to be even tighter, ensuring that spending will not keep up with inflation in most domestic programs. [Emphasis added.] [...]
"We have to find the money somewhere to [avert the president's proposed cuts], and I don't know how you find it if everything is tighter than a drum," said one House Appropriations Committee aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They are on the warpath."
You don't know how to find it? How about programs "connected to defense and homeland security"? How about repealing the President's tax cuts, instead of making them permanent?
The chutzpah is pretty stunning, isn't it? The Bush Administration undertook the tax cuts, and then undertook the multi-hundred-billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq (knowing full well that Iraq posed absolutely zero threat -- "imminent" or otherwise -- even to its own neighbours, let alone to the United States). Yet, it's the Administration that is now "on the warpath" against fiscal irresponsibility? Okaaaaaaaay...
Oh-by-the-way: among those "entitlements" not expected to keep pace with inflation? You guessed it: "...agriculture, veterans, and science..." [Emphasis added.] At least the cat's officially out of the bag: Veterans are "not connected to defense and homeland security".
Meanwhile, the President has set as his top priority for his second term the privatisation of Social Security; and has appointed a panel to "craft proposals...that could become the groundwork for Bush's bid to overhaul the nation's complex tax code."
Would you like some input into the process? Go ahead and contact your representative -- and see how rigorously your recommendations are taken into account.
Meanwhile, Seymour Hersh is reporting that the Administration has "consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state," and that, "The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia."
While the Proles (nor Congress) will never be consulted about, or indeed even be informed about, these operations, rest assured that we will be expected to finance them.
Meanwhile, if you don't approve of an ever-more-regressive tax code, and don't approve of the uses to which your tax dollars are put, and don't approve of being written off as merely a member of a "focus group" whose opinions account for naught; go ahead and raise a stink.
The state will be only too happy to bash your skull up real good, as it did (for example) to protesters in Miami in November of 2003 -- in what Miami Mayor Manny Diaz called "a model for homeland security".
So if you're opposed to Taxation Without Representation, and you're opposed to getting your skull bashed up real good, what's to do? How about hitting 'em where it really hurts: in the pocketbook.
War Tax Resistance is a time-honoured form of Civil Disobedience, and its practice is as important now as it's been at any time since the Vietnam era. It should not be undertaken without first receiving counseling -- but this does not mean that it should not be undertaken. Merely that one should understand the potential consequences (which in almost all cases will be financial), and take steps to avoid them.
And what to do with the tax dollars withheld from Uncle Sam? Besides investing in alternative funds which can direct the money towards the types of funding that Bill Frist wants us to quit dreaming about, here are two ideas.
First, if we can get resources into the hands of Iraqi (and Palestinian) civilians, it can help to mitigate the effects of our government's genocidal policies.
Second, the manpower-strapped military is offering monetary incentives for re-enlistment. If we can counter these incentives with even greater incentives to not enlist, we can systematically drain the military of the cannon fodder needed to carry out our leaders' nefarious designs.
Think of your tax dollars as a "disobedience fund".
The potential consequences of Tax Resistance are real. But they can be overcome; and more importantly, while real, they're a lot less horrific than the consequences (some of which enumerated above) resulting from citizens' consenting to pay their taxes.
Contact the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee today, won't you?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:35 PM
| Comments (2)
"I've been in war and I've been through a number of hurricanes, tornadoes and other relief operations, but I've never seen anything like this," says Colin Powell upon visiting Tsunami-ravaged Southeast Asia.
Is Fallujah next on Colin's itinerary?
Some, returning to scenes of complete devastation, are in despair.
"We found that our house was destroyed along with all our belongings," said Rasmiyah Abbood, a 55-year-old widow who now lives on handouts in a primary school just outside the city. "My son who supported me is a car mechanic and he lost his garage."
"I'm homeless and I only hope God will give us patience to endure," she said, quivering, though whether out of rage or resignation was hard to tell.
January 07, 2005
Maybe He Ought To Visit Fallujah, Too
"I've been in war and I've been through a number of hurricanes, tornadoes and other relief operations, but I've never seen anything like this," says Colin Powell upon visiting Tsunami-ravaged Southeast Asia.
Is Fallujah next on Colin's itinerary?
Some, returning to scenes of complete devastation, are in despair.
"We found that our house was destroyed along with all our belongings," said Rasmiyah Abbood, a 55-year-old widow who now lives on handouts in a primary school just outside the city. "My son who supported me is a car mechanic and he lost his garage."
"I'm homeless and I only hope God will give us patience to endure," she said, quivering, though whether out of rage or resignation was hard to tell.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:21 PM
| Comments (0)
A soldier who re-enlisted with the Marines after becoming a Seventh-Day Adventist has been jailed for refusing to pick up a gun.
Cpl. Joel D. Klimkewicz, 24, of Birch Run, Mich., was sentenced last month in a court-martial to seven months in Camp Lejeune's brig. He also received a reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge.
Klimkewicz was charged with refusing to obey order two years to draw a weapon from his unit's armory for a training exercise in preparation for an Iraq deployment.
In refusing the order, Klimkewicz told his superiors he was a conscientious objector and cited his new status as a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
January 05, 2005
You Mean Religions Frown On Killing???
A soldier who re-enlisted with the Marines after becoming a Seventh-Day Adventist has been jailed for refusing to pick up a gun.
Cpl. Joel D. Klimkewicz, 24, of Birch Run, Mich., was sentenced last month in a court-martial to seven months in Camp Lejeune's brig. He also received a reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge.
Klimkewicz was charged with refusing to obey order two years to draw a weapon from his unit's armory for a training exercise in preparation for an Iraq deployment.
In refusing the order, Klimkewicz told his superiors he was a conscientious objector and cited his new status as a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:03 PM
| Comments (0)
"Anyone interested in cutting ties to this war can stop paying taxes."
Quote Of The Moment #0084
"Anyone interested in cutting ties to this war can stop paying taxes."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:44 PM
| Comments (0)
President Bush's allies are raising millions of dollars for an election-style campaign to promote private Social Security accounts... [...]
With Bush planning to unveil details of his Social Security plan this month, several GOP groups close to the White House are asking the same donors who helped re-elect Bush to pay for an extensive campaign to convince Americans -- and skeptical legislators -- that Social Security is in crisis and that private accounts are the cure.
Rule of thumb: any time you need to spend millions of dollars on a PR campaign to convince peers that they're facing a "crisis", they probably aren't.
Other likely contributors include the financial-services and securities industries and other Fortune 500 companies, GOP officials say.
Corollary to the rule of thumb: an entity which stands to gain from the "solution" to a "crisis" can probably be expected to contribute to the crisis-mongering PR campaign.
Update, 1/5/05: Paul Krugman explains the situation quite well.
January 03, 2005
A Grave And Gathering Danger
President Bush's allies are raising millions of dollars for an election-style campaign to promote private Social Security accounts... [...]
With Bush planning to unveil details of his Social Security plan this month, several GOP groups close to the White House are asking the same donors who helped re-elect Bush to pay for an extensive campaign to convince Americans -- and skeptical legislators -- that Social Security is in crisis and that private accounts are the cure.
Rule of thumb: any time you need to spend millions of dollars on a PR campaign to convince peers that they're facing a "crisis", they probably aren't.
Other likely contributors include the financial-services and securities industries and other Fortune 500 companies, GOP officials say.
Corollary to the rule of thumb: an entity which stands to gain from the "solution" to a "crisis" can probably be expected to contribute to the crisis-mongering PR campaign.
Update, 1/5/05: Paul Krugman explains the situation quite well.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:37 PM
| Comments (1)
U.S. textile and clothing manufacturers, worried about more competition coming from China, are seeking protections from the [Bush] administration to limit Chinese imports.
Worried about competition? Worried about competition? Friggin' worried about competition? Isn't "competition" the life-blood of our "free market" global economy? Well, not when you can better huddle in Big Government's arms, it ain't.
January 02, 2005
Free Market Miracle #0014
U.S. textile and clothing manufacturers, worried about more competition coming from China, are seeking protections from the [Bush] administration to limit Chinese imports.
Worried about competition? Worried about competition? Friggin' worried about competition? Isn't "competition" the life-blood of our "free market" global economy? Well, not when you can better huddle in Big Government's arms, it ain't.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:59 PM
| Comments (2)
Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.
The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. [Emphases added.]
So the Bush Administration has arrogated to itself the right to apprehend any nigger anywhere in the world (so long as he is "suspected" of being a "terrorist") and hold him without trial for the duration of his life.
This blogger has decried, ad nauseum, the practice of bombing, shooting, or detaining on sight "suspected terrorists". And certainly we've known of Bush's and Pals' fascistic tendencies for long enough. But what does it say about our culture that such an announcement can appear in a Sunday edition of the fricking Washington Post, in a story whose tone implies that the subject is fucking waterskiing chipmunks (or whatever)?
As is their wont, the Democrats offer up token un-principled "dissent": "We don't want to set up a bureaucracy that ends up making it impossible to protect sources and informants who operate within the groups we want to penetrate."
But the "opposition" doesn't understand that
"... In Europe, the custodial interrogations have yielded almost nothing" because they do not use the threat of sending detainees to a country where they are likely to be tortured.
So here's George Bush's America:
If you're a nigger, we suspect you of being a terrorist. To get information out of you, we'll either torture you or threaten to outsource (so to speak) you to a country where you are "likely" to be tortured. If (because, in all likelihood, you're completely innocent) we can't get anything out of you, we'll throw you into the slammer for the rest of your life. But, to show you how fucking decent we are, we'll "allow" you "more comfort and freedom than [you] have now" and we'll "allow socializing among inmates". Have a nice day (and may God have mercy on your black ass).
Innocent Until Proven Negroid
Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.
The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. [Emphases added.]
So the Bush Administration has arrogated to itself the right to apprehend any nigger anywhere in the world (so long as he is "suspected" of being a "terrorist") and hold him without trial for the duration of his life.
This blogger has decried, ad nauseum, the practice of bombing, shooting, or detaining on sight "suspected terrorists". And certainly we've known of Bush's and Pals' fascistic tendencies for long enough. But what does it say about our culture that such an announcement can appear in a Sunday edition of the fricking Washington Post, in a story whose tone implies that the subject is fucking waterskiing chipmunks (or whatever)?
As is their wont, the Democrats offer up token un-principled "dissent": "We don't want to set up a bureaucracy that ends up making it impossible to protect sources and informants who operate within the groups we want to penetrate."
But the "opposition" doesn't understand that
"... In Europe, the custodial interrogations have yielded almost nothing" because they do not use the threat of sending detainees to a country where they are likely to be tortured.
So here's George Bush's America:
If you're a nigger, we suspect you of being a terrorist. To get information out of you, we'll either torture you or threaten to outsource (so to speak) you to a country where you are "likely" to be tortured. If (because, in all likelihood, you're completely innocent) we can't get anything out of you, we'll throw you into the slammer for the rest of your life. But, to show you how fucking decent we are, we'll "allow" you "more comfort and freedom than [you] have now" and we'll "allow socializing among inmates". Have a nice day (and may God have mercy on your black ass).